Public Safety Committee on March 25th, 2015

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us today.

My questions are for the Canadian Bar Association representatives.

I had a brief look at your submission, and I found your proposal extremely interesting. I'd like to discuss it in more detail, but first, I'd like to ask whether you think Bill C-51 is constitutional and respects the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Peter Edelmann]

I'd like to start by pointing out that certain parts of Bill C-51 are clearly unconstitutional. According to the bill, a judge can authorize violations of the charter. No such precedent exists in the law. I think it's important to stress the fact that none of the legal experts who appeared before the committee stated clearly and in no uncertain terms that the provision was constitutional. Even the Minister of Justice was ambiguous about that. He said that the legislation had been studied and adopted but that no opinion had been formed, pursuant to the Department of Justice Act. If you really consider what he said, you will see that his position wasn't clear.

In short, I would say that certain provisions are clearly unconstitutional. And as for judges being empowered to authorize charter violations, I don't think judges will get on board.

To be clear, when we're talking about search warrants, a search warrant is not authorizing a breach of the charter. A search warrant is authorization for a search that renders the search legal, and therefore is not a breach of the charter. It's very different from saying that you're going to authorize a breach of some other section. Section 8 functions very differently than other sections of the charter. When we talk about section 8 authorizations, those are not charter violations.

We have no precedent in Canadian law for judges authorizing breaches of the charter.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Gottardi, did you have something to add?

[Eric Gottardi]

That was a comprehensive answer.

I mean, it's a 55-page report with 23 recommendations. There are portions of the bill that we support, that we think are good initiatives—measured—but there are other portions, which Peter has pointed out, that we think are very clearly unconstitutional. Nothing we could suggest here would save them and they should simply be deleted.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Excellent.

On page 9 of your report, you talk about the repercussions that Bill C-51 would have on privacy protection.

Could you give us a quick overview of the repercussions that the privacy-related provisions could have on the average Canadian?

[Peter Edelmann]

I'm going to come back to the example of the Canada Border Services Agency.

With respect to CBSA, what we're talking about is an agency that has enormous powers. It has powers of search. It has powers of seizure. It takes the position that any cellphone, laptop, device coming across the Canadian border can be searched at will. In fact, someone was recently charged for not giving up their password, or at least those were the news reports. I don't know the details of the case.

We're talking about an agency that has enormous powers. Now we're talking about this agency where everything this agency does is covered by the definition in the information sharing act. There is nothing that CBSA does that would not be covered by that definition. Why we're using that definition instead of the CSIS definition or some other more restrictive definition is very unclear.

But when Canadians come across the border and you have your laptop or your cellphone searched, and you have this sent to 17 other agencies that are on the list—and those are just the ones that are currently on the list.... There could be a number of other agencies added to the list at any time.

The question is where do we draw the line in terms of where the information comes from and why it's necessary. We're not talking about terrorism, because if we were, the definition set out in the CSIS Act could be used. In this case, a much broader definition is being applied, and that's really what we're concerned about.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

That's quite interesting.

On page 10 of your brief, you talk about "targeting activity that undermines the security of Canada, not legitimate dissent". Would you mind elaborating on that?

A number of witnesses who have come before the committee, including environmental groups and first nations leaders, have expressed serious concerns about the issue. Could you speak to the legal dimension?

[Peter Edelmann]

The problem is that the wording of the bill is ambiguous. It's up to us to determine whether those people would be affected or not. In terms of a protest being “lawful", and I'm not sure what the corresponding terminology is in French, a number of people have made the following comment to the committee.

That lawful protest means protesting without a permit, or protests that may break certain laws, engaging in mischief, engaging even in infractions of the Criminal Code that are of a relatively minor nature. When we talk about this word “lawful”, it's unclear why it needs to be there. Other pieces of legislation were drafted differently precisely with these concerns in mind.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Do I have any time left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

You have 30 seconds.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I'd like you to comment on the charities aspect. This is the first I've heard of it. I know you mentioned it in your brief. Would you mind commenting on that very quickly?

[Peter Edelmann]

No pressure.

I'll try not to go over 10 seconds.

