Bill C-44 (Historical)

Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act

An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other Acts

This enactment amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to give greater protection to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service’s human sources. Also, so as to enable the Service to more effectively investigate threats to the security of Canada, the enactment clarifies the scope of the Service’s mandate and confirms the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to issue warrants that have effect outside Canada. In addition, it makes a consequential amendment to the Access to Information Act.
The enactment also amends the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act to allow for the coming into force of provisions relating to the revocation of Canadian citizenship on a different day than the day on which certain other provisions of that Act come into force.

Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

moved that Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to begin debate at second reading on Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act. I hope that our government can count on the opposition parties' support to get this bill to committee.

I would like to start by thanking my colleagues from all parties who went to the National War Memorial this morning, especially my colleague here, the member for Vaughan and Minister of Veterans Affairs, to lay wreaths in tribute to the two soldiers who lost their lives in recent weeks.

All of my colleagues remember what happened. On October 22, we all witnessed events that shocked us in some way. I would like to join my voice to those of my colleagues from all parties who went to the National War Memorial this morning and extend our thoughts and our prayers to the families of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent and Corporal Nathan Cirillo.

On Saturday, I had the privilege of being in Longueuil to attend the funeral for Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent. His twin sister gave us a message of hope and peace, but she also asked us to ensure that her brother's death would not be in vain. Today, as parliamentarians, we have the opportunity to begin a debate on a bill that will ensure better protection for our country.

Before I begin the substance of my discussion today on this important legislation, I would like to address the horrific terrorist attack that happened just steps from where we stand today and make sure that we are all starting from the same point when we talk about what happened. It is important that we agree, for the sake of clarity, on what took place recently. That is why I would like to refer members to the Criminal Code, which defines terrorism as a violent and intentional act that aims to intimidate the public for political or religious reasons.

The Criminal Code defines terrorism as an act committed for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause with the intention of intimidating the public.

The two acts that were committed here—the attack on Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and the attack on Corporal Nathan Cirillo—fit within the definition of terrorism.

That is why President François Hollande said yesterday that these acts were terrorist-inspired. That is why the U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, said that when someone attacks an unarmed soldier guarding the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and then storms Parliament with a loaded weapon, that is also an act of terrorism. That is also how it is defined in the Criminal Code.

I hope all parties will recognize that these acts were terrorist acts. We should call a spade a spade. Then we will be able to come up with solutions together to deal with the challenges we face.

Clearly, the terrorist acts committed here also have international repercussions. The Islamic State poses a threat not only to Canadians, but to populations in other countries that are being brutally suppressed and whose fundamental human rights are being violated.

That is why we are part of the coalition that is currently conducting air strikes against that terrorist group and why we are supporting the security forces in Iraq in their fight against this terrorist scourge.

However, we also need to take action within our borders, in Canada, to protect Canadians from anyone who might try to attack us, our values or innocent victims.

That is also why we are so determined to strengthen the tools available to police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service when it comes to surveillance, detention and arrest. Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act, which we are starting to debate today, is a first step in that direction.

We took action a long time ago. We are moving forward strongly, because we are facing a serious terrorist threat, one that we must address with strong measures.

As a government, we have already taken strong action to protect Canadians from the threat caused by terrorists.

Our government's response is based on Canada's counterterrorism strategy, which is a four-pillar approach. The first pillar, which is very important, is prevention. It is important that we promote and share our Canadian values with everyone, with every Canadian. That is why we are investing in numerous prevention measures involving police services, community groups and the government itself. My predecessors and I have engaged with ethnic and cultural communities, including at the cross-cultural roundtable. That is the first pillar. Then, we need to prevent, deny and detect individuals who may pose a threat, prevent them from taking action and, finally, respond to the threat if necessary.

Now we are dealing with another phenomenon: extremists who travel abroad and those who come back to Canada. That is a source of concern for us, which is why we intend to propose other measures in addition to the bill being introduced today.

Whether it is through legislation, policy, or investment, our government has taken strong action to give law enforcement and national security agencies the tools they need to keep us safe.

We have given law enforcement new tools by making it a crime to go overseas to engage in terrorist activities. We have given authorities tools to strip Canadian citizenship from those engaged in terrorist activities.

We have increased funding for our national security agencies, such as the RCMP and CSIS, each by a third.

We brought in the Combating Terrorism Act. We are prepared to revoke the citizenship of individuals who have dual citizenship and are convicted of acts of terrorism. We are also prepared to revoke the passports of individuals who want to incite violence outside our borders. Since 2006, we have increased the budgets of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service by more than one-third.

In practical terms, that means an additional $191 million for CSIS over the level that existed under the previous Liberal government.

Canada's counterterrorism legislation has been tried, tested and embraced by the highest courts.

Not only is law enforcement responding to the law we have put in force but the tribunal is as well by giving harsh sentences to those who are convicted of terrorist activities.

For example, Canada successfully prosecuted terrorism-related offences in the cases of Mohammad Momin Khawaja, alias Namouh, and 11 members of the so-called Toronto 18.

In July, Mohamed Hersi became the first Canadian convicted of attempting to travel abroad to join a terrorist group.

We tabled and implemented the Combating Terrorism Act. This act brought in important new criminal offences, including making it illegal to leave or attempt to leave Canada in order to commit certain terrorism offences outside Canada. This past July, the RCMP laid its first charges under the new act against an individual for leaving Canada to take part in terrorist activities. The bill is working. We need to take action to keep Canadians safe from terrorists.

Shockingly and unfortunately, we did not get support from the official opposition at that time for that common sense legislation. Hopefully this time we can count on their support and we can move the bill forward.

The government's terrorist listing also plays a key role in combatting terrorist financing, and under the Criminal Code, being listed has serious consequences, allowing for the seizure, restraint or forfeiture of a listed entity's property.

Again yesterday, we saw that another group was declared a terrorist entity. In other words, it is absolutely illegal in Canada, under the Criminal Code, to support or want to finance or associate with this entity. All the activities of this entity are prohibited in our country.

In April, we added IRFAN-Canada to the list of terrorist entities. IRFAN-Canada is a not-for-profit organization that transferred roughly $14.6 million in resources to Hamas, a terrorist entity that is on the Canadian list.

These measures help interrupt the flow of resources such as funds, weapons and new recruits to these entities. We also employ various mechanisms in order to deprive terrorists of the means and opportunities to carry out their activities. These mechanisms include the High Risk Travel Case Management Group, led by the RCMP, which is especially busy these days, and the revocation and suspension of passports of travellers who want to engage in terrorist activities abroad.

The prevention of violent extremism is a key element of our approach. I would like to share with you the important work accomplished in that regard. Preventing violent extremism is a key component of our strategy. At this time, I would like to commend the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which has identified radicalism and radicalization as an area of concern, and which plans to examine this issue at its upcoming meetings and next year.

Our approach, “Responding to Violent Extremism”, is outlined in a document entitled 2014 Public Report On The Terrorist Threat To Canada. It is based on three interrelated strategies: building community capacity, which equates to prevention; building law enforcement capacity, which this bill will do by clarifying the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service; and developing programs to stop radicalization resulting in violence through proactive early intervention. We must remember that preventing terrorism is our national security priority.

The counter terrorism information officer initiative, which is an RCMP responsibility, provides frontline police officers and other first responders with essential terrorism awareness training. Therefore, there are already resources, budgets and measures in place to deal with this threat of terrorism, but we have to adapt to this evolving threat.

Here we come back to the legislation at hand. The protection of Canada from terrorists act contains distinct elements that work toward a common goal, which is to protect the safety and security of Canadians. The bill also has some provisions regarding the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, which received royal assent in June.

There is really nothing new in this part, but let me just say the act made important changes at that time to the Citizenship Act, enabling the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to revoke Canadian citizenship from dual citizens who are convicted of terrorism, treason or spying offences. Such individuals would be permanently barred from acquiring citizenship again. While that act has already received royal assent, as members know, provisions in new legislation can come into force at different times.

Recent events around the world have brought to the forefront the need to address the threats of terrorism now. We are, therefore, proposing amendments to the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act that would allow provisions related to the revocation of Canadian citizenship to come into force earlier than anticipated. It is nothing new but it would ensure that those provisions could be used by law enforcement more rapidly.

The provisions that would come into force include new expanded grounds for revocation of Canadian citizenship and the establishment of a streamlined decision-making process. We are clear that Canadian citizenship is sacred. Our Canadian passport, wherever we go around the world, is of high value. It has to mean something. We do not want to share our Canadian passport with anyone who wants to cut off our heads because we disagree.

The Canadian passport is respected around the world. As parliamentarians, we will not accept that individuals with criminal intentions use Canadian passports to commit acts of terrorism.

Let us now examine the main part of the bill, which will make the necessary amendments to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.

Ever since the CSIS Act was introduced more than 30 years ago, threats to Canada's security have become increasingly complex, as evidenced by the global nature of terrorism and the mobility of terrorist travellers.

We are aware of Canadians who have joined terrorist groups abroad. CSIS director Michel Coulombe has stated that more than 140 individuals with Canadian connections are suspected of engaging in terrorism-related activities abroad. It is more critical than ever that CSIS has the proper tools to investigate threats to the security of Canada and that its role and function is clear in terms of our Canadian laws. The bill before us proposes several targeted amendments to support CSIS in its mandate to investigate threats to the security of Canada.

First, the bill would confirm, clarify and strengthen the power of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to conduct investigations abroad, by confirming that CSIS has clear, legislated authority to conduct investigations abroad related to Canada's security and security assessments.

Second, the bill will give the Federal Court the power to consider only the relevant Canadian law when issuing a warrant to authorize CSIS to investigate threats to the security of Canada.

Essentially, this bill clarifies the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and protects witnesses, because information can only be exchanged if there is trust between the human source and the information service.

It is important to protect these sources and provide criteria for this legal protection, in order to make it possible to increase protection in certain situations.

I am pleased to introduce this important bill in Parliament. I look forward to following the debate, because this is an important and balanced bill.

I hope that we will be able to move forward and send this bill to committee, and that we develop a law that will protect Canadian citizens against the threat of terrorism. This threat is evolving and is unfortunately a reality.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the minister's speech on the bill, but we on this side have been very clear that we think Canadians want protection both of public safety and of civil liberties, and I did not hear anything about civil liberties protection in the minister's speech.

I want to come back to what is becoming a canard from the minister, and that is his statement that he has increased the funding for Public Safety. He refers back to 2007, I think, in an attempt to mislead the House. Will he admit that in the 2012 action plan the government laid out a plan to cut $688 million from Public Safety, including $24.5 million from CSIS, $143 million from the Canada Border Services Agency, and $195 million from the RCMP; and that he has carried out those plans so that in fact all three of those agencies have significantly less funding to deal with our national security problems than they had in 2012?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I invite the member to look at clause 7, proposed paragraph 18.1(4), which clearly stipulates the authority of the court with an amicus curiae, a friend of the court, that will allow a tribunal to determine if it is necessary to remove the protection. It is embedded in this bill, the right of the accused of the human source within the scope of our Canadian law.

Regarding the funding, let us look at numbers. I have here the funding for CSIS prior to our government coming into power. It was less than $350 million. We are now up to $540 million. It is $190 million more and we are considering options. What is at stake here is the safety of Canadians. We are not only there to support their financial needs. We were there to support the Combating Terrorism Act, which is now putting terrorists behind bars. We are intending to move in the same direction and hope we can get the support of the member and his party in doing so.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that was quite an answer for my colleague from the NDP. We might as well go back to 1992 to try to compare figures. The fact of the matter is that in the public accounts, the Department of Public Safety and National Security has cut over $600 million in a number of agencies that are all related to security in one fashion or another. Those are the facts and the minister might as well admit it.

I have two questions.

First, the minister talked quite a bit about revoking the citizenship of dual citizens. Although the Conservatives have been promoting that for some time, we find it strange that it is in this bill. However, if it is in the bill to invoke it earlier then that is the position the government is taking. Making a law is important but making a law that they are sure is going to stand up to court scrutiny is critical. Could the minister table in this House, or would he be prepared to table at committee, the legal opinion that would suggest that this part of the law is charter sound and that it would stand up to the courts if it is challenged. If it would not, then we are really wasting our time with that particular clause in the law.

Second, the minister talked a fair bit about confirming that Canada has a clear authority to undertake certain activities beyond Canada's borders. There is a specific section in Bill C-44 for that, and I understand that. However, why are we going with a warrant and very narrowly focused legal words in the bill when in our research none of our Five Eyes partners are doing that? None of them have a similar clause in their legislation. The deputy director of CSIS has said before a Senate committee that all this bill would do is to put in law what CSIS is already doing. Why is that clause necessary when none of our other Five Eyes counterparts have that particular piece and they are able to do their jobs?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, why is the bill necessary? Because we live in a state of law. We have rights and we believe the fundamental rights of Canadians are sacred. We are tabling the bill to clarify the law so CSIS can fully operate and protect Canadians under Canadian law. There is no liberty without security.

While I am on my feet, let me tell the House what the budget increase for the RCMP, our national law enforcement agency, has been since the last Liberal government. In the 2005-06 budget, it was $2.1 billion. We are now up to $2.8 billion. That is more than $700 million. It is a little more than the indexation rate. Why the increase? Because we are ready to provide the tools and resources necessary to keep Canadians safe.

The question in front of my hon. colleague today is whether those members are ready to provide the tools to our law enforcement agency and our national security agencies to keep Canadians safe.

[Julian Fantino, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, in the context of the provisions of the proposed bill, would the hon. minister comment on the views expressed by Ann Cavoukian, the Ontario information and privacy commissioner. She stated that we may have to rethink the balance between human rights and civil liberties, including privacy and the intrusion on these rights in the name of public safety. Further, she said that the balance between security and privacy had never been static, shifting in favour of security whenever we were faced with significant threats to public safety.

I suppose we could all bring ourselves to understand more fully the predicament that we are in. The bill attempts to address these issues. However, I would also ask the minister if he could comment further on the comments of the privacy commissioner when she said, “I recognize that there may be a legitimate need for increased surveillance and greater investigative powers to address new threats to public safety”. Could the minister speak to that issue in the context of the proposed bill?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, is doing a remarkable job of protecting our veterans and providing them with the tools and support they need after they have served our country. They deserve all our gratitude for that.

As we know, the member has also accomplished a remarkable career in law enforcement. He was at the forefront of those important questions. That is why we are tabling the bill, which has embedded in it consideration of all those basic civil rights. That is why the bill has what we call an amicus curiae, which means “a friend of the court”. This friend of the court would be able, in some cases, to declare that a human source would not be information from which the identity of a human source could be inferred. Therefore, it would be able to remove the protection in some cases, especially when it would be essential to establish the accused's innocence that could be disclosed in the proceedings.

The bill would ensure that a tribunal would be monitoring the process, but also clarifying it. We are responding to an invitation from the court to make its job simpler because the law would be clear. This clarity would increase safety for Canadians.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as this may be my last opportunity to speak to the House before Remembrance Day, I really look forward to these Remembrance Day services. I know all members of Parliament are. We expect to be joined by record crowds of Canadians this year.

Unfortunately, this year, we have two new names to add to the Canadian heroes who have given their life in service to Canada. They are Corporal Nathan Cirillo and Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent. Once again, I would like to express my sympathies to their families. I know Canada will do them proud this Remembrance Day by showing how much we respect the sacrifices their families have made.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-44, an act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other acts. In the aftermath of the two attacks at St-Jean-sur-Richelieu and in Ottawa just two weeks ago, concern about national security is certainly front and centre in the public mind and, indeed, in all of our minds. There is no doubt that concern already existed about the spread of extremist views and the radicalization of Canadians, whether on the basis of ideological or religious grounds.

As New Democrats, we have taken a strong stand, but we must not rush to judgment on any of the recent events until the full story is known. We have also argued that we cannot let fear warp who we are as a nation and distort our values. We should beware of falling into the trap of looking for solutions in some kind of trade-off, giving up some of our freedom for greater security. Instead, the New Democrats know that it is the responsibility of the government to protect both our civil liberties and public safety. There is no contradiction between the two. We believe Canadians expect the government to do no less.

We know that Bill C-44 was in preparation months before the events of October 22. In fact, if we look at its content, it is easy to see that there is no apparent connection with the events in Ottawa or St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, judging on the information we have before us so far.

In fact, Bill C-44 seems to be a legislative response to difficulties created for CSIS as a result of two court decisions. One is from the Supreme Court of Canada in 2007, called Regina v. Hape, and the other is from the Federal Court in the following year, known as Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act (Re), 2008.

In short, what seems to have happened is that these two decisions made it difficult for CSIS to co-operate and share information with allied spy services, the so-called “five eyes group”, made up of the United States, the U.K., Australia, New Zealand and Canada. At the heart of these two cases was the question of whether CSIS could use warrants obtained in Canada to conduct surveillance abroad, using methods that would have required the authorization of a judge if they were to take place in Canada.

By providing a clear framework for overseas surveillance work and express authority for the courts to issue warrants authorizing these activities in Bill C-44, the government is arguing that CSIS would be better able to protect national security. Indeed, this may be the case. We are certainly prepared to look carefully at this measure in committee.

This is what lies at the heart of Bill C-44, and it may indeed be the case that CSIS needs these new expanded or clarified powers, however we wish to describe them. The New Democrats are therefore prepared to support this legislation to go to committee, recognizing their potential importance for national security.

However, details matter very much in bills like this, so we will be asking tough questions about what the government proposes to accomplish in this bill and about whether and how this expansion of CSIS' powers will actually help keep Canadians safe.

Again, as we have said, just as it is important to protect public safety and national security, it is also necessary to protect civil liberties. What we see missing in this bill are any improved accountability measures to accompany the proposed expansion of the powers of CSIS. I will return to this question of accountability in just a moment.

Let me stop here to consider what else is in Bill C-44, in addition to clarifying the international mandate of CSIS and its ability to carry out surveillance abroad.

The third element in Bill C-44 is the provision of a blanket protection on the identity of the human sources of CSIS. Again, we will have some serious questions to ask in committee about this provision. Right now, judges can grant protection for the identity of CSIS sources on a case by case basis. The onus is on the government to show why this protection is actually needed. Bill C-44 would reverse that onus. The presumption would be that the identity of CSIS sources would always be protected.

