Bill C-51 (Historical)

Anti-terrorism Act, 2015

An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts

Part 1 enacts the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act, which authorizes Government of Canada institutions to disclose information to Government of Canada institutions that have jurisdiction or responsibilities in respect of activities that undermine the security of Canada. It also makes related amendments to other Acts.
Part 2 enacts the Secure Air Travel Act in order to provide a new legislative framework for identifying and responding to persons who may engage in an act that poses a threat to transportation security or who may travel by air for the purpose of committing a terrorism offence. That Act authorizes the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to establish a list of such persons and to direct air carriers to take a specific action to prevent the commission of such acts. In addition, that Act establishes powers and prohibitions governing the collection, use and disclosure of information in support of its administration and enforcement. That Act includes an administrative recourse process for listed persons who have been denied transportation in accordance with a direction from the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and provides appeal procedures for persons affected by any decision or action taken under that Act. That Act also specifies punishment for contraventions of listed provisions and authorizes the Minister of Transport to conduct inspections and issue compliance orders. Finally, this Part makes consequential amendments to the Aeronautics Act and the Canada Evidence Act.
Part 3 amends the Criminal Code to, with respect to recognizances to keep the peace relating to a terrorist activity or a terrorism offence, extend their duration, provide for new thresholds, authorize a judge to impose sureties and require a judge to consider whether it is desirable to include in a recognizance conditions regarding passports and specified geographic areas. With respect to all recognizances to keep the peace, the amendments also allow hearings to be conducted by video conference and orders to be transferred to a judge in a territorial division other than the one in which the order was made and increase the maximum sentences for breach of those recognizances.
It further amends the Criminal Code to provide for an offence of knowingly advocating or promoting the commission of terrorism offences in general. It also provides a judge with the power to order the seizure of terrorist propaganda or, if the propaganda is in electronic form, to order the deletion of the propaganda from a computer system.
Finally, it amends the Criminal Code to provide for the increased protection of witnesses, in particular of persons who play a role in respect of proceedings involving security information or criminal intelligence information, and makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Part 4 amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to permit the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to take, within and outside Canada, measures to reduce threats to the security of Canada, including measures that are authorized by the Federal Court. It authorizes the Federal Court to make an assistance order to give effect to a warrant issued under that Act. It also creates new reporting requirements for the Service and requires the Security Intelligence Review Committee to review the Service’s performance in taking measures to reduce threats to the security of Canada.
Part 5 amends Divisions 8 and 9 of Part 1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) define obligations related to the provision of information in proceedings under that Division 9;
(b) authorize the judge, on the request of the Minister, to exempt the Minister from providing the special advocate with certain relevant information that has not been filed with the Federal Court, if the judge is satisfied that the information does not enable the person named in a certificate to be reasonably informed of the case made by the Minister, and authorize the judge to ask the special advocate to make submissions with respect to the exemption; and
(c) allow the Minister to appeal, or to apply for judicial review of, any decision requiring the disclosure of information or other evidence if, in the Minister’s opinion, the disclosure would be injurious to national security or endanger the safety of any person.

Salaries Act

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to contribute to the debate on Bill C-24.

I am always interested when governments present bills. We have to understand the motivation of a bill in order to really judge its worth. Part of my comments today are going to be about what I think the motivation for this bill really is, and hopefully in assessing that, we will be able to get a better sense of the worth of the bill.

The government would have us believe that there is an important principle of equality at stake in this bill, but in fact, the bill fails to manifest any greater equality between ministers or between men and women in cabinet, for that matter, than the existing legislative regime. It entrenches an important regional inequality created by the new Liberal government.

In the press release issued by the government when it introduced the bill, it said that the legislation is meant to show that “The Government of Canada is committed to creating a one-tier ministry that recognizes the equality of all Cabinet members.”

That statement strikes me as a little strange. I wonder how many governments regularly issue statements affirming that they do, in fact, value the opinion of the people they put around the cabinet table. I cannot imagine that there are that many. I would think it goes without saying, that if prime ministers put people at the cabinet table, they do in fact value the opinion of those members of cabinet.

I found it passing strange that the government felt the need to let Canadians know that it does actually take cabinet members seriously. In the post-2015 world, I suppose anything really is possible.

In addition to being odd, the statement about a one-tier ministry is also vague. It is not exactly clear in what sense the legislation will make all cabinet ministers equal. For instance, there are a number of ways in which cabinet ministers might be found to be equal or unequal. They might be equal or unequal, as the case may be, with respect to pay, experience, title, resources, competence, and so on.

