Public Safety Committee on March 12th, 2015

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

That's the biggest fear and concern, that just because we're going to stand up to protect the land and our water and any development, we could be branded as terrorists. I think of the anti-fracking position that Elsipogtog took. Are the people terrorists because they're trying to protect the water? I think of even the Site C flooding in northern B.C. that's proposed. If the people there start standing up against that initiative, are they going to be branded as terrorists for trying to protect their hunting territories where they used to trap, fish, hunt, and gather? Are they going to be labelled as terrorists? I think of northern Manitoba, Bipole III, where they're clear-cutting the forests. Chief Genaille is standing up against that because that's where they used to hunt, fish, trap, and gather. Same thing, are they going to be branded as terrorists if they try to say, “Hey, we have rights here”?

By going ahead with these developments, it's going to affect them. Our biggest fear is that, when our people are starting to stand up for their rights, they will be branded as terrorists when they're not. They're just standing up for their fundamental, inherent rights, treaty rights and aboriginal rights, and they should not be branded as terrorists because they're protecting the land and the water.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Thank you.

National Chief, I know you are aware of the facts that have come to light over the last few years about the incredible rates of surveillance of indigenous activists and indigenous grassroots organizations in this country. We're aware that even a few years back in 2009, it became clear that the RCMP intelligence unit was reporting weekly to approximately 450 recipients in law enforcement regarding the activities of indigenous, grassroots movements. Is this a reason for concern for you that might point to what Bill C-51 could do only more of with regards to surveillance that clearly already exists?

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

Again, I referenced in my comments the unnecessary surveillance and the infringement of privacy. Again, people are being following around. I think of the example of one of our heroes, Cindy Blackstock, who was standing up for children and against the discriminatory funding on reserve for child care. She was followed around unnecessarily. Her privacy was brought into question so many times unnecessarily. I think there's going to be too many powers given to the government agencies with this bill that will really be abused and infringe on individual rights. A lot of our people will be followed unnecessarily, again, just for standing up for things that are right, things that are just. That's why we're looking at opposition to this bill legally if it goes through.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Finally, depending on the time, I want to ask what you are hearing from first nation leaders and grassroots members. Do you hear any support for Bill C-51?

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

No, not at this point in time. Again, most of the response that we're getting from our chiefs and leaders from across Canada is that they're opposed to it, because it's going to impact on our rights. We don't want to be labelled as terrorists in our own territories, our own homelands, for standing up to protect the land and waters. That's the message we're getting pretty loud and clear from right across Turtle Island.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Great. Thank you very much.

Do you have any final comments, National Chief?

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

No. Again, I think the recommendation to government is to withdraw it and engage in a process with us. Again, it's not just Bill C-51, but Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, the omnibus bills, that really impact on section 35 rights. We can work these things through, but let's establish a meaningful process and dialogue so that we can get it right because everybody in Canada deserves to get it right and get it done in a good way. So that's our recommendation, to withdraw it, and let's engage in a respectful process and get it right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Fine, thank you very much, Chief Bellegarde.

Thank you, Ms. Ashton.

We will now go to Mr. Falk, please, for five and a half minutes.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to begin by sharing my time with Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

I want to respond, Chief Bellegarde, to some of your comments. I appreciate your coming today to express your concerns, because it gives me an opportunity to respond directly to them.

I want to make it very clear with respect to information sharing in the bill that there is nothing in that proposed information sharing act that relates to spying or to any type of national security agency making arrests or to detention, etc. It has to do with the ability of one branch of government to share information with another one. In fact, it only encourages that information sharing. It's not a mandate. It doesn't allow an agency to collect additional information, other than the information it may already have on hand, and it doesn't allow for an accumulated database of information that can be widely accessed across all branches. I want to clarify that to begin with.

Also, there has been much talk and discussion about the specific clause that talks about for “greater certainty” and the terminology that “it does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression”. There are concerns about the use of the word “lawful”.

It was very clear at Tuesday's committee meeting that this does not even relate to unlawful protest—for example, if someone doesn't have a proper permit to protest—because with this specific clause, you have to look at the section of the bill in its entirety. It begins by talking about the activities that relate to information sharing. It has to be related to activities undermining “the sovereignty, security or territorial integrity of Canada or the lives or the security of the people of Canada“. I want to clarify that particular section to help ease some of those concerns. I can't think of a single instance in my history—I'm 49 years old—where a first nation has brought something that would blow up infrastructure, that would kill innocent lives, and I can't think of anything in history that would connect first nations to being a group that would be within the information sharing act.

