Evidence of meeting #47 for Public Safety and National Security in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was provisions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Bonnie Crombie Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Mr. Barrette, I know you want to get in here, but I'm going to ask one more question and then I'll ask you to respond to both. Then, in my last minute, I want to shift the line of questioning, so let me know on that quickly.
Is this legislation necessary for the protection of Canadians, and if the Conservatives want to violate human rights and civil liberties, how has this Anti-terrorism Act protected Canadians to date?
Thank you.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
That whole statement is way out of line. The original legislation was brought forward in 2002. When you talk about the current government taking away human rights, the question just doesn't make sense.
With all due respect—
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Bonnie Crombie Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll rephrase my question.
Was it necessary for the—
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
—I'll let it go, but he's making a point here as well.
Go ahead.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Bonnie Crombie Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Mr. Barrette, I would like you to respond to the previous questions, and is it necessary for the protection of Canadians?
4:55 p.m.
spokesperson, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group
As far as I'm concerned, it is quite clear that we don't need this bill. Since the legislation has not been in effect, conspiracies have been discovered, charges have been laid, and convictions have been secured. We don't need it. As I see it, the only time it could possibly be used would be where there is an attempt to lower the standard of evidence. Mr. Forcese talked about an imminent attack, or the risk of an imminent attack—the narrow “gap”, as he put it--
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Bonnie Crombie Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Mr. Barrette, I'm going to just cut you off quickly.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Bonnie Crombie Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
I have to ask one more question, and perhaps we can get the answer in, but I have to get the question in very quickly.
Because I represent a large Pakistani Muslim community in my riding, I've heard over and over again about the devastating impact on people's lives after 9/11. Could you share any personal stories on how people have been targeted and personally stigmatized by this legislation, and what could possibly happen if Bill C-17 passes?
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you very much, Ms. Crombie.
Unfortunately, if you have stories, you may want to send them in or you may want to tell them somewhere else. We have five minutes, which includes your question and their answer.
We'll now go to the government side and Mr. Lobb.
December 13th, 2010 / 4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd just like to say that it's nice to have two Davies at the committee today. Usually one is good, but we have two today, so that's great.
To Ms. Crombie's point there, maybe at the next Liberal convention she can talk with Anne McLellan or Irwin Cotler or maybe Allan Rock, and they can fill her in on some of the background on that bill.
Mr. Kafieh, in your statements you indicated you felt that this piece of legislation unfairly targeted the Muslim community. Did I hear that correctly?
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
It was that this piece of legislation unfairly targeted the Muslim community?
4:55 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Canadian Islamic Congress
I did not say that it unfairly targeted the Muslim community. I said that based on a pattern of experience for the last 10 years and even before that, I feel it will disproportionately impact on the Muslim-Canadian community, but that although the derogatory impact, the negative impact, of this kind of legislation may begin with causing damage to the Muslim-Canadian community, it will not stop there. It will move on and continue and do damage to the fabric of Canadian society. We're all going to suffer from this.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
Just for the average Canadian sitting at home who may be watching this or is listening in—and to Mr. Rathgeber's point—if the provisions have never really been used to date, how does it target anybody? How would the average Canadian watching at home come to that conclusion?
5 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Canadian Islamic Congress
Are you saying that if it just languished on the books, what harm would it do?
5 p.m.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
No, I'm saying it's never been used and it's never targeted anybody. How can one draw the conclusion that it targets any group? I'm just trying to—
5 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Canadian Islamic Congress
This particular legislation creates a chill because I think it undermines the civil liberties of all Canadians.
If you looked like a Japanese Canadian during the Second World War, with the broad proclamations from government--whether they named Japanese or not--you were going to feel that there was special scrutiny on you. That wasn't unreasonable, under the circumstances.
We also have seen, for example, security certificates. They were used almost exclusively on Muslim and Arab immigrants to this country. That's the history of it. If you say some legislation is not doing any harm because it hasn't been used, we have the example of the G-20. Second World War-type legislation was languishing on the books, and the chief of police asked for more power to make sure security was in place. We can see what kind of harm can be done when it is implemented.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
In your presentation you spoke about an imminent threat. That was the piece with the restriction. If there was an attack on the country, do you feel as though the average Canadian at home would accept that? Do you feel that's reasonable? Where is the balance here? I'd say we should do whatever we can to protect Canada. If that includes asking questions about previous incidents, then so be it. What are your thoughts on that?
5 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Canadian Islamic Congress
These provisions are so intrusive that I'm concerned about the relationship they could create between the government, security agencies, and the community itself. It's so pernicious in its potential impact that I think you have to reserve it for the most extreme circumstances.
When you have time, you use all the tools that are available to you. I know I'm speaking on behalf of an Islamic organization, but these provisions, the investigative hearings, are a Hail Mary pass, to use a Catholic expression. In security terms, it's a Hail Mary pass. You believe something is going to happen and you have no idea of where it's going to come or how it's going to happen, but you have an idea that a group is involved, so you grab a person who belongs to that group.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
In the terrible incident that happened in Sweden, this gentleman was not on the radar at all, and this could have been a situation in which maybe a Hail Mary pass might have produced a better outcome. We'll never know, or maybe we will, but maybe a Hail Mary in this piece of legislation could protect us from a possible case like this.