Some of these things are obviously not fixable by way of legislation and some are. It is clear to me that the bill, obviously, has to deal with those equalities or inequalities that could be established by legislation.

We still have to figure out what exactly is the relevant sense of equality that the government is trying to zero in on here. The kinds of inequalities between ministers that could be addressed through legislation are differences in resources, pay, level of responsibility, and in title. I want to come to those in a little bit.

First, I want to give members some of the context for the bill as I see it, and briefly explain the changes contained in the bill. The origin of the bill goes back to a year ago today, after the election, when the Prime Minister said, about building his cabinet, and having committed in the Liberal platform to include an equal number of women in cabinet.

When he announced the new cabinet, observers quickly noticed that, excluding himself, there were 15 male ministers, 10 female ministers, and 5 female ministers of state to assist other ministers. Ministers of state are not department heads, and before the election received less pay than ministers. This meant that five of the female cabinet members were to be paid less, and enjoy less responsibility than their male colleagues.

Despite having almost, but not quite, achieved his promise of including an equal number of men and women in cabinet, for the benefit of the Prime Minister and other members who may wonder, 16 is not equal to 15. Despite that, he had clearly not achieved gender equality in cabinet.

It is fair to say that this was an embarrassment for the Prime Minister. If he did not feel embarrassed, he probably should have. It was an embarrassment because the Prime Minister showed a lack of competence in simple math, failing to recognize that 16 men is not the same as 15 women, and that it does not balance.

It was also an embarrassment because the Prime Minister, who went out of his way to promote himself as a feminist, filled all his junior cabinet posts with women, thereby creating a gender gap in both pay and responsibility inside his cabinet.

Either that is embarrassing because it exposes a rather superficial feminism, and shows that the Prime Minister is willing to do just enough to get credit for being a feminist and no more, or it is embarrassing because it shows a complete lack of comprehension of the different cabinet posts that were available to him, and the tools that were available to him to build a cabinet. He clearly did not understand, if he was sincere in his feminist intention, the difference between a minister of state and a minister.

It may, in fact, be a bit of both. That would be even more embarrassing. The bill, as it stands, seems to suggest that it is actually a little bit of both. I will get into why.

Consider that the Prime Minister could have avoided this embarrassment by simply adding, or eliminating, one minister of state, and ensuring that those positions were distributed equally between men and women. That would have solved the gender difference in cabinet.

He could also have avoided the embarrassment if he knew his options a little better, and apparently he did, or does, because the bill, I think, adds to the confusion about what the options are for building a cabinet. He could have established, under the authority of the existing Ministries and Ministers of State Act, ministries of state for the five ministers of state. These could have functioned, essentially, as mini-departments resourced by reallocating staff and funds from other departments.

A minister of state responsible for a ministry of state would be the head of that ministry of state and not assigned to assist another minister. Furthermore, under existing legislation, ministers of state responsible for a ministry state are already mandated to receive the same pay as ministers or department heads. That is another way that the Prime Minister could have avoided both the pay gap, and alleviated that gap in responsibility between those positions.

For those keeping score, now, in terms of cabinet positions, I have mentioned three. There are ministers, ministers of state for a ministry of state, and ministers of state to assist.

This bill purports to create a further type of cabinet member, currently referred to in legislation simply as minister. If Bill C-24 were to pass, cabinet members would now be referred to as ministers for a department. Then a new type of minister would be created called ministers for whom a department is designated. Those ministers who are currently ministers of state would be converted to this new kind of minister, minister for whom a department is designated.

Bill C-24 allows that:

The appropriate Minister for a department...may delegate, to a minister in respect of whom that department is designated, any of the appropriate Minister’s powers, duties or functions...A minister in respect of whom a department is designated...may use the services and facilities of that department.

That might sound familiar, because I know all members are very familiar with the Ministries and Ministers of State Act, and they would have noticed, I am sure, that it sounds a lot like section 11 of the Ministries and Ministers of State Act that states that a minister of state to assist:

...shall exercise or perform such of the powers, duties or functions of any minister or ministers having responsibilities for any department or other portion of the federal public administration as may be assigned or transferred to him...shall make use of the services and facilities of the department or portion of the federal public administration concerned.

The language is very similar because the positions, at the end of the day, are very similar. They enjoy a similar level of responsibility, and are resourced in pretty much exactly the same way.

