Public Safety Committee on Oct. 18th, 2016

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Okay, fair enough. I would only point out that every other municipality has to declare that stuff in the same way, and I can't get my head around why not. One of the reasons the native accountability act came up, Ms. Crowchild, is because of situations like what happened in Attawapiskat, which is probably the best or worst example. But the last time I checked, 81 chiefs in Canada made more than the Prime Minister of Canada, and a couple of them were right around or just under $1 million. That's why it came up.

With that, Mr. Chair, I will turn my time over to Ms. Watts.

[Regena Crowchild]

Is it a question of—

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Well, we only have so much time, so—

[Regena Crowchild]

I know, but I'd like to reply.

Is the question of why people are questioning why we do not want to provide our consolidated statements because our peoples tend to earn more money compared with mayors and other people who are entitled to have their own companies, and who have other ways, means, and measures to support their income...? We, the chiefs and councillors of the first nations, are within our communities 24/7, working with our nations, without businesses or outside sources.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Respectfully, so is every other elected person.

Ms. Watts, it's your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Ms. Watts, you have one minute left.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Okay.

You mentioned, in terms of addressing the ideas and ideology, that we should make that a focal point. Can you explain to me how you begin to change ideology that has been entrenched for generations?

[Michael Zekulin]

The ideology you're talking about is a particular mutation in a specific ideology. What do I mean by this? There are lots and lots of people.... You'll notice I use the term “Islamist”, not “Islamic”, making the distinction between the religion and Islamism, which is a political ideology. Even within those who subscribe to Islamism, still only a very small part will pursue violence to achieve that end.

In terms of this idea that it's been around for a very long time, I'm not entirely sure that's accurate, in the sense that, yes, you will always have some people who are basically saying, “We need to use violence to achieve our political end.” What I'm saying is that in a place where groups like ISIS, and before them al Qaeda, and groups that will come after them...they're hitting home that very small segment, and we are not standing up. It's not just a religious narrative. There are all kinds of other motivations or gateways that would lead people to choose this type of behaviour or action. If you want to focus on the religious one, then that's where you have to actively get in there, have that debate, and provide that counter or alternatives.

Again, it's not like it's ingrained everywhere in everybody. This is something they work very hard at crafting, disseminating, and targeting toward specific audiences they feel are vulnerable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

I need to end there. That's eight minutes.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

I think there's a difference between within Canada and outside of Canada.

[Michael Zekulin]

We can talk about that, if you'd like.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Dubé.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Professor Nesbitt, I want to speak briefly about something you wrote last December, I believe. You said that gaps in information sharing before the adoption of Bill C-51 were perhaps, contrary to the design of the bill, a cultural rather than an institutional issue. In other words, maybe the various organizations simply didn't like sharing information or were a bit territorial.

I want to know whether this is still the case, and, if applicable, whether it shows these powers were not necessarily required. I also want to know whether the same philosophy can be applied to our relations with our allies or with other countries. We already had systems in place with the United States, for example, but the issue was more cultural, as you said.

[Prof. Michael Nesbitt]

It's a great question.

A number of factors go into it, but let me say this by way of analogy. I'm drawing on my experience now within government.

Say you have a group of people who are taught from when they are hired that everything they do is really important, and it's really important that they keep it secret. They can't tell their wives. They can't tell their husbands. They can't tell their partners. They can't talk about it to anyone. You grow up in a culture where you can't tell any information to anyone. And, of course, we have this inherent idea, I think as humans, that what we do is important. So it's really secret and it's really important.

Then you give the opportunity to people to share information, and what is their default position? In my experience—this is accurate, right?—if you have an access to information request to CSIS, it will be injurious to national security, most of it. If you give one to Foreign Affairs, it will be injurious to international relations. You have the cultural human response to the job that these people have.

Beyond that, there are factors within the government itself that increase that. If I'm at the lowest level and I'm responsible for determining whether information should be shared within a group, my default position is that if I share it I might get in trouble, but I know I'm okay if I don't share it and go back to it. My default position is going to be conservative about it. Then, if I push that up to my boss, well, my boss likely isn't going to undermine me. Their position is going to be to ask whether there is anything else in there that we should keep private.