Again, this is only information sharing; I want to clarify that. It has nothing to do with law enforcement. It has nothing to do with anything like that. It's just for the purpose of one agency coming across information that raises a red flag, that there's an issue concerning national security and that it would be pertinent to push that information out.

Also, before I pass my time back to Mr. Falk, there was a concerned expressed by Mr. Champ in his opening remarks about someone who is auditing taxes being able to share information. I think you might recognize that in the course of auditing someone's taxes, there may be a red flag raised with respect to money laundering or related to terrorism financing. That's why it's so important that if this information is found, if in the course of the regular actions of that audit they come across it, it could be passed along to our national security agencies. I would think that you surely do not believe that terrorist financing should be allowed here in Canada.

Now I'd like to pass my time over to Mr. Falk.

I'm sorry if I've taken up most of your time.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

You have two minutes, Mr. Falk.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Ms. James.

Last week, with Commissioner Paulson, we were able to watch the video of the terrorist who came into this House on October 22. We had the opportunity to ask the commissioner questions and listen to his presentation.

Mr. Champ, I'd like to direct a few questions towards you.

Would you agree that Canada has experienced a terrorist act?

[Paul Champ]

That Canada has experienced a terrorist act?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Yes.

[Paul Champ]

In the sense of someone trying to violently overthrow our government or commit a violent act to cause fear, yes.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Okay. Do you think it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that its citizens are safe from terrorism as much as it's possible to do so?

[Paul Champ]

Yes, of course. It's a laudable objective and a primary objective of government to ensure the security of Canadians.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Okay. Good.

In your testimony, which I appreciate and listened to carefully, I only heard of things that were broken or wrong in the bill. I'd like to give you an opportunity to tell us what you think is good in the bill and can be built on.

[Paul Champ]

In particular, I think of the peace bond provisions. I was a crown prosecutor a number of years ago, and I think the peace bond provisions, which would allow the police to go to court and have conditions attached to individuals whom they can demonstrate may well be considering engaging in terrorist acts, are a good idea. This bill enhances and expands a bit the previous section 810 in the Criminal Code. I think that's a power that can really address almost every concern I've heard thus far in preventing someone from acting violently.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

We're out of time now and we will go to Mr. Easter, please.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for trying to find a way to have some fairness in the rounds of questioning.

Thank you to all the witnesses. Everybody adds something to this process in their own way. The amount of time is a problem for sure.

I do want to say at the beginning regarding Ms. James' point about Tuesday's testimony by the minister, I submit that it was the minister's opinion. It was not necessarily fact regarding the part dealing with greater certainty and lawful dissent. There are some questions around that.

I want to start with you, Chief Bellegarde. I'm going to tell you what I took from presentation, and you can tell me whether I'm right or wrong. I don't think you were opposing measures to protect the national security of Canadians as such. You're concerned about the process of how we got here, and about section 35 not being followed. Am I correct in that?

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

Yes, to a certain extent for any law that's been developed by the crown and that impacts on inherent rights, aboriginal rights and title contained in section 35, it's been proven that consultation and accommodation have to be put in place and first nations have to be involved when any such law is being proposed. Notice has to be given, and that didn't happen in this instance.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

That clears it up for me.

Mr. Cooper, you talked about after-the-fact review and oversight as did Mr. Atkey before you. There are a number of proposals on oversight, whatever you may call it. There was a bill proposed in 2005 and there were other proposals in 2009.

Are you basically suggesting something along the lines of the oversight that our Five Eyes partners have, including the U.K., Australia, and the United States? Or are you suggesting more a super-SIRC proposal that would apply to all security agencies and not just CSIS? I'm trying to find out where you're at.

[Barry Cooper]

If it's a choice between the two, I'd go for a super-SIRC, because if there's intelligence or information sharing among all these agencies, then there should be some kind of reporting after the fact.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

But you're not isolating that to.... There is no way the current SIRC can do its job with these additional powers. Are you suggesting that it be done by parliamentarians, that parliamentarians be a part of that, as your brief claims? Also, should it be over any security apparatus, including policing?