Public Safety Committee on March 24th, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

You're actually out of time, Ms. Sims, but I'll give you an extra minute due to the introduction.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you very much.

What do you believe is the absolute single most pressing reform we should make to ensure that another tragedy like the Air India bombing does not happen again, and do you see it in this bill?

[Justice John Major]

To me, the lack of a national security adviser is an impediment that runs the danger of the objectives of the bill not being achieved.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Ms. Sims.

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

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

Thank you to all the witnesses. We have a very distinguished panel today.

I'd like to start with you, Mr. Major, because we haven't had someone of your eminence, if I can say so, before us before.

I noted a very interesting article in The Globe and Mail on March 1, in which you commented on a letter that was sent by 100 Canadian law professors calling this bill a danger to democracy and the rule of law. You said that the letter was way over the top, and that because we're dealing with a serious problem of terrorism in Canada, you can't have a half-hearted war against that. I found your comments very interesting, and I want to ask you two things.

You know, a good lawyer never asks questions they don't know the answer to, but I honestly don't know the answer to this. We've heard this morning and from other witnesses that this bill will allow everyone's personal information to be shared widely between all of the security and law enforcement agencies in Canada. We've also heard witnesses say that any activity that basically the government doesn't like can be disrupted under the guise of being a threat to the security of Canada.

I'd be interested to hear from you, as an eminent jurist, your assessment of the current provisions of the draft bill vis-à-vis these allegations of a breach of privacy and vulnerability to disruption of any activity and all activity across Canada.

[Justice John Major]

In answer to that, I would begin by saying that we have to have trust in our law enforcement people. You can speculate that a rogue enforcement officer might go beyond his jurisdiction for mischief. You can't guard against the odd black sheep. But taken as a whole, I'm satisfied that the agencies will act in good faith, that citizens who are not validly under suspicion will not have some manufactured reason for their private lives to be interfered with.

You can exaggerate, as I commented in that letter you referred to, or you can speculate on rogues doing a lot of things, but the history of Canada and our law enforcement is generally that the people involved in law enforcement, involved in Parliament, involved in the governance of the country, have acted responsibly. What we have to try to do is ensure that there are reasonable safeguards to continue that.

For that reason, I come back to the review at the end of these things: the national security adviser. I said earlier there's a lot of protection at the beginning—you have to get warrants—but there's nothing at the end to see whether the warrant was followed.

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

I appreciate that very much.

I have a question for you, Mr. Collacott. We've met before over the years and you are an expert on our immigration system. We heard testimony that part 5 of this bill, which relates to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, should not be enacted.

I wonder if you would give your views on that part of the bill.

[Martin Collacott]

Was there any particular part that you were interested in, Ms. Ablonczy, or just general comments?

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

It's part 5 of the act. I don't know if you have the bill in front of you, but it basically has provisions relating to our immigration system. If you haven't had an opportunity to look at that, don't worry about it. I was just interested, if you had.

[Martin Collacott]

If there were specific questions about that part, I would be happy to try and answer them.

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

Sorry, I'm not hearing that. There's a lot of interference, even with my headphones.

We've heard at least one other witness say that this part relating to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act should not be enacted, meaning in its entirety. If you've had a chance to look at this part of the bill, I would be interested in your comments as to its importance.

[Martin Collacott]

It would help me if you could just identify the part you want me to comment on. As you know, I have quite a number of views on immigration issues, so I probably have some comments to offer.

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

There are a number of sections in the bill, Mr. Collacott, starting at page 55. They are amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. It talks about inadmissibility of certain applicants for citizenship.

If you haven't had a chance to study it, I don't think there's any point in trying to cover it now.

[Martin Collacott]

I could make a couple of general comments about admissibility, though.

We do have a problem of who we allow into the country. In fact, we bring in quite a few people who I don't think we screen properly, particularly from countries that produce a lot of extremists, such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, and so on.

I don't know whether it's covered in part 5, but we should be doing far more intensive interviews of people, not just to try and determine whether they might be a threat, but to advise them on whether Canada is the right place to come to.

We had a case recently of someone of Afghani origin who came here and ended up murdering his three daughters because I don't think he had a good understanding of what Canadian society is like. That may not be what's covered in part 5, but we should do a lot more careful screening. I expect the inadmissibility provisions make good sense.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

I'm sorry, Ms. Ablonczy. We're—

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

Just to clarify, the act talks about admissibility of evidence, so I think we're talking about different things, but I appreciate your comment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Ms. Ablonczy.

Mr. Easter, for seven minutes.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I thank all three witnesses, two for their presentations and Justice Major for his comments.

