Public Safety Committee on Oct. 21st, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

Mr. Miller is next.

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

Thank you.

To all three of you, thank you very much for being here.

Mr. Fraser, you talked about the oversight committee and the need for it to report to Parliament. Do you know of any developed jurisdiction in the world where it doesn't happen like that?

[David Fraser]

Certainly there are a number of mixed models and multiple accountability mechanisms in a number of different jurisdictions. Not having done a comprehensive survey across the OECD or across the United Nations, I think we are an outlier by currently having very weak parliamentary oversight. This committee's hands are essentially tied in a number of ways, when it should be one of the most robust ones.

As I mentioned, these services, by necessity, operate in the shadows. They have to. However, they have to become accountable, because the powers they have are significant and could be abused. That accountability to Parliament needs to be augmented as well as possible.

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

Okay.

Britain, for example, has had a framework in place for some time. In 2013, they made some major changes to it. Can Canada take some lessons from that?

[David Fraser]

I haven't had the opportunity to study that fully in depth.

Certainly I think they've faced a number of the questions, a number of the concerns that we have. Although we come from a common constitutional lineage, I think we have a more robust and better-defined constitutional situation. I think that anything is going to have to be tweaked for our own context. Even though we're probably closer to Australia in a number of structural aspects of our democracy, I think we don't need to slavishly follow what somebody else is doing. However, absolutely, learning from the experience of other jurisdictions makes perfect sense.

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

Okay, thank you.

You also touched on the green paper, and you made the comment that it looked as if it had been written by bureaucrats. Unfortunately, whether it's Agriculture Canada, Transport Canada, or the Justice Department, that happens way too much. It doesn't matter what government is in power, these bureaucrats write things the way they want.

How do you fix that problem? You can't just fire them all. Do you have any suggestions there?

[David Fraser]

There are some absolutely very capable people in the public service of Canada. There's no—

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

I'm not saying there aren't.

[David Fraser]

—doubt in my mind.

However, they come from a long experience with different masters in a number of different political environments. I think that maybe, in one way, they could be suffering—whether they're Agriculture, Fisheries, or Public Safety—from being perhaps a little too siloed and a little too constrained in the audience they're hearing from. They're hearing constantly from the police. They're hearing constantly from CSIS. They're not hearing constantly from Canadians, from privacy advocates. I think that informs them.

I do think that ultimately the decision of what legislation is introduced rests with the minister, the cabinet, and the government, with a committee providing some significant opportunity and input. I think it's a matter of simply being consistent with one's election platform, with one's principles, with what one expects Canadians to do. It's ultimately looking at the best interests of Canadians, recognizing that while you might get very well-informed advice, it comes from a particular perspective, and those are the same advisers that were giving advice to the people you just won an election against.

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

Great. Okay, thanks.

I want to leave some time for Ms. Watts.

Ms. Lane, you talked about violence against property versus persons. You almost said that as if that was okay. It's still terrorism, is it not?

[Andrea Lane]

Violence against property, you mean?

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

Yes.

[Andrea Lane]

Yes, it certainly can be terrorism if it's done with the eventual goal of effecting political change by forcing governments to pay attention and that kind of thing. Certainly as written in Canadian law, then, property destruction can be terrorism.

The difference is that terrorism is a rainbow. There are all sorts of things that are called terrorism. If you want to prevent people from being injured or killed by terrorism, then you have to ask, if you have all of those things included in the bundle of terrorism, if that is actually the most efficacious way of stopping the things you're most concerned about.

I'm not in any way saying that we shouldn't care about property destruction or that it shouldn't be the subject of law enforcement, but the way terrorism is discussed and policed means that you might be sacrificing more effective prevention of human injury by pursuing property destruction under the terrorism framework.

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

Okay.

