Evidence of meeting #52 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 attacks.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Noah Shack  Director of Policy, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

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

I'm going to call our 52nd meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to order.

We continue our study on the national security framework and we want to welcome Noah Shack, our witness today, from the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

I was just saying to Mr. Shack before we started that when we have only one witness and we have an hour booked, it can be a long time. I'll give him the privilege of being able to say when it's enough. Normally when we have two witnesses, we have 20 minutes of presentation, and then they split 40 minutes, which is about a 20-minute sentence.

This is a life sentence if we do it this way, so we make sure you're not feeling grilled by our committee.

Welcome. We can signal when you think and everybody thinks we've had all the expertise we're able to get.

Thank you for coming and for representing CIJA as well. We're very appreciative of all the work CIJA does, and we're glad to have your comments on our national security framework.

3:35 p.m.

Noah Shack Director of Policy, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs

Thank you, Chair and honourable committee members, for having me. Hopefully you'll be able to squeeze out quickly everything I have to offer.

I'm pleased to be here this afternoon on behalf of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, the advocacy agent of the Jewish Federations of Canada, which represents about 150,000 Jewish Canadians affiliated coast to coast through their local federations.

According to Statistics Canada, Jewish Canadians are targeted by hate- and bias-motivated crime at a rate higher than for any other identifiable group. The ancient toxic hatred of Jews is not unique to our country and is rightly constrained to the margins of liberal democratic societies like ours. Alarmingly, though, anti-Semitism continues to manifest in brutal acts of terrorism, often inspired by warped Islamist ideology.

Jewish communities represent a primary target for terrorist violence all over the world. Attacks against Jews have taken place in Israel, Argentina, Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, and the United States, with innocent men, women, and children murdered in their homes, places of worship, and community centres. As an at-risk community, we have a major stake in Canada's approach to preserving national security generally and in counterterrorism in particular. There's significant fear within our community, not only of Jewish Canadians being harmed in attacks abroad, but also that such attacks are possible or even likely here in Canada.

The memory of the 2004 firebombing of a Jewish school in Montreal looms large, compounded by threats made by the would-be VIA Rail bombers regarding Jewish targets, and the call by al Shabaab, a listed terrorist entity, for an attack on Jewish-owned businesses in North America, which included a call against the West Edmonton Mall.

Additionally, Public Safety Canada's 2016 public report on the terrorist threat to Canada notes that Hezbollah, the listed entity widely believed to be responsible for the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires, has networks operating here.

We're encouraged that the current government and its predecessors have consistently taken significant steps to protect Canadians from terrorist violence, and we appreciate the opportunity to contribute our perspective and hope it will be helpful in continuing the development of a national security framework that keeps Canadians safe at home and abroad.

Many terrorist attacks, like the one that claimed the life of Corporal Nathan Cirillo here in 2014, are inspired by the messages of terrorist groups but are not necessarily the result of direct calls for specific actions. The Criminal Code provision allowing for the seizure of terrorist propaganda addresses this, contributing to broader efforts to counter radicalization and prevent terrorist recruitment here in Canada.

The al Shabaab video that I referenced is relevant here. Were something like this to be posted online in Canada tomorrow, a judge could order that Canadian Internet service providers remove it, limiting the scope of its impact. Critics of this provision have raised concerns about the possible breadth of what might be considered terrorist propaganda and whether this provision would cause the censorship of offensive ideas that aren't directly linked to violence. Our community is deeply committed to promoting civil liberty and free expression for all Canadians, but neither can be absolute in a liberal, democratic society.

While the seizure of terrorist propaganda places limits on acceptable speech, it is in our view a legitimate restriction, demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society, that strikes an appropriate balance between freedom of speech on the one hand and the right to life and security of the person on the other.

This provision is complemented by the criminalization of advocacy or promotion of terrorism offences in general. Critics have argued that previously existing provisions outlawing incitement were sufficient and that this one is too broad. However, terrorist recruiters are often sophisticated in their approach. They can take note of the law's limitations and adjust their approach accordingly so that while still instigating terrorist activity, their statements are general enough to remain beyond the reach of the law.

