:
Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome.
This is meeting number 44 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, Tuesday, June 5, 2012.
Today we are having a briefing on Canada's counter-terrorism strategy.
Appearing in our first hour is the Honourable Vic Toews, Minister of Public Safety and National Security. We want to thank him for coming back today. It seems as though it was just our last meeting when he was here—and it was—to discuss the estimates. Two meetings in a row he has appeared. We very much appreciate that.
He is accompanied by the appropriate officials from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Mr. Michael MacDonald, director general of the national security operations directorate; and also Mr. John Davies, director general of national security policy.
I remind all members that the minister's timetable allows him to be here for the first hour, and also that the directors general will continue to testify in our second hour.
We want to thank you again. We would prefer basically the same format as what we've had in the past, and we look forward to your comments, Mr. Minister, and then to a round or two of questioning.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Members, as you know, I'm always pleased to appear before this committee, and I'm happy to have the opportunity to speak to Building Resilience Against Terrorism: Canada's Counter-Terrorism Strategy.
As you've indicated, I'm joined here by two officials who will have much of the detail, should I not be familiar with certain very technical aspects of any questions that may be put.
Mr. Chair, Canada has been unwavering in its commitment to protect Canadians and to support global efforts to counter terrorism. I've said on many occasions that the most fundamental job of any government is to provide for the safety and the security of its citizens. Canada's counter-terrorism strategy underscores just how fundamental this responsibility is and how seriously our government takes it. I'm proud that this strategy sets out a clear approach for addressing terrorism, with a special focus on building community resilience. It also confirms that our government will take all reasonable measures to address real and persistent threats, and Canadians expect no less.
I imagine that most committee members are aware of the strategy, which was released earlier this year and is available to all Canadians through the Public Safety website. As such, I will only briefly go through the strategy itself and then will take some time to highlight its key areas of focus and the way forward.
The counter-terrorism strategy will help prioritize the government's counter-terrorism efforts and promote an open discussion with Canadians on the threats we face. It also highlights the importance of cooperation with Canada's international partners, all levels of government, security intelligence and law enforcement agencies, industry stakeholders, and special interest groups. In other words, it sets out how the government as a whole is currently working to prevent, detect, deny, and respond to the threat of terrorism.
First and foremost, the strategy focuses on prevention, because preventing terrorist ideologies from taking hold of vulnerable individuals is the best scenario.
The second element is to detect terrorism by identifying terrorists and their supporters and the capabilities and nature of their plans. The timely identification of terrorist threats is critical to preventing terrorist attacks, and that is why we have committed in the Air India inquiry action plan to working with our security intelligence and law enforcement agencies to identify more effective ways to share information.
The third element of the strategy is to deny terrorists the means and opportunities to pursue their illegal activities by mitigating vulnerabilities and intervening in terrorist planning, thereby making Canada and Canadian interests a more difficult target for would-be terrorists. To that end, this government has introduced amendments to the Criminal Code that would assist law enforcement in investigating terrorism offences by reinstating investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions.
To deny terrorists the ability to threaten Canada or our allies, we are also introducing new provisions that would make it a criminal offence to leave Canada or attempt to leave Canada for the purpose of committing a terrorist offence. To complement these measures, we are also responding to the needs of victims of terrorism through legislation that allows them to sue perpetrators and supporters of terrorism.
A final element is to respond to terrorist attacks in a proportionate, rapid, and organized manner to ensure a quick return to ordinary life and to reduce the impact and severity of terrorist activity.
Underpinning these four elements are two important themes: resilience and partnerships. I would like to touch on these two themes in turn, beginning with resilience.
In the context of Canada's counter-terrorism efforts, resilience is an important concept to understand for several reasons. First, it speaks to the power of individuals, communities, and society to reject and challenge the factors that pull thought and action in the direction of violent extremism. Secondly, resilience is key to minimizing the negative psycho-social effects of a terrorist attack. In other words, it is important that society's reaction to an event not exacerbate the crisis. Finally, it speaks to the ability of individuals and communities to draw strength from the principles that bind our society.
In making the concept of resilience a cornerstone of Canada's counter-terrorism strategy, one of our overarching goals is to mitigate the potential polarizing impact that violent extremist ideologies, or indeed terrorist attacks, can have on Canadian society.
