Proceedings of the Special Senate Committee on the
Anti-terrorism Act
Issue 18 - Evidence - Afternoon meeting
OTTAWA, Monday, October 31, 2005
The Special Senate Committee on the Anti-terrorism Act met this day at 1:32 p.m. to undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of the Anti-terrorism Act, (S.C. 2001, c.41).
Senator Joyce Fairbairn (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I call this meeting to order. This is the fortieth meeting with witnesses of the Special Senate Committee on the Anti-terrorism Act. For our viewers, I will explain the purpose of this committee.
In October 2001, as a direct response to the terrorist attacks in New York City, Washington D. C. and Pennsylvania, and at the request of the United Nations, the Canadian government introduced Bill C-36, the Anti- terrorism Act. Given the urgency of the situation then, Parliament was asked to expedite our study of the legislation and we agreed. The deadline for the passage of that bill was mid-December of 2001.
However, concerns were expressed that it was difficult to thoroughly assess the potential impact of this legislation in such a short time, and for that reason, it was agreed that three years later, Parliament would be asked to examine the provisions of the act and its impact on Canadians with the benefit of hindsight and in a less emotionally charged situation with the public. Therefore, the work of this committee reflects the Senate's efforts to fulfil that obligation.
When we have completed the study we will make a report to the Senate that will outline any issue we believe should be addressed and allow the results of our work to be available to the government and to the Canadian people. I should say as well that the House of Commons is conducting a similar study at this time.
Our committee has so far met with government ministers and officials, international and domestic experts on the threat environment, legal experts, those involved in enforcement and intelligence gathering, representatives of community groups; we have travelled to Washington to talk with colleagues there. Next week, we will be spending a few days in London to also meet with colleagues there.
This afternoon, we will return to the issue of community impact, which has been a significant issue of interest throughout our hearings. We are pleased to welcome Mr. Faisal Joseph, National Legal Counsel for the Canadian Islamic Congress, and Imam Salam Elmenyawi, Chairman of the Muslim Council of Montreal.
We welcome you both. We are delighted that you have come to visit with us. As always, colleagues, I would ask that your questions be as concise as possible.
The floor is yours, gentlemen.
Faisal Joseph, Legal Counsel, Canadian Islamic Congress: First, I am honoured to be here in the chamber of sober second thought. It is an honour for us to have been asked for our views on these important matters.
I am a Canadian Muslim who happens to have been born in that hotbed of terrorism, Truro, Nova Scotia. I moved to London, Ontario, a city with the highest number per capita of Muslims in the country. There are about 35,000 Muslims in London, which is about 12 per cent of the population. Today I am wearing three hats: for the Canadian Islamic Congress, the Association of London Muslims and the Islamic Centre of Southwestern Ontario.
This presentation is not an attempt to legally analyze the legitimacy, the constitutionality of or moral authority for the present Canadian anti-terrorism legislation. Those points have been made by me and others to prime ministers, parliamentarians and committees of the House of Commons, with, I am sad to say, little effect. Instead, today, as a Muslim born in Canada, I want to put a human perspective on the effect the last four years have had on the country's 750,000 law-abiding, taxpaying Muslims.
I also had the opportunity, and I was pleased, to hear some comments from Mr. Judd, who is now the head of CSIS, that I think were a lot more reflective and appropriate, although not always in agreement with the Muslim community, than his predecessor's.
The Canadian Bar Association's initial assessment and analysis of Bill C-36, later to become the Anti-terrorism Act, appropriately, in my view, described the legislation as unprecedented, unreasonable and unnecessary.
As a former federal-provincial Crown attorney, I, along with other Canadians, was promised by our politicians and our former prime ministers that our fears of racial and religious profiling, potential civil rights abuses and intimidation by law enforcement or immigration officers would not happen. That promise was broken.
Throughout the last two years I have received weekly calls from Muslims across the country, representing over 50 cultures, who have felt mistreated, intimidated, threatened or abused by Customs and Immigration officials or law enforcement agencies, including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; and, yes, appreciating that CSIS is not a law enforcement but an intelligence agency, we have complaints about the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
Ladies and gentlemen, thoughts of secret hearings regarding security certificates, preventive arrests, changes to the rules of evidence under the Canada Evidence Act, including hearsay evidence on criminal matters, were unthinkable prior to 9/11. A climate of fear and ignorance now exists that has resulted in the curtailment or elimination of civil rights. This curtailment is presently and mistakenly thought of as necessary or justified in a free and democratic society. The result is the continuous erosion of these rights, ultimately resulting in the undermining of the very democratic society that we are trying to protect from the terrorists.
Many Muslims look at what has happened in Afghanistan and Iraq and wonder who the aggressors are. When an American soldier is killed, it is it front page news. When tens of thousands of Muslims are killed — I am talking about civilians — they are referred to in the press, if at all, as simply ``collateral damage.'' Tens of thousands of them have been killed post-9/11 and no one speaks on their behalf.
The Government of the United States, our friend and ally to the south, outwardly demands a strong rule of law, yet continues to undermine it by torture, breaches of the Geneva convention, and illegal, pre-emptive strikes against foreign countries.
Just last June it took the U.S. Supreme Court, voting six to three, to assert that Guantanamo Bay prisoners, enemy combatants or not, are entitled to no less than American citizens when it comes to due process. Previously, that was not the case according to the White House and the President of the United States. That is the United States.
In Britain, the high court — the House of Lords — ruled by an overwhelming majority that the English government cannot detain foreign suspects indefinitely without bringing them to trial.
The court stressed Britain's clear and present violation of the rule of law as well as the disproportionality of the measures they called — not I — ``draconian that cannot strictly be required by the exigencies of the situation.''
Now, let us talk about Canada. In Canada, on the other hand — and this would have been unimaginable and unthinkable to me as someone born in this country — dozens of Muslims have been detained under the cover of immigration or terrorist investigations for months at a time. In fact, five well-known Muslims have been incarcerated for a total of 178 months, almost 15 years, without formal charges being laid or a transparent trial taking place. If deported, these men face the risk of being what we affectionately call in the Muslim community ``Arared,'' referring to the brutal torture of a well-known Canadian by the name of Maher Arar. Release to the public of evidence that clearly indicates his innocence has been blocked by the government at a federal inquiry, notwithstanding that Justice O'Connor has said those documents should be released and there was no risk to national security.
The critical issue post-9/11 is how to strike the proper balance between the need for security versus civil rights. I can only give you my on-the-ground observations.
I have been appalled and shocked at the questions put to Canadian Muslims as part of national security or immigration investigations. This has not been told to me; this is what I have witnessed. For example: How many times do you pray? Do you consider yourself to be very religious? What do you think of George Bush and his policies? Not only are these questions inappropriate, but more importantly, what is the result of truthfully answering these questions? Will the detained person be deported? Will threats be made against his family members regarding their immigration status?
In Canada, the security certificate process was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal, and I predicted months ago that it would make its way to the Supreme Court of Canada; I am happy to say it is on its way.
Last year, the Honourable Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Appeal, Roy McMurtry, attended for the first time in 177 years an historic opening of the superior courts of Southwestern Ontario. In his keynote address, the chief justice stated the following, and the context is important. This came not from me but from a sitting chief justice of a court of appeal of this province:
The pluralistic character of Ontario and of Canada is indeed a fundamental fact of our nationhood. Canadians should take much pride in the fact that so many people of diverse racial, ethnic, cultural, and religious backgrounds have chosen and will choose Canada as their home. I have often stated that there are really two broad categories of Canadians, namely people like myself whom you might describe as Canadians by chance or accident, in that we were born here, and those Canadians who made the conscious and deliberate decision to choose Canada as their home. This choice has often demanded great courage in facing challenges of a different culture, language, and a sometimes hostile climate. I think that Canadians should recognize the respect that is due to those who made that choice and who, in so doing, have helped make ours a truly remarkable country, despite our ongoing challenges.
The chief justice went on to say:
At the same time, I recognize that the tragic events of 9/11 of 2001 have regrettably placed an unfair burden on the Muslim Canadian community as some Canadians irrationally and unfairly equate the Islamic religion with terrorism. There appears sometimes to have been an attempt to impose a collective guilt on the Islamic community, which risks creating a defence mentality. Any such occurrence would obviously be very damaging to our often fragile social fabric.
There are also no shortages of voices internationally who would characterize unfolding events as a ``clash of civilizations.''
Like the chief justice, I think that there is no such clash.
Any such rhetoric, of course, plays into the hands of terrorists and extremists. Indeed, it would make it very difficult to root out the terrorists if we allow a whole religion and an entire community to be demonized.