Even the bill itself acknowledges that this could be a problem when it comes to using CSIS information as the basis for criminal charges. Our criminal justice system, quite rightly, does not look favourably on anonymous testimony or evidence whose validity cannot be challenged in court.

Bill C-44 would create an exception for criminal law, allowing the disclosure if the defence could establish that doing so would be necessary to establish the innocence of the accused. This would add a large potential complication to any such criminal cases, as it would require a separate process to be carried out in Federal Court. On this side of the House, we remain concerned that this provision may perversely make it more difficult to secure criminal convictions of those who threaten national security.

There is in the bill, however, no such exemption to the blanket provision for protection of identity of CSIS sources for immigration and refugee cases. In fact, Bill C-44 makes reference to the use of special advocates in cases where the identity of CSIS sources seems likely to affect the outcome of the case.

The fourth provision of Bill C-44 has nothing at all to do with CSIS and which we could say, in a way, makes Bill C-44 a mini omnibus bill. This is the provision that would advance the coming into force date for the provisions in the Citizenship Act, passed last year, that allow the revocation of Canadian citizenship for dual citizens convicted of terrorism or other serious offences. This is something the New Democrats opposed at the time, and continue to oppose, as creating two different classes of Canadian citizen.

When we look at the provisions of Bill C-44 in the current context, there are some other questions we need to ask ourselves, which may not fall neatly into the confines of a debate on legislation alone. We must ask ourselves if legislation is always the answer to every problem or, as the government sometimes seems to believe, the only answer to every problem.

We must ask ourselves if there are other things we can do when it comes to the question of how we respond to the use of violence at home by Canadians. Perhaps most important among these questions is how we respond to homegrown radicalization of youth, whether it is a young Canadian who murders three Mounties in New Brunswick or another who seeks to go abroad to join an armed religious or ideological movement. A lot of good work has been done on this question at the community level, and we need to reach out to those communities concerned and work with them on prevention and early intervention strategies.

Another serious question we must ask ourselves about national security is whether the the federal government assigned sufficient resources to the task of protecting national security. Testimony at the Senate Standing Committee on National Defence on two successive October Mondays cast doubt on whether the government had done this.

On October 20, the deputy director of Operations of CSIS told the Senate that CSIS was forced to prioritize its resources when it came to monitoring radicals returned from abroad or prevented from going abroad. The deputy director said that CSIS did not have the resources to monitor all 80 or 90 names on that shifting list and that this must be seen as a public safety concern.

Just a week later, RCMP Commissioner Paulson told the same Senate committee that in the wake of the October attacks, he was forced to expand the 170 personnel assigned to the integrated national security enforcement team, the front-line teams on national security, by seconding 300 personnel from organized crime and financial crime units, reassigning them to national security. This means weakening one important area of crime fighting in order to strengthen the fight against threats to national security, and is surely an indication of inadequate resources for the RCMP at this time.

Is this a choice the government really should be asking the Commissioner of the RCMP to make, protecting national security or continuing to fight organized crime? The record of the Conservatives on this issue is clear, despite the attempts of the minister again this morning to make historical references to funding going back, sometimes it seems, to the beginning of time.

In 2012, on page 277 of the economic action plan, the Conservatives clearly laid out their intention to cut $688 million from the public safety budget over the three fiscal years ending this year, 2014-15, and they have done this. We have seen cuts beginning in 2012 now amounting to $24.5 million annually for CSIS, something like a 5% cut in 2012. Never mind what the level was in 2006 or 2007, it is a cut from 2012.

There were $143 million cut from the Canadian Border Services Agency, a cut of nearly 10%, including cutting more than 100 intelligence staff from the CBSA, those who are charged with finding out who is trying to violate our borders and might potentially be a threat to national security. It includes a cut of $195 million from 2012 to the budget of the RCMP.

It also appears, from the tabling of the 2014 Public Accounts, that each of these agencies has also been subject to the same pressures from the Conservatives to underspend even those reduced budgets in the quest for an ever larger surplus on paper.

I want to return now to the question of the importance of oversight for our national security agencies.

We all in this House know good models for accountability when we see them, and we have many good examples, like the independent officers of Parliament who have special expertise and report directly to Parliament and not just the minister of the day. These are officers of Parliament like the Auditor General or the Privacy Commissioner, whose reports can be debated in Parliament, shining light on what the government has or has not done, and holding the government to account.

It is strange to think that the CBSA has no such oversight body. This is despite four specific recommendations for the establishment of an oversight body that I can think of: from the 2003 recommendation of the Auditor General to the 2006 O'Connor commission report, to the 2008 Canadian Council of Refugees recommendation, to the most recent 2014 calls for better accountability by both the Canadian Council of Refugees and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association in the wake of the death in custody in Vancouver of Lucia Vega Jimenez.

Now the government will be quick to respond that CSIS already has sufficient oversight in the form of the 30-year-old Security Intelligence Review Committee, but keep in mind that this is the same government that significantly reduced accountability in CSIS by eliminating the position of inspector general, the CSIS internal watch dog who reported directly to the minister each year on CSIS' record of complying with the law. Instead, this important function was transferred to SIRC, a part-time body of non-specialists, and that responsibility was transferred short of roughly $1 million of resources, which the Conservatives promptly booked as “savings”.

SIRC already has very important responsibilities, including investigating public complaints about the way CSIS deals with things like security clearances, their approval or revocation, which affects people's employment; dealing with public complaints about CSIS' exchange of information with foreign governments, and we know we have had problems where that exchange of information has led to mistreatment of Canadians abroad; and CSIS' functions in providing information in immigration and refugee cases.

The responsibility of the inspector general was added to the work SIRC was already doing, again, without the transfer of the full resources, and again, under the responsibility of a part-time, non-specialist committee.

In addition to the structural weaknesses of SIRC—as I mentioned, a part-time body of non-specialists—there are concerns about whether the Conservatives have taken SIRC seriously. It currently has only a temporary chair, and two of the five positions on the committee have been vacant for months. What was previously a serious consultation process, involving the opposition in appointments to SIRC, seems to have deteriorated to the point where we found SIRC was chaired by a patronage appointee, Arthur Porter, a former fundraiser for the Conservatives who is now facing fraud charges from a Panama prison.

Even with its current limitations, SIRC itself has tried to draw Parliament's attention and the attention of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to the question of CSIS' accountability. In its recently tabled 2012-13 annual report, SIRC points to serious problems with CSIS in terms of accountability. SIRC reported serious delays in receiving information from CSIS, which impeded its investigations. SIRC even noted that CSIS had been less than forthright in its responses to questions from the accountability body.

The most serious concern raised in the 2012-13 annual report has to do with arming CSIS personnel in high-risk and dangerous operating environments abroad.

We know that CSIS did first have armed agents abroad in Afghanistan. From 2002 to 2007, they were trained by Canadian Forces, and special forces close protection units provided protection to CSIS agents in the most dangerous operations. As well, DFAIT provided diplomatic accreditation to protect those armed CSIS agents against local accountability

After 2007, CSIS launched its own firearms program with its own policies, training, and armed operational support teams. SIRC, in 2010, expressed concern about the expansion of the use of armed CSIS agents beyond Afghanistan and said that this should be done: “...only after...consultation with, and approval of, the Minister of Public Safety”.

SIRC raised significant concerns about the liability of CSIS staff who might be armed abroad under the criminal and civil law of a foreign jurisdiction. It also raised concerns about how a CSIS staff member, if found negligent in the use of firearms, could be dealt with under our domestic legal regime. Of course, it raised concerns about the possibilities of violations of international law and the sovereignty and laws of foreign governments.

I am not arguing that perhaps CSIS agents do not sometimes need to be armed, but what SIRC asked for was that a written justification be supplied to the minister explaining the legal authority permitting CSIS staff outside Afghanistan to be armed. In 2012-13, SIRC found it unacceptable that there was no record of any meetings or discussions between the CSIS director and the minister on this topic.

As Bill C-44 attempts to clarify CSIS' authority to operate abroad, the question of CSIS officers carrying weapons abroad becomes a critical policy question as well as a critical accountability question.

The SIRC report clearly states that CSIS needs to:

...provide a full explanation of how the arming of some of its employees is consistent with CSIS’s policy framework, which is rooted in the premise that activities are lawful and authorized, necessary and proportionate, and represent an effective and efficient use of public resources.

This demonstrates the point I am trying to make about the clear necessity of strengthening accountability along with any expansion of CSIS powers.

Bill C-44 presents the House of Commons with its first test of whether any new legislation on national security in the current climate will conform to Canadian values. This would require that the legislation aim to protect both public safety and civil liberties at the same time. The question should not be whether there will be some new balance where we give up some portion of our liberties for security, which unfortunately seems to be the position of both the Conservatives and the Liberals on this important question. Instead, Canadians expect us to take on the tougher task of protecting both freedom and security in a climate where extremists of all kinds are attacking the essence of our free and open society.

Equally unfortunate is the tendency to act as if legislation is the government's only tool. As the old saying goes, “If you only have a hammer, then everything looks like a nail”. The New Democrats will continue to urge the Conservative government to take a broader view. We will urge the government to examine whether the tools it already has are being used effectively. We will urge the government to skip its clever rhetoric about a mythical 30% increase in public safety budgets and ask serious questions about the impacts of three consecutive years of cuts on national security. We will ask the government to engage in a dialogue with Canadians from all communities on how else, other than legislation, we can respond to these new national security threats.

Above all, we are asking the government to consider what we can do together as a nation to respond to the need to protect both public safety and civil liberties.

I look forward to the debate we will have when we get to committee, but as I said, we have many serious questions to ask the government and we hope we will be given time to bring forward the expert witnesses we need at committee to have a full debate, as these are important questions to national security in Canada.

We have seen an unfortunate tendency in the public safety committee to limit the number of witnesses who appear, to limit the debate, and to limit the discussion of any necessary amendments. We will be asking tough questions about accountability because, as has been the theme of my remarks today, we believe that if there is a need for an expansion of powers for agencies like CSIS, then we must ensure that we have adequate accountability measures in place to protect civil liberties.

As I see my time is drawing to a close, I want to thank the minister for providing a briefing on this legislation for the opposition. It was quite a useful briefing, although I have to say it seems it is the first time we received such a briefing. I hope it indicates a new spirit of co-operation on any legislation coming forward in the future, because we have to make sure we get this right. Things that affect national security and civil liberties go to the very heart of who we are as Canadians.

Once again, New Democrats ask the government to consider very seriously not asking Canadians to give up some civil liberties for security, but consider how we can protect both civil liberties and public safety and keep this the nation that we all treasure so much.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague across the way, and I believe that the minister has reached that balance of protecting the security of Canadians but also the civil liberties that Canada is well known for.

Members of our law enforcement agencies put their lives on the line in order to thoroughly investigate threats to our national security. Presently, CSIS agents travelling to work abroad have to travel under their given names. They are provided little protection of their identities, a risk that puts them and their families in danger. This bill would provide protections for CSIS employees to protect their identities when working abroad.

Would the member and the NDP support such common-sense measures? He spoke about using a broader tool on this specific part of Bill C-44. Would he support that?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I have stated very clearly, New Democrats are going to support this bill going to committee so we can ask very serious questions about these things.

On the question of protecting the identities of CSIS sources, many people have said there may be an unintended consequence. CSIS sources and CSIS identities get wrapped up together and we have to make sure that when CSIS comes up with information that shows that someone has been a threat to national security, we are able to take legal action against those people. If we end up expanding these protections too broadly so that it interferes with prosecution, then in essence, we have defeated the purpose.

New Democrats want to look very carefully at those questions about the expansion of protection of sources and the identities of CSIS employees, to make sure they do not have unintended consequences for being able to enforce important law for national security.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with my colleague from the NDP on this particular committee.

He kind of hinted that the government seems to think that legislation in and of itself is always the ultimate answer. As I look at this bill, I see that there are really not a lot of additional authorizations in it. Even CSIS itself would admit that the bill would authorize it to do what it already does. Also, there is the protection of sources, which is new.

In his remarks, the member talked a bit about the Canada Border Services Agency and the cutbacks to the RCMP, CSIS, and CBSA. From my perspective, the whole of the department of public safety and national security can do a lot beyond this legislation. I think the member alluded to that. I wonder what the member is suggesting beyond the legislation that should be done on the part of the government to deal with both terrorism from abroad and homegrown terrorism here.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I too enjoy working with the member for Malpeque on the public safety committee.

The question New Democrats are asking is the broad, general question about whether there are things that already exist in terms of the government's powers, things it already could be doing and should be doing beyond simply asking for new legislation each time we confront one of these problems. One of the most important of those, of course, is consulting with communities about the creation of homegrown radicals in Canada, whatever their motivation.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have had two serious cases, Abdullah Almalki and Maher Arar. Justice Iacobucci and Justice O'Connor made significant recommendations around the protection of Canadians' rights vis-à-vis CSIS and the RCMP. We do not see those recommendations in the bill. In committee, were there discussions around that and did New Democrats push to have that included in this legislation?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have not been to committee yet to have these discussions. New Democrats are being optimistic that we will have full discussions at that level, but it is very clear that, since 2003, there have been repeated recommendations that we need to strengthen the accountability measures that go along with the powers to enforce legislation to guarantee national security. We are arguing on this side that those two things go hand in hand. They are not a contradiction. We have to have better accountability.

When we look at the SIRC report for 2012-13 on CSIS, we see it has some shocking material in it. When the accountability group says the minister was not consulted on a major change in policy, and there is no record of any meeting or memo that establishes any legal authority for what CSIS is doing, then we have a serious problem.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service has my full confidence, and I am pleased to hear that the New Democrats support this measure.

However, are they prepared to move this bill quickly to committee, where parliamentarians are better prepared to delve deeper into this debate?

I would point out that nearly $190 million was given to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, in addition to the $700 million. Unfortunately, we did not get the support of the two political parties in either of these cases.

Are they prepared to move this to committee quickly?

My second question is this. In the bill, clause 7, on proposed subsection 18.1(4), clearly introduces the concept of the right to a fair trial that is protected in all cases. Does the member find some comfort, as he has expressed concerns about civil rights, that this is in the bill? What does he find in this provision that would protect and bring the balance he has suggested?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister's question contains about seven questions, and I am not sure I have time to answer all of them.

When it comes to his reference to us not supporting the budget, this is one case when it is the opposite of the Conservative rhetoric. We did not support the Conservative budget that cut funding for the RCMP, CSIS, and the CBSA. The minister makes reference to this mythical golden time before he began his cuts in 2012, and we are very clearly on record as not supporting that budget. The Conservatives like to use our opposition to the action plans in one way. I will use it the other way today.

On the question of how quickly we will get to committee, the government has a habit of using time allocation. I hope we do not see it do that on this bill. It is important that members of the House of Commons, who represent all kinds of different ridings and different people, the full diversity of Canada, get a chance to participate in this debate, if they wish to, and raise the issues that are important to them so that when we go to committee, we know what is on the minds of Canadians, as presented to the House by their representatives.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I represent the riding of Alfred-Pellan, which is named after a gifted painter who lived in Laval for a time. I am honoured to represent a riding with his name.

I would like to thank my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for his comments today on Bill C-44, which is important under the circumstances. This is not a response to the unfortunate events of October 20 and 22, but it is still a first step in enhancing public safety.

As my colleague mentioned, it is very important to define the line between public safety and civil liberties. This has been much discussed here in the House.

I would like my other colleagues in the House to understand how things work on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, where we do not always have the opportunity to have in-depth discussions because the government often imposes time limits on us.

Would my colleague give us an idea of the atmosphere that currently exists in the committee and that we hope will not prevail as we examine Bill C-44?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan for her remarks and for the work she does as the NDP deputy public safety critic. She is a vigilant and hard-working member of our committee and of the NDP team.

She makes an important point. Right now, in the public safety committee, we are dealing with Bill C-2, the safe injection sites bill, which of course really belongs in the health committee, but it is in our committee. We were presented with a very tight timeframe, including a limit, which the Conservatives passed in committee, of five minutes for the discussion of each clause. One of those clauses we are dealing with puts 27 different conditions on the opening of a safe injection site, and we are supposed to have five minutes of debate on that clause.

When it comes to getting this bill to committee, I am urging the government that we not be presented with such narrow and unreasonable time limits so that we can have a full discussion of what is a very important bill.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-44, an act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other acts. It is a bill the government really had to introduce following two adverse court rulings on the activities of CSIS.

In beginning, I want to just spin off a little of that last question and answer. I would speak directly to the minister. I would hope, in this instance, given the concern about the balance between national security and civil liberties, that the minister would push the committee to allow a full list of witnesses, not the kind of stacked list we get sometimes from the Conservatives, and a full hearing, an in-depth hearing, so the committee can do its proper job and come back with the best legislation possible. I support the point raised a moment ago by my colleagues.

There are some serious questions related to the provisions in Bill C-44 that need to be raised when the bill is before committee, and we intend to raise those questions and those concerns at that time.

The Liberal Party will be supporting this bill going to committee. However, I hope that the committee is really allowed to do its job and get in the proper expert witnesses and have the proper balance so that we can come back with the best legislation possible.

We have to look not just at this bill but at CSIS and its connections to the RCMP, CSEC, Canada Border Services Agency, and our allies we work with abroad.

There are three points I would like to raise specifically on this issue and this bill. One is tools. The minister is suggesting that this bill provides more tools, but there are really not many.

The second area is resources, the financial, human, and technological resources, for CSIS to do its job.

The third area is oversight and the need for proper oversight, and not of just CSIS. We have after-the-fact oversight, but there really needs to be parliamentary oversight of all our national security agencies. I will talk about that in a moment.

Before looking at the specific provisions in Bill C-44, it is necessary to place on the record our concern about the government's response to the terrorist threat to Canada and from within Canada. I would begin by asking the government a direct question. Why is it that the legislation currently in place, the provisions in the Criminal Code, some of which were put forward by the government in the Combating Terrorism Act, have not been utilized?

On October 27, in the House, the Minister of Public Safety admitted that the response of his office and his government to the threat represented by homegrown terrorists was not quite what it should be. According to the minister at that time, it is “time we stop under-reacting to the great threats against us.”

Yet the government still fails to act. I submit that it possesses the necessary tools to react. In fact, under section 83.181 of the Criminal Code, there is all kinds of authority for anyone who “leaves or attempts to leave Canada” for the purpose of participating in any activity of a terrorist group outside Canada.

