[Inaudible—Editor]
Evidence of meeting #32 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 you're.
Evidence of meeting #32 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 you're.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
6:15 p.m.
As an Individual
No, hear me out here. For bringing people in Afghanistan and allowing them to be sent into incarceration where there was a credible risk of torture.... Even that is a war crime. Knowing that torture is possible and still sending people to be incarcerated there is a war crime. Rather than having that information brought forward, and rather than having that debated, they prorogued Parliament—not just for that, obviously, on the part of the government.
This is Canada losing its way. Instead of being an honest broker, we are now supporting imperialist interventions. We are now the lapdog of the U.S. We do have requirements under NATO, and so on, but there are ways to go about doing that to uphold the highest rights, to uphold the highest laws, and to not cave at the first opportunity, not to commit to bombing because it's convenient and not to commit to sending fighter bombers because that's the least we can do.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Tavis, thanks for your remarks. I picked up on a central theme, which I think ran through as a thread in most of your comments, in that there need to be some checks and balances to state power. I think everybody on this committee would agree with that proposition.
You said that you hadn't had a chance to read all of the legislation that is part of the national security file, and that's one of the reasons we're having this public consultation: to have a dialogue about that with people like you and everyone else who's here.
I'm wondering if you're aware of some of the limitations that are already in the legislation. For example, when terrorist activity is defined, the legislation says, “For greater certainty, it does not include advocacy, protest, dissent”.
Are you aware of that?
6:15 p.m.
As an Individual
I am not completely aware of that.
Who defines “protest”? Who defines “lawful protest”? Does the government define that? Because that is an inalienable right.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Obviously there can be a discussion about that between law enforcement actors, the courts, and government actors, but I was just wondering whether or not you were aware that some of the limitations you're interested in or concerned about are already in the legislation.
The other example I picked up on in your comments was a concern about torture or a threat to somebody's physical integrity. I'm not making any assertions about the state of perfection of Bill C-51. Again, one of the reasons we're having this consultation is to promote discussion about it. Were you aware that there are provisions within the legislation, as it exists today, that would limit any measures taken by CSIS, for example, and prohibit any harm or torture along the lines that you've discussed? What are your thoughts about that?
6:15 p.m.
As an Individual
I'm aware that some amendments were made prior to its being passed, some minor amendments. I'm happy that it wasn't quite passed carte blanche.
I feel that there was not nearly enough public debate, and there was not nearly a robust enough process to review this. Indeed, 150 judges and lawyers wrote an open letter and talked about some of the problems with Bill C-51.
Why is it that people involved in the justice system and civil society were not consulted on this? Why did they take issue with this? Why is the legislation being done on behalf of CSIS and the RCMP rather than with everybody at the table, especially when we're talking about things that are very hard won? They were very hard won: over hundreds of years did we win these rights.
I'm not sure if I'm answering the question, but the fact that I don't know all those amendments.... Again, it feels like an omnibus security bill in itself. The better way to go forward, considering the last government's approach to this, which was problematic, would be to annul this bill and start fresh, with consultations from all sectors of civil society and not just the wish list of a security state that wants everything all the time.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I'm going to move to Mr. Miller and then Mr. Dubé. We'll try to keep it a little short.
October 18th, 2016 / 6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
I don't have a question for you, Travis, so you can sit down, but I have to correct a couple things that you said.
First, Jean Chrétien's government refused to go into Iraq. Stephen Harper's government was very clear that we would not go into Iraq. Chrétien sent Canadians into Afghanistan in 2002, and I believe, as a Canadian, that was not what we wanted but it was the right thing to do at the time. After 10 years, the previous government pulled soldiers out of there. There was a boy from my hometown who was killed over there.
When I challenged you on that, you said, “Oh, was that not right?” My point here is that while you're passionate about C-51 and other things—you're a very intelligent man—when you say stuff that isn't true on any issue like this as if it were, you lose a lot of credibility. I'm just passing that along as some advice.
Also, you talked about proroguing government to allow torture in Afghanistan. No politician of any stripe okayed or had any knowledge of torture. Unfortunately, sometimes people in the military...circumstances, whatever, I'm not going to make excuses for it, but that kind of stuff happens. We all know the history on it. So don't accuse any government of that kind of thing because no decent politician—and I believe that most are—would ever knowingly allow that.
I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
6:20 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Since we've decided to fall into debate, I do hear you on the Afghan detainees. It's an unresolved issue, contrary to what we're hearing, and we're continuing to raise it. I appreciate that.
Also, if we're going to defend legislation, I was in the last Parliament and voted against Bill C-51. I'm proud to have seconded a bill to repeal it. I appreciate your also bringing up the issue of torture because there is a ministerial directive that's still on the books, which we've asked about. It opens the door to the use of information obtained under torture, and I think that's an important part of this, so I'm glad you brought it up.
Thank you very much.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I'm just going to suggest that if anyone in the room wants to submit anything to the committee, you can also submit it directly online to the Parliament of Canada website for this committee. We'll be receiving written submissions. You're welcome to do that for things you didn't think of.