I would hope that the lessons of history would alert us to the extreme dangers of demonizing any single minority group. In fact there has been no major world religion of which I am aware that has not been exploited by some to perpetrate atrocities on the perceived non-believers. One only need remember the Christian Crusades in the Middle East or the Spanish Inquisition in Europe and the Americas. Even Christian fundamentalism of today can produce a Timothy McVeigh.
It has also been acknowledged that in times of fear, the majority of people place security above all else and are quite willing to give in to government's extraordinary authority.
Again, quoting the chief justice:
As one U.S. law professor recently expressed it, ``We love security more than we love liberty.'' This was dramatically and I think tragically illustrated for example by the jailing of Japanese Americans and Japanese Canadian citizens during the Second World War and, in my view at least, the imposition of the War Measures Act in Quebec in 1970.
He concluded by saying:
At the same time, we must recognize that all the laws in the world and all the human right codes count for little if individual citizens are not prepared to make a personal commitment to tolerance, to understanding and above all to fighting intolerance and bigotry at every opportunity.
My experience as a trial lawyer, and the numerous accounts I have heard from Canadian Muslims post-9/11, has not been pleasant. It is not uncommon for Canadian security and police agents to use false pretences with Muslims as to why they are being questioned. Muslims are strongly dissuaded from speaking to a lawyer and are even prevented from continuing their livelihoods or education during ``immigration investigations regarding potential irregularities.''
As an aside, I might add that I am very offended when I hear people say things like — as has been said by former commissioners of the RCMP — ``Well, if they were good Canadians, they would cooperate with the authorities.'' Of course Muslims would cooperate with the authorities. It is our religious obligation to protect this country, to protect our families, to protect our property. It is interesting that this is the first time I have heard in 20 years that when the Muslim community decides that they want to enforce the Charter of Rights, their constitutional rights, somehow that is un-Canadian. That does not help in fostering trust between law enforcement agencies and the Muslim community.
There are numerous accounts from Muslims in this country of where members of their families have been threatened with deportation if certain information is not provided. Even on university campuses throughout the country, Muslim students have reported to us that they are aggressively harassed to work for our intelligence services as confidential informants. They are contacted at their places of work. They are contacted on university campuses. Cards are left. I know what Mr. Judd has said, and I will make a few comments about that later.
It is, sadly, not surprising that many employers or future employers lose interest in an employee after a visit from our intelligence services or law enforcement regarding unsubstantiated allegations of being a terrorist or knowing someone who might be. This obviously can destroy a person's life in Canada forever.
Law enforcement and security forces know little of our religion and our belief system. For the most part, what they know are ``myth conceptions'' that continue to be perpetuated in the media. The Garvie report, which dealt with the role of the RCMP post-9/11, indicated that the police force did not even have the capacity or ability to properly conduct post-9/11 security investigations. This has also been my own experience when dealing with security or intelligence officers who interview my clients. Their lack of knowledge of the Islamic religion and their own innate, although perhaps — I give them the benefit of the doubt — unintentional, bias was quite surprising to me as a former Crown attorney.
Project Thread is an excellent example of what can go wrong and how innocent men can be detained under the auspices of an immigration or terrorism investigation. They were first declared to be national security risks. It was splashed all over the front pages of our national papers. Subsequently, a joint RCMP-SIRC investigation concluded there was no evidence that these individuals placed Canada's national security at risk.
Why is the government so afraid to outlaw racial profiling? Why? The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Commissioner of the RCMP and the head of CSIS, including Mr. Judd this morning — and I heard him say it — indicated that, first, it does not exist, which we dispute; and second, if it does, it is immoral and wrong. Why not outlaw it? Make it an offence. Give consequences to it. Do not tell us that it does not exist. We experience it one way or another on a regular basis in our communities.
An esteemed legal scholar by the name of Reem Bahdi at the University of Windsor, wrote in her article entitled ``No Exit — Racial Profiling and Canada's War Against Terrorism'' — and she is not Muslim — that racial profiling will produce only illusions of security while heightening the disempowerment and sense of vulnerability of racialized groups in Canada. In my view, racial profiling increases national security risks rather than decreases them. I was pleased and relieved to hear the head of CSIS this morning address you and tell you that in his view it does not work.
I understand that it is not an official policy of CSIS, but I am telling this committee of esteemed senators that it does exist. I do not wear a turban; I do not have a beard; I do not have an accent. I am telling you that when I come back from Dearborn, Michigan, across the border at Port Huron to return to my home in London, Ontario, and my brother is asked, ``How do you pronounce your name, ``Geehad?'' and he says, ``Jihad,'' it is a four-and-a-half-hour wait to get back into this country. Do not tell me it does not exist.
Muslims in Canada have more of an interest in extinguishing terrorism than non-Muslims. When terrorists and suicide bombers get on a bus, they do not ask who is Muslim or if people know their prayers in Arabic. They kill indiscriminately. In addition to that, we are on the front lines of the hate crimes, the discrimination, the vandalism and the violence that results from the backlash. Our women who choose to wear hijabs are easily identifiable. You cannot tell whether I am Jewish, Christian, Italian or Greek, but you know that my brother is not Scottish.
In London, England, a man thought to be Muslim was executed in the streets. Forgive my reaction when I hear the head of CSIS say, ``That is unfortunate.''
I want you to step into the shoes of a Canadian Muslim. That man was summarily executed, the same way they would kill someone in Iraq, because they thought he was Muslim and a terrorist. At that time I appeared on three talk shows. We talk about trust in law enforcement, and I want to reference this to Canada. One of the senators brought up a good point this morning with the head of CSIS. He said that it is not helpful when we hear things that are not correct, and I thought that was very generous. It turned out that the man whom they thought was a terrorist was a Brazilian Christian. He was wearing a big winter jacket and tried to elude the police. Every statement made by the Government of England as fact was false — it was a lie. Someone in every news organization, including the CBC, said, ``The guy should not have run; he should not have been wearing a puffy jacket.'' When they asked me what I would have done, I said, ``If I were a Muslim in London, England, after what I have heard and after the cover-up was exposed, I would have been running faster than Ben Johnson in the Olympics if someone was chasing me through the streets.'' They did not change their shoot-to-kill order. They have not done anything about it.
I heard Mr. Judd say that we have review agencies. Let us talk about that. We have SIRC, for which I have a great deal of respect. We have been consulted so many times that we are suffering from consultation exhaustion. It is interesting that the RCMP, CSIS and other law enforcement agencies say, ``Mr. Joseph, how do we get members of your community involved in cooperating with law enforcement?'' We used to say that we wanted members of our community involved, but it is difficult to do that when I see in the paper that SIRC says CSIS made misrepresentations to the government regarding a gentleman because of his pro-Arab causes.
It is not I who am saying that. Where is the relationship of trust? Where is the relationship of trust when Canadian citizens have to go through something euphemistically called ``extraordinary rendition'' — where I come from in Nova Scotia it is called kidnapping — and no one knows anything about it?
I will not talk about the Maher Arar inquiry in detail, but we know what is happening there. We also know, as the good senator pointed out, that for months before that investigation and that inquiry took place, everyone assumed this man to be guilty, and it is now quite clear that he is not. Now there are several others in the same situation. The U.S. ambassador has said that there will be no apology and that there may be many more Maher Arars.
I will close with the words of the chief justice, who said at the Islamic Centre of Southwestern Ontario that his many years as a lawyer, attorney general, and the Chief Justice of Ontario had made plain for him the palpable truth that the law alone is not enough to protect those who are a different colour or who profess a different religion. He said that the law will never be enough by itself because there is no legislature in the world capable of legislating ultimate principles. You cannot legislate to what degree a man must love his neighbour, or even that he must not hate him. He said that it is as true of tolerance as it is of liberty, that it lies in the hearts of men and women. When it dies there, no constitution, no court, no law can save it. No constitution, no court, no law can even do much to help it, but while it is alive and well it needs no constitution, no court and no law to save it.
I look forward to your questions.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Imam Salam Elmenyawi, Chairman, Muslim Council of Montreal: On behalf of myself and the Muslim Council of Montreal, I would like to thank the chairperson and members of the committee for providing me with the opportunity to present some of our concerns.
I am here because I love my country, Canada. I love its people, and I have a serious concern about security certificates and the Anti-terrorism Act. I am not here to criticize this act article by article. Lawyers, bar associations, civil liberties organizations and human rights organizations have done that and they will correctly continue to criticize these laws until proper solutions are found and the right balance is reached.
Mr. Joseph has spoken well on the human suffering and concerns that many in Muslim communities are facing. I have a special focus to my discussion this afternoon, but I will later be glad to reflect on this human suffering. In my job as a Muslim chaplain at the provincial jails in Quebec I have been in touch with people who were charged under security certificates, some who were thrown in jail due to suspicion against them in immigration matters, and others who were accused of hate crimes. Perhaps I could reflect on this during the discussion period.