The other key theme is that of building and strengthening our partnerships both domestically and internationally. The success of our overall strategy depends on strong partnerships, which is why it calls on local governments, community leaders, academics, and citizens to be part of the national effort.
To this end, we are actively working with our security intelligence agencies and law enforcement partners in the provinces and territories, the private sector, non-government organizations, civil society, and community organizations. The RCMP-led integrated national security enforcement teams based in major cities across Canada are one example of how federal, provincial, and municipal law enforcement partners and security intelligence agencies work in collaboration to investigate criminal threats to our national security.
At the local level, we also continue to reach out to a range of diverse communities through initiatives such as the Cross-Cultural Roundtable on Security, led jointly by Public Safety and the Department of Justice. Through this initiative we can engage communities in frank discussions that help to build trust and work towards a common vision for society that is resilient to terrorism in all of its forms. In fact, I will be meeting with community leaders in southern Ontario in just a few days to have a dialogue about a range of national security issues.
Mr. Chair, I think it's important to note that Canada's various counter-terrorism initiatives and activities have existed for some time. What this strategy does for the first time is set out in a coherent and unified format how these activities contribute to the government's strategy for countering terrorism. It brings together all the elements of the current approach in a way that can promote deeper engagement with Canadians. Our goal in sharing information about terrorist threats is not to instill fear in Canadians, but rather to build awareness. We recognize that there is still much to learn about countering and preventing terrorism in the Canadian context. More than ever, it is important for governments to collaborate and share information with experts in other fields, from other nations, and from the private and academic sectors.
To this end, as committee members may know, the and I launched the five-year, $10-million Kanishka project last year to fund Canadian research on all aspects of countering and preventing terrorism. The goal of the project is to create a vibrant network of scholars across the country that will inform more effective policies for countering terrorism.
Research topics for the first round of funding will cover themes such as ideological extremism and violence, perception and emotion, collective dynamics and resilience, and organizational effectiveness. With investments like these, it is inevitable that our collective knowledge will be advanced and that our understanding of how to tackle these issues will evolve. I had the pleasure of announcing the first round of funding, worth $1.1 million, which helped build Canada's knowledge and understanding of this complex issue.
Mr. Chair, let me finish with a few words on implementing the counter-terrorism strategy, especially as it relates to the prevention elements.
Our prevention elements will initially be focused upon the following areas: advancing our understanding of how and why violent extremist ideologies resonate with particular individuals, working to understand what tools can help communities deal with these issues, harnessing existing programming and partnerships to help contribute to prevention objectives, and developing reliable indicators to measure outcomes and evaluate the effectiveness of our programs.
As I said earlier, our government believes we can build a society that is resilient against terrorism in all of its forms by talking to Canadians about the security threats we face as a country and by collaborating with our partners to build knowledge and capacity. The counter-terrorism strategy underscores Canada's commitment to taking all reasonable measures to address terrorism in its many forms.
On that note, Mr. Chair, I would like to conclude by thanking all of you again for your time. I look forward to answering any questions that members of the committee may have.
:
Thank you, Ms. Hoeppner. I appreciate the question.
Our understanding of terrorism, of course, has evolved in the last ten or so years, especially in the aftermath of the attacks on the twin towers. That certainly opened up a whole range of possibilities that terrorism experts and security agencies simply did not think about. We had to respond as a country very quickly. I know that the prior government did pass some legislation, legislation that we have reintroduced after it sunsetted, because we felt it was necessary to keep that legislation. There were various programs that the former government brought in.
What we've tried to do is to prioritize the government's counter-terrorism efforts and promote an open discussion with Canadians on the type of threats we face. What we're trying to do is to engage all elements of society and bring them together in a coordinated fashion. We've learned from such inquiries as the Air India inquiry about the importance, for example, of sharing information. While that inquiry spoke primarily of domestic sharing of information, it did touch on the international sharing of information. That has become a very important aspect, especially when you're dealing with terrorism. You cannot simply keep information inside Canada and share it with domestic law enforcement and security agencies and believe that you're protecting people effectively. You have to share the information that you have, in the same way that we count on our allies providing us with information to better protect Canadians.
