Evidence of meeting #54 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 muslims.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I want to thank you all for being here.
Mr. Edelmann, it's nice to see you again.
My first question is about the disruptive powers of CSIS.
I think it was Professor Forcese who had suggested that, as opposed to saying what they can't do, it might be possible to specify specifically what CSIS could do, ensuring that it was within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I wonder if either of you have any comment on that.
4:25 p.m.
Treasurer, Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association
Yes, I can speak to that issue.
We have recommendations on that issue both in our original submissions on Bill C-51 and in the green paper. You'll notice, if you read them, that there's a slight change in tone. We've appeared before on this issue at the Senate, for instance, and the big concern that came out in particular was whether the threat disruption powers essentially were authorizing charter breaches, and is that how you read these provisions? There was debate about it, and certainly academics and the CBA felt that's how it could be read.
In response to that, we've repeatedly heard, “That's not our intention, and it's not what we intended to do.” When you look at our latest submission, I think you'll see that what we're suggesting is that if that's the case, make the language clearer. Part of the problem—and one that you've identified—is the positives versus the negatives. The way it's set out now, it's essentially saying they can't breach charter rights unless they go and get a warrant, but that's not the way the charter works.
For instance, warrants are typical for searching for items. It has to do with section 8 of the charter on protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The courts, when they issue a warrant, aren't issuing a charter breach. They issue the warrant so that there is no charter breach.
That's the problem with how it's drafted. I think the intent may very well be the same, in which case the CBA has no issue with it, but you should draft it so it's clear that you're not authorizing a charter breach. You're authorizing very specific activities to avoid a charter breach. That may be the intention. If you word it that way, those concerns are going to disappear.
On that note, this is another issue in regard to that. Making clear what you're issuing is also very helpful because academics, including Professor Forcese and others, are concerned right now that you're going to authorize, for instance, arbitrary detention. Again, we've been repeatedly told that's not the intention. Well, if it's not the intention, make it clear. Then the issue disappears.
Again, following up on that suggestion, the more that you make it clear what they need to go and get authorization for, the more it fits in with how the charter works within our legal system.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
I want to move to both groups about the no-fly list again. I know that you've made suggestions.
I have a young man in my riding who's on the list, but the issue is that his name is the same as someone else's on the list. It's a situation where it's not necessarily that the name should not be on there but that he has the same name as someone who is on the list. He's quite young now. He had a fairly decent experience in the U.S. in getting certain paperwork.
He's not the only one in that situation. What can we do to help someone deal with this, and not just within Canada and the U.S.? What if he chooses to study internationally at some point? What kinds of safeguards can we put in for individuals who find themselves in that situation?
4:30 p.m.
Treasurer, Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association
I'll let Mr. Edelmann deal with it, because his area is the no-fly zone, but before going to him, there's an analogous situation that I see within the criminal law. You can end up with situations where someone's name is the same as someone else's, and when the police go through their CPIC program their name comes up and they're arrested, but it turns out that it's somebody else. I've seen that problem arise.
In terms of a practical element, the big issue is that there has to be a system in place where you can address your complaints. Now, within different police agencies, you can do that. There's somewhere to go where you can address it. If you have no recourse, if there is nothing set up to deal with the problem, then it's a matter of writing letters, of going to MPs, and going to.... It's a runaround that takes a lot of time. If you set up a system in advance with one spot to go to, you're going to be able to deal effectively with that problem. Hopefully, if they're sharing within jurisdictions, the problem can clear its way all the way through.
I'll leave it to Mr. Edelmann to discuss the no-fly zone in particular.
4:30 p.m.
Executive Member, Immigration Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
Very quickly, I'll refer you to our written submissions on the green paper, which hopefully are before the committee. Basically, there are two aspects of our suggestions for the things that need to be changed if this program is going to continue. One is to provide an objectively discernible basis for additions and removals from the no-fly list, or how people are being added and removed.
The issue that you're suggesting with respect to the constituent is one of identification of the person. There needs to be more detailed information on the no-fly list. Right now it's just a name. If there were more detailed information there, then there would fewer false positives. That was an issue we had raised at the time the no-fly list was created, because it created a problem when there were less identifying features or factors.
The other aspect is to have effective safeguards for people who are wrongly placed on the list, or mechanisms for people like your constituent who can then say, I'm not that guy. I'm not the person who is on the list. Here's the mechanism by which I can get....
We have this in the Criminal Code, for example, with respect to the list of terrorist entities. One can get a certificate from the minister under a certain section of the code. I would have to look it up. When you're talking about people who are listed entities under the terrorism provisions, you should be able to apply to the minister for a certificate to say, “I'm not that guy. I'm not a listed entity even though I have the same name or our organization has the same name.” Some mechanism along those lines would be helpful in addressing the types of concerns you're raising.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Gentlemen, thank you to all of you for being here.
