Evidence of meeting #24 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 recording is available from Parliament.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
The last six-minute slice of question time in this round, the last round, goes to Mr. MacGregor.
Go ahead, sir.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Fadden, for joining us.
I very much agree with you. I think we need more dialogue in this country, and I have actually noticed an improvement in our politics since we started getting off of Zoom and interacting with each other in person. It has definitely helped to see our colleagues from all parties again.
With regard to what you were talking about, we had a very interesting witness last week, Mr. McAleer, who is a former white supremacist who reformed himself and started an organization called Life After Hate, where he uses his personal knowledge of the white supremacy movement to reach out to people who are in that movement to help them get out. I was asking him about the challenge we have as policy-makers where on one hand we as the public want to denounce hateful ideology, but on the other hand we want to try to reach out to an individual. He was talking to us about how that can be extremely difficult, because when a person's identity and ideology become intertwined so they are one in the same, when you are denouncing their ideology, that person feels that their identity is being attacked.
Following Ms. Dancho's line of questioning, it is important that we set a model of dialogue in our politics, but Mr. McAleer also said that while we never condemn, we also never concede. I'm wondering about your thoughts on that, because I think there's also a responsibility for our political leaders not to set an example that is encouraging that type of behaviour. I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on that approach and if you can further elaborate on those concepts.
12:30 p.m.
As an Individual
It's a good question. I had not thought about that. It seems to me that it goes back some degree, though, to what I was saying a moment ago, which is that, broadly speaking, these national security or serious crime issues are not things that we want to talk about, period, in this country. We just don't talk about them. I supported ministers over the years, and they would do virtually anything to avoid having to deal with a national security issue because there's no win in it. You can't win in national security; it's just not possible. You're irritating somebody somewhere.
It seems to me that the beginning of what you're talking about is talking about these things positively and negatively. I don't know how that's going to be possible, because, if you'll forgive me for saying so, the political environment in Parliament today is very, very partisan. Anybody who takes an initiative slightly off the beaten path is susceptible to being beaten about the head, if you'll forgive me for saying so.
I'd argue, as somebody who's worked in this area for a long time, that national security should be an area where there's less partisanship. We've seen this come and go over the years, but there's a real real risk in doing this, and I think that if you don't create a bubble around people who are trying to do this, it isn't going to work. If you can't do it, then who can is the next question for you political leaders. I think there are other leaders in society who are amenable to doing this.
I continue to believe that the universities have a role in this sort of thing today, but as I was perhaps unwisely saying, political correctness is preventing much discussion now about some of these issues.
I'm not doing a very good job at answering your question, and I apologize, but it just seems to me that more discussion, generally, with some protection for somebody who's willing to take a little bit of a risk would be a good place to start.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
I want to follow up on your comment about our taking as a starting position avoiding regulating the Internet as much as possible. I think that's a smart place to start from, but in identifying the harm, I took a look at the website BitChute this morning, and there are all manner of.... You just go down a rabbit hole when you look at some of the videos that are on there. I guess the problem is that, yes, a lot of what's on the Internet is awful, but it's lawful, and the problem is when that stuff leads to something physical, when someone takes their cues from those videos and acts upon them.
We've had a lot of witnesses talk about deplatforming individuals and trying to cauterize the wound to isolate them. Do you take the view that sunshine is the best disinfectant to expose these people as much as possible, or is it best to try to isolate the people who are causing the most harm, as some of our witnesses have suggested, through the agency of deplatforming them?
12:35 p.m.
As an Individual
I think the light of day is always the best place to start; I really do. Having said that, there are provisions in the law now that allow the government to go to the courts and to seek orders suppressing various platforms and whatnot. I don't think that's been used very much, and I think that to some degree it is a cultural issue. It's a new way of doing things. It's a bit risky, and anybody or any minister who authorizes this is taking the risk that he'll be accused of really not protecting constitutional rights.
I would it's say it takes the light of day, some dialogue and, if need be, suppression— but suppress as precisely as you possibly can.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Thank you very much.
That is all the time we have for this panel, which is too bad, because I'm sure we could have gone on for a very long time. Maybe there'll be other occasions when we can continue this very important conversation.
Thank you to the witnesses for taking your expertise and putting it in such digestible form for the committee.
Colleagues, we now take a very short break.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Sameer Zuberi Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
On a point of order, during testimony over the two sessions today and the last committee hearing, I've heard the terms “Islamic terrorism” and “Islamic extremism” used. I know there's no bad faith or ill intent when people use them, but we do have a term that is used now by government and CSIS, which is “religiously motivated violent extremism”. Although we are coming to a close on this particular topic, I'd ask that in the future we do stick with that terminology.
Thank you.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Jim Carr
Fair enough. Thank you.
We will now break for a very few minutes and then resume.
Members who are connected through the Zoom platform, please use the in camera link and password that was provided to you by email.
We'll take a very short break. We'll come back in camera in just a few minutes.
Thank you.
[Proceedings continue in camera]