When we read it, it is a little bit like the first time we see an infomercial for a Snuggie, where they are saying, “Here's this blanket, with a lot of great conceptual innovation and new features”. We are sitting there thinking, “Isn't that just a backwards bathrobe, really, made of fleece?” There is this awkward tension where we are thinking, “No, this is not really a new thing, it's just a repackaged old thing, and I've already got one, so I don't need to buy a new one”.

There is no practical difference between ministers of state to assist and ministers for whom a department is designated.

If the government insists on having a new name for the same old thing, I would like to submit a different one. I think ministers formerly known as ministers of state would be a much catchier and probably more to the point title for these new ministers. Perhaps there will be an amendment at committee to that effect.

Bill C-24 is the government's response to the Prime Minister's awkward cabinet launch last fall where he pretty much fell flat on his face, but it is not clear how the bill really fixes anything. We know it is a response to that. We know that is where it comes from. The question is, “Does it fix any of that? Does it actually do the work that the government has identified as needed doing?”

If the idea is simply to close the gender wage gap, needlessly created by the Prime Minister, the bill is unnecessary.

First, the Prime Minister did not have to choose to appoint only women to minister of state positions. The gap could be closed by making more women full ministers and some men ministers of state. That would be fine.

Second, existing legislation allows the government to pay ministers of state the same as ministers. In fact, it has been doing that for years, so legislation is not required to do that.

Third, as I mentioned earlier, the Prime Minister could have created ministries of state out of the resources of existing departments, giving those ministers of state more authority and responsibility within the government and the current legislation would have required that the government pay them the same as ministers, not just choose to, but require them to do so.

If the idea of this bill is to close the gender responsibility gap needlessly created by the Prime Minister when he appointed only women to positions of ministers of state, then the bill is also unnecessary. This, too, could be solved simply by making more women full ministers and some men ministers of state or by establishing ministries of state.

If the idea is to eliminate the difference in administrative responsibility between ministers and in that sense make them equal, then the bill fails to do that, too. There will continue to be a difference between ministers for departments, on the one hand, and ministers of state to assist ministers for whom a department is designated, ministers formerly known as ministers of state or whatever the government ultimately chooses to call them. There is still going to be a real difference of administrative responsibility between those positions. They will not be equal in that sense, so the bill, if that is the point, is a failure.

Keep in mind that what I am trying to do is identify the relevant sense of “equal”, in which this bill would make them equal. As everyone can see, I have given it a lot of thought and I have not been able to come up with anything. I do not think it is because it is there and I cannot find it. I think it is because the conclusion of my study of the bill shows that it is not there.

Moreover, there is nothing wrong with having people at the cabinet table who have different levels of administrative responsibility. When the Prime Minister fell flat on his face in his cabinet unveiling because he did not manage to create gender equality in the cabinet, people were not outraged at the fact that there were ministers of state and ministers. No one said, “I can't believe the ministers aren't equal.” They said, “I can't believe that the Prime Minister, who calls himself a feminist, is not treating female members of the cabinet equally, because he's giving them junior roles in cabinet instead of senior roles in cabinet.” That was the issue. The issue was not that there were legitimate differences in administrative responsibility and corresponding titles. Again, it is not clear what real problem the bill is trying to solve.

The fact that ministers of state do not have a department or are called ministers of state instead of ministers should not detract from their contributions to discussions about war and peace, budgets, or other policy issues around the cabinet table. They are all entitled to sit there and if other cabinet ministers do not take them seriously simply because of their difference in title, that is not a legislative problem, that is a problem in organizational culture, and this bill will not fix that either. That would require real leadership from the Prime Minister.

Somewhere deep down, I think the government actually knows this. That is why it is not repealing the Ministries and Ministers of State Act. It is keeping that option open. In fact, in the speech by the member for Winnipeg North, he made a point of pointing out that the government is not repealing that act. It is keeping the option of ministers of state around.

There is an awkward tension in the principle that it is stating there. On the one hand, the government is saying that there is something wrong with having ministers of state, because that creates an inequality in cabinet. If, in the future of this ministry, the government wants to appoint ministers of state, I think Canadians should rightly say that, by the government's own standards, it has now decided to have inferior cabinet ministers and superior cabinet ministers.

I do not think that would be right, because I think there is a role for legitimate differences in administrative responsibility, but the government is arguing against that and yet not repealing the act, which I find strange. It helps right now to make a grand show of not having ministers of state, because what is driving the bill is this need to make up for and reduce the sense of shame and embarrassment by the Prime Minister for having failed to do something that he said he really wanted to do, which was to bring gender equality to cabinet.

