:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Honourable members of the committee, thank you very much for the invitation to appear again today at this committee.
[Translation]
It's a great pleasure to speak with you about the 2020 annual report of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP.
[English]
Joining me today is Sean Jorgensen. Mr. Jorgensen is the director of operations for the committee's secretariat and is here to assist with answering questions and providing technical information.
Colleagues, since 2017, NSICOP has conducted seven reviews, which were included in three annual reports and two special reports. We are currently conducting two new reviews, one on the security and intelligence activities of Global Affairs Canada and another on cyber defence, and we've initiated yet a third on the RCMP's federal policing mandate.
This 2020 annual report is the only consolidated overview of national security threats to Canada.
[Translation]
I would like to emphasize that NSICOP reports are unanimous and nonpartisan. We prepare and finalize reports through consensus. All members agree on final content, assessments and recommendations.
[English]
Let me now turn to the Jim Judd report, completed pursuant to the critical election incident public protocol.
As the committee documented in its 2019 review of foreign interference, a number of states tried to interfere in Canada's electoral processes. They used a number of methods, including covertly trying to influence, for example, riding nominations or trying to promote one candidate or undermine another. It may involve illegal campaign contributions and efforts that seek leverage over officials to apply pressure.
This happens to all parties, across all orders of government. Officials may be wittingly or unwittingly subject to foreign interference activities. In the cyber realm, it could involve foreign efforts to amplify social divisions, stoke hatred online or sharpen partisan differences.
That latter point is important. Foreign states try to use partisan groups, even political parties, to pursue their own agendas.
[Translation]
As a result, NSICOP supported Mr. Judd's recommendations to re-establish the critical election incident public protocol well in advance of the next federal election, and to extend the protocol's mandate to the pre-writ period.
NSICOP also believes that the government should consider four other issues.
[English]
Number one, ensure that the mandate of the protocol includes all forms of foreign interference.
Number two, consider including prominent Canadians as members of the panel. If a foreign state is trying to manipulate partisan groups, it may be more effective for a prominent, respected Canadian to alert the public about what's happening.
Number three, absolutely ensure that all political parties understand the purpose of the protocol and the process for raising a potential issue.
Number four, consider how the panel would actually inform Canadians about an incident of foreign interference. This is important. Foreign states try to stoke partisan differences, and we will want to be careful about publicizing such efforts and attributing behaviour to particular countries.
I will now turn, Mr. Chair, to the annual report's overview of five national security threats to Canada: terrorism, espionage and foreign interference, cyber-threats, organized crime, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
I will focus on the first three as they have changed the most since 2018 when NSICOP first addressed these threats.
First is terrorism.
[Translation]
The defeat of Daesh in Syria and Iraq in 2019 was a significant milestone in global efforts to counter Salafi-Jihadist terrorism. However, it created other problems. We're wondering what to do with Canadians who had travelled to the area to support terrorist groups. As NSICOP knows well, those individuals may continue to pose a threat to Canada and its allies.
[English]
At the same time, we've seen the growth of other ideologically motivated violent extremists. These include individuals and groups that embrace xenophobic violence, anti-authority violence and gender-driven violence.
While the restrictions imposed as part of the COVID lockdown, such as limitations on travel, have disrupted terrorism facilitation efforts, the pandemic and the concurrent anti-racism protests have increased anti-government rhetoric connected to ideologically motivated violent extremism.
Regarding espionage and foreign interference, I should be clear that espionage and foreign interference are quite distinct. Espionage involves the theft of information. Foreign interference involves the use of clandestine means or threats to promote a certain position or objective. However, the security and intelligence community usually treat them as a single threat because the perpetrators, foreign states, often pursue them in tandem.
In 2019, the committee found that foreign interference posed a significant threat to the security of Canada, and that continues today.
[Translation]
The most significant change has been to the threat posed by espionage. Foreign states are increasingly targeting Canada's science and technology sectors.
The pandemic created opportunities for foreign states, including Russia and China, to target Canada's health sector, most notably in the area of vaccine development.
[English]
Regarding malicious cyber-activities, there are a wide array of cyber-threats facing Canada. In terms of sophisticated, state-sponsored threats, Russia and China remain the most significant.
These countries continue to target government and non-government systems, including those that provide critical infrastructure within Canada, and more recently those involved in vaccine developments.
[Translation]
We've also seen state actors conduct online disinformation campaigns in Canada and among our allies. Those same actors also use sophisticated methods to target, harass or threaten dissidents within Canada.
