Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 244
Christian Leuprecht
View Christian Leuprecht Profile
Christian Leuprecht
2015-05-28 8:59
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Distinguished committee members, thank you for having me. I will be pleased to answer questions in both official languages, but if I may, I will speak in English.
My presentation will have three parts.
The first is laying out why I think this particular issue we're dealing with today will continue to persist for years to come; why I sympathize with the measure; and why I think there are good ways of rationalizing this particular measure, both within the Canadian context and the comparative context.
Here's why this is going to be a persistent problem. I think there have been two fundamental changes that have brought this whole phenomenon much closer to home. Those are two revolutions.
One is the communications revolution, which has made it so much easier for people to get their twisted messages out. Everybody has a mobile phone. Aside from the ability to spread one's message in a way that would have been much more difficult a couple of decades ago, we also have what sociologists call the “filter bubble”. This phenomenon says that even though we have a very pluralistic social media universe, individuals are increasingly reading only the types of information that reinforces the biases and stereotypes they already hold. As people start to buy into this type of extremist narrative type of messaging—which that might cause them to engage in violence and travel abroad for either the purpose of committing violence, or joining an organization that the Government of Canada has decided is an organization we'd rather not have them join—I think that media communication is a major part of it.
The other is transportation. It's so much easier and cheaper today to get anywhere. For a couple of thousand bucks, you get on a plane in Edmonton and you fly to Istanbul and find your way to the border. If you think about a hundred years ago, if somebody immigrated to Canada they left everything behind. They maybe sent a letter or so back, but they wouldn't be thinking about going back. Staying in touch would be very difficult. I think these two fundamental revolutions have very much changed the game.
There's another element that I think is going to be a challenge for years to come with this phenomenon of extremist travellers, or “foreign terrorist fighters” as the UN calls them. It is the immense structural imbalances that afflict the countries that span from North Africa through to Pakistan, this arc of countries. It is the very high fertility rates that lead to severe demographic imbalances and very large youth bulges. If you look at a country such as Pakistan, you're going to have a 50% increase in their population over the next 40 years. These are recurring or replicable phenomena in most of the countries throughout the region, and yet we have social structures, economic structures, and political structures that are ill-adapted to this demographic growth.
In part, for instance, if you're smart and an ambitious young person, even if you try, it's very difficult for you to get a job because many of the economic structures and the state structures are so ossified you can't get a job unless you have all sorts of connections with senior elites, and whatnot. It's no wonder we have a large bulk of individuals in the region who are frustrated and who buy into extreme solutions and narratives not necessarily because they might be entirely convinced by the ideology being peddled, but because they're the one organization that gives them some hope of changing the circumstances in which they live.
What we've seen over the last 30 or so years, as a result, is what you might call the phenomenon of the globalization of terrorism. Previously we had domestic terrorism and we had international terrorism, both state terrorism and state-sponsored terrorism. What we've seen is this proliferation of this phenomenon of transnational terrorism and the narratives that go along with it, and now also the opportunity of ISIS, which has essentially turned the al Qaeda strategy on its head and deliberately tries to hold and control urban centres and lines of communication among these urban centres. If you wanted to join al Qaeda it was really hard. You had to get to Pakistan, and you had to find your way over to Waziristan. That was a dangerous trip and many people didn't make it. Now it's so easy to join these organizations.
While I think we can manage the ISIS phenomenon, it becomes a bit of a whack-a-mole game. As a result of these imbalances that I've laid out for you, I think instability and extremist-type narratives in these types of organizations are going to be a persistent problem for years and decades to come.
The challenge we have with people travelling abroad is going to be a persistent challenge. Sure, it dates back to the Spanish revolution and, as some of you might know, we still have the Foreign Enlistment Act on the books that was implemented at the time to dissuade individuals from going. We had this problem with German Canadians and Japanese Canadians during the Second World War. We had this challenge with some members of the Sikh community joining Babbar Khalsa, and with some members of the Tamil community joining the LTTE. As a result of these revolutions that I've laid out, this is a whole new world. It's no longer limited to particular ethnic or religious communities, because these narratives can speak to just about anybody.
As a result, what do we need? We need a much more nuanced tool kit for our security services. We've done a good job of focusing on what you might call “criminal pre-emption”, but we need to have a more nuanced tool kit in what my colleague Craig Forcese calls “administrative pre-emption”. Passport revocation is a very important component with regard to precision kinetic counterterrorist intervention, not for some mass community radicalization, whatever, talk, but rather targeting that small portion of individuals looking to travel abroad to engage with these organizations.
I might remind the committee that, of course, it's not just about adults travelling abroad. It's also about youth travelling abroad. I think the state has an obligation toward minors, toward people under 18, to intervene in ways that it might not with adults.