There are four different sections there. The penalties are maximum terms in prison of 10 to 14 years, depending on the severity of the act.

The Minister of Justice stated publicly last week that the laws currently in place to combat a terrorist threat are “robust measures” that provide the police with the tools necessary to take action in response to a terrorist threat. The minister specifically referred to sections 83.3 and 810 of the Criminal Code, either of which would enable authorities to detain individuals under the provisions of a peace bond and could impose specific recognizance on individuals. In other words, action to limit certain individuals from taking action could be imposed. I ask the minister why those provisions have not been utilized.

The Minister of Public Safety has to this day failed to clarify a statement made before the public safety committee on October 8 with respect to the 80 individuals who returned to Canada after travelling abroad to take part in terrorist-related activities. He stated:

Let me be clear that these individuals posing a threat to our security at home have violated Canadian law....These dangerous individuals, some skilled and desiring to commit terrorist activity, pose a serious threat to law-abiding Canadians.

The minister also reconfirmed the following at committee:

...leaving or attempting to leave Canada to participate in terrorist activities is now a criminal offence.

The minister is quite correct on those points. There is authority under the Criminal Code to act. I have to again ask the question: Why has the government not acted with those authorities that are already there? Those authorities would not be changed in this particular legislation, other than confirming in law what CSIS already does.

I ask why section 83.181, which states that “Everyone who leaves or attempts to leave Canada” for terrorist acts abroad, is not being applied. It certainly was not in the case of the individual involved in the murder of the Canadian Forces member in Quebec earlier this month. According to public information, that individual had his passport revoked on the grounds of attempting to travel to Syria or Iraq to join known listed terrorist entities.

According to testimony by the Commissioner of the RCMP to the Senate national security committee on October 27, this individual was known to authorities to have intended to use his passport to leave Canada for Syria or Iraq to participate in “jihad”, yet the commissioner confirmed that the evidence the authorities had of this intent, while enough to have his passport revoked, was not enough to lay a charge. I ask the minister, and maybe he can answer this at committee, whether this bill will correct that shortcoming. I personally do not see it in the legislation, but I would ask the minister and his staff to come prepared to answer that question. Would this legislation correct that shortcoming the RCMP Commissioner seems to have outlined? We really do not know as yet, because the minister has not been specific on that point.

A great deal has been said by members of the government with respect to the provisions of the Combating Terrorism Act, which came into force in 2013. According to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, one individual has been charged under the provisions of the Combating Terrorism Act. The minister confirmed, as well, when he testified before the public safety committee on October 8, that only a single individual has been charged under the Combating Terrorism Act.

However, what neither the minister nor the parliamentary secretary bothered to tell Canadians was that the single individual charged had left Canada six months prior to the charges being laid, and that individual's whereabouts are still unknown.

Could one of the reasons these provisions in the Criminal Code have not been acted upon be the limited resources available to our security and intelligence services? That was mentioned in a previous speech. What good are legal sanctions if our security agencies cannot utilize them? If the reason is that the current government has been starving those agencies' critical resources, who is responsible for the security failure?

I would submit that in many things that the current government has been doing in the last two years, it has been blindly focused. Good government requires it to provide services, security, and financial resources, and yes, it has to establish priorities. However, part of the problem with the current government is it is blindly focused on getting as huge a surplus as possible so it can throw out election goodies. Is part of the cost of doing that starving CSIS and the RCMP of the funds necessary to do their job? I really do not know, but it looks that way. Good government cannot be blindly focused just on achieving a surplus to provide goodies at the next election; it has to be focused on the needs and the services of Canadians. I see that as a problem.

There is another issue beyond this bill that the government must respond to, something that does not require legislation but requires the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness simply to do the job assigned to him. The most recent annual report of the Security and Intelligence Review Committee, the only oversight body for CSIS, raised a number of troubling concerns. The Commissioner of the RCMP told the Senate national security committee on October 27 that there were now 93 individuals identified as high-risk travellers. The director of CSIS informed the public safety committee on October 8 that there were 80 individuals who have returned to Canada after having engaged in terrorist activities abroad, and CSIS knows where they are.

The problem there is that in terms of the RCMP doing its job, Commissioner Paulson said before a committee:

...we are reallocating the necessary funds and personnel from other priority areas to combat this threat. In recent months, and over the past week, over 300 additional resources were transferred in to enhance the capacity of INSET [Integrated National Security Enforcement Teams] from other federal policing priority areas such as organized crime and financial crime.

That tells me that the RCMP is indeed short of resources.

The deputy director of CSIS told the same committee on October 20:

...we work within the budget that is assigned to us. We do have to prioritize.

I would be foolhardy to say we have all the bases covered. We do what we can with the budget we have, sir.

There are clearly some concerns over financing.

There is another problem that the minister can deal with as well, and that is the operational mandate within CSIS. The most recent SIRC report, entitled “Lifting the Shroud of Secrecy: Thirty Years of Security Intelligence Accountability”, the annual report for 2013-14, said the following on page 16:

With surveillance teams spread across Canada all sharing identical job functions, SIRC expected to see solid communication among surveillance practitioners. Instead, SIRC found that, for the most part, regional surveillance teams operate in total isolation from one another and communicate only sporadically with their HQ counterparts.

That is worrisome, because if CSIS is not communicating properly within regions and between regions and headquarters, there is a serious problem. That is something that the minister can deal with.

The other point in the report that I just mentioned—and I am pretty sure that the minister knows this—is that at page 19, SIRC also found that with respect to the activities of CSIS:

...the Minister of Public Safety is not always systematically advised of such activities, nor is he informed of them in a consistent manner.

Those are two areas the minister can deal with without needing a bill. The minister just needs to ensure that the job is getting done within his own department.

The government has placed within Bill C-44 the enactment provisions of Bill C-24, which the minister talked about earlier. Bill C-24 would revoke the citizenship of dual nationals. We are concerned about that. The minister said in his remarks that it is included so as to enact that section faster. In an earlier question for the minister I said, and I will say again, that it is not enough to have something in legislation; it has to stand up to the courts. Some of us are concerned that this section just may not do that.

If the government, RCMP, CSIS, and other authorities are spending a lot of time on that particular area of taking away dual citizens' citizenship, it needs to be time well spent. I asked the minister to provide legal opinion to the committee to show that it is, in fact, charter-proof.

In an earlier question to the minister, I also raised the point that there is fairly strong wording in this particular bill. Subclause 8(2) reads:

Without regard to any other law, including that of any foreign state, a judge may, in a warrant...authorize activities outside Canada to enable the Service to investigate a threat to the security of Canada.

This would basically allow for a warrant to be issued to allow agents to break the law in a foreign country. We have checked the wording extensively, and similar wording is not found in the relevant legislation of our Five Eyes counterparts. I ask the minister why we need that specific wording when other countries do not, and I hope he could report the answer to committee,

An important part of the legislation deals with protecting our sources and informants abroad. At committee we would want to have more specific information on that aspect and know how it would be accomplished. I look forward to the government providing that information to the committee.

I will move on to the last point that I would like to make. I said first of all that I would deal with tools, resources, and oversight. One of the major shortcomings of this bill is the fact that the government did not bring accompanying legislation to provide proper parliamentary oversight to all of our national security agencies in Canada, as is done by all of our Five Eyes counterparts.

My colleague, the member for Vancouver Quadra, has a private member's bill, Bill C-622, as one option that the government could consider. I have a private member's bill, Bill C-551, which could be considered.

To find the balance between national security, civil liberties, and individual rights and freedoms in Canada, the government should be bringing in accompanying legislation that provides that parliamentary oversight. On the one hand, it would ensure that the agencies are doing their jobs, and on the other, it would ensure they are not going too far and violating the civil liberties of Canadians.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that my colleague and his party are going to support the bill at second reading so that it can go to committee.

My colleague raised some interesting points. Obviously, the answers to his many questions could be even better defined in the forum of the House of Commons. That being said, it is clear that this bill was introduced to bring about greater legislative clarity, to clarify the mandate of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, particularly when it comes to its activities outside the country. Also, Canadian laws apply regardless of where CSIS is conducting its operations. In addition, when it comes to witness protection, everyone has the right to a fair judgment.

That being said, my question is very simple. Given that the House reached a consensus on an agreement in principle, does the hon. member agree that we should quickly pass this bill and send it to committee so that it can become a tool that Canadian intelligence agencies can use to protect Canadians?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, one of the difficulties with the question in the way he raises it is that in all honesty, committees have not been working effectively under the current regime. Witnesses are stacked in a certain way so that we do not hear a full range of witnesses.

I personally, and I think even my party, would agree to send this legislation to committee quickly if we had the government's assurance that all the expert witnesses from across the country that we need to hear would be heard and that it would not be the kind of stacked hearing process that we get so often from the government side. If committees were allowed to work the way they should—that is, effectively—and the government was willing to accept amendments if necessary amendments were to be made, then of course I would more than welcome the minister's offer.

However, things need to change at committee. This is a serious bill. It requires serious work. The best place to do it is at committee, but we need some assurance from the government side that it would allow the committee to take on its full responsibility.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to respond to the member's invitation, but I am not holding my breath for that to happen. It appears that the minister wishes to have it both ways by getting it out of the House quickly and then having a superficial hearing at committee.

I want to pick up on the first point that he raised, which was that the bill is in fact a response to certain judicial issues or court cases. I ask him to expand on that point. I assume there is some sort of problem with protection of witnesses and with CSIS operating abroad. In both these instances, the courts have intervened.

A secondary question is that if the member for Vancouver Quadra's bill had been accepted, or if yours had been, we would not be dealing with this issue, as that balance would have been achieved.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to the member for Malpeque, I would remind all hon. members, including veterans with many years in the House, to address their comments to the Chair rather than directly to their colleague.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is not in response to current activities, to what happened in the last three weeks within Canada. It is a bill that has been in process for some time, and to a certain extent, as I understand it, responding to Justices Blanchard and Mosley.

Justice Blanchard concluded in a Federal Court decision made public in 2008 that section 12 did not possess an extraterritorial aspect. He also concluded that the Federal Court had no authority to issue a warrant authorizing surveillance on Canadians located overseas. The bill is in part a response to that.

The other aspect that comes, not so much from a court case but CSIS itself, is the need to protect informants abroad. As I raised with the minister, while we agree with the principle that those informants have to be protected, there has to be justice under the law as well so that somebody is not falsely accused. We want to see from the Conservatives the details on how they intend to do that, protecting informants who are assisting Canada but may reside in foreign countries.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Malpeque for his speech.

I unfortunately did not retain everything that he said. Nevertheless, I have a question about Bill C-44. It is a short bill, only five or six pages long. However, I am sad to say that it is an omnibus bill. While the majority of the bill focuses on CSIS reforms, that is not the only thing included in this bill. In fact, there is one part that has nothing to do with the rest of the bill. It proposes moving up the effective date for Bill C-24, which is about revoking dual citizenship.

I have already heard the hon. member talk about this, so I know he is somewhat upset by it. What would he think of splitting this bill in two or removing that part of the bill? In his opinion, what is the best way to deal with this part of the bill?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, we were somewhat surprised and shocked to see this section. It is identical to the section in the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act that was passed, Bill C-24, so we were surprised to see that in here.

We opposed that particular aspect earlier in Bill C-24. We are seeing it appended to this particular bill. The minister explained that it is in here to enact it earlier. I said to the minister, and I said it to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration as well, that we would like to see a legal opinion from the government that shows that this particular section would stand up to the charter, because we certainly do not believe that it will. We are asking for that.

I have no problem at all with the idea of the member splitting that out of the bill. It seems misplaced in a bill that is dealing with CSIS and the authority of CSIS, so we would certainly be open to that option.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to discuss this very important piece of legislation, legislation that is timely, that is consequential, that will help the House and this government uphold its principle duty to Canadians, which is to ensure their safety and to protect them from threats that we know to be all too real.

The protection of Canada from terrorists act gives our security agencies the vital tools they need to keep Canadians safe. So far in the debate, we are pleased to see the emerging recognition from parties opposite that these tools are needed, that they are part of our national response to the threat of terrorism and that it is time we took action to make sure that the agencies on which we rely to carry out that duty on behalf of government, on behalf of our democratic institutions, have these tools available to undertake the reasonable activity required to, once again, keep Canada and Canadians safe.

Before I begin my remarks on the substance of the legislation, let me remind us all once again why these measures, which were contemplated long before the attacks of last month, are doubly warranted and doubly relevant given the events that occurred at the National War Memorial and in our Hall of Honour just steps from where we are today.

Those events are a reminder that ISIL and other terrorist groups are a very real threat to Canadians. That is why we are taking part in air strikes against ISIL this week. That is why we are supporting the security forces of Iraq in their fight against the scourge of terrorism. All of these measures go together to ensure that Canada and Canadians are kept safe, that we work in concert with allies and partners in NATO and in the region to ensure that this threat that is principally victimizing the people of Iraq and Syria does not become an even greater threat to them or to our population further afield.

It is also the reason why we are working with great determination to strengthen the tools, to strengthen the effectiveness of the tools already available to police, to the intelligence community in the areas of surveillance, detention and arrest. The legislation before us today is just the first step in our efforts to do that and as the Prime Minister has been clear, so are we all clear on this side of the House that we will not overreact to these events. We will not be intimidated by ISIL or any other group, but at the same time, Canadians want us to stop under-reacting to a threat that is indeed very real.

Section 83 of the Criminal Code of Canada defines terrorist activity as an act committed for a political, religious or ideological purpose with the intention of intimidating the public and that intentionally causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence or disrupts an essential service, facility or system.

Given that definition, I think we can all agree that last week in late October, Canada was a victim of terrorist attacks. This was the view confirmed in the immediate aftermath of those attacks by Bob Paulson, Commissioner of the RCMP. It was shared by the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry during his visit shortly after the attacks. He said, “...anybody who walks up in a premeditated way with a loaded rifle and attacks someone in uniform then purposely goes to a parliament, is committing, by common sense standards, a terrorist act”.

Unfortunately, we still have the leader of the NDP on record disagreeing with this assessment, despite the fact that it was reinforced yesterday by another important visitor to Canada.

The President of the French Republic had no doubt about the nature of the terrorist attacks two weeks ago. We agree with him and are grateful for the show of solidarity from France, other European allies, the U.S., and dozens of other countries that recognize that the acts committed here in Ottawa two weeks ago were related to terrorism.

I would like to quote a recent Toronto Star editorial on the leader of the NDP's position. It states:

Most people grasp it instinctively—what occurred last week and the ongoing risks in our midst. That NDP Leader Tom Mulcair cannot admit this, even now, drawing an irrational, pedantic distinction between the deadly attack in Ottawa and a terrorist assault, reflects abysmally on his judgment and aspirations of political statesmanship.

That is a strong statement coming from a newspaper that I, for one, do not often quote in this place. I think it speaks for itself.

Ambiguities in the CSIS Act have been impeding the ability of our national security agencies to investigate threats to the security of Canada. The bill would address these problems by confirming that CSIS has the authority to conduct investigations outside of Canada, confirming that the Federal Court can issue warrants for CSIS to investigate targets outside of this country, giving the Federal Court the authority to consider only relevant Canadian laws when issuing warrants for CSIS, and creating automatic protections of the identities of CSIS employees who may engage in clandestine operations.

The bill would also make technical amendments that would allow our government to seek quicker implementation of the new citizenship revocation provisions under the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, the former Bill C-24, which received royal assent earlier this year on June 19. While it is important to ensure that citizenship revocation provisions come into force as soon as possible, the pith and substance, the main motive for the legislation, relates to our national security agencies.

Let me remind the House that there are three challenges being met. The first is to clarify that for greater certainty CSIS may perform its duties and functions within or outside of Canada. It has been doing this since its foundation, but as we all know, there has been an inability, particularly in recent months, for it to fully execute those functions outside of Canada to the degree required by its mandate to counter threats to Canada, above all, the threat of terrorism.

It would also clarify that the courts may issue warrants for certain investigative activities within or outside Canada and for that purpose, warrants may be issued without regard to the law of a foreign state. In other words, these warrants would be in full conformity to Canadian law, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, all aspects of our legal system, but not necessarily with regard to the law of a foreign state.

Second, the legislation would create a statutory prohibition on disclosure of identities or information from which identities could be inferred of individuals who provide CSIS with information in return for a promise of confidentiality. In other words, we need to ensure in this day and age that those in a position to provide the most sensitive information, the most time-sensitive information, information of the highest delicacy, can do so safely and have their identities protected under our legal system.

Third, the CSIS Act makes it an offence to disclose the identities of CSIS employees who are or were engaged in covert operational activities. The legislation would expand this protection to also cover CSIS employees who are likely to become engaged in such activities, making it possible for those recruited to do these jobs, being trained to do these jobs, being retasked to do these jobs, to have their identities protected as well.

All of these changes, as I think the House now understands, are vital to the protection of our national security. They would help stop individuals from travelling for terrorist purposes, especially given recent global events. Our government remains seized, like dozens of other governments around the world, with the issue of foreign fighters, individuals from Canada, from our European partners, from the United States, from the Middle East itself, travelling to places such as Iraq, Syria, Somalia or Pakistan, which is still well known, unfortunately, as a training ground for Sunni extremist terrorist groups, to engage in terrorist activities.

These individuals often pose a direct danger to the countries where they are operating. Any country that has experienced terrorist violence on a large scale, as is the case, obviously, for Iraq and Syria, but also for Pakistan, Somalia, Libya, many countries of the Maghreb and even sub-Saharan Africa, fall into this category. They, too, have the threat of terrorist training, recruiting, financing of terrorist activities in their territory and of foreign fighters flowing into their borders to join those training efforts and that fight.

This bill would update the CSIS Act to allow our intelligence community to operate and investigate threats to Canadian national security much better. It would clarify the investigative functions under sections 12 and 15 of the CSIS Act within or outside of Canada.

Keep in mind that section 12 already authorizes CSIS to investigate threats to Canada's security, and terrorism is very high if not continuously at the top of the list in terms of those threats.

Section 15 relates to the security assessments that CSIS performs for departments like mine to allow us to take responsible decisions about visa issuance and to prevent foreign fighters, terrorist kingpins, those who have been involved in terrorist violence or committed atrocities abroad from coming to Canada either as visitors or permanent residents.

