Public Safety Committee on Oct. 20th, 2016

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

Good afternoon everyone. I am Robert Oliphant, chair of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We are in Montreal on this fourth day of our trip through Canada. We have begun a study of Canada's National Security Framework, which began in Ottawa with testimony from the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and officials from the department.

We will continue today with our new witnesses. I thank you for being here.

We are happy to have this opportunity to meet with you.

I'm going to turn to the committee and have them introduce themselves to you.

We will begin with Mr. Di lorio.

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am Nicola Di lorio, the member for Saint-Léonard–Saint-Michel. I want to welcome you to Montreal, Mr. Chair. I think Mr. Dubé is going to join me to welcome all of our colleagues to Montreal.

I want to welcome our witnesses as well. It is a great pleasure to have you before this committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

Mr. Mendicino, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am Marco Mendicino. I am the member for Eglinton–Lawrence, a Toronto riding.

If I may, Mr. Chair, I want to say a few words in English to express my gratitude to the whole team accompanying this committee.

This is the first time I've had an opportunity to travel with the parliamentary committee. I thought it would be appropriate, because we're veering towards the end of the committee's tour, to say thank you to the analyst, to the clerk, and to all of the staff, including security, who have provided critical support for us on this tour. It's not easy to put a public consultation of this magnitude on, and we could not have done it without you, so thank you very much.

I also want to thank my colleagues across the aisle who are standing members of this committee, as well as you, Mr. Chair, for facilitating this discussion. It has been at all times constructive and civil. On an important topic like this, I could not have asked for a more positive experience.

I hope all of my colleagues share that sentiment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I think so.

Ms. Watts, could you introduce yourself.

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

Thank you very much.

My name is Dianne Watts. I'm from British Columbia, South Surrey–White Rock. I echo the sentiments of my colleague in terms of what a great experience this has been. I welcome you here, and all of the witnesses who have come, as well as all of our support, and our analyst and clerk.

What a great job everyone's doing. I thank you and acknowledge you for the great work you're doing—as well as you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

Mr. Dubé, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Things always come in threes, as they say. I also want to echo Mr. Mendicino's comments.

My name is Matthew Dubé. I am the member for Beloeil–Chambly.

Mr. Di lorio, my constituents would not forgive me if I did not say that I am a Montreal member. My riding is on Montreal's South Shore, but is in fact located in the Greater Montreal region. I am very happy to be back in Quebec after a very busy week, which is not over yet.

I am pleased to welcome our witnesses this afternoon.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Yes.

Thank you to members of the public, as well, for being here.

Just a note that we are having a second meeting tonight from 5:30 to 7:30, to which the public is invited to come to give their comments as individuals on the subject of national security and the way Canada should be framing that question.

We will now begin our meeting. We will first hear Mr. Foura, from the Congrès Maghrébin au Québec.

You have 10 minutes. We are listening.

[Lamine Foura, Spokesperson, Congrès Maghrébin au Québec]

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen, esteemed members of the committee. Good afternoon also to everyone else here.

I will briefly introduce the Congrès Maghrébin au Québec and tell you about my journey so as to provide a context for my statement, and then move on to my testimony as such.

The Congrès Maghrébin au Québec is an organization created in 2009 by professionals of the Maghreb community in Quebec. Its objective essentially is to encourage the civic participation of Quebeckers of Maghrebian origin, and also to help the Maghreb community to integrate, especially in the scientific, economic, cultural and other areas. It also promotes entrepreneurship within the Maghreb community. For two or three years now, we have also examined the issue of radicalization.

As for my personal journey, I have been in Canada for 17 years. I am an engineer by training and I work in a large Canadian aeronautics firm in Montreal. I have a BA in Islamic studies, with a major in theology. For several years I worked with the Quebec Ministry of Immigration and Cultural Communities, as it used to be called, to promote integration. I became a member of the Maghreb Issues Table. Two years ago, I was among the members of the Muslim community chosen by the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Couillard, to be appointed to a task force on radicalization. I am also a research assistant at the Interdisciplinary Research Group on Ethno-Religious Montreal, GRIMER, and I have hosted radio and television programs for about 15 years within the Muslim community.

