Evidence of meeting #108 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was debate.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I don't know who the most appropriate officials are to....
I think the legal experts may have to respond to the difference in threshold from “is necessary” to the old “is likely”.
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Mr. Davies is shaking his head, but he's shaking his head because the lawyers are the ones who should respond.
9:20 p.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Exactly.
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
9:20 p.m.
Director and General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
This refers to a recognizance with conditions, so it's a specific recognizance order.
The threshold of reasonable suspicion is the imposition of recognizance on a person, or the arrest of the person as necessary. It existed in the past from 2001 to 2007 and 2013 to 2015. While this is a higher threshold than the one that currently exists, and is the one that this motion would propose should continue to exist, the “necessity to prevent” threshold could be met, for example, if it appears imminent that a terrorist activity may be carried out. It does require the police to present evidence of a greater link between the conditions or arrest and the prevention of terrorist activity.
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
The threshold is actually higher now to be able to even obtain it, and the law enforcement agency, the national security agency, would have to show that much more evidence that it is necessary to prevent a terrorist activity, as opposed to “it is likely to prevent”.
Is that what you are saying?
9:20 p.m.
Director and General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
It raises the bar a bit, yes. It responds in part to the feedback received during the national security consultation that the thresholds were thought to be too low.
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Are you confirming that even in an age when we're trying to improve our ability to respond to national security threats and risk, this language makes it even more difficult, and the threshold is that much higher?
Why would it be necessary to repeal this, or change that particular section when to me it flies...That may not be for you to answer, that's an opinion. I leave that to my colleagues over there who, I hope, at least will vote for one of my amendments.
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there any further debate? We're doing a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now on NDP-97 we have Mr. Dubé.
9:20 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Chair.
On page 131, proposed paragraph 146(3)(b) reads:
(b) the peace officer suspects on reasonable grounds that the detention of the person in custody is necessary to prevent a terrorist activity.
Under that, my amendment adds the wording, “A person has the right to retain and instruct counsel at any stage of proceedings under this section.”
9:25 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I would suggest, and I certainly would defer to the legal experts in the room, that the provision that you're asking for here exists already in law, that when people are detained, they are given their rights. That exists now, and I don't see the need for this to exist, to be honest with you.
9:25 p.m.
Director and General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
Yes. The recognizance with conditions regime does not need to provide explicitly for rules regarding the right to counsel, as these proceedings are governed by section 7 of the charter.
9:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Any further debate?
(Amendment negatived)
(Clause 146 agreed to on division)
(Clause 147 agreed to on division)
(On clause 148)
9:25 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Mr. Chair, under this amendment, section 83.3 will cease to have effect on July 15, 2018. This is called a sunset provision. It deals with the part of the Criminal Code that allows individuals to be detained on remand for up to seven days without being subject to criminal prosecution.
Obviously, we consider this situation nebulous, which is why I am proposing this amendment.
9:25 p.m.
Liberal
9:25 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Unless I'm mistaken, with amendments that have been defeated, you can go from clause 148 to clause 157 in a group.
9:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I think you might be right. We will just make sure that none of the Green Party amendments would be inadvertently lost here.
May I group clauses 149 to 157 for voting?
9:25 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
9:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
(Clauses 149 to 157 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 158)
We are now on amendment LIB-53.
Mr. Picard.
April 25th, 2018 / 9:25 p.m.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
The purpose of this amendment is to have section 83.3 come into force after Bill C-59 receives royal assent. I won't read the entire amendment because it is explicit.
9:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there any debate?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 158 as amended agreed to on division)
Next is amendment CPC-27.
9:30 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Chair, amendment CPC-27 proposes a bill in the bill, just as the Liberals proposed a bill on torture.
I will now briefly outline Bill C-371, which was created by my colleague Tony Clement, in 2017.
This bill gives the government the ability to establish a list of foreign states, individuals and entities that impede freedom of religion, impose punishments based on religious beliefs, or carry out or support activities that encourage radicalization.