[English]
Mr. Chair, in conclusion, threats to the security of Canada are fluid and they are changing. These are all things that we, parliamentarians from across the political spectrum, should continue to pay attention to and seek ways to address through our hearings, our work on legislation and our engagement with Canadians.
I'd be happy to take questions, Mr. Chair, through you to the committee members, reminding committee members that members of NSICOP have waived their parliamentary privilege, so of course I will have to be circumspect in answering questions with any detail that might take me into classified information territory.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
:
Thank you for the question, Mr. Lightbound.
In the report, we tried to clearly convey what we heard from the security and intelligence community on this issue.
What surprised us the most in 2020 was the increase in the activities of ideologically motivated violent extremists, or IMVEs. The dynamics behind these activities don't seem to be slowing down. On the contrary, they seem to be moving faster and faster and involving more and more groups and participants.
We know that extremist dialogue isn't necessarily criminal. However, we also know that Canada has an increasingly broad base for recruitment. Extremists can look for more and more people who are susceptible to possible radicalization.
Our security and intelligence services are concerned about the situation in the field and about the increase in activity. We've seen it abroad, such as in New Zealand. Several of the incidents brought up in paragraph 35 occurred in Texas and in Germany, in two instances. There's also the issue of involuntary celibate groups.
[English]
These extremists are also posing a growing threat. We know that it's increasingly overlapping with other IMVE-type extremism. Of course, we saw a van attack in April 2018. We saw a stabbing in June 2019 in Sudbury. We saw another stabbing in Toronto by an individual motivated by the incel ideology in February 2020.
This is perhaps the most striking thing about this review for us, Mr. Chair, in terms of monitoring the trend. Mr. Lightbound rightly points out that it's a surprise to our security and intelligence community, but they are very much seized with this based on what we've seen and the information we've obtained.
Paragraph 45 onwards, for members and for Canadians, describes this question of espionage in the science and technology field. We talk about the thousand talents program. We talk about the threats from Russia and China. We talk about new technologies being increasingly the focus targeted by foreign states, and we talk about the risk to critical infrastructure—our electricity grid and beyond.
On the question of electoral integrity, This is precisely why, Mr. Kurek, we as a committee focus so heavily on the Jim Judd report, to assess whether or not the mechanism that was put in place by the government—a five-person panel to deal with foreign interference, primarily cyber in nature—should be expanded.
We made four or five recommendations. One was to include, for example, in-person, more traditional foreign interference, so that it would be caught. We also made some recommendations as to how that would be communicated to Canadians, if there were an occurrence, because this would happen in the context of a usually heated and usually partisan campaign context—healthy and normal.
However, we want to make sure that if this were to occur, as it has occurred in the United States and other jurisdictions, we're best prepared to deal with it.
Mr. McGuinty, it is an absolute pleasure to have you here.
As you know, I was on the public safety committee when we studied Bill , which created the committee. It was my amendment that brought you here. It was who reminded me of that in the last Parliament, that I was the one who brought in that amendment. I'm just sitting here so proud of the work that you and the other members of the committee have done and how important it is for you to share the report with all of us and with Canadians. Thank you for that.
When I was looking at the report, Mr. Van Popta was asking what the groups are, and you mentioned this earlier. They are a form of extremism that “encompasses xenophobic violence, anti-authority violence, gender-driven violence and 'other grievance-driven'”. Then it talks about CSIS saying that it's a common belief that “the success or survival of society/civilization cannot be separated from the need for ongoing violence against a perceived threatening group”. These are, for example, “the elite, visible minorities, religious groups, corporations, immigrants, capitalists, the government”.
I have noticed, over the last two years, certainly an increase in the tone of comments that I see online on posts that I make. I was really disturbed by the report when you mentioned how many Canadians.... The report that you mentioned from the Institute for Strategic Dialogue said that “Canadians are highly active across 6,600 identified right-wing extremist channels, pages, groups and accounts.” Since they tend to organize online, it means that these messages are spread more quickly.
I'm just wondering what your thoughts are on how this online presence is contributing. Maybe you can't comment on this, and that's okay if you can't. How does an online presence allow these messages from these IMVE groups to spread quickly?
:
I wish I could be, Mr. Chair, more specific. We've been as specific as we possibly can be in the report in the Canadian context.
I would, however, repeat that the evidence indicates that this is happening in the context of every political party in this country at all levels of government. It's about the deployment of individuals on Canadian soil directed by a foreign state actor.
