Public Safety Committee on Oct. 20th, 2016

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

Bonsoir. Good evening.

Welcome to this meeting of the public safety and national security committee.

This is the 36th meeting of the Committee. We are continuing the study of Canada's national security framework.

This is the eighth meeting we've had this week across Canada to take a look at Canada's national security framework. Members of our committee are here in Montreal today to hear comments, questions, and concerns that you might have regarding Canada's national security framework.

I'm going to let the committee members introduce themselves to you, and then we'll begin.

I should say, before we begin, that this is a committee of Parliament and not a committee of government. As such, we are parliamentarians from three different parties in the House of Commons, the Liberal, New Democratic, and Conservative parties. We are here as part of a larger study. The government is also engaging right now in consultations around the national security framework. They have issued a green paper, and that green paper is available to you for study. It's also available to be commented on at the government website. It's part of our study, but it's not our complete study. Our study is much broader. We'll be looking at all aspects of the national security framework.

We will be advising Parliament and government on changes that we think the government should be making in regard to our national security framework.

When we begin, I'm going to invite the first and second speakers to the microphones. You will have about three minutes each to make comments. Occasionally, you might get questions from members of Parliament who are on the committee, if they want something that you're saying clarified, but normally our job tonight is to listen to what you have to say.

Our meetings are always conducted in both official languages of Canada, French and English.

We will begin with Mr. Di Iorio.

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

Good evening, everyone. Welcome to this meeting of our committee.

I would like to say hello to the Chair of the committee and my fellow members of the House of Commons.

My name is Nicola Di Iorio and I am the MP for the riding of Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel. In fact, I am the only member from Montreal on this committee.

I want to note the fact that a committee of Parliament may rarely travel outside the House of Commons. As you have seen, there are a number of constraints associated with this kind of travel. I would like to stress that fact and the importance of being able to listen to you and receive your comments this evening.

There are two hours allotted for this sitting, and I hope you will be able to share your views, your comments and your questions, should you have any, with us. Thank you in advance.

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

My name is Marco Mendicino and I am the MP for the riding of Eglinton—Lawrence, in Toronto.

As my colleague, Mr. Di Iorio has said, we are pleased to listen to your comments on the important subject of national security.

Welcome, and thank you.

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

My name is Larry Miller. I am the member of Parliament for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound in southwestern Ontario.

Thank you to all of you for being here tonight.

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

My name is Dianne Watts. I'm the member of Parliament for South Surrey—White Rock in British Columbia.

Thank you very much for coming out. I look forward to hearing what you have to say.

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

My name is Matthew Dubé, the MP for Beloeil—Chambly.

Like my colleagues before me, I thank you all for being here this evening.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I am the chair of the committee. Mr. Miller and Mr. Dubé are the vice-chairs. At some point, I will ask Mr. Dubé to chair the meeting in my place. Thank you.

I now give the floor to Lillian Kruzsely.

Adrien Welsh, please go to microphone two.

Go ahead, Ms. Kruzsely.

[Lillian Kruzsely, As an Individual]

Good evening. My name is Lillian Kruzsely, and I'm currently an undergraduate political science student at the University of Ottawa. I've been volunteering as an assistant for an MP, working on the briefing questions for the witness panels of the status of women committee.

I would like to start my statement for today on a few topics of interest to this discussion that were present at the World Social Forum, which occurred in Montreal just a few months ago, its first time in the northern hemisphere. The panels I attended were hosted by veterans of the nuclear-free coalition, like Kevin Kamps from Beyond Nuclear, Arnold Gundersen from Fairwinds Energy Education, and Angela Bischoff from the Ontario Clean Air Alliance. Two of the subjects discussed sparked concern for me about our country's national security and public safety.

First, there was an operation of concern that came to me, and that was the previous government's intention to transport highly enriched uranium from a geological repository in Chalk River to one in South Carolina in the United States on the basis of lessening the risk of nuclear terrorism. This waste was imported from America to begin with, and now the transportation back there presents a threat to our security. A missile would not have to be nuclear to cause a Chernobyl-type disaster if it came in contact with these transports.

Second, a more common security concern, not just applicable to Canada but internationally, is the dilemma of labelling geological repositories. The dilemma with this is deciding whether or not to label where nuclear waste is located. If yes, it becomes labelled and is an apparent security threat for attack. If not, it remains a public safety concern because many years from now it may accidentally become exposed, and it would still be just as radioactive and just as severe a threat.

I would like to know the current committee's position on these threats. Are you looking to continue these operations? What additional steps would you be willing to take, if any, to increase the security of these transports? If you are in favour of re-evaluating these deals that occurred between Stephen Harper and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission as a result of commitments made out of the 2012 Global Nuclear Security Summit, then please interact with the public on these matters as you proceed forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

This is probably a good opportunity for me as the chair to say that the committee does not have an opinion. Committee members have opinions on various things. The committee will have an opinion when we issue a report, which may or may not have a minority report attached to it. The committee doesn't have the ability to comment on a public issue. That would be the first thing. I think we're probably not going to be able to help you with that one.