A founding member of al Qaeda-turned-MI5 double agent, Aimen Dean, recounted to the BBC his experience working around U.K. incitement laws with regard to terrorism. He was free to give theological justification for attacks and to promote al Qaeda's actions through those theological justifications without violating the law. He noted, and I quote, “You can't specifically urge someone to go. You can't specifically call for an attack.... You have to be clever about how you phrase your words.”

This provision denies those seeking to radicalize or recruit Canadians the legal leeway to be clever, but dangerous, with their words.

The call by al Shabaab for attacks on Jewish-owned businesses was deemed by the RCMP to be a very general comment, not a specific threat. That's what they said. Criminalizing general calls for terrorist violence makes it more difficult for individuals or groups to inspire attacks against Canadians in this way.

CIJA looks forward to the establishment of the Office of the Community Outreach and Counter-radicalization Coordinator, which I understand will happen soon. This is an important initiative, and if given the resources and mandate necessary to succeed, it will constitute an essential component of Canada's national security framework. In order to maximize the impact of this institution and ensure its success, it's imperative that this office be given a mandate not just to de-radicalize those who are already on the path to violent extremism but also to prevent those vulnerable to radicalization from being seized in its grip. By countering hate, we can help disrupt the radicalization process at its starting point. In this respect, Jews are often a canary in the coal mine.

Retired Major-General Ed Fitch led the Canadian Forces red team in simulating terrorist attacks against the Vancouver Olympics to test the vulnerabilities and the security plan that was being put in place. He recently noted in The Hill Times that:

Security services in Europe recognize that Islamist attacks against the general population have been foreshadowed by similar acts of terror against Jewish targets, including a Jewish museum in Belgium, a synagogue in Denmark, and a Jewish school and kosher supermarket in France—all in the past few years.

Here in Canada the security establishment must continue working closely with the Jewish community to monitor anti-Semitic extremism as an early warning sign in identifying those prone to radicalization.

The city of Berlin is implementing a pilot program now along these lines. It's funded by the German federal government and it focuses on the role of teachers in identifying anti-Semitism specifically as one of the precursors to radicalization, and training these teachers to intervene and steer vulnerable youth away from this dangerous path.

Whether we are considering the attacks on a synagogue in Jerusalem, a gay nightclub in Orlando, an African-American church in Charleston, or a mosque in Quebec City, extreme hate continues to precipitate extreme violence. Canada's counter-radicalization efforts should specifically address hatred directed toward Jewish Canadians, black Canadians, LGBTQ Canadians, Muslim Canadians, women, or any other identifiable group as a potential foundation for violent extremism.

Spray-painted hate messages, rocks thrown through windows, and other hate-motivated destruction of property could also be indicators of radicalization or precursors for more serious violent crime down the road. Under current law, hate- or bias-motivated mischief targeting a religious institution such as a synagogue is a specific offence with specific and serious penalties. However, this designation doesn't extend to other institutions such as schools or community centres, which are similarly targeted all too often.

Bill C-305, which I hope you will all be supporting this evening at second reading, would close that gap in the Criminal Code, extending the penalties in place for targeting places of worship to other communal facilities as well. We urge all parties to ensure the swift passage of this bill through committee and third reading to make it law.

It is exceedingly important that government also help vulnerable communities to prevent attacks from taking place, or at the very least, to minimize the danger they pose. The federal security infrastructure program, or SIP, assists those at risk of hate-motivated crime to improve security infrastructure, sending a clear signal that those targeted by hate don't have to shoulder the burden alone.

The nature of the threats and the cost of security measures have changed significantly since the SIP was first launched in 2008, as have the needs and number of at-risk groups. While synagogues are disproportionately targeted and impacted by hate crimes, Sikh temples, Islamic mosques, Hindu temples, and Christian churches have all been targeted as well.

According to Statistics Canada, an average of three hate crimes take place every day in this country, ranging from racist graffiti to more serious vandalism to arson to assault and, in some cases, more extreme acts of violence.

Security infrastructure is required to protect at-risk community institutions from an array of threats. Jewish community centres, schools, and synagogues are increasingly concerned about active-shooter scenarios, similar to the terrorist attacks that we've seen take such a horrific toll elsewhere.

CIJA welcomed the recent steps taken by the Minister of Public Safety to modernize the SIP. In particular, support for internal security measures and access controls will have a really meaningful impact on the safety and well-being of vulnerable groups. At the same time, we've encouraged the government to consider a number of additional improvements to SIP that would further enhance its effectiveness, which I would be happy to discuss in the round of questions.