We also need to remember that these people will return. We know that about one-third of foreign fighters have returned. We know nine out of ten of them return deeply disillusioned and with serious mental health issues. And we know that about one out of ten—from is Thomas Hegghammer's study out of Norway, based on a sample of over 1,000—returns as a hardened ideologue.
One way or another, there are significant implications for Canadian society and for the Canadian taxpayer, if we don't engage in more effective administrative pre-emption.
Why do we need to do this? In itself, this will have a deterrent effect, if people understand that their passport may end up being revoked or they may not have one issued.
I think we also need to protect the integrity of the Canadian passport. As a result of incidents in central Asia and in north Africa, the Canadian passport in these regions is not treated now with the recognition and respect it had previously. So I think we need to be at the forefront of making sure we protect the Canadian passport as one of the most respected travel documents in the world.
I would like to finish on the premise that a passport is not an entitlement but more like a driver's licence. If you engage in conduct that clearly contravenes the collective interest, as Canadian society has outlined it, then you simply don't have the right to that particular document.
However, I might perhaps have one suggestion in closing that the committee might want to entertain. When we take people's drivers' licences, we don't take them forever, in most cases. We take them for a limited period of time. I wonder if the committee might want to consider some sort of a sunset clause built into the provisions here, whereby there is some obligation on the government to renew the provision of either not issuing a passport or renewing the revocation of that particular passport. Moreover, if we do have a permanent revocation of somebody's document, we need to make sure that we have an administrative procedure that independently confirms the assessment by the minister and by our law enforcement and security agencies that this individual's actions are so severe that they need to have that document essentially revoked for a lifetime. That would be the caveat that I might introduce.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you for your attention.
View Steven Blaney Profile
CPC (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I was saying, the Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act aims to clarify the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, in other words to confirm that CSIS has the capacity to act outside the country and to exchange information with our allies, which is especially important in the context of individuals who travel outside the country for terrorist purposes.
This first element provides legal clarification. It confirms the existing power of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to carry out activities abroad and to protect its informers and its employees.
This was the first significant law, but there were gaps to be filled, which is why our government introduced a second bill in 2015 dealing with our anti-terrorism measures, in order to provide tools to not only the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, but also the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other departments and federal organizations to break this silo culture that exists in federal agencies when it comes to sharing information on national security.
The measures that were passed yesterday in the House of Commons and that will soon go before the Senate will enable the government to reduce the threat specifically in the case of jihadist terrorist activities before they manifest themselves. We will be able to intervene at the start of the process, particularly in the context of radicalization, for instance, by criminalizing the promotion of terrorism in general and by being able to shut down websites containing terrorist propaganda. Obviously, we are going to prevent radicalized individuals from leaving Canada to take part in terrorist activities. We are well aware of the growing number of Canadians who may wish to leave the country to commit terrorist acts.
I also want to point out that in the 2015 budget, which was tabled just a few weeks ago, our government is committing to increasing national security resources by close to $300 million, especially for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as well as the Canada Border Services Agency.
Another important thing to note in the budget is that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service watchdog, the review committee, will see its budget doubled in order to enhance its surveillance of our security agency.
The third bill, the common sense firearms licensing act, as you know, will provide safe and sensible firearms policies for Canadians. You have reviewed this bill already.
The goal is simple. As you know, it's to remove red tape while keeping Canadians safe from gun crime. As Greg Farrant of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters said, this bill:
...proposes reasonable amendments to...the Criminal Code that make sense, that eliminate red tape, and introduce additional public safety measures. It does not make guns easier to get. It does not allow firearms owners to transport them at will wherever they want, and it does not put guns in the hands of the “wrong people”.
On the contrary, Mr. Chairman, as you know, anyone who is convicted of domestic violence will see their licence removed. We are also reinforcing the capability for the CBSA to exchange information with the RCMP so that we have better control and can restrict the importation, particularly in the case of illegal firearms. We are making mandatory training for anyone who is willing to possess or acquire a firearm.
There was a major development over the winter in our relationship with the Americans in terms of reinforcing our security measures and the fluidity at the border as part of the “Beyond the Border” agreement.
I had the privilege of signing a customs pre-clearance agreement with the U.S. Secretary of State, Jeh Johnson, in Washington. It was one of the pillars of the “Beyond the Border” agreement, and we have now accomplished this important step. I tabled the agreement before Parliament when I returned from Washington.
The agreement is based on the success of existing pre-clearance operations. It has been around for over 60 years in the airline industry. These operations paved the way for customs pre-clearance for land, rail and maritime transport. So it is an important step that will help us improve the fluidity of transportation and movement of goods and people at the border, while reinforcing security mechanisms.