Also, while we have a pretty broad scope, that's not something that right now is within the scope of this committee's activity regarding transportation of nuclear material. I'm not saying it shouldn't be, and I think our committee can hear that as a suggestion for future work, but it's just not right now in the scope of this study.

Does anybody else have any comments?

[Lillian Kruzsely]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Welsh, you have the floor, and Johan Boyden will be the next speaker.

[Adrien Welsh, As an Individual]

Good evening.

Members of the committee, members of the public, and witnesses, I would like to start by invoking the memory of Pablo Picasso, in whose honour the room where we are meeting this evening is named. Pablo Picasso was a communist.

My name is Adrien Walsh and I am an organizer with the Ligue de la jeunesse communiste du Québec. As such, I am persuaded that my late comrade would be as offended as I am today. He would be offended by the fact that in a room bearing his name, we have to show identification to participate in a so-called public consultation, and, to testify, members of the public have to run an obstacle course, starting with finding out the place and date of the meeting, and ending with the conclusion of these remarks, unfortunately limited to three minutes, while others enjoy all the flexibility of the committee. It would seem appropriate, in a room bearing his name—

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Just a moment, please. The interpreters are asking whether you could speak a little more slowly, so that everyone can understand your testimony.

[Adrien Welsh]

I am sorry, but I have only three minutes.

Why are you telling me that, sir? Is it because I am speaking in French? My colleague spoke in English just now and it was much faster.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

No. Everyone needs to be able to understand.

[Adrien Welsh]

Fine. We have a two-tier system.

I am offended that in a room bearing the name of Picasso, people are spouting words like “democracy”, at the same time as they are trying to adjust the provisions of a bill that is worthy of the regimes that caused the atrocities which prompted that artist to produce Guernica.

I want to say clearly that I am fundamentally opposed to Bill C-51, which became the Anti-terrorism Act. No adjustment to make it more acceptable is possible. It must be immediately rejected and repealed, just as the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, must be.

The real danger comes not from these young and not-so-young people who are supposedly being radicalized—in fact, I would like someone to explain to me what that concept refers to—but rather from the radicalization of a government that is constantly more liberticidal and that, by creating a climate of hostility, would arm the enemies of freedom and democracy, whoever they may be.

In fact, this is the spiral in which France has been engaged in recent months. This is how, in that country, that is the supposed homeland of human rights and liberty, eight-year-old children have been placed in detention, arbitrarily, teachers have been turned into informers, and demonstrations have been brutally repressed.

In fact, that climate of fear is very effective for neutralizing people who propose social change as a long-term solution. That climate of hostility is also very practical when it comes to justifying wars on terrorism, in Syria or elsewhere.

So I will conclude by coming back to Picasso, who did not simply paint Les Demoiselles d'Avignon. He also painted doves for peace, and took part in the 1962 world congress of peace activists, the target of a bomb attack perpetrated not by foreign terrorists, but by “good Frenchmen” who were denying the Algerians peace during that period.

Today, if our objective were truly to prevent any threat of radicalization, we would not be discussing Bill C-51 or so-called national security; rather, we would be planning the withdrawal of the Canadian troops in Syria and everywhere else outside our country. We would be discussing the steps to take so that the people of this country, whether they are Quebecers or aboriginal people, and of whatever religion, whether Muslim or Christian, would be represented by a government that reflects their values and not those of the corporations.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

Are there any questions? No, fine.

We will now hear from Mr. Boyden, and after that it will be Bensalem Kamereddine's turn.

[Johan Boyden, As an Individual]

Thank you and good evening.

My name is Johan Boyden, and I am speaking on behalf of the Communist Party of Canada. Our party will be submitting a brief on this review, and I would like to offer you the highlights, in particular, our view that Bill C-51 is unamendable and must be repealed in full, and the building case for dismantling CSIS altogether.

In our view, this bill is perhaps the most serious assault on democratic rights, labour rights, and civil liberties in recent times, and we are not alone in making this case. Mr. Oliphant, many of the people who voted for you in Thorncliffe Park, members of the Muslim community, share this view, as do experts, intellectuals, and people from labour. I could spend my entire three minutes going through the hundreds of organizations just from Quebec that signed a declaration against this legislation and its composite effects.

Why? Because it mandates more clearly a secret police force, with black operations, disruption, or dirty tricks that would shred the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, allowing it basically to scoop up people from the streets. This broad definition—economic and fiscal stability—could directly infringe labour's right to strike or, more broadly, any movement, indigenous, environmental, and so forth, that is resisting the agenda of the big corporations. It's a piece of legislation that would have made solidarity with Nelson Mandela illegal and also today's solidarity with Palestine or with Colombia, which is working its way through peace talks.

If you look at the question of government oversight that your discussion paper and green paper have suggested, I think it is either naive or deliberately deceptive. The presentation that SIRC could effectively regulate CSIS is in reality not true; it is a powerless body. Consider the scandals involving Chuck Strahl and other past chairs of this committee. It is totally complicit.

