Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the standing committee. Good evening—and I will be brief.

I'm honoured by the privilege of being here tonight as president for the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow.

My organization supports the general drift of Bill C-51, and we thank the government for taking Islamism—political Islam, as we call it—as a clear and present danger in the world and specifically in Canada.

We are also grateful that the government shares our concerns, first, to rationalize the sharing of security information within government, and second, to make sure that air travel is safe for passengers and is not used for terroristic purposes. Third is that the government make an attempt to limit terrorist propaganda, which is embedded in the language of political Islam and is spread through some individuals, some Islamic organizations, and some pulpits. I'm sure you are aware that this has had an extensive impact on Canadian-Muslim communities and especially our youth. Fourth is the fact that the government recognizes the value of disruption in countering terror threats.

As an aside, let me mention that I have just flown in directly from Florida, U.S.A., where I was speaking to some very politically charged Americans about radicalization and terrorism. When I mentioned Bill C-51 and our Prime Minister's stance on recognizing the problem, I was surprised to get a standing ovation. You may know that to the south of us, they can't even use the word “Islamist” and “terrorism” in the same sentence, let alone do something about it.

This is to say that the world has its eyes on Canada, so that we don't become another Europe, where the problem of extremism has exploded in such a way that it seems practically impossible to reverse the tide. When I picked up today's National Post, I was delighted to read the quote from Stephen Harper saying, “Canadians did not invent the threat of jihadi terrorism and we certainly did not invite it, nor...can we protect [our country or] our communities by choosing to ignore it.”

I think that that says a lot for our Prime Minister.

Speaking on a personal note as an immigrant to Canada in December 1988 with my husband and two sons, the only motivation we had to face life, and of course the harsh winters that come with it in Canada, was that we were escaping from the government of General Zia-ul-Haq in Pakistan, who was slowly shaping the same ideology that today has undone Pakistan. Unfortunately, now we see that same ideology being imported into Canada.

Way back in 2000, I started writing articles warning Canadian Muslims about the dangers of radicalization, especially among the youth, who were confused with nowhere to go between the mosque and the mall for answers to their questions. They had all the prerequisites of fodder for Islamic mercenaries looking for victims to brainwash.

Let me retract there for a second. The word is “Islamist”, and not “Islamic”; I want to keep a very clear distinction between the spiritual Islam and political Islam, which is “Islam” and “Islamism.”

These youth had grievances, both real and imagined, and the burgeoning number of recruiters offered an ideology they could latch on to. If needed, they would doubtless have foreign funding to support their nascent extremist viewpoints. That is when we realized that Wahhabism, Salafism—that ideology—had found its way into Canada.

You may ask, what is that ideology? We, as Muslims loyal to Canada and holding Canadian safety and security as our top priority, are not new to this game and we have been tracking the rise of extremism in Canada for a very long time. Radicalization and extremism are not always overt, and the kind of battle we are waging today is an ideological battle, which means that it can't always be fought with weapons.

It's with this reference that I have an essay that was published by the Mackenzie Institute—it's quite a coincidence that they are here—and written by me about four years ago.

It outlines the rise of Islamist terrorism in Canada as I have seen it unfold in the past 28 years. I think you will find that it covers much of what is being discussed here and our concerns about the scale of the threats—radicalism, extremism, and terrorism in Canada—and this does not even begin to address the current issues posed by ISIS and how it is recruiting our children to its own cause.

I have to apologize, as this is not in the two official languages, but at the time of publication that was not a requirement. I would humbly request that this document be tabled as part of my presentation—I have 12 copies here—because it speaks to why I am here tonight and why, along with some other organizations and individuals, we are dedicating our time and effort to support Bill C-51.

Regarding specifically Bill C-51, I would like to take the liberty of offering that we also see some weaknesses as well as its overarching strengths. I am not a legal expert by a long shot, but my work as a community activist and a basic understanding of the bill suggest this.

The proposed granting to CSIS, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, of the power to disrupt is a challenging thing. In defence of the government, it can be said that where such powers would otherwise breach law, CSIS would first have to seek a warrant authorizing the disruption operation. However, I might suggest that the approach to gaining authority to do this might not be sufficient to guarantee appropriate limits on this technique. Therefore, it might be useful to expand the mandate of SIRC, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, in order to make sure that any new departmental or agency powers have suitable review.

I would also like to point out that all government activity taking place in Canada is subject to the Canadian Constitution, notably including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Therefore, we look to the government to tailor review and other mechanisms appropriately, as all government activity will in the end be subject to the ultimate test, which is the Constitution.

Let me also add that we would like to consider Bill C-51 to be a work-in-progress, and that we are therefore confident that appropriate adjustment will be made in the legislation before it eventually becomes law. There is no doubt that our organization and the individuals involved would like to see this bill become the law. I fully understand and appreciate that in the western world, where our democracy is based on civil liberties, such an act may be perceived as encroaching on personal freedoms and values. However, we want to keep away threats to Canada, threats we are all familiar with as we see trial after trial unfolding and look at incidents where loyalty to the land in which we live was never made a priority.

Thank you very much for your time.

Transcript

Discussions (0)