We already know that these laws are an encroachment on Canadians' rights, freedoms, civil liberties and fundamental justice. Experts agree that these laws are flawed. The following is a summary of some of these flaws.
First, the abdication of the rule of law and fundamental justice, including ``officer of government,'' consists of arbitrary power over the person or the interest of the individual, secret evidence, foreign evidence and the lack of proper checks and balances.
Second, the infringement of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including freedom of expression, freedom of association and the right not to be deprived of life, liberty or security of the person except in accordance with fundamental justice; the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure; the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned; the right to silence; the right to a fair trial; and the right to equal protection under the law. These are fundamental principles of our legal system that could not be limited without a demonstrably justifiable cause in a free and democratic society.
Third, the definition of ``terrorist activity'' is wide and too inclusive. The target of this bill must be precise and it must avoid disproportionately targeting Muslims or legitimate political dissent.
Fourth, there is a lack of consistency in applying the law, more specifically in relation to hate crimes, which should cover all media, including print and broadcast media.
The fifth point leads to the security certificate. The standard of proof is minimal. Under the security certificate, mere suspicion is all that is needed to condemn someone under a serious accusation. The consequences of such condemnation would be the total destruction of one's life through detention, deportation, torture and possible death. These severe punishments are not the consequences of being found guilty of a crime, only suspicion. The details of the charges would not be known to the accused. The judge receives evidence ex parte. The defence counsel would not know anything about it.
There is no cross-examination of witnesses. Most evidence is obtained with torture under this law, giving tyrants and despots the long hand to reach out through foreign and secret evidence and get Canada to do their dirty work.
The question is not whether or not these flaws exist. Most of us agree that they do exist. We should be trying to find the balance between collective security and individual liberties.
I believe that you are going about it the wrong way. We should focus on the purpose of giving law enforcement officials these tools. We have adopted these laws to stop a security threat before it happens. We need good and intelligent policing. What we did is create a big threat to our national security. There is a backlash of distrust between our police force and the Muslim community.
I do believe these laws are the biggest threat to national security, and if not fixed, they will affect our social cohesion and tear the fabric of our society at the seams.
The aforementioned flaws have wiped out the appearance of justice and established the possibility of abuse and harassment by law enforcement officials. The best policing is simple policing. Muslims have the highest interest in protecting Canada against terrorism. Under these laws, Muslims will not call on CSIS or the RCMP when they have unsubstantiated suspicions about someone. Substantiating the veracity of a complaint is normally left to the police enforcement agency. With the circumstances created by these laws, no one would want to subject any human being to such an experience or paranoia. Consequently, we all lose.
This issue of the disproportionate targeting of Muslims is more complicated than I am describing here. Under these laws, the appearance of institutionalizing discrimination is apparent to Muslims.
I appreciate the great work CSIS and the RCMP are doing to secure our nation. Many of them are hardworking officers. They have, however, created a mindset and culture of looking at Muslims as the enemy.
Lack of training in Islamic education, repeated questionable reports making false accusations against local Muslim youth and mosques, and the wrong use of Islamic labels such as jihadist, Islamist, Islamic terrorism, et cetera, in addition to the above laws, created the appearance of fighting Islam and Muslims, not terrorism. This culture has created a large number of innocent people as the target of these bills and a wide net that wastes our resources and will end up threatening our security.
Whatever we do, I recommend that we must consider the following: One, the Muslim community and its faith, Islam, should never be or appear to be a target. Two, the appearance of justice must be paramount and must be respected.
Three, security officers and prosecutors must receive sensitivity training or Islamic education. Four, hiring at CSIS and the RCMP from the Muslim community should not be limited to badly received jobs as informers. They should be encouraged to hold jobs at all levels of both institutions, such as lawyers, analysts, agents, et cetera.
Five, proper and serious consultation with the Muslim community must be arranged. Six, safeguards must be established to avoid defaming religions in general, and Islam in particular.
As Canadians, we should have zero tolerance for hate-driven actions and discrimination. Furthermore, we must empower ethnic organizations with laws, finances and education to protect their culture and practices from being the target of people with political agendas or hate speech.
In addition, if we wish to join the international effort to curb terrorism, we must go to the root of the problem and exert force there. It is clear that you cannot stop terrorism with tanks or unfair laws.
Furthermore, the rules relating to charitable organizations under Bill C-56 must be revisited. Because the paying of alms is an article of faith and one of the five Islamic pillars, Muslims must be involved in charity; not only because they wish to, but because it is the requirement of the religion.
Keep in mind that while Muslims make up 27 per cent of the total population, 80 per cent of refugees are Muslims. They are expecting the better-off Canadian Muslims who are enjoying a good life in Canada to reach out and help prevent them from experiencing poverty, causing Muslims to be more exposed than any to the draconian effects of this law.
There is no perfect justice system in the world. Our Canadian justice system, however, is one of the best. Under this system of built-in checks and balances, we still make mistakes, devastating the lives of innocent people. To continue the application of these bills would be totally unfair to Canadians, remembering that when there is no justice for some people, there will be no justice for all. As was stated by Martin Luther King, ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.''
We say that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Here, not only is he or she guilty until proven innocent, but the accused needs more than just a lawyer to defend against a witch hunt and secret evidence produced by foreign estates. The accused will need unlimited resources that may not be available and will most likely not work. Again, he is not defendable.
If you do not abrogate these bills to conform to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, fundamental justice and due process, you would be indicating to the Muslim community at large and a multitude of other Canadians of different cultural backgrounds that they are dispensable and that you are willing to sacrifice them at the first excuse found. Democracy is not necessarily for all.
It has been stated that if we do not maintain justice, justice will not maintain us. Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. With that, I humbly ask the blessing of God, may He protect each and every one of us, may He guide you to an honourable way that is fair and just.
Senator Andreychuk: I thank the witnesses for putting their perspectives on the table, many of which we have heard before.
I would like the witnesses to zero in on the anti-terrorism legislation itself. If I understand you, you have both said that we do not need this piece of legislation. However, if the government does not nullify the legislation, and I do not believe they are prepared to do that, what particular sections do you believe have to be deleted? What could we add to the bill that would be helpful?
I draw your attention to one of those sections that has been raised as a concern. That is the definition of terrorist activity that includes a religious and political motive. Could you respond to that?
Mr. Joseph: I would first start with the general premise that everybody in this room and most people in the country think racial profiling is wrong, whether it exists or not. If it is wrong, we would like to see it outlawed in the legislation. If nobody is racial profiling, there is nothing to fear.
I have never heard an explanation from anybody as to why racial profiling is not addressed in there, but it should be as a measure of protection. That would tell us that the lawmakers of this country do not just say it is wrong, but believe it. If it is wrong, you will be held accountable. There is nothing to make anybody accountable.
Most people think the issue with regard to security certificates came about through the anti-terrorism legislation. It did not. I understand that. It is the application of it, the way it is used.
To be fair, I do not see under the anti-terrorism legislation itself that there have been abuses of the application. I am saying that on the record. I see it as much more insidious than that, as to how the investigation proceeds and what is being used and threatened.
From a Muslim perspective and that of our organization, I do not say that everything in the anti-terrorism legislation is bad. It is not. The issues that I find problematic are with respect to charities. I can tell you, practically speaking, that as a former Crown attorney there are aspects that I am concerned about. For example, under the definition of terrorism and facilitating terrorism, if I am representing somebody from whom I take a retainer, am I part of that definition of facilitating terrorism by being associated or working with that group or organization?
In the last two days in little London, Ontario, we raised $200,000 for the earthquake victims and Afghanistan and Iraq. The good thing coming out of the anti-terrorism legislation is that we are much more careful about where we send that money now than we used to be.
In the Muslim community that is happening. Practically speaking, there are many, many good organizations. We pay 2.5 per cent in zakat in addition to the other taxes for humanitarian efforts. Many people are not asking for tax receipts. They do not want tax receipts. They are concerned that if they give to a certain and I quote, ``pro-Arab'' or ``pro-Muslim'' organization, they will be subject to an investigation by CSIS or Immigration, et cetera.
There are provisions in the Charity Act, hearsay provisions. Let me talk about the Canada Evidence Act. You have to understand as a lawyer that when this legislation came in, it did not come in as the Anti-terrorism Act. You people know this material inside out. It came in as an omnibus bill. It came in with 12 pieces of legislation affecting things we never imagined. I cannot imagine, as a former federal and provincial Crown attorney, why we are putting hearsay upon hearsay in front of judges. It is not evidence.
CSIS will tell you it is not their job to collect evidence. It is the job of the RCMP. How many times have you heard this? CSIS gathers intelligence, and we keep saying, ``Get it right. Get some intelligent intelligence.''
