Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 100 of 1263
Mustafa Farooq
View Mustafa Farooq Profile
Mustafa Farooq
2021-06-16 16:18
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for providing us the opportunity to offer our thoughts on your study of ideologically motivated violent extremism in the aftermath of the London terror attack.
My name is Mustafa Farooq. I am a lawyer and the CEO of the National Council of Canadian Muslims. I'm joined today by my colleague Sameha Omer, the director of legal affairs for the council.
By way of background, NCCM was founded as an independent, non-partisan and non-profit grassroots organization dedicated to defending the human rights and civil liberties of Muslim communities living in Canada. For almost two decades, we have been a leading voice in the promotion of human rights in Canada, working tirelessly in the areas of community education and outreach, media engagement and public advocacy, and challenging discrimination and Islamophobia.
With the independently documented rise in hate, racism and Islamophobia faced by our communities, we are here today because we are greatly concerned about public safety. I think this came to a clear head for me personally when over the weekend I introduced members of the Quebec City mosque to members of the London Muslim community at the funeral of the Afzaal family, and then drove back to Toronto to try to attend a vigil at the IMO mosque in Etobicoke.
The reality is that something has gone terribly wrong in this country. The reality is that while I was preparing for this committee last night, I was also at the IIT, the Islamic Institute of Toronto, after two individuals yesterday threatened to bomb the centre after attempting to break in. We were also reaching out to a Black Muslim woman allegedly assaulted in Edmonton. We were also in conversation with the Baitul Hadi centre in Edmonton, which had a swastika drawn on it.
On the evening of January 29, an armed male entered the CCIQ in Quebec. He gunned down six Muslim worshippers and injured several more in a terrorist attack targeting a masjid and the Muslims inside it. The victims were Ibrahima Barry, Azzedine Soufiane, Aboubaker Thabti, Khaled Belkacemi, Mamadou Tanou Barry and Abdelkarim Hassane. In an instance of hate and violence, their earthly presence was taken from us in what remains the worst attack on a house of worship on Canadian soil in modern history.
On the evening of September 12, 2020, a man with alleged links to a white supremacist group, the O9A, walked onto the parking lot of the IMO mosque in Etobicoke and slit the throat of Mohamed-Aslim Zafis. I saw his body that night in the parking lot—even as I had met him that year handing out food to the poor in the worst of the COVID-19 epidemic.
On June 7 a family was run down in London by an accused with alleged hate-based motivations. Terrorism charges have now been brought against the accused. I will read the names of the deceased into the record: Salman Afzaal and his mother, his wife Madiha Salman, and their daughter Yumna. Before leaving London, I met the young child, the sole survivor of the attack. I don't really have words to fully describe what that meant.
We are here today because white supremacist, violent Islamophobic, neo-Nazi and alt-right groups are growing precipitously. They're becoming bolder, whether it's groups like the Soldiers of Odin surveilling a mosque in B.C., a group calling itself “The Clann” intimidating worshippers at Canada's oldest mosque in Edmonton, groups like La Meute in Quebec, or the groups that are now planning celebrations of the London terror attack in Ontario. This list excludes all the other things I was dealing with yesterday. Amongst others, in Calgary a woman wearing a burka was allegedly accosted. As my colleague Sameha can tell you, this is pretty much a consistent occurrence for us. We get these calls 365 days a year.
My submissions before you today are squarely around how we can dismantle white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups that first act as a major source of incitement and enabling of hate, xenophobia and violence against certain segments of the public, including members of the Muslim community. I will also note that our colleagues who join us today from CIJA, in tandem with dozens of leading Canadian organizations, joined with us last year in our call for more action on white supremacist groups,
In the interest of time, I'll dive right into the recommendations that we want to highlight before this committee. These key recommendations and approaches are ones that we will further discuss at the National Action Summit on Islamophobia, which I appreciate also had important bipartisan support. From our perspective, these need to be undertaken in order to dismantle the immediate challenges around white supremacist groups in Canada.
First of all, we believe that existing Criminal Code provisions, especially the terror-listing provisions of the ATA and section 70 of the Criminal Code, should be used to dismantle groups like the Three Percenters. Even as this government utilized current legislative options in dismantling white supremacist groups, such as Blood & Honour, Combat 18, the Proud Boys, we believe that the tools already exist in the Criminal Code to list terrorist groups and to disband militias. These provisions need to be used to deal with the other 250-plus white supremacist organizations in Canada.
Section 70 of the Criminal Code, for instance, deals with prohibiting assemblies of persons for the purpose of “training or drilling themselves”, “being trained or drilled to the use of [firearms]” or “practising military exercises”. This could be used to prevent the actions of groups and the mobilization of groups like the Three Percenters. When we're talking about ideologically motivated violent extremism, we need to recognize that there are already existing provisions in the Criminal Code that can be used to dismantle some of these groups.
Secondly, we recommend the addition of new legislative listing provisions to the Criminal Code that specifically list white supremacist groups as white supremacist groups. Groups like the Soldiers of Odin may not meet the high threshold of being a listed terrorist entity and are not a militia, but these groups provide significant threats to Canadian Muslim communities. Like the organization that is planning on hosting a celebration of the London terror attack, there's no reason for these groups to be allowed to continue to exist, congregate, mobilize, plan their hate in Canada.
Mustafa Farooq
View Mustafa Farooq Profile
Mustafa Farooq
2021-06-16 16:26
Thirdly, I think we need to see robust online hate regulation that is balanced and that ensures the protection of civil liberties through consultation with the best experts in Canada and internationally.
Lastly, we'd like to see a review on how national security agencies have been dealing with neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups.
I also note that we will be providing a brief and follow-up to expand further on the recommendations.
Thank you.
Shimon Koffler Fogel
View Shimon Koffler Fogel Profile
Shimon Koffler Fogel
2021-06-16 16:27
Thank you, Mr. Chair, along with the members of the committee, for inviting our participation in this important discussion. My name is Shimon Fogel. I'm the president and CEO of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, the advocacy agent of the Jewish federations across Canada. We're a national non-partisan, non-profit organization representing more than 150,000 Jewish Canadians affiliated through Jewish federations from coast to coast. Our mission is to preserve and protect the quality of Jewish life in Canada through advocacy.
For Canada's Jewish community, the conversation about ideologically motivated violent extremism is inextricably linked with anti-Semitism. As I speak, Jewish Canadians are facing a dangerous rise in anti-Semitism across the country, and indeed, around the world. The UJA Federation of Greater Toronto, an organization that closely monitors the security situation of the Jewish community in the GTA, reported a fivefold spike in anti-Semitic incidents last month compared to previous months this year. In May, individuals who attended a peaceful pro-Israel rally in Montreal were pelted with rocks. Police seized weapons and made 15 arrests, including for armed assault. In April in Victoria, the words “Kill the Jews” and “Gas the Jews” were spray painted on a Jewish community institution. We too observed swastikas and Nazi symbols on banners at anti-Israel rallies in multiple cities. Jewish businesses were targeted across Canada, either by vandals or for boycotts.
In Canada, no one should ever feel that they're at risk in their own neighbourhood. No one should feel the need to hide their identity. No Canadian should be made to feel they do not belong, yet we have community members who are thinking twice before wearing a kippah or a Star of David necklace in public. This isn't the Canada we know or want.
In 2019, the most recent year for which Statistics Canada data are available, Jews were the most targeted religious group for police-reported hate crimes, and targets of the second-most-police-reported hate crime overall. On average, an anti-Semitic incident happens pretty much every day of the week, 365 days of the year. Comprising only less than 1% of the Canadian population, Jewish Canadians accounted for 16% of all victims of hate crimes in 2019, a trend repeated year after year. This should be of grave concern to all Canadians.
Anti-Semitic incidents are also occurring online, in troubling numbers, where anti-Semitism and ideological extremism percolate and pose a threat to the well-being of all Canadians. As social media has become central to our daily lives, racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, anti-authoritarian and other hate-filled groups are exploiting platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, TikTok, Twitter and Instagram to spread their toxic ideals, often targeting our children and young adults. These vile groups are also active on Parler, 8chan and in other dark corners of the Internet, where they promote their hatred, radicalize and recruit Canadian youth.
We know from experience that this toxicity spread online can and too often does have real-world consequences. Online activities spurred murders of Jews in Pittsburgh and Muslims in Christchurch. The Pittsburgh shooter reportedly posted more than 700 anti-Semitic messages in hate-filled online communities over nine months prior to the attack. The Christchurch shooter's livestreaming of the killings was a means of promoting and inciting more such heinous acts.
While we welcome the addition of the Proud Boys to the list of terrorist entities, we believe more needs to be done. For some time, we have strongly encouraged the Government of Canada to list both the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, in its entirety, and Samidoun, a PFLP-affiliated organization that operates right here in Canada.
However, we must disabuse ourselves of the idea that radicalization happens only with the support of an organized group. The proliferation of online content has empowered the so-called lone wolf. Radicalization can manifest remotely, circulating in chats and forums without the direct support or coordination of an organized group. This new threat also makes it even more difficult for police and security services to track suspicious activity. From what we understand of the horrific tragedy in London, the murderer acted independently and may have been radicalized as a lone wolf. The same is true of the 2018 Toronto van attack.