That, in fact, leads to issues and concerns that we need to address—for example, the issue of the privacy rules that govern the use of information. For instance, when we share information with another country, how do we ensure that the information is being used appropriately and will not be used for improper interrogation techniques? What kind of limits can we build into the agreements that we have in our international partnerships?
So this is really a coordination of all of the efforts that have already been done, as well as an improvement of these efforts gained as a result of the knowledge we have acquired along the way. The Kanishka project is fundamental to providing an academic base to our understanding of terrorism, which police agencies, security agencies, judges, and lawyers can all utilize in moving forward on this very difficult issue.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the minister for coming back. I welcome him back. I trust we won't be seeing him every week, due to his schedule, but he has been very kind to us with his time in the last two weeks.
As the official opposition, I think you'll see us welcoming the strategy as a concept and the principles on which it is based. We may have some differences about how the strategy is articulated and carried out, but we do think it's a good idea to turn our attention to a comprehensive strategy like this. We would also argue that it's important to have a strategy that is both effective and adequately funded, and we may have some questions about that as we go along today.
I was glad to hear you call for partnerships and for reaching out to communities. I do think there's one thing that is missing from the strategy, and that's the importance of maintaining public confidence in the activities of the government in this area. I'm going to ask a little bit about that in just a second.
I can't resist saying one thing, and that is that this strategy contrasts with a lot of the other strategies put forward in the justice area by focusing on prevention and prosecution. In that respect, it seems a lot closer to what we on the opposition side have been arguing for in some of the other areas of justice, instead of focusing on heavy penalties at the other end. I couldn't resist saying that this looks more like a strategy with emphasis that we might have given it.
So I want to start with principles, and one in particular. Your strategy says principles matter, and notes the following:
They affirm Canada’s democratic values. They provide a clear articulation of how Canada conducts its work. They explain to others around the world what Canada stands for....
The strategy then goes on to list the six fundamental principles, and the third of those is adherence to rule of law. So today I want to ask the minister about his directive from last December to CSIS, allowing the use of information derived from torture. In the report of the UN Committee on Torture released on June 1, the respected international experts from that committee expressed what they called serious concern about this directive violating article 15 of the convention against torture, to which Canada is a signatory.
So I would ask the minister how he squares his directive on torture with the third principle of his anti-terrorism strategy, which is adherence to rule of law.
:
Thank you for those comments.
I appreciate that at least we're working on the basis of the same principles. It's not unusual that we would be working on the basis of the same principles. These principles are well recognized around the world as being the principles upon which you mount an effective anti-terrorism strategy.
In respect of the use of information that may have been obtained from questionable sources by the Canadian government, and by CSIS in particular, there are various levels of how that information is used. I can indicate that while the government certainly condemns the use of torture—we do not endorse torture in any way, shape, or form—when our agencies receive information that may indicate that Canadian lives are at stake, it would be negligent of me not to utilize that information or for the agency not to utilize that information.
It's very difficult to sit in a chair in an office in Ottawa and try to examine where information comes from and how it may have been obtained. If it impacts upon the security of Canadians, that information has to be used.
I'm not aware of any government that would say, “We've come across a situation that indicates that hundreds of our citizens may be killed as a result of the information we've received. There are questions about the source of it, but because of the source, we are not going to use the information and, therefore, we will let hundreds of our citizens perish”. I don't believe that there's a responsible government in the world that would say that they would not use that information. I, for one, will use all information that comes to our attention that, in fact, indicates that Canadian lives are at risk.
:
I think I can answer that very broadly, to give the committee a general understanding of what we are making investments in, and the officials, Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Davies, can add some of the numbers around that.
I did mention the Kanishka project that came right out of the Air India inquiry, of $10 million over five years for this type of targeted research. This is something that has gone on since 2001, so it's not partisan in that sense. I think it's a recognition...in the same way that Mr. Garrison mentioned, that he could support the general principles. I think that even the prior government, while they didn't necessarily have—and here I don't want to use the word coherent, because I don't want to say that their policy was incoherent—a unified strategy, given the developmental stage it was in. But since 2001, the Government in Canada has taken action to address terrorist threats through legislative changes, through targeted programming, through criminal investigations, and other similar initiatives. For example, we've created several entities that have a role in countering terrorism, such as the Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre, the RCMP-led integrated national security enforcement teams, and the Government Operations Centre, and the Financial Transaction Reports Analysis Centre. So it's a multi-faceted approach.
