Public Safety Committee on Oct. 20th, 2016

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

I have one more question, Mr. Chair.

We had a witness here earlier this afternoon, Mr. Foura. He mentioned that the community found out about young people—I believe the number was more than 100 or in the hundreds—that were vulnerable and they were successful in rehabilitating, if I could use that term, quite a number of them.

Outside of the contacts that security forces have made, or CSIS, what do you think the success rate is in dealing with young people in your community who may or may not become radicalized?

[Bensalem Kamereddine]

You mentioned Lamine Foura, with whom we have worked on several cases.

As I said earlier, I think the RCMP's approach is very effective, because there is guidance given. In addition, from what I have seen, the RCMP sees the young people as victims. That is how we need to see them, not as a danger that must be neutralized. That is not the way an extremist idea can be combatted. An extremist idea has to be combatted using a different idea that is not extremist.

That brings us to another issue, the training of imams here in Montreal. When young people go to the mosque to deal with their stress, they find an imam who speaks Arabic. A young person who speaks French or English faces a language barrier. We have seen that this was one of the direct reasons why young people were radicalized. The effect of that language barrier is to send the young person to the imam called Google, and on Google, they become very easy prey. They will then fall into very extreme networks and ideas.

We have therefore talked about training imams. I have even spoken to Anie Samson, the mayor of the borough, and with Lamine Foura. We held a meeting with the round table on public security and civil protection, that I and other members organized.

On the subject of training imams, we do not want the government to interfere in religion. The idea is to have an approach like there is for Christians and Jews, who are recognized in university programs, for example. We need to start work on granting a diploma, to be earned in Canada by our young people here.

We do not want to import imams from outside. First, they do not speak the language. When they come here, they do not bring just religion; they also bring a culture, a form of culture. Language is a culture. On the other hand, a young person who is educated here will get training from a Canadian cultural perspective. From a Muslim point of view, that is well regarded, and is not contrary to the Muslim religion. So it is very important, in my view, that a young person be able to receive training to enable them to understand the person they are speaking with, to understand their language and culture. That is very important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

Ms. Watts, you have the floor.

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

Thanks very much. It's been very informative.

I do have a question here about when you said to follow the RCMP's way of doing things and not the Montreal police's because they work with youth and they see them as victims and not criminals. You were describing the RCMP. What is it that the Montreal police do that is different?

[Bensalem Kamereddine]

We work on the ground. Personally, I have never dealt with the deradicalization centre, although we have worked a lot with young people and youth associations.

I see that approach as a telephone line that a witness or a parent could use to inform on their child. That is a completely wrong-headed approach. Personally, I think it is based on the French model, which is a total failure.

On the other hand, the RCMP contacts us in order to reintegrate the children. That is something that kills me, in the good sense of the word. I have found it moving when the RCMP contacted me to reintegrate young Muslims. That is what a government is, to my mind. It sees these young people as victims who have fallen into a radicalization trap.

The deradicalization centre, on the other hand, has not approached us, even though we have handled a number of cases involving young people.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you very much.

Mr. McSorley.

The next speakers will be Wendy Stevenson and Suzanne Chabot.

[Timothy McSorley, As an Individual]

[Technical difficulty—Editor] that relates specifically to issues of free expression, dissent, and political activity in Canada that touches mostly on Bill C-51 but on some other aspects regarding Canada's national security laws as well.

We're very concerned that the broad definition of terrorist activity, which includes interference with critical infrastructure in Canada, leaves open the potential for the criminalization of dissent in our country. The provisions in this law do say that it would not be used in instances of dissent or political demonstration, but we're concerned that this isn't enough as they are terms that are open to interpretation, and we can see very realistically future governments saying that an act of dissent is really an act of terrorism, especially considering the way that acts of terrorism are defined currently in Canadian law. We're very concerned that, even though there's this provision, it doesn't go far enough, and there needs to be further action to ensure that and all political demonstrations and acts of dissent are protected in Canada.

We're also very concerned about the new provision regarding the promotion of terrorism in the Criminal Code. We're concerned that it's overly vague and broad and that it leaves a very real potential, as has been pointed out by several experts—not just us but many organizations and in the media on the debate around Bill C-51—that it could be used against people who are expressing dissent, including journalists, political analysts, politicians, and just everyday Canadians. We think that aspect needs to be reviewed by Parliament and by the committee.

We're also concerned that such laws, before they're put into place, are not necessarily properly vetted by the Department of Justice for charter compliance. That's something we're very concerned about, not just around national security laws, but when it comes to various Canadian laws. That was pointed out by Edgar Schmidt, a former Department of Justice employee who has spoken about his concerns and has been through the courts. He wasn't necessarily successful, but the points that he raised regarding the amount of resources that are given to the Department of Justice in order to vet such laws for charter compliance are very important to us and I think point to a concern that we should have that, when laws like Bill C-51 are brought forward, there is proper vetting and proper information given about charter compliance. We feel that wasn't the case for Bill C-51.

Finally, we're also concerned about the new powers granted to CSIS to intervene actively through threat disruption abroad. In light of the historical record of the RCMP, the Secret Service, the FBI, and other national security agencies, we're very concerned that there is a history of organizations using these kinds of powers to disrupt legitimate dissent and political dissent in different countries. We have the history of the RCMP's dirty tricks campaigns in Canada. While that has gone through commissions, and we may feel that it doesn't happen as much now, these types of powers given to an organization such as CSIS without proper oversight and without proper rethinking could lead, we think, to a repression of dissent here in Canada and also in their activities with other security agencies internationally.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I need to end your comments there. I know there's a question.

