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.

[Tahir Gora, Director General, Canadian Thinkers' Forum]

Thank you, honourable Chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Safety, honourable parliamentarians, and ladies and gentlemen. My name is Tahir Aslam Gora. I am director general of the Canadian Thinkers' Forum and secretary general of the Coalition of Progressive Canadian Muslim Organizations. I am accompanied by my colleague Ms. Arooj Shahida, director of the Canadian Thinkers' Forum.

The Canadian Thinkers' Forum is a small not-for-profit organization and think tank focused on the delicacies and complexities of human diversity and globalization. We run awareness programs against anti-Semitism, Muslim women abuse, honour killing, and radicalization. We also design deradicalization programs.

We have also been conducting study reports titled “Growing Islamic Radicalization in Canada” for the past three years. Our findings so far in regard to those study reports are quite alarming and troublesome. In the shadow of our own study reports, the government's proposed Bill C-51 seems to us very vital and important.

Within our limited resources, we have discovered through our online studies that more than 2,000 young Canadian Muslim individuals are radicalized to the extent that they feel grievances against Canada over its involvement in Afghanistan and now in the Middle East.

Through our online and on-the-ground studies, we have discovered that more than 20,000 individuals associated with Islamic centres in Canada want to replace Canadian secular laws with sharia laws. More than 20,000 individuals are actively affiliated with Canadian chapters of extremist Islamic organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Jamaat-e-Islami, and Hizb ut-Tahrir. Over 100 individuals in Canada came under our study radar as supporting ISIS or ISIS-related ideology. The majority of the Canadian Muslim population strongly disagrees with Canada's support of Israel over the terrorist organization Hamas.

In our study areas of Islamic radicalization, we are quite concerned about growing activities of Islamic nature in Canada. Having been born and raised in Muslim families, we are well aware of a certain mindset in our diaspora that is leading to jihad ideology and damages to our own values.

Over the past two decades, many new mosques and Islamic schools and centres were founded in the greater Toronto area and other parts of Canada in order to fulfill the demands and needs of the growing Muslim community, which is estimated at over 800,000 in the GTA alone. Of course, there is no harm in increasing the number of Islamic centres, but it alarms us when we see continuing teaching and alienating trends through those centres condemning the host society and its core values. Sadly, most Islamic centres and their imams are taking their followers in the opposite direction.

The following are the factors at play in most Islamic centres in Canada and elsewhere that are the root causes of the Islamist radical mindset: number one, gender inequality; number two, promoting political Islam through the burka and niqab; number three, supporting draconian laws such as sharia laws; number four, hatred towards the host society; number five, hatred towards other religions; number six, practising and trying to implement a medieval religious lifestyle; number seven, advocating alienation within the Muslim masses from the host society; number eight, denouncing democratic, liberal values; number nine, rejecting freedom of expression; and number ten, preaching the doctrine of armed jihad. If they don't support the notion of jihad openly, they do not denounce it either.

Having mentioned those factors, I would like to clarify that Muslim men and women adherent to Islam's medieval ideology and their Islamic centres do not represent the roughly one million Muslims in Canada, but they are vocal, politically active, and otherwise noticeable. The majority of Canadian Muslims are nine-to-five folks, and they want to live normal, regular lives, despite their certain mindset on certain issues. They are also victims of extremism and terrorism back home and in Canada as well.

The government's proposed Bill C-51, when passed by Parliament, shall help Canadian Muslims to curb extremist elements here, too. Apart from it, we shall urge this honourable House to work on other measures in order to integrate the Muslim community well into society. Our government should introduce a program that designs a one-year training course for imams so that they do not go against our secular liberal values. Also, our government should make sure that the educational curriculum of Islamic schools does not have any amount of hatred towards anyone and does not carry the doctrine of jihad. All imams, Islamic schools, mosques, and Islamic centres should denounce Islamic jihad on a regular basis in their sermons, websites, pamphlets, and posters.

In the end, I am sharing alarming comments by a London, Ontario imam. He equated our armed forces with criminals on his Facebook page last November. He wrote:

No Muslim should honour the memory of those war criminals by wearing a poppy, just as no one would honour a criminal that killed his or her mother and father.

We urge all our political parties to leave their partisan politics behind when it comes to dealing with terrorism and radicalization. The government has introduced Bill C-51, the anti-terrorism act, 2015, which is an important bill that seeks to enact the security of Canada.

Thank you very much.

[Deputy Commissioner Scott Tod, Deputy Commissioner, Investigations, Organized Crime, Ontario Provincial Police, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police]

Thank you.

Distinguished members of the committee, I'm pleased to accept your invitation to be here today as the co-chair of the Counter Terrorism and National Security Committee, representing Chief Clive Weighill, president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and its members.

The mandate of CACP is safety and security for all Canadians through innovative police leadership. This mandate is accomplished through the activities and special projects of a number of committees and through active liaison with various levels of government and departmental ministries having legislative and executive responsibilities in law and policing.

