Public Safety Committee on Oct. 19th, 2016

[Steven Poulos, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Oliphant.

I've been a resident of Toronto for 55 years. I run an environmental design company in Don Mills, at 1131 Leslie Street. I'm an inventor, a patent holder, an architectural designer, and a clean-tech developer. I'm very grateful to this panel today and to your staff for allowing me to have my voice with regard to the very troubling disappearances over the last decade in this country and beyond its borders, as my family and I have experienced.

My family and I are victims of a massive invasion of privacy. I don't think it is any coincidence that in this past year, as my technology that converts various forms of material into energy has been approaching its final development, the surveillance program being run on me, my life, and my family and children has reached a level of absolute pervasiveness and gross disregard for our rights and privacy in and out of our home.

I'm not sure if this is an appropriate forum, but I'll leave that up to you. Whoever is operating this program has made it impossible for me to walk, bicycle, drive, or fly anywhere on this continent or abroad without being accosted by aircraft of every nature and size. I have many witnesses to these activities. I have video evidence of this. I have vectors, altitudes, positions, and times of the orange helicopters involved, and they are just one of dozens of classes of aircraft that stalk me in a way that goes beyond surveillance and into the realm of an uncontrolled perversion.

I have taken this in stride, never really knowing who is at the root of this carnage, and of course am afraid to speak out because of the obvious repercussions. This is the first public disclosure of this information.

I can tell you that I cannot go to sleep at night without a final round of low-altitude aircraft over my home in Don Mills at 12:45 a.m. I cannot go to any conservation areas with my family on a weekend without being hounded in the forest by orange choppers, Cessnas, all likes of jets, and turboprops at low altitudes always in my presence, which have no business being there, of course.

At my family's cottage in the middle of nowhere, we are not without a Cessna overhead upon our arrival or large Aurora-type aircraft, military choppers, or even jets, as difficult as that is to believe, at low altitudes, which have caused my neighbouring cottagers to challenge this and to call the military directly to tell them to stop this incredibly disruptive nuisance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

You have two more minutes.

[Steven Poulos]

I will close this quickly. Again, thank you for the time. I did not prepare to speak tonight, but given the opportunity, I felt it was appropriate.

I can say that it's reaching a level of complete and utter misuse of public funds, even though it is no doubt financed as well by very high rollers.

When my young son of 13 looked into the air this summer toward another chopper following our car at low altitude and said, “Dad, they are going to kill you”, I can say that I did tremble for a moment for my life and for my family's well-being. They know exactly where I am right now, with 100% certainty.

Ladies and gentlemen, our system is broken and doing serious damage to the advancement of technologies and socio-economic opportunities. Any help in investigating or any ensuing help would be more than appreciated.

Thank you. I will co-operate with any and all governing bodies to determine the crux of this program that is now in full swing at this time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you, Mr. Poulos. Maybe we can take this off-line and talk about it as a specific case.

Tonight, if you have a specific incident or case, that's probably best. I'm very happy to have my office staff help with it, but if we could keep it more at the policy level tonight, that would probably be useful.

Go ahead, Ms. Watts.

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

I was just going to say that we could have his submission, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Sure. We can put the submission in too. We'd be happy to have that.

Thank you.

Next is Adam Smith.

[Adam Smith, As an Individual]

Hello. Thank you very much for your time and for holding these public consultations.

Bill C-51 is very likely unconstitutional, undeniably violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and, as omnibus legislation where debate was cut off, it was rushed through incredibly fast for a mature democracy. Considering how rife with issues it is and that many security experts agree it isn't necessary for catching or prosecuting terrorists, I'm baffled that it isn't just repealed. It opens the door wide to potential abuses, privacy issues, and spying on Canadians, more than cracking down on terrorism. It is the definition of Orwellian: legislating thought crime and effectively turning Canada into a secret police surveillance state.

The Toronto G-20 taught us how easily our rights can be trampled, not just by using archaic and repurposed legislation like the Ontario Public Works Protection Act, but by police acting illegally: crossing the line of what they are allowed to ask of a citizen, illegally detaining, and falsely arresting.

Earlier, the point was raised about what different governments might do if empowered by Bill C-51. Considering the Harper government's disdain for democracy and protest, it's no wonder they made the law. Had Harper won the last election, we wouldn't be having this conversation. We'd be getting investigated for it.

Bill C-51 was rushed into law in a climate of fear and intimidation, fear of terrorism in the wake of the conveniently timed Quebec running down and Ottawa shooting, and intimidation, in that opposition to the bill made you a terrorist sympathizer not supporting public safety. If I'm not mistaken, on the day of the shooting, they were to debate Bill C-51 in Parliament. Passing Bill C-51 under such fear and duress is the same kind of knee-jerk reaction that causes overzealous no-fly lists and Canadians being sent overseas to be tortured based on weak evidence.

