Public Safety Committee on March 24th, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Good morning, colleagues and ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to meeting number 57 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Today we are continuing our study of Bill C-51. We have witnesses here this morning and will have a second set later this morning, and then we will meet this evening for two more rounds of witnesses.

We are pleased to have our two witnesses today, who will each have up to 10 minutes for a presentation. After that there will be questions and answers.

We welcome Pamela Palmater, chair in indigenous governance, Ryerson University, Department of Politics and Public Administration. We welcome as well Steve Irwin, inspector with the Toronto Police Service.

Thank you both for coming here today and taking the opportunity to meet the committee and to bring forward your opinions, views, and perspectives on this bill.

We will start off with the opening statements.

Ms. Palmater, you have the floor.

[Dr. Pamela Palmater, Chair in Indigenous Governance, Ryerson University, Department of Politics and Public Administration, As an Individual]

Thank you for inviting me here today to speak.

I first want to acknowledge that we're on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Nation, and that's not just a polite acknowledgement. It's the very reason why all of you get to sit here today. Were it not for the cooperation, generosity, kindness, and political alliances, Canada wouldn't be what it is. Were it not for the peace treaties between our nations that are now constitutionally protected and form part of the foundational aspect of Canada, none of us would be sitting here today. I think that goes to the very heart of Bill C-51 and why I am opposed to it.

Canada has placed Bill C-51 before indigenous peoples without any information, analysis, details on how it will impact our nations, consultation, information, or consent from our part. It is a gross violation of our nations-to-nation relationship.

I don't have time to go through all of the technical legal details and problems with this bill except to say that I echo all of the concerns that have already been brought and will be brought by the thousands of lawyers in this country, security experts, former prime ministers, and former Supreme Court of Canada justices. My main concern is how this bill would impact me, my family, indigenous peoples all over Canada, and our treaty partners, other Canadians.

Canada has a long history of criminalizing every aspect of indigenous identity. From the scalping bounties in 1949, which nearly wiped out my Mi'kmaq Nation, to the Indian Act, which has outlawed our culture and our right to educate our own children and even excluded indigenous women from our communities. Every aspect of our identity has been criminalized, both historically and into the present day. In every single instance, we've had to resist all of these laws, keeping in mind that these were all validly enacted laws. It was legal to take Mi'kmaq scalps; it was legal to confine us to reserves; it was legal to deny us legal representation. All of these things were law in Canada. We had to be criminals, in that we had to break the law in order to preserve our lives, our physical security, and our identities. We are being faced with this very problem again with Bill C-51.

Over the years, these laws have morphed into provincial and municipal regulations that deal even with our traditional means of providing subsistence—hunting, fishing, and gathering have all been so criminalized for indigenous peoples that we end up skulking around in the forest just to be able to provide food for our families. Every single court case that has been won at the Supreme Court of Canada has been a battle with indigenous peoples, who are trying to live their lives and exercise their rights and identities, facing some kind of criminal or regulatory charge.

In every single instance, we have been labelled as criminals and treated as criminals, and one need only look at the current prison population to understand that this is still the case; not just the case, but as Howard Sapers from the Office of the Correctional Investigator has indicated, a national crisis and embarrassment. And why is it? It's not because we're actually terrorists, not because we're more culturally predisposed to being criminals, but it's a direct result of Canada's discriminatory laws and policies. There have been endless justice inquiries, which have pointed to the infection of racism in our Canadian justice system. The Donald Marshall wrongful prosecution inquiry, the Manitoba justice inquiry, and the Ipperwash inquiry say that every aspect of our justice system, from the arresting officers, to the lawyers, to the judges, to the prison systems, overtly and systemically discriminates against indigenous peoples. That's our current reality.

Bill C-51 proposes to take that to the last and final step. All we have left now, as indigenous peoples, are our thoughts.

