THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, October 20, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs met this day at 5:01 p.m. [ET] to examine and report on such issues as may arise from time to time relating to national security and defence generally, including veterans’ affairs.
Senator Hassan Yussuff (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs.
Colleagues, before I get started, I’ll read you a note here in regard to using the microphones and the earpieces. To support the smooth operation of the committee proceedings, these guidelines must be followed by all participants to help prevent audio feedback. Consult the cards placed on the committee tables for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Keep the earpiece away from all microphones at all times. The microphones must not touch. Activation and deactivation will be managed by the console operators behind me. Avoid handling your earpiece while the microphone is active. The earpiece should either remain on the ear or be placed on the designated sticker at the area indicated wherever you’re sitting.
I’m joined today by my fellow committee members. Welcome. I would as you to introduce yourselves, beginning on my left.
Senator Al Zaibak: Mohammad Al Zaibak, Ontario.
Senator McNair: John McNair, New Brunswick.
Senator Ince: Tony Ince, Nova Scotia.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo, Ontario.
Senator M. Deacon: Marty Deacon, Ontario.
Senator Anderson: Margaret Dawn Anderson, Northwest Territories.
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, Ontario.
Senator Duncan: Patricia Duncan, Yukon.
Senator White: Judy White, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Suze Youance from Quebec.
Senator Carignan: Good afternoon. Claude Carignan from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
Today, we have the pleasure of welcoming the Honourable Gary Anandasangaree, the Minister of Public Safety. He is joining us to provide a briefing on the current issues related to the mandate of public safety. The minister is accompanied by the following officials.
I will slowly introduce them individually: Tricia Geddes, Deputy Minister, Public Safety Canada; from the Canada Border Services Agency, Erin O’Gorman, President; from the Parole Board of Canada, Joanne Blanchard, Chairperson; from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Daniel Rogers, Director; from Correctional Service Canada, Anne Kelly, Commissioner; and from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Mike Duheme, Commissioner.
Thank you all for joining us here today. Minister Anandasangaree, we will begin by inviting you to provide opening remarks to be followed by questions by our members. Whenever you’re ready, you may begin.
Hon. Gary Anandasangaree, P.C., M.P., Minister of Public Safety, Public Safety Canada: Thank you, Senator Yussuff. Thank you, senators, for this invitation. I am absolutely delighted to be here and to join you in the unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin people.
I want to acknowledge the many friends I have here, the many people I have worked with over many years. I want to thank you for the work that you do. Of course, Senator Yussuff, you are one of those people who I grew up watching on TV as an incredible leader in the labour movement. Thank you for your leadership.
[Translation]
Thank you, honourable senators, for inviting me here.
[English]
Before I begin, I wanted to take the opportunity to thank not only the members of this committee but also the colleagues joining us this afternoon, all of them representing separate agencies, as well as our deputy minister, Tricia Geddes.
[Translation]
It’s an honour to work with all of you on the many important issues that fall within my mandate.
[English]
As the Minister of Public Safety, my top priority is to ensure the safety and security of all Canadians. This is a responsibility that I do not take lightly.
Since my appointment, I have been focused on enhancing our country’s border security, tackling organized crime, strengthening our cybersecurity, getting guns off our streets and ensuring our communities across this country remain safe.
Under our $1.3 billion border plan, we have enhanced security at our ports of entry and between them, increased surveillance via drones, towers, helicopters and other resources to allow 24-7 surveillance.
As a result of these measures, there has been a 99% reduction in illegal southbound movement from Canada to the U.S. since June 2024. These numbers demonstrate a real success in deterring illegal cross-border movement.
[Translation]
The Canadian Border Services Agency has also increased its removals of inadmissible people from Canada — the most in a decade.
[English]
We are also seeing positive results from our National Action Plan on Combatting Auto Theft. In 2024, Canada Border Security Agency, or CBSA, intercepted 2,277 vehicles stolen in rail yards and ports. In 2025, auto thefts continue to decline nationally, with a 19% decrease reported in the first half of this year.
In line with this work, Bill C-12 will enable us to further build on this progress. It includes provisions that would strengthen the government’s ability to combat transnational organized crime, illegal fentanyl and money laundering, starting at the border.
To further protect our borders and national security, Canada must maintain its close relationships with like-minded allies. In September, I met with my Five Eyes counterpart in the United Kingdom, and next month, I will welcome our G7 partners to an interior ministers’ meeting in Ottawa where I will emphasize the importance of multilateral cooperation.
We also continue to work with all our partners to better protect our cybersecurity and critical infrastructure. Under the 2025 National Cyber Security Strategy, we aim to build national cyber resilience with all of Canadian society.
Bill C-8, the former Bill C-26, which was studied by this committee, will help to further promote and increase cybersecurity across four major sectors: finance, telecommunications, energy and transportation. This important legislation will protect Canadians, businesses and the cybersystems they depend on.
In recent years, there has been a concerning rise in hate in Canada. The Canada Community Security Program helps communities at risk of hate-motivated crimes to enhance the security of their gathering spaces, including synagogues, mosques and churches. Since 2007, the Government of Canada has invested over $40 million in more than 950 projects that help to protect these communities.
In addition, Mr. Chair, with our investments, our government’s comprehensive plan is getting guns off our streets and resources into our neighbourhoods to fight crime and prevent violence. In line with our commitment to keep our communities safe, we launched the Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program, another important piece in our government’s comprehensive approach to combat crime and gun violence. It is working. To date, the business buyback program has removed over 12,000 firearms from our communities, with over $22 million in compensation.
In closing, let me take this opportunity to reinforce the independence of each one of the agencies that are represented here. They provide an important function in our democracy. They strengthen our rule of law, and they are fiercely independent and void of political interference. I feel the need to reiterate that point today. I particularly want to thank Commissioner Duheme for his leadership and the work that the RCMP, as well as every one of the agencies, does on a daily basis.
[Translation]
Once again, Mr. Chair, I appreciate this invitation and I look forward to address any questions about these or other initiatives under my mandate.
Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, minister. We will now proceed to questions. I would like to note that the minister will be with us today until 6 p.m. We will do our best to allow time for each member to ask questions during the first hour. A second hour round of questions with officials will take place from 6 to 7. Four minutes will be allotted to each question, including the answer. I ask you to keep your questions succinct in an effort to allow as many interventions as possible. I would like to offer the first question to our deputy chair, Senator Al Zaibak.
Senator Al Zaibak: Minister, thank you for joining us today together with your team. We appreciate your presence and your time.
The CSIS report that was released in 2024 warns that foreign disinformation campaigns increasingly target individual parliamentarians and staff through online harassment and intimidation. What concrete protective measures have Public Safety Canada put in place to safeguard members of Parliament and senators from these operations?
Mr. Anandasangaree: The issue around misinformation is something that’s impacting all of us. It impacts our democracy and the public confidence in our institutions. We have a number of measures that pertain to misinformation. We have education campaigns. We have resources available to community groups through a number of programs that support people, especially young people, around online harms.
My concern right now is in an environment in which hate is escalating at a rate that we’ve never seen before, there is need for greater focus and investments. Bill C-9, a bill introduced by Minister Fraser two weeks ago, defines hate, which I think is an important aspect of combatting misinformation.
We have a number of strategies and with public safety and justice, we will continue to do the work. We’ll be more than glad to elaborate at a later point in terms of specific information pertaining to your question.
Senator Al Zaibak: Minister, does your department plan to release an updated national framework on foreign interference that integrates emerging threats such as AI-amplified disinformation and cross-platform manipulation to reassure Canadians that government responses are both timely and transparent?
Mr. Anandasangaree: As you know, this committee was involved in the study of Bill C-70, which establishes a commissioner to address the issues around foreign interference. We are very close to putting forward a name for the opposition parties to consider and accept. Once that happens, it will go to a vote in Parliament, and also the Senate. That is the major concrete action that we’re taking. There will be the establishment of the commission itself, which will ensure we have the resources to monitor issues around foreign interference, issues that impact our democracy and any type of engagement by foreign actors among parliamentarians but also within government.
Senator Al Zaibak: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Minister, the Prime Minister made a number of announcements concerning the RCMP over the summer — including one on budget cuts, directing you to reduce budgets by 2%. Last week, however, an increase of 1,000 new positions was announced.
