Public Safety Committee on March 23rd, 2015

[Garth Davies]

Yes, absolutely. We don't know what will be coming. We know the situation has changed and is different from what it was 30 years ago, but it's changing much more quickly than it did in the interim. We had a sort of lull period, if you will, and now things seem to have picked up speed. Yes, I think we need to be cognizant of how much things have changed.

Of late, I have seen a lot of discussion of 30 years ago. Everybody in this room is aware of the history explaining why CSIS was created and what led to it. I'm not sure, always, why we hold onto that, as a way of looking back rather than looking forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much. The time is up now.

Ms. Borg, go ahead for seven minutes.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank you for your testimony, Mr. Anderson. Everyone at this table recognizes that terrorism is a threat and that resources are needed to fight it. However, we also believe that rights and freedoms are not negotiable. They go hand in hand, so it is vital that both be respected.

Mr. Anderson, I am happy to have you with us. In fact, you are the only witness who can talk about how this bill might affect the digital lives of law-abiding Canadians. I'd like to give you an opportunity to comment on that.

[Stephen Anderson]

I'm going to pass this off to Connie on our panel here, but first I want to say that I found the comments a second ago from MP James to rather insinuate that Canadians are not informed and are stupid. I find that really distasteful for a public office holder.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I want to correct the record.

I did not say that. I said I was concerned about the misinformation that had been put out about this bill. These are completely separate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

And I believe that comment was just over the edge. I would appreciate your just staying to the topic that you have at hand.

[Stephen Anderson]

Okay.

I think we should encourage Canadians to take part in these debates. I think they are amazingly informed and engaged, and that is something that we want to honour and encourage and not disrespect.

Now I'll pass it off to Connie.

[Connie Fournier, Founder, Free Dominion, Protect Our Privacy Coalition]

All of the Conservative members of this committee who were elected at the time voted to repeal section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act a couple of years ago. This was done at the strong urging of the grassroots conservative base. We asked you to repeal it because the wording was broad and vague, it lacked due process, and it was being abused and applied to people who did not post hate speech, such as us.

Bill C-51 is also broad and vaguely worded. Even “terrorist” is not defined. Instead of the flawed tribunal system in section 13, it completely lacks due process, allowing for secret hearings at which the accused can't present a defence or even face his accuser. With even less oversight than section 13, it's inevitable that it will also be abused and applied to non-terrorists.

If you voted to repeal section 13 to protect the rights of Canadians, the only principled thing to do would be to also vote against Bill C-51.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Fournier.

Your answer to my question is not very relevant. I understand that you didn't have an opportunity to say what you had to say. I am very aware of that. However, I will ask you another question, if that's okay with you.

I want to come back to the point about information sharing between the various government agencies, because there is concern that it could be abused, with great repercussions upon the privacy of Canadians.

I wonder whether you could comment on that, Mr. Anderson.

[Stephen Anderson]

Bill C-51 clearly facilitates the distribution of information on law-abiding, innocent Canadians without a warrant and without their knowledge or consent to no fewer than 17 agencies, along with foreign governments. That is what is in the legislation and that is why Canadians are so concerned.

Having our information stored in those databases is naturally of concern to any law-abiding Canadian. People who are going about their day-to-day activities are going to be swept up in this naturally, because they engage with the government. To say that's not the case, that if you're abiding by the law you will not be swept up in this, is I think disingenuous.

If you add in the added provisions that would enable the CSE to monitor the lives of Canadians, it's a dangerous combination.

That's why Canadians think this bill is reckless and dangerous. People are going to continue to be upset until there are safeguards put in place.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you.

We have this bill in front of us. People took to the streets in protest, and there is a petition of 100,000 signatures, or probably more, and I'm sure more are coming in as we speak. As someone who works really hard at the grassroots level to speak to digital rights—you are having conversations with Canadians—why do you think that opinion is shifting so quickly? What is the precursor?

We saw the statistics coming out saying that 80% of people supported this, but now 50% don't support it. Could you speak to that?

[Stephen Anderson]

I think it's the combination of the eroding of our privacy rights, the monitoring of law-abiding Canadians and the reckless nature of that approach, with the danger there is in turning CSIS essentially into a secret police force, despite the kind of recommendations made to create more oversight and restrain that kind of activity.

When you combine this with the fact that this legislation is vague and is being rushed through, that combination of its being reckless, dangerous, and ineffective makes Canadians really disappointed, to the degree that they'll go out into the streets, sign petitions, and educate their family and friends. That's what we're seeing here. We're seeing grassroots education on a massive scale that I personally, having been involved in these issues for awhile, have never seen.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you.