We've also listed a number of terrorist organizations under the Criminal Code, and that is an ongoing process. We've also introduced the Combating Terrorism Act to re-enact the investigative hearings and the recognizance with conditions provisions under the Criminal Code to help law enforcement investigate terrorist activity. So we've taken many of these initiatives with investments we've made and put them into this unified policy that finds its expression in the document we filed.
In terms of some of the money involved, perhaps Mr. Davies would have something to say.
Simply to round that out a bit, there's the $10 million over five years for the Kanishka project that the minister has mentioned. We think it's a very important project. There's not much research in the area of countering violent extremism. This $10 million is the envy of all of our allies, who don't have much of any resources for this and are really looking to us to lead, not only in Canada but also globally, to help improve the knowledge base in this area. One investment in particular is with Canadian universities, creating a network across the country to help build up knowledge in this area.
A couple of other major announcements, certainly in the context of tight fiscal constraints these days, was an announcement by the recently of $367 million over five years for the global partnership program, which was originally a G-8 investment to help secure weapons of mass destruction facilities abroad. It started in the former Soviet Union, and the scope has since been expanded to a major counter-proliferation effort abroad and capacity building by Canada.
A third investment a little more recently was the announcement of $110 million over three years, I believe, for the Afghan national security forces that will help build their capacity in the years to come.
As the minister said, really, the main investments have been knowledge-based support from staff across the Public Safety portfolio on building new policy initiatives with the U.S., the Beyond the Border initiative, for example, and the action plan with its 16 commitments, all of which are policy initiatives. So there are major policy investments, going forward.
:
Thank you. I will be sharing my time with Mr. Aspin.
Mr. Toews, I want to thank you for your strong commitment, which you articulated very well, to keeping Canadians safe and to putting the priority of the safety of Canadians first.
We brought you here today to speak about our strategy to counter terrorism. There seems to be more of a focus on CSIS and oversight, which is important, but I think it's also important to note that CSIS does an excellent job for our country. I think we are a model throughout the world for the work we do. As much as oversight is obviously very important, it just seems quite interesting to me that the opposition would rather focus on possible suspicions of CSIS as opposed to our strategy.
So I'm going to bring us back to our strategy for countering terrorism. I want to ask you about the whole part of our strategy where we have terrorist listings.
I want to ask you—or your officials, if they would prefer to answer—about the ability of terrorist organizations, if they're not listed, to try to raise money within Canada. So it's not so much about direct radicalization, let's say, or violent acts in Canada, but about the way that possible terrorist organizations would try to use Canada to raise money, and how listing them can help stop that. This affect Canada as well as the rest of the world, protecting them from terrorism.
:
Well, like ideology, I think that money is the lifeblood of terrorism. These organizations absolutely require money to carry out their evil intentions.
That's why the approach of the Government of Canada has been multi-faceted in terms of the reporting mechanisms and the agreements, for example, that we've signed with other countries, including with the Americans, in terms of the transfer of moneys that raise suspicions—even things like the $10,000 limit in terms of deposits crossing borders. It's not simply organized crime that needs to move cash; it's also the terrorists.
The more disconcerting issue, of course, is the intimidation of communities here that may have an ethnic, a cultural, or a religious connection to these terrorist groups, and the fact that individuals are extorted to provide money. Again, this requires not necessarily new laws, because whatever form the extortion is in, it's illegal, whether it's done by a terrorist, by organized crime, or by an ordinary criminal. What we need especially in this context is the cooperation of the individuals from the communities where they are being extorted. The most effective means to fight terrorism, other than security agencies themselves, is community involvement in this respect.
I think Mr. MacDonald has some comments to add.
:
The Air India experience was truly a great learning experience—a horrible, horrible event, but out of that horrible event came the silver lining of how we can respond effectively to terrorism.