Anti-Semitism is not associated solely with ideologically motivated violent extremists. While Jew hatred is central to many xenophobic belief systems such as neo-Nazism and white supremacy, anti-Semitism is also a key component in both religiously motivated violent extremism and in politically motivated violent extremism. Anti-Semitism is a hatred that does not live in a single category. It finds purchase in all three.
What most people may not appreciate is that anti-Semitism is a threat not only to Jews, but also to all Canadians and to our way of life. Combatting anti-Semitism benefits all of us, and we need to call it out whenever and wherever we see it, because what starts with Jews never ends with Jews.
Jewish Canadians value our just, liberal democratic society. There has been a lot of discussion about the role of law enforcement. From our perspective, we believe a well-educated and a well-resourced police force is an essential component in flighting hate crime.
Let me conclude, therefore, by providing five recommendations for the committee's consideration.
First, we recommend that law enforcement be given the tools they need to combat hate and radicalization, including bolstering existing police hate crime and community liaison units, and providing funding to establish new units where they do not yet exist. This includes increasing resources for security services to monitor, track and protect Canadians from online radicalization.
Second, we recommend increasing resources for law enforcement, Crown attorneys, judges and others to ensure they receive sufficient training on the importance of combatting online hate.
Third, we also recommend strengthening legislation to combat online hate, including developing a multipronged approach to raise awareness of online hate, adopting civil remedies to combat online hate, and establishing requirements for online platforms and Internet service providers for monitoring and addressing online hate on their own platform.
Fourth, we believe that funding for the security infrastructure program, SIP, should be increased. This program allows at-risk private not-for-profit organizations, such as places of worship and educational institutions, to enhance their security. To quickly illustrate the value of the program, a security guard at Congregation Shaar Hashomayim in Montreal was able to thwart an arson attack on the synagogue because of the surveillance cameras funded in part by the program.
Finally, we recommend Canada establish a community institution security rebate. As one of the groups most targeted by hate-motivated crime, Jewish institutions spend millions of dollars every year on security personnel. We recommend that the federal government implement a security rebate for at-risk places of worship, schools and community centres.
In conclusion, Mr. Chair and committee members, even though the Jewish community is resilient, we too feel vulnerable at the moment and we are respectfully asking you to take action. What we have proposed will not only serve the Jewish community, but it will benefit all Canadians. History has taught us repeatedly that if left unchecked, the toxin of anti-Semitism can poison all of us.
Thanks for inviting me here today.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a question for Dr. MacDonald regarding enforcement. We've just been completing a study on the enforcement of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Through that study, we have discussed some really concerning barriers that citizens and groups face in pursuing enforcement of the act.
Could you speak to enforcement, in the context of the bill we're discussing today? How could it potentially be strengthened to give citizens or communities better access to redress?
Elaine MacDonald
View Elaine MacDonald Profile
Elaine MacDonald
2021-06-16 17:21
The biggest barrier is probably the cost issue, the risk of adverse costs, even the cost of hiring a lawyer to access the courts. Certainly, in our experience at Ecojustice Canada, we do many litigations, and in Canada it's the cost risk.
It's not as bad, I must say, in Federal Court as it is in some provincial courts, but the cost risk is certainly an issue for many individuals and small communities that just don't have the funds. It's absolutely the biggest barrier to bringing something before the courts. That's why we suggested a kind of easy, low-risk tool that would waive costs unless the case was vexatious, for example.
There is an environmental protection action provision in the Environmental Protection Act, which we've looked at, and we have some concerns with that. It's never been used, because it creates many barriers when it's used. For example, it requires a person to request an investigation of government first, and then get a response from the minister, who's unresponsive, or no response at all. They can then move into taking this on, but once again the cost risk is really the major barrier that I see there in terms of taking that on.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
I think the follow-up would be that, in looking at the contents of this bill, does this concept of enforcement have any real bearing in this legislation in the same way that it does in CEPA, for instance, or is the main thrust of this bill not in a direction that would allow citizens to really seek that redress through the courts?
Elaine MacDonald
View Elaine MacDonald Profile
Elaine MacDonald
2021-06-16 17:23
Our recommendation in terms of enforcement went with the recommendation with respect to a federal obligation to ensure the government doesn't perpetuate environmental racism. Should the federal government fail to meet that obligation, it would give citizens a tool in order to enforce that obligation on the government. The two would go together, hand in hand.
View John Barlow Profile
CPC (AB)
View John Barlow Profile
2021-06-15 15:46
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ms. Pritchard. Don't feel any pressure whatsoever that you are literally in the spotlight for the next hour. Certainly, it's great to have somebody with your experience and knowledge in this field to provide us with some great insights.
I wanted to touch on some of the things we've heard so far and to get your opinion on what you feel is possible. We heard from CFIA officials that Bill C-205 would be difficult to implement and enforce due to current resources.
You talked about the avian flu that was in the Fraser Valley in 2014, and we've seen the impact of BSE and the concerns with African swine fever. I also kind of tie it back to COVID, where, if we've learned anything, it's that when you prioritize something from government officials and they're given the right direction and adequate resources, you can overcome some obstacles.
Do you feel that with the right resources, and understanding the potential risk that is there with the right priorities, Bill C-205 could be implemented and enforced?
Jane Pritchard
View Jane Pritchard Profile
Jane Pritchard
2021-06-15 15:48
Certainly, I am not an expert in saying what resources the CFIA have or don't have available to them. In my personal interpretation, reading the bill through, as a person who has supported the development of regulation and continues in a career that regulates, I guess there are a couple of ways of looking at it.
If I was writing the guiding notes on this, and someone was putting together the regulation, I think it could be interpreted that as long as the person who has entered the premises, or the enclosed space or building, did not follow the required biosecurity processes for that building, then they have broached the biosecurity.
For all the industries I've worked with, every barn has a standard. If you don't follow that standard, then, essentially, to me, you are broaching it.
If there's also a trespass, an undocumented trespass, the CFIA wouldn't be documenting the trespass. The biosecurity issue could be addressed quite simply by whether protocols were followed or not followed.
View John Barlow Profile
CPC (AB)
View John Barlow Profile
2021-06-15 15:49
Thank you for that.
I want to go back to the last comment you made in your introduction about these acts being nothing short of cruel, and that you want to support anything that would address the stress, mental health and anxiety issues that this has on a farm family and processors, but also on the animals themselves.
How important is it, Dr. Pritchard, in your opinion and in your experience, that the federal government show some leadership here and have this type of legislation that would, if anything, act as a deterrent and show those activist groups that there are consequences when they do not follow biosecurity protocol and they cross that line, going onto private property and into enclosed spaces to do this unlawful activity? How important is it for the federal government to show leadership here and have those deterrents in place?
Jane Pritchard
View Jane Pritchard Profile
Jane Pritchard
2021-06-15 15:50
I have two things, really. One, having the additional federal legislation always helps, because federal trumps provincial. Showing that there is clear support at the federal level always helps as a provincial enforcer. It's always helped to have that backup.
The other part of it, though, is that the federal legislation piles on, so there is an additional deterrent that's brought in. Also, my experience with developing national policy versus provincial policy is that it's always better to have something where it doesn't change from province to province, so there is no excuse that, “Oh, well, it was different in B.C., so I was unaware.”
That “I was unaware” excuse is something that provincial legislatures sometimes face, because people have crossed jurisdictions and there isn't a consistency between them. Certainly, with animal welfare and animal health, we really appreciate anything that develops consistency across the provinces.
View Yves Perron Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you.
Let me go back to the enforcement of provincial legislation. According to a number of witnesses, it seems that having to prove damages also makes enforcing the legislation difficult. That would be one of the strengths of Bill C‑205. It would remove that burden. If I understood your opening statement correctly, you could start from the simple fact that the required protocols had not been followed. Since an offence would already have taken place, that would remove the burden of proof.
Did I understand you correctly?
Jane Pritchard
View Jane Pritchard Profile
Jane Pritchard
2021-06-15 16:04
I spend all day reading regulation and trying to figure out how to enforce it. Being reckless as to whether entering such a place could result in the exposure of animals to a disease or toxic substance means.... To me, if you're not following the protocols, it could.
I feel that the burden of proof is not to show that a disease was transmitted but that it could have been transmitted. I feel that the bar for burden of proof is much lower.
View Yves Perron Profile
BQ (QC)
Okay, thank you very much.
Earlier, you said that you are not an expert on the resources of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Do you believe that there can be an effective partnership with local police forces at a certain point, whereby they could simply document the offence?
Jane Pritchard
View Jane Pritchard Profile
Jane Pritchard
2021-06-15 16:05
Very quickly, when I have spoken to the RCMP, certainly in the Fraser Valley, the officers wish to have that kind of a relationship, but there are not a lot of resources for them to develop that expertise and support.
Definitely we all work together when we have disease outbreaks. I am sure there is a way of doing it.
View Dave Epp Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you.
Moving on, then, to how we might administer such a law should it come into place, my understanding is that the RCMP has livestock units, particularly in western Canada. Is that something the CFIA could leverage in its administration of a potential law such as Bill C-205?