I would like to note that this legislation came forward in the context of an increasingly reckless aggressive foreign policy, wars and occupations, and destabilizing global impacts, and it is the call for peace and the foreign policy of disarmament that is the strongest case against the so-called radicalization that your background paper speaks of with great alarm.

I'd also draw your attention to the fact that the CIA is probably the most overseen by the Senate and Congress of any of the intelligence agencies in the world and, in fact, the CIA operates to extend U.S. foreign policy into the sphere of dirty operations. This claim that oversight and empowering SIRC will do the job is just not held up by the facts around the world. It's time to get rid of CSIS.

If I may, I'll conclude with a few points.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Just very briefly.

[Johan Boyden]

We should abolish security certificates and the associated secret trials. It's time to scrap the no-fly lists and abolish all laws at the municipal, provincial and federal levels preventing freedom of assembly, including those requiring special permits or otherwise criminalizing spontaneous demonstrations. It's time to launch an independent inquiry into the role of the RCMP and CSIS in limiting dissent, including the use of agents provocateurs, monitoring activists, and crowd control techniques. It's time to strengthen and enforce sanctions against police officers and CSIS officers convicted of using excessive force. It's time to stop the use of entrapment, and to abolish all forms of profiling, including political profiling and the notorious racial profiling tactics. It's time to abolish the government operations centre. Also, as I said before, it's time to provide civilian and community control bodies with legislative teeth to independently investigate and enforce meaningful civilian control, including over detention and arrest, the use of force, search, and seizure, and allegations of police violence.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you, Mr. Boyden.

This is a good opportunity for me also to remind members of the public that you can submit written statements to the committee through the Parliament of Canada website, which we will be able to read as well, because we will be cutting you off.

Are there any questions?

Thank you very much.

Mr. Kamereddine, the floor is yours, and the next speaker will be Mr. McSorley.

[Bensalem Kamereddine, As an Individual]

Good evening, everyone.

I am making this presentation to provide my testimony as an immigrant who has lived in Montreal for about 20 years, and as the father of five children born in Montreal. I am a member of the Muslim community, and I am very involved with that community, in the community centres and in the mosques. I am also very active in community associations outside that community, such as associations of business people, since I am an entrepreneur. I have 40 employees and three businesses, and I am on the board of directors of the business development society for Jean-Talon Est, where the North African community is concentrated. I am also one of the members of the Association Le Petit Maghreb in Saint-Michel.

My presentation will deal with the security issue we are talking about. I would like to offer some advice about how the security services should approach young people who have experienced radicalization problems or who have had contact with other young people in Syria.

I strongly advise the government, and especially CSIS, not to confront the young people directly, and rather to communicate with their parents. Even if a young person is 18 years old, he or she will react instinctively if confronted. Any animal will protect its young if it senses danger. Given that a majority of the Muslim community comes from a world where dictatorships rule, where police states have existed for decades, we are overcome by fear when it comes to security. In addition, if CSIS approaches the child in a heavy-handed way, the parents will never cooperate. On the other hand, if the approach is sensitive, there will be harmony and rapport. This is a situation I have experienced personally in the case of several young people who have been referred to us by the RCMP, whom we have supported in making social reintegration and employment re-entry efforts.

I do not support the approach taken by the Centre for the Prevention of Radicalization Leading to Violence in Montreal, and we have not seen much from its representatives on the ground. We have seen them a lot more in the media. On the ground, the people who have really helped us provide guidance for young people are the RCMP. Their collaboration has been helpful and they have worked in harmony with the young people's parents.

I also disapprove of some officers who present themselves as experts in deradicalization. It saddens me to see this kind of presentation. I, myself, have a background in theology. I went to the University of Algiers where I studied the foundations of Muslim jurisprudence, the famous Sharia that everybody talks about. However, I do not consider myself to be an expert.

The approach taken by the federal police is much more effective in getting collaboration and good results. In particular, we must not adopt the French model, which has demonstrated its inadequacy. Young people who have left France account for the largest majority of the young people who have been radicalized or have gone to Syria. That is really not a good example to follow.

I thank—

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I'm afraid I need to end it there.

I believe Mr. Miller has a question.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Kamereddine.

I'm really interested in your comments about authorities not contacting radicalized young people. I believe you said we shouldn't directly contact the young people we suspect may be radicalized or getting radicalized, but rather contact the parents. That intrigues me. It's a good approach, but obviously, it doesn't work 100%.

We must have something in place. Do you have any numbers or percentages on parents who are contacted about their children, who successfully reroute them into regular life? Do you have any numbers on that?

[Bensalem Kamereddine]

Personally, I have not known any parents who were contacted by the security services. On the other hand, those services have contacted the young people directly, and that causes panic on the part of the young people and fear on the part of their parents.

I have even seen the case of a child who was 18 years and one week old. CSIS went to his home to see him, instead of contacting his parents, which would have been much better. Because he was 18 years and one week old, CSIS had certainly had the matter in its hands for some time already, and actually waited until he was 18 to take action.

I strongly advise against that kind of approach, given that a parent will want to protect their child.