That intelligence may have a political motivation. It may be from another country. It may be from Israel. It may be from organizations or countries that have a motive or have wrong information. There is no way to test it. That is why we have cross-examination. I do not know, if I am held on a security certificate, what they have. I get a summary. Lawyers have complained we are potted plants. Judges have described it as being a fig leaf.
In Toronto, because we do not have racial profiling in this country, I have to see decisions out of the Court of Appeal with respect to Blacks — we have two phenomena. We have DWB, ``driving while Black,'' which does not exist in Toronto. An example of DWB would be if you are driving a BMW on a Saturday night and you happen to be Black. We now have DWA, ``driving with Arabs.''
We know it exists. There is no reason why law enforcement and intelligence would not be subject to the same ills. They are a product of our society. This morning I was in my hotel. I read a headline in the paper, ``Canadians say Immigrants are a Threat to Peace.''
The article says despite the sentiment favouring tougher immigration standards, 63 per cent of Canadians say they are worried or concerned about terrorism; that it could lead to the abuse of rights of Canadians from Arabic or Islamic countries.
That is not the headline. The headline is, ``Canadians say Immigrants are a Threat to Peace.'' We are a product of our own environment, with such things as security certificates, rules of evidence, the Charities Act, the sunset clause. There is nothing that prevents us from re-enacting certain pieces of legislation.
Why are we so hell-bent on making it permanent when we know certain pieces of it do not fit? They do not help. There are many of those kinds of definitions, and the problem is with the definition of terrorism.
You will find that many countries do not want to define terrorism. When you start defining political motives, religious motives and the rest of it, it makes it part of the profile.
I am impressed with this body because you appreciate the difference. I saw the first draft by Mr. Judd. He talked about CSIS not doing profiling. That is false. I, as a Muslim, want them to do criminal profiling. If an Arab is about to get on a plane with a one-way ticket and he is sweating, I do not care what religion he is. I want him checked out. That is criminal profiling.
You have to appreciate our sensitivity. The chief justice talked about Timothy McVeigh. Timothy McVeigh is never referred to as a Christian terrorist. A man, a criminal, killed 35 people praying at the Dome of the Rock in the West Bank. This man was not referred to as a Jewish terrorist. The only group whose entire religion is linked with criminality is us, Islamic terrorists.
It is bad. It fuels hate, and it is done regularly. There continues to be a link with the religion to criminality. It goes from the media to individuals, to law enforcement, to intelligence. That is how I would answer those questions. I would be happy to give you more details because I have made those recommendations to various other committees.
Imam Elmenyawi: I do not think I said that I would like to remove the laws completely. I am not here to say to Canada, ``Do not fight terrorism.'' I want the Canadian government to make sure they will fight terrorism aggressively, properly and meticulously. I want them to follow up on all of those cases and to make sure they have the proper laws and rules that we can use as tools for law enforcement and to fight terrorism.
Not all of the tools are healthy. For example, a child in a candy store would want everything in the store. He would take all of the candies in front of him and that would not be healthy.
When we see the tools that are available today for CSIS or for police enforcement to fight terrorism, it does not necessarily mean they are healthy. I think it will create laziness in the way it is approached.
We need more police work to try to find the right tools. We need better interpretation of intelligence, rather than just giving it the wrong interpretation or showing that the appearance of justice is not there for those who have been taken in by the police. This creates an unbelievable backlash that makes people scared of coming forward to help the police.
If you wish to police every Muslim in the country, you will not have the money to do it. This method seems to be much more acceptable by trying to make as many people as possible suspicious under these kinds of laws and rules. If we focus on intelligent profiling, which was mentioned earlier, a criminal profiling that relates to the crimes, then things will work fine.
What needs to be changed? Anything that does not relate to natural justice, to proper due process, would need to be changed. It would need to be worked out. There should be a sunset clause to terminate anything that is needed temporarily, not to look into it in a few years, but to keep it for a time and then terminate it.
There is only one person charged under the Anti-terrorist Act right now that we know of. He is not in court yet. After the Constitution in 1982, many cases were thrown out of court because there were delays and things did not work out.
Holding people and not taking them to court shows that we do not have the evidence. We are, again, creating this kind of abuse in the use of Bill C-36. I see this from the complaints I have been receiving from people who have been visited by CSIS and have been threatened if they will not talk or they will not tell CSIS about their friends, whether their friends are doing anything suspicious. They want the names of these individuals.
``If you will not cooperate, we will cancel your immigration, charge you under the Anti-terrorism Act and throw you in jail. We will get a judge to force you to speak.'' These threats have been used repeatedly by members of the police force. This is where the problem is.
We will have to have some checks and balances to follow up on these laws. Forget about secret evidence. It will not work. I understand that there are reasons, because most of the evidence being presented on terrorism comes from other countries, and it is an intelligence organization that brings the evidence forward. Locally, there are sometimes informers you do not like to identify.
There has to be a way. In the past, the police have been able to bring people successfully to justice. Secret evidence and foreign evidence are totally unacceptable — foreign evidence from countries governed by despots with special interests, and it affects people in Canada who are immigrants and are working and trying to help the country become free. All of a sudden they fabricate evidence and we then have a problem.
There are countries also where due to geopolitical reasons within the Muslim world, there is a lot of turmoil, in addition to the definition of terrorism, and that creates a huge problem. Sometimes there is evidence brought against people here in Canada who are certainly innocent according to international law. Still, we would consider those.
We have countries that falsify Canadian passports. We continue to accept evidence from them though we know they falsified Canadian passports to get civilians into another country. We know that this has happened but we still accept evidence from them and consider it in the court. The idea of not allowing the accused to cross-examine this evidence will certainly be very dangerous for all of us.
We have seen David Milgaard being jailed, even though he had the right to see and examine all the evidence. All the checks and balances were there. However, again there was abuse, or there was a lack of proper evidence in court. Imagine when you are deprived. For those accused under the anti-terrorist acts, without all of these checks and balances, what should you expect? This is what is so serious.
Today, when we talk to CSIS, we see they are not working in Canada against terrorism. In fact, they are ahead by saying they are working against extremism. When we ask what extremism is, we are told there is no definition. For all intents and purposes, if someone sees a person who wakes up at five o'clock in the morning and goes to the mosque, goes again to the mosque at noontime, goes again at three o'clock, goes again at five o'clock and then later on at night, at seven o'clock, he goes back to the mosque — that is extremism. Anyone would look at this and consider it to be complete extremism. Therefore, who is deciding about this terminology: What is extremism and what is terrorism? As charitable organizations, when we try to help the needy around the world and try to send money, with again the turmoil in this area, we realize that we are taking a big risk because we could be accused of being in touch with terrorism. ``Facilitation'' is not defined properly, and ``helping extremism'' is certainly not clear, so this is making it difficult for all of us.
Senator Fraser: Some of your specific suggestions have been made by other people and some of the ones that may not we are noting.
I want to try to address the underlying difficulty when we are trying to figure out what to do to make a community of Canadians be, and know that they are, fully Canadian. I think they are, but they have to know it and they have to know that everyone else knows it. We actually do have a difficulty here, because in the same way that some years ago the people who were bombing abortion clinics were doing it in the name of, they said, God, so there is now, out there and here, we are told, a network of people devoted to terrorist methods. They justify themselves — wrongly, I know you will tell me, and I could not agree more — by saying they are doing this in the name of God. They say they are doing this in the name of Islam. Everyone knows that this is not Islam in the normal sense. Of the 750,000 Muslims in Canada, probably 749,500 would not agree with them. However, there are people who couch their philosophy, their acts and justification for their acts or their planned acts in terms of Islam. Therefore, it does become an element in the equation.
I could not agree more with you more, Mr. Elmenyawi, that a lot of sensitivity training is clearly needed, but we cannot say to the security people, ``Never ask any questions about religion; never interview somebody who is Muslim.'' I have sometimes found myself perplexed in the proceedings of this committee. What can we do? What can the system do? What can Parliament and the government do to demonstrate to those 750,000 Canadian Muslims that we know they are not the problem? How on earth can we get that across without falling off the other end?
I am not being very coherent here. I am saying that sometimes, when a community feels that it is a minority, its reflexes become so strong that they are almost impervious. That is a harsh thing to say, but I am a member of a minority myself. I am also a member of the great Nova Scotian diaspora, although that was not the minority to which I was referring.
It is easy to become so entrenched in one's fear that progress becomes almost impossible. How do we get past that? That is a long and incoherent question, but it is my only one.
Imam Elmenyawi: The question is certainly clear to me because this is very much what we are facing. You are right. There is a difficulty and we will have to face it.