I would point committee members and Canadians to paragraphs 70 and 74 as an example of the extent to which a foreign actor will go. We lay out what has ostensibly happened in the likely launching of a cyber-attack against the Australian Parliament and its three largest political parties, likely by China, prior to the Australian general election in early 2019.
We then go on to describe what happened in June 2020 when China likely conducted another large-scale cyber-attack against Australia and Australian companies, hospitals, schools and government officials.
In the case of the United States, in paragraph 74, since our report was published the U.S. justice department and Homeland Security confirmed that their voting machines weren't necessarily tampered with, but Russia clearly tried to influence the election by using sophisticated online disinformation campaigns.
We've captured that in the report to point out the nature, the extent and the level to which some state actors will go to disrupt the democracy that we have, which is why we made four or five major recommendations to the around the five-person panel that is there to help blow the whistle, if and when major irregularities should occur during a Canadian election. We think it should be expanded. We think the membership should be varied, and we think the way in which Canadians are informed should be handled very carefully.
I think all of us are upset and troubled by what we heard from Mr. McGuinty, and when we read his report. As a result, the Liberal members sent to you a letter under Standing Order 106(4).
In the letter, we quote CSIS in their report in 2020, which said:
Since 2014, Canadians motivated in whole or in part by their extremist ideological views have killed 21 people and wounded 40 others on Canadian soil—more than religiously motivated violent extremism...or politically motivated violent extremism....
The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated xenophobic and anti-authority narratives, many of which may directly or indirectly impact national security considerations. Violent extremists continue to exploit the pandemic by amplifying false information about government measures and the virus itself on the internet. Some violent extremists view COVID-19 as a real but welcome crisis that could hasten the collapse of Western society. Other violent extremist entities have adopted conspiracy theories about the pandemic in an attempt to rationalize and justify violence. These narratives have contributed to efforts to undermine trust in the integrity of government and confidence in scientific expertise. While aspects of conspiracy theory rhetoric are a legitimate exercise in free expression, online rhetoric that is increasingly violent and calls for the arrest and execution of specific individuals is of increasing concern.
That's from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. We just heard from Mr. McGuinty, the chair of NSICOP, that the very serious and striking thing about the review to him was this exact rise in IMVE—a 320% increase in the number of groups.
We are the public safety committee. We sent this letter prior to Mr. McGuinty's testimony, but in light of his testimony, I think it makes it even more urgent for the committee that is seized with looking after the safety of the public to vote in favour of this.
I think it was Mr. Harris who asked about the man who tried to breach Rideau Hall to arrest the . Mr. Harris's leader, , was subjected to someone who followed him last summer, making threats. Mr. Singh, in the House, said that the government needs to use all available tools to address the proliferation of white supremacist and hate groups. In fact, it was his motion in the House that called for the Proud Boys to be listed as a terrorist entity.
This is not a partisan issue at all, but it is one that is of extreme concern to Canadians. There are real world threats out there right now. I know that other committees in Parliament have studied online hate. There was a study about anti-racism done by the heritage committee in 2018. Those are very different issues. The heritage committee dealt with the rise of racism and how to deal with that. Many of the recommendations were community-based. The justice committee in 2019 looked at online hate.
This is much different and much more urgent, and it's a threat to Canadians. I think it's incumbent upon us, as the committee that is seized with ensuring that we're looking at urgent issues for Canadians, that we do in fact review this.
Therefore, Mr. Chair, I want to move this motion:
That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security immediately begin a study no later than May 10th into ideologically motivated violent extremism in Canada; that the study consist of four meetings; that the committee invite representatives from our national security agencies and those who have been impacted by IMVE; that the committee report its findings to the House; and that pursuant to Standing Order 109, the government table a comprehensive response to the report.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Damoff, thank you for bringing this motion forward. I totally agree that this is an extremely relevant topic that the committee should study.
However, I can't help but make a comment. As time goes on, this situation is becoming a little frustrating because the committee agreed on several motions early on. These motions were pretty much all adopted unanimously. We agreed on studies that we wanted to undertake, but we did not reach an agreement on the order in which we wanted to do them.
Since the beginning, we haven't made much progress for several reasons. We're still working on the report on systemic racism and the report on the death of Marylène Levesque, in particular because the Conservatives have tabled a few motions that give priority to certain studies. It's the same thing with the Liberals. I find this frustrating for Mr. Harris and me, although I understand that this is how democracy works.