Jane Pritchard
View Jane Pritchard Profile
Jane Pritchard
2021-06-15 16:16
I would suggest that you have better information on the actual resources assigned to livestock in western Canada.
For the two people I know in the Fraser Valley who do it, they do it because they're both from farm backgrounds and have a farm. They're actually a husband-and-wife pair. The only RCMP officer I've worked with outside of that is a single officer in the province assigned to livestock.
It's a small resource, as far as I'm aware, but there could be some training to help them go on and off farms to deal with the issue. As with any regulation, it comes down to whether there is a will to enforce it and how much you want to enforce it.
View Kody Blois Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Kody Blois Profile
2021-06-15 16:17
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Dr. Pritchard, for providing great testimony here today.
I know you don't have the legislation in front of you, but for my colleagues and for you, right now there are provisions under the Health of Animals Act regarding notice forbidding entry, which is basically, as we have talked about and Mr. MacGregor mentioned, the signage and the biosecurity risks that are already highlighted.
There is a prohibition under the act that already says:
No person shall knowingly enter a building or other enclosed place in contravention of a notice affixed under this section, unless the person has a right of entry or way into the building or place or any part thereof or an inspector or officer has authorized the entry.
That language is very similar to what we have here in Mr. Barlow's bill, and the penalties under the act are very similar. You just said that sometimes it's about the will to enforce the provisions. Do you think that perhaps we just need to try to have more will to enforce what might already be in the act?
Jane Pritchard
View Jane Pritchard Profile
Jane Pritchard
2021-06-15 16:19
I don't think I get paid enough for that question. That's very complicated.
I looked at this—and I'm familiar with the legislation that you're referring to—and thought there must be a point at which it isn't easy to enforce, and this is to make it easier to enforce. I've dealt with that, with the language in the regulation or the bylaw or whatever I was trying to enforce not being clear enough and the government not wanting to enforce it the way it was because it was not going to stand up.
Jane Pritchard
View Jane Pritchard Profile
Jane Pritchard
2021-06-15 16:19
That was provincial and it was not related to this. When I see something like this coming in, an amendment like this or an addition, my default thought is that someone needed it so a case could be built more easily.
View Richard Lehoux Profile
CPC (QC)
View Richard Lehoux Profile
2021-06-15 16:49
Do you think Bill C‑205 establishes a robust enough framework for police, whether it be the RCMP or Quebec provincial police, to respond quickly?
Pierre-Luc Leblanc
View Pierre-Luc Leblanc Profile
Pierre-Luc Leblanc
2021-06-15 16:49
Yes, we think the bill could be passed as is because it establishes a framework; it introduces rules and parameters. It equates the act to trespassing. Treating the act as trespassing on private property sets a clear rule.
View Yves Perron Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here. It's a pleasure to see you all.
I'm going to start with you, Mr. Leblanc.
You said earlier that an incident occurred in Quebec and police did not know how to respond. How do you explain that?
A number of witnesses told us that Quebec already had laws in place to protect against trespassing. How is it that they are not enforced or not enforceable?
Pierre-Luc Leblanc
View Pierre-Luc Leblanc Profile
Pierre-Luc Leblanc
2021-06-15 16:56
It happened at a hog farm near me. It took police a long time to get the individuals off the premises.
As I understand it, the legislation will deter people from coming onto the property. Once activists gain entry to the property and occupy it, they do not up and leave just because police are on the scene. The law needs to deter people from breaking onto the property, to prevent the birds from coming under stress, to ensure their welfare and to protect biosecurity.
View Yves Perron Profile
BQ (QC)
Not being able to get trespassers out of their facilities immediately must be very hard for farmers.
Pierre-Luc Leblanc
View Pierre-Luc Leblanc Profile
Pierre-Luc Leblanc
2021-06-15 16:57
Yes, it is stressful, and that stress spreads to other farmers and producers who see what's happening and how long it takes for authorities to respond. Once peace has been restored, the damage is already done. That's the problem farmers face.
View Yves Perron Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you.
Mr. Lampron, do you think Bill C‑205, the way it's currently written, will have the same impact?
Pierre Lampron
View Pierre Lampron Profile
Pierre Lampron
2021-06-15 16:59
Thank you for your question.
We have actually recommended two amendments to the bill. I'll tell you what they are, and then, Mr. Tremblay can explain the legal ramifications. We are recommending removing the part that says the person who contravened the act would get off if they claimed that they did not know their behaviour would cause harm to the animals.
As Mr. Weins mentioned, these groups are often highly organized, hence the need for federal legislation. It will keep groups from targeting farmers in less protected provinces.
In terms of stress, the bill will definitely protect animals, but it also needs to protect farmers. Just think how you would feel if you saw a stranger in your yard stealing carrots out of your garden. Even worse, what if that stranger was sitting in your living room watching television? That is the level of stress farmers experience.
I realize the purpose of the bill is to protect animals, and we will get to that, but you asked about the farmer's stress. It's important to understand that, when someone breaks into your farm, your workplace, it's stressful.
View Gary Vidal Profile
CPC (SK)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister, for being here today. As you know, we always appreciate your time.
Minister, you know that I'm all about talking about about outcomes and results and some of those kinds of things. We've had this conversation before.
I have a couple of quick questions up front. I will ask you to be brief in your answers so that I can get to the substance of another couple of questions after that.
You department has committed $43.7 million over five years “to co-develop a legislative framework” for first nations policing that recognizes first nations policing as “an essential service”. We recently completed a study on exactly that. When we had officials from four different departments at committee, not a single one of those people could actually define what “policing as an essential service” was. Would it frustrate you that nobody from the department actually had a definition of what we're aiming for?
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
I think, MP Vidal, that it's frustrating to indigenous communities who have been.... Again, when I spoke about things that we take for granted, certainly people who look like me take policing for granted.
There's an element in here that's important to highlight. My department deals with a sort of companion aspect of policing as an essential service, as a relationship partner with Public Safety. The bulk of that will be led by Minister Bill Blair, firstly as he continues to fund the first nations policing program, but then to expand it and do the consultation work necessary to define and reflect the needs of communities, whether it's the treaty areas or anywhere across Canada that where that service is needed for the health and safety of communities, and foremost for women and children as a key response to the MMIW calls for justice and the TRC report.
Yes, absolutely, it's frustrating, but there is also an aspect of this where we need that input from communities, to keep working with communities and putting forth a piece of legislation that will recognize that essential service.
The part that I'm responsible for, to be clear and—
Jo-Anne Wemmers
View Jo-Anne Wemmers Profile
Jo-Anne Wemmers
2021-06-08 12:13
It's an honour to be here. Thank you for inviting me.
When we look at the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, clearly it represents a step forward, but several issues remain that need to be addressed. Canada has a responsibility to ensure that the 1985 UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, which Canada was one of the countries that took the initiative to develop, is respected across the country. Unfortunately, currently, Canada does not meet these minimum standards and norms for victims of crime.
Key topics that are included in the UN declaration, such as state compensation, victim support and restorative justice, are not included in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.
For example, according to articles 12 and 13 of the UN declaration, states should create compensation programs for victims of violence. Currently in Canada, not all provinces and territories have such programs. This inequality needs to be addressed in order to ensure that all Canadians have access to the minimum standards identified by the United Nations. The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights should be modified to include these basic rights for victims. Specifically, the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights should be amended to include access to victim support, restorative justice and state compensation programs.
Second, regarding restitution, in order to execute a restitution order, section 17 of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights refers victims to civil tribunals. However, civil judgment does not really help victims. We know this. This has been well known for 20 or 30 years in the research. Recognizing the inadequacy of such a provision, other countries have made the state, rather than victims, responsible for enforcing restitution orders, treating them like they treat fines. The state already has mechanisms in place to ensure that fines are paid, and these systems can be used to retrieve restitution owed by offenders. I address this in the research brief, “Restitution in the context of criminal justice”, which I attached with my documents yesterday. It's available in both English and French.
Third, regarding language, article 3 of the UN declaration states that all victims should have access to rights and services, regardless of their language, race, gender, age and so on. Canada is officially bilingual, not to mention the many other languages, indigenous languages, found in Canada. The criminal justice system is set up to accommodate the linguistic needs of the accused, of offenders; however, it does not address the linguistic needs of victims.
An example that is not uncommon, unfortunately, in Montreal courts is when one party—the offender, for example—speaks one language, such as English, and the victim speaks another, such as French. The accused has access to translation services, and rightly so, but the victim does not, and a victim who wishes to attend the trial and follow the case cannot even ask a bilingual friend to accompany them and to help translate. As they are members of the public, they sit in the public tribunal and no one is allowed to speak during the trial.
This problem is not limited to the courtroom either. Services such as compensation programs often have unilingual websites, forms, and so on. Specifically, the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights should be amended to include equal access to rights and services regardless of language, race, gender, age and so on.
Fourth, the rights in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights are non-enforceable rights. I was quite happy to see the senator raise this issue, as well. This means that when victims' rights are not respected, they have no recourse. What good are rights if they are not enforceable? Victims are powerless against an omnipotent state that has the power to force them to testify as well as the power to shut them out. We need to recognize that crime is a violation of victims' human rights, as well as an offence against society.