There are two parts to your question. There are some people who may be justifying killing in Canada in the name of religion. I have to take issue with that and I challenge anyone to show us who. I do not know of any. This is always the discussion. Part of the difficulty when we look at this issue is those who are asking the question have this mindset now. They have been told there is extremism or terrorism within or among Muslims. Now we should go after this extremism or terrorism. They then have one thing in mind, which is to find some new names and some new people so they can continue to follow up and ask those questions.
The fact that we may from time to time have some extremists passing through Canada, there are laws that protect us against that and we should always be alert. The best defence will be from the Muslim community itself. We have to get that Muslim community to be at ease, to get them to relax, to be able to move forward and understand that they do not have to fear coming forward with names of people who they think are going into the wrong ideology or the wrong direction in relation to interpretation of the Quran.
Part of this problem — and I think the same mistake is happening in Canada as has happened everywhere else — is while trying to dry up the sources of terrorism and attacking religious extremism, they have attacked mainstream Islam as well.
That created different schools that go underground and teach the people, but you do not have any safeguards or checks and balances within those schools to ensure that they are actually giving the right education. By removing this watchful eye, that oversight over the schools and education and the teachings, and by having it go underground, you have created these wrong ideas.
When you start attacking jihad in Canada, which is an honourable thing in Islam, most Muslims will not listen to you. The minute you say jihad is something bad, you are giving them the wrong message. You are attacking Islam. When they read in the book that jihad is something great, to defend your country, to defend yourself and to defend your people, and some of the people who benefit from this are Canadians, then something is wrong.
When CSIS or the RCMP tries to find out if someone talks about jihad, right away people become suspicious. We are moving away from, first, giving peace to the community or a sense of easiness that makes them feel that they are able to teach and study their religion properly and educate their people in a proper way. That will not happen.
In the meantime, given all the accusations, you ask, are we being paranoid? No, that is not paranoia. That is real fear. When the head of CSIS has a report coming out, and talks about it so proudly, that we have terrorism in Canada or extremists and the proof is that Muslim kids at Concordia University are going to camp and playing ping pong, if nobody else is mentioned except the Muslim students, that is frightening. They are kids the same as all other kids, and they have the right to have fun and play ping pong or whatever.
When they say there are some imams who are extremists, I challenge them to tell us who they are, because if they do, we can correct it. However, they will not tell us because there is no such thing. It is a judgment passed by someone who does not understand the religion. You have a chief of Sunni extremism or Sunni terrorism under CSIS, and you talk to that person and find out that he does not know whether the word comes from the holy Quran or not, what the fatwa means versus a judgment — and who testified under the security certificates? It was shameful to hear that someone so high up in this institution is unable to put together and understand the fatwa from Osama bin Laden and where it came from. He should read the texts in the holy Quran to understand that this is taking words out of context, instead of thinking that Muslims must be dangerous and we should go after them. This is the mindset that has been created now, and this is a serious issue.
The other part is interpretation of the information. You must understand the culture. Sensitivity training is important. We must ensure that Muslims are working everywhere, can get high-profile jobs, and that the Prime Minister and other people in the government are able to visit mosques from time to time to show that Canada is inclusive and Islam is a mainstream religion that is certainly accepted. There have been some good actions, as we have seen, such as the convocation and some of the benedictions that have done by Muslims in Ottawa, with prayers and so on. That has been very good. These are some of the things to do to ease the community and make them know that they are being approached.
I want to give you an historical example to give you a clear idea of what I am talking about. Approximately 1,400 years ago, when Muslims were going to Egypt, the army was about 4,000 people. They thought it was too small a number, so they asked for more people to come. However, they then got an order that they have to go into the country, and that is it. They prepared, and in preparation they have something called siwak. It is a piece of a branch from a tree in Arabia. If you chew on the edge of it, it becomes like a toothbrush, and it is used like that. This is part of the tradition of Islam. They use it to clean their teeth. They were preparing for the army to go in, to start the war, so they brought their siwak and started washing their teeth. The intelligence agents were watching. They saw them washing their teeth with the siwak. It was something strange. Nobody used a toothbrush at the time. It was something completely new. They did not know the culture. They thought they were sharpening their teeth so they could come and eat them. That interpretation of the facts got everyone else to turn away from the army.
That is part of the fearmongering. That does not help, either. That was part of the idea of using it against them. We must stop that. They must begin to use the proper definitions and labels and proper education. They have to bring in the right people to think about it, not people who launched vitriolic attacks against Muslims.
We must address the media and to try to find solutions in the media. I understand that freedom of the media is very important, but the right of Muslims to respond should be there by law or something, or they should receive financial support and the organizations should be empowered to respond and be able to teach and educate society at large. These are important issues that we have to look at and that work in parallel with fighting terrorism.
Mr. Joseph: I would like 20 seconds to answer that question specifically.
I gave you specific examples about engendering the trust and what can be done. I do not want you to undervalue the benefit of outlawing racial profiling. I say that because most of the problem in the sense of mistrust between law enforcement and intelligence services and the Muslim community is the contact and not the legislation as such. Let us use the legislation to engender the trust. You cannot legislate morality but you can punish immorality. The three examples of questions I gave you were: Are you religious, how many times do you pray, and what do you think of George Bush's policies. If you outlaw racial profiling, in my view, those ridiculous, stupid, inflammatory questions will not be asked because they will be afraid of the repercussions. Now, there are no consequences.
I am telling you as an officer of the court that if my brother and I are having a discussion in an office and we are talking about what is going on in the West Bank or in Chechnya or various other places, and we express our views on George Bush's policies, someone could overhear that conversation. I have attended those client interviews with law enforcement people, talking about politics in an office and someone overhears the conversation. If it is this gentleman with a beard and a skull cap, the implications are far more serious than if you have that conversation, senator, with one of your colleagues. I have seen it and heard it. I am telling you, as I am in this committee meeting, that I get an opportunity to hear and see things that my brother does not see and hear because he does not know my background.
Outlawing racial profiling will have the effect not of stopping intelligence gathering but of conducting it in a way that is fair. If there are things that need to be done, we are not saying that you cannot ask any questions about religion, but how do you equate criminality to praying at the mosque five times during the holy month of Ramadan? It is because of ignorance. I do not mean it is done on purpose. The answers to those questions and their implications are horrific.
Senator Stratton: Thank you, gentlemen, for your interesting presentations. I appreciate it when you come forward to this committee and tell it like it is in your community. It appears that you both want to get rid of this bill. I want to hear your response to that before people jump off bridges. First, do you want this bill done away with?
Second, Imam Elmenyawi has stated clearly that if we do not get rid of this bill, we should have a sunset clause. Do you both agree on that?
Third, there has been talk about an oversight committee, not necessarily of parliamentarians, but perhaps of parliamentarians, to study whether we have a problem with racial profiling. I have a great deal of difficulty determining how we can deal with this in law. We know from talking to lawmakers that it is extremely difficult to deal with this in law while still allowing the police to properly do their job. That becomes the question.
I want to focus on oversight. I believe, as I think many of us do, that racial profiling should be dealt with through education. Regardless of what law is enacted, if those who enforce the law are not educated, there is no point to it. I am a firm believer in that being the first step to overcoming racial profiling. Failing that, we would go with a law. I do not think there is appropriate education in this area; at least, none that has been reported to us.
An oversight committee could facilitate education across the country. I would like to hear your views on that. Should such a committee be composed of parliamentarians or people from the private sector? If such an oversight committee operated on a continuous basis, it could deal with cases of racial profiling immediately, which I believe is critical. I am in favour of an oversight committee that could deal with problems quickly and effectively.
I would like each of you to respond to those questions.
Mr. Joseph: I do not want to do away with the bill because there are good parts to it. I support the increased penalties for terrorism. I approve of the Criminal Code provisions for certain types of offences. Those are good things.
The bad things are anything that goes against due process and the rule of law and anything related to that, such as hearsay and security certificates. If security certificates are needed, keep them, but let us have due process.
Second, what harm is there in a sunset clause? The law is the law, and when the time arrives the Senate and the House of Commons will have an opportunity to debate it. We will not have a period with no law while the review is done, as it will be done in advance. There is no risk or downside. Let us have a proper discussion. There may be things that need strengthening. There may be things that we can tell you about the way we donate to charity. Maybe we can tell you about things you do not know about — here is something you should watch for. Let us have a discussion rather than rushing legislation.
I was responsible for making changes when one did not even have to have knowledge in order to facilitate terrorism. The word ``knowingly'' was not included. That would have been the law.
With regard to education and the oversight, you are right; we need it. In parts of the United States they are bringing in racial profiling legislation with regard to Blacks. I still believe that we need the hammer, because nothing will have the required effect if there are no consequences attached to it.