A primary principle for every law enforcement organization in Canada is that safeguarding the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and human rights legislation is important. Law enforcement agencies also understand that it is important to respect victims of crime and to understand their needs.

CACP has supported Canada's counterterrorism strategy of building resiliency against terrorism and the four pillars of the strategy, which are prevent, detect, deny, and respond. CACP has also assisted in the development of terrorism legislation and supported past programs and activities sponsored by the federal government. In preparation for the response from CACP to the proposed legislation, Bill C-51, police leaders must ask themselves how much risk they can carry. The space between civil liberties and the terrorist threat is the area of risk. The police and the public live within that risk. Suppression and prevention are important to successfully reduce the terrorist threat, and Bill C-51 provides legislation that can support both the prevention and suppression efforts of law enforcement.

The recent collective efforts by police to increase community safety and well-being demonstrate the need for cooperation between police services, social service organizations, governments, and communities. Our efforts are reflected in the new approach to community safety and well-being through the establishment of community hubs or situational tables. The situational table is the early warning system that predicts the need for better or improved social development of people and groups. Identifying and mitigating those risks requires leadership and collaboration, with sharing of information in a prescribed format that protects privacy while allowing for the table to identify acutely elevated individuals who have demonstrated anti-social behaviour and who need assistance before they become radicalized to terrorism or other harmful criminal behaviour within our communities. The police must continue to rely on intelligence-led and evidence-based policing and to use the community situational table to reduce the chances for those who are on the pathway of radicalization.

Bill C-51 includes the security of Canada information sharing act as part of the anti-terrorism act and grants clear authority for federal government institutions to share with other designated federal government institutions information about activity that undermines the security of Canada. The fluid sharing of information will enhance the government's ability to establish or share information at situational tables and in other forums that can assist in early identification and implementation of solutions for people on the pathway to radicalization and to becoming terrorists. Information sharing as a controlled and methodical process to protect privacy is possible in today's world of big data and high-velocity solutions to radicalization, high-risk travellers, high-risk individuals, and those embarking on the path to violent extremism.

Provincial and municipal services will have to rely on our pre-existing authorities and formal agreements to continue disclosing and sharing information at local levels to support police activities of prevention and suppression of the terrorist threat. Bill C-51 creates a new Criminal Code offence—promoting or advocating others to carry out a terrorism offence—with a provision for a maximum of five years' imprisonment. If enacted, Bill C-51 would allow the courts the new authority to order the seizure of printed and audio terrorist propaganda and to order the removal of terrorist propaganda made available to the public through a Canadian Internet service provider. This piece of legislation is consistent with similar provisions regarding the ability to seize and destroy criminal material related to child pornography offences in section 163.1 of the Criminal Code. To now have a similar offence to include terrorist propaganda is consistent with the changing terrorist landscape and threats in Canada.

Having the ability to deter and remove the propaganda material used by sympathizers and supporters, which incites or propagates terrorism, is a critical factor in creating off-ramps from the path to radicalization. The new Criminal Code provisions of Bill C-51 will provide law enforcement and the courts with the tactical ability to intervene and stop those individuals who, by communicating statements, knowingly advocate or promote the commission of a terrorist offence.

There is also a second aspect to this offence, that there will exist a burden on the crown to prove that the person had knowledge that an offence would be committed or that the person was reckless with regard to whether any of those offences would be committed.

Proposed section 83.222 will allow a judge, who is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any publication, copies of which are kept for sale or distribution and is terrorist propaganda publications, to order seizure of the material and destroy it if necessary.

Seizing and destroying terrorist propaganda removes the influences of the terrorism, the terrorist message, and provides more space to the voice of community groups and government programs that are promoting the counter-narrative.

Other important amendments to the Criminal Code include the recognizance threshold requirements that replace “will be carried out” and “is necessary to prevent the carrying out of an offence” with “terrorist activity may be carried out” and “likely to prevent the carrying out of a terrorist activity”. The new thresholds speak to the preventable opportunities for law enforcement versus the higher threshold of response opportunities. The amendment actually permits a judge to order a person to be detained in custody for two additional periods of 48 hours each.

The proposed change will allow police the opportunity to ensure that when time is critical—between becoming aware of information about a possible terrorist attack and the ability to identify, detect, and apprehend as to prevent a terrorist attack—there will be an opportunity to detain a person based on the “likely to be carried out” threshold. The new threshold actually speaks to preventing an attack in today's terrorist environment.

The difference may be subtle, but in recent investigations the time between a source coming forward with limited and chaotic information of a terrorist attack and the planned date of the attack has been as little as two days. The threshold of “may be carried out” can be crossed in two days but “will be carried out” may not be crossed in the two days. The opportunity to lawfully detain someone to ensure an attack does not occur is important in today's context as it serves toward the principle of preserving life.

