Public Safety Committee on March 12th, 2015

[Alex Neve]

It's of deep concern. When it comes to human rights issues of any kind, it's absolutely essential that there be strong ability to have justice and accountability when things go wrong, including redress and compensation through lawsuits. We have already seen many times that reckless, problematic, inaccurate information sharing in Canada has had serious consequences on individuals. We know it from two judicial inquiries. Some of that may have been in bad faith. Some of that was quite likely in good faith, but we need accountability for all of it and we're very concerned that this takes us in the wrong direction and thus doesn't help ensure best practice.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Neve.

Thank you, Mr. Scott.

Now Mr. Payne, for six minutes, please.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, witnesses, for coming today on this very important legislation before our committee, the Parliament of Canada, and the people of Canada.

Mr. Neve, Amnesty International is obviously known for standing up for human rights around the world. I want to quote from a news release, interestingly enough from the National Council of Canadian Muslims, formerly known as CAIR-CAN: “To cut short the opportunity for these enormously consequential changes to be thoroughly examined in itself is a grave human rights concern”. That is a quote from you, as I understand it. I'm not sure how having a certain number of meetings on legislation is a human right, but that might be stretching your comment a little bit far. We know that this legislation in a number of places deals with peaceful protests, lawful or not, and is not attacking free speech, so it's not really attacking human rights.

Anyway, I have questions for Professor Tepper.

Certainly there's been a lot of media reporting about the information sharing and we've touched on that a number of times throughout our committee meetings. I believe there's a lot of misinformation being offered and some groups think that lawful protests will now be considered terrorism by our security agencies. It seems they are conflating language in this act with language in the CSIS Act and the Criminal Code.

My interpretation of this section of the legislation, on page 3, is that it lays out activities that would be interpreted as activities that undermine the security of Canada. Those activities listed would very legitimately undermine our security. Then it places a caveat:

For greater certainty, it does not include lawful advocacy, protests, dissent and artistic expression.

It's also important to point out that this act has to do with internal information sharing. It does not equate to arrest or prosecution under any sort of terrorism charges.

That's noteworthy, and activities listed as undermining the security of Canada must also fall under the umbrella of undermining the sovereignty, security, territorial integrity of Canada or the lives or security of the people of Canada.

In order for them to be considered, could you comment on these concerns and on whether or not you feel they're legitimate and on the importance of filling in these gaps?

[Dr. Elliot Tepper]

The information sharing component of this, which of course is in the title of the act, is likely to gain more broad-based support than other aspects of the act, I suspect, but within that there will still be concerns raised, as you've already heard this evening and from others.

I'll answer that in two ways. This is where technical specialists, such as we've had already this evening, should indeed have a very close look at it, and I'm sure this committee has access to their own subcommittee works. I'm a bit concerned personally, for example, that the income tax information is now going to be shared for the first time as part of that.

I think the information sharing component has been pointed out repeatedly. We heard earlier this evening that as one of the most important aspects of enhancing our security, the siloing that was discovered by your 9/11 activities has to end, but the other side of that will be that information privacy concerns will be an ongoing concern, I would think, for this committee and for others.

I don't have the technical expertise that others have, and I know that on this issue you have drafting, and for that matter, Department of Justice expertise. I think it's likely to be the most accepted aspect of this broad legislation compared to other dimensions, provisions, we've been hearing about.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I would ask that you give Mr. Neve from Amnesty International 30 seconds to reply to the drive-by insinuations from the member.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

I'm sorry, but you don't have the floor. It's up to the gentleman who has the floor. He can direct the question where he wishes, and at that particular point we can have a response. If he requests one from Mr. Neve, he certainly can have that, sir.

You have the floor, Mr. Payne.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Chair. How much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

You have a minute and a half.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Anyway, Professor Tepper, I just wanted to respond to your comments in terms of the—

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Excuse me. I'm sorry. On a point of order, I just want to make sure that the last point of order does not take away any time that my colleague LaVar Payne had on the clock, because I don't think that would be a fair thing to do to him during his line of questioning.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

That's fine.

I've heard that you were going to be actually very close to being able to fulfill the time commitments for everybody.