The brief addresses the impact that certain provisions in the bill could have on charities. As far as sharing information and responsibility are concerned, charities are being put in a position that isn't clear. In our view, those provisions need to be clarified, as does their potential impact on charities.

I'll keep going, unless the chair cuts me off. I would again refer you to our brief. Unfortunately, I—

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

The chair appreciates your consideration. We try to have some effective balance here, and so far I think most people find that we respect that.

We will now go to Ms. Ablonczy, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the witnesses.

We've heard tonight from Ms. Raza, and we've heard from Mr. Mansur, both practising Muslims. Dr. Jasser, you describe yourself as a devout Muslim. All of you, as well as Mr. Quiggin, mentioned deep concerns about Islamist rhetoric and radicalization throughout society.

I read with interest an article written by a jihadist recruiter from Britain. This was in the March 3 edition of the New York Times. It was titled, “The Education of ‘Jihadi John’.” I don't know if you've had a chance to read it. The author says, “academic institutions in Britain have been infiltrated for years by dangerous theocratic fantasists. I should know: I was one of them.” His own recruiter came straight out of a London medical school.

The author says something very interesting at the end, namely, “Until we confront this seeming legitimacy of Islamist discourse at the grass roots, we will not stop the scourge of radicalization.” But when you challenge Muslims in different institutions or organizations on this, the response is always that you are tarring all Muslims with that brush, that you are somehow being racist and bigoted. I guess the issue is how to challenge dangerous people or organizations in our society without being unfair or racist against the vast majority of Muslims who are moderate decent people.

I'm interested in that, Dr. Jasser. Professor Quiggin, would you chime in as well?

[Dr. Zuhdi Jasser]

Thank you very much for that question. I can't tell you how important that is.

I'll just tell you right off that not being up front, open, and honest with Muslims actually creates more of this—I don't even like the term but—Islamophobia. Phobia is a fear of the unknown. If you don't articulate the problem and address it, you actually fuel a phobia because nobody is addressing it. Furthermore, not addressing it directly is the theocracy and the theocratic movement of the supremacy of Islamic states, not just ISIS or the Islamic State, but all Islamic states of the OIC.

ISIS didn't come out of thin air. It was created in Saudi Arabia. Wahhabi thinking led them to behead 60 people in the last three months. They enact this type of movement and sharia law in Saudi Arabia through Wahhabism.

Muslims have to be held accountable as adults. Otherwise, you're infantilising Muslims and treating us like children. Somehow you don't want to offend us so you enable us and keep us in denial. I find that to be almost a bigotry of low expectations. “Oh, Muslims must be led by the misogynist, by the oppressive theocratic movements because they can't understand modern thinking and we don't even want to offend them. If we do...”. So you see, it's a vicious cycle in the sense that as someone who loves Muslim communities, and I love my family, I love my faith, it's from tough love that I address these things, because I want us to come to terms with modernity. Christians who formed America and rejected the theocrats of the Church of England loved their faith. It is amazing to me that when I've testified on these issues before, people have asked me what my qualifications are, and have said that I don't have the right to talk about these things. I say there's nothing more American, more Canadian, than rejecting theocrats.

Ultimately, I think Muslims are being given a pass. We need to apply tough love and allow them to have a diverse set of opinions, rather than the one monolithic movement that speaks for our community right now, and which is dominated by Islamists who are fed by the Saudi money petro-machine, the Qatar Foundation, the Islamist apologist who want to keep us under their thumb and boots and prevent us from reforming.

The only things which could give us the opportunity to reform are platforms like yours and modern universities in the west that aren't beholden to the petrodollars and ultimately realize that the Islamists and the Muslim Brotherhood movement that Tom described are not the only voices. In fact, we need to marginalize them because there is a connection between political Islam and radical Islam, which is on the same continuum or conveyor belt. They don't want you to see that conveyor belt so they stop you in your tracks by accusing you of Islamophobia. I think it's bigotry not to give us the platform to debate these things.

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

Thank you.

Professor Quiggin.

[Thomas Quiggin]

Thank you. I'm no longer a professor. I don't teach anymore although I held that profession in a couple of different countries.