Our private thoughts will now be criminalized. It will now be possible to be considered a terrorist for storing alleged terrorist propaganda on our own personal computers. My declaration of sovereignty—and I'm going to say it before Bill C-51 passes—is that I'm part of the sovereign Mi'kmaq Nation. That kind of material on my computer could be considered terrorist and a threat to national security because it's a threat to Canada's sovereignty. Welcome to the new terrorist.

My name is Pam Palmater. I'm a lawyer, I'm a professor, I'm a mom, and I'm a social justice activist. I've won numerous awards for my work in social justice, women's equality, and children's rights. Depending on whose radicalized view you speak of, I have also been called a radical, bad Indian, eco-terrorist, enemy of the people, top-five-to-fear Canadian, dangerous militant, and whacko extremist.

My biggest concern isn't how I'm presented in the media or by government officials, I'm stronger than that. My biggest concern is how this impacts me right now, the level of government surveillance for a law-abiding, peaceful, social justice activist, who's never been arrested or convicted of any crime.

In response to my ATIP request to CSIS, they explain that they have a right to prevent subversive and hostile activities against the Canadian state, which is why they have a file on me. They don't offer me the courtesy of saying why I would be considered subversive or hostile. In fact, everything I do couldn't be more public.

In my ATIP request to Indian Affairs they would not confirm that they monitor me. They said that they do conduct an analysis of me and my activities because I'm an active voice. That analysis comprised 750 pages of documents that tracked all of my whereabouts, what provinces I was travelling to, where I was speaking, and the dates and times. They could not provide my security file because it was destroyed.

When I attend gatherings, rallies, protests, or public and private events, I often cannot make cell phone calls, send texts, or access my social media, my bank cards, or my credit cards. I can be at an Idle No More rally or protest and text my children, but I cannot communicate with the chiefs who are at the same protest. This causes me great concern for my safety. How am I supposed to help ensure the comfort and safety of the people at rallies and myself if I can't communicate with anyone? I don't have to remind this committee the staggering statistics and vulnerabilities of indigenous women in this country.

I contacted the RCMP as well. They never responded to my ATIP request. Individual RCMP officers at various events have confirmed that they were there to monitor me. At numerous protests I have been informed by RCMP and provincial police that I had to keep my protest peaceful. Sometimes they didn't identify themselves. At speaking engagements the host first nation would demand that any undercover RCMP, or Ontario, or other police officers identify themselves, and in many cases they did.

What's more concerning is the number of government officials that follow me around from speaking engagement to speaking engagement and often identify themselves when called upon to do so. Probably the most shocking is when I travel internationally in countries like Samoa, Peru, England, and Switzerland only to be informed by local authorities that Canadian officials are there to monitor me. That's very frightening in a country where I have committed no crime, but to advocate peacefully on behalf of my people.

In the prairie provinces the RCMP are very active. They will often call ahead to the First Nations University of Canada where I'm speaking and ask them to identify what my target will be or where I plan my protest.

This isn't just a problem for me. We've all heard about Cindy Blackstock and others.

I'll skip to my recommendations, because I can see that I'm out of time.

Bill C-51 must be withdrawn. There is no way to fix it. There must be proper public information consultation, specific consultation for indigenous peoples, and a proper parliamentary study. Directing Justice Canada to rubber-stamp the bill as compliant even if it has a 95% chance of being overturned in court is not democratic.

We need an independent review body to report on the ongoing surveillance of indigenous peoples that will take complaints, do proper investigations, and offer redress.

Finally, we are in desperate need of a special first nation advocate to be appointed for any and all court processes in all provinces and territories whenever applications are made in secret for court warrants. This person would be an amicus, a friend of the court who would be independent and could speak to all of the various constitutional and indigenous rights at stake. This is absolutely essential, especially if Bill C-51 is to be passed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Ms. Palmater.

We will now go up to 10 minutes with Inspector Irwin.

[Inspector Steve Irwin, Inspector, Toronto Police Service]

Thank you. Good morning. Thank you very much for allowing me to appear before this committee on behalf of Chief William Blair and the Toronto Police Service.