I will now read my statement as such, which will focus essentially on the issue of prevention. We consider prevention to be a very important element in countering radicalization leading to violence.

We launched several initiatives within the Arab-Muslim community of Montreal to raise the awareness of its members regarding the importance of their participation in this debate. This testimony is based on what we have observed on the ground.

We also followed the work done by the CPRLV, the Centre for the Prevention of Radicalization Leading to Violence, created in Montreal two years ago. We believe there are three important elements that make up the biggest challenge in any prevention efforts.

The first element is the issue of trust.

I apologize, I forgot to mention that I was invited by the American government in the month of August to visit four American cities that have set up anti-radicalization programs. This gave me some understanding of what is happening in the United States. We visited four cities where there were violent incidents related to radicalization.

I'd like to get back to the issue of trust. All of the anti-radicalization programs, whatever their effectiveness and structure, require and need trust. This trust is established by the type of intervention the government adopts—this is what we have observed, and it is not a criticism. This is a conclusion based on our observation of the CPRLV. In our case, when the centre was launched, the ambiguity of its relation with the police did not allow it to establish proper links with the community.

We are not saying that police involvement is a problem. Paradoxically, experience in Montreal has shown that RCMP involvement was much better accepted. The reason is that the community police, in its community role, when it is transparent—that is the second very important point in any attempt at radicalization prevention—is viewed in a more positive light. This has been the case with the RCMP since young Canadians who left the country to join terrorist groups were identified. The community involvement has to be open, and recognize that police officers have a role in fighting crime, but also play a role in the community. That role is not to impose programs, but simply to participate in programs and activities.

Another important element in the process to fight radicalization is to avoid that this be done in parallel with community activities as such. One of the criticisms we make of the centre is that its work involves a lot of international marketing. It is not perceived as a main actor that promotes sports, cultural or social activities within those communities that can be affected by this phenomenon. This approach is done in parallel and creates distance; there is a lack of trust among the members of the communities in general, toward all prevention activities.

I heard the same comments in the United States, whether in California, Chicago or Atlanta. All of the communities, particularly the Muslim communities, show a certain mistrust when the process is not clearly identified, such as when a centre is created that claims not to be in contact with the police, but is in reality. People prefer, as in the example I quoted with reference to the Montreal radicalization prevention centre, that the RCMP get involved through community activities.

For example, our activities currently include judo, soccer for youngsters, and cultural activities. By participating in such activities, having open discussions with the young people, being open about being members of the large RCMP family, and by working through the community to establish good relationships with the youngsters, the image of police authority is improved, and we consider this very important.

Concerning young people who are likely to be radicalized, we have observed in the field that radical groups on the Internet will work on one aspect particularly, the weak link which is the feeling of belonging, a fundamental link. The young person who loses that sense of belonging to society becomes vulnerable and likely to be recruited by ill-intentioned groups on the Internet or by persons who are agents of radicalization.

Allowing the police to build community relationships serves two objectives. On the one hand, we are furthering prevention by ensuring direct support of current activities and not in parallel with them, and on the other hand, we are strengthening the rule of law. Even if he disagrees with the country's policy, the young person understands that he is living in a state governed by the rule of law and democratic processes that allow him to express his disagreement on issues like international policy.

The last point I want to raise is the matter of assessment. Studies done around the world have shown that all of the anti-radicalization programs can be counter-productive and even generate radicalization if transparency and trust are not well established. In Canada, we need to find a way of putting in place a neutral authority that would evaluate the various existing anti-radicalization programs, including local programs. That authority could be made up of persons who are known throughout the country. Something needs to be done, because anti-radicalization programs that are poorly implemented can produce the opposite effect. A poorly made distinction, for example, between prevention activities and criminal law activities can create mistrust, eliminate trust and cause an irreversible break between Canadian youth and the Canadian government.

Please allow me to go back to a very important point with regard to radicalization prevention. In consultations, the issue of the list of groups considered to be terrorist groups came up. When the government updates that list, it is very important to manage the transition between the phase when a group is not considered a terrorist group and when it becomes so, because any person or any Canadian who has a relationship with that group is then considered to be involved in something criminal. The management of that phase is very important, communication-wise. In other words, you have to ensure that people are well informed about the situation of organizations which, entirely legally, dealt with an organization that is subsequently added to the list of terrorist organizations, so that the transition in the status of the group is done entirely transparently.