Carry on, Mr. Payne.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you. I'm going to lose my train of thought here with all these points of order.

You touched on the Income Tax Act. I don't know enough about people's filing information and the Income Tax Act, but one of the concerns I might have is that if somebody were trying to funnel some money to an organization, particularly if it happens to be a terrorist organization, that could have a huge implication in terms of being able to share that information with the appropriate officials.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thirty seconds, please.

[Dr. Elliot Tepper]

I concur with that view.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

That's fine. Thank you very much.

We'll take a little bit less time and we will go now to Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly welcome all the witnesses, and I thank all of you for your presentations.

To start with you, Mr. Tepper, you said in your remarks relating to the kind of discussion that's going on out there over Bill C-51 that it's sparking the kind of debate we need. Mr. Neve mentioned that as well in regard to all the meetings he's been at.

We're in a different Parliament than we've ever been in Canadian history, in my view, because if you look at the record, you will see that this government has very seldom allowed amendments to bills. I think that's a sad commentary.

For that good debate that's happening and I think the good presentations we're having here to be effective, however, the government would have to show a willingness to accept amendments, which they have not to date. What kind of comment is that on our democracy if no amendments to this bill are allowed at the end of the day?

[Dr. Elliot Tepper]

I was speaking in my capacity basically as an educator. I happened to be on the BBC the night when you were under attack. There was a big comment that we must now in Canada be giving up our freedom in order to gain security. I said that no, Canada is about to have a conversation. That conversation has continued, and it's been of a high order, of an extraordinary order, and it's an overdue conversation. We've been blessed.

My comment regarding amendments, and also a reference on the constitutional issues to the Supreme Court, was prefaced by the assumption that it would only be as a result of consensus within this committee. This committee makes recommendations. Even if it's minimal consensus, that enthusiastic support, then I think those would get the kind of attention they require. Beyond that, we're entering into the wider waters of partisan politics, and that's not my role.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I definitely hope we can get there. The evidence to date hasn't shown that.

However, if there are no amendments, there are five backbench members over there who can stand up if they want to, to allow amendments.

Mr. Neve, you supported oversight, and I think you made four very good points in terms of areas where there need to be amendments. I don't know whether we'll be able to get to them, but I do need to go to Mr. Gardee.

Mr. Gardee, thank you for maintaining your cool under what I think was a concentrated attack on your organization.

You said that this is a complex issue, and it certainly is. Sometime ago, we had the RCMP commissioner before us. I want to congratulate you for your effort in this pamphlet, “United Against Terrorism: A Collaborative Effort Towards a Secure, Inclusive and Just Canada”, by the National Council of Canadian Muslims, the Islamic Social Services Association, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, although they withdrew at the last minute in terms of the press conference. However, they're still in the pamphlet and I think want to work together.

As you said, national security is as important to you and your organization, or even more so, than it is to all of Canadian society. How do we get away from the danger of stereotyping, this over-the-top language that I think we're seeing from the Prime Minister and some ministers, and prevent people from being targeted? Is deradicalization part of that in terms of what you've done here?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

You have 30 seconds Mr. Gardee.

[Ihsaan Gardee]

Okay.

In terms of the language used, yes. We certainly have a concern about the rhetoric and the language that has been part of the public discourse recently. We feel it's a corrosive approach that casts a pall of suspicion over all Muslims, or anybody perceived to be Muslim, by creating an ethnic or religious profile for what it is to be a terrorist.

In terms of its role in deradicalization, I think the language that we use is important, as I mentioned earlier. It's important to recognize that the actions of one person or a group of people tarnish entire communities. As an example, members of the KKK or right-wing zealots who bomb abortion clinics in the U.S. certainly might claim to be Christian, but I don't think anybody here would agree that they speak on behalf of all Christians. I think using this kind of language can tarnish entire communities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

The time is now up, Mr. Easter.

On behalf of the entire committee, I thank Mr. Gardee, Mr. Tepper, and Mr. Neve. Thank you so kindly for appearing before us here today.

Certainly we will continue the examination of Bill C-51 at the next meeting of the committee.

This meeting is adjourned