Also, I just heard Maghrib prayer times. I was very pleased to hear that sound here. I just wanted to mention that.

Go ahead, Mr. Mendicino.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for your remarks. I think they were well considered and well thought out.

What do you say about the definition of terrorist activity including a fault element, which requires there to be some intention, even when it comes to simply making statements whose purpose is to undermine the security of Canada? Presumably, in coming up with that additional element, Parliament intended to protect free speech. What do you say about that?

[Timothy McSorley]

Even if there is a fault provision, it's very difficult to be able to judge people's intentions. It's also difficult to be able to safeguard who is judging those intentions and whether or not those powers won't still be abused.

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

Would you agree there are scenarios in which lawful protest and civil disobedience can cross the line into something that is violent and could undermine the security of the country?

[Timothy McSorley]

I would say that there are times when that happens. I wouldn't say that it's necessarily a reason to have tougher provisions against those actions. From my experience often when it crosses those lines, it could be that it's provoked because of actions by security agencies that push it to cross a certain line. I think there's a vague question around what a threat to security is. A protest that's marching and goes closer than what the RCMP may think is safe, close to a pipeline, versus what a reasonable person who isn't involved in the security forces may think is reasonable, can cause them to cross a line and all of a sudden be in a situation of being accused of terrorism.

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

I agree with you that there may be scenarios where that can happen, but there may also be other scenarios where, by their design, the people who participate are there not just for lawful protest or civil disobedience, but to move into a different realm, which I assume would not make you or many other Canadians comfortable. The point is that the definition of terrorist activity, just to come back to my original point, includes this additional motive element to basically protect free speech, but also to ensure that those who are moving beyond into a different realm can be investigated so that we're all safe. Do you accept that?

[Timothy McSorley]

In a way, but I'd also say that I think, as others have pointed out too, that there are provisions in the Criminal Code that do stop people and that can be used against people who damage property and commit other infractions. I think that the extra aspect of adding terrorism charges to it are unnecessary in that we do have laws in Canada to govern those.

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

Okay, thanks for that.

By the way, I was just going to say thanks for the shout-out for Department of Justice lawyers. I am a former Department of Justice lawyer.

[Timothy McSorley]

Excellent. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

You're next, Madam Stevenson.

Ms. Chabot will have the floor after that.

[Wendy Stevenson, As an Individual]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Okay.

Go ahead, Madam Chabot.

[Suzanne Chabot, As an Individual]

My name is Suzanne Chabot. I am retired. I am 61 years old. My friend Wendy Stevenson is also retired, and she is 69 years old.

A few days ago, we sent a request to the RCMP and CSIS asking that they give us the files they hold on us. I will explain why.

In the fall of 1979, I and two other young women, Wendy Stevenson and Katy Le Rougetel, were fired by Pratt & Whitney, after an RCMP officer visited the company's head of security. In the winter of 1980, the same thing happened again: I was fired again, with Wendy Stevenson, this time by Canadair. The same day, the third woman, Katy Le Rougetel, was fired by Marconi, again after a visit from an RCMP officer.

We filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, which found that we had been discriminated against on the basis of our political opinions. During the investigation, the Human Rights Commission asked the RCMP officer to testify about what he had done. Here, I would point out that the government replied that it could not allow the officer to testify, because we represented a danger to Canada's national security. That decision was not made by the RCMP alone. Our case ended up on the desk of the solicitor general of Canada at the time, Robert Kaplan.

According to Craig Forcese, a law professor at the University of Ottawa where the subjects he teaches include national security legislation, the concept of danger to national security refers to espionage, sabotage, political violence, terrorism and violent subversion.

So you are surely wondering who we were, to represent a danger to Canada's national security.

We were certainly not jihadist terrorists or Muslim extremists, because, at the end of the 1970s and in the early 1980s, that was not very common. No, at that time, the big enemy was communism. We were three young women who belonged to a political group whose main slogan was “for an independent socialist Quebec”. We were three young women who shared the same ideal, and who were trying to share the values of justice, equality, solidarity and individual and collective rights with the people around us; three feminist, trade unionist, nationalist, and, yes, socialist young women. However, we had never committed an illegal act, we had never been charged with anything, and we had never been arrested. Our group took a position, publicly and in writing, against all acts of terrorism.

Nonetheless, we were named as presenting a danger to national security.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Could you wrap up, Ms. Chabot? There are only a few seconds left in your speaking time.

[Suzanne Chabot]

So here we are, 37 years later. We no longer belong to a socialist group, but we have continued, all our lives, to advocate for the same causes. We have demonstrated, stood up for the rights of the oppressed, and taken part in all the activities that have taken place since then.

I, personally, worked for 30 years at the Confédération des syndicats nationaux. If ever there was a legal organization, that is it. But even in that organization, a CSIS agent provocateur infiltrated, during the strike at Manoir Richelieu.

That is why we want to know what the situation is, 37 years later. Now that we are no longer three girls, we are two little grannies, we want to know whether we are still considered to be a danger to national security. We would be very curious to know what was in our files, but we have always been denied access to them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

[Suzanne Chabot]

I want to add one point, to conclude.

Where do you think the RCMP officer who got us fired is today? He is now in charge of security at VIA Rail, after being sworn by a judge of the Court of Québec.

I want to say that I am opposed to the provisions of Bill C-51. I would like it if such laws did not exist in Quebec.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

Do members of the committee have questions or comments to make? No, fine.

Thank you very much.

William Ray, you have the floor.

It will then be Holly Dressel's turn.