If having ministers of state is not compatible with having a one-tier ministry, and having a one-tier ministry is an important matter of principle for the Liberals, I do not see why they would not just repeal the Ministries and Ministers of State Act, although, for the record, I want to say I think that would be a terrible idea. It is just a logical consequence of the arguments that they have been advancing on Bill C-24.

Interestingly, Liberals are locking in another choice they made: the choice not to have stand-alone ministers for regional economic development. This is another sense of equality we might talk about: regional equality.

Here the government is actually locking in a bad decision that goes hand in hand with the decision it made to centralize the management of the various regional economic development agencies in one minister. That means only one region of the country gets a minister from the region who understands the needs of the region, because he or she, and in this case it is a he, lives there and represents that area. All the other regions do not get that benefit and so they are not being treated equally.

Granted, it is the government's prerogative to experiment with new ways of doing this, but I think it made a poor decision. This kind of centralizing of decision-making for agencies that have a deliberately regional mandate does not make sense and ultimately is not helpful. The government wants to try something new and it is doing that, but I think the government will find that it does not work. Why are the Liberals closing the door behind them and making it harder to go back to a model which I think works better, which is actually having ministers from the regions in charge of the local regional development agencies? Particularly in tough economic times, the government may find in time that it is worth making it a full-time job of a cabinet minister to do that. That is what the government is taking away by doing this and that does not make sense.

The Liberals are leaving their options open with slush ministries or extra ministries that have not been designated yet. They are leaving their options open, even though they are saying there is some matter of principle at stake in not having ministers of state, but they are keeping the act around just in case they want to appoint some anyway. The Liberals embarked on a centralizing experiment when it comes to regional economic development, and they have decided instead to tie their hands. That does not make sense to me. They have their priorities backward.

People in Elmwood—Transcona would prefer to have a minister from western Canada who knows and understands western Canada's economy making the detailed decisions about how the government is going to encourage western economic diversification. I believe that people in other parts of the country feel the same way about their own region. The government should leave itself with more options, not less, when it comes to managing regional economic development. The government is creating three as yet unspecified ministries in the name of flexibility, so why not retain the flexibility it already has with respect to regional economic development?

Where does this leave us? It seems to me this bill was drafted by the minister's personal communications team with the full dearth of understanding of legislative and parliamentary process that that implies. The bill is not really about furthering any principle of equality. For any of the government's proposed goals in the bill with respect to equality, and I have gone through an exhaustive list of different senses of equality that the government might mean, Bill C-24 either fails or is completely unnecessary.

The bill would create an expanded and more complicated set of cabinet-building options for a Prime Minister who already did not understand the options that were available to him, while tending to mask real differences in responsibility by maintaining the tradition of junior and senior cabinet posts, and let me be clear that is what a minister for whom a department is designated is, while conferring the same title on each cabinet member.

The Prime Minister wants to be lauded for bringing real gender equality to cabinet, but in order to do that, and instead of taking real action on that, he is just glossing over the fact that his ministers formerly known as ministers of state really are just ministers of state with a better salary and a better title.

It is no secret that where the Prime Minister is concerned, style trumps substance. It is shocking to see that tendency drilled down to the level where it is starting to interfere with a relatively straightforward administrative matter such as determining what act of Parliament would authorize the payment of ministers of state. That is something else.

The end result is that we are forced to consider a bill that is a colossal waste of time. The Liberal government has been criticized for having a notoriously light legislative agenda, but the goal of those critics was not to encourage it to produce nonsense bills that would not change anything but rather that we might spur the Liberals on to introduce meaningful legislation that would help move the country forward. For instance, if they want a quick short list off the top of my head, they could move to repeal Bill C-51. They could move to protect Canadian water by reinstating the Navigable Waters Protection Act which was decimated in the last Parliament. They could reinstate the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act. That would get us back to a baseline of where we were before the last 10 years of government.

If the Liberals wanted to go further and begin improving on that baseline, they could bring forward legislation granting pay equity for Canadian women, which they have said they are going to wait until the end of 2018 to do. They could bring in a meaningful rail safety regime instead of continuing to rely on industry self-regulation, and the list goes on.

There are so many important issues facing the country that are crying out for government action and we are stuck with a bill that is really just about easing the Prime Minister sense of shame at having botched his own cabinet debut.

