Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Hassan Yussuff, and that is just one of the reasons I'm opposed to this bill. The other 3.3 million reasons are those unionized workers across this country whose rights are also under threat.

Let me begin by saying that the Canadian Labour Congress understands very well that the government has a responsibility to safeguard our public safety. Many of the workers we represent, those working at borders, for example, do that exactly every day across this country.

This bill is reckless. Its implementation will undermine the very freedom that the government claims it wants to protect. We stand with many Canadians who have concluded that the bill is more about posturing ahead of an election than it is about better protecting our public safety. We stand with those who say that this bill and the rhetoric being used to promote it targets and encourages the targeting of Muslim, Arab, and other racialized communities. For evidence of that, we can only remember how Ihsaan Gardee, the executive director of the National Council of Canadian Muslims, was treated when he testified before this very committee just days ago.

We also agree with the many organizations and experts who worry that the bill does nothing to address the urgent need for oversight and review of the many agencies engaged in national security work. We simply can't understand why this government continues to ignore the findings and recommendations that were the result of the painstaking work of so many at the Arar commission, a process that was demanded and paid for by Canadians.

We are also especially concerned that if this bill becomes law it will limit free speech and dissent and advocacy. It is simply too far-reaching to define a threat to national security as “interference”, with, for example, the “economic or financial stability of Canada” or “critical infrastructure”, especially as the bill does not qualify what it means by “interference”. By saying, for example, “attacks” or “disruptions” or “damage”, or even “serious interference”, this bill may exclude lawful advocacy, protest, and dissent.

The term “lawful” is very narrow, as far as we're concerned. It will change the existing Criminal Code, which exempts all advocacy, protest, dissent, or stoppages of work not intended to endanger life or health. That means that labour demonstrations, marches, or rallies without permits would be deemed a threat to national security. Our work stoppages, while peaceful, might be deemed unlawful. If these actions are deemed to be a threat to national security, our members will be subjected to information sharing among the 17 government agencies engaged in national security work and could be subjected to disruption under the new police power granted to CSIS.

Canada has seen, through the case of Maher Arar and many others, how much harm can result from that.

We're also very concerned that this bill will introduce a new criminal offence for advocating or promoting the commission of terrorism acts in general. We think that many individuals who have no connection to terrorism and no intention of fomenting political violence will be caught up in the sweeping nature of this offence. This would impact freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, freedom of the press, and academic freedom. The government has failed to justify why these changes are necessary, especially while so many highly publicized, terrorism-related arrests and convictions are proceeding very well under the existing Criminal Code.

I'd like to conclude by saying that it is very troubling that the members of Parliament seated here today are actively working to block the testimony of so many. I urge the committee members to reconsider.

Canadians do not want this bill to be rushed through without adequate and informed debate. I'm very certain that Canadians do want and expect their elected representative to benefit from the expertise of the Privacy Commissioner, special advocates, and others who have asked but been blocked from testifying to date before this committee.

On behalf of the CLC, thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Transcript

Discussions (0)