First, I'd just like to wholeheartedly endorse Dr. Jasser's comments. What he just said is exactly the truth. I'd also like to add that his comments on the lone wolf earlier were correct. The concept of a lone wolf in terrorism exists; it happens. It's one of the rarest species on the planet. Anders Breivik comes to mind as a guy who operated totally as a lone wolf. Outside of that, there are very few examples.

In terms of who speaks for Muslims, I think this is perhaps the biggest issue we have in Canada right now. We have a whole series of problems on Muslims. There is no such thing as a Muslim community in Canada. There are multiple communities, be they Shia, Sunni, dervish, Sufi, etc., whatever. We hear a number of Canadian organizations say that they speak on behalf of all Canadian Muslims, when in fact they don't. They speak perhaps for 15% or 20% of Canadian Muslims. I think the government in particular needs to start focusing past those groups that claim they speak for Muslims, and start looking at the grassroots organizations that speak for the other 80%.

I'm also aware, having dealt extensively with the Islamic and Muslim community, that a number of them would speak out, but they won't. Why not? Fear. Fear of lawsuits, fear of abuse, fear of job loss, etc. I would put this back on the government as well. The government needs to start engaging and protecting those people more often. The most deadly thing I think we have in Canada right now is political correctness. Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Denmark, Sweden, etc., have been so heavily infested, so infected, by political correctness that it robs the country of the ability to speak openly and intelligently on problems.

We have problems. You cannot look at the stream of youth—just the ones from the Muslim students' associations—leaving this country to go and kill themselves, to kill others, and not come to the conclusion that something may be wrong.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Mr. Quiggin, we're substantially over time but we thank you.

We're close to our time, but we did have a little break and we should just finish our first round.

Mr. Easter, you're going to have a few minutes, sir.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses for coming.

I want to turn my questions to the CBA. First I want to thank you for what really is a thorough and excellent long brief with a lot of good recommendations in it.

There was a discussion earlier between you and Ms. Doré Lefebvre on the lawful aspect, and I believe you answered that it's uncertain why it needs to be there. I'd say simply put it doesn't need to be there. The same wording was in the 2001 bill and was taken out.

I think to undermine or to restrict the fear of political activists, people who are in communities that advocate protest, etc., does it fix that section if we were just to amend the word “lawful”, as was done in the past?

[Peter Edelmann]

The short answer is that it addresses one problem with the section. Ultimately, the question for me—and I've listened to a lot of the discussion and the debate around this bill—and the issue that I've yet to hear an explanation of is why the CSIS Act definition is not being used and why this broader definition is being created at all. There's been no explanation. All the debate around this has been around terrorism and Islamic jihadist terrorism. Nothing in the CSIS Act would prevent any of that work being done. I have a lot of difficulty understanding. That's already, in my view, a definition that's quite broad and there's been criticism, even from SIRC and others, about the scope of that definition. This is a much broader definition.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I agree with you on that point.

The other area, under proposed section 6 under the heading “disclosure of information”, nobody has been able to explain this to us yet in this committee where they say in accordance with the law, “using that information, or further disclosing it to any person, for any purpose”.

That's extremely broad. What's your thought on that? It's proposed section 6, page 5.

[Peter Edelmann]

Our thoughts—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

It's section 6, page 5.

[Peter Edelmann]

I think that the question is a much more fundamental one and it comes down to the part that we don't understand. I think nobody has been able to explain, and the bill itself doesn't explain, how this bill interacts with the Privacy Act. What is the interaction between these bills? Does it supersede the Privacy Act? Are these information sharing mechanisms subject to the Privacy Act? Will the Privacy Commissioner have the ability to investigate or to oversee this information sharing regime?

When we talk about anybody for any purpose, is that within the purposes defined in the Privacy Act or is that some other broader definition? This somehow takes the entire regime outside of the Privacy Act regime. It's not an easy question to answer because in my submission.... I think the drafting is not very clean and it doesn't give us a very good understanding of what exactly the drafters had in mind.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

There is no question with a lot of bills recently the Department of Justice is not getting a very good name. This is just another example.

You said earlier you believe there needs to be comprehensive and effective oversight, and that would be welcomed. I understand you're calling for a national security adviser and in addition to that you're calling for parliamentary oversight where parliamentarians would be privy to classified information similar to our Five Eyes. Am I correct in that you're calling for both?