I am so honoured to be here. When I appeared before the review committee of the House of Commons, there were two other distinguished lawyers from the Muslim community on the panel. I want to tell you how it felt to give evidence to that House committee. Two members of Parliament were reading the National Post sports section while we were giving evidence. I did not plan to say that, but I am telling you because it does not engender a lot of trust when I leave my $400-an-hour practice to come to testify. When I called this the chamber of sober second thought at the beginning of my remarks, I meant it. You are the guardians and the protectors. Simply because something goes through the House of Commons does not mean it is the right thing to do. You are the check and balance for our community, and that is why we are here today.
Imam Elmenyawi: I agree entirely with Mr. Joseph's response. We, too, would like to keep the bill, although there is much to be corrected. In addition to what Mr. Joseph mentioned, there is also the definition of ``terrorism.'' That definition must agree with international law. People who are fighting for their freedom must not be considered terrorists; people must not be grouped together and treated the same way.
An example of that is the Kurds. In Iraq, they were correct; in Turkey, they were wrong, although they were doing exactly the same thing for the same cause. Those who were fighting with the United States were correct and those who were not fighting with them but fighting against one of their allies, that being Turkey, were wrong.
By playing with the definition in this way, people who are not terrorists are being branded as terrorist on whims. We must look into that.
Also, with regard to facilitation, there are many issues in addition to natural justice and due process that must be respected. One part of the bill that is of most concern and most damaging is that dealing with secret evidence and foreign evidence. This must be looked at in a serious way.
I believe that racial profiling is a gift to terrorists. Once they know the profile you are looking for, they will send people whom you would never racially profile. You will be following every innocent person, and the one that you want will get through. He will not have the stereotypical Arab face that you expect. He will not be Islamic. He will not have a ticket to go back and forth three or four times.
Through racial profiling we are telling terrorists how to get away with their crimes, and I do not think this is policing. This is just flexing muscles, terrifying people, and making them feel like second-class citizens who are targeted and insecure. It is an indication of your own insecurity as well. We must be more confident than that and we must be more intelligent in formulating our rules and laws. Racial profiling is a dead end; it is something used in offices to identify criminals. That is possible based on the crime itself. There are certain things you have to look for that will bring someone to look at the crime.
You spoke of an oversight committee. That is a very good idea. There must always be accountability in police agencies. These checks and balances must be in place for all laws in the criminal justice system, and it must not be merely symbolic, with nothing in fact being done.
A dozen people complained to me last year, and every one of them asked that I file a complaint with SIRC. They are scared. They do not want to come forward because they are afraid that they will jeopardize their immigration status.
On such an oversight committee it would be good to have a combination of parliamentarians and non- parliamentarians. The parliamentarians will provide the teeth and the non-parliamentarians will provide the checks and balances. That would be welcome.
The round table discussion about security is another example of a strategy that I do not think we have done well, although it had been announced. This is a typical example in which there is not proper representation. It is not designed to represent different ethnic communities. If that is the case, what are you discussing and who are the people? They might be highly classified, but they are not in touch with the grassroots. They do not know what is happening. I think this is a farce.
If we wish to have a round table that is fair and beneficial to my country, giving us ideas of how to defend ourselves, I think we will have to bring the right people in.
Mr. Joseph: The Deputy Prime Minister has heard that loud and clear from us, and it has not been helpful. It has been hurtful, and there has been no consultation with us.
Can my brother and I and members of the Muslim community be trusted by SIRC? Can we be trusted in the judiciary and by the boards and tribunals? Why do we have no place there?
When the imam mentioned the example of al Qaeda benefiting, you have seen it: Richard Reid, the shoe bomber. He was born in England and he is not a Muslim. In Chechnya and the horrible incident with children being killed in the school, it was a woman who was involved in that.
I saw 7,000 letters that went out in Dearborn, Michigan, to the Muslim and Lebanese community from the FBI that said ``Come and talk to us or we are coming to talk to you.'' They had a profile: 18 to 35 and from five different countries. It is amazing that the chiefs of police in the area would not fulfil it. They know these people, they have been there for 100 years, and they would not participate.
Mr. Elmenyawi is right; al Qaeda knows you are looking for this and this, and they will change the profile.
Imam Elmenyawi: A typical situation would be, for example, the RCMP went to a home and found the names of God, which is where the 99 attributes of God are framed on the wall.
The question was: What is that? It is in the Arabic language and he had trouble reading it. He was Pakistani, so he could read the same letters. He said: These are the names of God. The next question was: Is this the same God for Osama bin Laden? Of course it is the same God for Osama bin Laden.
This is not racial profiling. This is abusing the rules and passing comments and releasing steam. It is counterproductive. Ultimately, we received a complaint. This is a typical situation.
I do not believe the officer dealt with the situation in the manner he did intentionally. It was not for the purpose of gaining any intelligence, and I do not think he meant to insult. He did make comments, however, and that is not helpful at all.
Senator Joyal: I listened to you carefully regarding your suggested potential amendments to the bill and the areas that we should be addressing. We have heard a certain number of presentations from witnesses over the past few months, as Madam Chair has mentioned. I would be remiss if I did not address my questions to you on the issue of the round table.
I have been critical of the round table initiative because I think it is ill conceived. I think that as much as my colleague, Senator Stratton, is right in raising the issue of the parliamentary oversight committee that establishes a link between Canadians and Parliament on a regular basis, Mr. Judd this morning provided probably one of the best descriptions of the conditions under which the committee would be efficient. I say that with the greatest respect for the present membership of the round table.
We heard last week testimony from the chair of the committee. I think it important that a forum exist to interface between the objectives of security and the community that is most ``targeted.'' We have seen that happen in the last three years, and you have been eloquent in describing it. It is generally the Muslim and Arab communities.
I am not convinced that the round table has been properly devised to interface with your community. I am tempted to use the word ``flawed'' when describing the composition of the committee from the beginning. I am more concerned about the respect we owe to the volunteers who serve on the committee. I know how difficult it is. There is no responsibility on their end.
I did not know if the round table was a focus group, PR group, or a real group that has a responsibility to the department. If the round table is to be credible to the community, there must be leaders of the community there; maybe not all of them, but at least a fair number of them, so that when they speak and take stands on issues, they are seen as being ``spokepersons'' of the community.
People of their own community would feel at ease reporting such cases as you and Mr. Joseph mentioned. I have no doubt that they exist. If I had a passport that had printed on it, ``Born in Cairo,'' I would possibly be submitted to different questioning, especially when I enter our neighbouring country to the south. Have you reflected on that issue?
In your recommendations, Imam Elmenyawi, I did not hear anything about that specifically. You raised it in passing in answer to questions from my colleague, Senator Stratton. Mr. Joseph, you did not mention it in your proposal either.
I feel an institutional change is important. I think the round table has been put into an impossible position of being expected to deliver something they have not been tooled to deliver. To me, the composition is of key importance, as are their mandate, terms of reference and capacity.
The way I have read the biographies, the volunteers are people with important professional backgrounds. There are only so many hours they can take away from their professional jobs. They also seem to have little clerical support and services to go regularly into various communities to achieve the result they are expected to achieve. What can you recommend to us today in relation to that concern?
Mr. Joseph: That point is even more critical because there will be issues coming up that we will need that type of body to deal with.
In London we are dealing with no-fly lists. In Canada they say they do not exist. They are still enforcing them in Canada at airports through American Airlines and various others. We have four-month-olds who cannot get on planes. They do not know why. They do not know how they got on the list, nor do they know how to get off it.
It will be important to have that interface. I want to say on the record that I have the utmost respect for the people on that round table. The problem is that it is not respected. No consultation was held.
There are political motivations in the Muslim community. They are putting ``moderate'' labels on people. I mentioned that to the Deputy Prime Minister when she said there was a problem there. It is a bigger problem than they think, and there is no interface.
There must be interfacing between both lay people and parliamentarians. The problem with the committee is they are all professionals. I think it should be representational. For example, in Truro, Nova Scotia, there were six families. It was not an issue. When I was growing up and when my father was growing up, we did not have a problem with being Muslim or Arab; we were part of being Jews. They were anti-Semitic.
We were all from the same part of the world, so our closest friends may have been Jews. Now it is a different situation. In London, Ontario, there should be some voice there. There is 12 per cent of the population in the city of London that know about this. We have had Shirley Heafey there. We have had NSIS there. We have had CSIS. We have had the RCMP there.
I think it has to be representational, and I think it has to come from the leadership. They cannot be seen as being political lackeys or political appointments. It has to be people who are on the ground dealing with the issues and are respected by all. That is not the case right now. It has to be done. It will be more important with the issues coming up — no-fly lists, amendments.
We are speaking in a vacuum. Forget about everything we have talked about, if, God forbid, there is a terrorist attack in Canada. All of this talk about civil liberties and what we have said will go right out the window. We know what will happen. Let us do our jobs to make sure it does not happen. If it does, it will not matter what any of us say on either side of the table.