Determining the veracity of the source information, mixing it with known intelligence, conducting analysis, and searching for more information to prove the reliability and credibility of source information can take days and weeks to corroborate or prove. Accessing investigative assistance in other countries can also take many days, if not weeks.

The next area I would like to discuss is the amending portion of the Criminal Code affecting section 810, the peace bond section. The new section will allow a judge to order a defendant who it is feared may commit a terrorist offence to enter into a recognizance to abide and follow conditions imposed by the court for a period of up to one year and up to five years if the person has been convicted of a past terrorist offence.

Court-imposed section 810 conditions upon individuals have limited use as the strength of the recognizance may be limited to the compliance of the person and the ability for the police to monitor compliance and take appropriate action as necessary. We must be careful that the section 810 process is used for persons who are not considered a high risk to public safety but are persons who show commitment to change and are believed to have a strong potential to redevelop positive social behaviours.

I believe that there is an expectation from the provincial court justices that the police are responsible and accountable to monitor compliance of court-ordered section 810 recognizances and report back as necessary. This is an additional burden to law enforcement.

Similar to other anti-terrorism legislation, there is no new money attached to this legislation and the requirement to use this information will cause police services to re-prioritize and re-direct our limited resources away from other priorities that include commercial crime, organized crime, proceeds of crime, and specialized police services. Terrorism investigations require the same skilled and experienced members who investigate those other offences, but are now being used to respond to the new terrorist threat in Canada.

ln closing, I would like to state that underestimating the threat is dangerous and overestimation is expensive. Bill C-51 offers improvements for the federal police to share information among our justice sector partners, security partners, but more importantly and hopefully, with the community partners and government situational tables designed to reduce the terrorist threat and improve community safety and well-being.

What has been successful to date will not make us successful in the future. Our learning and education must outpace that of the terrorists. The members of the CACP are committed to upholding the laws of Canada and working within the legislative construct that is provided.

Thank you. I look forward to answering any of your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Colleagues, we are back in session.

Of course for our second hour we have a different group of witnesses.

Further to our study on Bill C-51, we welcome, from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Scott Tod, the deputy commissioner for the investigation of organized crime for the Ontario Provincial Police. From the Canadian Thinkers' Forum we have Tahir Gora, director general, and Arooj Shahida, director.

By way of video conference from London, United Kingdom, as an individual, we have Peter Neumann, from ICSR.

Do we have you live, here, sir? How is our video hookup? Are you on?

[Martin Collacott]

Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, members of the committee.

As I haven't addressed this committee before, I will begin by mentioning briefly my interest in Bill C-51 and my background on the subject of terrorist threats.

In my career with the Department of Foreign Affairs, I served as high commissioner or ambassador to a number of countries with terrorist problems or incipient problems. These included Sri Lanka, Syria, Lebanon, and Cambodia. In the latter part of my career, I held a position at Foreign Affairs headquarters in Ottawa, where I was responsible for among other things the coordination of counterterrorism and counter-intelligence policy. Since retiring from the public service, I've had articles published in a number of newspapers, as well as a fairly lengthy paper published on the topic of terrorism in Canada.

With regard to Bill C-51, let me start by saying that there is a serious threat from terrorism in Canada, and we don't have the resources to deal with it. In addition to lone wolf attacks such as the two in October, there have been plots aimed at killing much larger numbers of people. In terms of specifically Islamic-inspired terrorism, we can go back to the plot by the so-called millennium bomber, Ahmed Ressam, in 1999; the plan by the Toronto 18 to storm the Parliament Buildings and behead the Prime Minister, which was more recent; the VIA Rail bombers, whose trial has just been concluded; and the charges against Jahanzeb Malik, accused of elaborate plans to bomb the U.S. Consulate and financial buildings in Toronto. I think Mr. Benlolo mentioned both of those.

Except for that of Ahmed Ressam, the other plots were thwarted because our security and intelligence authorities applied major resources to identifying and keeping track of them. Ressam, by the way, entered Canada illegally on an altered French passport in 1994. While he was known to the authorities, he fell off their radar and was able to move freely around until he was finally arrested when trying to enter the United States with explosives, which he planned to detonate in the Los Angeles airport.

Our security and intelligence authorities are now doing a far better job of keeping track of terrorist suspects. I expect that one of the reasons some Canadians believe the threat from terrorism in Canada is exaggerated is that our security and intelligence people have been doing such a great job. Their success, however, comes at a price. Keeping track of such individuals, of terrorist threats, is very labour intensive, so intensive, in fact, that RCMP Commissioner Paulson acknowledged to this committee on March 6 that he had to transfer 600 full-time positions from other areas of federal responsibility to counterterrorism activities. These other areas include organized crime, drug cases, financial integrity cases, and I suspect also espionage activities by foreign governments.

Canada isn't unique in the difficulty it faces in monitoring a large number of potential threats from terrorists. In Britain, for example, the two Islamic terrorists who hacked to death a British soldier on the streets of London in May 2013 were on the watch list, but with an estimated 2,000 suspects to keep track of, the two could not be monitored closely enough to prevent the murder. The same applied in the United States in the case of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who is currently on trial for the Boston bombing and who had been on the FBI's terrorist watch list.