As stated, my name is Steve Irwin. I am an inspector with the Toronto Police Service. As of next month I will have completed 35 years with the Toronto Police Service. I'm currently seconded to the RCMP-led Integrated National Security Enforcement Team in Toronto, and I'm responsible for national security investigations in the greater Toronto area and throughout southwestern Ontario.

I started my policing career as a uniformed officer in Toronto, and have worked in homicide, sexual assaults, hate crime, intelligence, and in 1995 was the sergeant who started the anti-terrorism unit within the Toronto Police Service to address what we perceived to be a terrorist threat emanating from the first attack on the World Trade Center in New York City. Since 1995 I've had a lead role within the Toronto Police Service on terrorism-related issues.

In relation to where we are today, 911 taught us there are no rules or boundaries for terrorism. We were shocked into the reality that anything goes. We adjusted our stance and created anti-terrorism sections of the Criminal Code to address that threat from a law enforcement perspective. More recently we recognized there were gaps in our criminal laws to address the evolution of the terrorist threat that manifested through the first decade of this millennium.

New criminal offences were created and preventive processes were recommended to be reinstated in Bill S-7, which we know was passed into law, and all those sections are beneficial in both the prevention of terrorism and in holding accountable those individuals intent on committing terrorist offences.

I'm going to briefly address some aspects of proposals in Bill C-51 from a non-federal policing perspective.

Regarding the Criminal Code amendments, I've dealt extensively with the hate propaganda sections of the Criminal Code since being assigned to the Toronto Police Hate Crime Unit in 1993. I have considered the application of the hate propaganda sections in numerous cases involving individuals who have publicly preached or advocated for the use of violence in the name of religious, ideological, or political belief.

Unfortunately, the sections are too restrictive for those who are clever enough or counselled sufficiently to avoid divulging any criminal intent. With the current terrorist threat there is a definite need for the new offence of advocating or promoting terrorism. Many hate-mongers hide behind carefully spoken words that lure a growing, vulnerable, often younger, group of people to adopt an extreme radical view that condones or advocates taking up arms against those who have different beliefs.

It is crucial that those who have a criminal intent be faced with the consequences of criminal conduct. Equally it is important to have appropriate tools to address those who use terrorist propaganda to influence those same vulnerable people to adopt a radical view that leads to terrorist acts.

Through these new criminal offences, we will be able to prevent the growth of the terrorist entities and groups. Lowering the threshold of “will commit a terrorist offence” to “may commit a terrorist offence” provides law enforcement and the courts an important preventive tool that will offer those misguided, vulnerable people a path away from serious criminal conduct and the liability that comes with that.

The tools in the Criminal Code are helpful to law enforcement, but truthfully, in my experience, are not sufficient to address all aspects of the current evolution of threats to our national security, both in the form of terrorism and of espionage.

The proposed changes to the CSIS act I see as progressive. CSIS is involved many times before law enforcement and could easily disrupt activities sufficiently so as to mitigate threats. By no means am I suggesting that they would always employ disruption strategies, but certainly having the ability to do so independent of law enforcement could be very effective, essentially for further enhancing the security of Canadians.

In relation to Canada's Security of Information Act, I believe that consideration for provision to include non-federal police services as agencies.... Information that can be shared would be important for a number of reasons, including the major municipal, regional police, and provincial police services. They are frequently involved in intelligence investigations in the early stage of national security-related investigations that are not obviously national security ones in those early stages.

Furthermore, municipal, regional, and provincial police are the police of jurisdiction along much of our international border and at points of entry in international airports.

Often there are no RCMP officers working in the areas, and where they are, it is not on a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week basis, leaving the police of jurisdiction conducting investigations that are of national security in nature. Not having access to available information because they are not a federal entity creates a significant gap that could impact on the safety of the public.

