I would like to begin by thanking the committee for the invitation to speak to you today. As I have been introduced, my name is Jessie Housty. I am a first nations woman from the Heiltsuk Nation, who come from the outer coast of British Columbia. The geography of my homeland is part of western Canada's front line of activism in response to multiple forms of resource extraction.
I serve my people as an elected councillor on the Heiltsuk Tribal Council. However, I do not come here today to speak to you as a councillor or on behalf of the Heiltsuk Nation. I speak to you today on my own behalf. I am an activist. I am a storyteller. I am a community organizer. My work at its core is grounded in a desire to protect our lands, waters, and cultural practices for my generation and for future generations. I speak to you today from that place.
In my work, and under current laws and regulations, I have witnessed the extent to which first nations people asserting their sovereignty are already labelled as radicals and agitators. In speaking to you today, I intend to share some specific concerns around the further implications that Bill C-51 may have for indigenous nation-building.
In summary, I am concerned about the bill's expansion of state power to place people under surveillance to monitor everyday activities. I have concerns that the bill will authorize criminalization of activities involved in advancing and protecting our rights and title, indigenous dissent and activism, and more broadly, democratic activities that are based on a goal to protect and improve our environment for our generation and for future generations. I am also concerned that this will give CSIS powers to act physically to disrupt the peaceful protests that form a strong part of the foundation of our attempts to uphold our rights, interests, and sovereignty as first nations people.
Before I begin my own comments, I would like to acknowledge and adopt the testimony of several witnesses who have spoken before me. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the advocacy and testimony of National Chief Perry Bellegarde of the Assembly of First Nations, Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and Dr. Pam Palmater. They have spoken aptly to many concerns of first nations people and I echo their analysis of the proposed bill.
I will now speak briefly of two specific concerns about the proposed bill. First, regarding the proposed security of Canada information sharing act, it is my opinion that this should not be enacted. Other witnesses, including professors Roach and Forcese have spoken at length about issues with the proposed act, so I intend to keep my comments brief.
The stated purpose of the security of Canada information sharing act is to encourage and facilitate information sharing between Government of Canada institutions in order to protect Canada against activities that undermine the security of Canada. The language in the act is very broad and subjective, and I am concerned that it will result in unnecessarily classifying certain activities as terrorist in nature.
Unfettered access to information and the ability to share it widely with any person for any purpose is dangerous and fundamentally disturbing. Upholding ideals that are not considered to be in the national interest, ideals like first nations' right to sovereignty, may, under Bill C-51, open individuals to harassment and persecution with little ability to answer to the information being collected and shared about them. I am concerned that this may result in a chill on non-violent and direct action, the very action my community utilizes to mobilize support for acknowledgement of our rights and interests.
Protests and demonstrations have often been a key element of first nations' efforts to assert sovereignty and uphold rights, in keeping with widespread cultural values around business being conducted in a public and inclusive way. Fear of legitimate action being caught in the wide net of this proposed bill may have the effect of oppressing an important expression of nation-building efforts by first nations people.
I have heard Ms. Roxanne James explain to some witnesses that the exemption for lawful protests must be read with the rest of the section and that the activities must be those that undermine the security of Canada. However, I am concerned that this is too subjective as, if the cause being put forward is not supported by the government of the day, it may be labelled as an activity that undermines the security of Canada. My concerns are not allayed by the present wording of the bill.
Second, I would like to speak briefly to the issue of additional CSIS powers. Bill C-51 proposes troubling amendments to the CSIS Act, permitting CSIS, if it has reasonable grounds to believe that an activity constitutes a threat to the security of Canada, to take measures within or outside Canada to reduce the threat.
With these changes, democratic protest movements with tactics that do not square in every way with even municipal law will not have the benefit of exclusion for lawful protests. They may be the subject of CSIS investigation and may even be subject to CSIS disruption.
I am troubled by the trend of the scope of lawful protest becoming increasingly narrowed, with powers of physical enforcement being expanded to CSIS with even less accountability and oversight than we see at present. I am specifically concerned that the new powers contemplated to be granted to CSIS will allow CSIS to potentially disrupt peaceful first nations protest movements for recognition of our rights and title. I echo Dr. Palmater's concern that any expression of first nation sovereignty is at risk of being construed as a threat to national security insofar as it is inherently a threat to Canada's sovereignty.
As a first nations woman I am guided first and foremost by my Heiltsuk laws. At the foundation of Heiltsuk law is the principle that all business is carried out in a public and transparent way. My concern is that peaceful protest movements around rights and title may now be captured as a security issue and addressed with little oversight behind closed doors, at odds with the way I organize, with the way my people carry themselves, and with the way my laws are carried out. This is especially frustrating given the intent and foundation of our practices and the laws of our ancestors, which strive to be peaceful and non-violent. If there were more understanding of our traditional first nations laws and values, I believe there would be less suspicion of us and less concern about violence.
In summary, my view is that this bill represents a real threat to the tool box that indigenous peoples rely on for advancing our rights and title. For that reason, as well the many reasons that other witnesses have so capably spoken to, it is my opinion that the bill should not be enacted.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to you, and I look forward to your questions.