Public Safety Committee on Oct. 20th, 2016

[Shane Johnston, As an Individual]

Good evening. I'm really glad this is happening. I'm very sorry that many more people, with this short notice, could not have been made aware that this is going on. I feel there's a problem with communication, that dispersion of information is not adequate. This refers to quite a lot of the public consultations that I've been involved in, helped to organize, and tried to get people out to. We really need to work on that. If this is to be really legitimate, and considered worthy of all the time and money you're spending, that part needs to be taken better care of, please.

I'm an ecologist. I'm retired now. I was a teacher for many years. I'm concerned by justice, whether it's social, economic, or environmental. I don't believe in a Canada run by multinationals or run for the one per cent.

I believe in a Canada working in the best interest of the majority of Canadians, but that doesn't mean destroying native land and ignoring their rights. I don't believe in a Canada where we protect our rights and freedoms by taking them away. That is what Bill C-51 does. It must be repealed. It must be removed.

Our rights and freedoms in some ways are removed already by the lack of media. The media are controlled. They don't tell the story. They don't report to the people what's going on, so we don't have information. We don't actually have the truth, only from one perspective.

I certainly don't want to be, as an ecologist, considered a terrorist, and that's one of the things that is part of this whole deal that is coming down. Let us just look at the surveillance oversights: checks and controls—you know the details better than I do—secret police powers, information sharing, Internet censorship, online privacy problems, having telecom providers and surveillance handing over information, and reducing our encryption possibilities to keep our personal information personal.

If we're looking at it, we need to start from scratch. It has to be canned. That pretty much summarizes it.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Matthew Dubé]

Ms. Johnson, I would ask that you come back to the mic, because one of my colleagues wants to ask you a question.

I think it is worth mentioning that the comment concerning notice about holding the consultation has been heard several times this week, in other cities. I want to assure you that we have certainly received that comment, and we are always open to improving the process. Personally, I have been an MP for five and a half years, and I have never travelled with a committee. So we are learning as we go. The comment is certainly appreciated. Thank you very much.

[Shane Johnston]

Is it possible to know where we can find the transcript of everything that has gone on here? You said, but I didn't catch it.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Matthew Dubé]

Yes. We will make sure that the information is given to you.

If other people in the room want this information, it will be on the parliamentary website, under the heading “Committee Business”. You will see the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security there, where all the business of the committee relating to this study, and others, is posted.

[Shane Johnston]

Fine. Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Matthew Dubé]

Ms. Johnston, my colleague Mr. Di Iorio has a question for you.

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

Ms. Johnston, thank you for your comments. I really appreciate them.

We're always looking at ways to improve the interaction with citizens and meetings such as this one. Could you please enlighten me? How did you find out about this meeting?

[Shane Johnston]

It came across my Facebook page quite by accident out of nowhere. I don't know where it came from, and it was really last minute. I'm finding that it's really hard to find out. There are quite a lot of public consultations going on, and it seems typical that it's very last minute when we hear about it. There are many groups I know that have been deeply interested in participating, but they can't get it together that fast.

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

Do you have other means you would like to suggest to us so we can notify individuals as to the fact that there is a meeting that will be held?

[Shane Johnston]

I think going through community contacts would be very good.

There are many different community networks, everywhere.

I'd suggest going through the municipalities, also going through the educational institutions. I'm thinking of all the amazing talks I heard when this was a bill, x time ago, and following it on the radio and here and there. I heard fantastic comments, and so on, and information. These people are out there. I would expect it's not just for you to be informed, but this is a moment when I also get a lot of information by being here. It's a mutual win-win situation when we have better participation. I'm thinking of university professors, experts in the field. Maybe that's happening at a whole other level, but it seems to me it should possibly be happening here also.

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

In answer to your question, and my approximation is very rough, but I would say transcripts are available in maybe three or four weeks on the parliamentary website. If you go on the parliamentary website, you will find that there is a list of committees. If you look for the public safety and national security committee and you look at the date, you will see the transcript of what was held this afternoon and what has been said at the microphone today.

