Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 60 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?
Results: 1 - 60 of 1263 | Page: 1 of 22

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

For more data options, please see Open Data