Thank you very much, Mr. Ford.
TR Duncan is next.
6:20 p.m.
Tammy Rose Duncan As an Individual
I didn't actually register to speak when I came in, because I just wanted to come and observe. I feel quite passionately that the way Bill C-51 was put into place was against the way I understand the Canada that I grew up in to exist.
We have the opportunity to put our feet on the ground and operate from abundance and not fear. We had lost our way. When we start operating from fear and from dominance and without inclusion of everyone, it's not my understanding of Canada.
I realize the world has changed a lot and that perhaps I am naive. My master's degree was on enlivening democracy. I used Jefferson's ideas that a little disruption is actually how you keep a democracy in balance. I really fully believe that if we're not open enough to allow disruption to arise, it will get more complex, and we've all seen that in the world today. I don't think there's any question that when you suppress people, it will come out another way.
The reason I chose to stand and speak is that there are a few items that are very near and close to my heart on systemic violence. We're quite unaware of how our structural violence has an impact on everyone. At this point, I'm going to take it to the micro level. I'm going to take it to being a woman. I'm going to take it to how we don't have balance because of our innate lack of being able to be present and have full dialogue from an open and safe place.
The question came up when I entered the room about how to protect youth on the Internet. I was attacked by a repeat sex offender with a knife. The police were shocked that I was alive at the end of it. I used simple, non-violent communication and I connected with him as a person.
What was worse than being attacked by him was being put through our judicial system, but what was worse than that was actually getting my master's degree. On a day-to-day basis in our offices, in our academic institutions, having to stay logical and grounded and clear when a person who's in authority is emotional does not get us what we need to hear. It does not get us to clarity and it doesn't create an equal environment.
Today I wasn't planning on talking. Today I was triggered by an event. I am very aware through my healing process, and there's all kinds of research on this, that when we're afraid, we can't think. So that whole question of how we define “online” was the concern. I'm very concerned for our female politicians. I'm very concerned about, in Alberta, the number of threats that our MLAs and our premier get.
It is hard to stay grounded and do a good job when you are constantly bombarded. It is hard to stay in that place of open abundance to hear the other side of the conversation when you're constantly bombarded. Perhaps men—some of them, but not all of them—just haven't had the opportunity to allow their nervous systems to evolve from that healthy place where we can hear someone's need instead of their argument and be inclusive.
I know this is probably not the level of dialogue you wanted to have today, but I would encourage you when we're looking at taking this forward. I would support Tavis's idea that we take the old one off the table because I'm kind of attached to the Charter of Rights, given how women got involved. There's a certain amount of history and courage and Canadian pride in how it got there. Let's look at maybe going back to that, before the dominance model came in and dismissed most people and operated in a manner that said, “I'm not willing to hear you. We are the experts, and we'll act on your behalf.”
Let's get inclusive again and let's get that research. Let's look at what happens with an emotional charge. Let's understand the structure of the brain and the brain stem and why people can't get into clarity and dialogue because they are emotionally charged. Let's take it that deep and let's do something really profound and really Canadian, because we need to lead on the world stage. It's a really ugly place right now.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
May I make a comment?
Our Minister of Status of Women is doing consultations right now on violence against women and girls and I would encourage you to make a submission to that committee.
6:25 p.m.
Tammy Rose Duncan As an Individual
Okay.
When I was in Europe, after being attacked by a repeat sex offender with a knife—I have a European husband— I did everything I could. I went to every department. I have a list on a piece of paper of how hard I worked with the Canadian government to get the right to bring my partner to support me, so that we could properly process this person. I was more devastated and re-traumatized by our legal process and lack of any response from our governments, federal, provincial and civic, than I was by actually having a knife to my throat and being able to [Inaudible—Editor], and that is a pretty horrific event.
6:25 p.m.
As an Individual
So note that there is some structural violence and it needs to be addressed. I would like to see it addressed in academic environments, in civic institutions. The assumption here that we can't talk about brain structure and emotion and the difference between a charge and who shuts down unconsciously in a dialogue when the person gets charged is really a problem.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Thank you for your courage and for being with us tonight.
Are there any other questions?
6:25 p.m.
As an Individual
I would actually invite people to calm down, because I might have charged you with my statement. I would really like you to breathe deeply and not take offence and ask me questions, because right now it feels quite dismissive because I've wandered into this territory.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Don't mistake our respect for your story as being dismissive. I think what you're hearing right now is respect for your story. We may need to take some time to process it, but we will do that.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Thank you very much.
That is the end of our list of people who have requested to speak tonight.
I suggest we suspend for 15 minutes. If we have new people, or you have new ideas, come back in 15 minutes. We'll do a check-in, and then if we haven't anyone else, we'll adjourn the meeting.
Thank you for engaging with us. We are politicians, so we like dialogue and debate. We enjoy that. It's our bread and butter. We put you through that tonight and you handled us very well.
We will suspend for 15 minutes now, and then we'll come back.