I'll start with you, Mr. Benlolo.

What I'm finding with the witnesses so far who come before committee, and surprisingly those who strongly are in favour of the greater security measures that this bill will provide to keep Canadians safe, those groups, and you're included in that, seem to show a willingness to take a reasonable approach to balance the other areas in the bill that civil society is concerned about. I appreciate and respect that.

If government members don't respond to that need that we make amendments to this bill that are so needed to bring confidence from the general public in this bill then we have a problem going down the road, in my view. I'll give you one small example. I believe there needs to be more substantive amendments to the bill in a number of areas. In the bill it says, and this is an area where environmental activists and others are concerned, “for greater certainty, it does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression”.

That same clause was in the bill in 2001. The government of the day took out the word “lawful” and at least satisfied some that they wouldn't be targeted for a demonstration that wasn't entirely lawful. I've been in some myself, I will admit, in my farm union days.

Would you be agreeable to take out that word?

[Avi Benlolo]

I think I'd have to understand it better. I'm not a lawyer. I'm an activist.

My concern of course is that legitimate organizations should protest. I am concerned about some organizations, which is why I mentioned the specific rally that I did, perhaps spewing hate toward others. That's where my concern lies, but I wouldn't want to hurt or affect or impact entities that have legitimate protest.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I think that's fair. I'm glad you're willing to look at those areas.

In terms of the whole issue of hate propaganda—and I think you hit on it in your remarks—I guess incenting hatred to a certain extent, and it's done so easily now on the Internet, do you think this bill meets the test in that regard, that it gives the authority to pull back on some of that propaganda that will lead to radicalization or to convict those who may be responsible for that propaganda?

[Avi Benlolo]

I'm encouraging more.

I think the bill has to be a little stronger in that regard, because I am concerned that some hate propaganda will be overlooked. For example, I was unhappy when section 13 on hate on the Internet and digital hate was struck down. I'm happy to see though that's been re-engaged here in this bill. Realizing of course that the Internet is a global thing, we can't control what's coming out of wherever, Europe, Mexico, but we can control servers here that are perhaps hosting hate speech. I think we have to strengthen that definition, because I think there's been a reduction over the last decade of what hate speech is.

The reason I brought in the university, the reason I spoke about Facebook and social networking is that I am concerned that is not looked at sufficiently. I would like to encourage that this bill—I think it's getting there—to have a stronger approach in that regard.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you.

Turning to Justice Major, if I could, you talked about one of your recommendations in the Air India report. We certainly thank you for that report. It was a good work.

You're very strong on a national security adviser. I believe you made the statement that without the national security adviser, even though there is better sharing of information, I think you said that the bill may not meet its objectives. I think you're calling for either an amendment or an addition to the bill that would institute—you didn't say you were in favour of oversight, but would institute what you recommended in the Air India report, which would be a national security adviser.

Am I correct? Do you want to expand on that?

[Justice John Major]

You are correct, but I am in favour of oversight. The purpose of the national security adviser would serve that purpose. It would be a form of oversight.

We're faced in this world of terrorism with a very...it's indescribable what the risk is. We have to be prepared to give authority to our government, to the enforcement officers, to try to fight that very difficult war. We have to rely on their good faith in some respects, and for lack of a better word, take a chance.

I say that taking a chance can be minimized if we have hindsight. The bill lacks hindsight. I use the words “national security adviser” only as a term to indicate oversight: some group or individual who can look at the activities of the various agencies, and where there's conflict, resolve it, or where there's abuse, stop it.

As it stands, I don't see those safeguards in the bill. They would not interfere with the efficiency of the bill in any manner. I may sound like a one-trick pony, but I think that's an essential part of what's missing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Justice Major.

We will now go to our second round of questioning.

For five minutes, please, Mr. Garrison.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for their testimony.

Unfortunately, we have a piece of urgent business which I think we have to deal with, given the ruling of the Speaker on our point of order about the Conservatives' use of their majority to overrule the chair's decision on the motion that was before us in our 51st meeting. I have a motion that I would like to move at this time, because the Speaker said he couldn't deal with the matter unless it was reported to the Speaker.

The motion that I am moving now is the following:

That the committee issue a report to the House summarizing the procedural difficulties which occurred at its 51st meeting, including the manner in which the debate on the motion concerning the number of meetings and witnesses for Bill C-51 under consideration at that meeting was interrupted and the questions put, and that the Committee report to the House no later than March 26, 2015.

I think it's being distributed now. If I could say a couple of words about it, this was the time we were discussing what has—