Where will you make the cuts? Two per cent of $6 billion is $120 million, I believe, and 1,000 new police officers means another $100 million. So we’re talking about $220 million to be found in the budget. Where will you make the cuts required to hire 1,000 new police officers and cut $120 million?
Mr. Anandasangaree: Thank you for the question.
[English]
With respect to the GRC, the announcement that was made last week by the Prime Minister involves adding 1,000 RCMP personnel, with new funds coming through Budget 2025, $1.8 billion over four years. It also contemplates increasing the weekly stipend of recruits to $1,000 per week from the current, $500 or so I believe they currently receive in order to entice and encourage recruits.
The comprehensive review that we completed about six weeks ago proposed reductions of 2% proposed reductions in some areas, particularly in head office, that don’t impact front-line police services. Our objective from the outset has been to ensure that front-line officers are not impacted.
If you wish, I could ask the commissioner to expand. Otherwise, I can continue and suggest that there are a number of areas where we have made a proposal to both the Treasury Board of Canada as well as to Finance that create efficiencies within the organization without impacting the services as provided by the RCMP.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: We rarely have a minister before us. I have great respect for the commissioner, but I will continue to direct my questions to the minister, if I may.
Let’s talk about the issue of contracts. The plan submitted in 2024 referred to contractual services provided by the RCMP to provinces and municipalities. They shifted the focus of their primary mission, which was to fight crime.
Should contractors, municipalities and provinces that have contracts with the RCMP be reassured that they will not be victims of spending cuts within the RCMP?
[English]
Mr. Anandasangaree: The RCMP provides three very important functions: First is federal policing; second, contract policing; and third, specialized police services, which includes close protection, as an example.
The comprehensive expenditure review does not contemplate reductions of personnel on the front lines. The commitment that this Prime Minister has made is to ensure that federal policing is strengthened. The 1,000 new personnel will focus on federal policing and strengthen the federal nature of policing, including cybersecurity, cybercrimes, coordination efforts, anti-terrorism work, as well as areas where the RCMP could play a very important role as a federal police service and to advise and coordinate with provinces.
The role of contract policing, on the other hand, is one where it’s contractually obliged until 2032 to provide policing services in specific jurisdictions. As we look at the seven-year time horizon, our expectation is to be able to meet the demands of the provinces and territories vis-à-vis their expectation by renewal. Not everyone has signalled that they want to renew. One province is signalling that they may not want to renew, but our expectation and our direction by the Prime Minister is to work with each and every province and territory and meet them where they’re at. Our expectation will be to commence negotiations on the renewal process over the next several months, and as the contracts expire in 2032, to be in a position to renew that contract. We don’t anticipate, at this juncture, reduction in services from the RCMP.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you, minister, for being here and all the officials who have joined us.
I have a couple of questions on implementation. One is with regard to Bill C-21, the firearms bill, as to where regulations are. I understand regulations were introduced in March. Certainly, I’d like to know where things are.
With regard to Bill C-70, the foreign interference bill, I heard your answer that you gave to my colleague Senator Al Zaibak, but I want to share a comment about the role of Senate committees.
In both cases, certainly with Bill C-70, as I recall it, we take our jobs seriously, as I’m sure you would agree. We like to review things in depth. As I recall with Bill C-70, there was a lot of pressure on us to hurry up and pass that bill because there could be an election that fall. It’s not a commitment that was made, but there was a sense that the foreign interference commissioner could be in office by September of that year, so we rushed it through in June. Now we are a year and four months later, and the person hasn’t been appointed.
I share that with you as a concern that next time around, maybe we’ll say, “Look at those two other examples where you took so long. Why should we rush this if you don’t rush it when we get it back to you?”
If you can just update on us on when you think that will happen in terms of the appointment being made public with regard to the foreign interference commissioner and the latest update on regulations for Bill C-21.
Mr. Anandasangaree: Thank you, Senator Cardozo. Let me share the frustration that I think you are expressing in terms of the timeline and delivery. I, too, share that frustration.
There are two separate issues on Bill C-21. There are draft regulations that are now in the completion stage of consultation. We are hopeful that as that’s completed, any revisions that we need to do, we’ll be able to enact those regulations. We are probably weeks away from doing that.
Bill C-70, speaking candidly, has taken longer than we had expected. I am very pleased with the name that we’re contemplating here. Of course, it’s subject to the name being shared with the official opposition as per Bill C-70. As soon as that’s completed — I believe there’s a vote required — we will be able to put that forward.
In both cases, a number of things happened. I’m not here to make excuses for the delay. We are where we are. My assurance to you is that I’m working as diligently as possible to get this done. For many of you who know me well, you know the style and you know the pace at which I work. My assurance and my commitment to you are to be able to get that done within weeks.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you. Just in terms of consultation, yes, the more, the better. The other end of it is we have bills that come here that were not consulted with the appropriate people. I realize that’s a conundrum that we’re putting to you, but good luck with that.
Mr. Anandasangaree: Thank you.
Senator Anderson: Thank you, minister, for your updates. During the Senate’s third reading debate on Bill C-21, the firearms bill, on December 7, 2023, Senator Yussuff, the sponsor of the bill, quoted directly from correspondence, which I also was the recipient of, sent by the former Minister of Public Safety, Dominic LeBlanc, to the territorial premiers. The letter stated:
Pending the outcome of appropriate consultation with your government, I would like to appoint a resident CFO in your territory. I would value the opportunity to understand your views to ensure the unique circumstances and needs of the Northwest Territories and its communities are met.
Senator Yussuff further remarked that he believed that the minister was “. . . committed, in good faith, to agree with the wishes of the North when it comes to the issue of chief firearms officers for the North . . . .”
However, it is disheartening to note that nearly two years have passed and there have been no appointments of resident CFOs to the Yukon, the Northwest Territories or Nunavut. The offices continue to be in Surrey, Edmonton and Winnipeg, a stark contrast to the commitment made by the minister to understand and meet the unique circumstances and needs of the Arctic and northern communities, which remain unmet.
Minister, we are left to question the status of this commitment today. What specific actions have your government taken to honour the promise made in writing to territorial premiers and reaffirmed in the chamber by the sponsor of the bill almost two years ago?
Mr. Anandasangaree: Thank you, Senator Anderson. My role in working with the territories last year certainly highlighted, for me, the need to have a CFO within those territories. It’s one of the things that I did hear about. When I came into this role about four months ago, it’s one of the first questions I posed to the team. There’s a process that’s in place for these appointments to take place.
I am going to commit to a timeline of January of 2026 to complete those appointments.
Senator Anderson: Thank you. Minister, the correspondence from the former Minister LeBlanc referenced the need for appropriate consultation with territorial governments prior to appointing resident CFOs. Can you tell us what consultations, if any, have taken place with the Governments of Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and with Indigenous governments and organizations since the letter was issued? If no consultations have occurred, how does your department justify this ongoing lack of engagement on a matter that directly affects northern and Indigenous firearm users and community safety?
Mr. Anandasangaree: Senator, if you will permit me, I’m going to ask the deputy minister to comment on this.
Tricia Geddes, Deputy Minister, Public Safety Canada: Thank you for the question.
We have done a number of consultations in the North with the governments and with Indigenous leaders. I’d be happy to provide a list of the dates and the persons that we have consulted with. In fact, that is a bit of the reason for the delay, just that we did want those consultations to be comprehensive. I’m very happy to provide you with a list of dates and names shortly.
Senator Anderson: That would be appreciated. Thank you.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you all for being here. It is greatly appreciated.
It does feel like the theme, as you mentioned, minister, about we are where we are. I think we’re probably repeating that in different ways around the table.
I’m going to come back first to Bill C-21, as my colleague did. This concerns the sport shooting exemption.
When this committee studied Bill C-21 in the last Parliament, we were assured by the then public safety minister that “. . . consultations will take place to clearly establish the process for the elite sport shooter exemption.” We heard from them that “There must be a pathway for the next generation.”
We did try to keep in touch with the department through time, but looking at it now, two years later to the day, this has yet to take place. This is a new government, but are you aware of any consultations that have taken place or are about to take place? If not, is it the government’s position that there needs to be a sport shooting exemption under our current set of gun laws?
