Evidence of meeting #37 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was groups.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Thank you.
This is to both of you, and I only have about a minute left.
When we talk about the definition of terrorism, we tend to think of one subset of terrorist and terrorism, yet we've had testimony that talked about it being an arc that includes pandemics and climate change and a number of different things under that broad umbrella. Does either of you use a definition of terrorism when you're doing your work?
You spoke to it, so perhaps you could....
2:30 p.m.
Director, Atlantic Human Rights Centre, St.Thomas University, As an Individual
All I would like to say on that point is that there is no internationally uniform definition of terrorism. That is problematic, because if we are introducing such significant limitations on fundamental human rights and freedoms and we don't even know what the definition of terrorism is, or we don't agree on it, it's problematic on a domestic level and also when we're co-operating with other states in terms of information sharing and investigating suspected terrorists.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to say thank you for being here and giving us your presentation.
I did have a question, and correct me if I heard this wrong. I can't pronounce your last name, so I'll call you Michael.
When we talked about the national security framework and the measures that would encompass, you said that in terms of intelligence gathering, there should be an imminent threat or imminent incitement.
2:35 p.m.
Senior Legal Officer, Centre for Law and Democracy
I'm sorry; did you say “around intelligence gathering”?
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Yes. It was that when we look at surveillance and gathering intelligence, the only time we should be doing that is if there is an imminent threat.
2:35 p.m.
Senior Legal Officer, Centre for Law and Democracy
I think I said that in relation to the inciting terrorist propaganda or inciting terrorism provisions, not in terms of all intelligence gathering.
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Okay, so you're just relating to propaganda, dissemination of—
2:35 p.m.
Senior Legal Officer, Centre for Law and Democracy
It's speech offences, yes.
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
I needed clarification for that. I was a little taken aback.
2:35 p.m.
Senior Legal Officer, Centre for Law and Democracy
No, I wouldn't say that intelligence should begin when there's an imminent threat.
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Exactly. As we know, it takes a long time to undertake the planning of certain things. Also—and I think Ms. Damoff also mentioned this in terms of encryption and government trying to find a way to work through the encryption process—I would say that we've heard over and over again that it is not possible. I think we've seen the practices of Russia and China and North Korea and others around the world. We've seen that if there's a weak point, they're going to get in, so it's not just about giving one person that information.
In terms of the safety of the general public—and it comes back to information gathering—Christina, you mentioned there should be a judicial warrant for information gathering.
2:35 p.m.
Director, Atlantic Human Rights Centre, St.Thomas University, As an Individual
Only when it's particularly intrusive.
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
2:35 p.m.
Director, Atlantic Human Rights Centre, St.Thomas University, As an Individual
Well, that's if it goes beyond the scope of collecting metadata and there isn't a clear rationale for why the data is being collected, as in the likelihood that the individual is actually a terrorist or will commit a terrorist offence being very low, and when it would extend to an average citizen.
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
I think that when we look at the broader picture—and I just mentioned some of the practices of other countries, such as hacking into systems and selling or trading information—that is problematic. I would suggest that these countries have a lot of information on us already through those practices, and I think we certainly need to do something to address that issue.
I will ask this question to both of you. How would you square this? When we have to deal with the intelligence world and the information they're sharing, we're trying to restrict our end of things. There have to be some protections for our citizens as well on the global front. What are your thoughts about that?
2:40 p.m.
Senior Legal Officer, Centre for Law and Democracy
I'm a bit confused, but I think you're asking how our intelligence agencies can compete with Russia and China.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
I mean in terms of protecting. They're so far advanced in their capabilities, and there are virtually no laws regarding what they can gather.
2:40 p.m.
Senior Legal Officer, Centre for Law and Democracy
You're talking about offensive operations against different states, which I don't think is necessarily what we're talking about here. It certainly wasn't what I was talking about. I think that's a different question.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
I understand that, but I'm just throwing this question at you.
2:40 p.m.
Senior Legal Officer, Centre for Law and Democracy
You're asking about foreign states using these techniques to attack Canadians?
2:40 p.m.
Senior Legal Officer, Centre for Law and Democracy
This is an argument for better security. That's what I'm hearing. This is an argument for why strong encryption is important in order to put up the strongest defence possible.
In terms of whether or not we should take a more intrusive stance against our people because Russia and China are going to take an aggressive stance against us—
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm talking about looking at different intelligence agencies outside of our country, as opposed to the domestic ones, with regard to how they're operating and how we would protect our citizens from that intrusion.
