Evidence of meeting #56 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-51.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Salim Mansur  As an Individual
Stephen Anderson  Executive Director, OpenMedia, Protect Our Privacy Coalition
Sukanya Pillay  Executive Director and General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Protect Our Privacy Coalition
Garth Davies  Associate Professor, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
Connie Fournier  Founder, Free Dominion, Protect Our Privacy Coalition
Hugh Segal  Master, Massey College, As an Individual
Louise Vincent  As an Individual
Christian Leuprecht  Associate Dean and Associate Professor, Faculty of Arts, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual

7:40 p.m.

Conservative

LaVar Payne Conservative Medicine Hat, AB

I don't know how far along you are in that, but how do you see that as being able to assist Canadians, CSIS, RCMP? Also, I don't know if that program you're talking about would be available to our law enforcement.

7:40 p.m.

Garth Davies

The program is in its infancy. The kind of thing we're talking about, its primary intent is essentially to be able to parse large bits of information from the Internet and break it into digestible chunks. To answer your question about its utility, we have been in discussions with INSET. I'm from Vancouver, way out there at the other end of the world. We've been in conversation. They've been very interested in trying to understand, again for the reasons you might expect, that they're trying to maximize what they can get. We won't get into the issue of resources here—I don't think it's necessary—but they don't have unlimited access to computer power, to people. They are interested in trying to get information that's as relevant as possible. They're also very interested in the approach of how we get this information without casting such a broad net that it raises concerns about the privacy of who's been referred to as the average Canadian citizen.

7:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

You have 30 seconds, Mr. Payne.

7:40 p.m.

Conservative

LaVar Payne Conservative Medicine Hat, AB

Quickly, part 4 talks about threat disruption for CSIS. I wonder if you could give us your thoughts on how important that is in terms of also being judicially authorized.

7:40 p.m.

Garth Davies

It's absolutely critical in judicial authorization, but we could also imagine circumstances where exigencies would exist. The example that is being used perpetually now is the idea of being able to say to somebody's parents that their son or daughter has been radicalized and make them aware of it and whether or not that would be an example of disruption. We could think of far more serious cases where disruption might be necessary, and we'd certainly want to see judicial authorization for those kinds of instances to the extent that it was possible.

7:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Fine, thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Payne.

Mr. Easter, sir, you have the floor.

7:40 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Thank you to all the witnesses for coming.

The hearings, especially tonight, are almost the two solitudes, if I can put it that way. Mr. Davies, you said that the danger and the threats to lives are real. I agree with you. I think there is a real threat out there. I think it has increased more greatly than we have seen it since 9/11, and it is in a different context. I also have to express with Mr. Anderson, Ms. Pillay, and Ms. Fournier that their concerns in some of the areas that this bill is moving into are real too. How do we connect the two? That's my question for all of you.

I've been saying that we need oversight, we need sunset clauses, and we need a statutory, mandatory review for this legislation in three years. Threats ebb and flow. We certainly need amendments. Everyone's concern expressed here is real. The parliamentary secretary may say that some of the things the demonstrators and protesters out there are saying are exaggerated. They may be. I've been in protests. I faced the protests in my position in P.E.I. and I firmly believe that legitimate dissent in a democracy is healthy. That's a good thing.

My question for each of the spokesmen is, how do we bring those two solitudes together? I believe we need certain aspects of the bill, but I believe it can be fixed and can be a bill that Canadians could welcome if this committee is allowed to operate the way the founding fathers designed Parliament to operate, to amend a bill and make it better.

Could I have a response from each of you?

7:45 p.m.

As an Individual

Dr. Salim Mansur

Mr. Easter, from my perspective, I don't see the government as those on the treasury bench only and on the other side. I see the whole thing as a government. Where I'm coming from as a common citizen we expect our government to do what is necessary as you recognize the threat. From my perspective, the threat is immense and it is growing and we cannot afford to be lax, given what is at stake and what harm can be done.

Yes, the government has recognized—all of you have recognized—that there's a necessity and that is Bill C-51. Now the question is, how do you go about improving it? I agree with you that the effort should be made to see the flaws and improve on them. If you agree that the instrument is needed, we are heartened because we feel the threat is immense.

7:45 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

I'll let you come in and answer the others in a second, but let me give you one example. The bill states:

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

That same clause was in the 2001 bill. I was one of the ones inside caucus opposing that clause. We amended it out.

Do any of you, the promoters of the bill, Mr. Mansur or Mr. Davies, feel that if we took the word “lawful” out it would impact on this bill in any way to do the job it's intended to do?

7:45 p.m.

Garth Davies

No.

7:45 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

No. Okay, thank you.

Does anybody else want to comment on my first question?

7:45 p.m.

Executive Director, OpenMedia, Protect Our Privacy Coalition

Stephen Anderson

Yes. I agree with all the amendments you said there, and I think there's almost national consensus on those points. I think that's one thing that has people so upset. Why don't we look at these reasonable amendments, at the very least? I haven't heard any good answer to that, and I would love to hear it at any point.

Our position at OpenMedia is that it's so flawed we need a restart.

7:45 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

That's fine.

Ms. Pillay.

7:45 p.m.

Executive Director and General Counsel, Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Protect Our Privacy Coalition

Sukanya Pillay

Thank you for your question. My response is that the way this law is drafted, it's imprecise and it's overbroad. What this means is that we do not dispute the objective of the law, but the impact will be beyond what the law is meant to target. That is the problem.

Just for the record, we do not dispute that there is a terrorist threat. What we question is why this bill is necessary, and we are very concerned about the overbroad impact. There is not a rational connection to some of the impacts that will result as a result of the drafting.