[Shane Johnston]

Okay, so that will be available in a couple of weeks.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Matthew Dubé]

Ordinarily, it takes about two weeks, the time it takes to incorporate all the information.

In addition, I would also take this opportunity to mention something about information sharing. If you are wondering why we asked you to leave us your contact information, it is because if the mics missed a few words, or there was a typing mistake in your name, or whatever, we will contact you to make sure your words have been correctly recorded in the transcripts of the meeting. The information will then be destroyed by the clerk of the committee.

[Shane Johnston]

That is excellent. Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Matthew Dubé]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Di Iorio.

We will now move on to Mr. Gluck-Thaler, and then it will be Jacques Marcel Bernier's turn.

Go ahead.

[Aaron Gluck-Thaler, As an Individual]

Members of the committee, thank you for holding these public consultations.

My name is Aaron Thaler. I'm going to focus my remarks today on two main points.

The first concerns the disruption powers authorized by Bill C-51. Bill C-51 is still in its original form, and the disturbing powers it authorizes are becoming entrenched despite the current government's promises to repeal its problematic elements.

Bill C-51 violates the charter. It also ignores the McDonald commission's recommendations to separate policing and intelligence work.

Under Bill C-51, CSIS can do anything to reduce threats to the broadly defined security of Canada, including violating any and every charter right. The only things CSIS can't do are cause death or bodily harm, violate sexual integrity, or willfully obstruct justice. That's a very concerning threshold. CSIS has already used its disruption powers nearly two dozen times, and without any meaningful oversight or accountability.

I have a pretty basic expectation of my government. When the government limits my rights or the rights of any other Canadian, I expect it to justify why those limitations are necessary. The current government has not provided a single reason as to why the disruption powers authorized by Bill C-51 are necessary.

If the current government wants to regain the trust of Canadians, I urge it to repeal Bill C-51 in full. These consultations are cold comfort to the Canadians who are engaged right now in lawful dissent and face crippling surveillance by CSIS.

The second point I want to express today, and I'll deal with it very quickly, concerns the activities of CSE, the Communications Security Establishment, Canada's intelligence agency.

CSE operates in secret, so we have to rely on American whistle-blowers to help us learn about a Canadian intelligence agency and how that Canadian intelligence agency impacts our privacy and security.

What do we know? We know that CSE engages in mass, warrantless surveillance of Canadians, collects troves of Canadian metadata, and sometimes shares that data illegally. We know that CSE worked with the NSA to undermine an encryption algorithm, relied upon by millions of Canadians for online security. We know that CSE hoards and stockpiles computer vulnerabilities, and in doing so, prioritizes their foreign intelligence capabilities over the digital security of ordinary Canadians.

Moving forward, I urge you to ensure that the intelligence activities of CSE rely on judicial, not ministerial, authorization, just like Joyce Murray proposed in Bill C-622.

Metadata has to be afforded strong privacy protections, and any oversight of CSE must evaluate the impact of foreign intelligence gathering on Canadian cybersecurity.

We are all foreigners to someone. When CSE does not afford any privacy protections to foreigners, the government is complicit in setting a dangerous precedent for other governments to spy on Canadians. We all rely upon computers for security. When CSE stockpiles computer vulnerabilities, the government is complicit in undermining the security of ordinary Canadians and encourages other governments to do the same.

In these national security discussions, let's move beyond the paralyzing discussion of how to respond to terrorism only. The sooner we do this, the sooner we'll realize that Bill C-51 is fatally flawed and that the powers of CSE need to be reined in.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Matthew Dubé]

Thank you very much.

Before moving on to the next speaker, I want to say that Edward Hudson will be the one after that.

Mr. Bernier, you have the floor.

[Jacques Bernier, As an Individual]

First, as a Canadian, I want to thank the members of the committee for holding consultations with the general public, and in particular with people from our region.

Mr. Chair, I put myself in the position of a Canadian Security Intelligence officer: a lot is asked of me to protect the security of Canadians, but sometimes I may not be given enough training. People have spoken today to talk about agents provocateurs, among other things. In our history, there have indeed been dubious practices, if I may say that.