I will conclude my statement on the issue of radicalization. The Muslim community as a whole very much appreciated the statement by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness that radicalization is a phenomenon that is not well known. That is also what the American political authorities said during my visit there. We have to be careful of organizations or centres that claim to have easy solutions, but are only looking for subsidies.

I think we are in discovery mode, and we have to take the necessary time to make all of the actors aware of things, as well as the Muslim community. On the ground and in my open mike programs, I have observed that the Muslim community is mobilized and wants to participate. I would say that there are a lot of differences of opinion on a lot of topics, but on the matter of radicalization, the community can play a very important role. The majority of its leaders are ready to participate actively despite their differences.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Peschard, you have the floor.

[Dominique Peschard, Spokesperson, Ligue des droits et libertés]

Good afternoon. I thank the members of the committee for having come to Montreal to hear what we have to say.

The Ligue des droits et libertés is a non-profit and non-partisan organization founded in 1963. Its objectives are to defend and promote the rights recognized in the International Declaration of Human Rights, and we support its principles of universality and visibility. The Ligue des droits et libertés is a member of the International Federation for Human Rights. Is also one of the oldest rights advocacy organizations in the Americas.

I am accompanied by my colleague Denis Barrette, who is a lawyer and a member of the Ligue des droits et libertés. Regarding the standing committee's interest in public and national security, Mr. Barrette represented the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group—of which the Ligue is a member—at the commission of inquiry on Maher Arar, presided by Judge O'Connor. He will speak to you more particularly about the problems regarding accountability and the mechanisms to monitor the agencies.

We are very pleased that the government has initiated a public discussion on national security. I am aware that we will not be able to cover everything in 10 minutes, but I want to point out today that we would like the national security framework, which goes back to the events of September 11, 2001, to be reviewed.

To provide some context, I want to read two quotes. The first one reads as follows:

“Shall we fail to remember that nothing can so weaken security as the loss of liberty?”

These are the words of Ramsey Clark, the former American Attorney General.

The second quote is from the former Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan: “Upholding human rights is not only compatible with successful counterterrorism strategies. It is an essential element.” Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, anti-terrorism measures have generally been adopted in fear and haste in the wake of specific events, without substantive discussions on the appropriateness of these measures, and what is more important, without assessing their impact on our human rights regime and on the freedoms which must be protected.

Some of the rights that have been put at risk are the presumption of innocence; the right to privacy and protection against searches and invasions of privacy; the right not to be harassed, questioned, arrested or detained on the basis of suspicion or racial, religious or ethnic profiling; the right of everyone to a fair and equitable public trial, and the right of appeal; the right to a full and complete defence; the right to be protected against arbitrary imprisonment and torture; the right of asylum; the right to information and freedom of the press; and freedom of expression, including the right to demonstrate publicly and collectively.

All of these rights have been affected in one way or another since the attacks of September 11, 2001. The idea that has been promoted among the population is that if we want more security, we have to sacrifice freedoms and that this is a matter of balance. We want to emphasize that this is a profoundly erroneous and dangerous idea. We will not obtain greater security by sacrificing our rights. Rights and freedoms are the basis of security.

I quoted Kofi Annan, but in a United Nations report on terrorism, it was pointed out that the societies that have the greatest respect for rights are the ones where there is the greatest security, and where there is the least violence and the fewest attacks.

Moreover, we wish to reiterate our position that the Criminal Code prior to 2001, as well as the 12 international treaties against terrorism which Canada subscribed to, already allowed us to fight effectively against terrorism. In its brief tabled when Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, was adopted, the Canadian Bar Association reminded us quite rightly that the Canadian government already has many legal tools to repress terrorist offences, and that the Criminal Code contains a solid arsenal of provisions aimed at fighting terrorist organizations.

