Public Safety Committee on Oct. 18th, 2016

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Oliphant (Don Valley West, Lib.)), Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Welcome. I'm going to call to order the 32nd meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

My name is Rob Oliphant and I'm the member of Parliament for Don Valley West and the chair of this committee.

I want to particularly welcome to our committee those of you who have come as guests tonight.

I will outline the way this will work.

Our committee is travelling across the country. We're engaging in a study to look at the national security framework to address concerns that have been raised by Canadians about legislation over the last number of years and about how that legislation could be revisited.

There are two consultations going on right now. The government itself is having a consultation, and that is through the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. He has issued a green paper and has engaged Canadians to talk about this issue. We are running parallel to that. We are not government. We are Parliament and we have decided to undertake a study and advise Parliament on what Canadians are saying about the national security framework, and then offer that wisdom to the government should they decide to take it.

As a standing committee we will be reviewing legislation and amendments to legislation that come out over the next few years. These hearings will also help us as a sort of pre-study for legislation that's going to be given to our committee to review.

We represent the three parties that have official standing in the House of Commons. There are three of us from the Liberal Party of Canada, two from the Conservative Party of Canada, and one from the New Democratic Party, representing essentially the standings in the House of Commons as we go.

This afternoon we heard from people—I use the word “expert” loosely, because I think everybody has expertise—who spend their whole life on the issues of public safety and national security, as we did yesterday afternoon in Vancouver. Then last night in Vancouver we had a fairly large gathering of members of the public who wanted to talk about their concerns. Some of them focused on the green paper, because they had read it or had seen it online. Others talked particularly about former Bill C-51, which contains a new act and a number of amendments to other acts. Others talked more generally about the concepts around national security.

We have no ground rules tonight, other than to stay on the general guidelines of national security and public safety. That's our general guideline. However, this meeting is your chance to talk to six parliamentarians who will be writing a report to Parliament about national security. We're interested in what you have to say.

As it's a small group, because I suspect that other things are going on, but also because of the relatively late notice, and people are not always organized to go to parliamentary committee hearings—it's not part of their life—I thought we would take the first half hour or so to have a meeting with those who are here. At that time, if other people haven't arrived, the committee may suspend for a short period of time and wait to see if other people come, because we've advertised the meeting from 5:30 to 7:30. I'm also of the opinion that the right people are in the right room at the right time, and so you are the right people and this is the right time.

Four of you have signed up to speak. However, I'm going to be fairly flexible on that, and if someone who is not on the list is moved to speak, we may ask you to sign up on the spot and we would be delighted to hear from you as well.

The speakers list that I have been given starts with Ian O'Sullivan. I'll give you three or four minutes to address our group.

If you're representing a group that's sometimes helpful for us, but if you're not, that's fine.

[Ian O'Sullivan, As an Individual]

No, I'm just speaking for myself here.

My name is Ian. I assume that most people here know the general contents of Bill C-51, and have heard many times about the rights that it takes away from us. To go into detail about the many ways this bill subverts our Constitution would take much more time than we have here today.

If you have not already done so, I encourage you to read the Bill C-51, document online, and to also refresh yourself on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to find exactly where this bill eliminates our rights.

Canadians had absolutely no say in Bill C-51 and it's charter-destroying legislation, nor in its very implementation. To have a public consultation on this draconian bill over a year after the fact on such short notice is disrespectful and insulting to Canadians.

Perhaps that is why there are not more people here today, because they believe the government is not really listening to them and that it does not actually care. This is being made more evident by its disregard for what the people actually want.

We'll see if this consultation was all just for show in the end, but I still have hope for our country.

A bill of this nature should have gone through a public consultation and approval process long before being passed as it affects all of our fundamental rights and freedoms.

This is not acceptable if we are still to consider our country a free democracy. This is, in fact, more reflective of a fascist dictatorship. The ramming through of this bill, and then asking about it later is equivalent to a thief breaking into your house, stealing all of your most personal belongings, and then asking you how you feel about it.

You claim that we are your bosses, but yet the majority of Canadians do not support Bill C-51 just as they do not support the stripping away of their guaranteed rights and freedoms. So why is it that this bill is not being repealed immediately?

You assume that Canadians should be paralyzed by the fear of terrorism when, in fact, we are more in danger of getting killed by a moose than by a terrorist. Maybe the fear is the point in order for the government to pass the legislation it wants to pass with as little interference as possible. What Canadians fear most is what is happening now, and that is this quiet governmental takeover of our country.

I demand the immediate repeal of Bill C-51.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Stay there if you don't mind, as it gives the committee a chance to ask you a question.

I have a question.

This is a new Parliament, and Bill C-51 doesn't exist anymore, so we have a whole set of laws that have been enacted not just in Bill C-51 but in previous governments as well that meant to address a threat or a perceived threat of terrorism. There was a collective understanding in different governments that some Canadians at least wanted to restrict their rights or were allowing the government to restrict their rights for the sake of greater safety.

Are there particular issues you would like us to address first? We're going to be around for awhile, hopefully, as parliamentarians, and not everything is going to get done right away. Our committee is working on this in good faith, and I'm not asking you to trust us, as you'll trust us if we do our good work, but is there something in particular that irks you in Bill C-51?

