Evidence of meeting #110 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th 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.
7:10 p.m.
Managing Director and General Counsel, Centre for International Governance Innovation
I have to guess that cabinet ministers take their oath seriously. I trust and respect that people who aspire to this office and members around this table who swear an oath are going to uphold it. I do think a cooling-off period is not a bad idea. I don't understand why we wouldn't want one. I haven't given it much thought, so I'll leave it there, but I think just instinctively it seems like a good idea to me.
7:10 p.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
It doesn't seem uncommon.
Mr. Shull, we often refer to the Australian registry, but we fail to mention that studies were done on the subject and that they were rather critical.
What have we learned from those studies and, given the Australian experience, what should we avoid doing?
7:10 p.m.
Managing Director and General Counsel, Centre for International Governance Innovation
I would say that you want two or three things. Number one is absolute crystal clarity. People need to know what's expected. They need to know what's required of them. Then there needs to be sharp and swift intervention if they don't. Right away, the absolutely worst possible outcome is that we work, we sit around this table, we set this thing up, and it does not do what it's meant to do. That is the biggest thing to avoid. That's why I'm glad we're having this conversation. I would say get it right, but get it out before the next election, whatever you do.
7:10 p.m.
Bloc
7:10 p.m.
Former Chief of the Asia-Pacific Desk, Canadian Security Intelligence Service, As an Individual
This is indeed a very important topic.
For your information, since Australia passed its law in 2017, there have been no formal prosecutions. As Mr. Shull mentioned, and I completely agree with him, there is a lack of clarity, a lack of clear and precise definition that enables law enforcement to properly investigate and ultimately lay charges. It also requires prosecutors with the backbone to proceed.
7:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Villemure.
We'll go now to Mr. MacGregor for two and a half minutes.
Go ahead, please.
7:10 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Mr. McSorley, when I was reading through this act, of course there's a lot of harmony between the various federal statutes that are being amended for a purpose. However, the one section that does stand out a little bit is the amendments to the Criminal Code, specifically on pages 35 and 36 of the bill. Clauses 60 and 61 amend the Criminal Code's definition of sabotage. In a previous round during this meeting, we heard testimony from the World Sikh Organization that there's a reference here to the safety or security of the naval, army, or air forces of any state other than Canada that are lawfully present in Canada. That could mean military attachés at an embassy.
They have said that in previous examples, the Indian government has tossed around spurious accusations about protests around their diplomatic missions, etc., and they're worried that this could be used to unfairly target certain groups. I did ask them if they were okay with it, because there is a “for greater certainty” clause here about how this would not apply for anyone who's participating in advocacy, protest or dissent and does not intend to cause any harms.
Do you have any thoughts you want to share with the committee on these specific amendments to the Criminal Code and anything that we might need to look at?
7:15 p.m.
National Coordinator, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group
Through the Chair, thank you very much for the question.
We have concerns about the amendments to sabotage.... It is good to see there is an exception being considered. We're concerned it may not go far enough. We know that when individuals engage in dissent, there are often accusations that they are going too far. We're worried that the way it's currently framed, especially with questions around what is meant by the intent to cause harm, could cause a chilling effect.
An example is a protest crossing a railway or going on a road that is used by emergency services. The intent is to protest. It may lead to the disruption of those services. The individuals may not intend that harm, but they know it could happen. They know, and everyone knows, an ambulance may want to pass and a train could be passing.
We're concerned about where the line will be drawn in terms of what is considered intent. Obviously, that's well defined by jurisprudence, but we're still concerned that it could lead to a chilling effect and result in individuals not participating in the exercise of their democratic right to protest and freedoms of expression and association.
7:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.
That wraps up our second round.
Mr. Kurek is concerned.
7:15 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
I have to go to another committee meeting that's starting momentarily.
7:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
I believe we're done.
Thank you all for your testimony.
Mr. Caputo wants us to talk about the schedule.
Witnesses, feel free to leave if you wish.
7:15 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Can you adjourn the meeting if this is just casual, because if you have to leave....?
7:15 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Let's adjourn, because I have to get to [Inaudible—Editor].