We also wish to point out that the terrorist threat, as well as the search for security, have to be evaluated in a broader context. In a report submitted to the Secretary General of the United Nations in 2004 entitled “A more secure world: our shared responsibility”, an impressive list of threats to international peace and security was drawn up. The report also identified the main challenges, including war between states, and violence within states; poverty, infectious diseases and the deterioration of the environment; nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological weapons; terrorism; and organized transnational crime.

In other words, terrorism is a threat to security, but there are many others, that in fact cause the deaths of many more people throughout the world.

Moreover, it is quite dismaying to note to what extent governments refuse to learn lessons from the past 15 years. Western countries, including Canada, have waged many wars against Muslim countries. These wars have sown death, destruction and chaos, and have created conditions conducive to the development of terrorist breeding grounds. Rather than revising this disastrous policy, which only leads to endless war on terrorism, governments persist in making us believe that our security rests with the surveillance of populations and extraordinary police powers.

In this short presentation, we cannot critique all of the anti-terrorism laws and measures that exist in Canada. However, the law based on Bill C-51 adds a particularly worrisome level to the measures that already exist. The power to minimize the measures granted to CSIS reminds us of the abuses uncovered by the McDonald Commission, such as the fact that the RCMP stole the list of members of the Parti québécois, burned down a barn, and issued false FLQ communiqués to counter the separatist menace.

The new crime which consists in advocating or promoting the perpetration of terrorism-related offences in general is a threat to freedom of expression. People may be put on the no-fly list on the basis of simple suspicion, without knowing what is being held against them, and without really being able to defend themselves. The possibility of detaining people for a week on the basis of simple suspicion when no charges have been brought against them is extreme and unacceptable. We also share the opinion of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, who criticized the new Security of Canada Information Sharing Act, based on Bill C-51.

Finally, we still do not have a mechanism to monitor and oversee national security activities. The proposed parliamentary committee is absolutely essential, and will be one of the ways of ensuring that the organizations concerned respect the charters and rights of citizens. However, improvements must be made to Bill C-22 which creates this parliamentary committee. It is essential that an independent body, with the capacity to closely examine all national security activities, be created. Otherwise, the committee will not be able to function.

In this regard, we share the point of view of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, which will testify in the second panel. That said, we could go back to that issue, if you have questions on this topic for us.

In conclusion, you have the obligation not only to question anti-terrorist measures, but also to generate debate and promote real public discussion, both on the full exercise of fundamental rights and on the identification of true threats to security, as well as their causes and the means to curtail them. We are in favour of this consultation. It is a first step. We nevertheless expect this government to continue to set itself apart from previous governments by placing the rights and freedoms of individuals at the heart of security policies.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you, Mr. Peschard.

We'll start now with an initial round table. You'll have seven minutes to speak, and we'll begin with Mr. Di Iorio.

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Mr. Foura. I'll ask the Ligue des droits et libertés questions at the next round table.

Mr. Foura, you referred to your work as a volunteer and you said it led to the American government inviting you to visit certain cities in the United States as an expert. I want to hear more about that experience and about what you observed.

Let's take a fairly typical example of a family with two or three young children. The children grow up and run into problems as teenagers. I want you to explain how the problems can arise and what solutions—or parts of a solution—you have used.

[Lamine Foura]

We considered the issue of vulnerability. In general, youth can't be radicalized from one day to the next. There's a socioeconomic and international policy context. There are many reasons why a person can lack a sense of belonging to Canadian society. For example, the person's parents may not have integrated well because they failed to find a job despite their qualifications.

There are also external factors, essentially websites. The United States has developed very good programs to find out the recruitment methods and analyze the dialogue on these sites. Canada doesn't have these programs. I know the RCMP is working a little on these things, but the government could equip the volunteers on the ground with this type of program and develop ways to investigate this type of dialogue. The volunteers could therefore develop certain indicators.

The danger is that no typical profile exists. A person must not be stigmatized directly. That's when the role of volunteers on the ground becomes important. These are people who can be trusted. For example, I received calls from parents who trusted me. I met with them. We spoke with their children, and, in the end, there was no need to worry. These people from outside the community have a certain reputation in the community. We can see that the young person is more comfortable talking to these people than to his or her parents. That's when we see whether any isolation issues exist.

For example, in a number of neighbourhoods in Montreal, we integrated radicalization prevention into daily activities. The biggest mistake is to establish an external program because it's seen as a stigmatization of the community.