Treating victims with dignity and respect means recognizing them as persons before the law, with rights and with recourse. The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights must be amended to include an enforcement mechanism; otherwise, to quote Ontario judge Gerald Day, one can only conclude “that the Legislature did not intend for the Victims Bill of Rights to provide rights to the victims”. I quote this from the decision in Vanscoy and Even in 1999, when two victims brought this case to the government when their rights, as stated in the Ontario Victims Bill of Rights, were not respected.
I have attached a copy of chapter 7 of my book, Victimology: A Canadian Perspective, in which I discuss victims' rights in Canada and abroad.
Specifically, articles 27, 28 and 29 of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights should be deleted. They should be replaced with an enforcement mechanism.
Modify the language of the Victims Bill of Rights, including article 20, to acknowledge the victims' human rights and recognize that crime constitutes a violation of their human rights.
View Stéphane Bergeron Profile
BQ (QC)
How did Canadian authorities respond to the practice?
Peter M. German, Q.C.
View Peter M. German, Q.C. Profile
Peter M. German, Q.C.
2021-06-07 21:04
The issue of enforcement was raised, most specifically in our second report, in that it was very clear that the RCMP was under-resourced, having—
View Arnold Viersen Profile
CPC (AB)
All right. What steps would be taken to ensure that a regulator would be able to access the folks most affected by this problem—teenage girls and young adult women—seeing as they're not likely to be able to navigate complex bureaucracy?
View Arnold Viersen Profile
CPC (AB)
What enforcement mechanisms is this supposed regulator going to use?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Again, I'm happy to discuss the objectives of the legislation with you. I would be happy to come back to discuss the details of the legislation once it is tabled.
View Arnold Viersen Profile
CPC (AB)
What about cases in which the victim is Canadian but the site isn't necessarily Canadian?
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
I'm happy to repeat, but that's the answer I gave to your colleague, Madame Gaudreau.
The purpose of the legislation is that whether the company is Canadian, its servers are in Canada, its headquarters are in Canada or it's registered in Canada or elsewhere, if it's broadcasting images or videos in Canada, then the legislation will apply to that company.
Mr. Chair and Madam Clerk, I am being told that I must connect to the House of Commons debate five minutes before noon, which would have been a minute ago, I suppose. I'm in your hands, but I must get ready for another debate in the House of Commons.
Melissa Lukings
View Melissa Lukings Profile
Melissa Lukings
2021-06-07 12:25
No worries.
The committee is dealing with a Canadian-controlled private corporation, a CCPC, which is a private commercial organization based in and operating with headquarters located in Canada. It is a Canadian company. We know this, and that's fine. Commercial organizations in Canada are bound by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. PIPEDA outlines the rules and remedies, including the fines and other penalties, for corporations that fail to abide by the provisions specified in the act.
Beyond the corporate level, we also have the Criminal Code of Canada, which outlines the criminal offences and punishments for committing such offences. We have these. We need to apply them. Everyone is bound by the Criminal Code of Canada.
Why, then, do we need additional regulations? Why do we need more oversight when we have not yet tried to simply apply the law we already have? We have these laws. We can use them, so let's use them. That's what they're for. What's the point in even having these statutes if you're not going to apply them when they're needed? What are we doing here?
We're here because a portion of those involved have decided to conflate the issue of corporate negligence with highly sexualized and emotive criminal activity—read again, child rape porn testimony. It elicits an emotional response—the sympathetic nervous system and all of that. It doesn't matter. This is about a corporation and user-generated content. It does not matter what is depicted in the content as much as it matters that the content, whatever it may be, should not have gotten past the corporation's screening system before being made live on the site. When the issue was brought to its attention, the corporation responded inadequately at first, so we need corporate law. We need to look at liability and feasibility standards.
Why has this become a forum for grandstanding religious ideologies? I'm sure you've all heard about Exodus Cry in the news, if you've been following it. Exodus Cry is a fundamental Christian organization founded on religious ideologies stemming from the United States. Why is it relevant to a question of corporate liability in Canada? It isn't. It doesn't make any sense.
Why are we arguing about exploitation? Why are we discussing mass censorship? Is that not a massive overreaction to a simple corporate negligence question? It seems glaringly obvious to me, so why are we not discussing reasonable options for encouraging corporations to better serve their users?
Also, I have some opinions about the genderedness of this. You can read about it in my notes.
When it comes down to it, you can't eliminate sex. We're humans, and there is always going to be a demand for sex. You can't eliminate sex work because the demand exists. You can't eliminate extramarital sex or porn or masturbation or demand for sexual services, but sexual assault is illegal, even when that person is your spouse. We need it to be that way. We want to protect people. If you're saying you can do certain things only within the context of marriage, you're setting yourself up for failure. It's true.
Yes, I said “masturbation” in a hearing. Oh my God.
You cannot eliminate base human desires, so you can't eliminate sex. That would be silly. It's okay to not like these things, and just because you don't like a thing or you feel that a thing is not for you, it doesn't mean it's inherently evil and should be eliminated. It doesn't work that way. It's not about and should not be about pornography or the actual content of online material here. This is about creating reasonable laws that work for Canada, Canadian corporations and everyone residing within Canada. We don't need new regulations; we don't need a new regulator, and we don't need online censorship. We need to use the tools we already have, which were designed for a reason. Why be redundant?
That is my diatribe.
Thank you for having me. I will take any questions you throw at me.
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
CPC (AB)
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
2021-06-07 12:30
Thanks, Chair.
Melissa, thanks for your testimony and for being here today.
I share your perspective that it is crucial to distinguish between the hosting and distribution of child sexual abuse material and of material and images that don't have the explicit consent of the people depicted in them.
I think you'd agree—or let me know if you do—that people have a right to own their own images and content that include them, and also the right to withdraw that if they so choose. This is the thing that I think all of us are grappling with—your very strong point about the Criminal Code already being in place and the laws and the regulations that already exist to provide these protections for children and for others who do not give their consent.
What do you make of what the actual problem is, then? What is the enforcement issue, the lack of enforcement and the lack of application of the existing law?
Melissa Lukings
View Melissa Lukings Profile
Melissa Lukings
2021-06-07 12:31
I think the current issue is that perhaps the penalties that currently exist in PIPEDA are not strong enough to deter corporations. I'm not saying to put in new regulations—I'm not saying that—but when you're going to do the digital charter implementation act and you're discussing things like Bill C-10 and Bill C-11, it's important to remember that.
I think there is room for improvement. Because we've found that financial penalties don't really seem to impact companies that make a lot of money, fines could instead be based on percentages. The key here is that we need to not have increased regulation. If what we're trying to do is in fact what we say we're trying to do, which is to reduce human trafficking and harm to young people, additional regulations are not going to help that.
Did I answer your question?
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
CPC (AB)
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
2021-06-07 12:35
I think this is probably what's mind-boggling to many of us on this committee and probably many Canadians listening. A colleague said to me recently that, somehow, organizations like ag societies and school fundraisers and Legions are put through mountains of paperwork and administration to, say, play certain songs or use certain visual material. Then there are also online sites, say, that sell cannabis or alcohol, or host gambling, and in those two cases the country seems fairly effective at having a set of laws and bylaws and policies and regulations for these organizations [Technical difficulty—Editor] seem to manage to enforce and crack down on all of that being done illegally.
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
CPC (AB)
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
2021-06-07 12:36
I would just give you the opportunity to expand on any other specific recommendations in terms of both the enforcement and protections to combat the proliferation of child sexual abuse material and other illegal content, while also maintaining free expression, privacy and the right of individuals to have ownership and choice over their own images.
Melissa Lukings
View Melissa Lukings Profile
Melissa Lukings
2021-06-07 12:37
Thank you.
Privacy is very important, and it's also a safety issue in a lot of these situations. I can't provide any specific solutions. I'm not [Technical difficulty—Editor]. I definitely recommend asking Dr. Lashkari about that.
In terms of law, we need to remember the foundations of law, so what is the Privacy Act based on? What are the rights and freedoms that Canadians hold as important? Our rights to freedom of expression, freedom of association and all these things need to be considered when we're implementing new technology and new standards for technology.
As for specifics, that wouldn't be my area. I would be more like poking holes in why those things aren't private enough.
View Yves Perron Profile
BQ (QC)
To simplify things in terms of procedure, is there not a way to establish a partnership with local police forces? Basically, Bill C‑205 sees simply being on the premises as an offence.
Brian Evans
View Brian Evans Profile
Brian Evans
2021-06-03 16:04
Very briefly, I would say that if we're talking about a disease or situation evolving on a farm that's been compromised because of an intrusion, the investigation of that type of disease outbreak is significantly different from the investigation of a natural disease outbreak. The forensic aspects of it and the issues around chain of custody and evidence leading to prosecution are an area that Scott could speak to, but I don't think it's part of the regular veterinary teaching curriculum. It is a different type of investigation, and the use of individuals who are better trained in those types of enforcement and investigations would, from my perspective, be beneficial.