The bill would also clarify that the courts may issue warrants for investigative activities, once again, within or outside Canada but without regard to the law of a foreign state.

Indeed, if there is one central advantage to this proposed legislation, strength in this legislation, it is that it will help our government meet its security priority of securing convictions for those who engage in terrorist activity. This is the solution to the global phenomenon of terrorism. These people and groups need to be fought, as we are fighting them in Iraq, but they also need to be brought to justice not only in Canada but in all the states where these crimes are committed.

As members know, in May 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutionality of the security certificate process in a decision on the case of Mohamed Harkat. This helped to show that we could gather evidence in a way that would allow it to be used in court proceedings without compromising operations.

However, as part of this decision, the Supreme Court also found that, unlike police informers, the identity of CSIS sources were not automatically protected from disclosure. CSIS obviously relies heavily on such information from human sources. Without such assurances, human sources may simply stop co-operating with CSIS, stop-co-operating with Canada, and we would operate blind and open ourselves to threats that we would have a duty to combat.

To address this issue, the bill would create a statutory prohibition on disclosure of the identities or information from which the identities could be inferred of individuals who provided CSIS with information in return for a promise of confidentiality.

As with all of our legislation, this act would continue to respect the Canadian values of individual rights and the rule of law. All of the investigative activities of CSIS must take place in accordance with its mandated authorities under the CSIS Act, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ministerial direction and internal policy.

When threats demand more intrusive investigative measures, the service requires judicial authorization for each and every one of those activities. CSIS is also subject to a full review by the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which has access to all information held by the service.

We have heard the Liberals and others call for more oversight or review by parliamentary committees. However, the issue at hand today is not whether CSIS is carrying out its mandate in accordance with the law. There is no evidence of CSIS not having done that. Our supervisory process is working well in our view and in the view of independent third parties that assess that performance. The issue is whether CSIS has the mandate, the authority under the law to perform its mandate, which is to keep us safe from threats to our national security, including terrorism.

The bill would also speed up the process of implementing legislation to revoke citizenship of dual nationals engaged in terrorist activities or who would engage in combat against the Canadian Armed Forces.

I am struck, as the Minister of Immigration, by the contrast between the approach of the opposition parties to this issue in April/May of this year, when we debated Bill C-24, and their approach today, which seems to be much more accommodating of the idea that Canadian citizenship be allegiance to our institutions, the willingness to uphold our laws and fulfill one's duties as a Canadian citizen. This is incompatible with taking violent action to murder people or commit bodily harm in the name of an ideology or political agenda that seeks to intimidate the whole population. That is why we brought forward these measures to revoke citizenship in cases of gross acts of disloyalty. We are pleased to see support for this idea growing on the opposition benches.

These proposed provisions will also provide the federal court with the authority to revoke Canadian citizenship from dual citizens for membership in an armed force or organized armed group engaged in armed conflict with Canada. Today, that would include ISIS. It is both a terrorist group and an armed group engaged in conflict with our forces now in combat in Iraq.

These provisions would bring Canada in line with peer countries, such as Australia, the United States, United Kingdom, New Zealand and the vast majority or our allies in NATO and beyond, by providing that citizenship could be revoked under very strict conditions from dual nationals convicted of terrorism, high treason, spying offences or who take up arms against Canada.

This underscores our commitment to protecting the safety and security of Canadians, but also to promoting Canadian interests and values. They also reinforce the value of Canadian citizenship.

The amendments on the revocation of citizenship are merely technical. There is no cost to pursuing these amendments as a revocation decision-making model is more efficient and less costly to the government.

While we are adding grounds to revoke citizenship upon conviction of dual nations for terrorism, treason or espionage, we have long had the power, and the House has supported it, to prevent terrorists, criminals, those who would do harm to our country and those who embrace violent ideologies from becoming citizens. Indeed, if they acquire citizenship without disclosing a terrorist affiliation and that comes to light, we have had the power to revoke that citizenship on the basis of misrepresentation

Now we are simply adding a power to revoke on the basis of a terrorist conviction, a much more serious and much higher threshold of proof of terrorist activities, all of which hangs together very coherently. All of these provisions will work together to keep Canada safer.

Last, I would like to emphasis the oversight of our national security agencies. The security intelligence review committee provides a robust and comprehensive review of CSIS. The recent annual report shows, once again, the level of access it has to all aspects of CSIS operations. It plays a key role in ensuring our national security agencies are held fully and publicly to account. CSIS is reviewing the latest recommendations and will implement those that will keep Canada safe, while protecting the rights and privacy of Canadians.

I see my time is drawing close, and I would like to leave all members of the House with key points to consider before voting on this important legislation.

First, Canada is a beacon of freedom and opportunity in a turbulent and uncertain world, a world that in recent years has become more violent, especially in the Middle East and especially because of the escalating conflict in Iraq. For that very reason, those who despise freedom and democracy, those who reject modernity, who reject our way of life, who reject the very idea of the prosperity we have so painstakingly built in our country, want to cause harm and wreak havoc on Canada and Canadians.

I can say this first hand, as 40,000 of our fellow Canadians who served in Afghanistan can tell the House and all Canadians, that these threats are real. They were in control of Afghanistan before the fall of the Taliban. They remain all too present and dangerous a reality in Iraq and Syria today.

The threat of domestic terrorism is heightened to a point that we have not seen in many years. The bullet holes in the Hall of Honour stand as a sober reminder of this threat. In light of this reality, it is important we take the steps provided for in this bill as quickly as possible.

Second, it is important to remember that in doing so we will respect the Canadian values of individual rights under the rule of law, while ending the practice of under-reacting to the terrorist threat.

Our freedom and our commitment to the rule of law are not an either or choice and are not choices that are mutually exclusive. We choose to be free as Canadians and to work for freedom in the world by having a standard of the rule of law in our country that is second to none. These measures will help to keep it that way.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am interested in following up with my colleague, particularly on the values that Canadians place on the rule of law in dealing with the kinds of threats we face.

With the Spencer decision, we found that the issues of warrantless access were struck down in the Supreme Court. There were a million requests to various telecoms last year from various government agencies. A million requests, which works out to one every 72 seconds, raises the question of whether these provisions, which are not legal, were being properly applied. This then would suggest that if we do not have proper oversight on warrantless access, then the ability to use these tools when they are needed would be drowned out by all manner of what could be the most bizarre requests. A government agency could simply get one's information without any oversight. Therefore, I would like to ask my colleague a question about oversight.

The Privacy Commissioner's report on the RCMP and warrantless access raises many questions, such as the RCMP has not been able to show whether it has followed procedure or cannot explain under what terms this information has been gathered. On the issue of the rule of law, how do we ensure that we are using these tools to go after legitimate threats and not going on fishing expeditions?

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about CSIS, not the RCMP. It is the CSIS Act that is being amended by these measures. We need these tools because we know perfectly well that some Canadians have chosen to join terrorist groups to conduct terrorist activities and have not been charged and convicted of the acts we all know they have committed. Therefore, the question is not whether warrants are required, because to conduct its investigations, CSIS requires judicial authorization in each and every case. The question is whether that judicial authorization, that fully supervised activity by CSIS, is getting us the result we need it to achieve.

In recent months and years, as we have heard in testimony from the CSIS leadership itself and all kinds of third-party observers of our situation in Canada, CSIS has not had the ability to obtain judicial authority to conduct activities abroad to the extent required to keep Canada safe. Why? Because to go after this information in Syria, for example, it has to ask permission of Syria's Assad to ensure that any judicial authorization is in conformity with the laws of that country. Under these measures, that would no longer be required. CSIS would have authorization under Canadian law to obtain information about terrorist suspects in Syria and elsewhere. That is in conformity with the best practices among our—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Malpeque.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the minister went on at some length about some decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. He talked about how important it was for CSIS and the other authorities to have the mandate and authority under the law to keep us safe. He then led from the fact that the opposition parties had said that they would send this to committee, with a section in the bill that we had concerns about, which is the removal of Canadian citizenship from dual citizens. Both opposition parties have opposed that. Because we are letting this go to committee, it should not be alleged that we support that, because do not.

Would the minister provide assurance that the law will stand up to a charter challenge? He said that it was important that security organizations had a mandate and an authority under the law. Will the minister provide us in the House or at committee with the legal opinion that states that the removal of Canadian citizenship from those dual citizens, which cannot be done with Canadians, will stand up to a Supreme Court challenge and is charter safe? Is he willing to provide that information?

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking here about measures to prevent terrorists from coming to Canada and from becoming Canadians. I hope that there is not anyone in the House who thinks that any terrorist, from whatever background, belonging to a listed terrorist group under our Criminal Code has the right to become a Canadian citizen.

Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which was brought in by a Conservative government and sustained by Liberal governments over many years, we have long had inadmissibility for terrorists. That means they cannot come here as visitors, they cannot come here as permanent residents, and they certainly cannot become citizens.

If they acquired citizenship because they misrepresented themselves and did not say that they were a trainer for ISIL in Syria for 10 years before coming here, and we find that out, we have been able to revoke that citizenship for years. We were able to do it under Liberal governments. Now, all we are saying is that there is an additional right.

Yes, the legal opinion of the Government of Canada across the board is that this is in conformity with the charter and it will withstand any challenge. We can revoke the citizenship of dual nationals who commit terrorist acts, because terrorism is incompatible with Canadian citizenship. It is incompatible with our values, and we will stand on that principle.

We hope that the member will join us. He has opened the door to changing his mind on this issue and to doing the right thing. Of course, he is sitting on the fence, as always, on important issues, waiting to see which way—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. Questions and comments.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, we heard earlier in the day that the opposition party will be supporting this bill to go to committee, but I think that support is going to be very short lived, considering the track record of the official opposition. It has not been able to support a single piece of legislation we have put forward to combat terrorism. Whether it be the Combating Terrorism Act or the strengthening Canadian citizenship act, the opposition cannot find it in its heart to stand with Canadians across the country and say no to terrorists.

I find that completely disgraceful.

To speak about the incidents that happened here on the Hill, at the National War Memorial, and in Quebec, we have had a number of people come forward and call a spade a spade. In fact, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness in his speech said it is time to call a spade a spade.

The President of France was here yesterday and called it a terrorist act. The U.S. Secretary of State last week called it terrorism. The Commissioner of the RCMP made it very clear that it was a terrorist act. In fact, the Criminal Code defines it as terrorism. It is very clear.

However, the Leader of the Opposition cannot find it in his knowledge to agree that it was an act of terrorism. In fact, he stated:

...I think we are not in the presence of a terrorist act in the sense that we would understand it....

I am having difficulty figuring out what it will take for him to understand it. I would like to hear the comments of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on that particular issue.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for her question, which cuts to the heart of this issue.

The President of the French Republic who, the last time we checked, represents the Socialist Party in France stood in the House with all of us and said without any doubt or ambiguity that what this building experienced and the reprehensible acts of violence that were undertaken two weeks ago at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier were terrorism and that they were linked to the phenomenon that our air forces are working to combat and contain in Iraq today. When we see that, we see how out of touch the Leader of the Opposition is on these issues

We have had hints of this before. We had hints of it in the immediate aftermath at the time of the last election, when we on this side of the House were overjoyed by reports that Osama bin Laden had been killed. It was on the eve of our last general election in this country, and it was good news for Canadians. It has since been confirmed. It is not doubted by anyone but the most hard-bitten conspiracy theorists, yet in the days after that, the Leader of the Opposition had the temerity to suggest that perhaps he was not dead and perhaps it was all a set-up.

That kind of thinking does nothing to keep Canadians safe. It does nothing to bring clarity to issues that require it. It does nothing to underpin and support the leadership that this Prime Minister and this government have shown on these issues. We will not accept it, and we expect the Leader of the Opposition—

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I feel privileged to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-44, which was introduced by the Conservative government.

I would first like to say that I feel honoured to be able to participate in the Remembrance Day ceremonies to be held this weekend in Laval, which are being organized as part of a joint effort by the City of Laval and the Laval cadets and police force. It is extremely important for all parliamentarians to be present in their communities over the coming days for the Remembrance Day ceremonies.

Like every year, I will also be at Résidence Le Patrimoine on November 11 for a ceremony to honour our veterans, which is always very touching. We are lucky because a number of our World War II veterans live in that residence. Their presence makes the ceremony even more moving, and I am honoured to participate in it.

Last week, I participated in the ceremony held in Laval by the Correctional Service of Canada to pay tribute to correctional officers who died in the line of duty. This ceremony is always very emotional because the families are there and the correctional officers in attendance bring honour to the Correctional Service of Canada by extending their sympathy and showing their devotion to their deceased colleagues, whether they knew them or not.

I mentioned the Remembrance Day events because, as a result of the incidents that occurred on October 20 in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and on October 22 here in Parliament, which affected all of my colleagues from every party, we felt a certain sense of co-operation between the various parties.

In this spirit of co-operation, the official opposition decided to support Bill C-44 so that it can be examined more closely in committee. I will come back to the details of Bill C-44 and the reasons why we want to look at it in committee. It is important to hold a debate, not only here in the House, but also in committee to make sure that we come up with the best law possible. That is why it is important that the parties work together.

The events of October 20 and 22 deeply affected Canadians. We, as parliamentarians, witnessed them firsthand but we felt as though all Canadians were behind us. When the incident occurred in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu on October 20, we also felt that all Canadians were behind our Canadian Armed Forces.

Words cannot express my appreciation for and my feelings about the incredible work that the constables and the RCMP did.

Top of mind are Kevin Vickers and his team of constables here at the House of Commons who take care of our safety every day.

I am also thinking of Constable Alain Gervais, who single-handedly blocked the NDP caucus room doors to protect us. It was an act of heroism, but he did it just because it is his job. We are lucky that nothing happened to him even though a bullet headed straight for him was blocked by the second door. We cannot thank Alain Gervais enough for leaping up to keep us safe.

My thoughts are also with Constable Son, who was at the front door of the Parliament building and gained precious seconds for his colleagues by grabbing the hunting weapon carried by the individual who entered Parliament. Unfortunately, he was shot in the foot, but he gave RCMP officers and Parliament Hill staff a chance to react, which they did in spades.

We are now studying Bill C-44 against that backdrop. However, it is important to point out that this bill is not a response to the events that took place two weeks ago, even though we cannot help but think about such events when studying this kind of bill. This bill is not a new law; it makes changes to existing laws.

Most of the subjects covered in Bill C-44 have to do with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. We were supposed to debate this on October 22, so it had to be put off.

I would like to point out a few things about Bill C-44. Basically, it makes three important changes regarding the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and it is important to point them out here. First of all, it clarifies CSIS's legal authority to conduct security intelligence operations outside our borders in order to address threats to Canadian security. Second, it confirms the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to issue warrants that have effect outside Canada. Third, it ensures greater protection during legal proceedings for human sources that provide information to CSIS.

I would like to mention from the outset that we did have a briefing on Bill C-44. I would like to thank the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the parliamentary secretary who attended that briefing. It was very informative, as it was extremely important for us to have more details on this bill. I hope this practice will continue in the future, because in order for us, parliamentarians, to be able to do our jobs, it is absolutely crucial that we have all pertinent information from our colleagues, regardless of party affiliation. We very much appreciated it.

At the briefing, when we talked about the clarification regarding the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and its operations abroad, we were told that they would still be subject to current Canadian laws and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I thought it was important to emphasize this point.

I must say that I still have a lot of questions about CSIS and that is why I very much look forward to welcoming public safety experts at committee to discuss this case in particular. However, there are other so-called minor changes to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. Among other things, they would help protect the identity of CSIS employees who are likely to conduct secret activities in future. For example, there is mention of future undercover agents. Currently, only the identity of employees who are engaged or were engaged in covert activities is protected.

There is an example. There is mention of future undercover agents, but there is also specific mention of employees likely to conduct covert activities in future. I have a lot of questions about that point in particular because the definition is quite broad. What exactly is meant by this? Does this simply mean people who are training to become undercover agents? Are we talking about a person who, in a year or two, depending on senior CSIS officials, might be a candidate for becoming an undercover agent? Is that all that is included? Could this apply to anyone at CSIS? I look forward to getting more clarification on this because I believe this is a rather important point to which we are not paying enough attention.

Nonetheless, it is very important for the people who are engaged in undercover activities to be protected and I would like us to pay attention to that. I do not think that any party in this House is against that idea. It is important to say that.

There is another surprise in this bill. This may be a five- or six-page bill—I hope I have this right—but unfortunately it still is an omnibus bill. It is true that most of the things we are legislating in Bill C-44 have to do with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, but there is a small item that amends the Citizenship Act to fast-track the revocation of Canadian citizenship in the case of dual citizens who are linked to terrorist activities and other serious offences, as provided for in Bill C-24, which received royal assent on June 19, 2014.

I really do not understand why that provision is in this bill. We tried to obtain more information at the briefing, but, unfortunately, we were unable to determine exactly what the link is between CSIS and Bill C-24, which was passed. I hope that the government will respond and explain why it wants to include that provision in Bill C-44. I would also like to see the bill go to committee and have experts tell us what the inclusion of this provision in Bill C-44 will bring to CSIS.

I listened to the speech by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. I agree with him on several points, but not on how we should do things. He spoke about radicalization in Canada, and that is a very important point. As parliamentarians, we must ensure not only that we have the appropriate tools in place, but also that we have the people required to counter radicalization in Canada. That is what we have been asking for on this side of the house for several months. Today, the government seems to be more open-minded about that. I am very pleased to hear it.

The minister talked about preventing threats and responding to them. Once again, this is consistent with efforts to combat radicalization within the country. I am eager to see what he will propose here, because he talked about other measures. What are these other measures? There are a lot of questions about this. We have heard a lot about tools to combat radicalization or to combat terrorism, but what exactly does that mean? Do the RCMP and CSIS, for example, or still the Canada Border Services Agency, need more tools and personnel?

This brings me to a topic that may be a sore spot for my colleagues. We do not seem to agree on some aspects of the budget, and I want to mention that in my speech. One aspect concerns the cuts being made to Public Safety Canada, which affect the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We are very worried about this because these cuts will affect many things, including the Correctional Service of Canada and the budgets of our police forces in Quebec, for example for the Eclipse squad, which works to combat street gangs. However, that is a whole other subject and I will focus on the cuts in the first three cases I mentioned.