Finally, the police of jurisdiction throughout this country regularly deal with “activity that undermines the security of Canada” as defined in clause 2 of the proposed act, including “interference with critical infrastructure” and “terrorism”, and could find themselves dealing with “proliferation of nuclear, chemical, radiological or biological weapons”, as well as “an activity that takes place in Canada and undermines the security of another state.”

Respectfully, the RCMP in Ontario does not have the resources to always respond in a timely manner to incidents that could meet the definition and threshold stipulated in the act. I bring to your attention the fact that the RCMP performs the exact same municipal and provincial police duties in many communities in all provinces outside of Ontario and Quebec. It is only the fact that they are RCMP members that gives them access to the information that all other police officers in this country performing the same duties are excluded from.

In relation to the Secure Air Travel Act, consideration ought to be given to adding authority, including pictures and biometric information where available, for people on the no-fly list as aliases are not always known. That, I believe, is a significant gap.

Consideration ought to also include an inclusive list of non-federal police in clause 10, “Assistance to Minister”, paragraph (f), as many international airports are policed by municipal, regional, or provincial police. That includes airports in Toronto, the Toronto Island Airport. Buttonville Municipal Airport in York Region is an example. Also, the Hamilton airport. London, Ontario, has an international airport. All are policed by municipal and/or provincial police initially.

In conclusion, the proposed changes in Bill C-51 are another step forward in closing the gap that leaves Canadians and the public exposed to being victims of criminal acts involving our national security. Admittedly, the balance between the freedom we enjoy in Canada and the security measures required to ensure that freedom is not without its cost to our individual rights and privacy.

In my reading of the proposed legislative changes, the authorities required for the new powers that prescribe oversight and mandated audits, combined with the safeguards already in place for the various government agencies, I believe provide necessary protection from abuses and will safeguard many of the issues raised by those who are against Bill C-51. Recognizing there is no single solution to address the current threats to national security, Bill C-51 certainly will provide better tools to prevent many of those threats from becoming realized in actual terrorist acts or acts of espionage.

I thank you for your attention, and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Inspector Irwin.

We will now go to our rounds of questioning for seven minutes.

We will start with Mr. Falk.

You have the floor, sir.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you to our witnesses, Ms. Palmater and Inspector Irwin, for joining us this morning. I enjoyed listening to your testimony.

This committee has heard a wide range and variety of opinions on the issue and the concerns. Probably without exception, we've heard from witnesses that there is a very real threat of terrorism to Canadians. Certainly Bill C-51 is an attempt to modernize the tools that law enforcement agencies have in dealing with this very real threat.

Inspector, you spoke of the evolution of threats. Certainly we've heard in the past that there's rapid advancement, evolution, and modernization of the things jihadi terrorists are using as weapons of their mission. I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit more about our need to keep pace with some of the modernized techniques that the jihadis are employing.

[Insp Steve Irwin]

Certainly.

There are two aspects to that. One is obviously our role as a nation with the international community and that we ought to be seen to be holding up our end.

There are events that have happened. We've seen Canadians go overseas and commit terrorist attacks against innocent people. I think our reputation as exporters of marijuana is one we're well known for, and terrorism is not something that any of us, as Canadians, should be proud of.

In relation to the issue domestically—and again, from a municipal perspective, appreciating that I have a lot of knowledge on investigations that have occurred—there are many weapons available in society. The knowledge is there and available. The Internet has certainly opened up the realm. The world is on our computers and our smart phones. That provides knowledge on how to build weapons or use weapons that we wouldn't normally see, including things like motor vehicles or weapons of opportunity.

More important are the individuals who conspire, who start to adopt, and admittedly some of them feel disenfranchised, but they then look to further their beliefs.... Currently the jihadi issue is specifically dealing with radicalized Islam and those who believe in violence in the name of their religion.