As part of our efforts to protect Canadians from violent crime, we recently introduced the life means life act to ensure that a life sentence means life in prison.
As you can see, our government has one priority, which is to keep Canadians safe. This has been a consistent theme for our government since we were elected in 2006. This commitment to protecting Canadians is reflected in the main estimates for 2015-16.
The total amount that you are studying this morning is $8.5 billion for the fiscal year. This is an increase of about 1% in expenditures over last year. I would like to provide you with the key points.
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service is requesting $537 million for 2015-16 to ensure national security. The Canada Border Services Agency is seeking a total of approximately $1.8 billion, an increase of 2.2%. Mr. Portelance will be able to explain how he intends to invest those amounts. There are major capital projects to improve the physical facilities and to enable a faster flow of passengers through our border crossings.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is at the heart of our plan and plays an important role in managing border security. With the $2.6 billion requested for the fiscal year, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police will continue to integrate its commitments when it comes to implementing legislation related to cross-border activity within the “Beyond the Border” agreement signed by President Obama and our Prime Minister Harper.
As you know, the Correctional Service of Canada contributes to public safety by making sure that the correctional system actually corrects criminal behaviour. To perform this vital function, the Correctional Service of Canada is seeking total funding of approximately $2.4 billion for the coming fiscal year. This represents an increase of approximately 1% over the last fiscal year.
My colleague who is with me today, Mr. Guimond, is the Deputy Minister of Public Safety. He coordinates all public safety operations with the agencies, but also those that relate to natural disasters. He is seeking funding of approximately $1.2 billion for the 2015-16 fiscal year, which is an increase of 2.5% over the previous fiscal year.
It is worth noting that this request from Public Safety Canada is an increase of $86.4 million, but that it affects the disaster financial assistance arrangements, so that in 2015-16 we expect to transfer $848 million to the provinces that were hit with natural disasters. These amounts will make it possible to meet existing and future obligations to communities seriously affected by flooding and other natural disasters.
Mr. Chair, you will probably remember that in January, our government announced a modernization of the disaster financial assistance agreement, which adjusts the eligibility threshold to take into account inflation and ensure the program's financial viability. This also includes additional measures for the national disaster mitigation program. The goal is to support the provinces in their projects to reduce the impact of natural disasters.
It is also important to keep in mind that the fixed maximum rate of 90% for large-scale disasters is maintained. Our government is there to help. In early April, I invited the provinces to submit projects to reduce natural disasters and their impact, especially with respect to flood risks. It may include measures and studies relating to flood areas.
To conclude, I am pleased to present to you today an impressive track record realized by our agencies. I will be pleased to answer your questions. Obviously, these are large amounts, but they are necessary to ensure the safety of Canadians. I would like to assure you that this money is being well used by the representatives of our agencies. I would like to congratulate them on the important work they have done over the year, during which they have been particularly called upon, and I'm thinking about what happened just a few metres from here.
Thank you.
Marvin Kurz
View Marvin Kurz Profile
Marvin Kurz
2015-03-26 18:33
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
B’nai Brith is Canada’s largest membership-based Jewish organization. Through its League for Human Rights and Institute for International Affairs, it is the premier advocate of human rights for Canada's Jewish community.
In its submission today, B’nai Brith Canada will focus on one aspect of Bill C-51, that related to the creation of an offensive promotion of terrorism, seizure of terrorist propaganda, and deletion of terrorist propaganda from computer systems.
Our position is in favour of those aspects of Bill C-51, subject to some recommendations for amendments that will help ensure that the provisions are not seen to suffer from problems of vagueness and overbreadth, which may negatively protect the constitutionality of the bill.
My colleague, Mr. Matas, will speak at greater length regarding our recommendations for the actual amendments.
For now I'd like to briefly offer an overview explanation of how we came to the point of supporting the terror propaganda provisions that we are speaking of. In doing so, I point to the context of the Jewish community's vulnerability to hate propaganda throughout the world and particularly here in Canada, the tie between hate and terror, and the context of our anti-hate propaganda legislation.
In our paper we refer to what you all know, that is the recent spate of terror activities in Canada, those actually caught by our investigative authorities before they could be carried out, those that have actually been carried out, and those that are yet to come, including the future behaviour of Canadian children brainwashed to join jihadist groups abroad.
For our community, one part of the hidden context of so much terrorist activity is the fact that the most powerful terrorist groups are now the foremost hate groups as well, with ISIS, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, and Hamas supplanting the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nations, and the Heritage Front as leaders of the hate movement. These are organizations whose raison d'être focuses in large measure on zealous anti-Semitism.