Not only do we face a significant range of threats at the present time, but it is likely that the number will increase in the future. Making an accurate estimate of just how widespread the threat may be isn't easy since there are a number of factors involved, from what role the Internet plays in the radicalization process to what extent local recruiters are involved, etc. We may also have to expect some trouble from Canadians who have joined the ranks of ISIS in Syria and have managed to return to Canada and bring their extremist views with them. I think someone estimated there are now 130 of them.

In addition, we will have to deal with an increasing number from the Muslim community as it grows rapidly in size. An Environics poll taken in 2007, probably the most comprehensive poll taken of the attitudes of Muslims in Canada, showed that a very large percentage reject violence. Only one in eight of those polled believed, for example, that the Toronto 18 plot was justified.

However, Statistics Canada population projections to 2031 indicate that there will be a very substantial increase in the Muslim population, from just over a million now to two and a half times as many in 2031. If the proportion who thinks that attempts such as the Toronto 18 plot could be justified remains at around one-eighth, this would provide a much larger pool from which violent jihadis could emerge than is the case at present.

Not all terrorists come from the Muslim community. There have indeed been quite a number of notable cases who were converts. Just how many violent jihadists are converts is not too clear. Studies in other countries show that it's a majority—up to 90% in Australia. I would guess, but it's a just a guess, that probably between 70% and 90% come from the Muslim community.

Given these various considerations, it is likely that in the future our security and intelligence authorities will have considerably more suspects to keep track of than they do now, and well beyond their capacity to monitor without transferring even more resources from other important tasks. In the circumstances, it makes sense to give the authorities increased powers to deal with the threat, and while this may require some rebalancing of civil liberties and security, I have every confidence that it will not place us on a slippery slope toward a police state, as some suggest. Canadian democracy and civil society are far too strong for this to happen, and I believe that if any of the proposed legislation is found to be excessive and a threat to our democratic traditions and civil rights, the institutions and mechanisms are in place to make the necessary corrections.

In the meantime, I think a good case can be made for having robust oversight and review mechanisms in place. This may require additional resources if present arrangements remain in place.

Before I conclude my comments, I'd like to mention one other issue that's relevant to this discussion. It is in the interests of Muslim and non-Muslim Canadians alike to see that our Muslim fellow citizens are fully welcomed and integrated into Canadian society. To this end, the RCMP has been engaging in community outreach programs to establish closer relations with members of the Muslim community and other minorities and build a relationship of trust.

Such programs are not without their pitfalls, however, and considerable care has to be taken in establishing the motives of the groups involved. As some of you may recall, the RCMP learned last September that some of the organizations it had reached out to were not exactly what they made themselves out to be.

The National Council of Canadian Muslims, the NCCM, whose executive director appeared before this committee on March 12, had reportedly spent 14 months along with another Muslim organization producing a handbook titled “United Against Terrorism”. The RCMP agreed to contribute a section to this booklet. Indeed, the RCMP's name and logo appeared on the handbook's cover.

Shortly before its release, however, and with the book already in print, the RCMP decided not to proceed with the project and according to media reports withdrew its support because of the adversarial tone of parts of the publication. Some accounts reported that one of the concerns was that the handbook counselled Muslims to limit the extent of their cooperation with Canadian security and intelligence agencies.

Had the RCMP investigated the background of the NCCM more closely, they would have realized that there was reason to be cautious about becoming involved with it in the first place. Back in 2007, for example, the director general of communications at CSIS stated that the organization, under the name it used until 2013, the Council on American-Islamic Relations Canada, or CAIR-CAN, seemed to be advising Muslim Canadians not to help CSIS discharge its duties, while at the same time it was making vague accusations to the media about inappropriate behaviour by CSIS staff and yet never making use of the opportunities available to them, of which they were aware, to alert CSIS management of the allegedly unacceptable behaviour.

I have in fact myself been tracking the activities of the NCCM through its various name changes over the past 15 years and am therefore familiar with its objectives and modus operandi. I devoted five pages to describing these in a 2006 study published by the Fraser Institute. The National Council of Canadian Muslims clearly states that it rejects terrorism, and in its earlier guise, CAIR-CAN went to great if not altogether successful efforts to dissociate itself from its sister organization, CAIR in the United States, after senior figures in the latter had been convicted on terrorism charges.

Nonetheless, NCCM uses a divisive and exaggerated victimology narrative, not unlike that used by terrorist organizations such as ISIS, to the effect that Muslims are constantly being subject to discrimination. I might mention one of their arguments was there was a spike in anti-Muslim acts after 9/11. In fact, there was for two or three months, but since then there have been three times as many anti-Jewish acts, even though there are far fewer Jewish people in Canada than Muslims.