[Hugh Segal]

I agree with you that Bill C-51 was excessive in many respects. I agree with you that it needs to be changed. I agree with you that the position taken by the then third party in the House of Commons, that they would support the bill but make changes afterwards, was in fact strategically and tactically quite compelling. I also believe that many of the excesses in that bill will be struck down by the courts, as they should be, because they violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and other changes, which will be made over time, which the present government has committed to, will be appropriate and constructive. But I don't think we want to mix the excesses in that bill with what needs to now happen with respect to parliamentary oversight.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I appreciate that.

My final question, because I do have a question for Professor Levi afterwards and my time is limited, is, would you not argue that the Prime Minister has traditionally had that power, and yet with Bill C-51 it's an unprecedented—some would say and I would say—attack on Canadians' rights to privacy? With the information sharing pieces that exist in the legislation, among other things, can it not be expected that the Prime Minister and the Governor in Council should see their powers reduced given how much they've asked for and taken with this bill?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the three of you for your testimony today.

My first two questions are for Professor Atkey. I want to take you to the part of your remarks where you addressed threat reduction measures that could potentially violate an individual's rights under the charter. My broad question is whether what was Bill C-51, but is now existing statutory language under the CSIS Act, specifically subsection 12.1, by its existing language implicitly requires a judge to engage in a section 1 charter analysis. I'll be a little bit more tailored, and then I'll let you answer.

Before CSIS requests a warrant, there has to be reasonable grounds. The measures have to be spelled out and articulated. But more to the point, there needs to be some proportionality and some reasonableness addressed in the warrant itself. Do any of these principles, in your mind, require a judicial officer to engage in what is essentially a section 1 analysis?

[The Honourable Ron Atkey, Adjunct Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for scheduling us in the first panel, so we'll be finished well in advance of the start of the baseball game. We'll see it, and we'll come back and report the score to you.

Thank you for this kind invitation to appear before you on the important subject of Canada's national security framework. Let me say how pleased I am that this consultation process is finally proceeding. I guess it was a year ago that an election was held. One might have thought, given the strong positions taken by opposition parties in the last Parliament on Bill C-51 and companion legislation, that the consultation process would start earlier, but I also understand the exigencies of the machinery of government.

I regret to say there was not a careful, measured debate on Bill C-51 in 2015, as the then-government rushed through Bill C-51, perhaps echoing public demand for swift and firm security action in response to the 2014 attacks in Ottawa and Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu.

Let's be grateful that this much-needed conversation can now begin. Of course, we are all assisted by the recent release of two important documents. First, on August 25, 2016, the Minister of Public Safety released his “Public Report On The Terrorist Threat To Canada”, noting that the principal terrorist threat to Canada remains that posed by violent extremist groups at home or abroad who could be inspired to carry out an attack within Canada.

The second was an important background document released last month, on September 8, a national security green paper entitled “Our Security, Our Rights”, which is an objective discussion on most of the hot-button issues such as accountability, disruption, information-sharing, the no-fly list, interdiction measures, and investigative techniques.

This 66-page document, plus endnotes, is by no means bedtime reading, and it has been difficult for me to get my students to plow their way through it, but I am going to, before the end of the term, I assure you. It walks the delicate line between being an advocacy piece for enhanced security measures and the need to protect fundamental charter rights and freedoms. For those Canadians who want a shorter document, there is relief, because the actual green paper is only 21 pages.

I offer my sincere congratulations to Minister Goodale for finally getting this process under way. How long it will take remains to be seen. There are some provisions in the Anti-terrorism Act that are clearly unconstitutional and need immediate legislative fix, such as the power given to federal judges granting a disruption warrant that can ignore the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or the lack of due process on the administrative side in the administration of the no-fly list. These should not have to be litigated in the courts. They can be easily dealt with by Parliament in this session.

I note that the green paper proposes a mandatory review of the Anti-terrorism Act after three years, but I can't help but observe that this will provide the government with an excuse to do nothing following the current consultation, until the end of 2018 or perhaps after the next election.

The period 2018-19 will be the lead-up to the next general election—hardly a time, in my experience, for constructive, non-partisan debate and enactment of meaningful legislation, if 2015 is any guide to the process.

The first of two items I want to deal with is accountability. Now, to be very fair, last June this government introduced Bill C-22, the national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians act, which was long overdue. This will provide, for the first time, a select group of Canadian parliamentarians with access to the national security tent. I hope the bill is passed this year, although not without some constructive amendments that may come forward. I may be suggesting some of these to you when I appear as a witness before you next week in Ottawa.

The point I want to make is that Bill C-22 is only a small part of the jigsaw puzzle of national security. Its anticipated achievement as a new structure in our system should not be used as an excuse for delaying necessary reforms to our national security framework generally.

