Public Safety Committee on March 31st, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you very much.

Mr. MacGregor, the last slot of the opening round is yours. You have six minutes, sir.

Take it away.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Shaikh, I would like to start with you and continue on the remarks that you've made about grievances amongst individuals and some of these groups. In your opening statement you did say in the final paragraph that no amount of government legislation or criminal designation is going to suffice.

In your view if we are going to effectively tackle these grievances what kinds of recommendations would you like to see this committee make to the federal government that are outside the area of legislation or criminal designation? In what ways can the federal government effectively partner to tackle those grievances?

[Mubin Shaikh]

Thank you, sir.

I think the Canadian government has been doing a relatively good job on this front, especially with the Canada centre For Community Engagement, through which a lot of engagement with communities and social service organizations is being done. We in Canada actually avoided a major pitfall of some other projects along these lines in other countries where there were top-down, government-driven, prescriptive approaches to countering extremism and to dealing with these grievances. We instead went with a more collaborative approach. The Canadian government understood who were the social service organizations—activist groups included—that were doing the work on the ground with at-risk communities. It really generated organically an ability for these participants, whether in pre-existing social service agencies and organizations or, I'll call them, “community groups” or “activist groups” to actually begin to work together and off-load some of the challenges when it came to very young people, like children, young teenagers—even adults—to be able to deal with those grievances on a one-on-one basis.

Really, the recommendation I would just [Technical difficulty—Editor] for the government in general is just to keep working together with organizations that are already there on the ground doing this work and that have been doing this work for some time. We don't need to reinvent the wheel; we just need to get on the bike and ride.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

You mentioned that your organization, Parents for Peace, is testifying right now before the United States Congress on the subject of radicalization within, I think, the United States' armed forces.

We've had examples here in Canada, not only withing our military, but with our police. It's been revealed that some members of various Canadian police forces were donating to the illegal occupation of Ottawa, despite their role in society to serve and protect the communities in which they live.

In your view, how concerned should we currently be about radicalization in our military and police forces? What effective measures can we take to counter that radicalization?

[Mubin Shaikh]

That's an excellent question. Thank you for asking that.

I have my phone here on the side, watching the House of Representatives committee testimony happening at the same time.

It is definitely a real concern, especially when it comes to military members who have specialist information and capabilities. PTSD or other issues that develop as a result of their service could—for the very small number who could go on to become violent actors—make them very effective at what they're doing.

You will see as well.... Again, I don't want to say that I don't believe it is as pervasive a threat in the military, but you can see from the individuals whom we've been seeing speaking up from the military, very few of them actually come from the regular forces; most of them come from the reserve forces. I don't know if there's a cultural issue with that, but, again, I want to say that it is a real threat.

As for what we can do about it, there need to be internal discipline mechanisms not only for the Canadian forces to use, but also for police services to be using. I've been reading different articles that have been coming out in the media about police officers who were making video statements in support of the so-called convoy and have rightfully been reprimanded professionally because of their participation. We should strengthen the ability of police and military managers and supervisors to implement a disciplinary system in which they can hold individuals accountable.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Very quickly to Ms. Davis, you've talked about some of the gaps that we have in countering the financial aspect of this.

I'd like to hear your views on social media algorithms and how social media companies can sometimes monetize the hate on their platforms through advertising. They know that extremist content drives up viewership, which allows advertisers to reach more audiences.

Do you have any thoughts on the monetization of hate on social media platforms?

[Jessica Davis]

That's an excellent point.

It's not just the propagandists who are profiting from this; it's really the companies. We need to create some disincentives for them to not be able to make the kind of money that they're making from hateful and extremist content.

It's not a simple solution, but I think that this is where the conversation needs to go.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you very much. We owe you five seconds, Mr. MacGregor.

Let's move now to the second round of questioning. We'll start with Mr. Lloyd, who has five minutes. Sir, the floor is yours.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for coming today. We're seeing a definite theme in the testimony that extremism is on the rise—and this is not an exhaustive list—by way of anti-Semitic, Islamophobic and some anti-establishment rhetoric.

However, what I haven't heard about is two cases that are also concerning to me. The first is a rise in environmental extremism. One case in point is the recent attack at the Coastal GasLink site, where extensive damage was done to property and traumatizing workers on that site.

The other case was in my own community. It was one of many communities last summer that endured attacks against places of worship, including the iconic St. Jean Baptiste church in Morinville, which was burned to the ground shortly after Canada Day.

I'm wondering if you could comment, Ms. Davis, on these extremists trends and what are you seeing in relation to them.

[Jessica Davis]

The Coastal GasLink example, in particular, is troubling, mostly because it rose to quite a bit of property destruction and, potentially, some injuries to individuals involved.

One of the issues that we face in Canada writ large across the terrorist and extremist landscape is a lack of application of our laws evenly across the ideological spectrum. This in the IMVE space has led to a certain sense of impunity for some of those actors.

In terms of a resolution to this issue, we need to encourage resources, particularly investigative resources, to apply our laws across that political spectrum.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you.

You raise a really important point about a sense of impunity. Can you elaborate on that?

