Evidence of meeting #38 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 rcmp.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Thank you.
I don't see any more questions.
Thank you very much for your time. It was very helpful.
5:55 p.m.
Philon Aloni As an Individual
Thank you.
I've had a long day. It started at 6:30 in the morning, and I just found out about this event at the last minute, so if I'm a bit tired, please forgive me. I didn't prepare anything ahead of time. I just made some notes while I was listening today.
Before I get to my notes, I want to have a little introduction, so you understand where I'm coming from in general. I am of the conviction or understanding that investing more in the people, investing more in healthy society and social justice on a national and international scale, and in peace—for example having a governmental department for peace—and things like this, will give us much greater bang for the buck in prevention of violence by terrorism than would more investment in securities.
Now, since it appears that Bill C-51 will pass regardless, I'd like to bring up some practical suggestions in order to mitigate the harm and maximize the potential good, although I'm not for the bill.
Again, investment in a more just and inclusive society will achieve much greater security dividends for society overall than Bill C-51-type bills could, and at far greater gross return for investment rates. Abuse of power by specially empowered entities is a basic human condition. We see it repeated throughout history. This is a very sensitive situation that we're dealing with, and we have to consider very carefully and methodically all possible means to mitigate such abuse.
For some suggestions in this regard, I'll go with something practical. For example, we can see examples of police brutality that were going under the radar in Canada or in the United States for many years. Only now, because of cellphones and the prevalence of cameras in people's pockets, the public has become more aware of this fact. I think entities that will have special privileges that keep them under the radar of the legal system, like CSIS, with extra powers that have been already allotted to it lately with Bill C-51, need to have extra vigilance of supervision. I think that records must be maintained of all activities of CSIS, not only of what they have observed, but the agents' activities. The agency's activities all have to be maintained for a supervising agency to continuously overlook....
Not too long ago, in countries that were highly civilized, where nobody believed democracy could be hijacked, democracy was hijacked by organizations with extra powers, like Nazi Germany, for example, and later on in some parts of Latin and South America.
6 p.m.
As an Individual
I have lots of practical suggestions. I thought you were here to get ideas, so I have ideas and I want to share them, right? What's the point?
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
You have about 30 seconds. If you'd like to submit something in writing, we'll be very pleased to have it. We take into account all submissions.
6 p.m.
As an Individual
For example, there's SIRC. It is underpowered right now. It's low in manpower, lower in potential. It would be a huge improvement in investment in making SIRC more powerful. It also has to be accountable to the judicial system more than the political system, because we have to protect the Constitution, first of all, not just the power of the moment in the country.
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Thank you very much.
I'm just going to check if the committee has any questions.
No questions. Thank you very much.
Rana Zaman.
6 p.m.
Rana Zaman As an Individual
I'm a little nervous. I'm not as learned as the other gentleman that was here. I'm here as one of the people, one of the immigrants. I'm not a political person. I just got a wake-up call with the last government when this bill was passed. It made me jump out of my complacency and my trust in the government was just eradicated because I thought you were all very wise, caring people who looked out for the benefit of everyone and I mean everyone. You passed a law that I couldn't imagine, it was like George Orwell's1984 kind of thing coming through for me, but it affected my children directly who are born and raised here and never have been back home, which I call home. I've only been back twice myself.
The whole idea under this law gives such unlimited power to a body that doesn't really have to answer or show proof really of anything except suspicion of intent. Please correct if I'm not as versed as I should be about this law, but I just have the basics, as I've said.
I couldn't believe that. I said these kids, how are they not as Canadian as anyone else who was born and raised here, who has never been anywhere else. If they, in their youth, in their stupidity, did something as a protest or anything that was somehow defined as a terrorist act by this body, what would happen to them? They'd be sent home where they have never been. I thought that's not possible and yet someone here, who was considered old-stock Canadian, would not be considered under the same law because they were considered Canadian.
I think that's where the second-class citizen idea came from. Bill C-24 and Bill C-51 were the two ones that really made me understand. As I said, I apologize, I'm not a politician yet, so I'm learning.
My whole point is that listening to that gentleman, I learned a lot right now. Basically we're giving power—according to the first gentlemen and the second—to an entity that really is not answerable in many ways and we know that “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. You just have to keep in mind that it affects you as well. I can't imagine how a government passed something that would interfere in your own personal information. I understand people are saying, "Well, I'm innocent, it doesn't matter". How many people in the past who have been innocent have been railroaded for a crime they didn't commit or for some reason they were on the wrong person's radar? We have to look at this very carefully.
Also simple things such as the fact that they can observe you at any time based on any comments that you can make. How do you know the person on the other end is absolutely of a moral fibre that they won't abuse that power for their own benefit, if they have a personal beef against somebody? “I'm going to go in and tune in on that person and see what they're doing.” How do you know that their children...? God forbid, if someone who's a pedophile or something is not zooming in using your cameras and things to just basically get information about you and your family. These people are human beings. They're connected to other human beings. The possibility of abuse of power exists at any level. So my whole thing about this whole bill is the fact that it really infringes on a person's right and their privacy. It's just too much power for one organization to have. They can go to that level and not be answerable or not have to go to a judge or somewhere to get one to say we need to look into this person because they made these comments, they've made this kind of background.
And we're really kind of monitoring now even simple comments that we're making by phone or trigger words. It's just a frightening concept in a frightening future and I think you can hear it in my voice. We look up to you as our leaders and this affects you as equally, so how are you not afraid of it?
That's all my questions.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Thank you very much.