Let me share with you my experience over the past 40 years. During that time, I was an opposition MP; a minister of immigration during troubled times in 1979-80; the first chair of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, from 1985 to 1989; amicus to the Arar commission; and a special advocate under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I have taught national security law for eight years as my retirement project. So I know a little about the subject, and I have some views.

Regarding accountability, I've changed my views. When I first became the CSIS watchdog in 1985, along with four distinguished colleagues following consultations with the opposition parties, I accepted the conventional wisdom that reviewing the complex security operations at CSIS was too difficult and time-consuming for busy MPs, who could not be trusted to maintain security confidentiality in the political atmosphere of the House.

Over time that situation has changed. Whether it was Parliament's responding properly to the horrible events of 9/11 with controversial provisions regarding what was then the Anti-terrorism Act, or the heavy-handed response of Parliament with the passage of Bill C-51 to the 2014 attacks in Ottawa and Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, which became law in June 2015 after much partisan debate, one thing has become clear: a way has to be found to bring elected MPs inside the national security tent.

The debate in Parliament and before committee on Bill C-51, which I closely followed, suffered from an absence of an understanding of the objectives and techniques of preserving national security for Canadians while protecting rights and freedoms under the charter. If Canadians are going to be asked to support the toughening of our national security framework, sometimes at the expense of individual rights and freedoms, they need assurances that changes going forward will be carefully scrutinized in camera by a select group of elected representatives. This committee of parliamentarians will be the first point of reference for an overview when something goes terribly wrong, which it's bound to under the circumstances.

That is not to say that the committee of parliamentarians should be a substitute for the independent review bodies like SIRC, or the CSEC commissioner, or the CRCC reviewing RCMP activities. In fact, the committee's work will be complementary to the expert review bodies. It is my view that the jurisdiction of these expert review bodies should be extended to cover other federal agencies such as CBSA or Transport Canada—that's my list—and that steps should be taken to allow these review bodies to share classified information with each other or to conduct joint reviews of national security and intelligence activities.

A lot of the work on the possible changes to the framework for national security accountability in Canada was undertaken by Justice O'Connor and his staff a decade ago as part of the mandate of the Arar commission. Unfortunately, many of his recommendations appear to have been ignored to date. I hope the release of the green paper currently guiding you in your discussions and debate on Canada's national security framework will rekindle some interest in the O'Connor recommendations, many of which remain valid today.

I'm going to conclude by commenting on something that's not in the green paper, and that is the national security adviser to the Prime Minister. Currently this office is within the Privy Council. It does not appear to have a high profile or any operational responsibilities. Given the communication problems that exist between the 17 agencies or departments involved in national security and intelligence activities, the complexity of sharing arrangements contemplated by the Security of Information Sharing Act under Bill C-51, and the practical efficiency of joint operations on a broader base than it is currently, why not give the responsibility to someone with clout at the centre, the national security adviser to the Prime Minister? Of course, the mandate would have to change under this proposal, and so would the manner of appointment. Similar to the Auditor General or the Privacy Commissioner, this person should be appointed by Parliament on the recommendation of the Governor in Council. Presumably the committee of parliamentarians established by Bill C-22 would play a major role in the nomination and approval process, and the national security adviser would be required to table an annual report in Parliament subject to the usual redactions regarding security matters.

Some commentators may regard this proposal as plumping for a national security czar for Canada, but the concept has worked in the U.S. to ensure, since 9/11, more inter-agency co-operation, and the avoidance of institutional stovepipes in the unwillingness to share important security information in an organized and secure framework.

That concludes my remarks. I want to thank you for letting me share these ideas with you, and I look forward to your questions.

[Tavis Ford]

Right. The point is, under the previous government, I think that he would have gone to trial and the charges wouldn't have been dropped.

Under Bill C-51 I think we go in the direction of...as legal experts have pointed out, Bill C-51 actually prevents people from coming forward; it criminalizes the ability to come forward. So that's a thought.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, perhaps you'll permit just a little bit of latitude, since there does seem to be a pretty direct request for some additional information.

I don't want to leave you with the impression that we're not interested in having a discussion about this. It's just that we're trying to hear more about points of view and perspectives on where the public is with national security and Bill C-51. But it's not restricted to those two subjects. For example, we heard evidence earlier today from a witness who has studied a lot about counter-radicalization. The evidence he offered the committee was that we should be looking at underlying social issues, that we should be looking at how we can further engage our youth and women in understanding where threats to radicalization stem from. Those are two big categories within the broader community, or public, that have not been fully empowered.