If more members of our party were on the committee, we too would use this part of Standing Order 106(4) to give priority to the motions we put forward earlier.
It’s a little annoying to do it that way, because we had agreed to Mr. Lightbound's motion about hate speech on social media, which was pretty much the same. I understand that it's not the same thing and that it has been studied by other committees—an argument that comes up often. When we want to bring forward certain motions, we are told that other committees have already studied the subject.
Despite this, I believe that this motion is important. However, I would like to propose an amendment to the motion. Instead of studying it immediately, I think we could study it as soon as we finished the three reports we're working on right now.
The amendment can be worded any way you want, by mentioning the names of the reports or with the words that this study will be started as soon as the committee finishes its current work. My guess is that this study will take us until the end of May or the beginning of June. I think it would be reasonable to do it that way. If we do it immediately, it will push back the work we're doing right now, which is equally important.
So I would like to propose this friendly amendment.
I'll try to be relatively brief.
To respond to Ms. Michaud's comments, I agree that there is some overlap between the motion I put forward and this motion. However, unless I'm mistaken, the motion on online hate and extremism that I put forward was passed as a priority after the cases of systemic racism and the death of Ms. Levesque occurred.
However, there's still a difference, in that the motion that is being put forward with respect to Standing Order 106(4) deals specifically with ideologically motivated violent extremism. We just heard the chair of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians say that this was the most striking aspect of the report tabled by that committee. He said that the dramatic rise of these types of groups in Canada and elsewhere in the west was a surprise to our intelligence agencies and to police forces, both here and elsewhere in the west.
I think this shows the importance of studying the issue. We've seen the events that have occurred throughout the United States and Europe. Here, in Canada, we've seen the rise of these groups. I believe there's no more pressing issue for the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security than this.
I therefore encourage all my colleagues to support the motion before us. It proposes four meetings over a two-week period. This motion would provide us with relevant information that would inform the government's decisions on this issue and, in the opinion of the chair of the NSICOP, which is responsible for assessing threats to the country's national security, it could hardly be more urgent and pressing.
I have to agree with the urgency of the matter. We have heard, obviously, the recent testimony and we have the report, and [Technical difficulty—Editor] brought up the attack on Rideau Hall. He certainly attacked the gate. He didn't get to the to arrest him. Of course, he wasn't there.
Also, in Newfoundland and Labrador during the last election, a gentleman took it upon himself.... He had a pickup as well. I don't know if there is any coincidence in that, but he was driving with the intention to “stop the election”, and showed up in front of a campaign headquarters in Deer Lake after being chased. He eluded the police along the way, with 16 hunting rifles and various other things in his vehicle. He was arrested and was subsequently charged.
We do have people who seem to be motivated by ideologies of one sort or another who take it upon themselves to do these things. It is a relatively new phenomenon. It's not the newness of the phenomenon, but the extent of it that appears to give it a sense of urgency.
To me, “urgent” means maybe we should deal with it between now and the end of the session and find a way of doing that. To drop everything to do it and take up four meetings right away doesn't seem to make sense. I'm not prepared to agree to that, but I will agree to undertake the study. Perhaps we can do it in conjunction with the other work we've already committed to, and not necessarily take anything away from what's been put in place already.
:
Thank you very much, Chair, and I thank Kristina.... First of all, I'll thank Pam for the motion, an add my comments about needing to get at all forms of extremism. We need to deal with that.
I have a couple of things. As far as timing, I'd certainly like to honour the decisions of the subcommittee and would propose a friendly amendment to Kristina's amendment, but I want to bring out a couple of things.
This is an important study. I want to preface that before I say what I'm going to say. In the last five years, there have been 2,800-plus shootings in Toronto alone. That's not the GTA, but Toronto alone. There have been 361 people injured in that time in those shootings and over 82 people have been killed in that time. As far as emergency debates, there are a lot of things that are emergent that are affecting Canadians immediately. They are no more important or no less important than this particular study.
We also have other studies on our agenda. I would suggest that we can continue on with the agenda we have, which goes until the beginning of June, if I'm correct. At that time, we can move into four meetings or whatever we decide with this particular motion and we are still going to be timely. We're still going to be responsible with a very important issue.
Kristina, if you're amicable to a friendly amendment to your amendment, I'm proposing that we strike the “no later than May 10th” and after where it says “ideologically motivated violent extremism in Canada”, we add “following the conclusion of the other work already scheduled by the May 3 subcommittee report”.