We know of the terror activities aimed at Jews in France, the Hyper Cacher supermarket slaughter tied to the Charlie Hebdo attacks; the 2012 murders at a Jewish school in Marseilles; the recent murder in Copenhagen of a young Jewish guard at a synagogue, who was protecting 100 people there for a bat mitzvah; the attacks on a Jewish-owned shopping mall in Kenya in 2013; and the attack on a Mumbai religious centre as part of a larger terrorist attack in 2008.
In each of these activities I'm talking about, in each of these crimes, Jews were singled out for attack purely for reasons of hate. There was no other strategic reason to attack these innocents.
In Canada, the Jewish-owned West Edmonton Mall, along with Jewish-owned malls worldwide, was at the centre of a terror threat by al Shabaab. What hasn't been made really clear is that the reason the West Edmonton Mall, as opposed to say the Yorkdale Shopping Centre, was centred out was that it is Jewish owned. The Ghermezians own the mall as well as some of the other malls that were mentioned. The only malls that have been threatened are Jewish-owned malls.
These terror threats come in the context of a worldwide increase in anti-Semitism. Our B’nai Brith audit of anti-Semitic incidents shows that in 2013 vandalism against Jewish targets was up 21.6% and violence, 7.7%. We're awaiting the 2014 numbers, which we expect to be far higher as they have been in Europe, for example, where there has been a 100%, a doubling, of anti-Semitic incidents in France; 60% in Belgium; 50% in Britain; and 33% in Australia. These figures are all in our paper.
Canadian law in the form of a series of Supreme Court of Canada decisions has frequently confirmed the propriety of legal limitations on hate speech, recognizing the tie between hate speech and hate crimes. We say that the tie between speech and action or crime is even greater in the case of the promotion of terror, which is why we support the provisions of Bill C-51 that we are supporting, subject to the caveats that my colleague, Mr. Matas, will now speak of.
David Matas
View David Matas Profile
David Matas
2015-03-26 18:38
Thank you. I will speak specifically about proposed changes to Bill C-51.
In general, as you've heard, we're in favour of the advocacy and promotion of terrorism becoming an offence. We would like to see, and we appreciate through Bill C-51, a re-equilibration of the balance between freedom of speech and protecting victims of terrorism in light of the enhanced terrorist threat with which the planet in general and Canada in particular have been confronted.
There are three specific suggestions we have that we believe are consistent with the spirit of the bill.
One is to import a defence for the offences of promotion or advocacy, which already exist for the offence of promotion of hatred. The Criminal Code now provides that no person shall be convicted of wilful promotion of hatred who, in good faith, intended to point out for the purpose of removal, matters tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group. Something similar should be drafted for the offences of advocacy and promotion of terrorist activity.
Second, the proposed offences prohibit promotion and advocacy of terrorism offences in general without indicating what those offences are. We assume that this phrase “terrorism offences in general” refers to those offences found in section 83.01 of the Criminal Code, but whether this assumption is correct or not, the phrase “terrorism offences in general” should be defined so it is clear which offences are intended.
Our third suggestion relates to the consent of the Attorney General. For clause 16 of the bill, the seizure of terrorist propaganda and their deletion from computer systems requires the consent of the Attorney General. However, prosecution for promotion or advocacy of terrorism does not require that consent, and the absence of consent means that private prosecution is possible. We are reluctant to endorse the possibility of private prosecution for speech offences because our experience has been that once that sort of prosecution becomes possible, it is used for frivolous purposes to harass those with whom the private prosecutor disagrees.
While frivolous prosecutions are inevitably dismissed, it's no small matter to be dragged through the criminal courts, even if the result is acquittal. Attorneys General, we realize, have the power to direct a stay of private prosecutions, but mobilizing any Attorney General to exercise that power takes time and effort; and criminal private prosecutions, unlike civil lawsuits, do not allow for the awarding of costs against the unsuccessful prosecutor.
A requirement of the Attorney General's consent has, we acknowledge, its own problems. The relevant Attorneys General for these offences are the provincial Attorneys General, except for the territories. Our experience with the offence of wilful promotion of hatred has been that some Attorneys General were most reluctant to consent to prosecution of this offence, even in clear-cut cases. So we would suggest, in addition to the requirement of Attorney General consent, that there be guidelines for the use of that consent. In our written materials, we suggested several guidelines, but just as suggestions. The guidelines could be policy instruments of the Government of Canada, which they could publish after the legislation is enacted, and a committee could recommend that the government draft these guidelines. Alternatively, the legislation itself could incorporate these guidelines, somewhat like the sentencing guidelines already in the Criminal Code.
Well, that's all I wanted to say, but I just would conclude by saying that our general approach, both in proposing the requirement of Attorney General consent and suggesting guidelines is that a law criminalizing advocacy or promotion of terrorism should not be too easy to invoke, but it should not be a dead letter either.
Thank you very much.
