Evidence of meeting #72 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was association.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
I usually refrain from using points of order for this, but Ms. Ablonczy, you are putting words in my mouth that were not said.
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Once again you called out a particular group. Isn't that what you said to the witness?
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
A particular group? No, I called out Mr. Quiggin for repeating his baseless charges against the National Council of Canadian Muslims, which he did under privilege—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Thank you very much. This discussion is now over.
Carry on, Ms. Ablonczy, please.
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Here we have an expert witness raising concerns about a particular group, and Mr. Garrison takes great exception to that, although he doesn't have the witness's depth of expertise. It seems to be that it is an example right here today of what Mr. Quiggin said, that political correctness, cultural relativism, and willful blindness to extremism are dangerous to Canada.
You know here we are, you're saying that we have deep networks of extremism. Both of you are saying that radicalization is a real issue here, but the public doesn't quite know who to believe. The opposition is saying, “Well, you know, this is just being unduly harsh or unfair to particular groups.”
Conservative
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Ms. Ablonczy is running perilously close to violating privileges of other members by continuing to say things that have not been said in this room and, in particular, attributing them to the opposition. I remain very disappointed that she wishes to attribute views that have not been presented in this committee.
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I'm just saying what I heard, Mr. Garrison.
To the witness—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
Ms. Ablonczy, the chair would simply just ask that you go back the issue of the passport revocation as soon as possible. That is the intention of our discussion.
Conservative
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I appreciate that, Mr. Chair.
You know, why should Canadians care about that? Why should a soccer mom, a farmer, a fisherman, or a worker in a factory care about what we're talking about today? Why should they support the government's trying to keep people from travelling abroad?
I'd like to hear from both of you.
Mr. Quiggin, you haven't had much air time.
As an Individual
Mr. Chair and honourable members, let me first clarify my own points. My comments on NCCM are not really my own views. It Is the view of the United States State Department that CAIR-CAN, otherwise known as NCCM, is the Canadian chapter of CAIR in the U.S. The founders of CAIR-CAN in court documents, in affidavits here in Canada—
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Chair, you just ruled on this and asked us to come back to the point of this discussion and Mr. Quiggin is once again repeating his baseless charges and his attack on the National Council of Canadian Muslims, to which I fundamentally object.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
That's fine.
Excuse me, the chair will have some comment here.
A question was asked of the witnesses with regard to an opinion. Whether we agree or disagree with that opinion—and obviously we're dealing with terrorism and/or passport revocation—the witness has an opportunity to relate either experiences and/or evidence that he or she has gathered to present and to support their position. Whether we agree with it or not is irrelevant at this point, but Mr. Quiggin is welcome to his opinion at this committee and as such, carry on.
Conservative
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
The question is relevance, not opinion. You asked us to stick to the question in front of us, which is about the suspension of passports, and the witness's opinions, which he is expressing, have nothing at all to do with suspension of—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp
That is understandable. However, it is also the chair's opinion that if there is an attempt to undermine the credibility of the witnesses, then the chair takes that position very seriously. I think the chair has an obligation to present witnesses who can present or defend their particular position.
Carry on, Mr. Quiggin.
As an Individual
Obviously, there's a problem at hand. I won't go into it any further, but perhaps I can send the clerk a list of 23 different statements made by CAIR-CAN, the U.S. State Department, the United Arab Emirates, and the U.S. court system that CAIR-CAN is in fact the Canadian chapter of CAIR in the U.S. I'll drop it and won't get any further into it.
Your question directly is why should Canadians care about this? Why should the proverbial soccer mom or the guy who drives the forklift in the factory care about this? I believe the answer is that this kind of extremism in Canada is spreading, it's growing.
My colleague has pointed out that the communications revolution and the transport revolution have made it increasingly possible for young Canadians to go off and quite literally get themselves killed or to kill other people. As Canadians, I think we have an obligation to our youth who are our future to try to keep them away from this sort of thing as much as possible. Canada as a state has an obligation to other countries to make sure that we are not exporting people from Calgary and Montreal to become suicide bombers and kill large numbers of people in other conflicts overseas.
I know it's a bit of an abstract issue to many people. They ask why they should care. The answer is you should care because it's occurring in your community. It's your youth at risk, it's your youth being challenged. A number of people tend to think this is a Muslim issue, and it is to some extent, but the reality is it's a convert issue as well, which affects all other faiths in Canada, including those who have no particular faith.
I think it's also worth pointing out that right now the focus tends to be on ISIS, al Qaeda, al Nusra, and Jemaah Islamiah. But if we were having this conversation in 1985, we'd have probably been looking at Sikh radicalization in Canada. If we'd had this conversation in 1995 we might have been looking at Tamil radicals, the LTTE, etc. I have no doubt this conversation will be had again 10 years from now and I don't profess to know who the next group will be, but this is an ongoing issue in Canada and all the evidence, as my colleague points out, suggests this is going to be increasingly an issue in Canada. So, yes, it's important; and, yes, we need to get it now.
Conservative