Why is this important? Because those cuts had an impact on very real jobs. In 2012, the government announced $143 million in cuts to the Canada Border Services Agency alone. Unfortunately, when there are cutbacks of that magnitude, jobs have to be cut somewhere. Of course, personnel can be shuffled, but at some point there is no wiggle room left and something has to give.

Unfortunately, the Canada Border Services Agency had to eliminate about 100 positions. It should be noted that those 100 jobs were part of the agency's intelligence service. Those employees shared important information with our various international allies, and that included information about allegedly radicalized individuals who were travelling abroad. It is crucial work. There is talk of radicalization, and Conservative government ministers are talking about preventing people from fighting overseas and revoking passports. If there are no people to use those tools—as the individuals in those 100 abolished positions would have done—it is a very serious issue. We need to act on this. If there is talk of reinstating those positions, I will be more than happy to hear what the Conservative government has to say.

The RCMP's budget was cut by approximately $200 million, $195.2 million to be exact.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service lost about $25 million, and the inspector general's office, which was so important for overseeing what was going on, was also abolished. There is a lot of talk about security in relation to civil liberties, but they abolished this CSIS office. That is extremely sad.

Unfortunately, at the Border Services Agency, they eliminated 19 teams of detector dogs, sniffer dogs that find weapons and drugs at our borders, for example. Nineteen of those positions were eliminated. That is extremely important.

Canine units came to Parliament Hill during the events of October 22. They were among the first to arrive, right after the RCMP and the constables. The canine unit was mobilized. If the government cuts 19 canine unit positions from our Border Services Agency, that will surely have an impact on the services provided and our public safety and national security. That is an extremely important point.

One other thing really caught my attention, and I really want to talk about it in the House today. The Department of Public Safety released what is called a report on plans and priorities for 2013-14, which announced cuts, particularly in the area of public safety. I would like to read part of it, if I may.

The department itself stated as one of its risks:

That the Government Operations Centre (GOC) infrastructure may be unable to support a coordinated response to large-scale or multiple significant events affecting the national interest

That is extremely serious, and according to the report, it is directly related to the cuts to public safety and national security. I hope that the Conservative government will take the time to read that report. It is rather disturbing that it makes a direct correlation between the cuts to public safety and something that could endanger our national security and the fact that we would not likely be capable of responding to multiple attacks or a large-scale generalized attack on our country. I believe that we need to consider that.

I would also like to mention a few other little things. As I indicated at the beginning of my speech, we are starting from the premise that everyone wants to work together to ensure that we have the best laws possible. What is more, we want to ensure that the committee does the necessary work and does it properly. I understand that these laws need to be implemented and that we cannot wait forever. However, we need to get the advice of experts on this bill because it raises a lot of unanswered questions. Given that the bill amends a few laws, the people who will be using this legislation need to tell us what impact those changes will have on their work.

I also sincerely hope that the members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security from different parties will be able to work together in a spirit of co-operation. When it comes to national security, as is the case here, there is no room for partisanship. It is extremely important that we work together and do our job as effectively as possible in committee.

I can assure the House that I will be happy to work with all of the parties represented on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to make the best laws possible. That has always been the case, but I will take that job even more seriously when it comes to Bill C-44.

In this spirit of co-operation, I sincerely hope that the Conservative government will not move any time allocation motions regarding this bill. I just wanted to mention that.

It is important to point out that we still have many unanswered questions. We want the parties to co-operate in order to make sure that we have the best laws possible. We support this bill at second reading but there are still a lot of grey areas.

In closing, I would like to mention that it is very important to strike a balance between public safety and civil liberties.

That being said, I still have a lot of things I would like to say about this.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario)]

Mr. Speaker, I do applaud the member for her speech, and particularly the offer to co-operate. I think that is great.

The problem I see is that co-operation is a little bit difficult when we do not agree on the problem seeking the solution. What I mean is that we feel on this side of the House that what happened was an act of terror, that it was in fact one additional example that Canadians are being threatened by terrorists, and that the act on October 22 was in fact a terrorist act.

I ask if the member agrees or disagrees with her leader, who says it was not a terrorist attack. Was it or was it not a terrorist attack? Is the problem a terrorism problem, or do we disagree on the problem?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister across the floor. I saw that he took the time to listen to my speech, and I also really appreciate that he took the time to ask this question.

Yes, co-operation is often difficult, especially between the official opposition and the government. We are very far apart on the political spectrum. There are often times, however, when we manage to find common ground. We do agree on some things in committee. With regard to the events of October 22, I am still really shaken up. My daughter goes to day care on Parliament Hill. Like many of my colleagues in the House, I have to come to terms with what happened.

We have to let the investigation take its course. Questions remain unanswered, as is the case for many other events that have taken place here in the past. I want to see what comes out of the investigation. I trust our police services to find the answers to our many questions.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her eloquent speech.

Basically, in Canada, under the rule of law, not only must justice be done, it must appear to be done. If these laws are considered too repressive, is there not a risk that people will think, and rightly so, that the government is using the terrorist threat as a pretext for restricting their rights?

Would my colleague agree that there could be this extremely dangerous perception in this case?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin for his question.

I mentioned the importance of balancing security and civil liberties. We cannot put one ahead of the other, and one cannot exist without the other. Unfortunately, the bill before us does not provide balanced civilian oversight of CSIS.

In 2006, the Maher Arar inquiry made recommendations in that regard and called for new accountability measures for CSIS. However, to date nothing has been put in place. The introduction of this bill would have been a good opportunity to move in that direction and implement those recommendations.

The Security Intelligence Review Committee, which works part-time, consists of members that are appointed and not elected. What is worse, two of the five seats have been vacant for several months. Civilian oversight is not very functional at CSIS. This could have been corrected to strike a balance between security and civil liberties.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.

I am very concerned that as we are discussing granting more powers to a crown corporation, the government wants to cut its budget. It will have to do more with less.

To return to the tragic events that unfolded two weeks ago, the individual who acted in such a brutal manner needed psychological and psychiatric help. The government is taking action on security. However, when there are cuts to health services, the number of people with mental illness increases and such events can take place at any time.

What was behind this man's behaviour was not necessarily an organization, but drug addiction, drugs, crack. He had been asking for help for a long time and he finally acted.

Does my colleague believe that we should solve Canada's social problems instead of making more work for an organization that does not even have the means to do its job?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Honoré-Mercier for her question. She talked about a lack of resources. That is one of the three things we are calling for, which I did not have a chance to mention.

We want increased civilian oversight. This needs to be reviewed in light of the new powers being granted to CSIS. We need to find a balance. We are also calling for better protection of our civil liberties, which is just as important, as I mentioned earlier, but we also need to ensure that the appropriate resources are there. Stakeholders need to be able to take meaningful action and avoid events like the ones that happened two weeks ago. We need to ensure that there are more resources.

I mentioned that different positions had been eliminated in crucial areas. I hope that the Conservative government will take this seriously and ensure that the resources are there to prevent radicalization in this country.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was actually appalled by the last member's question. Regrettably, I want to ask my colleague this. Given the fact that it does take a certain amount of displaced mental capacity, whether it is drugs or whatever, to take the head off a living human being, does the member believe that the ISIS terrorists are simply suffering from an addiction of some kind, or lacking of a hug when they were children? Is this normal behaviour, to cut off a human being's head? This is not an addiction problem. Will the member please address that question?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario.

I think there may have been a problem with the translation of my colleague's comments. He may want to review exactly what she said. I unfortunately did not get that from her question. I think she was talking about mental health resources and resources in general that are affected in connection with Bill C-44.

I can tell my colleague on the other side of the House that we take radicalization very seriously. Regardless of what happens, I have faith that our police forces will conduct good investigations and pass along the important information. I am sure that they will do so very quickly. Then we can address the situation and look at what happened. However, until then, I think we should wait for the results of the investigation before commenting.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for a very reasoned presentation of the NDP position. She did touch on it briefly, but one of the issues that the NDP has raised is with regard to civilian oversight of CSIS. I wonder if she could expand on that particular point because we have a current oversight body that is under-resourced. There are a couple of members who have not been reappointed. Could she speak to the importance of having that kind of civilian oversight?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan for her question.

It is really a very important point and I do not mind opening up the debate on this. Nonetheless, we must ensure that civil liberties and public safety go together in all this and that one is not given more weight than the other. We have to strike a good balance and make sure the two go hand in hand. That is extremely important in this debate. That is what is so unfortunate about Bill C-44; it does not address this adequately. If we want to modernize CSIS, we must also improve oversight and modernize its review service. There are a number of things to point out.

For example, during their annual meeting, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and the Information Commissioner of Canada asked the government to ensure that it always had civilian oversight with regard to its bills. Unfortunately, that was not the case with this bill. That is something that we will keep asking for every time a new bill is introduced, whether for CSIS or other government bodies.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Edmonton Centre.

It is a great privilege for me to stand today to speak to Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act. As we have heard in these debates, the bill includes amendments to the CSIS Act and technical amendments to the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act. My remarks today will focus on the amendments to the CSIS Act and why we must take steps to give this vital agency the tools it needs to conduct investigations outside of Canada related to threats to the security of Canada itself.

First, I would like to speak to the global terrorist threat, its impact here at home, and the steps Canada is taking to address that threat. Acts of terror and murder have been carried out across the globe by extremist groups that have no regard for the lives of innocent people. In fact, as we all witnessed in the past weeks, Canada was a victim of two terrorist attacks within the span of one week. Due to radical Islamist terrorism, we lost two fine soldiers, Corporal Nathan Cirillo and Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, who was laid to rest this past weekend.

Terrorists kill people from all walks of life, including people from communities they claim to represent. Significant work has been done over the last decade, particularly since September 11, 2001, to counter terrorist activities. Canada has been a leader in global counterterrorism efforts. We have seen citizens and civil society organizations representing people of all faiths and beliefs work among themselves and with our government to prevent terrorism by building stronger and more resilient communities.

All of these measures are captured within the four pillars of Canada's counterterrorism strategy: prevent, detect, deny and respond. That strategy will serve us well on the difficult road we face ahead as our Canadian Armed Forces engage in a campaign to degrade and destroy the threat that ISIL poses to western civilization, and it is a threat to western civilization.

Indeed, our security agencies have been monitoring groups such as al Qaeda and ISIL closely for years and we have taken concrete measures to disrupt and prevent violent and extremist activities. This takes a comprehensive approach. While we join our allies in air strikes, we are also taking other measures that are working to isolate ISIL and deny it and its partners resources, including funds and new recruits. Let me explain.

As we know, terrorists need money, media access, weapons and explosives, among other resources, to sustain themselves. We want to make sure that all groups that would assist terrorist organizations are restricted from doing so. Preventing terrorists from using the global financial system to commit their acts of terror is essential to help suppress these groups. Therefore, we have certain provisions under the Criminal Code that we can use to deal with the assets and operations of groups that support terrorist activities.

Listing an entity under the Criminal Code is a public means of identifying a group or individual as being associated with terrorism. It carries significant consequences. Once listed, an entity's assets are frozen and may be subject to seizure, restraint or forfeiture. Further, it is an offence for Canadians at home or abroad to knowingly participate in or contribute to, directly or indirectly, any activity that facilitates the activities of a listed terrorist entity.

We know that terrorist groups are inspiring some westerners to take up arms with their cause. In order to reach these individuals and guard against these tactics, we work closely with diverse communities, including through the cross-cultural round table on security. We are working with leaders and communities right across the country to help engage Canadians in a long-term dialogue on matters related to national security, particularly in countering violent extremism.

Through the round table, we have reached out to hundreds of respected cultural and religious leaders who have their fingers on the pulses of their communities. These leaders have been integral in helping law enforcement and security agencies address threats and identify the best ways to reach individuals who may be leaning toward violent behaviour and to redirect them from pathways of radicalization leading to violence. However, the rapid changes in technology, the ease of communications, and mobility of terrorist travellers have created new and complex challenges for Canada and all of our allies as we work to keep our citizens safe.

As in other countries, despite everyone's best efforts, a small but significant number of individuals have left Canada to join terrorist groups in the Middle East. Denying ISIL its new recruits also means using Canadian law to crack down on these so-called extremist travellers. We brought forward the Combating Terrorism Act to make it an offence to leave Canada to take part in terrorist acts. We have laws in place to revoke the passports of Canadians who travel abroad to join extremist groups.

Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness have stated clearly that our government will continue to look at ways to help our national security agencies investigate and track the activities of terrorists at our borders and beyond. One of these ways is the legislation that is before us today to amend the existing CSIS Act so that we are better able to provide CSIS with the tools it needs to investigate threats to the security of Canada, wherever they occur, and ultimately to protect the security of Canadians.

It is important to note that the CSIS Act was created three decades ago. That was in the age of rotary phones, when our world was under the shadow of the Cold War. This act is in need of updates and upgrades that would confirm CSIS' authority to investigate Canadian extremists and other threats abroad. That is why I urge the House to support the bill that is before us today.

The protection of Canada from terrorists act would confirm that CSIS has the authority to operate outside Canada when investigating threats to the security of Canada or conducting investigations for the purpose of security assessments, and that the Federal Court has the authority to issue warrants authorizing CSIS to conduct activities outside of Canada without regard to the laws of other states. This new legislation would also reinforce CSIS' statutory authority to investigate threats abroad and to ensure that judges would only need to consider relevant Canadian law, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the CSIS Act, and not foreign laws when issuing a warrant.

Clearly there are a number of ways our government protects the safety and security of Canada against terrorism, but first we must ensure that we have the right tools in place for our security intelligence agency to do so. There is no time to waste. We must amend the CSIS Act and allow this vital agency to continue its work. I urge members of the House to join me in supporting the bill.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my old geostrategy professor told me that a terrorist act is, first, an act of violence or intimidation for political, religious or social ends; second, a structured act; and third, the symbolic act of a perpetrator trying to make his mark. He shared a famous quotation about how terrorism and the media have an incestuous relationship. There was also an element of exclusion in that definition of a terrorist act. Personal motivation was not part of it.

That means that a crazed gunman who climbs a tower and starts shooting people because he is mad that a judge took away custody of his kids is not committing a terrorist act. What he is doing is dangerous and can kill or injure many, but he will be punished under the Criminal Code for premeditated murder.

It seems clear that, when my distinguished colleague defined a terrorist act, he forgot an essential element, which is that terrorism does not include actions that are personally motivated.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, again the members opposite, the NDP socialist party, always make excuses for terrorists. They do not call them terrorists. They use convoluted language all the time to somehow excuse what these evil people do. The difference between us as Conservatives and the far left or the left over there is that we believe that evil exists and evil needs to be confronted. That is what we are doing with our actions and our legislation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the other day the Liberal member from Vancouver brought forward Bill C-622, which was a bill to provide oversight. There is no doubt there is a great deal of interest in ensuring that certain rights are being protected, and it is a good way also to just hold everyone in check. It would appear as if the government is not going to be voting in favour of the oversight role that the private members' bill is proposing.

Therefore, to what degree does he believe it is important that the Parliament of Canada have oversight over the many different agencies that are there to protect society?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the current levels of oversight are adequate. It is important that there be oversight of security and police agencies. Our government has struck the right balance in that regard.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity on Saturday night to visit the mosque in Burnaby, which has been connected to some of these events, and speak with the new imam there, as well as the head of the BC Muslim Association. What is happening in many parts of Canada is that the rather inflammatory language, which is being used by the other side, is unfortunately splashing on to the rest of the Muslim community. Therefore, I wonder if the member might care to comment on that and perhaps apologize for some of his inflammatory remarks.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we applaud the leaders and members of all religious communities who are confronting these kinds of activities. They deserve our praise and honour for what they do. I am sure the mosque the member visited acts in that particular manner. However, it is very important that we do everything we can to ensure that radicalization does not occur.

Again, I want to thank the cultural and religious communities in our country for stepping up to the plate and doing what needs to be done in this regard.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act. The legislation is both necessary and timely.

As members know, this House recently expressed its support of the government's decision to join the alliance to strike at the heart of Daesh, or as it is most commonly called, ISIL or ISIS. However, there are many other ways that the Government of Canada addresses terrorism at home and abroad.

The proposed legislation includes two distinct elements that work together toward one common goal, that of keeping Canadians and Canadian interests safe from the threat of terrorism.

First, the legislation includes amendments to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, and this act is three decades old. Since that time, through its analysis, assessment, and intelligence work, CSIS has helped to protect our country from a wide variety of threats. In the process, it has become a central player in Canada's national security system and a respected member of the international intelligence community.

However, the nature of these threats has evolved dramatically since the 1980s. The 2014 public report on the terrorist threat to Canada makes it clear that we can never take our safety and security for granted. Around the world, there were more than 9,700 terrorist incidents in 93 countries reported in 2013 alone. More than half of those occurred in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.

That said, Canadians should not think that our country is immune to the scourge of terrorism. In fact, as we all know only too well, just steps from where we stand today we witnessed a horrific terrorist attack that cost a young Canadian Armed Forces member his life at the hands of a radicalized violent extremist. That cowardly act was preceded two days earlier by another senseless attack by a radicalized extremist, one that claimed the life of another member of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Indeed, the legislation we are debating today is designed to address a disturbing trend: the involvement of Canadians who travel abroad to get involved with terror-related activities. These so-called extremist travellers pose a threat not only to innocent people in foreign countries but to Canadian citizens as well, because those travellers who survive their adventures in foreign countries often return armed with more tools to engage in violence and to spread hate here at home.

Fighting terrorism and violent extremism requires the concerted efforts of many players on many different levels. One way to prevent violent extremism is to build good will and trust between law enforcement and Canadian communities. Another way is to improve how we gather intelligence, and that is why we are proposing changes to the CSIS act.

A measure in the protection of Canada from terrorists act is to specifically confirm that CSIS has the authority to conduct investigations outside of Canada related to threats to the security of Canada and security assessments.

Another key measure in the act would clarify the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to issue warrants authorizing CSIS to undertake certain intrusive activities outside of Canada. To enable CSIS to properly investigate threats outside of Canada, we are proposing amendments that would clarify that the Federal Court need only consider relevant Canadian laws, namely the CSIS act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, when it is determining if a warrant is required.