Marvin Kurz
View Marvin Kurz Profile
Marvin Kurz
2015-03-26 19:16
What we're seeing now is that the tie between terror and hate is much closer than it has been in the past. We're advocating that in endorsing, in the way that we have, the provisions dealing with terror propaganda, subject to the caveats that we've mentioned, it is a recognition of the fact that terror and hate are close together and that the same principles that apply with regard to hate—that is, that one can use hate propaganda to inspire hate crimes—can apply to terrorist activity as well.
That's why the same principles can apply to terror speech as well—and we believe they should—but again, subject to some of the protections that apply in terms of balancing needs for free speech and the protection of the community against that kind of very problematic and we believe criminal expressive activity.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you to all our witnesses for coming.
I'll start with you, Mr. Matas.
You mentioned—and I'll quote from your brief—that private criminal prosecution for speech, which the current bill allows, is an even greater potential threat to freedom of expression than private civil human rights complaints. No other witnesses brought that forward. I've been trying to find in the bill where that happens. I understand entirely your concern about frivolous complaints and how that can be a real problem.
What's it related to in the bill, and how do you propose to fix it, if I can put it that simply?
David Matas
View David Matas Profile
David Matas
2015-03-26 19:18
In the bill it's in clause 16, and clause 16 basically has three components. One of them is adding in proposed section 83.221 to the Criminal Code, and that proposed section 83.221 sets out an offence. That offence does not require the consent of the Attorney General for the prosecution.
Generally, when there is no requirement for consent of the Attorney General, that means a private prosecution is possible. I can read it to you. It's proposed subsection 83.221(1). It says: “Every person who, by communicating statements...”.
You can see throughout the bill.... For instance, if you go down to proposed section 83.222, which talks about seizure, if you look at proposed subsection 83.222(7), it requires the consent of the Attorney General—so seizure requires consent. If you look at proposed section 83.223, which is about cleaning out computers, it requires the consent of the Attorney General in proposed subsection 83.223(9).
But in this one about prosecution, I've actually talked to somebody in the government about this, and it may simply have been a drafting oversight because they didn't see any reason for it.
Ray Boisvert
View Ray Boisvert Profile
Ray Boisvert
2015-03-26 9:25
Cyber-threats are one of those issues that's probably best addressed in terms of the issue of radicalization, because I really think that's apropos for Bill C-51.
Getting at the messages of hate is very, very important. I don't blame the Internet for radicalization, but I see it as being a very important vector for all that activity. The problem is that it's transglobal, it's amorphous, it is ubiquitous. The Internet is everywhere.
The bill will help to some degree when the content is stored within Canada. I think it will be a very effective tool to get that material off the Internet. When servers are parked in other parts of the world, in other jurisdictions, it would be very, very difficult. Then it will come down to perhaps some other active measures to get at that data—maybe take down that server—but then there's the complexity of action.
Raheel Raza
View Raheel Raza Profile
Raheel Raza
2015-03-25 18:47
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the standing committee. Good evening—and I will be brief.
I'm honoured by the privilege of being here tonight as president for the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow.
My organization supports the general drift of Bill C-51, and we thank the government for taking Islamism—political Islam, as we call it—as a clear and present danger in the world and specifically in Canada.
We are also grateful that the government shares our concerns, first, to rationalize the sharing of security information within government, and second, to make sure that air travel is safe for passengers and is not used for terroristic purposes. Third is that the government make an attempt to limit terrorist propaganda, which is embedded in the language of political Islam and is spread through some individuals, some Islamic organizations, and some pulpits. I'm sure you are aware that this has had an extensive impact on Canadian-Muslim communities and especially our youth. Fourth is the fact that the government recognizes the value of disruption in countering terror threats.
As an aside, let me mention that I have just flown in directly from Florida, U.S.A., where I was speaking to some very politically charged Americans about radicalization and terrorism. When I mentioned Bill C-51 and our Prime Minister's stance on recognizing the problem, I was surprised to get a standing ovation. You may know that to the south of us, they can't even use the word “Islamist” and “terrorism” in the same sentence, let alone do something about it.
This is to say that the world has its eyes on Canada, so that we don't become another Europe, where the problem of extremism has exploded in such a way that it seems practically impossible to reverse the tide. When I picked up today's National Post, I was delighted to read the quote from Stephen Harper saying, “Canadians did not invent the threat of jihadi terrorism and we certainly did not invite it, nor...can we protect [our country or] our communities by choosing to ignore it.”
I think that that says a lot for our Prime Minister.
Speaking on a personal note as an immigrant to Canada in December 1988 with my husband and two sons, the only motivation we had to face life, and of course the harsh winters that come with it in Canada, was that we were escaping from the government of General Zia-ul-Haq in Pakistan, who was slowly shaping the same ideology that today has undone Pakistan. Unfortunately, now we see that same ideology being imported into Canada.