[Ian O'Sullivan]

There are many specific things that would take awhile to talk about. The worst thing is the fact that spies can go in and search and seize, unreasonable search and seizure, and break the Constitution that way. They can take anything and remove anything.

Basically, if we had 100% trust in our security services, everything would be fine. We know mistakes get made. We know that power gets abused, and if this power falls into the wrong hands, anything goes. People could get framed for something they didn't do. People could have something installed on their computer that they never put there. The limits are endless.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Okay.

[Ian O'Sullivan]

The other thing is, it says it restricts bodily harm and sexual harassment or sexual abuse of the target, but it doesn't say anything about psychological abuse, so to me that says anything besides bodily harm, death, and sexual abuse is permitted, which leaves all these other abuses open to them.

We still don't have appropriate oversight to even know what kind of people we're targeting. Now, it's been brought in to include not just terrorists, but just in general now, whoever the government deems is a threat, and we have no way of knowing what the criteria are.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Miller.

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

Thank you for being here tonight. I want to touch on a number of things that you suggested could be sexual abuse—

[Ian O'Sullivan]

Violating the sexual integrity....

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

Okay, and I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that or whether I agree with it.

[Ian O'Sullivan]

It's in the bill, so do you want this in the wording?

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

I think you may or may not be misinterpreting that. I believe you, but what I'd like to say, as a legislator, is that I don't support abuse of any law by whomever. There seems to be a lot of hype over Bill C-51. Some people have said that we live in a different world today, ever since 9/11, and particularly in the last five to eight years, probably, in Canada.

It is a different world that we live in. I don't like it any better than you do and I have grandchildren coming up. A number of people have said things are going to have to be a little different. It's like airport security. I don't like it either. I travel a lot, as do all my colleagues. I hate it, but it's all part of keeping Canadians safe.

The old adage that I hear people say quite a bit is that if they're not doing anything wrong, they have nothing to worry about. I say that as a comment. Do you want to comment to that?

[Ian O'Sullivan]

That is not true. If you're not doing anything wrong, they can still paint you as a criminal. We see in the case of CSIS, I think his last name was Nuttall, and how they were funding this little terrorist cell and paying for it and coercing them and supporting them into doing this terrorist attack. Obviously, they caught them before they did it, but they were also helping to radicalize them.

We see that there is another branch going on—

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

Who was helping to radicalize them?

[Ian O'Sullivan]

The RCMP and CSIS.

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

Do you really believe that?

[Ian O'Sullivan]

That's what the papers say, unless everyone's lying. So you see there are these abuses, and it's not always the criminals that they're after. They might be people who might be just against government policy. They could be someone the government doesn't like it. They're speaking up too loudly and they want to silence them. Those are the types of abuses that can arise when you give them these broad powers over anyone the government deems a threat.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Dubé.

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

Chair, may I respectfully reiterate what I mentioned yesterday about avoiding using our political views and debating with the members of the public. We have three different positions for the three parties, and if we do this with every person, it can get off the rails a little bit. Let's leave the floor to those folks.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

For what it's worth, Mr. Chair, I didn't think there was anything that ran afoul of that principle in what I heard in Mr. Miller's comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Okay, thank you very much, Mr. O'Sullivan.

Matthew McAdam, welcome.

[Matthew McAdam, As an Individual]

I came largely unprepared today, but I know for sure that the specific thing that bothers me about Bill C-51 would be on freedom of speech. I post a lot of things on social media. What I've been told about this legislation is that if I suggest that I don't like what government is doing, just in voicing my opinion, I can be suspected of terrorist activity. They can mess with my financial situation. They can put a hold on my banking information and stuff like that. At least, that's my understanding.

As a leader in democracy in the world, we should totally let everyone have whatever sort of say they want, even if they think the Prime Minister is a jerk. They should be allowed to say that, whether they're talking about Harper, Trudeau, or anybody. You should be allowed to say what you think. Maybe it's being said in a negative tone—and there could be something said about using the right sorts of words—but to send someone to jail for calling someone a jerk or being very negative seems extreme. Freedom of speech is incredibly important for transparency, for democracy, and for all these things to work as best they can. That is the main thing that really bothers me about it. It's the aspect of freedom of speech.

As for giving up some rights and freedoms for more protection, that's not interesting to me. I don't see a lot of people trying to carry out terrorist activities. We've just talked about the one in B.C., where the RCMP were trying to get two people radicalized. That stuff is totally scary. Whether it's true or not, it still puts up a red flag of something that's possible, even if it wasn't the case. That's another thing that bothers me about it.

Really, that's what I have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Mendicino.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thanks for your comments, Matthew.

I would ask you, who told you that you can be suspected of anything that could be investigated simply by expressing free speech?

[Matthew McAdam]

I've read a number of articles about Bill C-51. Alarmingly, these articles suggest that being outspoken can lead to prosecution or being a suspect or something like that. I couldn't cite a specific place I heard it from. It's just that from doing the research that I've done, that's what has been suggested to me, and it's very worrying to hear.