Imam Elmenyawi: I have said it before. The only way I can explain it is with this funny character we have in our Arabic background. He was at one time attending a funeral. He was known to be funny. The person they thought had died got up. He looked at the funny man and recognized him. He asked him to please help him. The funny man looked at him and said, ``You want me to not believe all of these people?'' To us it looks like that. It does not matter how much you talk, nobody will believe you or follow.
We have raised those concerns so many times, I have to agree. As Faisal Joseph has just mentioned, God forbid, we hope this will never happen. If anything happens, all of these discussions and work would be put aside. Again, those issues would come up.
They are not helpful. They are all counterproductive. They will not strengthen our security. The only way we can do that is by communicating directly with the representatives of the Muslim community and other ethnic communities who are having similar issues and wish to be heard.
I did mention in my recommendations that proper and serious consultation with the Muslim community must be arranged. That was item number 5 in my recommendations. We have to give them the time. We have to make sure that they have the resources to follow up.
I mentioned many of those complaints during a meeting with Mr. Judd in Montreal. I discussed them with him to see how we could solve them. I felt that he was very receptive. One of the issues that I mentioned was to make sure that people would be hired from the Muslim community — it has to be transparent — and that Muslims are not refused or not trusted to work with CSIS.
These are issues on which we have to work together to find solutions. One of the points I mentioned to him was, though we have too many complaints, most of the people complaining do not want to see the CSIS officer punished for the mistakes he made. They want to see corrections made. To get somebody punished, you need due process.
In a situation where it is my word against your word, most of the time you cannot prove any of those complaints. However, you can say, ``I do not want you to punish him. Just listen to me. This is what happened. Can you take care of it and make sure it will not happen again? If you think what happened is serious, what will you do about it to guarantee it will not happen in the future?''
This is the kind of work that can take place in a round-table discussion that is transparent, where they are willing to raise issues without mentioning names and say, ``We have these complaints. What can you do about it? Can we work out some ways to fix these problems?'' I think this is what we can do together to resolve some of these issues.
Senator Joyal: Do you think that we should go one step further than the round-table discussion, the way it is composed now, and have what I call sub-regional round tables?
Mr. Elmenyawi: It is possible.
Senator Joyal: You are a Montrealer. I am a Montrealer. Senator Fraser is too. The Arab community in Montreal, as you know, is different from the one in London, with the greatest respect, sir, because many of them come from Northern African countries and they speak French.
To be able, as you say, to establish a link with the leadership, we have to address properly the composition of the community. It is just as important that you do not use the name of God and say, ``Is it the same God as mine or is it that other God?'' With the word ``God,'' you can imply many entities.
There are different groups within the Arab and Muslim community. The community has chosen to evolve according to its history. We all respect that. As you said, Mr. Joseph, there are areas in Canada where only a very limited number of Canadians belong to that community. Should we not establish sub-regional groups, with the proper leadership, those seen in those regions as being the leadership, so that there is a capacity to establish real communication?
If you want to just have a focus group, it is a different composition than if you want to have a working relationship. It has to go beyond, as I say, the objective of getting an opinion. We have to work together.
Mr. Joseph: Senator, you will get into trouble saying things like that. You are talking national strategy. I think it is important that it is not one member of 750,000 who sits on the committee. Many people think the majority of Muslims are Arab. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Of the 1.4 billion, maybe 12 or 14 per cent are Arab. In London, you have a large Lebanese-Muslim community. They have different issues. It falls exactly into what you are talking about, a constructive dialogue. The issues in Montreal may overlap. There may be very different issues with respect to other types of racial profiling, not from being Muslim, but maybe being Black and Muslim.
What you are talking about is important. That is a national strategy that should be followed.
Imam Elmenyawi: I agree with you, senator. It is important to have local groups look at issues that are distinct to their localities. Today, Canada does have different people coming from different backgrounds. For example, in Quebec we have people mostly from North Africa. Today the numbers are increasing quite a bit.
While in Ontario, you will find mostly Pakistanis in the Muslim community. As a result, you also have different issues to be discussed in Quebec. I would put both ideas together by saying that all the regional committees should meet together once or twice a year to touch base, discuss the important issues and find out what is happening.
Regional issues are certainly important. Areas must be covered. If there is nobody, for example, from Montreal, and most people are coming from Ontario or Vancouver, then issues in Montreal will not be known. We have been facing a number of issues recently in Quebec.
Senator Joyal: I am trying to think how we will institutionalize this. One of the concerns I had from the testimony we heard last week was that people are appointed for a short term, too. In other words, it will be like a turnstile. You are there. You take six months or eight months to understand the ramifications of the system, which is complex, as you described yourself, just to understand the anti-terrorist legislation.
After you are more or less able to understand the various concepts, within eight months you will be gone. It has to be done, I will not say more seriously, because I want to pay respect to the people who serve on the committee. It has to be done differently, if we want to achieve some result.
We have to rethink the way we have been defining the institution. As you said, if you were to achieve some result, and we are preventive to a point — when I say ``preventive'' I insist upon it — if there would ever be terrorists attacking Canada, our institution has to be strong to withstand the challenge.
Mr. Joseph: I think you hit the nail on the head. It is not individuals to be appointed, it is people representing institutions. I said to the Prime Minister some time ago, stop talking to people like me. I am elected; I am a political leader in the community. I run the board of the mosque, but I am not an imam. Speak to the imams as an institution — the council of imams.
Nobody is speaking to them. They are doing consultations. They come in for an hour; we talk about Islam and what jihad means, but there is no consultation — and look what happened. The Prime Minister, to my shock, did it. He got a declaration from 120 imams that said they are against terrorism; they are unified about it. He met with them at the airport in Toronto and had a constructive dialogue. Now the imams are not part of the problem; they are part of the solutions.
All we kept hearing about on Friday is imams giving out these crazy fatwas. If that is happening, which we know in our institutions it is not, let us get our imams together. It would be wonderful to have an organization at the round table that represents all the imams in Canada, or in Ontario. Institutionalize it so it does not matter if this brother is on it because the institution, the council of imams, is there; and the institution, the congress, is there — and CAF is there and these other major institutions. It does not matter about the turnover, because you have the institutions as stakeholders representing the entire community.
Senator Joyal: Madam Chairman, I know we are close to winding up on our witnesses, today especially, but I think this is an important element of what we should be considering as recommendations on this. It is at the core of improving the way the system has functioned so far. If we are to serve the purpose for which we all fight as Canadians, I think it is important that we try to understand what the challenge for Canada is today.
The challenge of today is the diversification of this cultural demographic is greater than it has ever been in history. How we will integrate that diversity into the objective of the policy that we are trying to achieve is probably one of the most difficult — not difficult, because it is impossible, but one that needs second thought — before we make a decision. It is too important for the future of the country.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: Mr. Joseph, early on in your presentation, you questioned the relationship of trust between Canadians. As I listened to you, I realized that this relationship of trust has vanished and cannot be restored, because we are either all threatened, or we all feel threatened. An organized terrorist network exists somewhere in the world. It is planning some attacks and no one is safe.
The focus of today's discussion is the anti-terrorism legislation. You have made a number of recommendations and you suggest that certain acts should be outlawed. For instance, terrorism should be considered illegal and racial profiling should be outlawed. Before we can do that, we need to propose and agree on a definition. I concur with you on that score. In order to agree on a definition, we also need to set some criteria. You mention as well that a more intelligent approach should be taken.
You go on to note the following:
[English]
You have to look for certain things.
[Translation]
We need to focus on the positive points in order to develop sound criteria.
Now then, I want to move from this great philosophical discussion to the reality of the present day. If you had to decide here and now, what would your priorities be? What measures would you recommend be implemented immediately? In your opinion, which steps should logically be taken in an effort to resolve the problems that you are facing?
[English]
Mr. Joseph: The first and most important, I think, from the Muslim community is to have the procedures in place for those pieces of the legislation, for the due process on the certificate. You have to put in a real process, a transparent process, of changing the law back to not allowing hearsay evidence into these trials, tribunals or security certificates. You have to change that.
That has to be done immediately. You cannot have people being incarcerated for up to five years in this country and not even know the basis of the allegations; it is just wrong. You have to have those things back that were taken out. Hearsay that was not allowed in a courtroom before is allowed now under these special rules that have been changed under the Canada Evidence Act. That is most important for the due process.
Number two, for all of the reasons that we talked about, if there is no trust between law enforcement and intelligence and our Muslim community, we are in serious trouble. One way you can instil trust is to tackle racial profiling — and if we can work out a definition of terrorism and definitions of everything else we have done in the world, we can work out a definition of racial profiling. States have done it. We need to put that in for the gatekeepers to have the trust. That will tell the Muslim community that we not only pay lip service to saying racial profiling is wrong, but if you are doing it, you will be accountable — whether criminally or civilly, you will be accountable. That has to be said, and there is no reason not to, because everybody says it is wrong. Why would you not put it in? The only reason is some people may be afraid it is occurring or will occur and they do not want to be accountable. That is part of the transparency.