In a modern age, terrorism knows no domestic boundaries. It is internationally based, and sometimes individuals acting by themselves can suddenly spring up. But in the day of the Internet, it really doesn't matter where you are. You can become radicalized. You can participate in a criminal terrorist act. You can coordinate those attacks. What I see coming from the Air India inquiry, and the Arar inquiry and Commissioner Major—I think it was, though I sometimes loses track of commissions, but who nonetheless did an excellent job—is the emphasis on the sharing of information so that we can share with our allies and others who share our concerns about the threat of terrorism.
We share this information to thwart the activities of terrorists. It has been an extremely positive experience. I think at the same time we have stayed true to the rule of law, to our respect for human rights, because I don't believe that being strong on law and order in fighting terrorists is inconsistent with the rule of law and human rights. In fact, being tough on terrorists preserves the human rights we enjoy and the rule of law we enjoy. So I think information sharing is one of the most important aspects.
The second one is the sharing of resources. The Shiprider program that the Liberals introduced in 2005 on a pilot basis has worked extremely well. Canadians and Americans are on the same ship in the Great Lakes, and borders don't bother them because that ship can cross a border, across water, and as soon as the boat enters Canadian waters, a Canadian officer takes command. Similarly in American waters, it's the Americans who have charge. They have cross-training so that people behave appropriately in accordance with the specific laws in each country. That has worked very well, and it worked very well in the context of the Vancouver Olympics. Of course, that is why of we're bringing forward the legislation in respect of the Shiprider program. I think it's been a very effective program.
So it's about the sharing of information, the sharing of resources, and I think attacking a common terrorist threat.
:
I can start it from a policy perspective, and then Mr. MacDonald can talk from the operations side.
From the policy perspective, it depends on the issue. If we're talking about national security issues related to admissibility, that's kind of a different group. But it's a very similar group to the ones you see listed here, relative to countering violent extremism, for instance, when we're looking at extending the group beyond the traditional security intelligence community, to include departments like Canadian Heritage, Human Resources and Skills Development, and so on.
Public Safety takes a lead role in many of these issues, in many of the different ways of slicing national security, coordinating and leveraging expertise federally and working with the provinces and so on. The Privy Council Office also has a major role with the office of the National Security Advisor.
There are typically working groups, as you can imagine, with large numbers of people in the room, and they're fed upward through the director, director general, assistant deputy minister, and deputy minister levels. There are different committees, depending on what the issue is, and that feeds into advice to cabinet. A lot of our time is spent coordinating with other departments and agencies, for sure.
:
I think there's also an important distinction, or at least an important point to make, about information-sharing, which answers your question about the architecture in the international community.
Information-sharing does not always involve classified information. We share unclassified information, as I'm sure you're all aware, on a daily basis. There is also financial intelligence information and security intelligence information. There are criminal types of information, and then general unclassified information, of course.
The international community, if you look at it broadly, is organized in the security intelligence community itself largely by those who collect intelligence. So there are certain expert groups of our trusted allies, the Five Eyes as we typically call them, and they exchange information and share information of all kinds, per their legislative mandates. Then we also have other international bodies, some very formal, such as the G-8 and the G-20. In the G-20, looking at issues of national security or terrorism is a relatively new effort. We have the G-7, which looks at the financial aspects, but we also have new partners, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in Europe, the OECD. The OECD has approached my area to talk about national security issues in regard to foreign investments, for example, and they actually have a working group on terrorism, which is something new for us.
We also have some of the other bodies, such as the Financial Action Task Force, and the regional bodies that Canada is asked to join to help other countries and so on. It's a plethora, but there are structures.
:
Mr. Rousseau actually asked the question that I was going to ask, which is a good question.
This past weekend, for example, I was at a fundraiser in my constituency in rural Alberta, where an individual from a neighbouring community had received an award from the province for a strategy he had used in an emergency preparedness scenario. I was impressed that they were coordinating these types of competitions or this type of planning with the province, federal government, and municipal government, all of whom were involved.
I want to thank you for being here and for the very important work that you do. Although we Canadians realize that terrorism is a massive threat, there is a body of people working hard to protect the security of Canadians. We also expect transparency and accountability and all of those things.
And so we want to thank you for the work that you, the department, and all of those across the country do—first responders included—all who are involved in carrying out not only the strategic plan but also, obviously, the response, if an attack should ever happen. Thank you for coming to help us understand a little better the complexities of national security and terrorism, and for the work that you do.
The meeting is adjourned.