Mr. Anandasangaree: Thank you, senator, for this very important question. From what I understand, we have undertaken some consultations. There are definitely some gaps that we will be trying to figure out how to fill over the next several weeks. As you know, one of the things that we did was to launch the assault-style firearms buyback program. Anything to do with firearms, in my relatively short period of time in this role, becomes quite complicated and quite drawn out. Unfortunately, it’s one of the issues that we are trying to work through.
As we conclude the engagement, we’ll have a better sense of the timelines and we’ll be more than glad to proactively share that with you.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. And I hope in that process — I don’t think it’s too late at that point — we have folks that have expertise in this area and the commitment was made that they would be in an advisory capacity, but none of them were reached out to. We want to ensure that the feedback is balanced. That would be greatly appreciated.
Another question of a different focus, I’m aware that the chairperson role of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP has been vacant since January. I’m just wanting to inquire today why there might be a delay of this extent and when the position might be filled?
Mr. Anandasangaree: I think the route we will take is appointing an interim chair so that the entity can be set up while we do a comprehensive search for a chair who is bilingual and has the right records of expertise. My expectation is to be able to have an interim chair within the next few weeks.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
The Chair: You have about 20 seconds, if there is an answer.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. I’m just thinking out loud. When we look at the cybersecurity bill a lot of time, effort and testimony came into this committee, and I’m really hopeful that that’s used at the front end with the House to help expedite, respectfully, the process — we are way behind. Thank you.
Senator White: Welcome, ministers. A pleasure to see you and I appreciate your testimony here today.
My question relates to Indigenous Communities. As you know, there are ongoing concerns and calls around policing in particular, issues of racism, trust, culturally appropriate practices and accountability. What concrete steps are your office taking to ensure that Indigenous-led policing models are expanded in a manner that is acceptable to communities? I recognize that not all communities want this. As well as funding, sustainability and also could you speak to any timelines that you may have, please?
Mr. Anandasangaree: Let me speak broadly about First Nations and Inuit policing first. There are a number of agreements that we have. They are tripartite agreements where there is a 52-48% cost sharing between the provinces and the federal government. We also have funds available for infrastructure.
As we get closer to this fiscal year, we are running out of funds to enable greater access to this program. However, we are in discussions with many provinces and territories, as well as individual entities like Band Councils, for example, to be able to enact First Nations policing.
The situation in the North is slightly different. With the Inuit policing program, we were able to add additional resources, I believe about 30-odd members to the North. We will continue to ensure that funds are available.
Now, I’m going to give you my perspective on this, in terms of where we need to go, and this is really to every single one of the agencies that are represented here. One of the critical questions for me is: Who is doing the work? Who is there representing, say, in the North, the Inuit and First Nations Communities?
The commissioner will probably speak about it later on, but I think we have about 6% Indigenous population within the RCMP, as an example. I do think there’s a lot more that we need to do with all the agencies here.
But if we look at the North as a critical juncture — and I’m just using this as an example — there is an incredible need, but also an opportunity, to ensure that the model of policing is not bringing folks from the South to the North for three years and sending them back. It is about ensuring that Northerners, particularly Inuit, are part of the system of policing and an integral part of the RCMP. That is envisioning where we need to go.
As we recruit 1,000 new CBSA officers, RCMP, I’ve had this conversation with Director Rogers in terms of CSIS’s presence in the Arctic. We know there is critical work that needs to be done. It needs to have representation in a very, very meaningful way. This is where over the next few months I will be expecting each of the agencies to provide what that looks like.
There is a fair bit of work to do still with Corrections. We know that there is a gross over-representation of Indigenous People within Corrections. The correlation is not there with respect to staff. We do have a deputy commissioner of Indigenous issues, but my expectation is that staffing will need to keep up with culturally sensitive services that can only come from the type of representation we seek.
The Chair: You may get a second question and you may get the RCMP to answer your question. I’m not trying to be difficult, I apologize.
Senator McNair: Thank you, Minister, for being here today and thank you to your officials. You get a sense of the depth and breadth of the department and responsibilities by looking at the panel that we have here today.
Like my colleague Senator Deacon, I am very interested in Bill C-8, the critical cyber systems protection act, which is before the House committee at this time. Its predecessor was Bill C-26, which you’ve already talked about, was before this committee in the last Parliament.
We had the Privacy Commissioner, and we had the Intelligence Commissioner both at committee. The Privacy Commissioner indicated in his testimony that his expectation, which has been repeated regularly to the government, is that they should be consulted early on new initiatives, including bills. He recognizes that cabinet confidences have to be managed, of course, but the earlier they are consulted the better they are able to provide input at the front end.
Minister, I’m curious to know whether post-Bill 26 if either you or any of your officials have met with the two commissioners to discuss the bill, and I guess, more importantly, I’m curious to know whether any amendments were made to Bill C-8 to reflect some of the concerns they raised?
Mr. Anandasangaree: Thank you, senator. We have, and the deputy minister has, consulted with the Privacy Commissioner. Bill C-8 is a mirrored bill, former Bill C-26. There were no changes; however, it is going through the committee process. It completed second reading and is in committee stage. The committee study will start over the next couple of weeks in the House.
I understand that the Privacy Commissioner will be one of the individuals who will be a witness at that point, and suggestions from there will form the amendments, if any, that we will entertain.
I expect — given that this bill has gone through all stages at both the House and Senate and come back on a technicality — that it should pass as is, but if there are enough concerns then we will certainly look at amendments.
Senator McNair: Minister, it is my understanding on Bill C-26 that the Privacy Commissioner did make recommendations at the House stage, and a number of them were accepted? All right. Thank you.
Senator Dasko: Thank you, minister and officials, for being here today. I have been looking at the CSIS Public Report 2024 which was released this past spring. I am concerned but not surprised to learn that espionage, foreign interference and terrorism have increased during the last year. I am particularly concerned and interested in the Russians and what they are doing in Canada.
I see your report mentions Russian activity. I would like to understand some of that activity a little bit more. I learned through your report that the Russians are targeting public opinion. As somebody who was in the public opinion business for my career, I would like to know what that involves and what you’ve been seeing.
I see that the Russians have been “manipulating social divides.” I would like to understand what that means. That’s being done, apparently, for the purpose of undermining confidence in political systems.
Could you fill me in, as much as you, on what these activities are? Also, how do we deal with this?
Mr. Anandasangaree: Senator, it may be wise for me not to go into the specifics of the Russian matters that you bring up. Mr. Rogers can speak about it. But let me just speak broadly about what we need to do.
First and foremost, we will have the transparency register up and running very soon. That’s the critical first step. Second, education campaigns are critical. Again, we, through Public Safety Canada, make significant investments into misinformation campaigns.
The emerging trend of distrust in institutions is quite problematic. Earlier, I commented about the RCMP. Whether the executive, legislative, judiciary or law enforcement branches, every single one of them has a longstanding history of performing their functions in a manner that is in line with the rule of law and in line with democratic principles. Unfortunately, we’re seeing an erosion of that trust. Oftentimes, it is manipulated by third-party countries, oftentimes by social media. This is where I suggest that social media companies, the tech giants, also have some responsibility here.
The work we need to do is a collaborative approach where those of us who believe in democracy and the rule of law — I’m not talking about individuals; I’m talking about countries — need to collaborate in a much greater way. That’s why the Five Eyes are important. That’s why the G7 is important. Those are areas that I do think will lead toward a joint response to these challenges.
Director Rogers, I don’t know if you are able to speak to this?
Senator Dasko: [Technical difficulties] divides. We have many social divides in Canada, and I’m very interested in the divides where the Russians are particularly active in exacerbating issues.
The Chair: Please give a brief answer. We will come back to it when the minister has left.
Daniel Rogers, Director, Canadian Intelligence Security Agency: I am happy to elaborate on it later. I would say I agree with the minister. It is very difficult to comment on the specific intelligence on what Russia is doing. We are as transparent as we can be. For instance, in the context of the last election, we spoke publicly about information we saw online that might be originating from foreign states and that was disinformation. Sometimes it was designed to affect AI systems or other systems that could be used for those purposes.