Next is the sunset clause. For certain provisions, you can keep it. For others, when you are talking about preventive arrest, it used to be that the law was in Canada that you had to have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that Faisal Joseph had committed a criminal offence. Now you need a reasonable suspicion. Now somebody can overhear a conversation and say, ``We think that Mr. Joseph is planning to do something terrible.'' It is taken out of context. They take me before a justice of the peace — yes, I am before the justice of the peace within two days. If I do not sign a recognizance saying I cannot go to the mosque or talk to certain people — I cannot associate with certain people, although there is no evidence — I can be incarcerated for up to a year under that recognizance. It is wrong. There are many provisions that still should come under a sunset clause. That is how I would see those specific issues.
Imam Elmenyawi: Was the question in relation to the Anti-terrorism Act?
Senator Chaput: It could be.
Mr. Elmenyawi: Are you talking in general? I think the issue is more complex than that. It needs more consultation, as I said earlier, with the Muslim community, to go through a number of issues that must be addressed, including education and finding other means and mechanisms by which we can focus in the right direction and separate the good from the bad. The key that we are trying to look at is you said you were suspicious — or there is suspicion.
Senator Chaput: There is, yes.
Mr. Elmenyawi: You said it will be difficult — actually, impossible, I think you said, but I do not think there is anything impossible there, if we start to get this education and this understanding. It is quite strange that — thank God, and we hope it continues like this — no Canadian has lost his life in Canada because of terrorist activity by a Muslim. That did not create this lack of trust. I do not understand why there is this wide gap between Muslims and others, if this is the point.
I do not think it is reality. If this is the case, we would not have had 63 per cent of Canadians today saying that they are very much concerned that fighting terrorism will create abuse of Muslims' rights in Canada.
I will turn to indications of trust. That trust will have to be bought, because we are all in on it. We Muslims are victimized numerous times when an activity happens. We are a part of the Canadian public who will die, but also part of the people against whom the backlash will be created. We have a greater concern to eradicate terrorism. We would like to see this eradicated specifically in Canada, but also around the whole world. We know this would be difficult to achieve.
Those who die because of terrorism are victims. Is it not also wrong to victimize someone else who is innocent when a terrorist act happens? Is it not also our slogan to say that the terrorists are after our freedom? Do we then hand it to them on a platter by removing the checks and balances, the democratic processes, all the guidelines and safeguards we have under the law, just because we are afraid of them? I think we will have to look at things in a proper perspective and balance them in such a way as to develop rules that will be inclusive. Everyone will work together to hold terrorists accountable: the terrorists, not innocent people. That is all we are asking for. We are not asking to let any terrorist get away.
While we are doing that, we have to ensure that people are educated about Islam because of all the stereotypes in the media. As I see it today, we are not a democracy but a ``mediaocracy.'' The media are driving us along. There are many negative articles in the media that cause this lack of trust. This issue is as important as the secret evidence, which takes away the checks and balances, as the ex parte, as the foreign evidence, as the right to silence, as the presumption of innocence. All these are important issues that we have to establish again. We did not have them because we want criminals to run away. We did not have them to defend the criminals. We had them to defend innocent people, to make sure no innocent one will ever be found guilty of a crime he did not commit.
The Chairman: We have a few minutes left. Senator Andreychuk would like to have the final word.
Senator Andreychuk: I am not sure it is the final word. I think we have been deflected by these round tables. It would be worthwhile going back to see how those round tables were set up, particularly at the moment, when the Senate was passing the Public Safety Act, when in fact some of us were against that act and continue to be against it. I put that aside.
It seems to me the best way is, if there is leadership in the Muslim-Arab community, it should have access to the government and the decision makers. It should not have to go through round tables and be a second governance system. There should be direct access in our system.
The Minister of Justice, after Britain's response to its subway bombings, indicated he would be looking at more legislation for Canada. Have you had discussions with any of the ministers or the government as to whether there is any movement to have the crime of intent to incite people to commit terrorist acts strengthened in Canada, the way that the U.K. is doing? In other words, have you taken any action to see whether the Canadian government will follow suit?
Imam Elmenyawi: The only discussion I had was with the Prime Minister at the meeting with the imams, where in fact I recommended what you have said — not looking at the round table itself, but setting this aside and saying we must find a solution to make sure that our voice will be heard; we will get there. I did recommend that the Prime Minister give us three or four MPs who work with him or with his office to be easily accessible to the leaders in the Muslim community, imams or others, to ensure an exchange of ideas and to talk about some of these issues.
He did at the time; we had three MPs, two Muslim MPs and one other. The point of the meeting was rushed. We missed the point there. I was looking for something official. It does not have to be a Muslim MP. We need someone in Parliament who would be able to present our voice, listen to some of the needs and convey them so that we can establish that link.
As to the oversight, we hold conferences with the youth, especially, to talk to them, to educate them, to ensure that they will not be left in the dark or collecting information over the Internet or from a grey area. We do not know this exists in Canada, but instead of saying, ``Oh, we did not know,'' we thought to bring it out by having public conferences and exchanges with students in universities to get them to talk about some of these issues.
With incitement laws, we are on a slippery slope to having undefined rules that can hit almost anyone, depending on what is done with it. We certainly would like to have a talk on this if there is such an idea.
Mr. Joseph: That is an important question. I will answer it directly. You talked about inciting hate. We have had these Ernst Zundels in Canada. Our hate laws took care of them. Our hate laws, in my view, will take care of anybody else. We do not have to go too far to remember Franklin Graham, Pat Robertson and various other evangelical ministers who have said terrible, hating-inciting things against Muslims, about our prophet and our religion. I have invited those people from the United States to come to Canada and make the same comments, because our laws in Canada on inciting of hatred are stronger than they are there. I asked those wonderful people to come up here and say those same things, not on 60 Minutes or in their bulletins. I think we are okay with respect to our hate crimes laws. We want them enforced.
The only caveat is that I have heard rumblings that they are talking about, for example, deporting any imams who have strong political views. We had better be very careful, because if there is an imam at my mosque saying inappropriate things about Jews or anything of that nature, our board will take care of them quickly. They will not come back. They will not be invited. They will not be part of our Canadian fabric. We will take care of that issue.
However, if we have a political view, for example, of what is going on in the West Bank and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and those issues that imams speak on, if you want to mobilize 750,000 people who feel they have been targeted and cause more mistrust, then take a few imams and throw them out.
I will give you one story. In Windsor we had a situation where an imam could not enter the country for a wedding. There were about a thousand people who could not attend the wedding. That imam is very well respected and is more moderate than — I hate using labels — many non-Muslims I know. That kind of thing does not add up. There are thousands of Muslims who knew about that and were protective of their imam.
We had another imam who went to the United States. This man had spoken out against terrorism before September 11. He is an unbelievable humanitarian and activist. He went to the United States, was arrested and put in the jumpsuit for 17 hours, I am told. ``You can sit in a cell here for three months or you can go back to Canada.'' We did nothing about it.
We must protect our Canadian citizens. Does the passport and citizenship mean anything? If I travel to Syria next month, which I am supposed to do, to an international conference, am I risking my security? That information is being exchanged with the United States government without protocols. Somebody makes a mistake; will the mistake costs me nine months in a Syrian prison? We expect this country and government to protect Muslims as well as non- Muslims.
We need to see that demonstration. We have not seen it.
Imam Elmenyawi: I did not get the point directly, but are you referring to the program in London after July 7, when there was protection for the Muslim community from hate incited against them? Is that it?
Senator Andreychuk: No, the United Kingdom government has proposed new legislation. There has been a reaction against that. I understand that by the time we get there they may have revised or amended it. I wondered if you have had any discussions about any changes along the same lines. Mr. Joseph answered that, I believe.
Imam Elmenyawi: The only other thing we were looking for was that safeguards must be established against defaming religion in general and Islam in particular. They did that in England, which protects Islam and other religions from being defamed by people who are inciting hatred against Muslims or others. There was a wave of hate against Islam at the time. We asked for this, and we should be looking for some kind of protection for the ordinary Muslims who do not want their religion to be defamed and do not want themselves to be defamed.
The Chairman: We are right at the farewell moment. We are grateful that you came here today. It has been a vigorous discussion that has certainly raised issues that have not been raised before. We appreciate your time, your effort and the vigour with which you are supporting and defending the people whom you represent.
On that note, colleagues, I will declare the meeting officially ended.
The committee adjourned.