Public Safety Committee on Dec. 12th, 2017

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Gardee and Professor Bhabha, I think this is what my colleague was getting at concerning what was said with regard to Bill C-51, and we heard this during the national security framework review that this committee undertook.

One of the concerns that were raised with the changes to the Criminal Code, the offences related to the promotion of terrorism.... Some families, for example, in terms of reporting to the proper authorities certain actions in hopes of rehabilitating a member of their family or their community, because those offences were so wide and general and vague, remained silent in order to not implicate a member of their family or their community.

Are the changes proposed to the Criminal Code in Bill C-59 related to that specific issue sufficient as far as you and your organization are concerned?

[Faisal Bhabha]

Not likely, and that's because of the lack of trust that we've spoken about.

Again, I draw the analogy to urban policing and African Canadians. We hear that a lack of co-operation with police is a symptom of a lack of trust between communities and police. This is precisely the problem we have in the realm of national security, and we encourage greater community relationships with law enforcement. We encourage that, but we as an organization do not feel confident to recommend to Canadian Muslims to open their hearts and the doors of their homes and their centres to national security officials who have proven time and again to be duplicitous and untrustworthy.

We're looking for accountability first, and from that trust will flow, we hope.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Going back to the issue of information sharing, certainly you've explained the concerns you have with that. There's a new piece in the bill with regard to the collection of datasets and things like that. One of the concerns with these wider and wider nets that are being cast is the targeting of specific individuals. In the cases you've outlined that are, tragically, very possible, things like profiling and so forth, there is the potential of casting such a wide net that it reaches many people.

What are your concerns with regard to the collection of datasets and the impact it can have on your community given the state of affairs you've outlined?

[Ihsaan Gardee]

I think the concerns that were outlined regarding information sharing are very well documented as well in the report by Justice O'Connor looking into the case of Maher Arar. There is an amplification of this lack of trust with national security agencies when we don't have any sense of accountability, as I mentioned, for any of these errors that have occurred in the past.

We have what is perceived to be a culture of impunity, where individuals are not just not disciplined—or we don't hear about any disciplinary action—but they're, in fact, promoted within the service. It creates a sense within the communities at large that there is no accountability within the security agencies at present and that leads to a lack of trust.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Speaking of trust, we talked about the workplace culture issues that have been raised and the lawsuit going ahead against CSIS. One of the reasons I've asked the minister to investigate this is not just because of what's happening internally. I think you're saying the same things, but I just want to, perhaps, seek clarity there. It's not just what's happening internally but also what that might mean for how work is being done. In other words, if we're asking CSIS to engage with certain communities and this is the behaviour that's being seen internally, we have a reason to wonder whether this is what's happening outwardly.

Would that be a fair assessment of the comments you're making?

[Faisal Bhabha]

That's exactly what we're submitting to you. If you read the statement of claim filed in Federal Court in July of this year, just a few months ago, and read the released investigation report, the third-party investigation report released in October of 2017—we're talking about very recent glimpses into the agency—what you will read there are very serious allegations about the culture.

We infer from this that if the culture inside is as bad as those individuals say it is...and this isn't us saying it is. This is what employees of the agency and an investigator said when looking at it. If it's that bad inside, how can we not assume that those same biases are informing the activities of the agency in its actual work? It would make no sense if it were any other way.

In terms of information sharing, that's deeply concerning because, as you heard, if those agencies are directing the no-fly list and other security designations and then sharing that with other countries around the world, we could potentially have lots of innocent Canadians having their reputations and freedoms severely damaged by their own government in relations with the rest of the world.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you.

My time is limited, so I just want to come to you, Mr. Khan, and first thank your organization for all the advocacy you do. As I've said to some of the other parents, it's hard enough to do that kind of advocacy, but I think it's even more challenging when it relates to a matter that affects your family and children, so thank you for that.

[Zamir Khan]

Thank you.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I have two questions I wanted to hear you on. The first is related to a notion that was raised in the press conference here on the Hill from one of the kids, who's not really much of a kid any longer. His name escapes me. Unfortunately, I don't have it in front of me at the moment. He was mentioning the issue for some of these children, when they become older, of potentially getting caught in this web of.... It's one thing when you have an infant, but if it's an 18- or 20-year-old man, then suddenly a false positive can become much more dangerous in terms of the consequences. I want to hear you on that first.

Secondly, what are your organization's concerns with what seems to be a very inflated number as to what the actual costs would be of implementing the redress system?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Please answer in a little less than 30 seconds.

[Zamir Khan]

Thank you.

On the first point, that was Yusuf Ahmed who spoke to that. Yes, it's reasonable to expect that as these young men become older, verifying the identity of a three-year-old is much different than verifying the identity of a 20-year-old, especially considering the profiles that are contained on these lists. These young men experience longer waits and greater scrutiny.

On the second point, I would state that we've already seen this program implemented south of the border. The U.S. didn't start with a redress system. They didn't start with a centralized government system. They started by delegating to airlines just like Canada did when the no-fly list was created. In 2007 they started the secure flight program, which is essentially what we're asking Canada to create. Their costs show to be very similar to what the government is projecting for this redress system.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Dubé.