I would add — and I’m happy to elaborate later — that what we see from Russia toward Canada is consistent with what we see elsewhere in the public. It is generally well known. Russia is a very assertive presence in Europe for obvious reasons. The types of activities in which we see Russia engaging in Europe are the same types of activities that we would see here. We are fortunate that we are not as targeted as some of our European allies. We work closely with them, as the minister said, to mitigate those threats there because it may foreshadow what we could expect here if Russia chooses to target us.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you, minister. It’s wonderful to see you again. Sorry for being late. I know Air Canada is not within your jurisdiction, but if you could tell them, please, on my behalf that, “Better later than never, and your luggage is going to New Zealand,” really should not be their marketing messages.
Senator White: Happy Monday.
Senator Kutcher: My question is about the spillage of American extremism over the border to here. My colleague talks about Russian disinformation. We’re studying that, but, more and more, we’re getting exposed to American extremism. I have great concerns about that. I just want to raise two issues.
So, it is one question, chair, but it has got a part A and a part B.
One, like the neo-Nazi fight clubs, Patriot Front, Nationalist-13, Hammerskins, those groups which are now really recruiting and coming over and linking with Canadian clubs, some unfortunately with CAF members being very involved in them. Neo-fascists and White supremacist movements are really targeting the very fabric of our society. I would like a response to that part.
Second, American extremism also comes across with disinformation. We often forget how toxic disinformation is. Now, disinformation cuts across ministries. We have chatted before about health disinformation. It tends to be the royal road to then attacking democratic institutions. What work, if any, is being done, together with the Ministry of Health, to be really effective and forward-looking in combatting health disinformation because it ends up attacking democratic institutions?
Mr. Anandasangaree: Thank you, Senator Kutcher. Any time we’re not talking about MAID, I would like to engage with you on a conversation such as this.
There are issues around extremism. We’re seeing this, especially, at younger and younger ages. We’re seeing a trend in the number of arrests that we’ve had involving the RCMP’s national security-type operations resulting in many younger people being detained or taken in. Both the commissioner and Director Rogers can really elaborate. Given the time, I’ll invite them to speak, once I leave.
I suggest we need greater investments. We have the Canada Centre countering radicalization. Investments are going there and directly impacting the work with young people who are, unfortunately, in this rabbit hole, and we are trying to get them out of that space.
My greater worry right now is that the nature of social media, where all of us, no matter what age, tend to fall into the space where it’s not individual messaging. It is much more synchronized by social media platforms’ own algorithms that are leading us in certain directions. All of us could probably relate to the type of content that we get and the type of rage that one can easily get into based on the algorithms that we see.
I don’t think I have an answer for that, but I do say that on radicalization of young people, we have done a fair amount of important work on disinformation overall. There is a lot more work to be done. I do think it is not something that governments can do alone. It does require civil society but also the tech giants to be part of this conversation.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Minister, we appreciate your presence and the presence of your team. I commend you for the effort and transparency of your ministerial plan in terms of published risks.
When it comes to foreign interference and economic threats to national security, the data measured covers the last three years. However, since taking office, the American president, who maintains U.S. border officers at our airports, has publicly threatened us — in front of his military —with annexing Canada. How do you see the continuation of joint efforts to expand preclearance with the United States at our airports in this context of threats to our integrity?
[English]
Mr. Anandasangaree: I think it is worth repeating that Canada will never become the fifty-first state of the United States. The Prime Minister has been very clear. We have been very clear, including Minister LeBlanc, who spends a great deal of time in the United States.
What is important is that when the issues around fentanyl were identified by the President as a source of irritation, if I may put it mildly, we responded immediately with the $1.3 billion border plan and took a number of measures at the border. Bill C-2, and Bill C-12 are, again, responses to the challenges posed by the administration south of the border. For us, I think this has led to an internal reckoning that issues such as fentanyl, it is not an issue that impacts the U.S. or Canada. We are both impacted, and we have a common thread in terms of where those precursors and fentanyl come from. It is not from each other’s country. It, in fact, comes from other places in Asia.
The investments we have made and the work that we’re doing with the legislation will tool us better on law enforcement and ensure that issues such as fentanyl are off our streets.
To the broader question of every border crossing, the greater threat for us is to make sure that we have the human resources available. The vastness of this country, the diversity of ports of entry — whether it is at airports or physical ports like the Port of Montreal, rail and other ports that are now coming online — means that we must have an integrated approach to law enforcement and to border protection. President O’Gorman, as well as Commissioner Duheme, can speak about this.
For us, it is to ensure that we have an integrated system where every port of entry becomes a target for us to ensure that incoming illicit items are stopped but also outgoing items such as stolen cars, for example, are also stopped at the border.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: With respect to Bill C-12, the newspaper Le Devoir reported that there was a demonstration. People are opposed to Bill C-12 and to maintaining the Safe Third Country Agreement with the United States. How can we reconcile the protection of refugees in accordance with international standards, the decisions made by President Trump and that agreement?
[English]
Mr. Anandasangaree: I will just say maybe three words here. The Charter of Rights, and making sure that a bill that comes in is Charter compliant is important for us. Our commitment to the 1951 Refugee Convention is critically important. These are non‑negotiable standards for us. While I acknowledge concerns posed by some segments of society who are advocates — and I have deep respect for them — I also want to counter that with these two very important anchors have guided us in developing this legislation.
Senator Ince: Thank you, minister, and everyone else for coming. My question is more directed around justice; however, we shouldn’t be working in silos, so my question does cross over to your area. It is about inequities and over-representation of groups within our society.
Are you familiar with the African Nova Scotian Justice Institute and the strategy?
Mr. Anandasangaree: I met with them a number of times, including in Nova Scotia.
Senator Ince: They are looking to make that strategy national. My question will be simply your thoughts on it. Are you looking to implement any of those 120-plus recommendations from that strategy?
Mr. Anandasangaree: Thank you, senator. I really appreciate the question, because I’m a big fan of the work of the African Nova Scotian Justice Institute. I met with them a number of times, especially as we developed the impact of race and culture assessments that are now being used in many parts of the country. When I was in my previous portfolio, when I was Mr. Lametti’s Parliamentary Secretary, we worked on funding for the first set of the impact of race and culture studies.
We have a Black Justice Strategy that I would be more than willing to share with you and offer you a briefing on, where we play a very important role supporting the Minister of Justice. As we build legislation and as legislation comes forward, one of the questions that both Minister Fraser and I ask each other is: What is the impact on Indigenous and Black Canadians? We are very attuned to the challenges and the disproportionate impact. I will note that, for example, corrections. You may have seen the Auditor General’s report on systemic racism within correctional institutions and corrections overall. Those are important recommendations that guide the work that we do. I think that over time, that’s where we need to get to.
One of the major challenges, as you are aware, is the lack of disaggregated data, which is critically important to us, and the jurisdictional divide between the federal, provincial and then local municipalities. It is virtually impossible right now for us to have granular data on what is happening at what level, how many arrests are happening, how many are being sentenced and what those sentences are, if there is disproportionate impact of the sentences. I do think the Black Justice Strategy does enable us to have some funding for that type of granularity.
Having said that and having worked in this area throughout my adult life, it is frustrating, and sometimes there are unintended consequences of government decisions that we see. I am very mindful that everything that I do and everything the department does will not disproportionately impact marginalized communities particularly.
Senator Hay: Thank you, minister. Quite a small mandate you have there. I was speaking to someone in my constituency who reached out to me in Mississauga, Ontario, and often perception is one person’s reality. This was a very warm and good conversation, and the question was around Bill C-2 and Bill C-12. The words that were used to me very respectfully were concerns around Canada becoming a police state. I’ll just quote that. Very real concerns around privacy and rights. You did reference the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What would you say to my constituent in Mississauga, Ontario?
Mr. Anandasangaree: Thank you, senator. I think when Bill C-12 comes here, I’d be more than glad to elaborate.
Let me just highlight the two major issues that are in Bill C-2 that are not in Bill C-12. There’s a reason why we’re bringing forward Bill C-12, which is almost a mirror of Bill C-2. It is to ensure we have consensus and we can move forward on the areas we have consensus on.