Way back in 2000, I started writing articles warning Canadian Muslims about the dangers of radicalization, especially among the youth, who were confused with nowhere to go between the mosque and the mall for answers to their questions. They had all the prerequisites of fodder for Islamic mercenaries looking for victims to brainwash.
Let me retract there for a second. The word is “Islamist”, and not “Islamic”; I want to keep a very clear distinction between the spiritual Islam and political Islam, which is “Islam” and “Islamism.”
These youth had grievances, both real and imagined, and the burgeoning number of recruiters offered an ideology they could latch on to. If needed, they would doubtless have foreign funding to support their nascent extremist viewpoints. That is when we realized that Wahhabism, Salafism—that ideology—had found its way into Canada.
You may ask, what is that ideology? We, as Muslims loyal to Canada and holding Canadian safety and security as our top priority, are not new to this game and we have been tracking the rise of extremism in Canada for a very long time. Radicalization and extremism are not always overt, and the kind of battle we are waging today is an ideological battle, which means that it can't always be fought with weapons.
It's with this reference that I have an essay that was published by the Mackenzie Institute—it's quite a coincidence that they are here—and written by me about four years ago.
It outlines the rise of Islamist terrorism in Canada as I have seen it unfold in the past 28 years. I think you will find that it covers much of what is being discussed here and our concerns about the scale of the threats—radicalism, extremism, and terrorism in Canada—and this does not even begin to address the current issues posed by ISIS and how it is recruiting our children to its own cause.
I have to apologize, as this is not in the two official languages, but at the time of publication that was not a requirement. I would humbly request that this document be tabled as part of my presentation—I have 12 copies here—because it speaks to why I am here tonight and why, along with some other organizations and individuals, we are dedicating our time and effort to support Bill C-51.
Regarding specifically Bill C-51, I would like to take the liberty of offering that we also see some weaknesses as well as its overarching strengths. I am not a legal expert by a long shot, but my work as a community activist and a basic understanding of the bill suggest this.
The proposed granting to CSIS, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, of the power to disrupt is a challenging thing. In defence of the government, it can be said that where such powers would otherwise breach law, CSIS would first have to seek a warrant authorizing the disruption operation. However, I might suggest that the approach to gaining authority to do this might not be sufficient to guarantee appropriate limits on this technique. Therefore, it might be useful to expand the mandate of SIRC, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, in order to make sure that any new departmental or agency powers have suitable review.
I would also like to point out that all government activity taking place in Canada is subject to the Canadian Constitution, notably including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Therefore, we look to the government to tailor review and other mechanisms appropriately, as all government activity will in the end be subject to the ultimate test, which is the Constitution.
Let me also add that we would like to consider Bill C-51 to be a work-in-progress, and that we are therefore confident that appropriate adjustment will be made in the legislation before it eventually becomes law. There is no doubt that our organization and the individuals involved would like to see this bill become the law. I fully understand and appreciate that in the western world, where our democracy is based on civil liberties, such an act may be perceived as encroaching on personal freedoms and values. However, we want to keep away threats to Canada, threats we are all familiar with as we see trial after trial unfolding and look at incidents where loyalty to the land in which we live was never made a priority.
Thank you very much for your time.
View Roxanne James Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you.
We've also heard from a number of witnesses that a lot of the radicalization and promotion or bringing people into this whole mindset down the pathway to terrorism really starts with technology, and a lot of it is occurring on the Internet.
We've had witnesses testify that existing sections of the Criminal Code dealing with hate crimes and so forth are not adequate to fight what we're seeing right now with general things on the Internet or people calling out for general attacks against Canada, because part of the legislation in the Criminal Code deals more specifically, pointing out someone, a place, or an event, and things like that.
Do you agree that a lot of the radicalization and promotion of terrorism happens on the Internet, and do you agree with the measures in this bill that are trying to stop that spread, stop the radicalization, and stop people from—
Avi Benlolo
View Avi Benlolo Profile
Mr. Avi Benlolo
2015-03-24 19:27
Thank you.
I'll be speaking for about eight minutes and then we can do some Q and A, if you'd like.
Good evening, everyone, and thank you for providing me with this opportunity to speak here today.
My name is Avi Benlolo, and I'm the president and CEO of the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies. It's an organization that was created to advance humanity in the name of Simon Wiesenthal, a Holocaust survivor who lost some 80 members of his own family. Wiesenthal dedicated the rest of his life not to vengeance but to bringing war criminals to justice and to educating against anti-Semitism, hate, and intolerance.
Indeed, social advocacy and education is the mandate of my organization.