That will take us to June 2 or 7, or whatever day that is. Everything on the subcommittee report that was decided on Monday goes ahead as planned and then immediately following, we know what our marching orders are for the remainder of June.
If you're amicable to that, those would be my comments on the amendment, Mr. Chair.
I'm just looking at the subcommittee report here and thinking about this. I don't think we're prepared to abandon the studies we've already started. I think we do have to finish reports. Even in the amendment there's room for flexibility as we move forward. For the consolidated study we anticipated maybe three meetings. This study contemplates four meetings. We might be able to do it in three, because what we're trying to do is bring the attention of the country to this issue in a greater way than has been done by Mr. McGuinty's appearance today. I think that's a laudable goal.
I think any study of the kind that's referred to as an additional study, as Glen is talking about, certainly can't be done between now and the end of June—a whole new study like that, particularly one of that extensiveness. We don't have to drop everything to do this. If we manage to finish the 15 minutes and have to meet again, maybe we can come up with some agreement between now and Monday to have some flexibility.
By the way, I'm not sure it's going to take two full hours for drafting instructions on the Levesque study. That's something that I wanted to throw in there. It wouldn't hurt to get some briefing for an hour on Monday if we think we can deal with the drafting instructions in an hour.
Maybe I'm being wildly optimistic about that, Chair. You would know better than me, but I think if there's some room for flexibility, we can do what's on this subcommittee agenda, plus have at least three meetings—and they don't have to be all in a row—on the topic presented in the motion. I think it's very valid for us to do what we can to draw attention to this—we'll see whether someone has any way forward—and certainly to ensure the public is well aware of the threat that's been posed.
:
I will agree with you, Chair, that it would be a challenge to get witnesses here on Monday, given we usually send the invitation, try to give them time to prepare and and whatever else. Not all of them will be in Ottawa, I'm sure, but because they could be remote it would be....
I agree with Jack. This is an important study that needs to be done. As I said previously, it is no less important or more important than some of the other things we already have on our schedule. I would sooner sit with this study for the three or four times that we are going to meet to do it, and get some meat around what we're trying to uncover, as opposed to piecemealing it over time in between other things.
There are significant issues we have to deal with. We need to get the systemic racism report finished. We need to finish the report into the death of Marylène Levesque. There's Jack's motion...actively impacting people's lives every day as we speak. Our non-work on these things will impact people's lives every single day, and it's happening in real time.
Again, I agree, Jack. I'd like to be able to find common ground that we could move forward on, but there has to be give on each side, and I would agree with your assessment. To try to paint the fact that we feel these studies should be looked at ahead of this one as meaning we don't support the motion, or we need to withdraw it, is certainly erroneous. We would not support that notion whatsoever.
Rather than spinning our wheels, let's make a decision. Let's move on and try to make a decision. What is in the report that can maybe give us a day so that we can have something before the middle of June? Is there something we need to look at that would make a difference there? I don't know the answer to that question.
Is Bastarache the one that we can just put off until we have the spare time? It's been sitting.... It was written a long time ago. It was proposed and presented to us some time ago. We already have mention of it in the systemic racism report that's coming out. Can we give up a day on it to then move up everything else on systemic racism, on Mr. Harris's motion, so that by the first or second of June we're already into four full meetings or whatever it takes, three to four meetings, of this report on extremism?
That would be reasonable give on both sides.
I think people need to get their calendars out. May 31 is when we start Jack's study. We then have what's proposed with the border study, something that has already been looked at by the Auditor General. In my view, I would hardly make that an emergency. I think you need to look at your calendars. May 31 we start Jack's study. Then we have the border. Then we have the Levesque study to go through. You can't possibly say that by delaying this it will not kill the report—unless everyone on this committee is prepared to sit through the summer—because there is no way we can do the work that's proposed before we get to this study.
Either we feel that this is an important study that we need to do...and actually, the reason the Liberals sent in this letter is that we do feel that this is an emergency. We do feel that this is something that needs to take priority at this committee. It's also something that has never been studied by this committee. This is an emerging issue. I had heard about it, but I was not aware of the severity of it until I read Mr. McGuinty's report. I think every single person on this committee should be seized with studying this right away.
I mean, we can all say that we want to work together, and I'm not trying to be confrontational here, but the fact is that we will never get to this study if we do it after we do all the other work we have. Either we want to look at this pressing issue...which Mr. McGuinty himself said was the most striking thing about the review. All you have to do is look online, at all of the issues that are there, to know that.