I asked him about that and for any strategies he might offer this committee in our study and consultation about how we can be more effective in pursuing those strategies. One suggestion he offered was to work with community leaders, and how we need to directly engage them so that we can build trust and goodwill, so that we can understand what communities' perspectives are as we try to address radicalization and try to keep our communities safe, but also respect people's individual cultures and their values and their rights under the charter.

I think you will be very interested to read what we've heard in the way of the testimony and our study. In the meantime, you can go online and you can see the evidence probably within the next 48 hours. I would encourage you to read some of what we heard today and yesterday.

[Selene Granton, As an Individual]

Thank you.

I [Inaudible--Editor] talking in public and sometimes it's hard to get my ideas across. At any rate, from what I can gather, it just seems that bills such as Bill C-51, the increase in national security, and other events like that are more related to some of what we've seen happening in the world. I'm just curious to know what the government is doing to treat the roots of the problem, to be proactive rather than just reactive in their actions.

I was born and raised in Mexico. I know that sometimes when the government increases security, the power can get a little out of hand. Then people start rebelling more. It just creates this vicious cycle that keeps getting worse and worse.

I am curious to know what the government is planning to do to address these root causes. Are they planning to change the schooling system so that people can become better Canadians, where they know what is good and bad, and can become better citizens in the future?

[Tammy Rose Duncan, As an Individual]

I didn't actually register to speak when I came in, because I just wanted to come and observe. I feel quite passionately that the way Bill C-51 was put into place was against the way I understand the Canada that I grew up in to exist.

We have the opportunity to put our feet on the ground and operate from abundance and not fear. We had lost our way. When we start operating from fear and from dominance and without inclusion of everyone, it's not my understanding of Canada.

I realize the world has changed a lot and that perhaps I am naive. My master's degree was on enlivening democracy. I used Jefferson's ideas that a little disruption is actually how you keep a democracy in balance. I really fully believe that if we're not open enough to allow disruption to arise, it will get more complex, and we've all seen that in the world today. I don't think there's any question that when you suppress people, it will come out another way.

The reason I chose to stand and speak is that there are a few items that are very near and close to my heart on systemic violence. We're quite unaware of how our structural violence has an impact on everyone. At this point, I'm going to take it to the micro level. I'm going to take it to being a woman. I'm going to take it to how we don't have balance because of our innate lack of being able to be present and have full dialogue from an open and safe place.

The question came up when I entered the room about how to protect youth on the Internet. I was attacked by a repeat sex offender with a knife. The police were shocked that I was alive at the end of it. I used simple, non-violent communication and I connected with him as a person.

What was worse than being attacked by him was being put through our judicial system, but what was worse than that was actually getting my master's degree. On a day-to-day basis in our offices, in our academic institutions, having to stay logical and grounded and clear when a person who's in authority is emotional does not get us what we need to hear. It does not get us to clarity and it doesn't create an equal environment.

Today I wasn't planning on talking. Today I was triggered by an event. I am very aware through my healing process, and there's all kinds of research on this, that when we're afraid, we can't think. So that whole question of how we define “online” was the concern. I'm very concerned for our female politicians. I'm very concerned about, in Alberta, the number of threats that our MLAs and our premier get.

It is hard to stay grounded and do a good job when you are constantly bombarded. It is hard to stay in that place of open abundance to hear the other side of the conversation when you're constantly bombarded. Perhaps men—some of them, but not all of them—just haven't had the opportunity to allow their nervous systems to evolve from that healthy place where we can hear someone's need instead of their argument and be inclusive.

I know this is probably not the level of dialogue you wanted to have today, but I would encourage you when we're looking at taking this forward. I would support Tavis's idea that we take the old one off the table because I'm kind of attached to the Charter of Rights, given how women got involved. There's a certain amount of history and courage and Canadian pride in how it got there. Let's look at maybe going back to that, before the dominance model came in and dismissed most people and operated in a manner that said, “I'm not willing to hear you. We are the experts, and we'll act on your behalf.”

Let's get inclusive again and let's get that research. Let's look at what happens with an emotional charge. Let's understand the structure of the brain and the brain stem and why people can't get into clarity and dialogue because they are emotionally charged. Let's take it that deep and let's do something really profound and really Canadian, because we need to lead on the world stage. It's a really ugly place right now.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Since we've decided to fall into debate, I do hear you on the Afghan detainees. It's an unresolved issue, contrary to what we're hearing, and we're continuing to raise it. I appreciate that.