All of this ignores one simple fact. In terms of the cases made public, the most prevalent force radicalizing Canadians and the group responsible for the most terrorist activity in Canada is the RCMP itself. The Toronto 18, the VIA Rail bombers, the proven entrapped Canada Day bombers, and the straight-out terrorist bombing by the RCMP to frame Wiebo Ludwig show a clear history of manufactured terrorism and their influence of radicalization through their paid informants egging on their targets.

The Ottawa shooter fits the radicalization profile perfectly: an angry, young, low-income Muslim male with a history of mental health issues and drug addiction. The RCMP picks those most ripe for radicalization. The timing of the Ottawa shooting in regard to Bill C-51 is not the only suspicious aspect. It's also suspicious that a convicted criminal was able to obtain a long gun to carry out the shooting and that, soon afterward, the RCMP illegally deleted the long-gun registry. We are still not told where the rifle came from.

The government is also culpable for radicalization through its actions on the world stage. The Ottawa shooter, in his own video admission, bears out the influence of our government bombing Syria as a major factor in his rationale for attacking.

There seems to be zero proof or study showing that the overreaching provisions of Bill C-51 will in fact aid in the interception of terrorism. How would it have prevented the Quebec running down or the Ottawa shooter? Neither does it address any of the factors leading to radicalization.

Lastly, if I have a little time, I just want to say to you that vague terms like “interference with critical infrastructure” also beg for specificity. Critical to whom? Critical to the public and the functioning of society, such as a water filtration plant, or critical to the profits of a private company, such as a pipeline? A pipeline carrying crude to be refined and sold outside of Canada is, by definition, not a piece of critical infrastructure.

There is nothing good in Bill C-51. It should be repealed in whole.

Thanks for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you very much.

Are there any questions from the committee?

Roberto De Luca.

[Roberto De Luca, As an Individual]

Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee. My name is Rob De Luca. I'm here today as a concerned citizen, but also in my role as a staff lawyer at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. We are a national non-profit organization that has been working to protect civil liberties in Canada for more than 50 years.

One of our chief concerns regarding the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, popularly known as Bill C-51, is the lack of new accountability mechanisms to oversee the state powers introduced by Bill C-51. On that note, we support the governing party's introduction of Bill C-22, which creates a national security intelligence committee of parliamentarians with the capacity to monitor classified security and intelligence activities and report findings to the Prime Minister.

I was happy to hear this afternoon that there was quite a bit more discussion of Bill C-22 than I was anticipating. I want to make some brief comments on Bill C-22.

One of our concerns with Bill C-22 as currently drafted is that while it is a move in the right direction, it is not sufficient to address the current accountability deficit in Canada's national security framework, such as the need for, first, integration into the investigations of existing review bodies and, ideally, consolidation in an enhanced expert review body; second, a truly independent monitor of Canada's national security laws; third, an independent oversight and review mechanism of the Canada Border Services Agency beyond any oversight and review accomplished by the committee of parliamentarians.

We are also concerned by some of the limits on the new committee of parliamentarians. Most notably, Bill C-22 gives the government the power to halt a committee investigation, an independent oversight or review, or to refuse to provide information when it is deemed “injurious to national security”. I have paragraphs 8(b) and 16(1)(b) of Bill C-51 in mind.

Part of the problem with these provisions is that they cannot be reviewed by a court or by an alternative dispute resolution process. This broad limit on the committee's power seems particularly out of place given that the committee of parliamentarians will be subject to significant national security safeguards, such as a prohibition on the publication of classified information.

My questions or suggestions are twofold on this narrow question, that is, whether the committee and the Government of Canada are willing to reconsider the significant limits it has placed on the national security oversight body, and if not, are the committee or the Government of Canada willing to consider allowing courts or a specially designated institution or review body the ability to review government decisions to halt committee investigations or a government refusal to provide the relevant information?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

Are there any questions?

I said earlier that the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has appeared before our committee on another bill, and I expect it will be appearing again as a helpful intervenor. Thank you very much.

[Rob De Luca]

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Brenda McPhail.

[Brenda McPhail, As an Individual]

You were prescient, in that the Canadian Civil Liberties Association is appearing before you again right now for a moment.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Brenda McPhail]

My name is Brenda McPhail, and I am the director of the privacy, technology and surveillance project at the CCLA.

In the green paper, on page 6, it's noted that the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms “establishes a minimum standard of conduct by governments in Canada”, and further notes—and we were thrilled to see this—that the minimum standards may be inadequate in some cases to establish public trust in matters of national security. We completely agree, which is why, when we gather here to discuss the problematic aspects of the Anti-terrorism Act of 2015, the biggest problem of all is that there are a number of specific places in the act in which it arguably fails to comply with Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Our colleague Tom Henheffer appeared before you this afternoon, and the CCLA has joined with the CJFE in launching a charter challenge to former Bill C-51, which is, as you mentioned, currently on hold while we wait to see the results of these consultations.