View Neil Ellis Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Neil Ellis Profile
2021-06-03 16:58
I guess my first question would be to Marcel. He spoke about the trespassing court case that happened two years ago. He touched on the court case, but he didn't go into any details of what the outcome of the case was.
If he knows, I would like to know if any of the charges did stick, and which ones.
Marcel Groleau
View Marcel Groleau Profile
Marcel Groleau
2021-06-03 16:58
The owners of the farm decided not to pursue legal proceedings because they did not want to continue with a presence on social media and to be the object of threats, as had been the case beforehand. These groups, which I call terrorist groups, operate so as to frighten their victims. It would have been very difficult for the owners to prove beyond any doubt that they had suffered damages. What it would have cost them may well have been in addition to the losses they were already incurring.
However, the Union des producteurs agricoles, the UPA, sought an injunction so that the people who had taken part in that incursion would not be able to perpetrate others. We obtained a temporary injunction to start with. It became permanent as we waited for the judge to subsequently hear the UPA's application. That application was for demonstrations to be prohibited less than 250m from a farm. However, the injunction applies only to the demonstrators who were on the Porgreg farm.
I wanted you to see that it is basically impossible to to prove damages to the people who are the victims of these incursions.
View Neil Ellis Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Neil Ellis Profile
2021-06-03 17:00
Do you know of any other cases in which charges have been laid successfully?
View Neil Ellis Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Neil Ellis Profile
2021-06-03 17:00
Would current trespassing laws apply for any of the trespassing that happens now?
As another question, what are the recourses now if someone intentionally makes a farm animal sick? Are there any recourses now that you guys have in your tool box?
Darren Ference
View Darren Ference Profile
Darren Ference
2021-06-03 17:01
I don't believe that any of the current trespassing laws in the national.... I know Alberta has brought in a new trespassing law that very much mirrors or is very similar to this bill, but this bill protects us right across the country and doesn't expose certain farmers and protect other farmers.
I think it's important to have a national one that covers nationally, which Bill C-205 will do.
View Neil Ellis Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Neil Ellis Profile
2021-06-03 17:01
I'll just touch on that. I think Ontario also has an act in place.
Do you know if there have been any charges on those acts? I know the Ontario act was 2020. I'm not sure when the B.C. act went into place. I believe Alberta has one also. Do you know if they've been successful?
Darren Ference
View Darren Ference Profile
Darren Ference
2021-06-03 17:02
I don't know if there are any charges on the acts. I know there was a charge from the trespass that occurred prior to the act, and that's what drove the act in Alberta, but I don't know the progress of where that is.
View Alistair MacGregor Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you, Chair.
We can broadly define trespassing as unlawful entry onto private land. I think it's mostly contained within provincial legislation, because under our Constitution the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction in making laws in relation to property and civil rights. The criminal law is engaged when we have an identifiable harm against public health, which is why the CFIA exists as a federal agency.
Mr. Ference, you made some comments about how provincial laws against trespass are not really working. Can you broaden that point? You said that police have had a hard time following through with charges. Can you illuminate that a bit more so we can understand it?
Darren Ference
View Darren Ference Profile
Darren Ference
2021-06-03 17:11
We're talking about the trespass that occurred here. The trespassing bill had not yet been brought forward in Alberta. It was brought in afterward because of this circumstance. Then you could have the “no trespassing” sign, but people could come in from any point. Before it, the farmer who was trespassed against had to press the charges and be convinced to press the charges. There was no distinct law to automatically charge people without the farmer pressing charges.
It's important to have these laws in place to set things out so that if you violate them, you have to go. The law in Alberta now has stronger penalties toward the organization that organizes trespasses, and it's very similar to Bill C-205. It's important that we get consistency across the country. I was listening earlier to some of the chicken farmers. You don't want people to go to an easier spot to target farms.
View Alistair MacGregor Profile
NDP (BC)
You made a comment earlier about the police and their training on biosecurity issues. What do you think the police agencies' current understanding is of biosecurity?
Darren Ference
View Darren Ference Profile
Darren Ference
2021-06-03 17:12
When we went through it as part of the Alberta board, there was very little understanding from the police on what biosecurity was. They entered barns without any biosecurity protocols. They did not put on any biosecurity clothing or clean their footwear or anything else when they were going in, which is standard in the feed industry. Anybody who's associated with a barn or with an operation would do that. They had no understanding of that, and they just entered to remove the trespassers. I think a lot needs to be done there.
View Alistair MacGregor Profile
NDP (BC)
I'm asking that question because I think the police have a very good understanding of what trespassing is: being unlawfully present on private property and not leaving when the owner says to leave. The CFIA is an organization that intimately understands the concept of biosecurity. They have already testified before this committee that if Bill C-205 were to come into effect, they would not have the resources to take on the added responsibility.
How do we fix that? If Bill C-205 does become part of the Health of Animals Act, how do we fix the situation if police decide to apply charges? Would they need to have CFIA officials with them to give them an understanding of biosecurity? I'm wondering if you have a solution to how we fix the resource problem in implementing the law and enforcing it.
Darren Ference
View Darren Ference Profile
Darren Ference
2021-06-03 17:14
I think it could be some simple training on some simple biosecurity practices. In the rural or agricultural areas, it should be part of the RCMP training.
View Yves Perron Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you very much.
Mr. Ference, I would like to go back to the matter of resources. You said earlier that the police will need to be trained, but people from the Canada Food Inspection Agency are telling us that they will not have the resources they need to enforce the act.
If the bill is passed and the police see that an offence has occurred, would it not be enough to communicate the information, so that the procedure can take its course? Could you tell me your views on that?
Darren Ference
View Darren Ference Profile
Darren Ference
2021-06-03 17:27
If the CFIA doesn't have the resources, I still think the RCMP has the resources. They're our resource in rural Canada. They're in every community. They just need to be properly trained on how to access or enter a farm differently from another business. I think they could efficiently and effectively be our resource for this bill.
Marcel Groleau
View Marcel Groleau Profile
Marcel Groleau
2021-06-03 17:28
I believe also that there can be collaboration between the Canada Food Inspection Agency, CFIA, and the inspectors from the Quebec Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There can be a presence in all provinces. The CFIA already has a presence in abattoirs everywhere. Collaboration with provincial agencies also seems desirable.
View Yves Perron Profile
BQ (QC)
Do you feel that the local force observing the offence would be enough?
According to the wording of the act, it would be.
Marcel Groleau
View Marcel Groleau Profile
Marcel Groleau
2021-06-03 17:28
If the federal and provincial levels could collaborate, but also transfer responsibilities, as we see in other areas, it would help with the enforcement of not only Bill C‑205, but perhaps even aspects of other agreements between the federal government and the provincial government on the whole area of healthy livestock operations.
View Alistair MacGregor Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you, Chair.
I'll continue with the Turkey Farmers of Canada.
In the existing “Prohibitions” section in the parent act, the Health of Animals Act, where prohibitions are defined, when they deal with how to treat a diseased animal—for example, it's illegal to bring it to market, to conceal it or to let it go out into a pasture—they refer to “no person”, whereas Bill C-205 is using the specific language:
No person shall,
but then it includes:
without lawful authority or excuse
There have been a number of cases in which employees at a farm have been responsible for introducing a biosecurity threat. Is there anything we can do to make sure that every person—no matter whether he or she is a protester or a farm employee—is actually respecting those biosecurity protocols? Is there anything further the federal government can be doing to make sure that any person who's entering a place where animals are kept is observing those strict biosecurity protocols?
Are there any suggestions you might have?
Darren Ference
View Darren Ference Profile
Darren Ference
2021-06-03 17:31
I don't have any suggestions on how you can support it. Phil does. I know we have our animal flock care and our on-farm. We're audited by a third party. We're doing all we can do for that.
Phil, do you have more to add?
Phil Boyd
View Phil Boyd Profile
Phil Boyd
2021-06-03 17:31
I do, thanks, Darren.
Mr. MacGregor, I have a couple of points I can offer really quickly.
One, our programs—and they're probably similar to the other programs you've heard discussed at this committee—all have a training component for the farmer and for farm employees. They're mandatory programs, so that training has to happen. There's continuous improvement as far as farm labour is concerned, at least within our sector, as I hear from talking to any of the farmers who have hired employees.
The second thing that's interesting is that we have CFIA accreditation of our on-farm food safety program through an FPT process. We have also asked for that accreditation on our animal care program, but haven't received it yet. That would really reinforce the kinds of things we're trying to address through our testimony on this bill.
As well, Mr. Barlow, the TFC appreciates the work you've put into this and the leadership you've shown on it.
I don't know if that answers your question entirely, but by way of context, training and that kind of accreditation and recognition for the animal welfare component of our programs—it's the same in other sectors—would be meaningful steps.
View Robert Morrissey Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Robert Morrissey Profile
2021-06-02 17:38
Thank you, Chair.
I'll begin by thanking and congratulating the minister for ensuring that DFO got a significant budget increase in this budget. That is no simple feat and, Minister, I want to acknowledge your work on that.
