Public Safety Committee on Oct. 19th, 2016

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

I call the meeting to order.

Good evening. Welcome to this meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. This is our 34th meeting in this Parliament.

You're probably aware that the committee has been undertaking a study regarding the national security framework as it exists in Canada right now and as Canadians hope it should exist in the future. This is a study that is going on in parallel with a similar consultation being done by the Government of Canada.

The government, through the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, has issued a green paper in a short version and in a long version. This committee is not doing a consultation on the green paper; however, we are using the green paper to help us do a study of the whole framework. We are guided by the green paper, but we're not limited to it. It does provide a certain number of questions that we think are helpful for us to consider.

Already, the minister has presented a first piece of legislation, which has been tabled in the House. It is called Bill C-22, and it is in regard the oversight of national security agencies by parliamentarians. This piece of legislation is currently at our committee; it has been passed at second reading. It does come up in our meetings as we continue. However, it's a small part of the whole national security framework. It is the first and very important part, but it is a small part and is actually only part of oversight.

Our committee had meetings in Ottawa a couple of weeks ago as we began this study, and then we took it on the road. On Monday we were in Vancouver, where we held two meetings. Yesterday we were in Calgary. Today we are in Toronto. This is our second meeting here. Our format has been to have an afternoon meeting where we hear from invited witnesses, who give us testimony regarding questions that we have usually asked them to speak about. These people often represent organizations, but sometimes they come as individuals. They give us a broader understanding of what we are attempting to frame as a national security framework.

Because we are travelling, the afternoon meetings look very much like our Ottawa meetings. In the evenings, however, we have decided to hold public meetings where you are invited to give your thoughts to the committee. We have about 25 people so far who have asked to speak tonight. You might want to go to the desk and get on the list if you're not already there. Because we have about 25 people, I'm going to suggest that we limit remarks to about three minutes each. If it's like it was in Calgary and Vancouver, people will come in after the meeting has started and after they're finishing work and getting here through traffic.

The committee may or may not have a question for clarification regarding what you say, so I will be watching the committee members to make sure they have a chance to ask any questions they may have.

I'm going to have the committee members introduce themselves and their ridings.

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

My name is Marco Mendicino. I am the member of Parliament for Eglinton—Lawrence here in Toronto. For those of you who don't know, geographically it's situated more or less in the middle of the 416 code proper, and I am a next door neighbour to Rob Oliphant.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I'm Pam Damoff. I'm the member of Parliament for Oakville North—Burlington, just west of Toronto.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

I'm John Brassard, member of Parliament for Barrie—Innisfil, and I'm the official opposition critic for veterans affairs.

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

I'm Dianne Watts, member of Parliament for South Surrey—White Rock. I'm the critic for infrastructure and urban communities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

We also with us have Matthew Dubé. He must have just stepped out for a moment. I'll have him introduce himself when he comes back.

I will tell you that the committee got up this morning at 3:30 to get on a plane to come here from Calgary, so you may see us drinking coffee and water to keep us going through the evening.

Our first guest is Barrie Zwicker.

As an aside, this committee's meetings are held in English and French. If you need earpieces to listen to the interpretation, you can use the ones on the table. It's important to understand what is being said in the committee.

[Barrie Zwicker, As an Individual]

Thank you very much.

I had prepared more than three minutes' worth, but I'll have to meet the criteria. Thank you for the opportunity.

I'm glad that this standing committee exists. The one time in my life that I was before a standing committee of the House of Commons, we were gloriously successful, but I don't necessarily expect that to happen today.

I would like to begin with a short quotation from the British historian and peace activist, E. P. Thompson, who said, “The deformed human mind is the ultimate doomsday weapon.”

If ever two dots needed connecting, they are the current developments around Bill C-51 and Bill C-22 on the one hand, and, on the other, the historic ruling by a B.C. Supreme Court judge in the case of the 2013 so-called Canada Day terror plot in Victoria. That ruling, called a “stunner” by Faisal Kutty in a recent issue of the Toronto Star, should be an international landmark.

Yet in all the reportage—my background is in journalism and communications—and almost all the commentary I've seen to date, including that by commentators wary or critical of spy agencies, the B.C. Supreme Court ruling has become more or less an elephant in the room. Its heart is “police-manufactured” terrorism. Those words are from Madam Justice Bruce of the B.C. Supreme Court. The words that are not sufficiently used but should be for an operation like this are “false flag operation”. A deep and wide and adult conversation about false flag operations in general is long overdue and could well be—and should be, in my opinion—one of the contexts for this committee's hearings.