That is ever present. When I think back to the Toronto 18—and that was something that was generated locally—that was inspired by individuals in a small group. We now see that people from all over the world are inspiring—and more than inspiring, in fact are teaching and providing tools for how to beat, to get around our systems, how to speak and not break the laws that are currently in place in Canada and, ultimately, to lure those mostly young and vulnerable people.

If we go back a few years, we were seeing that males were the predominant targets. We're now seeing in the media that there are a number of young females who are equally becoming lured and looking to join the cause overseas.

Our concern too is what they learn there. Certainly the teachings will be brought back, as we've seen recently in events here in Canada, and when they determine that Canada is a common enemy then that knowledge and weaponry will be used on us and that which is available to us.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you.

Last evening we heard from the sister of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent.

She gave testimony to this committee. She talked about information sharing, and she talked about information being in silos that she believes prevented law enforcement from taking preventative measures that could in essence have saved her brother's life.

She also mentioned how corporations have realized that silos within a corporation don't foster a healthy environment, nor do they promote the advancement of the corporation. I've had experience and been involved with several large companies, and certainly the formation of silos is something we always combat.

Part of this bill addresses the whole idea of information sharing among law enforcement agencies and moving away from the silo environment that currently exists.

Can you comment a bit on how that would be a useful amendment?

[Insp Steve Irwin]

In fact, I think it's a crucial piece, even across the federal government. Having worked for the last four years with the RCMP, and having the same authority as an RCMP officer, it is challenging to get access to information in different government agency holdings that would in fact help to further a criminal investigation. Often it could also be used to stop a national security investigation; you get access to information that is held in another pillar that would stop further pursuit by individuals or groups that have been identified or about whom complaints have been brought to us.

It's interesting—and I spoke from a municipal perspective—at the federal level. I think it is absolutely crucial that information be allowed to be shared. But there has to be accountability for that. Respectfully, it's all of our rights. I think we need to consider that when we look at what safeguards are in place for sharing that information.

However, that information and those gaps are absolutely an issue, and certainly we are frustrated at times with finding legal means to get access to information that would assist our investigations and in fact help to prevent terrorist offences.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Falk and Mr. Irwin.

We will now go to Mr. Saganash for seven minutes.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome and thank you to both of our witnesses this morning.

I want to start with Ms. Palmater. I've been in this business for more than 30 years as well. I've been called many names, too. All of our protests and challenges posed by aboriginal peoples in this country are always related to the economy. Resource development is, of course, an important aspect of all that.

The far-reaching proposed provisions in Bill are therefore somewhat of a direct threat to section 35 rights. National Chief Bellegarde recommended that we scrap this bill. You say that this bill must be withdrawn because it is not fixable. I happen to agree with that.

For 150 years in the history of this country, governments have always been adversaries of aboriginal peoples. We both know that. What we've always considered as rights issues has always been viewed or treated as police issues, or law and order issues, by successive provincial, federal, and municipal governments.

Will this proposed legislation make matters worse for indigenous peoples in this country, and why?

[Dr. Pamela Palmater]

Thank you for your question. It's an important one because, as I stated, it doesn't just impact indigenous peoples; it impacts the rest of Canada, including environmentalists, unions, women's groups, and children's advocates.

We have to get real about what the clear and present danger is here. How many Canadians have died from acts of terrorism on Canadian soil? Compare that with how many thousands of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls there are. Where is the Bill C-51 to protect them? How many husbands have killed their wives? How many serial killers have we had? Yet, we are focusing on Bill C-51.

The problem is that this bill isn't really about terrorism. If you do an analysis of this omnibus bill, the focus is, just as you've said, less about being anti-terrorism and more about protecting the status quo in terms of power relations and economic relations. This new national security law focuses on threats to sovereignty, territorial integrity, diplomatic relations—of all things—economic stability, and critical infrastructure. All of these things are an essential part of the daily lives of Canadians and first nations. Passing this bill for any activity, any person, any purpose that threatens national security so defined as financial stability and territorial integrity makes us all suspects.

