Public Safety Committee on March 26th, 2015

[Jessie Housty]

It squares in really troubling ways with what I very commonly hear being spoken of in relation to our work. I think that simply because I exist, there are people who believe I am a threat to the Canadian interest and Canadian society and Canadian security.

I am a first nations woman who lives on my family's and my community's and my nation's unceded territory. I believe very strongly that we have land rights and other rights that are an incredibly important part of our identity. I believe in the sovereignty of my people. Simply by existing and breathing and believing those things, there are those who will brand me as being a demon that represents everything that is opposite to the Canadian dream.

I think that many such reports and documents have come out, whether they were intentionally released to the public or accessed through freedom of information requests or though leaks, that show a really consistent narrative of indigenous people being demonized in this way. I would stress again that the really deep misconceptions about who we are and why we do what we do are an artifact of the past that I would like to believe is gone.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Thank you.

I also want to echo that the Canadian Bar Association made the claim that first nations groups should be very concerned by this legislation, of course, echoing what you've said here today and what other indigenous witnesses have said to us.

Do you think that C-51 has the potential, much like other legislation we've seen from this government, to engage in race-baiting and division against indigenous people in our country?

[Jessie Housty]

Yes, I have really deep concerns that the kinds of practices that Bill C-51 would allow, and that similar pieces of legislation allow, do a great deal of damage to first nations people, or have the potential to do a great deal of damage to first nations people, who are defending their rights and interests.

I believe that bills like this serve to perpetuate the incredibly racist stereotypes that already severely problematize relationships between first nations and mainstream Canadian society. More broadly, I have deep concerns about any party or government that, as a practice, makes caricatures and bogeymen out of any marginalized group to build favour with its voter base.

My strong belief is that we all have a fundamental choice about whether we want to build bridges or burn them, and those choices are reflected in everything from a party's policies and practices to its election messaging. All I can say is that Canadians are watching, and I have faith that progressive values will win out over race-baiting and fearmongering.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Thank you very much for joining us, Ms. Housty.

How much time do I have?

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

You have about 15 seconds.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Okay.

Have you any final thoughts that you'd like us to take away from your presentation?

[Jessie Housty]

Just that I think this is a time for clarity and transparency and commitment to reconciliation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

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

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Chair, and thanks to the witnesses for coming. My first set of questions will be for Mr Stamatakis.

We've heard a lot of different things on Bill C-51, so I would like you to think about this. In your reading of the bill, do you see where the info-sharing act could label or criminalize someone for terrorism? This is an argument that seems to conflate information sharing and the Criminal Code. What are your thoughts or comments on that?

[Tom Stamatakis]

That's not what I saw in my reading of the bill. I've had this conversation with other people. The reality is that I don't think the police in this country have the capacity to engage in some of the activities we're being accused of in terms of monitoring.

Just to give you an example, in my home service we have two detectives right now who are engaged in the investigation of very serious Internet-based crime against children. In our entire video and tech unit, I think we have 10 investigators right now who are processing evidence that's being obtained from computers and hard drives. This is a major city in Canada with a large police force, but there's just not the capacity to engage in the kinds of activities that people are suggesting the police would engage in because of the provisions in this bill.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, and that's similar to testimony we heard from a 30-year veteran of CSIS, who clearly said it doesn't care about protestors and it doesn't have time for anything except for the most high-risk people. He pointed out that it is the sharing of current information relevant to national security and not the collection of information.

You may have already answered this, but do you think police have the time and the ability to spy on protestors, especially given the reasons for this bill and the “for greater certainty” clause?

[Tom Stamatakis]

No, we don't have the capacity. Even from a policing perspective, I would acknowledge that historically the police have made some mistakes in terms of how we've engaged with people who want to engage in lawful protest in our country. But more recently, our approach is one of collaboration and communication and to try to facilitate peaceful protest. Where it becomes an issue is when people suggest they're going to peacefully protest around an issue and then start to engage in, unfortunately, what become violent kinds of behaviours and tactics that not only pose a threat to the members I represent but often jeopardize the safety of other Canadians who want to live peacefully in their communities.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I know my colleague touched on the current warrant system and we know it's already onerous. I'm sure you know that, and this bill enhances that. I wonder if you could comment on the work that goes into a warrant, for police and CSIS, as to what you might be aware of.

[Tom Stamatakis]

I would have to cart in, in some cases, in a complex investigation, the pages and pages of documents that go into successfully obtaining a warrant to search, for example.

I'll just go back to Bill C-51 in terms of the provisions around extending the period that someone could be detained. I guess a perspective I would offer is that being able to take some action and detain someone for a period of time so that you can properly investigate probably gets you to a better place in terms of making sure that, when you are detaining someone with the intent of charging them with an offence, you have all of the evidence you should have in order to be able to pursue a charge like that. That is opposed to the alternative, which we currently have, that often puts police organizations under a lot of pressure and makes it very difficult to take any action, even though we have pretty good evidence to support that there's some risk to the public.