Personally, as a psychoanalyst by training and a street worker, I see it all, these days. I see people selling crack and financing terrorist activities outside Canada. That is something that is being looked at.

That being said, one thing is clear: the Anti-terrorism Act absolutely has to be changed. When Mr. Harper wrote his bill, he copied the Americans. Now, the Liberal government of Justin Trudeau has to demonstrate some creativity.

Very certainly, Canadians want to live in security, and the RCMP and CSIS are here to provide us with that security. Personally, I have nothing to reiterate on that subject. However, if I put myself in the position of a communist or an activist, I think there is a point at which these officers should be given more training. There is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that charter is based on certain fundamental principles. These officers need to be reminded that there are fundamental principles to be respected in Canada. In the United States, it is another matter. We have to innovate in Canada, we have to stop modelling what we do on what the CIA does, and our government has to do something that looks Canadian.

That is the essence of my thinking about the provisions of Bill C-51.

I think there is something else I wanted to say. Let me consult my notes for a moment.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Matthew Dubé]

You have 30 seconds left.

[Jacques Bernier]

Ah, here we are. We also have to strengthen investigative methods. There is room for innovation. We could be more creative.

Do I have any time left, Mr. Chair?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Matthew Dubé]

Ideally, we should move on to the next speaker. It is not that this is not interesting, but we want to give everyone a chance to speak before the meeting ends.

[Jacques Bernier]

Fine, very well.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Matthew Dubé]

Thank you very much.

The next person on the list, after Mr. Hudson, is Rhoda Sollazzo.

You have the floor, Mr. Hudson.

[Edward Hudson, As an Individual]

Bonjour. Good evening.

First of all, thank you for having these hearings. I'd like to echo one of the previous speakers who noted that. I would encourage the committee and future committees of Parliament to publicize such things much more widely and much further in advance, but I'm grateful to be here, now that I am.

Unlike many of the previous speakers, I claim no special expertise in areas of law or government. I'm a run-of-the-mill citizen. That's why I think it's especially important that people like me are able to appear at places like this. My background is in the physical sciences. I'm a college teacher at the moment.

A number of speakers, including William Ray, Tim McSorley, and Holly Dressel, have already amply talked about the risk of criminalizing dissent and the fact that the provisions adopted when Bill C-51 was adopted are not only unnecessary in preventing acts that are already criminal but they also risk stifling dissent. There's never been a good time to stifle civil debate and dissent, but I think now would be an unprecedentedly bad time to do so. We're in a period when the issues have never been more important—issues of indigenous reconciliation and indigenous livelihood, issues of the need to decarbonize our energy supply and prevent dangerous climate change. There would be no worse way to respond to public engagement on these issues than to risk criminalizing the people who want to bring them to the fore.

I teach a course on energy and climate, among other things. When I teach this to 18- and 19-year-olds, and I'm implicitly encouraging them to engage on these issues, do I tell them that I myself am more afraid than I was 10 years ago to express myself on some of these issues because of the risk of dissent being criminalized? That's not a climate we want to create.

Last, on the implicit invitation of the committee, I'd like to explore this idea of security a bit more broadly. We have a bit of a paradox here. On the one hand, the provisions adopted define security very broadly and risk criminalizing people for impinging on economic interests that then may be construed as a threat to national security. At the same time, what about the security of livelihood for indigenous groups? What about the security of access to a water supply? What about the security of access to lands? Are some of these groups that risk being criminalized not also fighting for a different kind of security, which is also owed them? Do we take away some kinds of security in the name of national security? That's the question I leave you with.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Matthew Dubé]

Thank you very much.

Before continuing, I would note that after Ms. Sollazzo, it will be Judith Denise Brisson's turn.

I am going to be a little stricter about the time. We have been as indulgent as possible, but we want to give everyone a chance to speak. Don't forget that you can also submit your comments in writing via the website, the same site as was mentioned earlier.

You have the floor, Ms. Sollazzo.