I know we're only debating the amendment here, so I'm getting ahead of myself, except to say that if we remove the words that we start “immediately” and start on “May 10th”, we will in fact effectively kill this motion, unless we decide right now that we're going to pick some other dates to do it at the end of May and the beginning of June. Otherwise, this will never happen.
Thanks, Chair.
With respect, I think that is a false equivalency of epic proportions. This was submitted to Parliament and to this committee before the last subcommittee meeting. To suggest somehow that we're not prioritizing this because we want to continue the good and important work...of which one of the items that we're finishing was in fact an emergency motion brought forward. I could get very political in terms of some of the delays. I won't, out of an effort to ensure that there's a degree of collaboration.
Look, this is an important issue. I think everybody's said that, although I think it's entirely reasonable for the discussion around timing. If there's not a willingness to have that discussion, then I would question the intent [Technical difficulty—Editor] when and how this was brought up.
As I've indicated, I plan to support the motion. I think if there was a more collaborative attitude to ensure that we could find some ability to get this done.... Personally, I have no problem sitting through the summer. I did it last summer. I think there are four meeting opportunities in June that are still available. If there's a level of flexibility, if witnesses cancel or evolving situations exist, I think there's a tremendous amount that can be accomplished. It's just a matter of whether or not we can in fact agree that, yes, it's important, which I think we all do, and work together to try to find a way that we can get it done.
Quite frankly, as well, this Parliament adjourns on June 23. There are options for the committee to sit throughout the summer. It's up to this committee to make that call. To suggest that it kills the study is false. Parliament then resumes sometime in September. The false equivalencies on this are troubling to me. It's an important issue. Certainly, I hope we can be collaborative on a path forward.
I would note, Mr. Chair, that we're far beyond the 15 minutes. If there's a willingness, I'd simply call that we go to a vote.
I was looking in detail at what it is we're trying to accomplish here, and I think it's very unlikely that we can get a report done on the IMVE, or on the CSC, both of which we've agreed that we want to do.
Pam has made a very strong case, which I think we all agreed with last week, that the IMVE study should be looked at as quickly as possible. Looking at the fact that we have 10 meetings left after today, realistically, the sensible thing in my view is to devote two of them, guaranteed, to IMVE and two of them to CSC. We've already committed to one on racism, and hopefully, we'll finish that. If we don't, we might need part of another meeting.
We've committed to one on the border study. We are certainly committed to one on the Bastarache, i.e., the Lucki and meeting, and drafting instructions, potentially. We also appear to be committed to at least two meetings on Levesque, and I hope we get a report out of that. If we do that, that's nine meetings, leaving one floating meeting that we could use for something else.
In the fall, if there is a fall, we can either complete the CSC study and do a report, complete the IMVE study and do a report, or if we don't get the Levesque study finished, we could do a report. However, we could commit to finishing the racism study and the Bastarache study, and to trying to do the Levesque study if we can.
If there's a meeting left over, we can have either IMVE or CSC as that third meeting. That would be a compromise of everybody saying, well, we're not really going to finish three reports. We'd be lucky if we finished racism, Bastarache and Levesque, and that might be difficult.
Otherwise, we're not going to be able to accomplish what we've agreed we want to touch on between now and June 23. That's my proposal. As to when those meetings will take place, I have ideas about that too, but that's just a detail. If we can get an agreement that we'll have two for sure on IMVE, two for sure on CSC, one border, one racism, two Levesque and one Bastarache, that takes nine meetings with one up in the air.
:
June 2 is committed already. That is clear. We agreed with that.
Having May 12 for IMVE is agreeable. May 26 is clear, and hopefully we'll finish that day, but there's no actual guarantee on that. I'm satisfied with leaving IMVE for May 31 if it is available, but not if the racism study is not finished.
For Blair, Lucki and Bastarache, I think that will hopefully take one day. If we can get drafting instructions on that day, then we can have a report on Bastarache by the end of June.
June 7 is for Levesque.
On June 9, I would want to start the CSC study. I want to start the CSC study early. The border study may be flexible to go on the 16th, and we can use June 9 for the Levesque study to hopefully get somewhere with that and do the CSC study on either June 9 or 14. Then there are three days left. We may need time to do Bastarache. We'll still have a second day for the CSC study and then we'll have the one flexible day.
That's the way I would see it shaking down. If we finish Levesque, that would be wonderful. If not, the fall could be a time when we would finish off the CSC, finish off the IMVE report if we don't get time to do it, and then finish Levesque. I think we could have two IMVE meetings in May and then one that could follow in June if there is a place outside of the dates that I've outlined.
