Public Safety Committee on Dec. 13th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Lobb.

We'll now move back to the Bloc. Madam Mourani, vous disposez de cinq minutes.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to come back to racial profiling. My colleagues do not seem to see the connection between this bill and the possibility and ability to engage in profiling, although they seem to admit that the bill has never been used. They seem to think it will be useful, but I question that.

Mr. Barrette, you talked about racial profiling. I also have questions in that regard for Mr. Kafieh, Mr. Elgazzar—forgive me if I mispronounced you name—and Mr. Gardee.

With respect to racial profiling, the Muslim communities, or simply Pakistani communities, people who are stereotyped or identified by their religion or even the colour of their skin… Nowadays, everyone is an Arab. Whether they're Pakistani, Lebanese or whatever they may be, they are considered to be Arab and Muslim. The average person doesn't know that there are Christian Arabs, Jewish Arabs—all kinds of Arabs. In any case, we're not going to give a lecture on Arabness today.

Tell me a little more about racial profiling. What will this kind of legislation which, legally…? There was an attempt to use it once. The Criminal Code could be used without any issue to ensure our security in relation to terrorist attacks, and yet the real impact in terms of people's perceptions and prejudice is fairly obvious.

According to what I've heard in other committees and what has been reported to me, CSIS has a tendency to pay visits to young students to question them without having any evidence, saying that they are not required to answer their questions. However, these individuals don't know what their rights are.

I have received a great many reports from young Muslims or Pakistanis who have been questioned by CSIS without any warrant or any charge against them, just questioned. The agents who visited them pointed out that they read the Koran or this or that book. A lot of these cases reflect practices that suggest racial profiling.

What do you think of the special work being carried out by CSIS in that regard and about racial profiling in general?

Have you received reports from young people who came to see you saying that CSIS paid them a visit?

One man even provided a phone number that CSIS had given him. I called the number and a person answered who refused to identify himself—imagine doing that a federal member of Parliament—and who in fact confirmed that he was a CSIS agent.

Could you please comment on that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madame Mourani.

I'll give you a little bit of leeway here on Bill C-17. You do draw in CSIS and a few others, so I'll accept that as a question.

Go ahead, whoever wants to take that one on.

Go ahead, Mr. Barrette.

[Denis Barrette]

I will make a quick comment, so that the others have time to answer as well.

This is what is going to happen in practice. Even though such individuals were not brought before a court, I am sure this has happened. CSIS agents go to people's houses, tell them that if they don't answer their questions about the next door neighbour, if they don't rat on their neighbour, that they have the power, with the police, to detain them for 72 hours and then compel them to come before a judge who will force them to answer all their questions.

This is a form of intimidation that will work, even if it yields only poor results in their investigations. Unfortunately, it will be used for profiling because of the definition of terrorist activity.

I'll stop now and let my colleagues answer.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Yes.

Go ahead, Mr. Gardee.

[Ihsaan Gardee]

Thank you. Merci.

CAIR-CAN has received reports from members of the Muslim community who have complained about intimidation by CSIS, about being questioned concerning how many times a day they prayed, and so forth. This is something of deep concern to the Muslim community.

As one of the speakers pointed out previously, it's now four years after the O'Connor inquiry's report came out. In that report Justice O'Connor recommended that a comprehensive oversight body exist for our security agencies. That still has not been implemented, which doesn't engender a great deal of trust, not only in the Muslim community but also with many Canadians, I'm sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you

Go ahead, Mr. Kafieh, and then your time is just up.

[James Kafieh]

I think Mr. Barrette's example is extremely important, because it gives an illustration of how, without officially using the investigative hearing powers, you can use them as a threat over people who are not willing to be sufficiently forthcoming to a CSIS officer. The problem with this is that it alienates the community from its security forces.

To take the example that Mr. Lobb put forward, the information we have is that the bomber in Sweden was flagged by members of his own community in Britain. Had there perhaps been more competent or more effective communication among the security forces, the flagging in Britain should have carried over to Sweden. I think that's where the issue is.

I think the real lesson in all of this is that you need to protect and nurture positive relationships among the various communities in our society.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kafieh.

Now we'll move to Mr. McColeman, please.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of your for coming here today and sharing your views.

Would there be a consensus among the witnesses here that terrorism is still a very real threat to our western democracy and our way of life? Is that true? You could just nod your heads if you agree.

I'm seeing all agree. Is that correct?