Some are of the view that the—

Public Safety

[Maria Mourani, Independent, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, fighting terrorism requires resources, not just laws. I have heard a lot about Bill C-51 from police officers on the ground who, until now, have been working with communities to identify at-risk youth. These officers have told me that Bill C-51 will interfere with their work and the trust they have built with these young people and their families.

Moreover, the RCMP does not have all the resources it needs. We cannot tell a police force that it has to handle national security without giving it additional resources. Resources allocated to organized crime will be transferred to national security, and that is unacceptable.

I would like to make another point. They talk about understanding the phenomenon and addressing it, but for that to happen, there has to be research. Research needs funding, not cuts.

To close, I want to say that it is fine for people to do some verbal sparring and talk about what they are going to do, but what really matters is taking action. That is not what we are seeing from this government.

[Avi Benlolo, President and Chief Executive Officer, Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies]

Thank you.

I'll be speaking for about eight minutes and then we can do some Q and A, if you'd like.

Good evening, everyone, and thank you for providing me with this opportunity to speak here today.

My name is Avi Benlolo, and I'm the president and CEO of the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies. It's an organization that was created to advance humanity in the name of Simon Wiesenthal, a Holocaust survivor who lost some 80 members of his own family. Wiesenthal dedicated the rest of his life not to vengeance but to bringing war criminals to justice and to educating against anti-Semitism, hate, and intolerance.

Indeed, social advocacy and education is the mandate of my organization.

In a special session on anti-Semitism in the House of Commons on February 23, Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center was appropriately recognized for its dynamic programs countering anti-Semitism through education and promoting tolerance for everyone.

Today, 50% of the global population lives in unfree conditions as a result of oppressive ideologies. Freedom House has calculated that only 12% of the 957 million people in sub-Saharan Africa are free, as are only 5% of the 410 million people in North Africa and the Middle East.

Democracy and our world as we know it are under threat by groups such as the Islamic State, or ISIS, Boko Haram, al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas, and others who practise ruthless ideologies of hatred and intolerance.

According to the global terrorism index produced by the Institute for Economics and Peace, in 2013 there was a 61% increase in the number of terrorist attacks from the previous year. With the emergence of ISIS, one can only expect a significant increase in 2014.

The last 10 months have demonstrated that the western world is not exempt from these statistics and the Jewish community feels particularly vulnerable. The attack on the Jewish museum in Brussels in May 2014, a kosher supermarket in Paris in January 2015, followed by the shooting of a Jewish guard in front of Copenhagen's main synagogue in February 2015 are only a few examples of the growing trend of terror against the Jewish community.

Indeed it has become common practice for terrorists to target Jews either directly, as was done in Bulgaria in the bombing of a Jewish tour bus in 2012, or as part of a larger attack, as was the case in Mumbai in 2008 which left six people dead in a synagogue and 160 others dead. Of course we'd be remiss if we weren't to mention as well the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris, which again followed suit with the kosher supermarket.

Thus an assault on the Jewish community in Canada and the potential for a mass atrocity is not beyond imagination. According to Toronto Police hate crimes statistics released just last week, the Jewish community is the most frequent target of hate crime, citing an 11% increase in 2014. Therefore, the Jewish community remains most vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

The trial of convicted terrorists Chiheb Esseghaier and Raed Jaser, for instance, revealed plans to derail a VIA train and to use a sniper to kill, and I quote from the police intelligence records, prominent members of Canadian society and “rich Jews”.

The devastating attack on Parliament Hill and the murders of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent and Corporal Nathan Cirillo should serve as a wake-up call for all Canadians.

The recent detention of Jahanzeb Malik, who planned to bomb the U.S. consulate in Toronto among other buildings in the financial district, demonstrates that this threat is real and persistent.

It is the responsibility of our government, first and foremost, to ensure the physical security of Canadian citizens. According to the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Security of the individual is a basic human right and the protection of individuals is, accordingly, a fundamental obligation of Government. States therefore have an obligation to ensure the human rights of their nationals and others by taking positive measures to protect them against the threat of terrorist acts and bringing the perpetrators of such acts to justice.

Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center stands behind the spirit of Bill C-51 and the effort to enhance the safety and security of our country. In particular, we welcome the decision to increase information sharing between Government of Canada institutions and the creation of a criminal offence for knowingly advocating or promoting the commission of terrorism offences.

My concern is that many of those who have opposed this bill simply are not aware of the increasing threat of terrorism and the rising tide of hatred here in Canada, particularly on university campuses, but not exclusively.

I want to give you some examples. York University in Toronto serves as a case in point. Hanging in York's student centre is a mural depicting a Palestinian poised to throw the rocks that he is holding behind his back. On his scarf is an image of a blank map of Israel. This violent image complements the Facebook profile photograph of the current president-elect of York's student union, which states “Smash Zionism”. These examples are, in my opinion, a clear call to violence against the Jewish people and supporters of Israel.