Canada won't even have to pass this bill; the terrorists will have won. What is terrorism? Fundamentally, it's the denial of life, liberty, and security of the person. If Canada goes ahead and takes those rights away, terrorists just have to sit back, job done.

We worked far too hard in our treaty negotiations, the development of the charter and the Constitution, and all of the international laws that protect core, fundamental human rights, to allow that to happen because we want to protect some corporate economic interests.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Given that your access to information request has shown that you've already been surveilled for perfectly legal civic actions, is it reasonable to assume that if this legislation is passed, you could be viewed as a terrorist for the same lawful activities?

[Dr. Pamela Palmater]

Bill C-51 as currently written would capture everything under Idle No More. Imagine that. Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come of the Grand Council of the Crees offered a quote for my submission as well, to the effect that had their activities been done today as opposed to back then, the James Bay agreement would not have been negotiated. They would all be in jail. The Idle No More movement, which was a historical coming together of first nations and Canadians peacefully dancing, singing, and drumming, would now all be monitored—if not already, as the media has indicated—and maybe with arbitrary detentions.

All of these things are very frightening for this country. Keep in mind that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples protects us, grants us and recognizes international customary law that we can act autonomously, that we can occupy our lands. Under the Department of National Defence's manual, occupying our lands, advocating for our autonomy, and advocating for political rights are described as insurgency, alongside jihadists. It is no comfort that there is a proviso saying that lawful activity, lawful dissent, lawful protest, lawful art—whatever that is—won't be captured by this bill, because the second we do a round dance in the street without a permit, it very quickly becomes unlawful.

We have to remember—I already went over this—all of the very validly enacted laws that Canada has had that have ended up in the killing, murder, rape, violence, sterilization, and scalping of our people. Those were valid laws. The only way to protect ourselves was to act with unlawful resistance.

What we're saying now is that the clear and present danger to first nations and Canadians is environmental destruction and the contamination of our water. We have a right to defend our life, liberty, and security to protect our future generations. Under this bill, that will all be captured as a threat to national security and/or to be terrorism.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Your time is up, Mr. Saganash.

We will now go to Ms. Ablonczy for seven minutes, please.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the witnesses coming forward and taking time to share their perspectives on this important bill.

I think it's important to consider what the bill says about activities that undermine the security of Canada. Clearly, we want to continue to secure our country as a peaceful place, a free place, and a place where privacy rights are protected as well.

The activities that undermine the security of Canada are listed in the bill in clause 2. There are nine of them, and I just want to read them because I'm going to ask a question about that.

First of all, there is activity that is:

(a) interference with the capability of the Government of Canada in relation to intelligence, defence, border operations, public safety, the administration of justice, diplomatic or consular relations, or the economic or financial stability of Canada;

Number two is:

(b) changing or unduly influencing a government in Canada by force or unlawful means;

Number three is the activity of:

(c) espionage, sabotage or covert foreign-influenced activities;

Number four is terrorism, and number five is:

(e) proliferation of nuclear, chemical, radiological or biological weapons;

Next is:

(f) interference with critical infrastructure;

Next is:

(g) interference with the global information infrastructure...;

Number eight is:

(h) an activity that causes serious harm to a person or their property because of that person’s association with Canada; and

Number nine is:

(i) an activity that takes place in Canada and undermines the security of another state.

The clause goes on to say:

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

Now, we want to get this right because we are facing a real and present danger. We know that jihadi terrorists have declared war on Canada. They've specifically targeted Canada. They've urged their supporters to attack “disbelieving” Canadians “in any manner”, and they vow that we should not feel secure even in our own homes.

I'm sure that all of us, regardless of our perspective on this bill, would not want those threats to be carried out.

I will start with you, Inspector Irwin. Do you believe that any of the activities that are listed in this bill would lead to activists, such as Ms. Palmater, being targeted by the activities of our security forces under clause 2 of the bill and the nine activities I have just read?

It's a tough one, I know.