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

Actually, Mr. Bow, this is the first time that we're hearing about border security in the hearings across the country, and I'm happy, particularly as my riding covers the Peace Arch border crossing, the Douglas crossing. As the former mayor, I've dealt with many of the issues that you spoke about in terms of the criminal activities—the drugs, the weapons, the human trafficking—and of course the famous tunnel that was built right across the border, and I would agree with you 100% in terms of the reallocation of resources and the number of the programs that have diminished or have been rejigged.

We look at the border crossing at Windsor, we look at the one at Peace Arch and then all the space in between, and we see some significant issues. It is around national security, because I think what we're seeing right now is a lot of the fentanyl and stuff, the drugs that are coming up from Mexico and coming through a variety of different areas. When we look at that impact just in British Columbia, we see that over 600 people are dead right now in the first part of this year because of the flow of those drugs.

I know there's been a lot of work around different strategies, around border integrity and all of those things. In terms of the strategy, can you talk about where we're at with those things now? I know that years ago it was very robust. I remember as a former mayor testifying before Homeland Security on a lot of those border issues, but as things have been diminished and resources pulled away, where are we at right now, in your estimation?

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I'm afraid I can't let you answer. That's your full time. Your preamble was your full time, but it was interesting.

Monsieur Dubé is next.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know you acknowledged how difficult it is, particularly with the limited time, and I also understand that it's a complicated issue, but I have to say that I do find it a concern when there's always that possibility of profiling certain groups.

I'm from Quebec, and this to me sounds a lot like that slippery slope that leads to when the RCMP is stealing membership lists from a political party, which eventually then leads to the War Measures Act and people with any affiliation whatsoever with a certain community being detained. I know that's not what you're advocating for, and I don't mean to imply that at all, but I do have a concern when I hear that we want to make a link between legitimate groups and those who, for lack of a better word, fall off the wagon, because that's almost how I hear this narrative going.

This was part of the debate around Bill C-51. I know you're looking at it from a more sociological perspective, but I just want to hear from you on this point. When Bill C-51 was being debated, part of what I and folks in my party said is that while terrorism has a political element, political activity, even when it's civil disobedience, is not terrorism. I'm very concerned that when we look at it this way, when we start making links, even though they're stretched between the two, that's when we start getting lost as legislators, by putting these kinds of definitions—flawed definitions, in my opinion—in bills.

Again, I know it's complicated, but could I have your thoughts on some of those comments I've just made?

[Andrea Lane]

Sure.

I guess what I'm advocating for is actually a better situation than is currently existing with legitimate protest groups and government law enforcement. It is extraordinarily adversarial, and it's also combative and really expensive.

During the Vancouver Olympics, the budget for surveillance and following protest groups like Greenpeace or others who might have wanted to interrupt what was going on at the Olympics in a quasi-violent way was millions and millions of dollars and person-hours spent on this, because there existed this complete wall between protest groups and government.

You're perfectly right that if you go down this slippery slope of nailing every type of behaviour as possibly criminal, the end result is the criminalization of legitimate protest.

What currently exists is a fairly broad umbrella of what is defined as terrorism in Canada, and then this grey area where law enforcement is able to use terrorism-related language and assets to pursue groups who, yes, are advocating for property destruction and a bunch of things that most people and legislators would rather not have, such as big protest marches and things like that. As it currently stands, it's the worst possible scenario. You have that legislative criminalization and terrorization of that activity and you have no mechanism in which to speak to each other in a way that isn't really expensive, and it plays badly in the public eye as well.

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

I'm hearing the cost effective side, but there's also...it's democracy. In the example you gave of Vancouver, it's not only about how much it cost to have those people surveilled; for lack of a better term, there's also the democratic cost. I guess that's what I'm asking: does it really need to be policed?

What we've heard from other witnesses, for example, and even from some folks we met in Montreal at the centre there for the prevention of radicalization, was that even though criminal acts may be taking place sometimes, there is a degree and sometimes there's a way to help rehabilitate someone, as opposed to criminalizing something. I guess I don't see where that possibility exists in this situation.