Minister, the lobster and crab fishery has been very beneficial for commercial and first nation fishers in Atlantic Canada, and I have always focused on policies that protect the value and future of these important fisheries. My concern today, and my question to you, stems from testimony that was given in the fisheries committee and directly from fishers about the growing practice of unrecorded sales for cash in the lobster and crab fisheries. These sales are used to influence who gets the product. This practice will hurt the industry, as it has a destabilizing effect on the fishery.
What enforcement measures are in place and what steps is your department taking to identify this practice, document it, prosecute where necessary and eliminate it, Madam Minister?
View Bernadette Jordan Profile
Lib. (NS)
Thank you for the question, Mr. Morrissey.
One of the things that we all hear about is the unreported sales of fish. This is a challenge. Of course, as you know, DFO regulates the fishery, but once it hits the wharf, it becomes provincial jurisdiction with regard to processing and to who's buying it.
I will say that we are working collaboratively with the province on this issue. Also, of course, RCMP officers have a number of different tools that they use to address the concerns and do investigative work. We do not direct them. They are independent.
I think it's also important to note that I will be meeting with my eastern fisheries ministers very shortly, in the coming weeks, and this will br a topic of discussion, because it is a concern. When people are selling outside of the boundaries of the law, it impacts all of us. It impacts the price; it impacts the data we have, and it impacts our exports, so we want to make sure that this is done in an above board fashion.
View Sylvie Bérubé Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am on the territory of the Cree and Anishinabe of Abitibi—Baie‑James—Nunavik—Eeyou in Quebec.
My question is for Ms. Van De Bogart.
Ms. Van De Bogart, you mentioned a hotline earlier. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this hotline that people can use to report cases of human trafficking?
Michelle Van De Bogart
View Michelle Van De Bogart Profile
Michelle Van De Bogart
2021-06-01 12:53
Thank you for the question. I hope you can hear through the translation.
The hotline is a toll-free service. I mentioned that it's available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It refers victims to local law enforcement, to shelters and to other supports and services. Because it's available all the time—and, as I mentioned, in over 200 languages, 27 of them indigenous—it allows an opportunity for people to call and obtain all sorts of information and to have specific supports put in place that they might need.
We speak about victims, but this service allows people to find avenues for shelter or perhaps for addressing issues around sexual and physical abuse and domestic violence, and they can get information from law enforcement as well.
The hotline has trained operators, and they are trauma informed. There is an understanding and a recognition when they are speaking to these individuals of how to interact with them and how to support the victims and be able to direct them to the supports that they require.
View Sylvie Bérubé Profile
BQ (QC)
My next question is for all of you.
Do you have any recommendations for improving the ability of government institutions and indigenous organizations to identify potential victims and locations of human trafficking?
Michelle Van De Bogart
View Michelle Van De Bogart Profile
Michelle Van De Bogart
2021-06-01 12:55
One of the things I want to speak to you about is one of the pillars of the national strategy, specifically about building capacity and working with our partnerships.
We're working in collaboration with federal, provincial and territorial partners. I work with my colleagues in other departments to strengthen, to share ideas and to inform. Part of that is consultation and conversations with grassroots organizations, elders, indigenous leaders and indigenous organizations to try to find ways that we can respond and offer support.
The voices of those who are survivors and those who have been impacted by human trafficking are important in order for us to build, to strengthen and to continue to grow in offering support through Public Safety.
Sam Jaroudi
View Sam Jaroudi Profile
Sam Jaroudi
2021-06-01 12:57
For the RCMP, I would say that building trust with communities is the most important thing in tackling this issue.
As mentioned earlier, victims and witnesses and their families are very reluctant to come to law enforcement. However, we've built a lot of networks and relationships and we participate in a lot of community events and discussions on human trafficking to have that exposure between police and the public, and hopefully that plays out over time.
We recognize that it's not something that can be achieved overnight, but we're working hard on that aspect. We're also supporting that approach by training our police officers and employees in general on being culturally sensitive, as well as utilizing trauma-informed approaches.
View Caroline Desbiens Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would love to be a permanent member of this committee. Our very interesting discussions make me hungry for more.
I'll address Mr. Sullivan.
We've been thinking a lot and I've been taking notes. Transparency, community economy and market economy are important. The market economy is a resource and we need to maintain the market.
What are your proposals?
Could we set up an oversight committee that some of you could serve on? Could that be a way to brainstorm and monitor the situation more closely?
Keith Sullivan
View Keith Sullivan Profile
Keith Sullivan
2021-05-31 16:39
The short answer is yes. I think it's just a matter of some more resources here, and it's not....
The inshore fishery can operate very well on its own. It's a very healthy environment. Young people can get in and pay a fair market value and get a fair return on investment. It's just that the proposition for fish companies to go in there and get access to the supply is a bit of a different value proposition, and that's all leaving.
We really need DFO to follow up on what they say they're going to do, the investigations. When they find these people who are in violation, sometimes there are significant licences and there can be penalties associated with this. With what we've seen in the past, when they were outside the regulation and basically in violation of the owner-operator and the fleet separation policy, they were given a chance to fix it. The policy was there because they wanted people to come into compliance.
That wasn't what it was supposed to be. In the past, DFO got very lenient and I think were very sympathetic to some of the larger companies, but now we need them to really dig in. There have to be consequences. I think that's the biggest thing that we see. If people are fined or lose access to licences that are worth millions of dollars, soon that will become too risky of a proposition for any company to take. Just make sure that we're doing what we can to keep those licences in generally the local areas, with the harvesters in those communities.
Christian Leuprecht
View Christian Leuprecht Profile
Christian Leuprecht
2021-05-31 15:34
Mr. Chair, vice-chairs and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me today to discuss this very important topic. I would be happy to answer your questions in either official language.
I've provided my text in English, so I will follow it.
Violent extremism in Canada is a marginal phenomenon, and situations arising out of ideologically motivated violent extremism garner a lot of public attention. That's followed by political commitments or opportunities, such as the hearings that we're having today, to move on certain policies.
Detecting domestic IMVE and disrupting it is costly, and costs are disproportionate to the benefit. There are many other threats, such as cyber-threats, foreign interference and foreign espionage, that are far more consequential for Canada's security, prosperity and democracy, but they're difficult to quantify publicly in the absence of human casualties. If done better and more systematically, rebalancing Canada's national security and policing posture, with a greater emphasis on cyber, organized crime, money laundering and protecting Canadians from foreign malign actors, would have a far greater benefit for public safety and for depriving IMVE of resources and enablers than the current approach, whose track record seems neither particularly efficient, nor particularly effective.
Who is likely to sympathize with, provide material support for or actually engage in violent extremism and why has become one of the more pressing security questions of our time. That question is made more difficult by the very small number of those in this category, on the one hand, and the vast majority of people in comparable circumstances who are very resilient to radicalization. I provide some numbers that I will skip over, but I'll simply point out that, as shown in testimony before this committee, terrorist attacks and incidents, although extremely tragic, are very rare compared with many other incidents of violence and violence related to ideology.
We need to distinguish between ideologically motivated violent extremism and ideologically motivated extremist violence. One concerns the narrative; the other concerns action. We can lay this out in two pyramids: the narrative pyramid and the action pyramid. These two pyramids are distinct from one another. In the action pyramid, we have terrorists at the apex, then radicals and, below them, activist sympathizers. You got a similar description from Tim Hahlweg of CSIS, with passive engagement, active engagement and mobilizing to violence.
The relationship between thought and action isn't clear. It's not a conveyor belt, and it's not causal. This raises a host of questions. How do individuals end up in one of those three radical action categories? Are there three different kinds of people who end up in these different categories? What are the drivers of the transition between these categories? What motivates an individual to cross boundaries, passing from non-radical to radical or from radical to terrorist? What are the barriers to these transitions? Why do so few people become radicalized, and is there anything special about these few? Do the categories of action and the transitions between different categories depend on the particular cause being espoused, or do all movements and issues exhibit commonalities in the structure of radicalization?
From the perspective of intelligence and law enforcement, we might also ask, is it possible to tell which category of action an individual will move toward by examining an individual’s attitudes? More generally, can current attitudes predict the future political trajectory of a particular individual?
It turns out that the relationship between narrative and action is indeterminate. Few in the narrative pyramid ever move to action, and action is not necessarily motivated by belief in a narrative. I've sketched 12 mechanisms—at the micro, meso and macro levels—that we've identified. It turns out that ideology is one of those 12, and in quite a few cases ideology is not present at all. People engage in violence for a host of reasons that have nothing to do with ideology, so it's neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for violence.
When ideology is present, more often than not ideology becomes the justification and the rationale for the violence rather than the cause of the violence per se.
For policy purposes, we need to treat the problem of narrative and the problem of action as distinct problems. We see this as such in Canada, the problem of mass radicalization—that is to say, entire communities that are radicalized—is not really a problem. What we see is individuals who are radicalized. This is a question about those individuals who are sympathetic to violence.
I would say that in terms of those investigations—I explained this in my brief—we don't have a particularly great track record in terms of the RCMP and success of the RCMP.
Democracy is on a slippery slope when we merely hold political beliefs that, however objectionable they may be, end up being equated with criminal behaviour. With the exception of a few offences such as incitement and hate speech that cross into the criminal realm, the hallmark of democracy is to police criminal action, not opinions.