The area of disagreement and the area where someone may say that this is but a police state is a notion that I would ask people to reflect on. Maybe Bill C-2, as written, may not capture the true intent of what’s called lawful access. We’re the only Five Eyes country not to have a lawful access regime. We are far behind in terms of technology. Back in my day, if you had somebody’s phone number, if you had Senator Yussuff’s phone number, you could go to a book called Bauer’s and look up his address and go and knock on his door. With the nature of technology right now, that doesn’t exist. We’re very behind.
I can give you dozens and dozens of organizations that work with children, childhood exploitation on production of child pornography and a range of other quite problematic content where these tools are necessary. We realize that the consensus on the meaning of lawful access is not captured right now in Bill C-2. I’ve talked to some civil rights experts. I’ve spoken to the Business Council of Canada who have some concerns. I’ve spoken to a number of law enforcement leaders, including the commissioner, who has been very helpful. My expectation over the next several months is to be able to build some consensus around this.
My response to you would be, it is not an option not to have lawful access regime in Canada. It is a primary need for law enforcement to be able to do their function where people are safe. At the same time, we can do it in a manner that doesn’t appear to trample on individual civil liberties. I will admit that Bill C-2 probably didn’t have that balance, but my commitment is a revised version of it will have that balance, but more importantly, will have that consensus.
The Chair: This brings us to the end of the minister’s time here. I want to take this opportunity to thank you for coming and also bringing your officials. As you can tell, the committee members do take this work very seriously and they have long memories about commitments that have been made that need to be followed up.
We understand government machinery does move slowly, but I think some of the follow-up you’ve indicated would be very helpful to inform the committee as a whole, including individual members who have asked these questions. I also want to thank you on behalf of the nation for the work you do. The security of the country is no small thing, so thank you for what you do.
This past hour, we had the pleasure of hearing from the Minister of Public Safety, the Honourable Gary Anandasangaree, on the topic. We will now continue our questions with Ms. Geddes, Ms. O’Gorman, Ms. Blanchard, Mr. Rogers, Ms. Kelly and Mr. Duheme.
Before we move on, I will ask colleagues to please identify specifically who you are asking the question to. It will be very helpful.
This brings us to the next session. Senator Al Zaibak will begin, as the deputy chair of our committee, with the first question.
Senator Al Zaibak: Thank you. My question is directed to Daniel Rogers.
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, has highlighted intensified threats from foreign interference and sabotage. How is your department coordinating between CSIS and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or RCMP, and Global Affairs Canada to detect and counter Russian-sponsored disinformation targeting Canada’s democratic institutions, particularly Parliament Hill?
Mr. Rogers: Thank you for the question. I’m very happy to answer.
Thank you for highlighting that concern, which, of course, we’re very focused on. You’re right that we coordinate effectively, I think, with not only the RCMP and Global Affairs but also others like the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and other elements of our security and intelligence community.
What we’re trying to do to be effective in that space is to increase the amount of transparency. You mentioned disinformation specifically, and we have found that one of the counters we have to disinformation is to make the public aware of it, which is something we did in the context of the last general election where on a weekly basis we provided a technical briefing with the RCMP and Global Affairs from CSIS and the Communications Security Establishment, or CSE, directly to Canadians on what we were seeing in as much real time as possible so they could take action on the information that we share.
Of course, some intelligence can’t be shared as concretely as that. In those cases, CSIS will work appropriately. We have what’s called a one-vision framework with the RCMP that allows us to share information that might facilitate an RCMP investigation when something gets into the law enforcement space, and we also have the ability to contemplate threat‑reduction measures on our own, which allows us act directly to reduce the threat, and we do that in cases where we can.
The only other thing I would say maybe in response to that and the earlier question also is that while we do note Russia and some of its reckless behaviour as a threat with respect to sabotage and disinformation, we do calibrate our priorities internally based on what we’re seeing directed Canada. Certainly, we watch closely what’s happening in Europe where Russia is most active to try to anticipate threats before they come here.
Senator Al Zaibak: While CSIS has highlighted these threats from Russia and China and much of the focus has been really on China and Russia, CSIS has warned that other actors, like the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, have attempted to intimidate or survey members of the Iranian Canadian community.
What is your agency doing to monitor and disrupt these operations, especially any threats directed toward activists, journalists or parliamentarians on Canadian soil?
Mr. Rogers: Thank you again for the question and for highlighting an important issue.
As mentioned, CSIS does take action. The core of our mandate speaks exactly to that point. We’re here to gather intelligence related to threats to the security of Canada. Of course, transnational oppression from Iran against the community in Canada is core to that mandate. We reallocate priorities when we see intelligence that shows that there’s a threat against any individual. Depending on the nature of the threat, we take very specific actions. If it is something around, for instance, disinformation, the result might be speaking publicly about what we’re seeing to try to counter the disinformation.
In other cases that are more egregious where we see threats that might threaten the physical safety or well-being of an individual, that’s where we work closely with the RCMP who can provide protective services to the individuals under threat. We have done that in some circumstances to make sure individuals stay safe while here in Canada.
There are other types of information that may not rise to the level of a national security threat and are more appropriately addressed through community outreach and engagements, which we do with Public Safety Canada and other police forces with jurisdiction in the area.
Senator Kutcher: My question also follows this. We’re going to be on this disinformation thing for a while, I think.
We have clearly malignant state and non-state actors. We have people who amplify both. I put them into different categories: bots and useful. The research is very clear on this. It shows us what we need is immediate, wide-ranging and effective responses, both pre-bunking and debunking. To be effective, they have to have civil society organizations involved immediately. We saw that happening in the U.S. with the Tylenol autism nonsense. Civil society rose up quickly and pushed back hard, but it was done across the entire country.
First, are there any specific strategies that you are developing that will promote and allow for immediate, effective, wide‑ranging, debunking and pre-bunking of disinformation? Second, what civil society organizations are you bringing into the fold to do this? Of course, the quandary you face is that if you’re doing it as government, you’re the bad guys anyway.
Mr. Rogers: Thank you for the question. Although I would not categorize us as bad guys, I’m aware some people might perceive us that way.
First, the notion is well understood. I think part of the intent of Bill C-70, which provided CSIS with the ability to do what’s called resilience disclosures, allows us to share information more effectively with other elements of society outside the federal government to try to do that kind of inoculation or, as you mentioned, pre-bunking around some of this information.
The challenge for us at CSIS, or maybe for us as a government, is only a narrow subset of information shared online, whether true or false, would fall under the mandate of a national security agency. I think there’s a limit to what Canadians would expect a security agency to be doing in that online space. I don’t think anyone is looking to us to identify what’s true or false. There are a number of elements across government that would deal with that.
In the context of the Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections Task Force, which stands up during electoral events, we have the Global Affairs rapid response mechanism, which does online surveys of information to be able to identify the false amplification of narratives or try and attribute those narratives, sometimes using our intelligence, and to do that in a very public way.
We support that, and where we can share and declassify intelligence with those other elements of government or with the private sector, we’re happy to do it. We’re pushing the limits of how much we can do that in our public reports, as some of you have mentioned.
If you’re interested, I know my colleague at public safety has the most focused coordination effort on that because the foreign interference coordinator lives within that department. They take our information to use that, so my colleague, Ms. Tricia Geddes, may be able to speak more.
Tricia Geddes, Deputy Minister, Public Safety Canada: Thanks very much, Mr. Rogers. We work closely together on this. We have at public safety, the National Counter Foreign Interference Coordinator. This position was launched about two years ago. Really that person’s role, sole focus, is to counter those types of issues and to bring greater transparency to Canadians. Today he is in Toronto delivering a transnational repression seminar to local law enforcement to increase their understanding of mis/disinformation, but also the types of activities you were referring to earlier, senator, real efforts to try to prey upon our diaspora communities in Canada.
Mr. Rogers mentioned briefly that rapid response mechanism at Global Affairs. We’ve seen it be highly successful in the context of elections. You are most certainly onto something that there’s probably more we need to do in this space between elections because it is rapidly evolving, and we think we need that type of monitoring to be able to discern where the concerns are and, to your point, be able to rebut and refute them in the public space.