I just don't see, in the provisions contained within Bill C-51, some of the things that I know some of the witnesses have suggested.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you. My next question will be for Mr. Matas or Mr. Kurz, whoever wants to respond.

Mr. Matas, I believe you said previously that many of the critics of the bill are advocates of the status quo, the old balance. However, the world has changed and the balance has to change too. The victims and potential victims need better protection than they have had at present.

We heard that, obviously from you, in terms of the number of direct activities against the Jewish community. We also heard it from the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, as well as from other witnesses here. I wonder if you could explain why you see how Bill C-51 is important and how it will affect this.

[David Matas]

We focused only on one particular clause, which was one about the promotion and advocacy of terrorism. What clause 16 does is set up an offence that wasn't there before, and it's a speech offence. What it's doing is re-equilibrating the balance between freedom of expression on the one hand, and the security of the person for the victims of terrorism.

In our view, although, of course, we endorse and try to guard freedom of expression as much as we can. We feel that changing of the balance is necessary in light of the increased threat and reality of terrorism that we've seen in recent years and months.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I think that's why Minister Blaney used the example of something like, kill the infidels with whatever tool you can find, wherever you can find them, not being currently covered as a criminal offence. I think that's where he was going with this, as well as talking about taking down terrorist propaganda, which I believe you mentioned in your opening remarks.

I wonder if you have any other comments you'd like to make.

[Marvin Kurz]

What we're seeing now is that the tie between terror and hate is much closer than it has been in the past. We're advocating that in endorsing, in the way that we have, the provisions dealing with terror propaganda, subject to the caveats that we've mentioned, it is a recognition of the fact that terror and hate are close together and that the same principles that apply with regard to hate—that is, that one can use hate propaganda to inspire hate crimes—can apply to terrorist activity as well.

That's why the same principles can apply to terror speech as well—and we believe they should—but again, subject to some of the protections that apply in terms of balancing needs for free speech and the protection of the community against that kind of very problematic and we believe criminal expressive activity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much. Time is over.

You have seven minutes, Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you to all our witnesses for coming.

I'll start with you, Mr. Matas.

You mentioned—and I'll quote from your brief—that private criminal prosecution for speech, which the current bill allows, is an even greater potential threat to freedom of expression than private civil human rights complaints. No other witnesses brought that forward. I've been trying to find in the bill where that happens. I understand entirely your concern about frivolous complaints and how that can be a real problem.

What's it related to in the bill, and how do you propose to fix it, if I can put it that simply?

[David Matas]

In the bill it's in clause 16, and clause 16 basically has three components. One of them is adding in proposed section 83.221 to the Criminal Code, and that proposed section 83.221 sets out an offence. That offence does not require the consent of the Attorney General for the prosecution.

Generally, when there is no requirement for consent of the Attorney General, that means a private prosecution is possible. I can read it to you. It's proposed subsection 83.221(1). It says: “Every person who, by communicating statements...”.

You can see throughout the bill.... For instance, if you go down to proposed section 83.222, which talks about seizure, if you look at proposed subsection 83.222(7), it requires the consent of the Attorney General—so seizure requires consent. If you look at proposed section 83.223, which is about cleaning out computers, it requires the consent of the Attorney General in proposed subsection 83.223(9).

But in this one about prosecution, I've actually talked to somebody in the government about this, and it may simply have been a drafting oversight because they didn't see any reason for it.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I don't want to take too much time, and I know you raised some concerns about consent of the Attorney General in here as well, but we'll have to talk to some of the Justice people about the fix.

The other point you raised was that terrorism offences in general are those under section 83.01 of the Criminal Code. You assumed that's what terrorism offences were. I would suggest your assumption is wrong. Based on the testimony that has come before committee, there's a lot of concern that the bill is much too broad as to what terrorism offences are versus what is outlined in the Criminal Code. Some have suggested—and I'm not sure whether it was the Bar Association or who—that they should be restricted to what is defined as terrorism offences in the Criminal Code, so we'll look into that. I just want to point that out, and you can look at that, and maybe we can have a discussion on that later on. But I think you're wrong in assuming that the terrorism offences in Bill C-51 are those defined in the Criminal Code.

[David Matas]

Our ultimate point was that it shouldn't be left to assumption. It should be defined.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you.

Mr. Stamatakis, you're right that there's a lot of discussion out there on oversight and all different kinds of oversight. However, I can tell you based on what we proposed in an all-party committee in 2004-05, what I have in a private member's bill, and what the parliamentary committee that Mr. Norlock sat on agreed with, it is not getting into operations. I just have to say that. Among all of our Five Eyes partners—and I'm sure in your position with the police association you would be talking to police and their Five Eyes partners—have you heard any concern expressed about the oversight agencies that exist in any of those countries? Is the talk favourable? Is it opposed? We're the only country in the Five Eyes community that does not have that kind of parliamentary oversight.

[Tom Stamatakis]

I haven't heard, but to give a fair answer to your question, I haven't really canvassed them on the issue. I could, if you were interested.