I think that I'm probably at around 10 minutes now, so I'll stop here. I'd be happy to speak further about any of the things I've raised so far, including those recommendations about bolstering the SIP, in addition to our position on CSIS's expanded role and proper oversight.

Thank you very much.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Thank you, Mr. Shack.

Mr. Spengemann, go ahead for a seven-minute round.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON

Mr. Chair, thank you very much; and Mr. Shack, thank you for being here. It's good to see you again. Thank you for the important work you're doing.

We are meeting in the immediate aftermath of a very heinous, callous terrorist attack in Quebec City in which six men were gunned down in the act of prayer, which is one of the holiest, if not the holiest, act in any faith. Really, it has led to a very different tenor in the conversation, and the conversation will be ongoing after the funerals are over.

I wonder if I could take you up on your offer to elaborate a bit more on the SIP. To start out, what sort of improvements would you favour? How concretely can this program make a difference, and how can it help us to also maintain the balance of openness, of tolerance, of discourse, and of dialogue we've established in this country without going too far down the fortification of our sites of prayer?

3:45 p.m.

Director of Policy, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs

Noah Shack

I think it's important that we're having these conversations now after the horrific attack in Quebec City. I remember how I felt, as a Jewish Canadian, after seeing the synagogue in Jerusalem attacked in a similar fashion. Of course, a Torontonian was in attendance in prayer there as well and lost his life. My heart just goes out for everybody who has been impacted so similarly here in Canada. This is something that should not happen.

It's my understanding that the mosque in Quebec City had security cameras in place outside but did not have sufficient access controls or locks that might have provided an additional barrier and protected people inside. That's one of the elements that the government added to the security infrastructure program recently, to move beyond the external measures such as security cameras and fences to things on the inside that, once somebody has entered the building or the property, can prevent them from moving further inside and causing such horrendous damage.

What we're looking to build on, in addition to that, are three things. The first is to amend the funding formula. Currently the government will match funds 50/50, up to a limit of $100,000, for security infrastructure projects that are approved. This is a tremendous support. I can speak to our community. We are very appreciative of the extent to which this has helped us. However, there are institutions that don't have the resources to match the 50/50 threshold, and we believe that in cases where they can demonstrate need, there should be a relaxing of that criterion for those at-risk institutions that do not have the ability. There should be a needs-based approval process for disadvantaged institutions.

Our second recommendation is to expand the program to include security guards. People are often surprised to know that many Jewish institutions have full-time security guards, but at acute periods of heightened concern such as the Jewish high holidays, there are paid duty officers brought in to protect synagogues while people are praying inside. This is a tremendous expense for communities and I'm sure we're not alone in terms of this need. I imagine that during the period of Ramadan this might be appreciated in the Muslim community as well, to expand the program to include support for occasional security guards at times of acute threat.

The third recommendation we have is to change the funding cap. I mentioned 50/50 shared costs up to $100,000. There are some programs that cost more than $100,000, and in many instances those aren't happening. Whether it's a fencing project around a property or another example, that can get very expensive very quickly, so we would like to see the cap raised beyond $100,000 for any individual project. I don't think that's for the majority of projects; I think it's for a minority. However, it's something that would definitely improve the program.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON

Thank you for that. That's very helpful.

Mr. Shack, if there's some good that came out of the Quebec tragedy, the most recent of attacks in our country, it is the tremendous coming together of faith communities. Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, and other faiths came together and in many cases surrounded the mosques and tried to symbolically protect our sites of prayer. This leads to an opportunity to focus the dialogue we're having now with renewed energy and to say that we need to do something against radicalization.

I'm wondering if you could give us more of a fine-grained perspective on what your expectations are of the community outreach and counter-radicalization program. Specifically, how can we change hearts and minds, with respect to both de-radicalization and prevention of radicalization in the first place?

3:50 p.m.

Director of Policy, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs

Noah Shack

As I mentioned in my remarks, I think one of the most important areas to which we can channel resources and attention is countering hate. I believe that's a core ingredient in transitioning somebody from a normal citizen to somebody willing to commit such atrocious acts of violence, and research in Europe has indicated that to be the case.