The “police-manufactured crime” quote is from a 344-page ruling by Madam Justice Bruce on July 29, striking down the terrorism convictions of John Nuttall and Amanda Korody. As Thomas Walkom observed in the August 3 Toronto Star, “the entire bomb plot couldn't have happened if the RCMP hadn't organized it”. The Mounties cruelly exploited two impoverished recovering heroin addicts with clearly obvious mental health challenges.

I couldn't help but think about this, which I was planning to discuss anyway, in listening two hours earlier to the experts before this committee. It almost seemed to be very airy-fairy to me, very legislatively complex and so forth, without a reference to this larger context of what happens in the real world and what generates headlines and causes anxiety throughout society.

Academic studies, official reports, and even newspaper editorials show that the theat of terrorism has for years been blown far out of proportion, much as has been discussed here and is a matter of legitimate scrutiny for this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

That's your three and a half minutes.

[Barrie Zwicker]

No. Oh, you were generous.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

What I forgot to tell members of the public tonight is that you're invited to send a written submission to us on the Parliament of Canada website for the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety. Go to this study, “National Security Framework” and click “participate”. Press that and it will show you how to submit your written documentation.

[Barrie Zwicker]

Yes, and for the fascinating rest of my presentation, I will submit that brief.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

We will read it. I promise you.

Thank you.

Arthur Jefford.

[Arthur Jefford, As an Individual]

My name's Art Jefford. I lived in Sundridge, Ontario, until the Canadian government acted contrary to Bill C-51 and the requirements of the Canadian Criminal Code in section 83.01 on the definition of terrorism. I was made a result of Bill C-51. My Canadian government officials attacked, raped, and plundered my property, committed terrorism 20 times. I'm now faced with a problem. As a good Canadian, what do I do about that?

It appears that the official Canadian policy for terrorism is to drone-bomb the terrorist leaders, but they're my government officials, so I want a better solution, a peaceful one, preferably. I'm open to your suggestions. Let me give you a bit of history on what happened.

In 1980, I did $120 million in urea formaldehyde foam insulation. The government, the chairman of the SPI, the head for the standards for industry.... I wasn't consulted. We were just banned. In 78 days, we were sued 3,428 times for $484 million. By 1981, in 78 days, my life had been ripped apart.

In 1999, the government was still attacking me. They took 13 vehicles out of my driveway over different periods of time. I went before Justice Tracy at Walkerton Court, and it was found that the government had no right to breach my Magna Carta rights in section 39, or my Constitution, or my charter rights. There's a duty on every government official to make sure that every piece of legislation that is put complies with my Magna Carta rights, my charter rights, and my constitutional rights, because basically they trump all other legislation.

I believe that when the current Prime Minister said okay to Bill C-51, he was a traitor to me as a Canadian, because my grandfather, Leslie Arthur Jefford, is listed on the Vimy Memorial and he gave his life for my Canadian way of life and my family.

In 2001, as head of a Canadian delegation, I was renditioned, I believe, and landed up in Bahrain, where my aircraft was diverted. I managed to escape because I wasn't an Arab. In October of 2001, again as head of a Canadian delegation, I was this time renditioned to Oman and then to Abu Dhabi. In January 2004, again as head of a Canadian delegation, I was kidnapped by al Qaeda and tortured in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. After 10 days I escaped, but in time, I said, look, my family had a great time in Washago, and al Qaeda gave me peace and quiet while I was telling them about it. At that period in time, I was able to get some free time from the agony of being tortured.

I've also talked about how, in the UFFI ban, the “Teflon man”, Bob Fowler, who was head at the Privy Council for Trudeau, Mulroney, and Chrétien.... He has all my money. He took all my money. You'd be better off getting it from him, so al Qaeda kidnapped Bob Fowler and ran him around for 130 days until they got their $10 million.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I'm afraid I need to cut you off there, Mr. Jefford.

Are there any questions from the committee?

[Arthur Jefford]

Well, you're looking for information about radicalization. I'd say that I have been radicalized. I have the OPP liaison team working with me now.

My MPs, whether it be Miller, from Grey, or Tony Clement, don't appear when I'm before them. I wonder if I scared them, okay, because they know exactly what went on. I went from from Jackson all the way down to Bill Murdoch, to Larry Miller, to Tony Clement. On February 9, when they banned RetroFoam, Tony Clement was the Minister of Health, and he in turn knew exactly what the problems were.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I need to end it there, but thank you. You're invited to put anything in writing. I do need to mention that Mr. Miller is vice-chair of this committee and is a very exceptional member of the committee. He is normally with us in these meetings, so I just wanted to let you know that he will do that.

