Hear, hear!
Evidence of meeting #34 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 c-51.
Evidence of meeting #34 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 c-51.
7:10 p.m.
Voices
Hear, hear!
7:10 p.m.
Ben Silver As an Individual
Members of the committee, thank you.
Like many Canadians under 30, I have never spoken at a political gathering before, but Bill C-51 makes me quite angry, so here I am.
First, I'd like to square the round peg you mentioned earlier about how the Liberals got a majority government and yet it seems that a lot of people want to repeal Bill C-51. It's good that the Liberals don't do omnibus bills, but for the average voter, election time presents us with a choice among five of the biggest omnibuses ever. We have to pick the parties as a whole. While we may like the Liberals more than the Conservatives, that does not mean there is broad support for Bill C-51.
The first issue I have with Bill C-51 is the broadening of CSIS's powers to include police powers. Previous speakers have enunciated better why that's a problem, so I'll move on. In June 2015, Mr. Trudeau gave an interview to Maclean's magazine where he listed why he supports the bill. Some of his reasons for supporting it are exactly my reasons for not supporting it.
The first is preventive detention. I consider it a sacred principle of our society that the government cannot put you in a cage until they have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that you have done something very wrong. The idea that you can be locked up because they think you may do something wrong in the future is abhorrent and has no place in a liberal society.
Number two is the no-fly list. It's a page taken from the flawed American playbook. If Mr. Trudeau starts adding Canadians to a secret no-fly list based on secret evidence, I will add him to my very public no-vote list.
Finally, exchanging freedoms for security is a fool's errand that won't work. Terrorism can be one disturbed person with a kitchen knife. No matter how many securities we surrender, you will never stop the possibility of that happening. We could better fund our mental health services and we could work on education to stop the radicalization of previously healthy members of society.
For perspective, 80 people are killed every year on Highway 401. If the government wants us to give up our freedoms, they need a scarier boogeyman than we accept when we're driving to work every morning.
Thank you.
7:10 p.m.
Voices
Hear, hear!
7:10 p.m.
Steven Brooks As an Individual
Everything I have to say here today has already been said better by those here in the audience. However, we've come to criminalize dissent in this country. An entire generation of young people feel fearful to speak, even across their own social media platforms in privacy. Experiencing this before coming here today, friends would not attend for fear of being put on a watch list. These are politically active people. They vote and they have party memberships. They should not be afraid to attend something like this.
That's all I have to say on the matter.
Thank you.
7:10 p.m.
Voices
Hear, hear!
7:10 p.m.
Rajib Dash As an Individual
I've never been part of a public consultation before, so I was under the wrongful impression that I was going to pose questions and I was going to get answers back. For that reason alone, it seems like a sham, so I don't even want to ask the question I came here to ask.
Secondly, as food for thought, it could have been both sides, but the people who are here today have devoted a lot of time and energy to research what you guys are trying to pass through and they have all come from one side. Try to understand what this means to us.
7:15 p.m.
Liberal
Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
What's your question? I'm taking notes. We may be able to provide some answer or some information.
7:15 p.m.
As an Individual
Not a “may be”: my impression was that I was going to get answers.
7:15 p.m.
As an Individual
Again, guarantee me that I will get answers. Otherwise, I'm not going to pose it.
7:15 p.m.
Liberal
Marco Mendicino Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Sir, I can't tell you whether or not I have the information until I know the question.
7:15 p.m.
As an Individual
It's a very simple question. I didn't even have to write it down.
7:15 p.m.
As an Individual
My impression is that prior to the implementation of the Anti-terrorism Act, Canadians were safe. All entities of the government, including CSIS and so forth, were doing their job in keeping us safe. If that assumption is correct, why do we need the Anti-terrorism Act? Repeal the shit out of it.
7:15 p.m.
Voices
Hear, hear!
7:15 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thanks.
I just wanted to say with regard to answering questions that the challenge we have in this format is that we all have different positions on these issues, so inevitably you hear everyone's position. I don't want to speak for my colleagues. I would assume that like we usually do, we'll all hang out in the room if you want to challenge us. I know I will if you have other questions. It does become difficult, because then we start debating each other the way we do in the House, and we want you guys to have the most time on the floor, which is why I'll end there.
7:15 p.m.
A voice
I would like to suggest that [Inaudible—Editor] No one has answered the question [Inaudible—Editor]
7:15 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
With the chair's indulgence, my point is.... I don't want to get into it, but I was in the last Parliament and I voted against the bill. I agree with the point he raised. That's not necessarily the case for all colleagues. In fact, some of the other colleagues weren't even in the last.... That's the challenge that arises. You'll hear a different answer from everyone.
7:15 p.m.
A voice
[Inaudible—Editor]