From the perspective of the Jewish community, if national efforts included a focus on detecting and combatting anti-Semitic attitudes, I think that would go a long way. Certainly it's not limited to that. We're not the only group that has been targeted or that is implicated here.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON

Are there proven pathways to countering hate, for those people who are not involved in the art or science of doing so? To what do people best respond when they've taken up whatever drives hate? How do you undo it?

3:50 p.m.

Director of Policy, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs

Noah Shack

The German pilot program has been going on for one year, and it's a five-year program. I'm hopeful that, at the end of that, we'll see tremendous results. Teachers, who have a relationship with students who are with them day in and day out, can help to guide them and to nip this type of thing in the bud.

In the previous hearings on Bill C-51, we recommended convening a national counter-radicalization effort that would do essentially one of the things you were talking about before, which is to bring communities together so that there's a humanized face, and it would create a platform for face-to-face dialogue and interaction. Whether it's between the Jewish community and the Muslim community and the Christian community, whether it's faith communities or otherwise, it's important that we don't have people living in silos where the only interaction they have with this other group is hate messaging.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Thank you very much.

Mr. Clement.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Thank you, Mr. Shack, for being here and for representing your organization's views. I know you've done a lot of thinking about some of these issues, so it is much appreciated.

As you indicated in your very multi-faceted remarks, certainly the Jewish population is a massive target for hate crime activity in this country, unfortunately. The statistics that have been indicated to me are that the Jewish community is one of the most, if not the most at-risk community in our country, with 55 hate crimes per 100,000 Jewish people per year. This is a continuing problem, and I'm glad that you've raised these issues.

I'd like to open the floor to you. You've mentioned a lot of things already in terms of how to frame a counter-radicalization program. Can you dig a bit deeper into how we change the psychology involved in this? I noticed that in your remarks you talked about how the Jewish population could be the canary in the coal mine. Things that start off with graffiti or some specific kind of assault can then lead to other acts of violence.

Sometimes though, because of the online nature of the development of radicalization, it just goes from online to action. Again, I put it to you to drill a bit deeper on how we can best counter this kind of phenomenon.

3:55 p.m.

Director of Policy, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs

Noah Shack

The online-to-attack phenomenon is something that we all need to take stock of. I think there's a perception, and I don't know how prevalent it is anymore, but you have.... I mean, there are different models. You have highly organized terrorist groups, in which you will have centralized planning of an attack, training of people to carry out that attack, and orders that come through to carry out the attack. It's very systematic. Those attacks are a lot easier to disrupt, because there are a lot of points along the way from A to D.

That's why the measures that were put in place in Bill C-51, as I mentioned previously, are so important. They give some tools to be able to mitigate or disrupt those organic attacks that are inspired by messages but aren't necessarily directed from a headquarters. I think it's important that as we look at counter-radicalization writ large, yes, it's about bringing communities together and focusing on dispelling notions of hate within communities, and for sure a lot of the work has to be done internally within communities. There's certainly utility in bringing different communities together, but ultimately, for communities that are affected by radicalization, that's a problem they have to deal with internally as well.

But it's not just that. It also requires tools for our security apparatus and for law enforcement to be able to put some roadblocks in the way of those attacks that are inspired by the messages rather than directed by an organization.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Just to shift tack for a second, we obviously have provisions in the Criminal Code. We have organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood, for instance, who operate in the country and have been identified as promoters of terrorism in other countries.

I know that the U.K. has what is called a “no platform” provision. Is that something you're familiar with or can comment on? Or are there other techniques that can be used to combat these international organizations?

3:55 p.m.

Director of Policy, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs

Noah Shack

I'm not familiar with the specifics of what's in place in the United Kingdom. Certainly, the seizure of terrorist propaganda and the criminalization of advocacy or promotion of terrorism are important things for groups that don't fit the traditional terrorist organization designation and for individuals who don't operate within that framework. If a message from a group like the Muslim Brotherhood were to veer into that territory, it's an important way to deal with that and to stop it. There is recourse.

It may be difficult, if not impossible, to list an organization such as the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist entity, in that they may not meet the criteria, but certainly, if they are engaged in activities that are considered terrorism offences here, such as the promotion of terrorist activities, or if they are disseminating terrorist propaganda, these tools are in place specifically to stop that.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Larry Miller had a question, if we have time.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

You have a minute and a half.