I was recently advised by a student at York that when he passed a table of Palestinian supporters, he was asked if he wanted to “go to paradise”, a known code for jihad recruitment. Additionally, student organizations that allegedly advocate for human rights hang flags of known terrorist organizations at their events without consequence.

I fear that the growing climate of anti-Semitism and hate on campuses is leading to the next logical step and inspiring students to recruit for and join terrorist organizations. While my organization encourages freedom of expression and open debate, permitting the spread of hostile ideology that targets one specific group and creates an atmosphere of fear and intimidation at our institutions of higher learning sets a dangerous precedent.

In the book Radical: My Journey out of Islamic Extremism, author Maajid Nawaz explains how he used his position as president of the student union at London's Newham College to recruit students for his radical cause. The book provides remarkable insight into the issue of recruitment to terror on university campuses, and supports the need for legislation such as Bill C-51 in Canada.

As such, we encourage the bill to take into account the growing radicalism on Canadian campuses. This includes financing of terrorism, either directly or indirectly, and consideration of what I refer to as economic terrorism. This may include, for example, the sponsoring of flotillas to support and encourage terrorist groups and for campaigning to economically boycott, divest, and sanction democratic states that are allied with Canada.

Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center recognizes concerns over the impact that Bill C-51 may have on peaceful protests and freedom of expression, and supports the call for clarity in defining such terms as “lawful advocacy”. However, we also hope that the bill will assist in preventing public protests and advocacy from fuelling hatred, radicalism, and violence, as we have seen at such events as the Al-Quds Day Rally, an annual summer event at Queen's Park that was established and is openly supported by Iran.

While we do not want to see a conflation of peaceful protest with terrorism, this type of incitement to violence is an example of the activities we believe Bill C-51 should address. In addition, we welcome the bill's efforts to increase the level of scrutiny of terrorist propaganda distributed over the Internet. The ubiquitous nature of online hate should not be accepted as a fact of modern life, but must instead be challenged by those who are charged with safeguarding our liberties from those who seek to destroy them.

Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center strongly supports the goals and intentions of Bill C-51 as we bear witness to the reality of terrorism in our country. We see this bill as an unfortunate necessity to ensure greater safety for all Canadians. That being said, it is of critical importance that sufficient legal and procedural mechanisms are put in place to ensure that our rights to privacy, peaceful protest, and freedom of expression are in no way diminished. I'm confident that we can find an appropriate balance.

I want to end with a statement from our founder, Simon Wiesenthal, who famously said, “Freedom is not a gift from heaven; we must fight for it each and every day.”

I truly do believe that is what Bill C-51 is about.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Colleagues, meeting number 58 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security is now in session. Of course, at today's meeting we'll be following up, as we have been, on Bill C-51.

As per the schedule, tonight we have three witnesses in the first hour.

We will welcome from Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies, Mr. Avi Benlolo, president and chief executive officer.

By video conference from Calgary, we have Mr. Justice John Major. Welcome, sir.

By video conference from Vancouver, we have from the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform, Mr. Martin Collacott. Welcome.

Each witness has up to 10 minutes to make a statement, should they wish, followed by Qs and As. I just bring to the attention of the committee that Mr. Justice John Major has no opening remarks, but of course he is there for Qs and As.

We will go through the order in which we have it on the agenda here and we will start with the opening remarks.

So, Mr. Benlolo, you have the floor, sir.

I just want to check something before you get started.

Justice Major and Mr. Collacott, are you alive and well and all hooked up here?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we take the recruitment of young Canadians by jihadi terrorists very seriously. We are well aware that jihadi terrorists have declared war against Canada.

It is important to remember whom we are talking about. These are groups like the Toronto 18 and ISIL, people who are intent on murdering Canadians to drive their ideology forward.

Allow me to quote what Ontario Superior Court Justice Deena Baltman had to say about a terrorist who was sentenced to 10 years in jail for planning to join the Islamic jihadist group in Somalia. She stated, “Terrorists are the worst kinds of cowards because they deliberately target innocent members of the public who are not prepared for combat”.

The government is taking action to ensure Canadian families are safe and that our police forces have the tools they need to get the job done and stop people like this. Our approach to countering jihadi terrorism is clearly articulated in this year's Public Report on the Terrorist Threat to Canada.

The first step in dealing with radicalization to violence is ensuring that families and communities understand the problem and recognize it when it is happening. Through the Cross-Cultural Roundtable on Security, the government is working with leaders and communities across the country to detect problems early on, before they can lead to radicalization. This effort is helping communities develop strategies to take action against jihadi terrorism on their own terms. An underlying goal of these engagement efforts is to build mutual trust and respect between law enforcement and the community it serves.

It is important to reach a wide range of community members, including other law enforcement agencies, families, educators, health care professionals, and social services. Bill C-51, the anti-terrorism act, 2015, would provide a number of new tools that can be used in the countering of jihadi terrorism. These include a proposed new Criminal Code offence that would criminalize the promotion of terrorism. This new offence would provide an additional tool to counter radicalization through arresting and prosecuting terrorist recruiters and propaganda agents and would assist community leaders and family members in their efforts to counter radicalization.