[Andrea Lane]

Now you're asking me to pitch my speaking points to a different audience.

When I originally conducted this research, I was very aware that coming in with my research findings and saying “Hands off protest groups, and just allow vandalism to happen” was not a message that was going to be embraced at any level of government or law enforcement.

You're absolutely right that there are social costs to any kind of law enforcement attention being paid to protest activities, but that isn't anything that expert testimony can decide. That's for Canadians to decide, and for you as lawmakers to decide. I have my own opinions on the social costs, but I can certainly help to explain where the tangible taxpayer costs are. On social costs, you're on your own, I'm afraid.

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

Thanks for that answer.

Mr. Fraser, I don't want to spend too much time on Bill C-22 because we are going to study it, but inevitably it comes back again and again as part of this study because it is an important component.

My colleague Murray Rankin and I are working on what we think are some appropriate amendments to the bill, and some of that involves points that were raised about the fact that at the end the committee is answerable to the Prime Minister and cabinet, who have the final say over the content of the report. I believe you alluded to that in your comments.

The other question is in relation to public trust. For example, there are things like the election of the chair, as opposed to the chair being selected by the Prime Minister, in order to ensure more independence on behalf of the committee. Perhaps you'll share your thoughts on that and anything else you might want to add.

[David Fraser]

I think independence is absolutely key. If the chair is beholden to somebody for their position, then that ultimately does compromise the independence, and it may in fact also set up a situation where that posting, and it's just one of those structural concerns, may become a bit of a plum patronage thing. It's repaying a favour, so there's some level there.

I like the notion of a structure in which officers of Parliament are accountable to Parliament. This is a very important thing. Currently, my sense is that too much is structured in the supposed executive branch of our government. Really, in a parliamentary democracy you don't have an executive per se, but too much can happen outside of the purview of the core of our democracy, which is Parliament.

It really does need to also not be beholden to one particular side of the House. Obviously you're going to have ebbs and flows with respect to the composition of the House, but it's ultimately to the institution of Parliament on behalf of Canadians that I think the line of accountability needs to be drawn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

Next is Mr. Fraser—the other Mr. Fraser.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

That's right. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's great to be here. I'm not a usual member of this committee, so you'll forgive me if I ask any questions that are obvious to some of the other members of the committee, but thank you very much for being here.

I'd like to start with you, Mr. Fraser, because I like your last name, first of all, but also because I would like your thought on Bill C-51 in particular, which required CSIS to obtain a warrant from the Federal Court for certain disruptions of terrorism measures.

My understanding is that it had been stated by the Department of Justice that really it's reconciled on a section 1 analysis of the charter. Do you agree with that, or do you think it should be done in a different way whereby we don't look only at section 1 of the charter to save it, but at the charter rights themselves, and that whether to grant the warrant or not could fall down just based on the charter values themselves?

[David Fraser]

There is a very interesting discussion to be had in terms of how that gets implemented in practice. Is it a mechanism by which a judge is going to decide, on a proportionality analysis, that this disruption activity is actually of sufficient benefit to society as a whole that it justifies overriding an otherwise constitutionally protected right or another kind of lawful right, an interest in property or otherwise?

I think it's also worth taking a step backwards and asking if there is a place for such disruption activity, and if there is, whether it properly belongs in CSIS. One of my concerns is that so much happens in the shadows that it's difficult to determine what path it's following. Some of the activities the RCMP was undertaking prior to the McDonald commission really do seem like disruption, which is why it was taken out of the RCMP and moved into CSIS in the first place.

If we are giving CSIS the ability to burn down barns—just to pull an example out of a hat—that does seem to undermine the significant way our national security apparatus was set up. I wouldn't want to have that happen in just one bill, like Bill C-51. If we are going to rejigger our entire national security apparatus and change the nature of CSIS, I think that needs to be the topic of a much broader discussion.