Generally speaking, radicalization per se—a shift in beliefs, feelings and actions towards increased support for one side or the other—is not a problem. The challenge and test for democracy always comes at the margins.
I would conclude by saying that overplaying and politicizing the threat of IMVE by going after a needle in a haystack.... A better approach would be for the government to improve how Canada is postured to detect, disrupt, contain and deter against the full spectrum of national security threats in the first place. To that effect, we can focus on federal police reform to make federal police more functional, with a foreign human intelligence service and a dedicated criminal intelligence service.
There are many far greater threat vectors to public safety that Canadian communities confront day in and day out. They are from non-conventional threats by state and non-state actors such as cyber, and conventional threats such as organized crime, money laundering and the like, on which a government concerned about national security could take concerted action that would have far more direct and immediate impacts on public safety than IMVE.
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
CPC (AB)
View Shannon Stubbs Profile
2021-05-31 15:54
To your point about protecting public safety through preventing and creating consequences for criminal activity, do you have any comments to expand on in terms of reforms or changes or concrete solutions for federal policing or other intelligence services?
Christian Leuprecht
View Christian Leuprecht Profile
Christian Leuprecht
2021-05-31 15:54
I would say that the much-vaunted risk reduction measures that CSIS was granted, commonly known as “disruption”—the ones that do not require warrants—have proven quite effective and successful at reducing risk.
I would also say that we have a federal police force that spends 85% of its time and resources doing provincial contract policing, which detracts from its federal mandate. I cite at least one case, the Victoria Parliament plot, which was extremely unsuccessful, given the resources that were invested into this case, where the RCMP was chastised by the judge for its entrapment practices.
I think we need to be better postured in terms of federal policing. We need to have a separate criminal intelligence service and likely move that out of the RCMP to make that a separate stand-alone entity. We need to have a better sense of the foreign influences here that may be illegal or criminal under Canadian law. To that effect, we need a foreign human intelligence service, because CSIS, for reasons that go beyond our time here, cannot currently engage in that mandate effectively.
View Tako Van Popta Profile
CPC (BC)
You're not going to be able to answer this in 30 seconds, but you said that perhaps empowering CSIS would be a good tool for Canadian public safety. Could you expand on that for a few seconds?
Christian Leuprecht
View Christian Leuprecht Profile
Christian Leuprecht
2021-05-31 16:29
I think in general we have a relatively homeopathic approach in this country towards all matters of national security. If we improved the overall capabilities, capacities and skill sets of our national security agencies—both the criminal intelligence and security intelligence—it would have ancillary benefits for the whole spectrum of public security threats, including ideologically motivated violent extremism. This, of course, is critical in a highly diverse society where we cannot have people trying to antagonize one another by virtue of differing views, opinions or backgrounds.
View Blaine Calkins Profile
CPC (AB)
You fail to make the point that you have an enforcement issue. I'm a former conservation officer. I'm a former national park warden. I understand fully the idea of leaving things marked so that they are easily accessible for law enforcement. You've told me that you've had a whopping two out of 41 cases, on average. If it's not a case of conservation concern—and it clearly is not, because size does not matter when it comes to prawns for conservation, as has already been admitted here—so there must be a reason for doing this that meets some type of conservation rationale or some other type of rationale for enforcement.
I've heard that it's a whopping two cases out of 41 charges that are laid on average every year. Then I've heard some startling things coming out of the mouths of some of the people here, saying that the regulatory changes were made to meet the needs of enforcement. I thought perhaps maybe we would just meet the needs of the fishermen to the best of our ability and let them carry on with their lives and their livelihoods.
I guess the question I have is this: Do the fishers refuse or remain non-compliant when they're asked to thaw a tub?
Rebecca Reid
View Rebecca Reid Profile
Rebecca Reid
2021-05-26 16:54
There have been no regulatory changes made. These regulations have been in place since 1993. When inspection of their product is requested, the fishermen are compliant. Nicole can speak to that more specifically.
This isn't a question about whether people are resisting the enforcement or the inspection. It's about how to produce the product in a way—
View Serge Cormier Profile
Lib. (NB)
Okay, so you mean that for only two size violations, you want to change fishing that was going on for many, many years in a matter of, I think, two months.
I'm not sure if you know this, but my father was a fisherman all his life. Changing the way you fish doesn't happen overnight. You need time to organize yourself. You need time to prepare your gear and everything. For example, here on the east coast we're fishing lobster. If there is a size violation, we fine those people and take some of them to court. We don't change the way we measure lobster the year afterward.
Why, if there were only two violations like that, do you want to change a process that's been going on for years? It seems there is no conservation issue whatsoever. Why are you changing the rules all of a sudden, giving the industry no time to prepare themselves? It would be like asking them to mow their lawn with a snow blower during the summer. It would take time to adapt, right?
Rebecca Reid
View Rebecca Reid Profile
Rebecca Reid
2021-05-26 16:59
If I can respond to that, the answer is that we're not asking for a change. What we've said is that this is the practice that's been in place, the expectation that's been in place all along, so we don't see a change. What's changed is the increased use of tubbing. That means we need to make sure we reflect on how to properly inspect those products. We're not asking for a change in fishing. We've come up with a protocol to allow for the use of tubbing. We continue to want to enforce the size limits as an important part of conservation. That hasn't changed. None of that has changed.
View Serge Cormier Profile
Lib. (NB)
You have inspected those prawns for many years. You still want to change the way that they use tubbing, if I may say so.
Rebecca Reid
View Rebecca Reid Profile
Rebecca Reid
2021-05-26 16:59
I would say that what Nicole said is that the use of tubbing was very uncommon and there are other ways that the prawns are kept either alive or frozen, such as finger packed and frozen, that are easily and readily available. Those are very easy to inspect. It's just the tubbing that's hard to inspect, because the prawns are hidden in the ice and you need to be able to thaw them. It's that part of it. If there's going to be an increase in prevalence because of the change in markets, then we need to make sure that practices and protocols allow us to inspect the product. That's really what we're interested in.
Rebecca Reid
View Rebecca Reid Profile
Rebecca Reid
2021-05-26 17:01
For next year we need to continue to work with industry on some of the issues that Neil raised. If tubbing is the preferred packaging, then let's talk about what that looks like and how we can come up with methodologies going forward to make sure that the fish are readily inspected and to determine what that looks like. There are going to be conversations with industry, and I'm sure we can find a solution.
Sonia Strobel
View Sonia Strobel Profile
Sonia Strobel
2021-05-26 17:31
Thank you so much for having me.
As you said, my name is Sonia Strobel. I'm the co-founder and CEO of Skipper Otto. We're Canada's first community-supported fishery and one of the first in the world. We're based on Coast Salish territory here in Vancouver, B.C.
I married into a fishing family 20 years ago. Honestly, I was horrified to witness the struggles of my father-in-law, Otto, and my husband Sean and other small-scale harvesters. They face risks and uncertainties that no one would tolerate in any other livelihood. At the end of the day, a lot of them just hope to break even. They're barely paying themselves minimum wage.
At the same time, Canadians can scarcely access domestic seafood. Canada exports 90% of its catch, and 80% of what Canadians can buy in restaurants and in retail shops is imported, often from shady sources that support environmental destruction and human rights abuses in unregulated international waters, yet demand for local producer-direct seafood continues to skyrocket.
We started Skipper Otto to help take some of the uncertainty out of fishing and to address Canadian food insecurity. Our membership model provides frozen seafood directly from fishing families to consumers across Canada. We do lots of other things to de-risk fishing, but since this is what's core to the issue today, that's where I'll focus my remarks.
Freezing seafood allows harvesters to hold on to their product and find their own fair markets rather than being forced to sell to live buyers and export markets that won't set a price until long after they've taken the product. Monopolization and collusion are commonplace in this industry. Right now, we're two weeks into the spot prawn season. Folks selling into the live markets have already delivered the bulk of this year's catch, but they still haven't been told a price, let alone been paid a penny.
Not only is allowing the freezing of seafood like spot prawns, at sea a social justice issue; it's also critical to improving other issues like food security, tackling climate change and addressing seafood fraud. Our model allows members to enjoy sustainable seafood year-round anywhere in the country. It's shipped using low-carbon methods, and each piece of seafood shows exactly who caught it, when, where and how.
This committee has heard testimony from many harvesters about the impact of selling frozen-at-sea spot prawn tails domestically compared to selling to live markets. Last year, that meant that harvesters who tailed, tubbed and froze their prawns at sea sold them for 300% more than they received from selling them to the live buyer.
Skipper Otto supports 34 fishing families, like Joel Collier here, throughout the B.C. coast, as well as in two remote communities in Nunavut. These families provide a year's worth of seafood directly to over 7,000 families across the country. You heard from many of them through our petitions on this topic.
Our members are passionate about supporting Canadian fishing families. They do that by buying fishermen-direct frozen seafood. This spot prawn issue hits them personally, and they're not going to let it drop.
In Canada, shrimp and prawns are by far the most consumed species of seafood. Globally, some five billion pounds of shrimp and prawns are produced each year. Where does most of that come from?