[A Voice]

No.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Did someone say no?

Are you saying no, sir?

[James Kafieh]

I say it exists and it's a problem, but to the extent the problem is real, I think it's greatly exaggerated for a whole range of reasons. It does exist as a threat and it's real, but I think the damage we're doing to ourselves since 2001 is far greater than the cumulative damage done to us.

I'll give you the obvious example that nobody, to my knowledge, has died in Canada from an act of terrorism since 2001, but many people have died from biker violence, for example, during the same period. Why aren't these powers being applied there? I'm suggesting that this kind of investigative hearing will eventually be applied in these areas, when it's politically convenient in the future.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

It's an interesting perspective you just shared, because of all the witnesses, you're the only one who thinks that perhaps terrorism is an overblown phenomenon in the world today.

[James Kafieh]

I'm talking about in North America. It is real. It is a real problem.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Okay, I accept that.

As a follow-up, we've had witnesses on other issues, and countries that have experienced a terrorist attack have a world view that's vastly different from what you just shared.

Canada has fortunately been spared from a severe terrorist act. We obviously controlled one with the Toronto 18, and we've controlled several situations, but I take a little issue with your minimizing it, and I must say I take issue with something else you shared with us today, when you compared where we are today in 21st century Canada to the World War II war measures act that Japanese Canadians experienced. I can't imagine, nor could I imagine anyone on this panel or in our society today ever imagining, that a law like this could lead to an act like that at any point in our future.

Your comments specifically were that this path will be similarly abused in the future, and you compared it to the Japanese situation in World War II. That view of where terrorism is today and of how we control terrorism is something I don't think a lot of Canadians would accept.

I'm interested in the commentary that's gone on today over Professor Forcese's observation and analysis that there is a gap, albeit small, but that there is a gap. All of the witnesses have heard that today.

My number one question, for any or all of you, is this: do you agree with that analysis? That's my number one question.

For the sake of time, my number two question is this: if you do agree, how would you propose to fill that gap to make sure our country doesn't have the security risk this gap presents?

[Paul Copeland]

If I could answer that briefly, I don't agree with Professor Forcese that there is a gap. The most serious terrorist act that was ever committed in Canada was the Air India bombing. Recommendations came out of the major inquiry in relation to that bombing, and Canada should be dealing with those recommendations. They should make sure there is effective communication between CSIS and the RCMP.

With all due respect to the people here, you shouldn't be wasting your time looking at this legislation. You should be dealing with the problems of the security agencies and the enforcement of criminal law with regard to terrorist activity.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Okay. Are there other views?

[Khalid Elgazzar, Member of the Board of Directors, Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations]

It's our view that current measures in the Criminal Code are sufficient and adequate to the task, so we also disagree that there is a gap that needs to be filled by legislation such as Bill C-17.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Okay.

[Denis Barrette]

I'd like to answer that, Mr. Chairman. I think it's a very important question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Go ahead, Mr. Barrette

[Denis Barrette]

First of all, the threat of terrorism in Canada has always existed, well before it was even created. The Fenians prompted the creation of Canada, so this is a crime like any other one.

As regards Mr. Forcese's opinion on this—with all due respect to him—and in terms of the imminence of a terrorist act, I see this as a non-issue. If a terrorist act is truly imminent, if that is what we are facing, police officers have to arrest people, detain them and charge them. It's not about whether the act of terrorism is imminent, but about evidence. In other words, are there suspicions that a terrorist act is going to be committed or are there reasonable grounds to believe that is the case? With these proposed provisions, there is actually an attempt to lower the standard of proof. If a terrorist act is imminent, then people should be arrested, brought before the courts, charged with a crime and convicted, if they are guilty.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Barrette.

A number of individuals have mentioned today that this legislation is not needed. They were even questioning why our committee is discussing this bill.

I'll close with a quote from the justice minister in 2001. Ms. Libby Davies will remember that the then Minister of Justice, Anne McLellan, said with regard to Bill C-36 and what we are discussing here today, “We believe that people everywhere are entitled to live in peace and security.” Then they drafted Bill C-36, and these are part of the provisions for that.

We thank you for coming.

This is not a review; it's a new piece of legislation. We appreciate your input to find a balance in all we do here, and as Mr. Lobb and Mr. Rathgeber have suggested, to make sure we keep Canadians safe.

Thank you very much. We are going to suspend, and then we will move to committee business.

[Proceedings continue in camera]