We have five particular areas of concern. We're troubled by the tone of the green paper, which frankly seems to be trying to justify many of the problematic aspects of the bill, particularly in relation to information sharing, which our Privacy Commissioner has now amplified as being of concern; by IRPA amendments to reduce information to special advocates in security certificate cases; by new powers for CSIS; and by inadequate safeguards around the no-fly list. In addition, even though we acknowledge and very much appreciate the government's statement that it will ensure that all CSIS activities will comply with the charter, you actually still ask in the green paper whether people think the act should be amended to make it clear that CSIS warrants can never violate the charter.

One of your witnesses said this afternoon, in response to a question about problems in Bill C-51, that we didn't need to worry about it, because those problems would be challenged in court and that's the place where they'd be solved. Respectfully, and despite the fact that the CCLA does a great deal of our advocacy work in courts, we'd much rather see a charter-compliant bill from the outset, as improved by this government with advice from your committee.

Here's our question today. In addition to taking into account the public feedback received in this consultation process, is this committee and our government committed to a genuine and thorough legal review of the act with attention to charter issues, and, if so, precisely how is that going to happen and how will it be made public?

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Mendicino will comment. I just want to remind the group that we're a committee of Parliament, so we're not able to answer for government. We can answer for Parliament.

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

Yes, and hopefully being here is demonstrative of the intent of this committee's mandate to engage in a very robust public consultation on the national security framework. We want to thank you and all who have preceded you for your comments thus far.

Ms. McPhail, do you have anything specific in the way of prescriptive recommendations on information sharing? That's just one example that I thought I would take a moment to ask you about.

[Brenda McPhail]

In our challenge, the concern we have about information sharing is about the overbreadth, the unclear definitions, and the lack of procedural safeguards to make sure that Canadians' privacy interests are appropriately protected. I think our concerns are reflected in the recent report of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, who actually did an investigation and discovered that there were some procedural safeguards lacking in terms of the instructions given to front-line staff, for example.

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

We had the Privacy Commissioner testify before this committee maybe a week and a half ago. I'm a little jet-lagged and I apologize, but we've gone through several time zones, so my recollection may not be quite as precise as I want it to be. One thing he spoke about in his testimony was the threshold for information sharing between various security agencies and other agencies within the entire federal public service apparatus.

Do you have anything in particular to say about that component of information sharing?

[Brenda McPhail]

I believe that the threshold should be one of necessity in the face of clear and present danger; in other words, the threshold for sharing should be relatively high. In a process that's inherently invasive, it should be deemed necessary, not “possibly necessary”, for the information to be shared.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you very much.

Teri Degler.

[Teri Degler, As an Individual]

Hello. Thank you for this opportunity. I'm a writer, a journalist, and a member of The Writers' Union of Canada, but I'm here speaking personally.

I heard Tom Henheffer talk earlier today, and I agree with every single point that he made on behalf of the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression. I thought it was an excellent presentation and so well researched, and I hope you all have a chance to read it over and really soak up what he said.

My concerns are very similar. We're concerned about the broad and vaguely worded powers that are given to national security agencies such as CSIS and to law enforcement. As writers, we're particularly concerned about the aspects in the broad definition of terrorism that make it so that, as writers, I think we might be seen as promoting terrorism when we're just reporting on it. I know it's unlikely, and I know the government says it will never charge anybody with that, but it's too vague.

As was discussed earlier today, one of the problems is that you might write an article that actually criticizes a terrorist organization, but that might incite somebody to violence. Where are those lines drawn and who determines it? I think this is a real area for you to consider in the reform of this bill.

I hope it is a reform of the Anti-terrorism Act. We keep talking about a consultation on national security—you introduced it tonight—but I think a lot of us out here are talking about the reform of what was once Bill C-51. We would like to see that reformed. Or, as many writers' organizations are calling for, just toss it out and do something new.

Another big concern we have is the possible criminalization of public protest, especially with the addition to it of interference with “critical infrastructure”. I know that the bill does specifically state that “advocacy, protest, dissent, and artistic expression” are not to be considered in this, but again, it's vague on who determines that. It's really easy to see a government deciding that something that I would think is dissent is interference. Those things are very vague. At best, we'd really like to see them tightened up if they're not tossed out.

I'll give you a quick example of how this could happen. I don't know if you're familiar with Amy Goodwin. She's a reporter and broadcaster for Democracy Now. She was reporting on the pipeline demonstrations in North Dakota, which were greatly attended by native Americans, and she took some footage. It was very critical of the security forces there.

A few weeks later, she was charged with trespassing. Then they decided that wasn't going to work, and she got charged with rioting. These charges were brought by the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation. The laws are different, but it's not a thing about the laws being very different. What's important here is that it was a pipeline, and here was this journalist, and suddenly she was charged. On Monday, the charges were dropped, both for the trespassing and the rioting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I'm afraid I need to cut you off there.

[Teri Degler]

Okay. Those are basically our concerns. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

Matthew Currie.