Public Safety Committee on Feb. 8th, 2017

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

Since it is multifaceted, we as legislators can do only so much. It is about bringing everybody together and having that dialogue. I think we're going to see change occur at the community level and on the ground. It's a matter of making sure that communities have the resources and the connectivity in order to do that.

In my riding, CIJA is very active, as are many other religious orders. We have those interfaith discussions. I guess it becomes problematic when people become isolated. I think there are multiple levels in all of this. I think, as you said, we can't do it alone. We all have to come together and deal with these issues.

[Noah Shack]

That is easier said than done.

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

It is a lot harder than saying it.

[Noah Shack]

Who attends multifaith events? People who are interested in multi-faith.

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

Exactly.

[Noah Shack]

And those are not necessarily the people—

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

They're the people—

[Noah Shack]

—who need to experience what the other is like. It's a big challenge.

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

Thank you.

You're shocked. He is shocked.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

They're on time. It's a nice shock.

Monsieur Picard.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are going to distribute a copy of an email I received at my office this week to all participants. The content is so disturbing that I don't want to publicize it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I just want to be clear that only the clerk is meant to distribute anything at the committee, so I just want to make sure he did. Similar to in the House of Commons, we can't have people distributing material. We need unanimous consent, because it's in English only. I don't have unanimous consent.

You can explain what it is, but we can't have it distributed. Sorry.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

In the context of the new realities that are arising in 2017, I have to tell you that this email received at our office this week directly encourages the commission of a crime, in the very wake of the events that happened in Quebec.

This type of clear encouragement is directly related to the new offence created in the Criminal Code, that of inciting terrorism.

Unfortunately, your committee has sometimes, perhaps too often, been the subject of hateful comments. I would like to know your position on this type of behaviour.

In your opinion, are there a sufficient number of offences on hate propaganda, were they sufficient in the past to condemn it, or should we rather condemn this type of hateful behaviour through offences such as the new inciting of terrorism offence?

Were the offences created in the past sufficient, or should we act, and go further?

[Noah Shack]

Thank you for the question.

I think the law should be enforced to the full extent. I'm not a lawyer and I don't work for the Attorney General's office, but if this can be deemed promotion or advocacy of terrorism, then it should be considered and prosecuted to the full extent.

We shouldn't just have the laws on paper gathering dust; these are things that should be taken out and used. They're important tools and they're meant to protect people, and if they're not going to do that, then there's something wrong, and we need to evaluate whether something else is needed that will be used. I don't know if this would meet the test of those laws, but certainly somebody should test them, I imagine.

[Michel Picard, Liberal, Montarville, QC]

I am not the only one to have received this email, and I assure you that we advised police authorities so that they may investigate given the harshness and seriousness of the text of the email.

On this same issue, some witnesses have said that this new offence on inciting or advocating terrorism is unconstitutional because it is too vague. Because of that it may impose unreasonable limits on freedom of expression—if we are talking about freedom of expression.

One witness even told us that this offence could hinder the setting up of an anti-radicalisation community program. The people who said that are people who devote their time to defending civil liberties.

Last November, someone painted antisemitic graffiti on the walls of a synagogue in the south of Ottawa.

Mr. Shack, I want to give you an opportunity to comment on the importance of fighting hate propaganda. In connection with this incident, do you have an opinion on the constitutionality of such a measure?

[Noah Shack]

The provision to criminalize the advocacy or promotion of terrorism offences specifically requires that a statement be communicated in which the person knowingly advocates or promotes the commission of an offence, knowing that those offences will be committed, or being reckless as to whether or not they will be committed. I would hazard that somebody engaged in good faith in counter-radicalization efforts wouldn't meet those tests. They wouldn't be doing this knowing that the person was going to go out and commit a terrorism offence. They wouldn't be considered reckless in terms of whether or not somebody's then going to take what they've said and go out and commit a terrorism offence, so I don't think that this is necessarily a valid concern in terms of impeding the ability to deal with radicalization.

Similarly, the “seizure of terrorist propaganda” provision is subject to a court decision. There's the ability to appeal that decision. The person whose propaganda it is, or whoever wrote the thing or posted the thing, has the ability to appear to explain why they don't believe that it counts and to advocate on their own behalf. There are sufficient elements in place to prevent people who mean well from getting swept up in something that's overly draconian.

In terms of our community and the hate propaganda and vandalism, we actually had an issue with one of the synagogues that was targeted here in Ottawa, in that everything came off so quickly. Everybody was quick to just get the thing off, and they wanted to deal with it quickly, and they didn't notify police. They just got rid of the swastikas that were spray-painted so people wouldn't see them when they came into the building. It was only after it was recognized that this was part of a pattern that they realized they probably should have done something different. This speaks to one of the questions before, about people needing to have training on how to respond to these incidents so that there is a uniform response, so we can provide as much support to law enforcement as possible, so they can do their job and help our communities, and so we are all working together.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

I shouldn't have doubted that we could fill an hour—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

—because we were able to do that quite well.

Thank you for your time.

You made a number of assertions in your presentation today. If CIJA has any quantifiable data or research as opposed to qualitative research, things like “some people in the community are worried about this or this”, that would be helpful for us. Any factual evidence would be helpful.

Mr. Clement mentioned the rate of hate crime. I was trying to get some statistics as the meeting was going on, and actually over the years it's gone down in some years in Canada as opposed to going up. If we have some data on incidents that you have collected.... We have StatsCan data that I'd like to be able to offer to the committee. That would be helpful, because we're attempting to look at the magnitude of the issue.

[Noah Shack]

That's not a problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Anything you have you could submit to the clerk, and we could put it into evidence.

[Noah Shack]

Okay, wonderful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Is there anything else? I think we're good.

We're going to move now in camera for a brief business meeting, and we're going to take a few moments to thank our witness.

Thank you.

[Proceedings continue in camera]