We're not really here to defend either this government, or the previous government, or criticize the previous government, or this government, we're hear to listen. I just want to clarify that Bill C-24 was passed in the last Parliament. The House of Commons has now passed a new law that would undo those parts of it called Bill C-6. I don't believe it's passed yet this week. It's in the Senate now, and this committee is looking at the whole framework to see how we can improve.
Go ahead, Ms. Damoff.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I wanted to thank you for coming out tonight. It's not easy to come in front of a...we're normal people, but I know it's not easy. And I just want to say thank you for coming out.
I'm curious how you found out about the meeting.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
There's no right or wrong answer. I was just curious.
6:05 p.m.
As an Individual
Facebook—you have to love Facebook. It's the only thing that isn't being manipulated at this point. Facebook was the way I got the information.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Okay. I applaud everyone who's here tonight. With all of our meetings, it's getting the word out to Canadians that we are holding these meetings and that they can come forward.
Don't be nervous. I encourage you to come out again. You spoke very well, and you're obviously very knowledgeable. I just want to thank you for coming out tonight.
6:05 p.m.
Ray Silver As an Individual
Thank you for your time.
How are you doing? I'm just an ordinary guy. I didn't even plan to be here tonight, but my son is very passionate about this whole thing about the rights of Canadians and things like that, so he said, “Dad, you have to go and speak.”
I'm an amateur, but when I look at High River—and you all know where High River is; it's out in Alberta, where there was a flood—the RCMP, without any warrants or any rights at all, invaded people's homes and took private possessions. They didn't even catalogue them. They took all the weapons. They took ammunition. They burned the ammunition without any records. They don't know what people lost. No records. Gone. They did it a number of times. The homes were empty because of evacuation, and the RCMP went in and just took things. There were no warrants. There was no reason to have any. There were no threats to security. Now there's no accountability. Nobody's been charged. There's a commission that found them guilty of breaking all kinds of laws, and there's no accountability. Nobody's been charged. And the RCMP, all the way to the top, doesn't know who ordered it, who okayed it. These men went in on boats into people's homes, and they invaded those homes.
Now I look at an organization that wants to give more power to the government. Okay, you're talking about preventive detention. You're going to lock people up without a just and liable cause, without a reason, and just because you think something might happen. As a Canadian, you're going to impact my rights and my freedoms. I'm not guilty until it's proved that something's wrong. You can't lock people up because of what they might think. I'm even scared to speak here because I think you might lock me up. What if you think I'm a threat? What if you think my ideas aren't right? You could just lock me up. Isn't that true?
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
6:10 p.m.
As an Individual
I'm talking in general. I mean, there's somebody here from security. This could open things up, things like no-fly lists. When I look at the government, the Canadian government, it looks to me like we're taking more and more rights and freedoms away from people. I see the freedom of speech disappearing in Canada.
Am I allowed to stand up and say that I don't agree with something that's politically correct? Just as an example, suppose I didn't believe in the whole environmental green warming crisis? What if I stood up and said, “I don't think that's right. I think that's biased. I think that's wrong.” I wouldn't want to get locked up for that. There are other politically correct subjects I could talk about, but if I speak against those, I'm starting to be concerned that I might have some retribution coming back at me for that. I don't want to give more powers to the government.
I look at the RCMP, and I see them unaccountable. Why is that? There are no answers given to those people in High River, and that was two years ago. It wasn't back in the fifties or sixties; that was two years ago. Why is the RCMP not accountable? Nobody was charged. All these homes were raided, doors were broken in, cabinets were broken into, things were seized, and the ammunition was never given back. There's no record of what was taken from anybody's house, and they burned it all. You're talking hundreds of dollars, right? I definitely don't want to give the government more power until I can see up front that it's really justifiable and that the government's accountable.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Silver.
As far as the High River incidents go, you're absolutely right. Nobody was charged that I'm aware of. I believe the top commander, or someone near the top, basically lost his or her job over it, but there were no charges that I'm aware of either, and that is wrong.
They used the excuse when they first went in that they were searching for bodies, possibly, but they broke into houses. They broke into them, and windows and doors were smashed out of houses that weren't even affected by the flood in that town. They said that when they went into any of the homes, whether they were flooded or not, a lot of people had taken their firearms out of their cabinets and had laid them up on the beds in case the water came up like that. They said they couldn't just leave them. Well, they shouldn't have been in there to start with, so I will agree with you on that.
The one point that I wanted to clarify is on giving more powers to the RCMP or whatever. I'm not going to condone that in all situations without there being proper oversight, but you used it in the same tone as, say, giving government more power. Giving the RCMP more power—or whatever force—doesn't give the government more power. That needed to be clarified.
But today, comparing High River to the terrorism threat that is out there today, whether we want to admit it or not.... We had a gentleman here today at the earlier meetings who said that.... Maybe it was last night. We've had so many meetings this week that I'm confusing them. Anyway, he had been in some countries over there, and Afghanistan was one of them, where terrorism is an everyday thing, so the level there is much higher than here, but just because it's much lower here doesn't mean that we can ignore it.
The FLQ back in the seventies has been brought up here tonight. There probably wasn't a lot of that kind of thing going on, that illegal activity, until 9/11 changed everything in 2001. Since then, we can't stick our heads in the sand and pretend that it isn't a threat out there, even though it's not as severe, so how can we give the powers that be—the RCMP, CSIS, or whoever—the power to investigate and pull people off the street and lock them up when they think there's a deliberate threat there?
6:15 p.m.
As an Individual
You can't assume people are guilty before they've committed a crime. Otherwise, that's too easy to bend; you can lock me up because you don't like what I'm thinking. You can't have thought police. That's the problem with the politically correct.... We have a political correctness committee here that can lock you up or make your life very miserable because they don't like your point of view. I can't remember the name—
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