[Arthur Jefford]

[Inaudible—Editor] we are in Canada. Here's a photograph to show you how the government terrorizes [Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I should have mentioned that we have an analyst from the Library of Parliament, and the Clerk of the Committee, who make us look smarter than we are.

Mr. Jack Dodds, you may go ahead.

[Jack Dodds, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important matter. I'm here on behalf of Canadian Unitarians for Social Justice. We're a faith-based organization that provides opportunities for Unitarian Universalists and others to apply their religious, humanistic, and spiritual values to social action. Most Unitarian Universalists agree that spiritual values are relevant to the everyday world and that a free and democratic society is a prerequisite for full spiritual development.

In our view, Canadians are held together by a number of defining ideas. The most important of these is the concept of a democratic society. This does not refer just to our machinery of elections and government. It implies that power is vested in the people, and that there is an equality of rights and privileges. It has a spiritual dimension. It is an expression of faith in the power of human beings to shape their own lives.

Earlier today, Professor Levi talked about research which shows that people comply with the law not so much because they fear punishment as because they feel that legal authorities are legitimate and their actions are generally fair. The perception of legitimacy depends on whether citizens are treated with proper respect, each with their own needs for dignity and privacy. These principles are intangible, but they are ultimately what has made Canadian society peaceful and safe.

Acknowledging equality as part of the democratic vision does not just mean that every person is treated equally. It also means that when citizens deal with the government, they do so on an equal footing. In the 801 years since the Magna Carta, mechanisms have evolved to enable this vision. We require the government to obey the law, just as citizens must. When citizens come into conflict with the government, they have access to impartial judges and juries and appear before them on an equal footing with their government adversaries.

We are concerned that the present legislation and the green paper contemplate a creeping dilution of the equality between citizens and security agencies. Security agencies claim that they must operate in secret, but court orders based on secret hearings that exclude the affected people are fundamentally incapable of delivering justice.

This is even more true of extrajudicial authorization of privacy intrusions. Two weeks ago in this committee, Wesley Wark aptly described the present system as “paternalistic”, and these mechanisms fit that description. To reverse the trend, Parliament should reaffirm that the only fully legitimate way to authorize searches or other actions against people is through court proceedings at which the affected person is represented. In cases such as hearings for search warrants, it may be necessary to keep the hearings secret, but in every case, the affected party should be notified as soon as is practical after the fact, providing an opportunity to challenge the court order. As well as creating a mechanism for accountability, this allows legislation to be refined by the development of case law.

I have another nine minutes, but I will not—

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

We look forward to reading it.

Does the committee have any questions for Mr. Dodds?

[Jack Dodds]

My colleague Margaret Rao, who is president of Canadian Unitarians for Social Justice, will speak later and follow up.

[Margaret Rao, As an Individual]

Unless I can speak now...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I think it's probably helpful that you speak now. You're on a theme.

[Margaret Rao]

Thank you very much.

We are concerned about the trend towards authorizing security agencies to act against people who may not have committed criminal acts. “Counselling” and “conspiracy”, as defined in the Criminal Code, provide a powerful basis to investigate and prevent acts of violence before they occur, yet recent legislation has added a shopping list of vaguely defined activities that undermine the security of Canada, quote, unquote, which can be used to justify information sharing.

Other new provisions authorize “disruption”, based on a low evidentiary threshold. This allows security agencies to build dossiers and intervene in the activities of citizens who are not performing criminal acts. In most cases, the contemplated acts of disruption, if performed by a citizen rather than the government, would be criminal or illegal. This violates the democratic vision of equality between people and government.

This recent legislation has added to the fears of some citizens who are involved in social movements. In 2013 security agencies provided classified security briefings to Canadian energy companies. A classified RCMP report from 2014 uses hostile terms to describe lawful actions such as the use of social media to promote action on climate change and conflates violent actions with peaceful protests.

The SIRC is currently investigating a complaint that citizens concerned about the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline were spied upon. There is a palpable appearance of bias on the part of the security agencies, which, combined with the new disruption powers, discourages people from participating in the democratic process.

In summary, Canadian Unitarians for Social Justice call on Parliament to bring democratic control to security agency activities by acknowledging that there is a tension between those activities and the health of our democratic society, by setting clear limits on those activities to ensure that democratic ideals are honoured, and by mandating proven transparency mechanisms so that citizens have the information they need to exert meaningful control of those activities.

Finally, to paraphrase theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, humankind's capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but its inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary. We should heed his words.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you very much. You're on time. I think you've finished the Unitarian brief as well, so that's very good. I was going to ask whether there are any other Unitarians who wanted to continue, but I don't need to. Anybody who quotes Reinhold Niebuhr is very helpful for me.

Steven Poulos is next.