So you have this inherent cultural secrecy, which I think is very much human nature. It's very natural. But if you want to talk about information sharing meaningfully, permissive actions, as were taken, as you mentioned, in Bill C-51, to say you can now share misses most of the boat. Most of it is not that you can share but will you share; are you willing to share; is the culture there to allow you to share.

I'd add one other thing, which is that being able to share allows you to address the, quote, known unknowns. However, you still have the unknown unknowns. That's where if you had a provision that would, for example, require CSIS to share evidence with the RCMP, then I think you start to address the unknown unknowns, which is that no one has to know that I have to ask for the information, or that someone else is working on something else with a secret that I have to tell them about. It's rather that I'm required to share the information.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

But I guess my question, just from a technical point of view, is there was nothing preventing that from happening prior to Bill C-51.

[Prof. Michael Nesbitt]

I mean, there would be small things. To give you one example, FINTRAC, the financial analysis group for terrorist financing, for example, or money laundering, doesn't really share any information with Foreign Affairs. If you wanted that to happen, Foreign Affairs has a number of regulations—

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

But that's very specific, and it doesn't touch the very broad scope that Bill C-51 prescribed.

[Prof. Michael Nesbitt]

That's right. It—

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Sorry, go ahead.

[Prof. Michael Nesbitt]

No, I was just going to agree with you.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Okay.

Councillor Crowchild, thank you for your comments. I particularly connected with the mention of Idle No More. When this debate was happening over Bill C-51, there was a lot of concern over information sharing, for example, with the Department of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs and CSIS. The example of Cindy Blackstock came up, in terms of what's been shared and the RCMP doing surveillance and stuff. Is this still a concern when it comes to first nations wanting to dissent and protest to protect their treaty rights?

Just before you respond, my second question is this. How can we make sure we're respecting first nations as part of this process that we've taken on in reviewing the national security framework, to make sure we don't keep repeating these mistakes that you have so eloquently described?

[Regena Crowchild]

Your first question was again?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

It's whether communities are still concerned over information being shared and the impact that has.

[Regena Crowchild]

We are concerned with what is being done. Are we going to be held as terrorists, are we going to be labelled as terrorists, because we are expressing our concerns, through speeches, through demonstration rallies, which are all peaceful, on how to address our issues?

In the legislation, it appears that it is wide open; you can interpret it in any way. If we go against what anyone in the government is saying, we could be labelled as a terrorist because we're trying to protect our rights. That's the only way we get the attention of the government, no matter who it is, through rallies and through peaceful marches. We're not violent people. Most of us want to maintain the peace that was entered into with our treaties. That's what we want to do. We just want to live side by side in harmony, as I said.

With regard to the second question, one of the biggest things that happens is this. If you look at the treaty and inherent rights, the Government of Canada tends to define them themselves, without talking to us, without trying to find a way to address the issues or to understand our perspective. Even the courts said to give liberal interpretation and to look at oral history because we have an oral history. Canada will never know if they don't talk to us, if they don't try to find out what these issues are, and what are our inherent and treaty rights. You'll never find out. You can't continue to define it.

I remember years ago one of the MPs—God bless her soul—said she was an expert on Indians: she lived a few miles from the reserve. Does that make you an expert? That was said in Parliament. I've been around for a long time. I've noticed how the governments of Canada have failed to sit and really talk and listen to the indigenous peoples.

I have to say that I commend all of you. You're not just sitting there looking at your texts or something else. When we make presentations to government officials, whether it's with Alberta or with the federal government, most of them sit there looking at...what? A couple of them were watching hockey games one time when we were making a presentation. That just shows us that they don't listen.

We need to talk. You need to talk to our leadership. When it comes to treaties, you need to talk to the treaty Indians and not organizations. They're not rights holders. Treaty indigenous peoples of treaties one to 11 are the rights holders, and those are the people you need to talk to. It's been very difficult for us to get.... We've invited the Prime Minister and we've invited the Governor General to sit and talk about these issues so we can begin discussing this nation-to-nation relationship that you want to renew with our peoples. We are still waiting. I hope you will bring that message back to Canada and to the rest of your MPs.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Well said, and I believe well heard.

To me, by the way, you're more interesting than the average hockey game.