We have approached this issue quite delicately because it is concerning and has been concerning to Canadians that there might be over-monitoring of their internet activities. We are being cautious about it, but at the same time, it is quite clear when it is a bot — when it is a Russian actor, for example — and we’re able to discern that quite easily and be able to get out and tell Canadians what, in our perspective, the truth is in the circumstance. There is a lot of work ongoing and there’s more to be done.
Senator Dasko: Thank you. I’m back on the same theme as before. Mr. Rogers, the minister promised that you would answer this question, so here I am again.
The question is about Russian activity in Canada and how they have been manipulating social divides. I’d really like to hear some examples of that because I want to understand what exactly it is that they’re doing and how they have targeted public opinion. Could you just give some examples of that?
I’d also appreciate it if you could remind us what you actually found during the election and how that was reported out. In your report, I’m interested that you have identified Russian influence in the Arctic. That was mentioned in the report. I wonder if you might comment on that, too.
Please start with social divides and manipulating public opinion.
Mr. Rogers: The specific example that I alluded to earlier that I can mention actually answers a couple of those questions at the same time, in that what we had identified during the last general election we’ve now put out publicly in the after-action report from the Security and Intelligence Threats to Election Task Force was activity associated with the Russian Federation to amplify narratives relating to then candidate Carney in a negative way. We saw inauthentic spread or the amplification of narratives that were negative against the candidate, and we mentioned that at the time, specifically because that time we saw information sharing was the mandate of the task force, and we subsequently reported that in the overall after-action report. That’s one of the examples of where we can see that kind of disinformation being levied for a purpose.
Some of the examples that we will see will have to remain classified because they come from single sources of intelligence and we still have work to do to corroborate them. We’re not at the phase where we can necessarily share them publicly with confidence or accuracy, but they are similar to what has been described publicly.
One thing that might help is we share a media ecosystem with our United States counterparts and we’ve seen Russian disinformation threats made very public by our American counterparts. For instance, when there were indictments made by the FBI about the media ecosystem earlier in the year, which is now well publicized and we can provide information about it and there are affidavits online. There are links to Canadians in some of those public affidavits and those are the sorts of activities we will work with the FBI to try to track down to see if there are implications for Canadians or for Canada or whether even just by proxy or by association Canadians could be affected.
Senator Dasko: About the Arctic, do you have anything specific to elaborate on coming from the report in which this was mentioned?
Mr. Rogers: Russia is a very Arctic-focused state. Unlike many others, they are quite prolific in their militarization of the Arctic. This is something that has been discussed publicly before.
In our context, I don’t think there’s anything specific that comes to mind now that I can share about a specific information campaign for Russia and the Arctic. I would say CSIS is conscious of Russia’s interests in the Arctic and that there are the occasional bits of intelligence that show us that there are things that we need to be vigilant with and concerned by. Again, we will try to make those public when we can. Sometimes they’re shared by other foreign intelligence partners and they’re not ours to disclose, but the other thing we will do in the case where there is a real threat and we can’t make it public is to use the authorities given to us like the resiliency disclosures to either reduce the threat through threat-reduction measures or through resiliency disclosures to make people who may be impacted by those activities aware of them and to try to counter them.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
Senator McNair: I wanted to jump back to the recent announcement of the plan to increase border security and the Government of Canada committing to recruiting 1,000 RCMP personnel and 1,000 Canada Border Services Agency personnel. My understanding is during the October 9 meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, Commissioner Duheme, you indicated that the RCMP is exploring options to increase online training and is evaluating whether a new training facility is necessary.
During that same meeting, it’s my understanding that President O’Gorman indicated that between 200 and 300 border service officers can be trained each year.
I’m curious to know, first of all, from the RCMP’s perspective, what factors will determine whether a new RCMP training facility is required? And for both organizations, what challenges are you both experiencing in meeting the personnel commitments? What steps are you taking to meet those targets? To what extent are qualified candidates being recruited? Finally, are you able to attract and retain the personnel necessary?
Mike Duheme, Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: For the first part of the question about new facilities, the plan is to reduce the presence at depot by four to five weeks by going to online courses. The goal next year is to put 45 troops through depot, 32 people per troop. The idea is by cutting off four to five weeks, that will give me more time to put additional troops through as well.
For the first phase of the 1,000, we want to increase the cadets going through depot, put them out to the front line and then bring our people with experience into the Federal Policing program. That would require a little investment in facilities, but we do need a facility not quite as complex as depot, to do the training when it comes to Federal Policing. Depot is very oriented to do a good job to prepare our men and women for the front line. But for the Federal Policing we’re doing that type of work, depot is not there to instruct the folks. There would probably be remote classrooms to do that.
The first plan for us is really to get cadets in, fill the positions and release the experienced members to come to federal policing. As for how we get the people, last year, we had a little over 20,000 applicants. That’s healthy that people want to do police work. It’s nice to know that they want to come to the RCMP.
By increasing the troop gate in depot, by minimizing the whole process from the point you apply to the time you go to depot, will facilitate getting a lot of people in the door.
The other thing I should mention is that the last couple of years experienced police officers have been joining the organization, up to 176 a year. We benefit from experienced police officers in other departments who are willing to come to the RCMP to be part of Federal Policing.
Erin O’Gorman, President, Canada Border Services Agency: Our training is 18 weeks, four of which are online. We have an inventory of 400 qualified individuals that we can start inviting now to Rigaud for their training.
Students are one of our best sources of recruits. We hire students for our airports, and if they work out and if they like it they come back and then we have a bridging into Rigaud for them. So we expect that will continue.
We’re also doing local recruitment. A challenge for all national organizations is people wanting to get back to their home communities. So we’re looking at Indigenous Communities, we’re looking in the North. It will help with diversity but it will also help if we can send people back into their communities for our remoter ports of entry.
We have a fairly high retention rate and we hope it continues. We have regional training for marine, for firearms. We do firearms training at Rigaud, but we can do it in various spots across the country. We also use that for people who need to get recertified to maintain their certification on their firearms.
The increase in the stipend will certainly help and may allow us to target, as we do now, people who are mid-career. We’ve had people come in who have had jobs, and a good mix of leaders who have done other things. So a lot of moving parts there but not expecting a big challenge.
There are some parts of Rigaud that we have to open up that we haven’t been using and that will happen in due course.
Senator Cardozo: I want to ask you, perhaps Deputy Minister, Commissioner Duheme or Director Rogers, what are your thoughts around long term? How do you think about the next five or ten years, which we know we don’t know about, but to what extent do you engage in foresight? Do you have a group of smart people who sit in a room and sort of think about all the craziest possibilities that can happen in the years down the road? How do you prepare for the unknown?
Ms. Geddes: Such a great question. I’ll start and I’m sure my colleagues will want to join too.
I would say that a lot of people who work at Public Safety Canada are in the foresight business. There’s a lot of analytics required. When we’re developing policies and thinking about programming needs they’re destined to be 10, 15 years out. When we work on law reform, for example, we realize it’s going to take often a year, two years to be able to bring something forward by the time that law is introduced, we need it not to be stale-dated. I would say that policy is what we do at the Department of Public Safety, and policy, by necessity, requires that type of foresight, but it is a challenge.
I do think the public service in general needs to be pushed really hard to be quite innovative in its thinking. The way in which we have now a cycle, a speed that is developing around different types of threats that are emerging, priorities that are shifting all the time, we need to push ourselves to be thinking more innovatively.
One of the goals I have at the department is to pursue as much external engagement as possible, because some of the best and brightest ideas often come from talking to people in civil society, our partners around the world. We’re constantly doing that type of analysis about where are you going and where are we going and how can we maximize it?
I would say that we tend to work closely with academics, think tanks, as that’s an area and source of inspiration for us.
Mr. Duheme and Mr. Rogers, I know you also have your own foresight.
Mr. Duheme: It is a challenge, no doubt, and it is a shifting environment. If you told me three years ago that the ideological motivation of extremists would be kids in the range of 14 to 17, I would have said no, but that popped up on the screen.
We have really good relationships with the Five Eyes countries and we learn. What we see here is no different than what they’re seeing. It is a challenge.
What we foresee is technology is evolving so fast that it’s challenging from a law enforcement perspective, but also the legislation we have around it. I’m sure Mr. Rogers can speak about that too.