We connect young people who practice judo with trainers. It's a multicultural environment. It's not one community in particular. We tell them that, as youth, they have a very important role to play in countering radicalization. We don't give them an accuser or victim role, but a proactive role. Each time we involve young people in the process, we educate them on the issue. We share very basic investigation methods with them. We tell them they can speak with the RCMP, for example. We then introduce them to someone from the RCMP who is well-informed, who knows how to do things and who is familiar with the environment.

Training is very important. Today, there are many workers. There's an industry of radicalization prevention programs, and people are looking extensively for funding. Some act as specialists, but they don't know the communities.

We did this experiment, and the youth started asking questions. They consider themselves on a mission. A young person who may be vulnerable to radicalization ends up on a mission to ensure that no youth in his or her neighbourhood or environment fall victim to terrorist groups who spread propaganda over the Internet.

Young people have a great deal of energy and knowledge. They want to have plans. Unfortunately, the plan to go to Syria is a personal challenge. The government must also make many other improvements in terms of international policy. I agree with what was said on the topic. There are things we can control and things we can't control. We can at least transform the young people's energy into positive energy so they can help counter the radicalization phenomenon. I can assure you that some young people were very mistrustful.

Two things are required. First, the community must be very active—I'm not referring to a particular ethnic group—and the leaders must be ready to act. Then, the authorities must not be indifferent. They must be prepared to get involved, but in a spirit of non-interference. Their involvement must not be seen as spying. The authorities need to provide guidance to create this dynamic among the youth.

This has happened in a number of neighbourhoods in Montreal. There have been soccer, singing, music and judo activities. It works very well. Now the young people are asking whether a program exists because they want to make sure other young people join their activities.

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Can you give an example of what you do when the situation becomes a real problem and might get out of hand?

[Lamine Foura]

We created a committee. I'm referring to the Muslim community in particular. There may have been other cases of radicalization of people who weren't from Muslim families. We created a crisis committee that includes a religious authority. Imams work with us and are very involved. There are also two experienced people who work more in the social field. There are also psychologists in the community.

All this is done in the community. It's good to note that the community is now ready to look after matters itself. Each Canadian has a civic duty to help protect national security, and also a moral responsibility.

Lastly, in the cases we mentioned, without stigmatizing the community, the youth from the community decided to go to Syria. Many professionals work in psychology. The committee is starting to provide an environment that inspires trust in the young people because they don't trust things that come from authority. That's the reality. It's not only the case for the police. Even the centre, today, doesn't have the authority in the community to take steps. Certain people have reported cases to me. I'll give you an example.

Someone was contacted by a friend in Syria. I went through this case. It was only a Facebook message. So, what should be done? A network of trust enabled us to contact the police. The police gained the family's trust and were able to take quite good steps to prevent the child from turning to crime because he didn't interact with his friend. He was saved simply because the network established a relationship of trust with his community and school. Sometimes, the best way to counter this type of thing is to work with a friend of the person who can easily gain the person's trust.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you, Mr. Foura.

We will continue with Mr. Miller for seven minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Gentlemen, thank you very much.

Mr. Foura, I missed the first couple of minutes of your presentation. My plane was a little late. Thanks for being here.

You talked about deradicalization in a kind of negative way, as if you don't want law enforcement or society to be involved in that. I do appreciate the fact that the community has a role—and is taking a role—in deradicalization, but it's obviously not working 100%. I need you to tell me what's wrong with law enforcement having a role in that. My time is limited, so if you could be as brief as possible, I would appreciate it.

[Lamine Foura]

Thank you.

I want to make a very important clarification. There are two complementary approaches, deradicalization and prevention. The Canadian government must focus heavily on prevention. We don't want the person to become radicalized because deradicalization is a much more complex process. The difference is important.

Take, for example, the shock of the fall 2014 attacks. Canada is a very peaceful country. We're not used to this type of violence on our territory. I think it caused a shock that raised everyone's awareness.

It must also be said that the RCMP has made mistakes in the past. Problems have been documented by committees. There was a lack of confidence caused by political positions on an international level that were not completely consistent with the Canadian tradition. All this resulted in an environment where confidence was lacking.