The global shrimp and prawn trade is the most notorious for environmental destruction and human rights abuses. Most of the frozen shrimp you can get in Canadian grocery stores is in some way connected to human trafficking, slavery and deforestation of mangroves in southeast Asia. How wonderful, then, that we have this incredibly clean, well-managed, ethically harvested product as an alternative for consumers in Canada to displace some of that dirty product.
However, this reinterpretation of the regulation about spot prawn tubbing undoes all of that. It takes from fishing families one of the most profitable fisheries they have in a industry that's desperately difficult to make money in. Once again it puts the control and profits back into the hands of big foreign-owned export companies. It takes a sustainable, clean and ethical product out of the hands of Canadians and makes more space for slave-caught shrimp on Canadian shelves. For what? The DFO has not provided a single plausible reason for this decision. Of course, we all support strong conservation measures, but it has not been demonstrated that this is in any way a conservation issue.
Of course, we all want to put an end to IUU fishing and harvesting, but placing the burden of that on all harvesters is unjust and irrational. If a small group of harvesters and processors are violating regulations, then C and P—conservation and protection—already has the tools in place to focus the enforcement of the regulations without upending the entire industry. Their job is to enforce regulations made by arms-length lawmakers, not to reinvent the laws to make enforcement easier.
Please help me to tell our 7,000 member families across the country that this is solved. They are all eagerly awaiting the update on this issue, not just for this year but for the future as well.
In conclusion, I submit the following recommendations: one, that you give certainty to harvesters that tailing, tubbing and freezing prawns at sea will remain legal; and two, that you ensure that our local prawn harvest is protected for Canadian harvesters and consumers, not for the benefit of foreign corporations and investors.
Ivan Askgaard
View Ivan Askgaard Profile
Ivan Askgaard
2021-05-26 17:42
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and hello all committee members. I really appreciate being asked to speak today.
My name is Ivan Askgaard. I am a commercial fisherman. I have fished for 40 years for prawns. I own a prawn licence and operate a fishing vessel, and I also have a registered storage facility where we are licensed to freeze our prawn tails.
I served on the prawn sectoral committee in the eighties and the nineties, where we collaborated with DFO to implement larger mesh size, increase the minimum size, and implement many other measures to make the fishery more sustainable. I recall that the telson length measurement was established back then so that prawn tails frozen in seawater could become a viable product. I would have to say at this point that consultation back then was far more effective than what we're seeing today.
For years I was investing in technology to catch more fish. A number of years ago we hit a ceiling for what we could catch. We reached the conclusion that the way to survive was by adding value to the catch by improving its quality, its convenience for the consumer and its consistency. We have invested in Internet marketing, packaging, cold storage and distribution systems. I have to say that not all fishermen have reached the stage of advancement that we have. We're independent and we're forward-thinking.
I also have to say that we feel privileged to be able to harvest the common property fishery resource of Canadians. Canadians rely on us to provide them with food and access to something that they in fact own but trust us to harvest, and because licensed commercial fishermen rely on the goodwill of Canadians for access to the resource, we've made a point of making some of our catch available to the public over the last 30 or 40 years. It's not only tremendously satisfying; it's good business. There has come to be so little seafood available direct from the fishermen, even in our little coastal town of Powell River, that our customers routinely thank us profusely for making our product available to them. It's a strong market.
For the 2020 and 2021 prawn fishing seasons, the markets have endured another cyclical crash in the markets for frozen whole prawns for export to Japan and China, where 80% to 90% of our production is destined. The poor prices on this occasion have been blamed on COVID. An earlier witness mentioned extensive collusion in the industry among buyers, and I can reaffirm that fact. Fishermen received as little as $3 a pound for their smallest-sized product last year. Their medium prawns sold into the frozen seafood market at $3 a pound. That's less than the cost of production, I can tell you. This year looks to be the same. Fishermen are trying to make any kind of move they can to avoid financial ruin.
The market crash has promoted innovation by fishermen to adapt. We want to be able to have certainty and we want to be able to adapt. We're not looking for any kind of a financial handout, but we do want some certainty. We're trying to create higher-value markets by producing frozen prawn tails and selling directly to the public. I can say that this is a long-time practice and one that we have gone to when we've had poor markets in the past. When I first started fishing back in the eighties, there were people back then selling frozen prawn tails. That's how long this practice has gone on. It's not a recent practice.
This reinterpretation of the policy is not a conservation issue. It's solving a problem that doesn't exist. It's so unjust that my outrage is the reason I'm appearing here today. There have been no recent charges for fishermen for retaining undersized prawns. We've heard one of the earlier witnesses say that it was about two a year. I think there was some confusion there. There were two charges in 2019 to my knowledge, and there have been none in 2020 or 2021 for undersized prawns, although there have been many other charges laid in the fishery. I've spoken with a fisheries officer who says that retention of undersized prawn tails in tubs by commercial fishermen is the least of their concerns.
I can tell you from practical experience that identifying a fisherman who has retained undersized prawns is a relatively simple matter, all this talk of thawing tubs aside. The tried and true enforcement technique is for the rubber boat to arrive seemingly out of nowhere and an impromptu investigation occurs of the product that is retained on deck. Timed at the end of a haul of a string of traps, DFO can easily go through a large amount of product—about one-sixth or more of that vessel's daily catch—to get a clear assessment of what is being retained by the vessel.
Any amount—
View Alistair MacGregor Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you for that clarification.
Across Canada, as you know, we have had some instances on farms—notably, mink farms —where it's been employees who have accidentally brought in a disease to the animals. They were there with lawful authority and excuse, and through their actions—they may not have been following proper protocols—they accidentally transferred a disease to the population.
Bill C-205 uses that language of being there with “lawful authority or excuse”.
Do you think there's room to amend this bill so that employees are held to the same standards, or if that's not in your view the correct path to take, what should we be doing to ensure that standards are uniform, whether you're a protester or a farm employee?
Keith Currie
View Keith Currie Profile
Keith Currie
2021-05-25 16:23
Well, certainly I believe it's up to each individual farm operation to make sure they educate their employees on the proper biosecurity protocols that are in place. All livestock commodity organizations that I know of have resources that farmers can access to educate their employees on proper procedures and protocols.
I'm not sure that having an act that will penalize an employee because they made a mistake in that regard is really fair, unless that employee was hired under false pretences in order to get access to the building. That's a different situation. Otherwise, I wouldn't want to say that this act should try to handle a mistake by an employee bringing a disease in.
View Dave Epp Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses, Dr. Stark, and it should be “Dr. Currie”, for your excellent testimony.
I'd like to start with you, Dr. Stark. It's good to see you again.
As has been mentioned, we heard from the officials that this legislation is not particularly necessary, as all of this is covered under provincial trespassing laws and that this could potentially muddle provincial-federal relations or federal-provincial jurisdiction.
You mentioned in your testimony some core tensions. I know that with some of your “hats” in the past, you've had to deal with some of these core tensions.
How do provincial officials presently work with the CFIA when they're investigating offences? Would that relationship change and be strengthened with the passage of this act?
Deb Stark
View Deb Stark Profile
Deb Stark
2021-05-25 16:30
Thank you very much.
I guess I'm supposed to address the chair, but it is nice to see you again, Dave.
I can mostly speak from Ontario, but certainly provinces talk. The federal-provincial ag departments talk frequently enough, so I think I can represent most of the provincial colleagues when I say that the working relationship on the ground is very good.
Agriculture is a shared jurisdiction, and areas like food safety and animal health don't respect provincial and federal boundaries. The diseases don't care whose jurisdiction it is, and so officials need to work hand in hand to make sure the system works well.
On what would change if this bill were in place, I think I'd go back to it depending on what kind of resources the CFIA is given. If the CFIA is fully resourced and given the mandate to take control and enforce it all themselves, it may make very little difference.
History would suggest that there would probably be some kind of a outreach to the provincial officials, trying to figure out who was on the ground and closer to the farms. Certainly provincial officials are usually more close on the farm, and more on the ground, quite frankly, so we probably would try to work with them.
View Alistair MacGregor Profile
NDP (BC)
Okay, thank you.
I just want to squeeze one more question in. This is for Mr. Bergmann. The theme of my question is really on deterrence versus enforcement, because we have heard testimony that the police are not always very quick to arrive on the scene and sometimes seem unsure as to whether they should proceed with a case.
If we were in fact to adopt Bill C-205—and I understand Mr. Barlow has made the case that CFIA can always work with provincial peace officers to enforce the law—do we also have a problem of enforcement, especially in rural Canada? If we're going to add another law, it's not going to do much good if we don't have the force to back it up and follow through with it.
Rick Bergmann
View Rick Bergmann Profile
Rick Bergmann
2021-05-25 17:32
We really believe that the enforcement is a big part of it because when one domino falls, without enforcement, what would be the deterrent to this reoccurring and for others to do that? I think enforcement is very much a component of all of this, absolutely.
In a rural setting, absolutely, that would be a different situation—not a different situation, but when you're more remote.... That said, I believe that society is coming along quite well, where they can react more quickly to different circumstances. It doesn't matter whether it's remote or not. I really believe it would help us to further protect our farms.
Results: 1 - 100 of 1263 | Page: 1 of 13

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

For more data options, please see Open Data