Here is one last question for you. Perhaps your colleagues may want to jump in on it too.

You said in your opening statements that new CSE digital disruption activities could also include such measures as false attribution to individuals, the takedown of legitimate websites, or the planting of malware on individual devices. Could you perhaps elaborate on those comments?

[Sukanya Pillay]

We're very concerned about the abilities of the CSE and the fact that there isn't any proper review, in our view, of the CSE. Just today there's an excellent op-ed in the National Post by Christopher Parsons that will answer a lot of the questions that you've just asked. The capability for mass surveillance, for mass digital surveillance, exists today to capture that on innocent, ordinary, law-abiding Canadians and to share that, and also for that information to be shared abroad,. There are no halts on that, and that is what is of concern to us.

We have examples of individuals whose private information has been shared abroad where that has caused problems for them. These are real-life examples today that we are concerned about.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Fine. Thank you very much.

We will now go to Mr. Payne for seven minutes, please.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you to the witnesses for coming today.

This is a really important bill that we're talking about, affecting the security of Canadian citizens and the country of Canada as well. Obviously, that's the prime importance of the Government of Canada, to make sure that, in fact, Canadians are protected and our borders are secure.

Professor Mansur, you did say there is no freedom without security. I'm sure I have that right.

[Dr. Salim Mansur]

Yes, you have that right. Thank you, sir.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Okay, thank you.

I know it's an important aspect of what's happening and I believe both you and Professor Davies talked about how things are changing rapidly in terms of what we're seeing from these jihadists, these terrorists.

Professor Mansur, you're a Muslim and a known supporter of those who want to tackle radicalism and make sure it doesn't sneak its way into Canada. Although these people, we know, are already here in some cases, we also know that the radicals from abroad have ways of impacting Canadians and having influence in convincing them to become radicalized. We're in the Twitter era now for spreading evil propaganda to the world.

I wonder if you could say why CSIS is necessary to address these realities we face in our globalized world.

[Dr. Salim Mansur]

Well, sir, as I understand it, CSIS is a security agency and by definition therefore, as a security intelligence operation it has to be able to monitor and engage in surveillance of those who are, as I define them, sleeper cells or fifth columns in our society, in our community.

From my perspective, we have been penetrated, and we have been penetrated over many, many years. There are organizations, legacy organizations, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Jamaat-e-Islami, the Islamic Republic of Iran that find at their disposal established organizations of Muslims in the community, the religious organizations, mosques, quasi-religious organizations, and community associations, and within them they have been able to recruit or they try to recruit members to advance their own agenda. We know that. So we need an agency like CSIS to be able to apprehend them, pre-empt them, interdict them, monitor them, and so on and so forth.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Do you see Bill C-51 as being able to assist CSIS to protect Canada, then?

[Dr. Salim Mansur]

As I read it, yes, absolutely. This is a problem that we are facing. This is a problem that has grown immensely since 9/11, but this problem was around before 9/11 and now we are living in a post-9/11 world with this. We have to deal with it and we have to find that our agencies are well equipped to deal with the problem that we are facing.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you.

Professor Davies, I know you've made a number of comments as a researcher that the terrorists are real and we're not facing that reality. I'm not sure if you meant Canadians or globally. You also mentioned that borders are seamless. You talked about the Internet, lone wolf, a number of these things, and returning foreign terrorists. With all of this in mind, do you believe CSIS and the RCMP would have time or a desire to have government agencies provide them with information about protesters, and that they would act upon it if there was no reasonable grounds to investigate?

[Garth Davies]

No, I don't. I think the phrase “drowning in information” has been used. I think there is an attempt to try to filter, as it comes in, what information is relevant. Obviously, we run the risk of overriding the system, as it were, and I would like to believe that some of those filters are in place. I don't believe the perception of CSIS running around and just grabbing every single thing they could is accurate. It certainly doesn't reflect my experiences with various members from that agency, and from the RCMP in terms of how they approach information. In my experience, they have always been very, very cognizant of legal limitations in what they can and can't do. In fact, they would argue that is their daily reality, but by the same token, they're trying to get as much information as they can about what matters and fill in gaps and pieces.

So, no, I don't believe there's a desire to add more to their plate than they already have.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you for that.

You also talked about the terrorist technology and their learning. We need to be able to act decisively and tools continue to adapt. I believe you said you were working on some program.

[Garth Davies]

Yes.