Also, if we're going to defend legislation, I was in the last Parliament and voted against Bill C-51. I'm proud to have seconded a bill to repeal it. I appreciate your also bringing up the issue of torture because there is a ministerial directive that's still on the books, which we've asked about. It opens the door to the use of information obtained under torture, and I think that's an important part of this, so I'm glad you brought it up.

Thank you very much.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I don't have a question for you, Travis, so you can sit down, but I have to correct a couple things that you said.

First, Jean Chrétien's government refused to go into Iraq. Stephen Harper's government was very clear that we would not go into Iraq. Chrétien sent Canadians into Afghanistan in 2002, and I believe, as a Canadian, that was not what we wanted but it was the right thing to do at the time. After 10 years, the previous government pulled soldiers out of there. There was a boy from my hometown who was killed over there.

When I challenged you on that, you said, “Oh, was that not right?” My point here is that while you're passionate about C-51 and other things—you're a very intelligent man—when you say stuff that isn't true on any issue like this as if it were, you lose a lot of credibility. I'm just passing that along as some advice.

Also, you talked about proroguing government to allow torture in Afghanistan. No politician of any stripe okayed or had any knowledge of torture. Unfortunately, sometimes people in the military...circumstances, whatever, I'm not going to make excuses for it, but that kind of stuff happens. We all know the history on it. So don't accuse any government of that kind of thing because no decent politician—and I believe that most are—would ever knowingly allow that.

I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

[Tavis Ford]

I'm aware that some amendments were made prior to its being passed, some minor amendments. I'm happy that it wasn't quite passed carte blanche.

I feel that there was not nearly enough public debate, and there was not nearly a robust enough process to review this. Indeed, 150 judges and lawyers wrote an open letter and talked about some of the problems with Bill C-51.

Why is it that people involved in the justice system and civil society were not consulted on this? Why did they take issue with this? Why is the legislation being done on behalf of CSIS and the RCMP rather than with everybody at the table, especially when we're talking about things that are very hard won? They were very hard won: over hundreds of years did we win these rights.

I'm not sure if I'm answering the question, but the fact that I don't know all those amendments.... Again, it feels like an omnibus security bill in itself. The better way to go forward, considering the last government's approach to this, which was problematic, would be to annul this bill and start fresh, with consultations from all sectors of civil society and not just the wish list of a security state that wants everything all the time.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Obviously there can be a discussion about that between law enforcement actors, the courts, and government actors, but I was just wondering whether or not you were aware that some of the limitations you're interested in or concerned about are already in the legislation.

The other example I picked up on in your comments was a concern about torture or a threat to somebody's physical integrity. I'm not making any assertions about the state of perfection of Bill C-51. Again, one of the reasons we're having this consultation is to promote discussion about it. Were you aware that there are provisions within the legislation, as it exists today, that would limit any measures taken by CSIS, for example, and prohibit any harm or torture along the lines that you've discussed? What are your thoughts about that?

[Matthew McAdam]

I've read a number of articles about Bill C-51. Alarmingly, these articles suggest that being outspoken can lead to prosecution or being a suspect or something like that. I couldn't cite a specific place I heard it from. It's just that from doing the research that I've done, that's what has been suggested to me, and it's very worrying to hear.

[Matthew McAdam, As an Individual]

I came largely unprepared today, but I know for sure that the specific thing that bothers me about Bill C-51 would be on freedom of speech. I post a lot of things on social media. What I've been told about this legislation is that if I suggest that I don't like what government is doing, just in voicing my opinion, I can be suspected of terrorist activity. They can mess with my financial situation. They can put a hold on my banking information and stuff like that. At least, that's my understanding.

As a leader in democracy in the world, we should totally let everyone have whatever sort of say they want, even if they think the Prime Minister is a jerk. They should be allowed to say that, whether they're talking about Harper, Trudeau, or anybody. You should be allowed to say what you think. Maybe it's being said in a negative tone—and there could be something said about using the right sorts of words—but to send someone to jail for calling someone a jerk or being very negative seems extreme. Freedom of speech is incredibly important for transparency, for democracy, and for all these things to work as best they can. That is the main thing that really bothers me about it. It's the aspect of freedom of speech.

As for giving up some rights and freedoms for more protection, that's not interesting to me. I don't see a lot of people trying to carry out terrorist activities. We've just talked about the one in B.C., where the RCMP were trying to get two people radicalized. That stuff is totally scary. Whether it's true or not, it still puts up a red flag of something that's possible, even if it wasn't the case. That's another thing that bothers me about it.

Really, that's what I have.