A third important measure of the bill would protect the identity of human sources. As members know, the confidentiality of police informants is protected by common law. However, while this has long been the practice in the law enforcement context, the Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled that the protection afforded to police informants does not extend to CSIS' human sources. At the same time, there are no provisions in the CSIS act to protect people who provide vital information related to a threat to Canada's national security. Bill C-44 would include protection for CSIS' human sources during legal proceedings. This protection would be consistent with Canadian law.

In doing so, the protection could be challenged under two conditions: if the protection does not apply to the person or information in question, or if the information is needed for a criminal trial to demonstrate the innocence of the accused.

While it is vital to CSIS to protect human sources, it is equally important for the service to protect its employees. Existing legislation protects the identities of CSIS employees who are or have been involved in covert operations. It does not, however, protect employees who are training to be engaged in covert activity. This is a small but essential gap that must be filled. The legislation before us proposes to protect the identity of all CSIS employees who have been, are, or are likely to be involved in covert activities.

I will turn now to the second part of this proposed legislation, which relates to Canadian citizenship.

Revocation is an important tool to safeguard the value of Canadian citizenship and to protect the integrity of the citizenship program.

The proposed technical amendments would allow our government to proceed with quicker implementation of the new revocation provisions under the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, which received royal assent June 19, 2014.

A number of the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act provisions have already come into force. Based on how the coming into force provisions of that act are written, the majority of the remaining provisions are required to come into force at the same time.

With these technical amendments, we can move ahead with doing what is necessary to protect our country and ensure the safety and security of Canadians by enabling early implementation of provisions related to citizenship revocation. These provisions expand the grounds for revocation of Canadian citizenship and establish a streamlined decision-making process for revocation.

The new provisions would enable the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to recommend to Treasury Board the revocation of Canadian citizenship from dual citizens who are convicted of a terrorism, high treason, treason, or spying offence, depending on the sentence.

They would also provide the Federal Court with the authority to revoke Canadian citizenship from dual citizens for membership in an armed force or organized armed group engaged in armed conflict with Canada.

The revocation provisions underscore our government's commitment to protecting the safety and security of Canadians and promoting Canadian interests and values. They also reinforce the value of Canadian citizenship.

These technical amendments would also allow for faster implementation of other supporting provisions, including those related to renunciation, resumption, prohibitions, regulatory authorities, changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and the delegation of authority provision for the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

This earlier implementation would help better protect the safety and security of Canadians.

The provisions contained in this bill are critical to Canadian safety. We must move swiftly to strengthen our citizenship program and remove any questions about CSIS' ability to conduct investigations outside of Canada, as well as the authority of the Federal Court to issue warrants authorizing CSIS to undertake certain intrusive activities outside of Canada.

It is imperative that we stop this outmoded mindset of underreacting to the terrorist threat.

There are other aspects to the challenge that we face writ large. We all know that a minority of violent extremists from any religious or other group should not cause us to discriminate against the majority.

We need to find ways to work together to prevent radicalization, to nip it in the bud where possible, and to deal with it firmly and swiftly when necessary.

I would point to the Phoenix Multi-Faith Society for Harmony, a non-profit organization founded in Edmonton and dedicated to the promotion of interfaith co-operation.

Its objectives are to create a forum through which dialogue and discussion can take place, with a view to facilitating understanding and respect for all faiths; to seek continued peaceful co-existence and positive relations, through open communication, interfaith dialogue, education, and participation across our communities; and to carry out initiatives to address negative stereotyping, hatred, bias, and prejudice.

The Phoenix Society is an excellent example of a community initiative, but despite its best efforts, it will not stop all radicalization.

I believe that the majority of members of any religious or other group are peaceful and law-abiding. I also believe that unless the majority takes action to control the violent minority within its ranks and actively co-operate with security authorities, then we will continue to face growing threats from within.

There are many historical examples of peaceful majorities being led into extremely violent international actions by obsessed leaders with murderous and illegitimate intent.

Canada has a heart and a soul. The heart of Canada is our freedom and our democracy. That is represented in no better place than this House.

A week and a half or so ago, our heart was attacked and wounded, but it certainly was not killed. In fact, our heart will continue stronger than ever before.

Canada has a soul. That soul is embodied in the kind of people who make the ultimate sacrifice for our freedoms, to protect the democracy and freedom we cherish so much. That soul is represented in no better place than the people who wear the uniform and the people who have worn the uniform in the past, as represented by the National War Memorial and the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

A week and a half ago our soul was wounded, too. Our souls will survive, stronger than ever.

It is in all Canadians' interest to be part of that solution, to keep the heart and soul of Canada alive and well. That is why I ask all hon. members to join me in supporting the protection of Canada from terrorists act as the first step to keeping our land strong, glorious, and free.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague is appealing to a sense of solidarity, and of course we will all lend our support to defending Canada in moments of great crisis.

Unfortunately, his colleague from Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette suggested earlier that if we do not quite agree with the Conservatives on the definition and the exclusive interpretation in their bill, we ourselves are terrorists.

Does the member condone statements to the effect that, if we do not agree with him, we must be friends of terrorists? Is that his definition of solidarity and seeking consensus?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is not what my colleague from Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette said at all. I am sorry, but that was really not a very profound question.

I will go back to something the hon. member mentioned earlier about the definition of a terrorist. Maybe I misinterpreted what he said. He said that someone who is religious could be there, that there is a symbolic element in a terrorist act. There is obviously violence in a terrorist act, but it could not be personal.

I submit that converting to another religion that has some members who preach violence obviously has a religious connection. It does not get any more symbolic than attacking Parliament and the National War Memorial, or the people there. It certainly does not get any more violent. When someone has espoused or incorporated those kinds of beliefs, it becomes personal. To use the member's own definition, but maybe in reverse, that is a terrorist. That is what those people are.

Nobody here is a terrorist. Nobody is saying that. Nobody is saying that anyone here supports terrorism. That is just plain silly.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Edmonton Centre for his contribution to his debate. I would also like to thank him for his service to this country. He has served our country with distinction in the past and continues to do so as the member for Edmonton Centre.

My question for him, and he raised this in the debate, relates to the citizenship provisions incorporated in this particular legislation and what was passed in the House earlier this year. I would like my friend's comments with respect to why he believes that our security is strengthened by the removal of citizenship rights from dual nationals. Would it not simply be better to deal with these particular threats by prosecuting these individuals under our laws?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a good question. We have laws in Canada, obviously. For anyone who is simply Canadian, there is no other way we can deal with them other than through the laws of Canada.

For someone who has chosen dual citizenship, in my view and in the government's view, their loyalties are divided between Canada and wherever. The government thinks that if they want to be divided citizens and want to carry out acts that are a danger to Canadians and Canadian interests, values, and property, then part of their citizenship should no longer apply.

I am not going to pick on any country, but if a person had citizenship in another country, then the other country could deal with that guy.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario)]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the hon. member if he firmly believes that this act would add a level of protection for law-abiding Canadians and at the same time protect the freedoms of those same law-abiding Canadians?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is always going to be a balance. There is always going to be a pendulum. There are two things at play. There is fear, and there is complacency, among other things.

Fear happened with 9/11. Fear happened a week and a half ago. Between 9/11 and a week and a half ago, I would suggest that the pendulum swung quite a way toward the complacency side, notwithstanding recent events in the Middle East.

It is always a balance between allaying people's fears and giving people confidence that the government and the agencies of the government can protect them and the complacency people naturally feel when nothing has happened for a long time. That dispels the idea that someone is a threat out there.

Someone is always a threat. There is always a healthy concern that we are doing the right thing and protecting Canadians. At the same time, there should always be a healthy concern about keeping our rights and freedoms intact. That balance, we think, is struck in this bill. We intend to pursue it. The NDP is going to help send it to committee, and I applaud it for that.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Timmins—James Bay.

I am pleased to participate in this debate today on Bill C-44, an act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other acts. I understand that it is a bill the government had on the books and was preparing to introduce, and it is doing so now, following the recent events here in the House and another tragedy in the province of Quebec.

In short, it makes three substantive changes to CSIS. It would clarify the legal authority of CSIS to conduct security intelligence operations abroad in response to threats to the security of Canada. It had run into some difficulties in the courts with respect to this, so it now wants clarification and changes because of that.

It also confirms the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to issue warrants that have effect outside Canada. It provides for the protection of the identify of CSIS human intelligence sources in judicial proceedings. It also amends the timeline for changes to the Citizenship Act with respect to the revocation of dual citizenship for dual citizens who are involved in terrorism or other serious offences. That bill was passed this past June.

I want to state that I join with all my colleagues in this House, and in fact all Canadians, in paying tribute to Corporal Nathan Cirillo and Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent. We joined many of our colleagues today at the cenotaph in Ottawa to lay wreaths. The veterans minister was there as well. It was a very moving time. I think Remembrance Day, in a few short days, will be a moving time for our country. My dad and my grandfather fought in the First and Second World Wars. I know how emotional, painful, and deep these experiences are for the entire Canadian psyche.

The violence that took place here in Canada a couple of weeks ago was something that certainly touched the hearts of Canadians and was something we need to take very seriously. I believe we will do that.

I have had a tremendous number of constituents contact my office and encourage us as parliamentarians to react in a measured, considered way and to not overreact to the events that took place, which indeed were terrible and terrifying. I am hopeful that as parliamentarians, we will do that, because we believe that defending both public safety and civil liberties is important. This is not a balancing act, where we shave off a little of one to gain some of the other. We believe, on this side of the House, that we can do both. We can move forward and ensure the safety and security of Canadians while guarding our shared values of freedom, tolerance, and an inclusive democracy. That is why we are all here as parliamentarians. It is because we value that democracy.

We must carefully review our laws in light of the tragic circumstances of the last two weeks and ensure that our laws and security measures are adequate and appropriate for the needs of our country while ensuring, at the same time, that our civil liberties are protected. We have to make sure that this work is done responsibly and with careful study based on the evidence we have at hand. Of course, we do not have all the evidence in yet, because investigations are ongoing.

On this particular legislation, details matter a great deal. We will support the bill going to committee, because we would like a thorough, rigorous, detailed study to take place.

I want to spend a bit of time on the notion of improved civilian oversight of CSIS. We are disappointed that the bill does not include that additional civilian oversight.

I had the great privilege of sitting on the finance committee in 2012, when under yet another budget implementation act, there was a debate about CSIS oversight. Members might well ask why the finance committee would be debating CSIS oversight, and that is a very good question. It was a measure included in the budget implementation act, 2012. The measure specifically included the elimination of the inspector general, a position I am sure most Canadians did not know we had, and if they did know, they were not sure what it did.

We had the terrific privilege of having as a witness at committee one of the key people responsible for setting up that position, Mr. Paul Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy has a long history of over 20 years in the public service. He has advised ministers. For a number of years, he was the senior assistant deputy minister of public safety responsible for national security activities. He spent five years as senior chief counsel to CSIS and four years as chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. He was the senior general counsel of justice and coordinated all the legal advice among intelligence agencies. I am sure members would agree that he was an eminently qualified person to speak about CSIS and advise the committee.

I want to tell the House some of the facts he gave us. We had heard from officials that eliminating the position of inspector general would save $1 million of the public purse and that this was good value for money. We heard that SIRC would be able to take up the slack and take on the monitoring responsibilities.

Mr. Kennedy told the committee that we would save $1 million in a $7-billion public safety department budget but that ultimately, it could cost the government, and therefore Canadians, a great deal more when there were problems. He said there would inevitably be problems. For example, he said that the Arar inquiry, about the illegal arrest, imprisonment, and torture of Mr. Arar, was a $30-million inquiry, $10 million of which the government paid in compensation. It was tremendously expensive, and that $30 million did not include all the hours public servants spent on that inquiry.

There was the ongoing investigation of the Robert Dziekanski case at the Vancouver airport. There have been many other inquiries.

Mr. Kennedy pointed out that if we were talking about a consolidation of the responsibilities of this oversight position and SIRC, then we should have a transfer of staff and files and money to make that happen. None of that happened. In spite of many inquiries recommending greater oversight and more resources, that simply has not happened.

This is the direct responsibility of the Minister of Public Safety. The buck stops with the minister. Without the inspector general in place, who can keep an eye on the spies, Canadians have no guarantee that their public interests are protected.

We need that position. We need greater oversight. At committee, parliamentarians should make sure that this happens.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague for Parkdale—High Park has shed some important light on this issue. We have to ask some questions about some of the issues she has brought to the House. Essentially, they have to do with the budget cuts that were reviewed in finance committee. The CSIS budget was cut by $15 million in 2012, followed by an additional $24.5 million in 2014-15. CBSA was cut by $143 million, and the RCMP was cut by $195 million.

The member talked about the Conservative government being penny-wise and pound foolish. Have the Conservatives made a terrible mistake? Have they jeopardized the safety of Canadians with these cuts to make themselves look fiscally responsible? Are they trying to make up for that foolishness now?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree that this is penny wise, pound foolish, as my granny used to say. It really makes no sense.

In response, I want to quote from Mr. Kennedy's testimony. He said that the inspector general was “the eyes and ears”. He said that “the minister is personally accountable for those intelligence officers”, who have huge powers that Canadians really do not know anything about because it is in secret. He said, "That was the way the model was, because the the public can't be involved in it”, but that the public has to be assured “that we have a responsible minister and he's on the hook for this, and he's informed and can do the job and deliver it for us.”

It was set up that way. This is a covert intelligence agency, and there were vehicles put in place to allow the minister to control it. That was the inspector general. That position has now gone. Nothing has replaced it. Where is the accountability?

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I noted in my friend's contribution to the debate her concern about parliamentary oversight with respect to CSIS.

Of course, before this House there are two private members' bills. They are Bill C-551, introduced by the hon. member for Malpeque, and Bill C-622, introduced by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.

I would like my friend's thoughts with respect to these two particular private members' bills, and an indication of whether she and her party will be supporting that legislation when it comes before the House.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising those two other bills tangentially, but in my time allotted, I would like to focus on the bill that is before us today.

I would like to say that CSIS, our spy agency, is a body that is very important for the security of Canadians, but it is essential that there be adequate oversight.

Inquiry after inquiry has identified the need for better oversight, but the government, sadly, has moved in the opposite direction. It has taken the eyes and ears away from the minister responsible by cutting the oversight of our spy agency.

That is not the way to provide better safety and security for Canadians. I submit it is a way to keep the minister responsible blind and deaf, and that is not what we need. Canadians need to know that the vast and very important powers of CSIS staff are being monitored so that they are in compliance with the rules that have been set out for them in law.

There is no other body that can fulfill this requirement, and if Canadians truly want to be safe and assured that both their security and their civil liberties are protected, we need effective oversight. It is not happening. The government needs to get that done.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to stand in the House representing the people of Timmins—James Bay, who put their trust in me to speak for them.

I am very pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-44. This is the first time I have spoken in the House in debate since the brutal attack at the cenotaph and the attack on Parliament Hill. I would like to begin by reflecting a little of what I experienced on that terrible day.

I certainly experienced a sense of relief when I found that we were safe. I experienced thankfulness for the incredible security people who literally put their lives on the line to make sure that we were safe. I felt an enormous sense of pride—not a bullish beating of the chest pride, but a quiet pride—watching the Canadians around me who went about their day unafraid and helped each other. It reminded me that no matter what our differences in this nation are, there is a sense of community that will not be intimidated.

The last thing I felt that day was a real anger, an anger that the House of the people had been desecrated by violence. I felt it when I went out in the early morning about 5 a.m. and went to the cenotaph and saw a crime scene tape. I was very angry that such a symbol of who we are as a nation could be cut off from us and suddenly become a crime scene of mindless, hateful violence. It made me feel very angry.

When we reflect on how we deal with this kind of violence, it is incumbent upon us to take that sense of anger, that sense of pride, that sense of relief, and step back and ask ourselves what the Canadian people expect from us to ensure that they are safe. We are dealing with some very complex issues that are now being thrust before us.

Bill C-44 is not a response to what happened last week. This is a bill that has been on the order paper for some time, and it is important to look at it in that light. There are certainly specific elements that will need to be examined clearly, which is why we want the bill to go forward to committee.

One aspect is the international role of CSIS in in spying on and maintaining coverage of potential perpetrators who may be overseas. Certainly we see the issue of radicalization of people who have gone overseas, but this is a question that does confront the House, and we need to address it.

We know that CSIS has been found to have breached the courts and the laws of our land on numerous occasions, as reported in the 2007 Hape decision. In 2008, Justice Blanchard found that section 12 of the CSIS act did not contain extraterritorial provisions with respect to covert intelligence. In 2013, Justice Mosley said that the practice of seeking warrants for foreign surveillance was not legal. Therefore, the bill needs to look at how the actions of CSIS will be done within a legal frame.

To put this in context, maintaining legal provisions that will protect the Canadian people has to be seen in terms of the resources that exist or do not exist to follow through on whatever laws we bring forth.

There is also the issue of oversight. The issue of oversight means that when we debate laws in this country to offer police more tools, we make sure that these tools are being applied where they were intended and that they are not opening the door to all manner of warrantless intervention in the lives of ordinary Canadians.

In terms of oversight, the government has a fundamental problem. The government may feel that CSIS needs the tools and that CSIS has to be the front-line fighter in terms of international terrorism, but the oversight mechanisms have been abysmal.

The Prime Minister appointed Arthur Porter, a notorious international criminal who is sitting in a jail in Panama, to sit on the oversight body of CSIS. I would think that Canadians who witnessed the attacks last week would not be comfortable knowing that the man who was supposed to be making sure that our spy agency followed the laws and had the tools necessary was now sitting in a Panamanian jail on all manner of charges and allegations.

The replacement for him was Chuck Strahl, a former minister in the House. We found later that he was acting as a lobbyist for Enbridge at a time when CSIS was apparently spying on anti-Enbridge activists. There is damage to credibility here.

Maher Arar was sent to a foreign jurisdiction, wrongly, and tortured. He was an innocent man. One of the recommendations from the Arar report was to have better oversight of these provisions. This oversight is important in making sure there are no more cases like Maher Arar's, cases of people who are innocent but are in the wrong place at the wrong time and are rendered because the feeling of the day is that we do not need to follow the rule of law. The rule of law is essential. It keeps us separate from the kinds of bandits who want to attack who we are as a nation.

In terms of resources, the government is cutting $687.9 million from its overall security in the coming years, and $180 million is being cut from border security. Telling us it is going to get tougher in terms of protecting us while at the same time limiting the resources being used to protect us certainly raises questions about the government's overall credibility.