Welcome to the committee, Mr. Elgazzar.

[Khalid Elgazzar, Lawyer, No Fly List Kids]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Spengemann, you have seven minutes, please.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

As–salaam alaikum, and welcome to the committee, Mr. Gardee.

It's great to see you again, Professor Bhabha.

I want to join my colleague Mr. Dubé in thanking Mr. Khan, in particular, who comes to us not only in the role of an advocate but also as a parent of a child who is directly impacted by the no-fly list.

Thank you, all four of you, for your advocacy, for your voices and for pushing us on issues that will ultimately result in better legislation and better institutions. I think it's quite clear to the committee that, from your perspectives, the status quo is not good enough, and I think, from my personal perspective—and I speak for others on the committee, I'm sure—we need to make changes. If we continue to go along the track that we are on right now, it is not working, and it is not the best Canadian answer that we can develop.

I want to seek some clarity from you, because in the beginning, there was some perception that there were differences in terms of what you'd like to achieve, and Professor Bhabha said we should just scrap the PPP altogether. If we had the U.S. equivalent, one for one, in front of us tomorrow, and it was operational, would that meet your concerns, and if so, to what extent?

We heard from other witnesses, from other members of the Muslim community but also other communities, that the U.S. redress system, stigmatizing as it may be, is at least functional. Do you agree with that?

[Faisal Bhabha]

Are you asking us?

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

I'm asking whoever would like to answer.

[Zamir Khan]

I would say, if we had the U.S. redress system here today, it would be a definite improvement over, as you said, the status quo that we have. I don't think anyone thinks that it is a perfect system, but it would definitely be a massive improvement over what exists today.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Gardee or Professor Bhabha...?

[Faisal Bhabha]

We would welcome any changes to improve what we currently have, but as you know, the stigmatizing effect of the list still needs to be weighed against the benefits of the list, and we await evidence of benefits.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

When I alluded to the issues of culture change, I think it's important that you hear that you're making us feel at some level, within the limits of our time together here this morning, the stigma that you're exposed to day after day, and I thank you for that.

Bill C-59 is one building block, as departmental officials and the minister have testified recently, in a three-step series to getting us where we would want to be with respect to an equivalent of the U.S. system. It provides the legal basis. There's a budgetary basis, as well, and ultimately, there's the construction of an IT-based system that would operate the redress system. The committee received testimony from the department that this is a complex exercise.

I appreciate your point, Mr. Khan, that there is software available that may well serve in some way in terms of solutions being integrated into the Canadian system ultimately, but there are complexities and there's not just one department involved. This is an exercise that cannot be undertaken and completed tomorrow.

It's also important, because there are youth involved and privacy issues, that data needs to be protected and that this is done in the right way. Would you agree that, if those are the right parameters to getting us to where we want to be, there isn't really, from a government side, an intermediate quick fix that would satisfactorily answer the concerns you bring us today?

[Zamir Khan]

I would agree that it will take time to build the redress system, that it is complex. I will agree with that. What I don't see is that the framework in Bill C-59 ensures that a redress system will ever be built. I would like to see in the legislation, just as the administrative process is outlined, that a watch-list cannot continue without redress. I don't see that currently.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

I think the committee would appreciate it—and I think you've alluded to it—if you would get us precise recommendations on the no-fly list in the form of actual language that you would want to see inserted into the bill, and that you provide it to us. I personally am confident that this government is committed and that the parameters are there. Through your advocacy efforts, I think you have the cross-party commitment that the budgetary component of that will be put into place to construct that system.

In the remaining couple minutes, I'd like to delegate some of my time to my colleague, Ms. Young. I would like to ask you about Canadian youth and the vulnerability of Canadian youth.

My colleague Mr. Paul-Hus referred to terrorist financing. The other source of energy for a terrorist organization is recruitment. Canadian youth are vulnerable—and not just Muslim youth but Canadian youth generally—to organizations like al Shabaab, Abu Sayyaf, and ISIS through recruitment.

Bill C-59 brings the Youth Criminal Justice Act into play through section 159, which basically says that, in the context of detention, as a preventative mechanism, young offender considerations have to be taken into account in counterterrorism work. Are there any other components to this bill that you want to raise or highlight with respect to the protection of Canadian youth, and could you comment very briefly on the importance of working with our Canadian youth to prevent radicalization?

You have about a minute or so.

[Ihsaan Gardee]

I will try to address that quickly and then I think my colleague, Professor Bhabha, would also like to jump in.

As we alluded to, in terms of the culture shift that's required to address some of these issues, part of the solution is looking at things like large-scale recruitment, training, and the promotion of minorities, including Muslims, within CSIS on an urgent basis. Another part of the solution is a thorough program of internal training, including audits to check progress, with the aim of implementing this culture shift within the service.

As it goes to the issue of recruitment, obviously, that is a significant concern. It's amplified by the fact that we have online recruitment and the rise of online hate as well.