Thank you for that, Jack, as well.
Pam mentioned something a few minutes ago, and I think, Mr. Chair, you reinforced it. Some of these studies will not get to the House, even though we want them there. They won't get there before we rise at the end of June. The CSC study will not be done, as Jack has indicated, before the end of June. The extremism study will not be done before the end of June. With those things in mind, while it's important that we at least start both of them, we're putting ourselves under the gun to get the studies done that need to be presented to the House before we rise. We're putting them off.
Quite honestly, the Levesque study is not that long. I believe that it should be easily drafted by the 31st because it's not that long of a study. We can get at it, then, as soon as we can. The House voted unanimously to bring it to committee to get this done, so it would be remiss of us to not get it back to the House for the House to receive it before we rise.
The racism study, certainly, has been longer, and we have a timeline for it. I would hope that.... If we have a meeting on the 31st, then let's move the Levesque study back to the 31st. We can start our extremism study on Wednesday. We have some witnesses that we're prepared to bring forward, I believe—and I'm sure everyone does—for that day. Let's bring the Levesque study and get a good handle on it for the 31st. We can have and Lucki on the second. The Levesque study can come back on the seventh, and we can finish it off. Then we can get to Jack's CSC study, I agree, earlier. We're going to have a day.... Let's get another extremism study date in there before the end of June as well. At least we can get at the things there. We can get the reports back to the House that we've committed to before Christmas. We want them to get back to the House. We've not had that opportunity yet. I would think that this would be wise of us to do.
Both the CSC study and the extremism study will be things that might take us down longer paths. I'd hate to start them because we know we're going to have to finish them in September. They will not be done at any time before we rise.
Why are we cramping our style to not get other things done in time before the House rises so that they can be presented? That was the essence of my motion last time, Mr. Chair, my friendly amendment to Kristina's suggested amendment on the dates. That's why.
I think that if we can come to a compromise that we make the 31st a Levesque study meeting, that we then have and Lucki, and that we take the seventh for the Levesque study, we honour Jack because he's had this CSC study on the radar for us for a significant period of time. We certainly think that there are some things there that we need to consider as a committee. That still leaves us with an extremism date sometime following that, be it the 14th, 16th, 21st or 23rd. One of those four remaining days, we can get another extremism study meeting in there before we rise.
Those would be my suggestions, Mr. Chair. We can try to make that work.
If I'm not mistaken, other than Glen we had agreed until June 7. Then I think Jack wanted to do CSC or Levesque on June 9, I'm not sure which. We'd be agreeable to that.
I just want to go back, though, to the CSC. This was an issue that we'd studied in the last Parliament a number of times. No one on the committee is more committed to looking at what's going on in corrections, but let's go back to the fact that the Liberal members brought this motion as an emergency motion to the public safety committee, because we have concerns, based on what CSIS has said and what NSICOP has said. Just today, the was talking about his concerns around IMVE.
There was an arrest made in Edmonton on April 29, where the RCMP said the following:
An ever-increasing concern and challenge faced by law enforcement is the use of the internet and social media as a platform to inspire, radicalize or espouse extremist messaging or calls for violence....
This was in relation to an arrest made there:
The accused was interacting online with like-minded individuals in posting extreme views that ultimately escalated towards him engaging in criminal activity that posed a considerable risk to public and police safety, ultimately resulting in his arrest.
I want to draw us back to the fact that we, as Liberals, felt that this issue required immediate attention, so I'm glad everybody agrees with that. I think it's just timing. I think we've gotten down to probably June 9 at least, and June 14 to do the border study. On June 9 we could either look at CSC or continue Levesque, depending on what Jack is suggesting.
On the schedule, I did keep in mind the lengthy time that's required for translation. This wasn't an attempt to put off Levesque at all. It was more a reflection of the amount of time the House is requiring right now to get things translated. We have to be cognizant of that.
The longer we take to finalize the Levesque study, the less likely it is to get tabled in the House. I think all of us working towards getting that done, if we could, in a day...and I recognize that this is extremely optimistic.
I'll leave it at that for now, Chair.
:
I'm working my way through this as well, because we all have to. We're all working our way through this. We have the study of racism on May 26. On May 31, I think at the moment, that's also possibly the study on racism for now.
We also have to remember, if we're looking at scheduling all the time, that we might end up losing time, because this is the crazy season, as anyone who's been around this Parliament for any length of time knows. There are votes galore and God knows what to interfere with our work.