February 8th, 2017 / 3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

To change channels a bit on security issues, with what happened in Quebec City recently, one of our Liberal colleagues has brought forth motion M-103. I don't know if you're familiar with it or not. There's a lot of good stuff in it, but my critique of it, based on what I've noticed at the start, is that it's not inclusive. It names one religion and what have you. If you've had a chance to look at it.... I think it would be a much better bill if it were amended. I know that's not why you're here today, but I just wondered about inclusiveness and trying to stop any kind of thing that keeps people from practising their religion or whatever it is in their place of worship. Could you comment on that?

3:55 p.m.

Director of Policy, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs

Noah Shack

I haven't looked carefully at the motion, so I can't really speak to the specifics, but I can tell you that on both sides we of course need to make strong statements about the importance of freedom of religion here in Canada and the importance of people being able to have their conscience respected and to be free from hate. That's for all people in Canada. On the other hand, for the Jewish community, I understand that consistently the highest rate of hate crimes is for those perpetrated against Jews in Canada. As Mr. Clement noted, this has been consistent for a long time. Incidents targeting Muslim Canadians, although not as numerous, have been rising the fastest, so I understand that there's some anxiety among Muslim Canadians, and I think it's important that we acknowledge what they're going through. It can be scary.

4 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Thank you.

4 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Thank you very much.

Mr. Dubé.

4 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Shack, thanks for being here.

I want to focus on the counter-radicalization question. I like the phrase you used: “nipping it in the bud”. I think that's one of the important pieces here. As part of this study, we actually had the opportunity to visit the centre in Montreal. One of the points that the folks working there raised was about the rise in all forms of radicalization, including for young people becoming neo-Nazis.

In the tragic circumstances in Quebec, we saw an attack that was fed by Islamophobia, but it could very well have been an attack fed by anti-Semitism as well, obviously. The numbers don't lie, unfortunately, about what the community faces.

I'm wondering what your thoughts are on this. It hasn't been perfect, but it's certainly one of a kind in North America, and I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on what has gone on in Montreal and what lessons can be learned from that. Do you have more thoughts on the federal government plan going forward and what they should be doing? I know that we've talked about the coordinator, but obviously we have to move beyond that one role. Could you share a bit more of your thoughts on that?

4 p.m.

Director of Policy, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs

Noah Shack

Yes. I think you've made an important point: there has been a rise in radicalization among many different groups. Certainly, different types of hatred have been feeding into this. You've seen attacks on the LGBTQ community, on black Canadians, and internationally as well. This is very scary. I wouldn't want to give the impression that our community is only afraid of attacks emanating from people with a twisted Islamist ideology. neo-Nazis are something to be dealt with as well, of course. I think we do need to look at things comprehensively, without losing sight of the particularities of individual circumstances.

As I said, I do think it's important to focus on hate, if you can, through activities like those run by the institute in Montreal and those that hopefully the coordinator will be funding and spearheading, and through individual communities coming together as well. It's not just for government to be doing things. To the extent possible, communities coming together around these issues, I think, really needs to be a focus. It's easy to lose sight of that. It's a focus exclusively on deprogramming people who are along the path. That's an important element, but rooting out hatred in Canada to the extent we can, even looking beyond the radicalization and terrorism, is a good thing. Thankfully, we live in a country where damaging hatred is confined to the margins. We need to keep it that way and push it further away.

4 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Certainly, I didn't mean to imply that—

4 p.m.

Director of Policy, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs

Noah Shack

No, no. I just wanted to make sure—

4 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

—there is fear of only one group. In fact, I think what we're struggling with—and I'm certain my colleagues would agree with what was being shared with us at the centre when we visited—is the fact that hate in all its forms is perhaps growing. Perhaps we're also more sensitive to it, but there's also the fact of ease of information, right? Unfortunately, not all information is necessarily good, and it certainly can propagate hate.

You mentioned, for example, as an idea of the kind of initiative that could come from the coordinator, something like a round table. Do you folks have any other ideas of the kinds of initiatives that could be brought forward to counter radicalization? Also, I think there needs to be an education component. Are there any other ideas you might be willing to float by us?