Public Safety Committee on March 25th, 2015

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

Thank you very much.

I think it is obvious to us tonight that CLC probably represents the most diverse group of members of any group in Canada. I know that CLC has done a lot of anti-racism work helping people integrate into their communities and workplaces.

I wonder if you could talk a bit more about the anti-racism work that the CLC is doing and why the Labour Congress is doing this work.

[Hassan Yussuff]

It's critical for us to recognize racism is insidious. It affects people's lives in a more fundamental way and more importantly our members who go to work should be able to work without having to deal with this reality in their lives. If they live in communities it's fundamental that we're encouraging, of course, all workers to treat each other with equality in every way, in every part of their lives. The anti-racism work is fundamental to ensure the values of our country are protected on a day-to-day basis.

We are one of the few organizations that I know of in this country that had a task force on racism because we fundamentally care about the impact our members are experiencing at work and in their communities, and more importantly to put measures in place to ensure that we can be treated fairly. That work is going to continue.

We're very concerned, of course, that every time we raise the rhetoric about threats and terrorism undue suspicion is placed on the Muslim and Arab communities and certain ethnic groups across this country. I think it's unfair. I think more needs to be done to counteract that. We have a litany of the history of how our country has treated some minority groups in this country. Fundamentally we should not repeat those experiences in any way, shape, or form. More needs to be done to ensure we take as much care as possible and that we do not. But at the same time I do recognize, yes, terrorism is a real threat that we face. The reality is that we need to ensure we don't create more harm as we're trying to solve some of the bigger challenges that our country is faced with.

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

Thank you very much.

In your presentation you talked about how this bill might affect the activities of trade unions in this country and might have a negative impact on your organizing activities or your collective bargaining activities. Could you tell us a little more about what you think might be the result of this bill?

[Hassan Yussuff]

We are involved quite often in many different forms of protests and demonstrations in this country, all for good reasons. They may not meet some people's approval, but the reality is that they're justified in a democratic society. Of course we want to be absolutely clear that we don't think these activities should be in any way characterized now as illegal in our country.

For example, we could be having a protest that we did not get a permit for. Is that an illegal activity in our country? It could be caught up in the sweep in a broad definition of terrorism in our country. Should our security force be monitoring our behaviour, and more importantly, sharing information with the 17 agencies that this bill allows them to do?

We are concerned. A previous bill had taken into consideration strike actions and of course work actions that we might be involved with and ensured that those actions were never going to be characterized as actions that would be seen as terrorist under past legislation. I don't know why the government wants to change that because before a committee similar to this we raised those concerns and the government at the time did take the necessary steps to ensure those rights would be protected under legislation they would bring in.

More importantly, we have learned much from the Arar commission. I think it's critical in the context of that commission that the government ensure that the oversight that was recommended would be put in place. Sharing information with 17 agencies across this country will subject that information to the possibility of being used for the wrong purposes. I think Canadians have learned much and we want to ensure mistakes are not made going forward.

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

I have half a minute so I want to turn to Ms. Raza and the long work you've done on terrorism.

Could you give us some comments on what you think is most effective in working against radicalization or disengaging youth from radicalization?

[Raheel Raza]

Laws obviously do make a difference. They don't deter it entirely but legislation is important in every country in every situation. We need better monitoring of those who are leaving to fight the jihad, so to speak, especially if they are fellow countrymen. At the risk of saying that our civil liberties are threatened, I am the president of an organization and I believe that unfortunately we are living in a post-9/11 world and times are such that personal information needs to be shared. That's the reality and I don't have a problem with it. If my bank accounts, my Internet, and my cellphone are being monitored for the sake of the larger security and safety of this country and if I have nothing to hide and if 17 agencies want to check on me, I'm okay with that. Again, the larger picture is that of the security and safety of Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Our time is a little over as well.

We go now to Mr. Norlock, please.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Raza, you mentioned you had two sons. I suspect that there's not a huge difference in age. You're probably much younger than myself. A great Middle East leader once said, and I don't have the quote exactly, but I think she said something to the effect that we will have peace in the Middle East when we love our children more than we hate our enemy.

Would you say that is an accurate statement that is shared by people right across this globe?

[Raheel Raza]

I believe it was Golda Meir who said that, but I could be wrong.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

You are correct.

[Raheel Raza]

Yes.

It's about caring for our children and the future generations.

The question comes up of why I, as a pensioner, with a lot of other things I'd like to do, with books to read and movies to watch, spend 24-7 doing this work. It's because of the future of my children and my grandchildren and the future of young Muslims in Canada. I can tell you that while I'm not officially in the business of extremism or terrorism, on a very personal level as a mentor I hear from young people almost once a week about the issues that they're seeing and what they're facing. They are more terrified about what they see happening through the Islamic State, with Boko Haram, and the Taliban, than they are about the ramifications of the anti-terrorism bill.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much.

Is there anything in this bill that specifically identifies any particular group of people, any religion, any group of people, any race, colour, creed, or does it generalize? When I read the bill I'll tell you what first came to my mind. It wasn't the Middle East; it wasn't anywhere else. We're sometimes being accused of trying to identify a certain group of people. We have right here in our own western hemisphere—and I'm going back to grandmothers again, because as far as I'm concerned they are the greatest power on earth. We had the IRA. These were terrorist groups. They were employing the very methodology of other terrorists, yet they looked like me.

I see this act as dissuading or allowing this government to do the very same thing with a group of people who might look like me. I know from speaking to people in Toronto who have lived there for a long time they can recall, when dealing with our friends, the Irish, if somebody who was Irish moved into the neighbourhood they tried to make sure that they didn't move in. This idea of, because of your name.... I doubt very much whether you feel your name identifies you as a suspect any more than does my name, which people think comes from England but it actually comes from Poland.