Earlier, you heard the minister talk about lawful access. We’re not doing a good job explaining that because it is not warrantless powers to go and get whatever we want. The threshold is very, very high, and that’s contained in a legal framework. When we launch an investigation we have to ensure that when we bring it to court everything that was obtained, was obtained legally. The last thing you want to do is obtain something illegally and you’ve just wasted a million dollars of investment.
The challenge is the shifting environment is so quick and we have to be a little bit more nimble in addressing it.
Mr. Rogers: I will be brief and say, yes, foresight is an important facet of what we’re doing.
Just to complement the answers, there are two things that we’re recognizing. One is that foresight can’t fix everything. There is a certain readiness and agility that an organization will need in the environment that we are in, wherein it is very difficult to have a high degree of confidence in any prediction you have.
For us at the service, and for me particularly, I want to ensure we have the service that is as well equipped as possible and can make clear and timely prioritization decisions to shift resources wherever we need them to be based on the threat that we see. For me that means a capable workforce with a healthy work environment that is trained and has the skills they need to be adaptable to the various priorities we can foresee, including with respect to data and technology, so we can make those pivots when we need to.
I would hazard a guess to say very few of us could accurately predict what will happen in five years no matter how much foresight we’re doing, so we have to hedge to make sure we’re able to pivot.
Senator Hay: I want to pick up a little bit on what the minister had been speaking about to enable good or great policing and border control around lawful access and technology, since it’s been bantered around a little bit here. That technology right now is quite another century, perhaps, but maybe another decade, which in technology is another century.
I’m just curious, you have been in the data collection business for quite a long time, that wouldn’t be new, but with new technology and that sophistication, and artificial intelligence and machine learning coming in, which I’m sure you do right now — and I don’t want to put the cart before the horse — but I’m curious what your concerns might be around the guardrails for data governance and sovereignty to protect Canadians, in particular as it relates to perhaps the U.S. and some of their data rules and regulations which are quite frightening, actually, for data.
I don’t know who wants to answer that, and you can defer it if you’d like.
Ms. Geddes: Well, we all have a role to play in this space. I can tell you that data sovereignty and how we think about protecting Canadians’ data is a really live topic.
We’re in the midst of having these discussions right now about how we do it, both from a native Canadian — I mean, the businesses that exist within Canada that are able to generate the types of data that we need and able to protect the types of data that we need. There are many companies in Canada that do that, but our first choice in this space would be to look to Canada first and see how we can leverage them. But there are some places where that’s not possible, where we just have nascent industry, for example. So we are thinking very carefully about how we manage our data.
When there are foreign investments in Canada that is top‑of‑mind, to think about how do we ensure Canadians’ data. That is one of the things that we are most keen to protect.
So how will we build in safeguards there? We’re constantly thinking about how we can mitigate any threats to that data leaving our country without our permission, obviously. There are a number of things that we’re working on in terms of safeguards to build into our discussions with those companies — the need to have that data remain within Canada.
If I was to say what one of my big concerns is in this space, though, aside from how we keep it in the Canadian context, it is our ability to be able to share data within our own organizations and the Government of Canada. Particularly for us, in our national security community in order to be able to protect Canadians we need to be able to leverage the data that we each have. Finding ways to be able to do that but in a very statutorily contained way so people do have assurance that there are guardrails and there isn’t broad dissemination of data but there is the ability to be able to leverage. If IRCC, immigration has data that is required by the RCMP in order to conduct their law enforcement, how do we make sure that the access to that data is nimble and timely and isn’t reliant on laws that were built, frankly, 10, 15 or 20 years ago sometimes to be able to pass just one piece of data from one place to the next?
That’s my greatest concern, but I think from the law enforcement intelligence space, there are probably others.
Mr. Rogers: Thank you. I will try and be brief. I agree with the deputy minister, and there are two things that I think about when I hear your question. One is the value of data is increasing and particularly quickly as things like artificial intelligence and machine learning can make better use of that data.
From a security perspective, there are the issues that my colleagues just spoke about. The ability to make use of that data for our own investigations is important. I would say the questions that come up in the context of Bill C-2 and in other parliamentary debates are very important to us. It is not CSIS’s role to decide how Canadians want us to use it. But I think it is our role to inform how it could be used and what the limitations would be on us if we are subject to certain limitations. That’s where I would try and put my efforts.
The inverse, though, that is worth thinking about is that other countries will be using data, sometimes data from Canadians. We will be at a relative advantage or disadvantage depending on our own ability to use data in the same ways. So as we see Canadians’ data go into the hands of other countries or even private-sector corporations, their ability to analyze trends, figure out patterns, sophisticated algorithms that can flag security or other risks, will be compared to our own, and we will be able to or not able to leverage that data in the interests of Canadians based on the authorities we get.
Senator White: Thank you. This is a fascinating discussion. I have so many questions, but I will go back to the Indigenous communities. In a number of our communities, we continue to face critical safety challenges including inadequate policing, resources, slow response times. We have contraband drugs coming in via Canada Post. There is a balance between privacy and how do you do that? What are the specific measures that your respective departments are taking to try to address these urgent gaps in our communities? That’s for anyone and everyone.
Mr. Duheme: Thank you for the question, Senator White. From our perspective, I truly believe that detachments that we have spread out across the country should be reflective of the communities we police. That’s easier said than done. The type of model that we have, people are in and out before two or three years and whatnot.
I want to hone in on a couple of things that we’re doing to try and increase a fair representation when we’re in these areas. You heard the minister earlier. We’re about 6% on the Indigenous side, which is good compared to other government departments, but the challenge we have as well as other government departments is everybody is looking for the same type of people and that becomes a challenge.
We did bring in a program that’s called the Diversity and Inclusive Pre-Cadet Experience, or DICE. What we do is get 32 participants from various backgrounds who are interested in policing, Indigenous, Black, racialized communities who are interested in becoming police. We put them through four weeks of training to expose them to what training is at Depot. They are kitted up with a uniform, do the drills, the academic part, a little bit of driving to expose them to police work. I would say that program right there has really helped us. The people who are interested in police work get fast-tracked through the process. We don’t skip any steps, but they are fast-tracked through the process because they are the types of people we want to represent the communities which we police. That’s one initiative we have. I’ll stop there and see if there is anything else.
Ms. Geddes: I’m happy to jump in. I know the minister spoke a bit about our First Nations Policing Program. We’ll be frank, Auditors General and others have said that we’re not getting the funds quickly enough into the hands of the communities, and we have worked really hard over the last year or two to try to increase the speed and to try to be much more relaxed in the conditions that we place upon those funds, knowing that the communities themselves know how to spend community-safety dollars best.
I still don’t think we’re quite there. We have more to be done, and we hear that, that there is a finite pool of resources in this space. We need to ensure that it is delivered as effectively as possible, and that is working closely with our provincial partners. It is not just a federal program, as you are aware. We work closely with the provinces and communities themselves to ensure that we’re delivering on time.
We have made great strides and the engagements we’re having with the communities and ensuring that we can tailor them to the local needs is at the core of the work we’re doing right now. I know there is an interest from the minister’s part — and we are working closely with him — to push forward to different types of community safety officers in the North in particular. That’s an area of great interest for us right now. We’re also working closely with Indigenous youth and finding ways to deliver our public safety program dollars straight into the hands of the youth to increase their community as well in Indigenous communities. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you to the entire team.
We’ve discussed various national security issues, foreign interference and extremism. We discussed issues that remain unfamiliar, given the evolution of geopolitics and technology. We could add issues related to strengthening Canada’s resilience in the face of climate change.
How do you navigate all these issues? Can you give us some concrete examples of measures taken by the government to respect individual rights and freedoms while addressing national security threats? And how is the coordination between the various federal institutions involved in national security carried out?
Mr. Rogers: Thank you for the question. I think it’s a very important one.
[English]
Foreign interference across all of those domains is a key priority for the service. Inherent to your question is the premise we cannot do it alone. We’re not large, but no matter how well resourced we might be, these threats manifest in places that we are not and they rely on the responses from partners that we have across the country who need to be better equipped to deal with those threats on their own or to seek assistance when those threats manifest and we are not aware of them, whether through us or the RCMP.