In a special session on anti-Semitism in the House of Commons on February 23, Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center was appropriately recognized for its dynamic programs countering anti-Semitism through education and promoting tolerance for everyone.
Today, 50% of the global population lives in unfree conditions as a result of oppressive ideologies. Freedom House has calculated that only 12% of the 957 million people in sub-Saharan Africa are free, as are only 5% of the 410 million people in North Africa and the Middle East.
Democracy and our world as we know it are under threat by groups such as the Islamic State, or ISIS, Boko Haram, al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas, and others who practise ruthless ideologies of hatred and intolerance.
According to the global terrorism index produced by the Institute for Economics and Peace, in 2013 there was a 61% increase in the number of terrorist attacks from the previous year. With the emergence of ISIS, one can only expect a significant increase in 2014.
The last 10 months have demonstrated that the western world is not exempt from these statistics and the Jewish community feels particularly vulnerable. The attack on the Jewish museum in Brussels in May 2014, a kosher supermarket in Paris in January 2015, followed by the shooting of a Jewish guard in front of Copenhagen's main synagogue in February 2015 are only a few examples of the growing trend of terror against the Jewish community.
Indeed it has become common practice for terrorists to target Jews either directly, as was done in Bulgaria in the bombing of a Jewish tour bus in 2012, or as part of a larger attack, as was the case in Mumbai in 2008 which left six people dead in a synagogue and 160 others dead. Of course we'd be remiss if we weren't to mention as well the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris, which again followed suit with the kosher supermarket.
Thus an assault on the Jewish community in Canada and the potential for a mass atrocity is not beyond imagination. According to Toronto Police hate crimes statistics released just last week, the Jewish community is the most frequent target of hate crime, citing an 11% increase in 2014. Therefore, the Jewish community remains most vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
The trial of convicted terrorists Chiheb Esseghaier and Raed Jaser, for instance, revealed plans to derail a VIA train and to use a sniper to kill, and I quote from the police intelligence records, prominent members of Canadian society and “rich Jews”.
The devastating attack on Parliament Hill and the murders of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent and Corporal Nathan Cirillo should serve as a wake-up call for all Canadians.
The recent detention of Jahanzeb Malik, who planned to bomb the U.S. consulate in Toronto among other buildings in the financial district, demonstrates that this threat is real and persistent.
It is the responsibility of our government, first and foremost, to ensure the physical security of Canadian citizens. According to the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights:
Security of the individual is a basic human right and the protection of individuals is, accordingly, a fundamental obligation of Government. States therefore have an obligation to ensure the human rights of their nationals and others by taking positive measures to protect them against the threat of terrorist acts and bringing the perpetrators of such acts to justice.
Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center stands behind the spirit of Bill C-51 and the effort to enhance the safety and security of our country. In particular, we welcome the decision to increase information sharing between Government of Canada institutions and the creation of a criminal offence for knowingly advocating or promoting the commission of terrorism offences.
My concern is that many of those who have opposed this bill simply are not aware of the increasing threat of terrorism and the rising tide of hatred here in Canada, particularly on university campuses, but not exclusively.
I want to give you some examples. York University in Toronto serves as a case in point. Hanging in York's student centre is a mural depicting a Palestinian poised to throw the rocks that he is holding behind his back. On his scarf is an image of a blank map of Israel. This violent image complements the Facebook profile photograph of the current president-elect of York's student union, which states “Smash Zionism”. These examples are, in my opinion, a clear call to violence against the Jewish people and supporters of Israel.
I was recently advised by a student at York that when he passed a table of Palestinian supporters, he was asked if he wanted to “go to paradise”, a known code for jihad recruitment. Additionally, student organizations that allegedly advocate for human rights hang flags of known terrorist organizations at their events without consequence.
I fear that the growing climate of anti-Semitism and hate on campuses is leading to the next logical step and inspiring students to recruit for and join terrorist organizations. While my organization encourages freedom of expression and open debate, permitting the spread of hostile ideology that targets one specific group and creates an atmosphere of fear and intimidation at our institutions of higher learning sets a dangerous precedent.
In the book Radical: My Journey out of Islamic Extremism, author Maajid Nawaz explains how he used his position as president of the student union at London's Newham College to recruit students for his radical cause. The book provides remarkable insight into the issue of recruitment to terror on university campuses, and supports the need for legislation such as Bill C-51 in Canada.
As such, we encourage the bill to take into account the growing radicalism on Canadian campuses. This includes financing of terrorism, either directly or indirectly, and consideration of what I refer to as economic terrorism. This may include, for example, the sponsoring of flotillas to support and encourage terrorist groups and for campaigning to economically boycott, divest, and sanction democratic states that are allied with Canada.
Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center recognizes concerns over the impact that Bill C-51 may have on peaceful protests and freedom of expression, and supports the call for clarity in defining such terms as “lawful advocacy”. However, we also hope that the bill will assist in preventing public protests and advocacy from fuelling hatred, radicalism, and violence, as we have seen at such events as the Al-Quds Day Rally, an annual summer event at Queen's Park that was established and is openly supported by Iran.
While we do not want to see a conflation of peaceful protest with terrorism, this type of incitement to violence is an example of the activities we believe Bill C-51 should address. In addition, we welcome the bill's efforts to increase the level of scrutiny of terrorist propaganda distributed over the Internet. The ubiquitous nature of online hate should not be accepted as a fact of modern life, but must instead be challenged by those who are charged with safeguarding our liberties from those who seek to destroy them.
Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center strongly supports the goals and intentions of Bill C-51 as we bear witness to the reality of terrorism in our country. We see this bill as an unfortunate necessity to ensure greater safety for all Canadians. That being said, it is of critical importance that sufficient legal and procedural mechanisms are put in place to ensure that our rights to privacy, peaceful protest, and freedom of expression are in no way diminished. I'm confident that we can find an appropriate balance.
I want to end with a statement from our founder, Simon Wiesenthal, who famously said, “Freedom is not a gift from heaven; we must fight for it each and every day.”
I truly do believe that is what Bill C-51 is about.
Thank you very much.
View LaVar Payne Profile
CPC (AB)
View LaVar Payne Profile
2015-03-24 19:55
Thank you.
We heard this morning from the Toronto police, who were very supportive of the promotion and advocacy of terrorism provisions in the Criminal Code amendments. The witness cited a number of instances in which he had seen individuals promoting hatred and violence, but using their words very cautiously and carefully so as not to be caught up by current laws.
I think that's probably what you're referring to. I wonder whether you could make any further comments in that area and give viewpoints on those amendments.
Avi Benlolo
View Avi Benlolo Profile
Mr. Avi Benlolo
2015-03-24 19:55
Yes, I'd be happy to. I skipped this because I ran out of time.
I can do it by reading you a quotation, if you would allow it. I'll read you a paragraph that I left out of my statement and I'll explain to you what happened, in response to your question. It goes like this.
Anti-Israel and anti-Jewish speeches are a defining feature of this rally —I'm talking about Al-Quds Day—along with Hezbollah flags and posters of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Our greatest concern, however, is a type of language employed by the leaders of this rally in gaining support for their cause. For example, as reported by The Globe and Mail and various other news agencies, video footage of the 2013 rally appears to show the former head of Palestine House declaring to the crowd, “We have to give them an ultimatum: you have to leave Jerusalem; you have to leave Palestine. When somebody tries to rob a bank, the police get in. They don't negotiate, and we have been negotiating with them for 65 years. We say, get out or you are dead. We give them two minutes and then we start shooting, and that's the only way they'll understand.”
This was said at Queen's Park in 2013 in front of hundreds and hundreds of people.
In response to your question, we gathered all this information. We gathered the video evidence, the statements, everything, we put together a file. We went to the hate crime unit of the Toronto police. They looked at it. They concurred with us, and they sent it off.
Now, the issue with hate speech is that you have to get the AG to sign off on it. So it went off to the AG, whom we also met with and talked to about how we felt. At the end of the day, he turned it down.
Now, I honestly believe that he didn't press charges against this individual because it is politicized. This particular person is a leader in the community. We've seen this time and time again.
I can give you another example. The east—
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
I think that's fair. I'm glad you're willing to look at those areas.
In terms of the whole issue of hate propaganda—and I think you hit on it in your remarks—I guess incenting hatred to a certain extent, and it's done so easily now on the Internet, do you think this bill meets the test in that regard, that it gives the authority to pull back on some of that propaganda that will lead to radicalization or to convict those who may be responsible for that propaganda?
Avi Benlolo
View Avi Benlolo Profile
Mr. Avi Benlolo
2015-03-24 20:17
I'm encouraging more.
I think the bill has to be a little stronger in that regard, because I am concerned that some hate propaganda will be overlooked. For example, I was unhappy when section 13 on hate on the Internet and digital hate was struck down. I'm happy to see though that's been re-engaged here in this bill. Realizing of course that the Internet is a global thing, we can't control what's coming out of wherever, Europe, Mexico, but we can control servers here that are perhaps hosting hate speech. I think we have to strengthen that definition, because I think there's been a reduction over the last decade of what hate speech is.
The reason I brought in the university, the reason I spoke about Facebook and social networking is that I am concerned that is not looked at sufficiently. I would like to encourage that this bill—I think it's getting there—to have a stronger approach in that regard.
Results: 1 - 15 of 244 | Page: 1 of 17

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data