The last thing is that we cannot just hope that it won't be applied in a way that it could reasonably be applied reading the provisions as drafted.

7:45 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Ms. Fournier, do you want to add anything?

7:45 p.m.

Founder, Free Dominion, Protect Our Privacy Coalition

Connie Fournier

Yes. I think it's really important when you're looking at any legislation to try to imagine what is the worst possible case scenario as to how it can be applied and assume that you need to close those loopholes. I think it's completely reasonable to look at this bill, see the flaws, and try to correct them. But I also don't argue that there is a terror threat. I think we're all on the same page there.

7:45 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Mansur, I did read the presentation you made to the Senate, and I'm concerned about what you said on the public outreach program. You basically questioned public outreach to deal with homegrown radicalization or whatever.

Is that still your position? I firmly feel that the RCMP and security agencies need to be doing outreach to those who are being radicalized over the Internet or by whatever means. I think that can go places that the law cannot go.

What's your current thought?

7:50 p.m.

As an Individual

Dr. Salim Mansur

My concern, sir, is not about the public outreach, but with whom the public outreach is done—the RCMP or other police agencies, security agencies, working with organizations about which we have great concerns.

The thing I was referring to at that hearing was the RCMP working together in cooperation with, for instance, the NCCM, the National Council of Canadian Muslims. It's an organization that from our perspective is hugely suspect. This is an organization...slash CAIR-CAN, the Council of American-Islamic Relations Canada—

7:50 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

[Inaudible—Editor]

March 23rd, 2015 / 7:50 p.m.

As an Individual

Dr. Salim Mansur

No, but that was the concern—

7:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Mr. Easter, we're over time.

7:50 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

That was refuted at this committee.

7:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Mr. Easter, we are well over time now. I'm sorry, but thank you very much.

At this time we will bring our first hour to a conclusion. I'm sorry we have no time for a response. Please feel free to discuss during the quick little changeover with any of our members. Certainly your thoughts would be welcome.

On behalf of the committee, I'd like to thank all of you for coming here today and expressing your thoughts and your opinions. As the story goes, it all matters. Thank you very, very kindly.

We'll suspend for five minutes while we change witnesses.

7:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

I would ask the media to respect the committee's time, please.

We will now go to our second hour of testimony and Q and A.

We have with us three individuals: the Honourable Hugh Segal, a Master at Massey College; Louise Vincent; and Christian Leuprecht, associate dean and associate professor at the faculty of arts, Royal Military College of Canada.

Thank you all for attending here today to give us your thoughts on what is obviously a very important piece of legislation that we're deliberating. Your comments are certainly welcome.

We will start with Mr. Segal.

7:50 p.m.

Hugh Segal Master, Massey College, As an Individual

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Throughout recent post-war history, rapidly drafted and on occasion knee-jerk new laws, or quickly deployed old laws during times of apparent or possible emergency are often flawed. This is not because of any inappropriate intent by the government of the day, but a rush to engage because of apprehended risk, be it one of terrorism or insurrection. This approach often produces robust court challenges.

The worst of these events in recent past was the deployment of the War Measures Act by the Trudeau administration in October 1970. Hundreds of Quebeckers were arrested and held in custody for many days. The core principles of Magna Carta, habeas corpus, were tossed aside. This was the worst violation of Canadian civil liberties in the post-war era. Nothing we have seen since in any way compares. None of the risks associated with this bill in any way compares to what happened in 1970.

My concerns, and that of what was then the Special Senate Committee on Anti-Terrorism in 2011, about the absence in Canada, as compared to key NATO allies—the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy—of any legislative oversight capacity, predates by several years the provisions of the bill before you.

Nothing in Bill C-51 has changed my own personal view on the need for oversight and nothing in the bill makes that requirement more pressing.

Accountability on the part of our security services to the whole of Parliament is not needless red tape or excessive bureaucracy. In fact, it is the democratic countervail to the kind of red tape and bureaucracy which might unwittingly lose sight of the security mission appropriate to a parliamentary democracy, where laws and constitutional protections such as the presumption of innocence and due process must protect all citizens without regard to ethnicity or national origin.

In the spirit of breaking down silos and maximizing the efficiency of prophylactic data sharing to prevent bad things from happening before they happen, and in the spirit of Mr. Justice Major's report on the Air India tragedy, the special Senate committee recommended that CSIS be allowed to lawfully disrupt terrorist plans or conspiracies. That was a bipartisan recommendation.

The term “lawfully” did not reflect any view on the part of the special committee that interruptions could operate outside the provisions and protections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Any provisions that seek to obviate the charter would likely be struck down by the courts in any event.

When the government of Prime Minister Chrétien brought in anti-terror legislation after the horrors of 9/11, its promoters, including ministers and senior bureaucrats, in the best of faith believed the law to be charter-proof. When the legislation was renewed, members of all parties on the Senate committee on anti-terrorism spent many meetings considering and putting into effect those amendments necessitated by a series of court decisions in order to bring the law into line with the Canadian Constitution. The law was far from charter-proof.

I have little doubt that whatever decisions this distinguished committee may choose to make about amendments or the lack of same, within a short period of time will see us finding another committee doing the same sort of constitutionally-driven and court-ordered refurbishment of the legislation before you, should it pass.

My general view of the law before you, despite some excesses and slightly overwrought provisions, is that it is a law that is, on balance, helpful and appropriate, given the new technologies, recruiting strategies, and asymmetric threats which form the basis of new threats to national security in Canada and other open society, non-police state democracies.

I wish to offer one very respectful, considered word of caution about the important work before you. Attempts to keep Canadians safe, the number one job of any government, should not include provisions that make us resemble those we are struggling to defeat.