There is the recent Privacy Commissioner's ruling on the RCMP and its warrantless access provisions. The RCMP does not even have an ability to track how it is gathering information and under what circumstances it is gathering it.

Do we need to look at rules that may provide better tools to go after potential threats? That is certainly the discussion we should have. However, when every 72 seconds we have a request made to a telecom by a government agency that wants personal information on Canadians, that is certainly not within justification.

The fact is, contrary to what the Prime Minister said, the killers of Warrant Officer Vincent and Corporal Cirillo were not killers who washed up on our shores, as we were told last week. These were home-grown Canadian men. The Prime Minister said that our international allies would be standing with us as we went after the men who brutally killed Corporal Cirillo. Where were our international allies when he was going into a McDonald's with a stick, trying to get himself arrested?

Clearly, the rhetoric does not match the reality here. The reality is that we are not talking about what happens when people fall through the cracks and become increasingly marginalized. We had the snow plough killer and the bus beheader. We have people who, in mental instability, do terrible, brutal crimes. In the case of Zehaf-Bibeau, we were glad that the RCMP was able to seize his passport to prevent him from going anywhere else, but he was not on their terror watch list because he was considered mentally unstable. We need to understand that if we are to respond to the brutal crimes we saw, we must put provisions in place that protect us.

In terms of Bill C-44, the reasonable step here is to move it to committee to see what provisions CSIS needs to deal with international radicalization, especially in the case of someone who is trying to go to a place like Syria or Iraq to engage in the murderous activities there. What provisions would still be within the laws of our country? What oversight will be there to ensure that CSIS does not abuse its function within Canada? What role will we take, as a federal House of Commons, to address the fact that there is clearly a problem when Canadian men, born and bred in our country, can fall so far from the norm that they can pick up any kind of murderous death cult ideology because of all manner of instability, drugs, broken lives, and the fact they were living on the streets?

There are other people out there who may be in that same situation, whether they identify themselves as radical or not. What provisions are we going to put in place to ensure public security?

This is a long, ongoing discussion that we need to have in the House. However, we need to have it within the context of figuring out what works, what resources are in place, and what will maintain the overall standards we have for the rule of law in our country and the fact that we are an open, democratic, and unafraid society.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The time for government orders has expired. Consequently, the five minutes of questions and comments for the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay will take place when this matter returns before the House after question period.

The House resumed from November 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C-44, an act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before we resume debate, I wish to inform the House that because of ministerial statements, government orders will be extended by 23 minutes today.

When this matter was last before the House, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay had the floor. He had completed his comments. Consequently, resuming debate, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House to debate Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act. I am confident that in the bill before us we have effective legislation that will go a long way toward improving our national security.

This bill contains two separate elements. Let me turn to the first part of the bill, which deals with the changes to the CSIS Act.

This act is the legislation that governs CSIS's activities. It was introduced three decades ago when CSIS was first established, and the act itself has not changed. Given what has occurred in the last few weeks, I would submit that it is certainly time.

When this was done 30 years ago, it was the era of the rotary phone. The Internet was just in the experimental stage. Social media did not exist, so social media were not applied toward the recruitment and radicalization of people across the world. Therefore, as all Canadians can appreciate, the nature of the environment in which CSIS must operate has changed. As an example, the terrorist threat has evolved considerably. All the way from the Cold War, we expected a peace dividend, but threats are more dangerous now, and with Mr. Putin and others threatening global borders, we have to be vigilant.

Mr. Speaker, please let me state that I am also splitting my time today with the great member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

Canada has had some notable successes in this country in detecting and disrupting terrorist plots, but the reality is that Canada is not immune to violent extremism. This is especially clear now that it has touched us on our very own soil, including on the very day and in the very place that we had planned to introduce this carefully considered legislation in this House.

While it is true that we have always been vigilant about the threat of terrorism, in recent months we have become particularly seized with the task of moving beyond vigilance to decisive action. This is something that we have an obligation to do for all Canadians. As parliamentarians, we can and we must take action to ensure that our security and intelligence agencies have the tools they need to protect Canada. Our government has been clear about its commitment to doing that.

With keen awareness of the challenges that CSIS faces in investigating threats to Canada, we have proposed measured yet critical amendments to the CSIS Act. It is evident to us, as I hope it will be to members on all sides of this House, that CSIS must have clear authority to investigate security threats to this country, whether they originate here or they originate abroad.

How would this bill allow for that? First of all, the bill would allow confirm CSIS's authority to carry out investigations outside of Canada. Specifically, it would amend the CSIS Act to state, for greater certainty, that CSIS has the authority to perform its duties within or outside of Canada for the purposes of investigating threats to the security of Canada or conducting security assessments.

Another important change would see to it that the Federal Court need only consider relevant Canadian laws, such as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the CSIS Act, when issuing warrants authorizing CSIS to undertake certain intrusive activities in order to investigate a threat to the security of Canada outside of Canada.

In addition, the bill would address a shortcoming in the act as it stands with respect to the disclosure of human sources in court proceedings. At the present, there is no automatic protection for the identity of CSIS human sources similar to the common law privilege available to police informers. This is problematic, given that human source intelligence is so central to CSIS's work.

To address this problem, we have proposed an amendment that would create a prohibition on disclosing in court proceedings the identity of any CSIS human sources who have provided information to CSIS on the condition of confidentiality.

There are two exceptions that would allow this information to be disclosed. One is if a person is not in fact a confidential human source; the second is if the information is needed to demonstrate the innocence of the accused in a criminal proceeding. Overall, with these exceptions included, we believe that this amendment would successfully balance the need to protect the identity of CSIS human sources with the need to ensure fairness in legal proceedings.

Finally, we have proposed an amendment to safeguard the identity of CSIS employees who are likely to become involved in covert operational activities in the future. This is critical. Our operatives are serving in perilous situations on our behalf, so it is incumbent upon us to ensure that their families are safe as they do their very important work to ensure that our families remain safe.

Our government is convinced that these amendments are needed to ensure that the CSIS Act provides CSIS with the means to use reasonable and necessary measures to investigate threats to the security of Canada for the safety and security of our nation.

Nevertheless, as we make these carefully considered changes that will help CSIS investigate threats to Canada, I want to reassure Canadians that some fundamental elements will not change.

First and foremost, the rule of law applies. A judicial warrant is absolutely required in order to authorize CSIS's more intrusive activities. To be sure, this requirement serves as an important safeguard on the rights of Canadians. The CSIS Act clearly states that in order for a warrant to be issued, CSIS must satisfy a judge that, among other things, there is reason to believe the activity constitutes a threat to the security of Canada.

Second, I want to stress that CSIS's activities will continue to be consistent with the rule of law and Canadian values.

Last, CSIS will remain subject to robust oversight by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, just as it will remain subject to external arm's-length review by the Security Intelligence Review Committee, SIRC.

For the safety and security of Canadians, we need to move forward with these targeted and limited amendments to the CSIS Act to ensure that CSIS has the tools it needs to investigate threats to the security of Canada.

At the outset of my remarks, I mentioned that there were two elements to this legislation. Now I am going to turn to the second part.

The bill also contains technical amendments to the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, which received royal assent earlier this year.

These amendments will allow for quicker implementation of the citizenship revocation provisions in that act, including provisions to enable the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to revoke Canadian citizenship from dual citizens convicted of terrorism, treason, or spying offences. We believe that an earlier timeline to implement these important provisions is warranted.

Citizenship is a pledge of mutual responsibility and shared commitment to the values rooted in our history and to our fellow Canadians. Dual citizens convicted of serious crimes such as terrorism should not continue to benefit from Canadian citizenship, a citizenship that provides foundations of democracy, human rights, and the protections afforded to all Canadians in this great nation.

In closing, I would like to clearly state that it is imperative that all parties support this legislation. In the past, both the Liberals and the NDP have been guilty of under-reacting to the threat posed to Canadians by radical extremists. Clearly both parties, I hope, have now come to realize the true threat that we face and will work with us to ensure that all Canadians are protected and safe.

The Liberals opposed taking citizenship away from terrorists. Bizarrely, they claimed that it was an affront to Canadian values. I am quite sure that they may have re-evaluated that position. Even further afield, the NDP opposed the Combating Terrorism Act, which was well ahead of its time. It effectively criminalized what we have now come to know as foreign fighters. What is more, the NDP leader has rejected the assessments of the President of France, the U.S. Secretary of State, and even the Commissioner of the RCMP, who said what Canadians knew all along: that the horrific events of late October were the acts of deranged terrorists bent on establishing an Islamic caliphate.

I hope that in the coming days, all parties in the House will take this opportunity to stand up for security and to stand up for all Canadians. Our nation must be preserved, and to do so, we must ensure that we provide those who protect us with the right tools to enable them to do it.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I have a specific question for him on something that he left out of his speech, and that is civilian oversight of CSIS.

This bill provides more power to CSIS. However, it makes no mention of better oversight of CSIS, which is charged with ensuring that everything is consistent with the law and our rights and freedoms as Canadian citizens.

Does the hon. member think it is necessary to have better oversight of CSIS given that the current oversight seems inadequate in many ways? Why is there nothing in this bill about better oversight when it is already falling short and CSIS is being given more power?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree. There is oversight through the Security Intelligence Review Committee. Of course, CSIS is an important element in the security of Canada. Keeping us safe, looking forward, looking within the bounds of this nation and outside of it, and scanning for the threats that have very recently affected us all in Canada.

Our having civilian oversight to look into CSIS, monitor its activities, and make sure it complies with Canadian law is strong and robust, and will remain in place.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with the member's last statement that it is strong and robust, thereby implying that there is no room for improvement.

We need to recognize that there are foreign intelligence agencies. I am sure the member is familiar with the Five Eyes, which includes Australia, New Zealand, the U.S and the U.K., all partners of sorts with Canada dealing with intelligence. We will vote later on today to ensure that there is parliamentary oversight of the agencies.

Would the member not agree that if our partners in the Five Eyes recognize the value of parliamentary oversight, it would be a mistake for the House of Commons not to support private member's bill, Bill C-622, which the Liberal defence critic brought forward, as an opportunity to give strength to the oversight system that we have in Canada today?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my friend is right about one thing. There is room for improvement, and that is why we are having this debate. We are looking to improve the ability of our security agencies to protect us, to give them the necessary tools to robustly defend us, to look ahead, to ensure they detect the threats facing Canada and eliminate them before they come to our soil. After the events of the last few weeks, I have absolutely identified areas that we have to work on. That is why I gave my speech today and why others will also rise to speak to this.

In terms of the robustness of our ability to oversee and manage our security agencies, I agree that we have to work very closely with our allies, which we already do. CSIS and others extend outward. They work with our allies and others to share information and make sure that as an allied group we are protected and have mutual support in the defence of terrorism and criminality that threaten Canada.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise to speak to Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act.

The bill seeks to clarify elements of CSIS' mandate that address serious operational gaps at CSIS bases, including protecting the identities of CSIS's human sources and employees.

The bill would also confirm that CSIS can operate abroad to investigate the threats that have become all too common of late on the nightly news, threats such as the Islamic State, which has demonstrated particular brutality and is drawing individuals from all over the world to join its cause.

As we have now unfortunately seen over these past few weeks, events abroad can inspire radicalization at home with terrible consequences. The RCMP has been quite clear that both of the terrorists who committed these attacks against members of the Canadian Armed Forces had radical ideological motives inspired by extremist views.

The bill is important to ensuring CSIS remains able to investigate such threats to Canada's national security. Whether those threats be radicalized individuals at home, those seeking to travel abroad and cause harm to others, or Canadians abroad committing acts of terrorism, the Canadian public expects and rightly demands that CSIS have the legal authorities to take all necessary steps to investigate threats to the security of Canada and ensure our safety and security.

That said, Canadians also rightly expect that our security agencies be subject to proper review and accountability to ensure they operate within the law. Some members of the House have noted such concerns, and I would like to address these matters directly.

Just over 30 years ago the House passed the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. CSIS was created on the basis of recommendations made by the McDonald commission, itself an independent commission of inquiry.

The McDonald commission spanned four years, from 1977 to 1981 and carefully examined complaints against the RCMP security service at the time. Notably for our discussion here today, its primary recommendation was to create a civilian security intelligence agency separate from law enforcement. This key recommendation is what led to the creation of CSIS.

At the time, the establishment of CSIS had bipartisan support. It is important that the legislation also created a sophisticated and extensive system of accountability and review. That review system is built on the function and role of the Security Intelligence Review Committee or SIRC, judicial authorization, and accountability to the minister and Parliament.

Canadians should be aware that historically SIRC's membership has consisted of individuals from diverse political backgrounds and walks of life. Such a varied membership helps to ensure the trust of all Canadians. It is also important to note that SIRC is one of the most robust review bodies in the western world.

SIRC's mandate is threefold. First, SIRC's review function allows it to make observations and provide recommendations in regard to CSIS' activities, operations and tradecraft. Such review helps ensure that CSIS' operations are effective, safe and legal.

Second, SIRC's complaints function mandates it to investigate formal complaints from members of the public in regard to specific activities of CSIS. Commonly, such complaints are in regard to the denial of a government security clearance by their deputy head, but SIRC can certainly examine any complaint regarding an activity of CSIS.

Third, SIRC is also charged with certifying that CSIS' investigative activities, as described in the director's annual report to the minister, are consistent with the CSIS Act and ministerial direction, and demonstrate a reasonable and necessary use of the service's powers. In that regard, in its most recent report, SIRC found that the operational activities of the service complied with the act and ministerial direction, and were reasonable and necessary in the execution of its mandate.

Canadians should be aware that SIRC's mandate knows no geographic boundary. In that regard, SIRC can and does review CSIS' foreign operations and stations abroad.

As CSIS has increasingly expanded its operations abroad in response to growing threats, particularly after 9/11, SIRC, too, has expanded its own review of those operations. SIRC's expansive mandate means that it provides a robust system of checks and balances on the powers and activities of the service. Canadians can be assured that SIRC continues to carefully review both CSIS' domestic and international activities.

In its 30 years of existence, CSIS has adopted or addressed the majority of SIRC's recommendations, and the director of CSIS has stated forthrightly and publicly that it is a better organization because of SIRC's recommendations. It should also be noted that CSIS' activities can be and regularly are reviewed by the Privacy Commissioner who can issue public recommendations. Members should also be aware that certain CSIS investigative activities require judicial authorization.

CSIS' warrant powers are managed through a rigorous and comprehensive regime and require the prior approval of the Minister of Public Safety. The Federal Court has complete discretion whether to approve, deny or renew warrant applications from CSIS. Markedly the bill would clarify that the Federal Court can also issue warrants for certain intrusive investigative activities by the service abroad, and in consideration only of relevant Canadian law.

Members should also know that such a rigorous warrant regime for international intelligence operations is unprecedented among our closest allies and provides a level of assurance both for the legality and appropriateness of CSIS activities abroad. Further still, the service reports directly to the Minister of Public Safety who is accountable to Parliament for the activities of CSIS and tables an annual public report on CSIS' activities.

CSIS appears regularly before parliamentary committees to address concerns of members and senators. In fact, as recently as October 8, the CSIS director and RCMP commissioner appeared at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to provide members with a frank, open and candid discussion of the terrorist threat. I am quite sure that CSIS officials will appear at the public safety and national security committee to address any concerns and answer any questions on the bill before us today.

Simply put, CSIS' review and warrant regimes are robust and extensive. Canadians and members of the House can be assured that CSIS is acting well within its mandate to investigate threats to the security of Canada.

To me, this is all very impressive. It is reflective of our shared Canadian values of respect for individual rights and the rule of law. However, still the Liberals continue to bring forward proposals that would create duplicate oversight mechanisms. It seems that many, especially the members for Vancouver Quadra and Malpeque, seem focused on well-meaning proposals that have the unintended consequence of causing our national security agencies to go head to head with the terrorist threat with one hand tied behind their backs.

I would like to take this opportunity to encourage all members of the House to stop under-reacting to the terrorist threat and to support this important legislation.

Lastly, we all like our privacy and security, but we live in a different world today. I know that there is an expectation among most Canadians that the government has to take action. Some of the things that happened here in the last two weeks in this place and this city has made that reality very apparent to all of us. The Government of Canada will and has to respond to that threat.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the NDP agrees that this bill should be sent to committee for further study so that we can hear from the experts on this matter.

However, we do have some serious concerns about this Conservative bill, which enormously expands the powers of CSIS. It allows for espionage in other countries, outside Canada's borders. Following the Maher Arar case in 2006, a commission of inquiry made several recommendations for improving civilian oversight of CSIS. There is nothing in the bill about increasing civilian oversight. Justice O'Connor made several recommendations, but this government ignored all of them. Then the Conservative government eliminated the position of inspector general of CSIS. There are still two vacant positions on the Security Intelligence Review Committee, and there are huge gaps when it comes to civilian oversight of CSIS.

Does the member think this bill could be amended to address this?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that there were two vacancies on SIRC right now. However, as in any other committee or kind of structure like this in government, from time to time there are vacancies. I would like to think, and I am quite sure I will be right in saying this, that there is probably a process going through right now to replace those people.

As for the member's comments about oversight, to me it is obvious that is part of this bill.

On her comments with respect to overseas, I am not sure by her comments whether she is opposed or for CSIS expanding outside of Canada to watch people. The reality is, and it is well known, that some Canadians are in other countries and if they are in the process of trying to plan a terrorist attack or some kind of event, it is the responsibility of CSIS, in conjunction with other policing organizations around the world, to know what they are doing and to do what it can to stop them, such as taking away their passport.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague and I are on much the same wavelength in terms of the bill. Requiring CSIS to obtain warrants is certainly a good thing.

It should be noted that yesterday the Federal Court of Appeal upheld a ruling that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service hid the fact that it was relying on foreign intelligence agencies to spy on Canadians abroad. That basically backs up the Federal Court decision by Justice Mosley, which is one of the reasons why this bill has come forward.

However, my question for the member really relates to the previous discussion between the two MPs, and that is the need for oversight. SIRC is after the fact oversight. Although there may be two members missing, I will submit that the Security Intelligence Review Committee does great work, but it is after the fact. All of the five eyes partners have parliamentary oversight.