I still have a no-fly list question. I want to move on to something else. Mr. Gardee, you talked about Islamophobia and Motion No. 103. What I'm trying to get my head around is the definition. By the way, a lot of people are opposed to Motion No. 103 because it doesn't have a definition of Islamophobia.
We had two witnesses here Monday from ISNA. With one of them, Ms. Chowdhury, we were trying to get to this and got talking about sharia law. She indicated with regard to sharia law that she was opposed to the oppression against women part of it, but in favour of the rest of it.
I talked to a Muslim woman this morning, because I'm trying to get an understanding of sharia law, which I thought I understood, but from listening to Ms. Chowdhury, I didn't. The Muslim woman I talked to this morning confirmed what I thought. She said, “That lady out and out lied to you, because every Muslim that I know is opposed to sharia law.” I tell you that not to bore you, but I need to put it in context.
Based on this chat I had this morning, which backs up what I thought sharia law was, if I came out and criticized sharia law, does that make me Islamophobic? If I come out and criticize radical Islam, or a terrorist act done by the radicalized side of Islam, does that make me Islamophobic?
I need you to enlighten me on what exactly Islamophobia is. It seems to me to be a word created by the media, and what have you.
You don't hear about the two most persecuted religions in the world, Christianity and Judaism. You don't hear about Christianophobia and Jewishophobia.
I'll turn it over to you.
4:35 p.m.
Executive Director, National Council of Canadian Muslims
In terms of the definition of Islamophobia, the term itself came into popular use around 1997 when Runnymede put it out in a publication that they created. I would argue that the concept dates back to the beginning of the faith itself.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission defines Islamophobia as including “racism, stereotypes, prejudice, fear or acts of hostility directed towards individual Muslims”. It's not limited to individual acts of intolerance or racial profiling. It includes a normalized view of Muslims as threats to security, institutions, and society. It also includes one-sided, sweeping negative portrayals of Muslim people, which play a really key role in normalizing and reproducing contemporary forms of this type xenophobia.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Would the two examples I used make me Islamophobic?
4:35 p.m.
Executive Director, National Council of Canadian Muslims
Do you mean the example of being able to criticize radical extremists?
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Well, if sharia law is bad, like this Muslim woman told me this morning, and I criticized it and said we don't want that in Canada, or whatever—I'm just using that as an example—would that make me that? Would it also be the same if I criticized a terrorist act that was basically perpetrated and supported by radical Islam? I'll put it in that context.
4:35 p.m.
Executive Director, National Council of Canadian Muslims
What I can tell you, Mr. Miller, is that the NCCM believes in and upholds the Charter of Rights and Freedoms every single day. As a Canadian civil liberties and advocacy organization, that is our focal point.
4:35 p.m.
Executive Director, National Council of Canadian Muslims
Terms such as “sharia” are extremely loaded. Without even knowing what it means, it's actually offensive and does a disservice to building mutual understanding. I'm not quite sure how the question is relevant to the purpose of this committee, a hearing on Canada's national security framework.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Well, you brought it up, sir, and I'm just trying to get a.... I think you mentioned it three times, if I go back and listen to the recording.... So I think I have a right to get an understanding of it. Anyway, you didn't answer my questions or two examples.
You mentioned the no-fly list and you mentioned racial profiling. Like Ms. Damoff, I've had some members of my constituency who went through this and had the same problem, and they have common names like Smith or Jones. Even one, who is no relation of mine, but, with the name Miller happened to be on there.
4:35 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Yes, no relation.
I'm not saying that there isn't racial profiling. I would hope there isn't, because I like to trust the system that's out there. I'm just suggesting that it's a lot more than maybe what you perceived it to be or led us to believe. I don't mean that in a derogatory way, just that there are other examples.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
4:40 p.m.
Executive Director, National Council of Canadian Muslims
In terms of the no-fly list, I would again echo what my colleagues at the Canadian Bar Association have said. I would also like to redirect part of my answer to the question raised earlier about another individual whose family member was listed. In our view, the act creates a mechanism to challenge a listing, but it's an ineffective tool. First, the problem is that people can never know with certainty that they're on the list. Second, listed people are not given any information about how or why they're placed on the list. Third, while a listed person may have asked to have their name removed, the minister is not bound to reply to the request. Fourth, the onus rests on the listed person to demonstrate not only that the minister was wrong to put their name on the list, but also that the minister acted unreasonably in doing so. Given the lack of access to information prescribed in the act, it is virtually impossible for a listed person to meet the onus.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
We have to end there.
I want to thank you all, Mr. Edelmann, Mr. Carter, and Mr. Gardee for your expertise, time, and insights.
We'll just take a brief moment as we stop, and then we'll go in camera for committee business.
Thank you.
[Proceedings continue in camera]