In the Coastal GasLink example and the church burning example, a lot of the suspects or the perpetrators still haven't been caught or tried. I did some research and a couple of perpetrators have been placed under house arrest. Their charges and trials are ongoing.

Can you elaborate on the idea of the sense of impunity that you raised?

[Jessica Davis]

To a certain extent this relates to Mr. MacGregor's question about police officers, particularly, who were donating to the convoy.

In the IMVE space, there's been a real sense that a lot of these actors can get away with it, particularly because there is, to a certain extent, some radicalization in police and the military. It creates a sense that they're not going to face any consequences. I think this is true for those police officers who donated to the convoy. It might be true in some other aspects of political violence in Canada.

We've been very focused on the jihadist threat for a very long time. I think we're starting to see some broadening out amongst our law enforcement security services to address other types of threats, but I'm not sure we're where we need to be yet.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

I appreciate that.

Something that really struck me about your and Mr. Shaikh's testimony is that while we're not there yet, we seem as a country to have become very adept at disrupting organized groups. I think that's why we're seeing more of these sort of lone wolf attacks.

I'm not sure if, in the church-burning cases, this was an organized thing. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that.

When we're seeing these lone wolf attacks, these people aren't just coming out of nowhere. They're being developed in an environment.

Can you comment on the political environment they're rising out of?

Thank you.

[Jessica Davis]

This relates very much to the way I see an IMVE threat in Canada and globally. I don't see it as focused on groups. I see it much more as loose movements and a set of ideologies. I think this actually applies across that political spectrum for IMVE actors depending on whatever it is they're attacking. We tend to not see those organizational structures.

This impacts our ability to investigate those actors. I prefer the term “lone actor” because “lone wolf” tends to glorify the actors themselves a little bit.

Without that structure it makes it more difficult to combat the threat. It's not impossible. There's been really important work done, particularly by CSIS, my former organization, on indicators and mobilization to violence, but it is an ongoing challenge.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move to Ms. Damoff, who will have a five-minute block.

The floor is yours.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

My first question is for Mr. Shaikh.

You mentioned the Canada Centre and the good work they were doing. I know they do the good work they do on a shoestring budget.

I'm wondering if you think the federal government should be providing more funding to it.

[Mubin Shaikh]

Yes, absolutely.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Awesome. That was the response I thought I would get.

My second question is for Ms. Campana.

You mentioned algorithms in your opening remarks. We hear a lot from the social media companies about the proprietary nature of algorithms.

I wonder if you believe the federal government should have additional regulations so social media companies are more accountable and transparent when it comes to algorithms.

[Aurélie Campana]

Definitely.

The emergence of echo chambers has given rise to a problem: digital platforms overall make it easier for individuals to adhere to beliefs, even causes. In fact, platforms do more than just allow for a message to be shared; they dictate that the message be shared, using recommendation algorithms—which are purported to know what users like—to edit, select and customize the message.

You may have noticed that, when you shop online for a pair of shoes, when you open your browser a few hours or days later, Google shows you ads with different pairs of shoes. It's exactly the same thing for extremist ideologies. If you start visiting certain sites on Twitter, Facebook and other social media, going forward, you will always see similar beliefs promoted and that will help crystallize those beliefs.

Digital platforms contribute to something else: they fuel rumours that are sometimes, but not always, based on conspiracy theories. Those rumours are especially appealing to people who have certain questions, sometimes legitimate ones—in connection with the COVID‑19 health measures, for instance. After repeated exposure to much more sophisticated conspiracy theories that are explained in simple, but understandable, terms, people can get drawn in by groups and individuals who are promoting extremist ideologies online.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I appreciate the explanation. You do feel that we should be bringing in further regulations of this, then?

[Aurélie Campana]

Yes, absolutely.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I see. Thank you.

Ms. Davis, thank you so much for being here today. The “CSIS Public Report 2020” talked about how the pandemic had exacerbated xenophobic and anti-authority narratives, many directly and indirectly impacting national security.

I'm wondering if you have seen the pandemic influencing how IMVE is funded?

[Jessica Davis]

That's an interesting one.

The broader trend of the pandemic pushing people more online has very likely increased the funding of those influencers. They're spending more time on line. People are spending more time donating money to different causes across the different political spectrums and for different ideas, so I think that's part of what's been happening and why we've seen so many influencers achieve such incredible amounts of wealth.

For the actual attacks by IMVE actors, a lot of that is the same, so they're still doing a lot of self-financing, low-level, low-cost attacks, and this is very likely in part because our counterterrorist financing policies have been somewhat effective at driving actors to those types of low-cost attacks.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I only have a minute left, Ms. Davis.

What changes should the government make when it comes to funding, whether it be crowdfunding or other issues? What kinds of changes should we be making to restrict funding for IMVE?

[Jessica Davis]

This gets into a tricky situation in terms of freedom of expression and allowing people to say what they will online. I think we might be on firmer ground if we look to restrict the ability of individuals to raise funds from hateful content, ensuring that financial technology companies, social media platforms, enforce their own terms of service and that they don't let people create these giant platforms where they're making hundreds of thousands of dollars by basically spreading hate.