Moreover, the tragic events of fall 2014 showed everyone the importance of working together. I think that, since then, things have been going much better than before. The departure to Syria of a few young people represents the failure of a period that started after the events of September 11, when our approach became much more security-oriented than prevention-oriented. We didn't focus on the community policing issue—

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

I have to stop you there because I'm going to run out of time. I can't get through my head, Mr. Foura, what you mean by “a lack of confidence”.

I was in that room, as a number of us were, on October 22 a few years ago; Mr. Dubé was in a room across the hallway. The problem is that it did happen. I think it is good education to keep radicalization from starting, but it obviously isn't foolproof.

I want to move on at this point to Mr. Peschard. You made a comment about some people saying to give up some rights for more security, but you are opposed to that, from your comments.

Does law enforcement not deserve the rights and the powers to intervene in what they consider to be a known threat, as long as oversight powers are in there to see that the law isn't being abused? Can you comment briefly on that?

[Dominique Peschard]

Yes. To the last part, you said insofar as oversight and review are there. Well, in the case of national security, oversight and review are absent. We have no parliamentary committee to date and we have no mechanisms to review the work of the agencies. The majority of the agencies don't have any review mechanisms of any sort.

In terms of the power of the police—maybe Mr. Barrette could expand on this—criminality didn't begin with terrorism. We have a history of developing a Criminal Code and the procedures under which people can be prosecuted and condemned for crimes. The procedures respect the rights of individuals, with a presumption of innocence and so on. These are the kinds of things that are put aside with regard to terrorism.

I mean, there are procedures where people can be put on a no-fly list on the basis of suspicion. They don't know why they're there. They don't have a fair court procedure to challenge that. This is the sort of thing that is not acceptable. These procedures don't lead to more security. If you look at recent history in Canada, terrorist attempts have been foiled, and they've been foiled by regular police work. We have no objection to that.

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

I'd like to talk about that. Private Vincent was killed here in the Montreal area and Corporal Cirillo was killed in Ottawa two years ago. So-called experts say that if they'd have had the powers back then to detain, Vincent and Cirillo may still be alive today. You talk about some terrorist plots solved or that didn't happen. Just recently in Strathroy, Ontario, the powers that allowed the police to get that guy before he did something were in Bill C-51. So I don't buy your argument on that, in a respectful way.

Moving on, you quoted terrorism threats, and you mentioned some other events where numbers of people are killed. An airplane crash, car accident, or whatever accident is exactly that: an accident. Terrorism is no accident.

To go back to your point about holding a suspect for a period of time, I believe you said a week or more, how do we keep that identified threat off the street if they can't detain them? We've already talked about times when they knew a person was a threat; because they didn't have the powers to pull them off the street, the crimes were played out.

Perhaps you could answer that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Barrette, please make it a short response.

[Denis Barrette, Spokesperson, Ligue des droits et libertés]

Garde à vue, or judicial police custody, has existed for a long time in France. Before the trial, the investigating judge asks questions, which the suspect must answer. These measures were included in the Anti-terrorism Act that results from Bill C-51. There's judicial investigation, and there's preventive detention, which the authorities want to extend to six days, as it has been in France. That said, France experienced the Bataclan attack and other incidents. The effectiveness of these measures is open to question. We, at the Ligue des droits et libertés, greatly doubt whether these types of measures are effective.

You'll recall the Air India affair, the only instance where investigative measures were used during an inquiry. It was considered a total fiasco. The trial of the people thought to be guilty fell to pieces. The evidence had not been gathered effectively.

The more tools the police are given, the more they are likely to use them. One should not assume the police would be unable to do their work effectively without these tools. Naturally, they will always say they need more tools. But one must ask whether they're really necessary.

As I said, this principle already existed in France, where the investigating judge is as independent as the president when he subjects a suspect in police custody to an examination for discovery. The system is different from ours. The police tell the judge responsible for the judicial investigation what questions to ask. In other words, the judge almost parrots—I apologize for the image—the police investigation. The prosecution gives the questions to the judge, who tells the suspect that he must answer. That is what Justice Fish said in his dissent, though not in those words...