Evidence of meeting #95 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 csis.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:30 p.m.
Spokesperson, Ligue des droits et libertés
Yes. I'm not a lawyer, but he's a lawyer, and he thinks so.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you for that. You're going to have to work it in at some other point.
Who's next? Mr. Motz is first.
You have seven minutes, please.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Mirza, let me begin with you and your group. Thank you to both groups for being here today. It's appreciated by the committee.
Mr. Mirza, what would you add to Bill C-59 that you think is absolutely critical for public safety, balancing the need for privacy and rights?
12:30 p.m.
Chair, Board of Directors, Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association
Thank you, Mr. Motz.
As I indicated in my initial submission, I think that the government and the opposition should start to take a look at redoing the Customs Act. It is a piece of legislation that is significantly outdated with respect to the ability to review digital technology.
When you speak about balancing individual rights versus state interests, obviously we support measures that are going to protect Canada and provide us with a sense of greater security and safety. That said, all of us carry digital devices, including everybody who's in this committee. You all carry laptops. They contain the most sensitive information that you can imagine, and the Supreme Court has said that there can be no greater invasion of privacy than going through someone's digital device or laptop. Customs officers and CBSA officers who are there trying to protect the border need some guidance with respect to how far they can go in terms of searching someone's digital device. Right now, they have no guidance.
The legislation, particularly under section 99, essentially speaks to an era when we would have our luggage searched. Second, we would have our personal effects searched, and third, we would have our body searched as the suspicion level rose. Digital devices, however, are a whole different world, and we need the legislation to start catching up with the technology.
If you don't do that, I guarantee that there are going to be constitutional challenges to that legislation when individuals coming back have their devices searched. I suspect that the Supreme Court is going to say that there has to be a legal threshold there, and in the absence of that, you have a constitutional violation.
What's the appropriate threshold? You could start with as low as a reasonable suspicion, which is not very hard for a CBSA officer to satisfy. Essentially, they just have to articulate some grounds as to why they think the person is suspicious. A reasonable grounds threshold would be better, and even that's not very hard to satisfy. I know, sir, that from your policing background, you would be familiar with both of those thresholds.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you very much for your comments.
I have one last question before I pass it over to my colleague Mr. Paul-Hus to continue with my time. I'll ask it of the groups that are here in person.
We've been hearing that free elections in Canada and in other democratic countries are under threat from foreign influences. It is a concern to many that others can undermine our democratic institutions. The letter that you sent us was co-signed by Leadnow, and it has been reported that they received tens of millions of dollars in foreign funding to influence the 2015 Canadian election.
Do you feel that having them as a co-signatory undermines the message you have here for us today?
12:35 p.m.
Spokesperson, Ligue des droits et libertés
Pardon me; who received tens of million of dollars?
12:35 p.m.
Spokesperson, Ligue des droits et libertés
What does Leadnow have to do with this?
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
They co-signed the letter you sent to the committee.
12:35 p.m.
Spokesperson, Ligue des droits et libertés
The letter to what effect? Sorry, I'm a bit misled by the....
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I'm sure you are.
The information you sent to the committee had 29 signatories on it, yes?
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I'll talk offline with you afterwards about that, then.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
It's this letter you sent, and it has all the organizations that support the comments you're making. It was sent, not to the committee, but to Minister Goodale, Minister Wilson-Raybould, and Minister Hussen in September of 2017. That's the letter I'm referring to.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
To be fair to the witnesses, we'll suspend that question. I'll come back to you, but we'll have to take off some time.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Maybe the clerk could circulate the letter to the committee. Obviously the witnesses are confused by it. Meanwhile, we'll go with Mr. Paul-Hus.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Gentlemen, thank you for being here with us today.
Mr. Peschard, you mentioned in the introduction to your brief that changes obviously occurred after September 11, 2001. You also put the words "war on terror" in quotation marks. Do you feel there is no terrorism now, that we have no reason to fear terrorism?
12:35 p.m.
Spokesperson, Ligue des droits et libertés
That's not at all what that means. We acknowledge that terrorism does exist. We acknowledge that terrorism is a problem. However, we do not feel this is a war in the sense in which the word "war" is used in international law. We feel that terrorism is fundamentally a criminal activity in the same way as the activities of international drug trafficking networks and other similar groups and that the term "war" was used to dramatize the situation in the public's eyes, to arouse fear, and thus to permit the adoption of provisions that we think do not enhance our security but undermine our rights and freedoms.
Consequently, it was in that context and for that purpose that we put the word in quotation marks.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
So you basically think there is a scheme afoot to scare people and that potential terrorist actions do not exist?
However, there are examples of actions that have been taken and that have prevented terrorist acts in Canada and France. Do you think that was a fantasy?
February 6th, 2018 / 12:40 p.m.
Spokesperson, Ligue des droits et libertés
No, terrorism is not a fantasy, but if you consider the tragic events in which two Canadian soldiers were assassinated in separate events in Canada in fall 2014, and if you recall the way those events were described, you would have thought all of Canada was under attack, whereas that assessment was largely exaggerated.
In fact, it was used to promote the Anti-terrorism Act of 2015, on which Canadians agreed immediately after the attacks and on which they agreed less and less through the spring of 2015 as they increasingly became aware of what was in that statute.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