Jihadi sympathizers, who are only too happy to relay this message of hate and have used platforms like Facebook to prey upon the young and recruit them to their hateful cause, are no less guilty than the goons of ISIL. This legislation would make sure that the law acknowledges this and that ISIL promoters are held accountable. As well, the new legislation would make it easier for the police to detain suspected terrorists before they can harm Canadians and give CSIS a new mandate to take action to disrupt threats to the security of Canada.

It is important to recognize the roles and responsibilities that we all have for preventing people from being radicalized to violence and criminality. This is not only a law enforcement issue. Each and every relative has a vital role in addressing the threat from radicalization to violence. Those responses must be based upon a real understanding of the issue on the part of all Canadians.

For such reasons, the Government of Canada is investing in research and the development of new and innovative tools to counter violent extremism through the Kanishka project, a $10 million initiative that is directly contributing to our implementation of the counterterrorism strategy. At the same time, we must also ensure that our security and intelligence agencies have the tools they need to investigate and, where appropriate, take reasonable measures to address threats.

I am confident our government has struck the right balance, working with communities to build their resilience to radicalization while enhancing the tools available to our security and intelligence agencies.

Opposition Motion—Environmental impacts of microbeads

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today to speak to the motion that my NDP colleague, the member for Halifax, has put forward calling on the government to take immediate action to designate microbead plastics as toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

Such a designation would allow the federal government to regulate, phase out, or eliminate the use of microbeads in products used or produced in Canada. Certainly, federal government action needs to be taken on this issue.

The timing of this motion is particularly appropriate as we are just two days past World Water Day, a day set aside to recognize that clean water is essential to life. This ought to be obvious to all of us, and we ought to see this simple truth reflected in the way we govern—that is, through the conservation and protection of our water resources.

However, it is clearly not obvious to the Conservative government. It is clearly not reflected in the way it governs. The Conservative government has in fact dismantled Canada's environmental protection laws, allowing polluters to threaten our fresh water supply, with no regard for the cost this will impose on us and those who follow us.

Let me say proudly, at the outset of my comments on this particular motion, that the NDP believes that Canada needs a national water policy to secure the principle of water as a human right and as a public trust. We need comprehensive strategies to protect our water resources, mechanisms to monitor and assess the implementation of these plans, and accountability mechanisms to ensure that water is indeed protected.

This issue of protecting our water resources, and this motion before us specifically, is an issue of particular relevance to my riding of Beaches—East York. My riding sits on the shore of Lake Ontario, which is of course one of our Great Lakes. There are many threats to our Great Lakes, many things we must do to help preserve them. They represent, after all, 95% of North America's surface fresh water and 20% of the world's surface fresh water.

Let me take a moment to thank my NDP colleague, the member for Windsor West, who serves as our party's Great Lakes critic, for all his advocacy for the health of our Great Lakes and, by extension, for all of us who live in the Great Lakes basin.

The Great Lakes have a unique biodiversity and are home to more than 3,500 species of animals and plants. They have for centuries, and continue today, to sit at the heart of the North American economy, providing livelihoods and sustenance to millions.

It is the case that concentrations of microplastics in the Great Lakes, particularly downstream from major cities and in the sediments of the St. Lawrence River, rival the highest concentrations of microplastics collected from anywhere around the world.

There is reason for this, of course. More than 40 million people live on or near the shores of these lakes, and microbeads are small, manufactured plastic beads that are used in consumer products such as facial cleansers, shower gels, and toothpaste. These are products we use every day, oblivious to the environmental consequences of these beads they contain and the environmental damage that these beads cause when they make their way into our water systems, rivers, lakes, and oceans.

Microplastics are consumed by a variety of marine life, including fish harvested for human consumption. They can cause asphyxiation or blockage of organs in marine animals. Chemical pollutants tend to accumulate and persist on microplastics. Microplastics absorb water pollutants and toxins, including PCBs. When ingested by wildlife, the toxins bioaccumulate and become more concentrated as they move up our food chain.

The motion before us proposes to put microbeads on the toxic list under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. This would then allow the federal government to regulate, phase out, or eliminate the use of microbeads in products used or produced in Canada. Section 64 of the act defines a substance as toxic if it is entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that:

(i) have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity, (ii) constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which human life depends, or (iii) constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health.

Clearly, microbeads meet this test.

Under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, both the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health are responsible for developing a list of substances that must be assessed in a timely manner to determine if they are toxic or are capable of becoming toxic. This list is known as the priority substances list. The act requires that substances on this list be assessed within five years of their addition to the list. Environment Canada and Health Canada have a legal obligation to then determine if these substances are toxic as defined in section 64 of the act. Toxic is defined in terms of the risks these substances pose to the environment or to human health, as described earlier.