[Insp Steve Irwin]

There's much that goes through my mind, having been to most major demonstrations in the city of Toronto, some here in Ottawa, and some in other parts of this province since 1993.

I will say that for our system to work we do need people to protest. We do need checks and balances in the system. We do need—and here I think of my early days in dealing with hate propaganda, and the importance of needing the Attorney General's consents on what is free speech—the same as the terrorism offences.

It's not for law enforcement, which tends to be hard-right leaning. It is government, and it is a sitting government that has Attorney General who consents. In many of these sections it's the Minister of Public Safety. That allows for the political piece to authorize and justify.

I trust that there are other criminal offences in the Criminal Code—we hosted a very robust G-8, G-20 in Toronto, in 2010—and there are sections of the Criminal Code that were looked at that might also fit into the definitions here.

I will say, in my experience—and now with my 22 years in intelligence, criminal intelligence, and national security—we are being more open and certainly more tolerant of a number people who have a difference of opinion and who take over streets. It's not being criminalized. Certainly there are many areas that I do not believe the security service is targeting.

I believe that it will require government and the powers that be to be very cognizant. To the issue of the first nations, I will qualify that when I started to prepare for this, I was really focused on that international jihadist threat. I appreciate the impact it has on domestic groups and individuals, and certainly first nation people.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Okay, thank you very much.

I wanted to give Ms. Palmater time to put her legal training and activist knowledge to work, to help us to understand how you feel that clause 2 activities might impact you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Ms. Palmater, we've already expended the time, but I will certainly give you an opportunity briefly to respond to that if you wish.

[Dr. Pamela Palmater]

Thank you for asking because as you probably know, I was a lawyer for Justice Canada, worked on legislation, and have taken training in legislative interpretation and regulatory drafting. That is why I was quite shocked this legislation ever made it here. The Justice Canada lawyers that I know would never have said this is anywhere near to being constitutional.

The problem is that list that you read is just a list. It's an example, some examples of what would be threats to national security. There is no limit on the threat to national security. That “any activity” means any activity.

My problem is that under the bill, who gets to decide? Clearly, it's Canada and independent law enforcement officers. What's happening here is that there are an infinite number of offences that are being created. It's not knowable. We have a right as citizens, as a basic tenet of law, to know the offence for which we're being charged and to be able to predict it in the future. We know that we aren't allowed to steal things, so we don't steal things, or we know there are consequences.

Under this bill it's literally anything. That's a problem in law and it certainly doesn't correspond with or would survive a constitutional or charter challenge, and I think that the former Supreme Court justices have been pretty specific about that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Excuse me, Ms. Palmater, you are well over the time.

Thank you very much.

We will now go to Mr. Easter, please.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to both witnesses for your presentations today, and for both of your efforts out there beyond your appearance at the committee, one of policing and one of legitimate public dissent that profiles issues. I think that both are important in a democracy.

Starting with you, Ms. Palmater, you've mentioned the need for a special first nations advocate. I'm making an assumption here, but I expect that relates to the section in the bill where CSIS can apply for a warrant to do certain things.

I take it from your comments that you're suggesting that if the bill goes through, there needs to be an amendment in that area that would allow for special advocates, in this case first nation ones, who would be able to provide the other side of the argument before a judge as to whether or not a warrant is granted.

Am I correct in that? Do you want to expand on that a little bit?

[Dr. Pamela Palmater]

Just to be clear, I'm saying that there is no way at all to save this bill.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I understand that.

[Dr. Pamela Palmater]

My recommendations were about how to address the problem right now. We have a crisis right now, because first nations are being targeted by police officers and the government at large. If this bill were to pass and they added this provision for a special first nations advocate for all of these core processes, that wouldn't stop first nations from being targeted to begin with. That's like trying to provide compensation to murdered indigenous women after they've already been murdered. It's too little too late. So I don't think it would be effective to counter all of the rights violations currently existing under Bill C-51.