I think we ought to have some flexibility built into this, which is why I made the original proposal. I'm not sure May 31 is totally agreed upon, because the study on racism might have to be given priority. I've been thinking about priority. To me, the priority is the study on racism and getting the Bastarache report done—because it's doable—which means hearing from them on June 2, so that we have lots of time to get a report out on that. If we don't do it on the day, we might have it bleed into something else.
The third priority for a report is the Levesque study, if we can possibly do it. As for the IMVE and the CSC, I don't think we're going to get reports on those unless someone wants to move a particular motion that would be in the form of a report.
I would see us into the Levesque report on June 7. As you said, sir, June 9 is open for IMVE, border or CSC. The same would be said for June 14: IMVE, border or CSC. One of those has to be the border, and we'll use the other one to finish the Leveque report, if we're going to do it. We then have room left for the last three days, if they're available, to finish the Leveque study with a third meeting on the IMVE, if it hasn't already taken place, and to do a second meeting on CSC, if it hasn't already taken place. We still have one floater.
I'm not worried so much about what's on June 16, 21 and 23 as such, as long as we're all going to be here on June 23. Whether the House is here or not, we can still be here and I'm happy to do that.
Thank you, Kristina. That's my thinking as well.
As I mentioned before, Chair and team, my concern is the 31st. I think we can live with some adjustments. We haven't heard from the analysts whether the 31st is a possibility to get at Levesque after today—we can get at it again today—and whether we are going to be in a position to start looking at it differently, and then on the seventh as well. We have some flexibility with the ninth, 14th, 16th, 21st and 23rd, as Jack indicated, on extremism, the border and CSC, but our priorities remain racism and the Levesque study. I don't think we can continue to put those ones off for any other reason.
I don't know where we're at with the racism one. Are they going to be ready for us on the 26th? I don't know. I certainly hope so.
Let's put the dates in here. If there's a date [Technical difficulty—Editor] I'm proposing. As I said, let's shore up something different for the 31st, and I'm good with it personally. We need to get at the things we've committed to tabling in the House. Those are racism and Levesque, with no exceptions.
:
No, Chair, I'm sorry. I had my hand up.
First of all, Conservatives want to thank the Liberals for bringing forward this motion. We share your belief in its importance and we certainly have seen the same information from NSICOP and CSIS.
To that end, Pam, would you accept a friendly amendment, or see it as friendly, if we expanded it and added to the scope of your motion rather than leaving it narrow in the way it is now, just given the fact that both CSIS and NSICOP, for example, say that religiously motivated violent extremism continues to be a top threat? In fact, Jewish people in Canada are the top people who are threatened the most in Canada.
By this phenomenon of violent extremism, through which there is often an online component, as you had said earlier, I wonder if, to make it more inclusive, rather than limiting and prescriptive, you would be open to adding the words “politically motivated violent extremism and religiously motivated violent extremism” immediately following the words “ideologically motivated violent extremism” so that this study would encompass the diversity and the variety of threats to individual and public safety that, Conservatives agree with you, exist and are growing.
Just to account for that, the second reference right now in the motion that says people “who have been impacted by IMVE” would then just say “who have been impacted by violent extremism”.
Does that capture it?
Chair, do you want me to make a formal motion?
I think it's unfortunate that there's not a willingness on behalf of the members of the government on this committee to expand the study in what I think is an inherently reasonable manner. I read the NSICOP report and have been following closely some of the other work, and it's stated very clearly, in fact—I'm paraphrasing from memory—that religiously motivated extremism is the greatest threat to Canadians.
I think it's incumbent upon all of us to ensure that, when we undertake these studies, the committee is not prejudging a conclusion. What I think is a very reasonable amendment put forward by Ms. Stubbs would ensure that the committee is addressing the issues facing Canadians in a manner that allows the committee to really get to the bottom of what is undoubtedly....
I think there is universal agreement on this committee that there are concerns that need to be addressed; however, with a narrow scope, I think we limit the work that the committee can do that would more effectively ensure what we can address what I think, and certainly hope, is at the heart of this motion.
I plan to support the amendment. I think it adds to the study proposed by the government, and it would ensure that it accomplishes, as I said, what I hope the objective is here.
For the committee to limit itself and prejudge its outcomes would be an unfortunate restriction. Again, I think it's unfortunate that it wasn't accepted as a friendly amendment, but because of the fact that we could do good work as a result, I hope members would consider supporting that.