Around the world, this kind of action has already been taken or is under way. At least 21 companies and major corporations around the world that produce or carry cosmetics and personal care products containing microbeads have made some level of commitment to eliminate or phase out microbeads in their products. Colgate-Palmolive, Johnson & Johnson, Lush cosmetics, and The Body Shop are all part of the initiative to get microbeads out of their products and out of our water systems.

Governments are responding as well. The Dutch parliament is promoting a European ban on microplastics in cosmetics. Just next door, in the United States, Illinois banned the production, manufacture, or sale of personal care products containing plastic microbeads as recently as June 2014. State legislatures in California, Minnesota, New York, and Ohio are considering following suit. The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, a binational coalition of over 100 mayors, is calling on companies to phase out the use of microbeads by this year, 2015. The mayor of Thunder Bay and the chair of that initiative said:

The Cities Initiative calls on regulators and companies to do the right thing and get microplastics out of personal care products and out of the Great Lakes.

We hope for all-party support for this motion. I would acknowledge some positive noises from my colleagues across the way in their response to this motion. There is, of course, nothing in the history and conduct of the Conservative government to date to suggest that its prospects are good. This is a government at war with the environment, as evidenced by its degradation and/or elimination of legislation intended to protect and conserve our environment, most obviously, in this circumstance and context, the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

It is evidenced by an unrelenting assault on science-based government departments, which includes cuts of over $3 billion and 5,000 jobs from science-based departments, including scientific research positions and programs for monitoring air, water, and wildlife. It is evidenced by the government's unrelenting attack on Canadians and Canadian organizations that are active advocates for our environment through such initiatives as its Canada Revenue Agency audits on environmental NGOs and the inclusion of matters related to the environment and environmental infrastructure under Bill C-51, the anti-terrorism act.

Finally, it is evidenced by the government's insistence that the economy and the environment stand in opposition to one another, as if the health, sustainability, conservation, and protection of our environment have nothing to do with the quality of our human life on this earth and on our standard of living. On this very topic, there is the historical reluctance to deal with this issue, and indeed, there is the denial of the issue by the Minister of the Environment, who, in response to a letter from the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, suggested that this is a waste management and disposal issue that should be referred to the provinces.

However, we live in hope. Canadians live in hope of swift action on this issue so that the issue of microbeads can be dealt with for the benefit of our environment and all life that shares in that environment and depends on it for its survival.

Privacy Protection

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, once again, Bill C-51 includes provisions not only to comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but also to protect Canadians' privacy. That is why every department involved in exchanging information will have to establish protocols in consultation with the Privacy Commissioner. These mechanisms will protect Canadians and enhance privacy protection.

That being said, I am not surprised. The NDP has systematically and ideologically opposed all our measures ever since we introduced bills to counter terrorism. We will move forward with this.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-51 will also make it easy for information to be shared between 17 government agencies, when the Conservatives cannot even protect the personal information of Canadians from being attacked. Indeed, in 2014, the security of nearly 44,000 Canadians' personal information was compromised by government agencies. That is 35,000 more people than the previous year and an all-time high.

What is the Conservatives' plan to correct the situation and better protect Canadians' personal information?

Public Safety

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my colleague that I was proud to serve at Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada and help aboriginal communities. I would like to reassure him and ask him to refer to page 3 of the bill, which clearly indicates that activities that undermine the security of Canada do not include:

...lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression.

Obviously, when we are talking about security, we always reject the argument that our freedoms are threatened. There are several provisions in Bill C-51 regarding review processes and judicial oversight.

I encourage my colleague to read the bill and support these measures, which will not only protect Canadians but also strengthen our oversight and accountability mechanisms.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, aboriginal communities deserve better than rhetoric from this government. They have legitimate concerns. All too often, I have seen law enforcement agencies deem our protests to be illegal, and that was before we had to worry about being lumped in with terrorists.

Will the minister finally recognize that Bill C-51 is unconstitutional and threatens the rights of aboriginal peoples?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the question is this. When will the Conservatives listen to their own caucus that is speaking out in opposition to Bill C-51?

The need for better scrutiny is evident, especially when we learn that first nations activists like Pam Palmater and Cindy Blackstock are already being surveilled by the government. Palmater, Grand Chief Phillip and others have been outspoken in their concerns that Bill C-51 will only make the surveillance easier and risks lumping in first nations activists as terrorist threats.

Will the minister do the right thing, listen to these concerns and stop this bad bill?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we had so many witnesses from so many different backgrounds and so many different political perspectives come before the public safety committee and all of them had the same message: Bill C-51 has serious problems.

Yesterday, former Conservative senator Hugh Segal told us that parliamentary oversight for Canada's security agencies was critical. Now even a Conservative MP, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, is speaking out publicly saying the same thing, that new powers for our security services demand increased parliamentary oversight.

Why will the minister not listen to Canadians, including his fellow Conservatives, and add safeguards to this dangerous bill?