Public Safety Committee on June 16th, 2021

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you.

I think this meeting here today and the focus there's bee nationally on this issue maybe means that the time is right to at least enforce that as a national priority, or to convince the public, the provinces and other jurisdictions that it is so. Thank you for that view.

As for the Internet, I think we all agree that it is is a monster that's been unleashed, for good reasons in part, but has shown lots of bad, unintended effects. What do we have to do to specifically to make sure that YouTube and the other vehicles of this this can be controlled?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

It's an important question, but Mr. Harris is out of time.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

There may be another chance.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Indeed, there may be another chance.

I notice that Mr. Farooq has returned.

With that, we're going to have Mr. Kurek for five minutes.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Let me start by simply saying thank you, again, to the witnesses. It's powerful testimony and an important part of this very important discussion. Just to emphasize, in your opening statements, both of you alluded to the fact that no one should be at risk and that all Canadians deserve to feel at home in our country. Certainly I hope that message is something that rings true, not just on this committee, but across this country; and that needs to be the case, and we need to work to get to that point.

I have a few questions I hope to get to. I would just ask both witnesses to comment on the security infrastructure grants that are available. I know that the Province of Alberta recently announced something, and a number of other provinces have done something similar. It's very important, but it is treating a symptom. Do you have further comments on how those programs could be effective in ensuring that the organizations and the people whom you both represent are protected and are able to feel safe in our country?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Farooq, maybe you want to take that, given that you have been absent.

[Mustafa Farooq]

Absolutely, and I apologize. I think my Wi-Fi just cut out, so my apologies.

I think the security infrastructure program is important. Obviously it is addressing a need, and in an ideal world we wouldn't have to have a security infrastructure program, but while there remains the need, I think there are a number of critical, key things that need to be done to fix the security infrastructure program.

First of all, the security infrastructure program does not operate effectively as a prophylactic tool. In other words, one generally has to demonstrate a risk of hate-motivated crime. Often that tends to come up once you've experienced a hate-motivated crime. Mosques across the country don't typically end up applying to the security infrastructure program, or they have to go through something first before applying for it, at which point it's far too late.

I think a second key area in which the security infrastructure program needs to reform is in simplifying the process. I am sure all of you, as members, have had folks in your communities reach out to you to ask for help in applying for the security infrastructure program. Applying is an arduous, difficult task for communities that are already under threat, and I think it can be simplified.

I think the kinds of rebate suggestions that have been raised by colleagues are important ones. I think changing it so that it's more prophylactic, easier for communities under threat to access, are critical reforms that could improve the security infrastructure program. Of course, even with the difficulties that it already has, it's often oversubscribed, so I think looking at that is important.

I will say that we have had positive conversations with Public Safety, and our continuing conversations with them, I think, continue to make SIP work better. I look forward to seeing it continue to improve.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Fogel, would you have anything you want add to that?

[Shimon Koffler Fogel]

No, I'm good, and I'll yield some stuff up just so you can catch up on time.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

I appreciate that.

The point was made about the Internet and social media and the echo chambers, and certainly as a public figure I have experienced a little bit of the political side of that. I cannot imagine what some of you folks go through, having read some of the reports and whatnot.

The unique aspect is that this sort of activity and kind of lone wolf action can be prompted by activity on the Internet, and then there's the need to balance freedoms and civil liberties with ensuring that that hateful content is dealt with, and dealt with effectively. There is a tension there to ensure that this happens appropriately.

I am wondering, Mr. Farooq and Mr. Fogel, whether you could comment on the following. How, as parliamentarians, do we attempt to find that proper balance to ensure that we deal with the real issues, that there's clear action, but also respect the fact that we're a free country that values freedom of speech and that we find that appropriate balance that is so important?

Mr. Farooq, I would ask you that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

It's an important question, but the answer would require a Ph.D. Unfortunately, you're out of time.

With that, I'm going to turn to Mr. Lightbound for five minutes, please.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses as well.

I represent the riding where, unfortunately, the Quebec City mosque attack occurred on January 29, 2017. The mosque is in the heart of my riding.

I can tell you one thing: Quebec City's Muslim community was experiencing fear long before January 29, 2017. Groups like La Meute were behind a number of incidents. For example, group members would hand out cards at halal markets and in front of mosques. They wouldn't give their names, but they would tell people they were keeping an eye on them, watching them. They put a pig's head at the front door of a mosque. They were responsible for all kinds of incidents that contributed to a climate of fear, something no one in the country should have to experience because of their faith.

I don't think it was a lack of good faith on the police force's part. I just think it was a lack of training and awareness. Police likely did not have the necessary level of trust or the resources to properly support a community that very clearly felt threatened in its day-to-day activities. Unfortunately, the community still feels that way at times. I think that's true right across the country.

I want both Mr. Fogel and Mr. Farooq to talk about best practices police can apply to build trust with communities. Do you have any examples of things we can do at the federal level? You talked a bit about that in your opening statements, but I'd like you to elaborate.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Who is that for? Mr. Farooq or Mr. Fogel? Either one?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Farooq, you can go first.

[Mustafa Farooq]

Thank you.

This is an important question. I think there are a number of best practices that do need to be undertaken. Part of those best practices involve a lot of community listening and working with local communities in an authentic way. I mean if we look at the Quebec City police, for instance.... I remember, in 2019, the Quebec City police put forward the notion that hate incidents had significantly decreased. That wasn't true, and when we talked to folks, we were able to clarify quite quickly that they had calculated their statistics wrong in terms of the fact that hate crimes were much higher than what they said they were. When police agencies are working with local communities, when they're listening to local communities, when they're listening to those who are saying that we can't police our way out of this problem and that there needs to be a multifactorial approach while, of course, maintaining that there has to be a role for effective law enforcement, I think that's really when we start to come to solutions.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Go ahead, Mr. Fogel.

[Shimon Koffler Fogel]

I'm hesitant, but I'm going to be a little provocative over here.

Mustafa, if I get it wrong, then please tell me.

Here's part of the challenge. Different communities have different relationships and histories with law enforcement. When you ask how law enforcement, police services can play a more constructive or more effective role, the answer is going to be different based on the experience of a particular community. For Muslim Canadians who may have felt racially profiled, or for indigenous peoples, or for women who have felt that police have been generally dismissive, there's a first step that has to take place before everybody can be aligned in the same place to move forward. I think it's a really complicated question that speaks to the need for this to be assessed and managed at the granular level, which is why municipalities are so important to the solution.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

The federal government would play more of a coordinating role, as you said before.

How much time do I have, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have 30 seconds.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

I was about to go down the same road as Damien and ask you about the fundamental elements that we need to address when fighting online hate while balancing our rights, but I think that's too much to ask in 30 seconds.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

It is.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

I believe that brings the second round to an end.

We're now on to the third round, which is for 25 minutes. We have 10 minutes left, so I'm going to be a little arbitrary and cut it down to two minutes each, with one minute for the Bloc and the NDP.

Mr. Van Popta has two minutes and I notice that Mr. Motz is apparently taking the Liberal question. I imagine it's a little bit of a surprise to Mr. Motz and to the Liberals. If the Liberals could indicate to me who will be taking the first Liberal question, I would appreciate it.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

I'd be happy to ask it, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I'm sure you would, but everyone would have a bit of a heart attack.

Mr. Van Popta, you have two minutes, please.