Would you agree with me that one of the reasons the IRA lost its teeth was because grandmothers got together on both sides of the issue and said enough is enough for our children. Would you not agree with me, and I think you mentioned it in your introductory remarks, that one of the reasons radical Islam is growing in Europe is because people of that faith or from that area, Muslims in general, were ghettoized. I don't believe, please correct me if I'm wrong, that the same situation occurs in our country because we will all work together, all of us, in this place to make sure that doesn't happen.

Would you agree with that and would you would like to expand on this?

[Raheel Raza]

Absolutely. I would agree with that, and I would also add that my family and I have been here for 30 years. My sons are brown. They have beards. They are Muslim. They fit the perfect profile of that particular Islamist terrorist, but we have never ever faced any racism, any issue.

We talk. We face these issues head-on. If people are ignorant enough to target a particular community because of a generalization in a bill, then we tell them exactly where to go and what to do. It's something we have to deal with.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much.

On the subject of prevention, we had the RCMP commissioner, a senior officer within the Toronto Police Service, and a senior officer within the Ontario Provincial Police, all of whom were talking about their interaction and their agencies. They all mentioned that various police services, the RCMP in particular, do have programs through which they go into communities at risk—we were discussing Muslims in particular, but no matter who they are—and they talked about some of the things they were doing to try to dissuade or point youth at risk away from the risk of radicalization.

Are you aware of those programs and do you feel they are being successful or not successful in the various communities?

[Raheel Raza]

I am aware of some of the programs, and in speaking to law enforcement agencies, I have found that they have a great deal of difficulty in reaching out to the Muslim communities. They have said very clearly that doors are closed in their faces.

I'll give you an example. A few years ago I met with some law enforcement officers who said they had been called by a Pakistani family because their son had been sent to Pakistan and radicalized. When he came back, his parents wanted the law enforcement officers to speak to him, but the community told the boy not to, so the officers could not get through. They definitely need help in breaking those barriers.

It's not an easy job for law enforcement agencies to break through some of the communities' victim ideology perpetrated by the other side, these organizations that are pushing this on young people and saying that Bill C-51 is racist and Islamophobic. But as you said, it's about terrorism. It doesn't matter what colour the terrorism comes in or who is doing it.

There is a push to close the doors and make this a victim issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much. Your time is up, Mr. Norlock.

Mr. Easter, go ahead, please.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do thank the witnesses.

Just on the lighter side, Ms. Raza, you said you tell them where to go and what to do. That's how I feel about them over there sometimes, but the Chair won't let me do that.

[Raheel Raza]

Have you actually ever told them where to go?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

No, I wouldn't do that.

[Raheel Raza]

That's a privilege that grandmothers have.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Let me start with the CLC.

You said the bill is reckless, and I don't disagree that there are some terribly serious gaps in this bill that need to be amended.

We've heard from a lot of witnesses, and as your two co-witnesses tonight have suggested, most witnesses before the committee—and there are exceptions—have had a concern and believe there's a need on the public safety and national security side for some of the aspects of the bill. But generally most of the witnesses have also had some concerns about civil liberties, freedom of expression, and overreach on the part of the bill in a number of areas. I would say that has been the general tenor of the witnesses thus far.

From the perspective of the CLC, if the political will were there to make changes, to make amendments to this bill, do you think it would be fixable, or are you just completely opposed to it?

[Hassan Yussuff]

I think there may be some aspects of the bill that would be necessary, but in the context of carrying those out, I think this bill overreaches to the furthest extent. I don't think any security agency in this country should be granted the right to override my constitutionally protected rights before a legal process for me to defend myself.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Let me go to that, then, because I think Mr. Hay brought that up as well. I certainly have concerns about that and I think the bill should be amended so that there should be no allowance to override the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The bill basically says that the service shall not take measures to reduce a threat to the security of Canada.... I'll read it all:

The Service shall not take measures to reduce a threat to the security of Canada if those measures will contravene a right or freedom guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or will be contrary to other Canadian law, unless the Service is authorized to take them by a warrant issued under section 21.1.

The key point is the warrant. This is a conundrum. A judge would grant a warrant for the service to basically violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I believe that's what you're getting at, Mr. Hay.

Do you believe that should be amended out, that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is supreme, the service should not be able to violate that, and a judge shouldn't be asked to make such a decision?

[Brian Hay]

Yes, sir.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Okay. Thank you. I think that's an extremely important point. This is our Constitution. It is our charter. Ms. Raza mentioned that as well.

Ms. Raza, you talked about the need to expand the mandate of SIRC to review more of these measures. I would submit that's not enough. I look for your opinion on this. I may be a little biased—that's unusual for me. I've had a private member's bill in Parliament for some time, asking for a national oversight committee of parliamentarians of all parties, similar to that of our Five Eyes partners. In fact, the current Minister of Justice and the Minister of State for Finance were on the same committee as I when we proposed such a body.

SIRC is only going to look at CSIS. In my view, we need an oversight agency that looks at the Canadian Communications Security Establishment and any agency that's involved in security, to do two things: first, ensure they're following the law and using all of their authorities under the law; and second, ensure they're not going beyond the law and affecting civil liberties.

Could I get comments from each of you on that? Do you see that as necessary, as at least a measure to give Canadians, civil society, some confidence that our security agencies are not going too far?

I'll start with you, Ms. Raza, and then Mr. Hay.