It deals with what is called the “secret ways” through which money is poured into organizations and institutions in Canada that support radicalization. It would prevent an individual, entity or foreign state that supports or encourages radicalization or is associated with it to fund an institution through donations or gifts.
Individuals and institutions in Canada would be prohibited from accepting money or gifts from states, individuals or entities on the list. Three amendments to the Income Tax Act are included to recognize the provisions of the bill.
It should be noted that in 2015, the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence completed a study entitled “Countering the Terrorist Threat in Canada”. In its recommendations, the Senate report urges the government to take steps to prevent the entry of foreign funds into Canada in cases where funds, donors or recipients are associated with a radicalization movement.
Currently, the Income Tax Act allows the removal of charitable status from groups affiliated with terrorism. In addition, the government maintains a list of designated terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, ISIS and Hezbollah. This bill would improve the government's ability to control incoming funds beyond charities and designated terrorist groups.
By developing and maintaining a list of foreign states, individuals and entities that promote radicalization and that facilitate the funding of groups that promote or participate in radicalization, the government would have a better set of control measures. We have known for a long time that there are gaps that allow money to come into Canada to support radicalization. The legislation includes provisions on flexibility and review and allows the groups on the list to appeal. This flexibility allows the government to act quickly when sources of funding are identified, but also to be fair when a group or individual has adequately demonstrated that they should no longer be on the list.
Several witnesses have testified, and I want to mention some important people, such as Richard Fadden, former national security advisor to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and former director of CSIS, who confirmed that there are concerns about foreign funding of Canadian religious and quasi-religious institutions. He testified before the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence:
I think it is a problem. I think it's one that we're becoming increasingly aware of. It's one that we share with a number of our other Western allies and, insofar as I've been able to make out, nobody has found a systemic solution. What I think has occurred on a number of cases, you can find out about a specific case and you can do something about it; the problem is finding out about the specific case.…
In fact, in my previous job, I actually raised with representatives from some of the countries who might be involved in this and suggested to them this was not helpful. The difficulty in most cases is that the monies are not coming from governments. They're coming from fairly wealthy institutions or individuals within some of these countries. It makes it doubly difficult to track. It doesn't mean you're not right in raising it. I just don't have an easy solution.
I would now like to raise an important point, Mr. Chair. Imam Syed Soharwardy of Calgary and other witnesses told the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence that the jihadist extremist ideology is advocated in schools and universities, often under the guise of academic freedom and far from the oversight of CSIS. He told the committee:
The money comes in different ways, in secret ways. Money comes through institutions. There are two organizations in Canada. Basically they are U.S. organizations that are operating in Canada. One is called AIMaghrib Institute, the other is called AIKauthar Institute. Both work in universities, not in mosques. Both give lectures. Both organize seminars. They are the ones who brainwash these young kids in lectures.
Shahina Siddiqui, from the Islamic Social Services Association, appeared before the Senate committee in 2015. She said:
I can tell you that my own organization was offered $3 million. We refused, even though I had not a penny in my account at that time, when I started the organization, because this is a Canadian organization, and we don't need funding from anywhere else.
The same thing with our mosques in Manitoba. We were offered money from Libya when we made our first mosque. We refused it.
Are there some mosques that have accepted money from overseas because it was legal to do so? If we want to curtail them, we have to make it illegal, not just for Muslims but also for all groups, for you to raise funds from abroad. That would be my response.
That said, I think amendment CPC-27 is of paramount importance to Bill C-59. We have heard that there are finance-related elements that already exist in another act. Therefore, it seems that it is more or less effective. So I strongly recommend that the committee accept our bill in Bill C-59.
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you, Mr. Paul-Hus.
Before I open up debate, members should know that if CP-27 is adopted, so too are CPC-28 and CPC-29. Similarly, if it is defeated, so too are CP-28 and CP-29.
Is there any debate? I'm seeing none.