In that respect, over the last year the precise statistics are in our public report, but we have undertaken a number of engagements and resilience disclosures with provinces, Indigenous groups, the private sector and academia to help inform them in as detailed a way as possible without giving the very specific, classified information on what to look out for. We also informed them about the types of trends that we’re seeing, how to communicate with us if they are concerned with something and which things fall within the mandate of CSIS versus the RCMP or Public Safety Canada. This can include community groups who feel particularly at risk of transnational repression, for instance, Iranian Canadians or others. It may include even Indigenous groups who are worried about economic investments that might affect their community but might be in some manner influenced by a foreign government and be counter to their own interests. That broad range is specifically why we’re prioritizing engagement across the country.
[Translation]
Mr. Duheme: I would like to add to my colleague’s answer.
There is one thing we’ve realized over the past two years, and we’re talking about it now, which is very important. We’re mainly talking about it in relation to the federal government, but it also has an impact at the provincial and municipal levels, because foreign interference can creep in anywhere. I think it’s a good thing to discuss it and take action.
Mr. Rogers touched on this a little, but there is good coordination between the Department of Public Safety and CSIS when it comes to transferring files. Foreign interference often takes the form of intelligence for which CSIS is responsible. Even before it becomes a criminal act, it is discussed, and that is when the transfer takes place. We have come a long way. However, there is still much to be done, because things are moving very quickly.
[English]
Senator Ince: My question is for Commissioner Duheme. The minister discussed community policing and the interaction between the provinces, territories and municipalities. My question is: What would be the advantages or disadvantages for Federal Policing and national security if the contracts are renewed?
Mr. Duheme: Thank you for the question. There’s an advantage — we’re the envy of several countries because of the number of police forces that we have in Canada. There are 194 or 196 police forces compared to tens of thousands south of the border. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or RCMP, has three mandates as the minister mentioned, and we cover just about 70% of the land mass and 22% of the population. When you have to mobilize people for any event, such as wildfires or mass casualties, we could do that. It is the people with the same training, same uniforms and kit, which we can do that really quickly. We have seen it in the G7. And there is a strength. The sharing of intelligence, the sharing of criminal information, one data bank that a police force is covering 70% of the country — I think that speaks volumes of the way we are structured right now.
There are questions, obviously, about federal policing and contracts, but what we have to do within the organization is — this is a conversation I had with the minister — do a better job delineating the role of federal policing in Canada and internationally. I will give you a quick example. In the past, there are funds assigned to federal policing that were used for other things than the federal policing mandate, and we want to correct that. The other thing that we’re working on is untangling the funds that are coming in, because the Government of Canada injects a lot of funds to support law enforcement and police in Canada. So we wanted to untangle that to make sure that there is a true, accurate picture of what the provinces and territories are actually paying for when it comes to contract policing.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question is addressed specifically to the RCMP. Sometime around 2022, a Radio-Canada report showed Chinese antennas on telecommunications towers used for restricted communications with specific national security networks. Subsequently, in 2023, a report recommended that greater consideration be given to national security in the RCMP’s procurement process.
I was extremely surprised to see that Chinese drones were purchased to protect the borders; I am not sure that national security was taken into account when these Chinese drones were acquired.
Can you reassure us as to how procurement processes take national security considerations into account, especially given the announcement that tens of billions of dollars will be invested in procurement? I want to make sure that national security considerations are taken into account and that we don’t have a repeat of what happened previously.
Mr. Duheme: Thank you for the question.
First, with regard to the transmission boxes, there was nothing in those boxes —
Senator Carignan: I know the whole story. I know my files.
Mr. Duheme: Regarding the Chinese drones that were purchased…. I would need to follow up on that, but I am certain they were purchased before the restrictions on acquisitions were imposed.
I don’t believe they were purchased by federal entities; I believe they were purchased by people who do frontline police work, but I don’t want to mislead you. I would be very happy to follow up on what we purchased and when we purchased it.
My understanding is that we purchased those drones before the restrictions and that everyone involved in purchasing and acquisitions is aware of the parameters set for acquisitions.
Senator Carignan: So guidelines are now in place?
Mr. Duheme: There are guidelines in place.
Senator Carignan: Still on the subject of drones, there is a pilot project in Alberta using drones to support first responders during calls. That helps officers when they arrive on the scene, because a drone has already flown over and assessed the safety and risk involved in the call.
Are you considering expanding the use of drones to support first responders when they receive calls? Secondly, are you considering hiring more civilians to support police operations? If drones are used, technicians are required to operate them, but they do not necessarily need police training. Is the use of civilians and technicians being considered to optimize the effectiveness of RCMP police services?
Mr. Duheme: Depending on the allotted time, yes and yes, but I can add more.
First, you know your file well. Yes, drones are frequently used in Alberta — not just Alberta, Saskatchewan as well. We have a policy centre in Ottawa and when provinces — or divisions, as they’re called — use them, we try to refocus efforts to ensure that all the divisions are the same.
Interestingly, it’s mainly when we’re searching for a lost person that a drone helps us save a great deal of time, partly because less personnel is required. Fun fact: In Alberta, we sent a drone in before the police arrived and the person knelt down with their hands in the air — so there is an impact.
Our intervention tactics groups, such as SWAT teams, regularly use them before entering a house. They can, for example, use a small drone to ensure everything is safe before going inside.
The scale of the use is different in provinces, I’ll grant you that.
To answer the second question, I believe that all our tasks require a police officer to carry them out. However, if we’re simply talking about navigating a drone, and the person remains above the fray, they don’t have to be a police officer.
Yes, we have to strike a balance. With the budget allotted to secure the borders, people who are not police officers received training — which includes video analysis. That’s where we’re headed.
Senator Carignan: How many of your people are not police officers?
Mr. Duheme: Who are dedicated to drones?
Senator Carignan: No, who are civilian RCMP staff, not police officers. I know you have about a dozen —
Mr. Duheme: We have about 19,000 police officers, as well as 12,000 employees — which includes both public servants and civilian members.
Senator Carignan: That includes those employees?
Mr. Duheme: That includes them.
Senator Carignan: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you very much. A question. Just a stone’s throw away, the Forum 2025 conference is underway with military and defence personnel participating. The conference is focused on health, research of veterans and different aspects of the military. This morning, the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of Defence was the keynote speaker who opened the conference. She talked about collaboration, the work of the Five Eyes and a variety of things. But it led to some discussion which seems to be permeating a little bit more, and you referred to it earlier, Commissioner Duheme, about the Five Eyes. The question is: Is the Five Eyes, which has been a great asset to Canada, no question — is it still our best asset? Is Five Eyes still enough?
Mr. Duheme: I came back from a meeting this summer in San Diego with the Five Eyes, and I think there is true value with the Five Eyes. Often it is the people who are at the table that makes a difference. There are discussions about how we could bring other people on board in the Five Eyes, and the example that we discussed was with regard to cyber capabilities. The Dutch are really good on cyber, the French as well. Do we bring the Germans on board? There is legislation, I believe, around the Five Eyes. It started years ago. But how can these countries be part of the Five Eyes on specific topics, because they have the strength, especially when it comes to cyber and other fields?
I don’t think you should have any organization, any structure in place without reviewing it on an annual basis, or every two years because, as we mentioned earlier, the environment is shifting so fast. You want the subject-matter experts and the countries who have the expertise there to share it.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you very much.
The Chair: This brings us to the end of this panel. I would like to thank all of you — Ms. Geddes, Ms. O’Gorman, Ms. Blanchard, Mr. Duheme and Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers, I was going to ask you a question about young people and cybersecurity, but we don’t have time. In addition to that, I also want to say, Commissioner Duheme, and to all of you in regard to the responsibility and work you have, the safety and the security of the country is no small task. We can all quibble about the specifics that we may have issues with, but we know, in the broader quest to protect the nation, this is not an easy job.
Commissioner Duheme, I want you to know that you have our full support for the difficult job you do on behalf of this great country. Thank you all for taking the time to come here today to share your thoughts and your experiences with us. Thank you so much.
Senators, this concludes our meeting for today. Our next meeting is on Monday, October 27, at 4 p.m. in Room C128. Thank you so much.
(The committee adjourned.)