My colleague from Vancouver Quadra has a bill before Parliament to be voted on I believe tonight. There is another private member's bill as well. We really need parliamentary oversight for all of our security agencies to protect the minister and Canadians, and I hope the member would support that.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I knew if I stayed around here long enough, my colleague from Malpeque and I would find something that we both agree on.

With respect to parliamentary oversight, as I said during my speech, there is a lot of oversight right through to the minister. Do we really want something where we have 308 members of Parliament making a decision on every little thing? The member has been around this place long enough, in his profession outside of here and in some of the posts that he has held, to know that it cannot work quite as simply as he is trying say it would. I agree with him with respect to the philosophy of oversight, but there is a lot of it now.

This is a very good bill. Since he agrees with me, I will certainly be happy when he stands to support it.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, National Defence; the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Québec, Small Business.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the people of Gatineau concerning Bill C-44. Although their experience was very different than ours here in the House, the people of Gatineau were affected by the events of October. Many people will never be the same because of what happened. I am convinced that the Remembrance Day ceremonies, which will begin this weekend and culminate on November 11 in the national ceremony here in Ottawa, will take on quite a new, although similar, significance. In fact, what we celebrate every year is the fact that we must not forget. Perhaps this year more people will remember.

I know that I will be very happy to be with the people of Gatineau at the two cenotaphs in my riding. First, I will lay a wreath at the Legion on Baie Street. Then I will go to the cenotaph at the Norris Branch Legion. I try to alternate every year. Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent and Corporal Nathan Cirillo will certainly be in our thoughts.

That said, we have to keep things in perspective. The comments I sometimes hear from the Conservative benches are disconcerting, including the comments by the member for Etobicoke Centre.

He accused the opposition of being guilty of under-reacting to threats against the country and its citizens.

I take offence at that type of comment. It certainly does not encourage thoughtful debate in view of what is happening right now. What is more, it sheds a negative light on the picture that the Conservatives are trying to paint of Bill C-44.

As an aside, I am convinced that quite the opposite was true when the mass killing occurred at École Polytechnique. At the time, the government's response was to create a firearms registry. As I recall, the Conservatives were accusing the government in power of overreacting. Sometimes one has to be consistent in life to keep things logical.

The best tribute we can pay to Corporal Cirillo and Warrant Officer Vincent, if we want to honour their memory, is to continue to uphold the values that they staunchly defended by fulfilling their duties every day. That is what Corporal Cirillo and Warrant Officer Vincent would ask of this noble institution, which is supposed to represent our democracy. They would ask us to protect the security of Canadians, something they did valiantly and courageously. As I was saying, I will be pleased to honour them during my visits to the cenotaphs and the Greater Gatineau Elementary School, when the young children hold a Remembrance Day ceremony. They are going to talk about Corporal Cirillo and Warrant Officer Vincent. However, these individuals would also want us to remember the values that Canada has always stood for, the values of democracy and the protection of freedoms. We send our soldiers around the world to defend these principles. That has always been my understanding.

It is misleading to claim that Bill C-44 is a solution to a problem that could have caused the absolutely tragic events that took place in October. To expect people to believe that is to take them for fools and to try to take advantage of a situation, which I think is despicable and certainly flies in the face of our role here as legislators, which is to introduce sensible legislation that is in line with our Constitution, our charters, our rights and our values.

We lack confidence in this government because we often get information bit by bit.

The Conservatives give roundabout answers to specific questions. Then they accuse us of not supporting the solutions they are trying to shove down our throats.

Bill C-44 was already on the radar. The bill is exactly the same as it was when it was to be introduced on that day we all remember, Wednesday, October 22, the day of the tragic events that led to the death of Corporal Cirillo. The introduction was pushed back, in light of the circumstances, and the bill was introduced a short time later.

I think the comments by the member for Malpeque bear repeating:

The Tories lost the July court ruling on CSIS spying overseas.

Bill C-44 is nothing but a response to the July rulings by the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal, by Justices Mainville, Dawson and Blais. Sometimes I lose a little confidence in this government, and that is the understatement of the year. We learned yesterday that this ruling had been made and had been partially redacted. That is understandable, since a government cannot disclose everything when it comes to national security.

I try to be familiar with court rulings, in light of my amazing and fascinating role as justice critic for the official opposition. However, I learned about this ruling from the papers. This is what Tonda MacCharles, a journalist with the Ottawa bureau of the Toronto Star, had to say:

The Conservative government revealed that it lost an important Federal Court of Appeal ruling that found CSIS hid the extent of its overseas spying activities from a judge.

A redacted version of the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, dated July 7, 2014, was posted on the court’s website Tuesday with no notice to the media — a highly unusual move.

It upheld an earlier Federal Court ruling by Justice Richard Mosley that rebuked the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the federal government for hiding the fact that CSIS had turned to CSE, Canada’s electronic spy agency, and its allied partners in the “Five Eyes” international spying network to carry out intrusive surveillance abroad on two Canadians.

The ruling gives strong backing to CSIS’s power to operate abroad.

In light of the threats, we can understand that some powers are necessary.

But Justices Eleanor Dawson, Robert Mainville and Pierre Blais, the recently retired chief justice, declared that a judge’s decision to issue a warrant is “not the simple ‘box-ticking’ exercise the attorney general suggests.” And they said CSIS had to level with the courts.

“The duty of candour and utmost good faith required that CSIS disclose to the Federal Court the scope of its anticipated investigation, and in particular that CSIS considered itself authorized by...the CSIS Act to seek foreign agency assistance without a warrant. CSIS failed to make such disclosure.”

However, the appeal ruling disagreed with the lower court, and found that a Federal Court judge does have jurisdiction to issue a warrant that would authorize intrusive surveillance by CSIS overseas.

I will spare the House the rest, but that gives members an idea of the implications of Bill C-44.

Our colleagues in the House, especially the Conservatives, say that we must provide a proper response to what happened in October. They would have Canadians believe that this bill is part of that response. However, it is part of something even bigger than the tragic events of October that resulted in two deaths.

I do not believe that we are under-reacting to the threats to our country and our fellow Canadians when we clearly and explicitly say that we will support Bill C-44 in order to send it to committee to be studied. Canadians are asking not just the official opposition, but also the government, to take action in that regard.

Sometimes, good suggestions are made, and witnesses will be heard.

Just recently, at a conference on the O'Connor commission, there were speakers who know a lot more about espionage and international terrorism than I do, such as the Information Commissioner of Canada, the Privacy Commissioner and former justice O'Connor. Those are some high-powered speakers. Former justices Dennis O'Connor, John Major and Frank Iacobucci spoke at the October 29 conference, “Arar +10: National Security and Human Rights a Decade Later”.

I did say “and human rights” because for the Conservatives it is often a question of one or the other. They believe that human rights must be curtailed in order to protect security. Both can be maintained in a reasonable world, and that often happens with oversight mechanisms. In the House we often hear that organizations are given extensive powers to protect us.

Yesterday, on the local news, the reporter was asking, in a very straightforward manner, if the government should increase security in its buildings. That is like asking if the sky is blue. Of course everyone will answer yes.

The discussion really starts to get interesting when we start looking at the details. How do we make the buildings more secure? Everyone has an opinion on that. However, one fact remains: we have a starting point and the government wants to give certain powers to an organization

Sometimes, I feel as though the government is not taking the most logical action. I like logic, I like to be able to understand and I like to visualize what is happening. Like everyone, I want to feel safe. I do not want to walk down the street, afraid of my own shadow. That has never been the case in Canada, and I do not want that to change.

However, I am not naive. I know that there are people with bad intentions. I do not want to get into a discussion about their reasons because it will only be divisive. Instead, we need to find good solutions.

I am concerned when I hear people from CSIS tell us that they do not have the resources to use their powers while, at the same time, the government is getting ready to grant them more powers. I do not think anyone can get angry with me for saying that I am concerned when our major security institutions, such as the RCMP and CSIS, tell us that they need more resources.

Make no mistake. These agencies had their budgets cut and were asked to reduce their complement of police officers. It is not easy to deal with the Internet threat. Everyone has to adapt to these changes. At the same time, if we want to give these agencies powers, we also have to give them the means to exert those powers.

This bill is very technical in that it will make it possible for some people's identities to remain hidden, and likely with good reason. We therefore have to ensure that we have the means of overseeing these agencies since we are giving them a practically limitless mandate to protect our security.

No one wants to see what happened to Maher Arar happen again. Ten years later, we have to pay out tens of millions of dollars because of an illegal arrest and the government has had to apologize. We all want to avoid that.

At the same time, we want to ensure that Canadians here and abroad are safe. Let us do things right. That is the completely rational and logical message that the official opposition is sending to the government regarding Bill C-44.

I do not want to blow things out of proportion or ascribe motives to anyone, but it makes my blood boil when I hear people say that we under-react to threats against the country and its citizens. It hits close to home for me because we want everyone to be safe. That is part of the mandate of everyone here.

We do not want people to have to relive events like what happened here in October when they hear explosions, as we did three or four times this morning during our caucus meeting. We want to do things right.

All the experts agree: a committee is needed. I think this committee should be as independent as possible. I listened to the member who spoke before me, and he did not know that there are still two vacant positions. I would say there is even a third: there is an interim chair, a former Reform Party colleague, Deborah Grey. I am sure she is very nice, but does she have much experience in this area? Two of the five seats on that committee are vacant. As an oversight committee, it has an extremely important role to play, and yet no one seems to take it very seriously.

We are being accused of all kinds of things, blamed for every evil under the sun, as though we could not care less about what happens in terms of security. It is as though only the government cares about this, cares about our soldiers and remembers the sacrifices our veterans made on our behalf. I would be inclined to say that our veterans deserve more. It is all well and good to send them off somewhere, but how they are welcomed home at the end of their mission is also very important, I think. However, I digress.

That being said, I think this bill deserves serious consideration. Many provisions of the bill seem quite all right, such as providing the courts with certain mechanisms. We shall see. I have already talked to a number of legal experts about this, because it is not my area of expertise. Three people I consulted had different opinions or differences in opinion on certain interpretations and certain clauses. I would say to my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, who will have the extremely important task of studying Bill C-44, to pay close attention and be as open-minded as they can. They should not do as the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons sometimes does and say that they have to pass the bill quickly.

When we consider the circumstances in which Bill C-44 must have been drafted during the summer, following the unfavourable rulings on the government's position on this issue, it is easy to see that we have to spend more than just a few hours reviewing this bill in committee. I hope that my official opposition colleagues who sit on that committee will be able to make their voices heard calmly and make the other members realize that we are all in the same boat. We all live under the same flag, a flag that is dear to all our hearts, perhaps now more than ever. That is what should unite us and make that sense of camaraderie that we felt on October 23 last. I am not saying that we should all be singing Kumbaya. I know that we may not always agree, but we have to at least study the bill with respect, because the issue is extremely important.

In conclusion, I do not think that Corporal Cirillo and Warrant Officer Vincent would want us to be creating a police state. That is not at all what these individuals—now national heroes—were protecting. With all due respect for their memory, that is what I will keep in mind when I lay my wreath at the cenotaph and visit with young people at the Greater Gatineau school for their annual ceremony. I hope that my colleagues will examine Bill C-44 not with a tough-guy attitude, but with respect for the security, rights and freedoms of Canadians.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague alluded in her speech to her desire for simple answers to direct questions, so I wonder if she would just humour me and live by her principle.

Does she believe that the horrific events of late October were terrorist attacks? If not, could she share with the House what she knows that would contradict the President of France, the Secretary of State of the United States, and more specifically, the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will tell the hon. member that he must not have listened to my speech, because those types of questions only serve to divide. What I am definitely 100% sure of is that those were criminal actions.

How would we define it? The only point I made was that I cannot say, on this day, in this House, seriously, that I do not believe 100% that it could be a terrorist attack. I do not know. As I have been saying through my speech: share the information. It is nice for people to be on their high horses when they have the video, when they have been privy to things that we do not know. On October 22, the thing I thought was worst for me was not knowing what was happening. To get information from U.S. news, not from my government, not from anyone here, was unacceptable.

I think what it shows is that there are some people who are very severely disturbed, to say the least, and that criminal action, be it an act of terrorism, an act of craziness, or an act of whatever, remains a criminal act. It remains murder. It has to be treated as such if it is based on evidence, and I think there is still some review.

Good for those who feel at ease with some definition. As a lawyer, I am a bit inclined to wait for all the facts before I can express a definite answer.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, further to the member for Gatineau's comments about not having full information, I want to point out that the Information Commissioner, Mme. Legault, pointed to “'information asymmetry' when it comes to national security measures—the government has all the relevant information, and Canadians are asked to approve of new measures without that information”.

She is concerned about that, because it is not just about protecting fundamental security rights. There are also other fundamental rights, and we need to have the appropriate information to make the appropriate judgement call.

The commissioner also called for “a complete review into the oversight of national security bodies”. I know that has been mentioned by a number of speakers.

One of the reasons for the Liberal Party's support of a parliamentary oversight committee, aside from our Five Eyes partners all having such a thing, is that it can be more effective, in terms of security, than a patchwork of oversight for individual security and intelligence agencies and nothing to integrate them.

I would like to ask the member for Gatineau, especially given the tragic events of October 22, whether that oversight that could look at the gaps between different security agencies, whether it is the RCMP, parliamentary security, CSIS, or CSEC, could strengthen our security as well as strengthen privacy.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question.

I am very proud to say that the NDP is moving a motion on this topic. I think that this is the real problem now. Information comes in bits and pieces. We get information from one place, and the other place does not know what is going on. The government has all that information and will not give an answer. I can understand that if an answer discloses confidential information, that can make things dangerous around the world. However, I cannot believe that is the case for all the information.

How do the various agencies provide security on Parliament Hill to protect tourists, Canadians who come to visit their Parliament, members of Parliament, parliamentarians, employees of the various services on Parliament Hill and the adjacent buildings? What is preventing people from sitting down to explain—perhaps even confidentially—how we can improve our methods and procedures in order to fully guarantee that Canadians are safe?

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Gatineau for her excellent speech.

In the aftermath of the events of September 11 in the United States—which was a tragic event similar to the one here in Canada on October 22, in that it created an atmosphere of fear and terror—the U.S. government's approach was designed to limit personal freedoms in order to increase the powers of security agencies.

Unfortunately, I am now seeing the same tendency with the Canadian government, which is using the events of October 22 to mimic what was done in the United States. The difference is that on October 22, the criminal in question had serious mental health problems. They are two completely different situations.

Could my colleague comment on the fact that the Canadian government is adding to the atmosphere of terror so that it can turn around and say that we need to protect ourselves from these terrorists?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

I always try to avoid imputing motives to others. The only thing I constantly take exception to—and I always will by rising in the House—is how the government gratuitously tells us that we are under-reacting to the threat to our country and Canadians. I take pride in reacting logically, intelligently and with compassion and understanding to the events we all went through a couple of weeks ago.

Just because we are asking questions does not mean that we are friends with terrorists or that we are too soft. Of course, the initial reaction is to oversimplify things. We see that everywhere. Even though politicians may not be asking the question, the media, with the kinds of questions they ask every day on the radio or television, often end up oversimplifying things. When we do that with such complex issues, we are at risk of making mistakes.

That is why I often say that we need to take a deep breath, step back a little and listen to the experts, including representatives of the organizations responsible for keeping us safe, so that we can make the best possible decisions and avoid racial profiling and abuses. That is what is most important, because no one in this House wants to see other human tragedies caused by attempts to create some kind of mass hysteria with overblown rhetoric. We need to take our role as legislators seriously.

I know this is my last speech on this topic at this stage, but I truly hope that the committee will have ample opportunity to study this—not taking forever, but taking the time needed to talk to the real experts in the field—and report back to us here in the House so that we can make an informed decision at third reading.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Centre.

It is my honour this afternoon to speak to Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act. As the House knows, this measure was introduced before the events on the Hill on October 22.

Before I start my speech, I want to say one thing. First, I am glad to be anywhere to give a speech after the events on October 22, but what surprised me was the outpouring of concern and affection for my family back home, not just for me but to find out how my wife and kids were doing that day. There were hundreds of calls and contacts and emails to my wife and family. I appreciate the outpouring of concern for my family and myself on that day from the people of my riding. It was very heartwarming. I sent a letter off to the local newspaper thanking people for their concern.

It is my privilege, as I said, to rise today to voice my opinion in this debate on the protection of Canada from terrorists act. As we have seen over the last number of weeks, acts of terror are not limited to troubled areas of the world, such as Syria, Iran, and Iraq. They are carried out by individuals and groups in cities and regions around the world. All of these actions are done for a variety of motives and by different means, but they all have a common goal, which is to strike terror and fear into the hearts of governments and citizens and all of the people they affect.

We will not be intimidated by those cowardly acts. In late October, terrorism hit Canada twice in the span of only a few days. In our typical Canadian fashion, we picked ourselves up, got back to work in the House, came together to grieve for our fallen heroes, and carried on.

The one thing I will never forget is the opportunity I had to attend Corporal Cirillo's funeral in Hamilton. My riding of Burlington is a neighbouring riding to Hamilton, where Corporal Cirillo and his family are from, and many of his colleagues in his regiment live and work in my riding. It was a great honour to be at the funeral to pay my respects on behalf of my community and of the House.

We will continue to strive to protect individuals' rights and stand up for the rule of law, because that is who we are. However, it is clear that our national security agencies need new tools, particularly in the areas of surveillance, detention, and arrest. We will not overreact to threats against us, as some have suggested, but it is high time that we stop under-reacting. We need to be more proactive and start taking terrorist threats seriously, because nothing is more important than keeping Canadians safe from harm and fear, whether in the streets of their communities or when they are travelling or living abroad.

No government can guarantee that it will be able to stop every terrorist act from occurring, but we can make every effort to prevent, detect, deny, and respond to terrorist threats. At its most basic, this means reaching out to communities and religious leaders who will help law enforcement identify individuals who are threats to our collective peace and security.

There are a number of initiatives and programs in place to help governments and law enforcement build those relationships, and we have seen that trust and collaboration flourish over the past few years. This type of interaction is invaluable in terms of helping to uncover potential threats.

We often hear the terms “lone wolf” and “radicalized individuals” used to describe people who may become radicalized to violence without law enforcement having any signals or warnings. While these individuals may be hidden from view, they are often inspired by terrorist entities that are strong in number and loud in their calls for death. Terrorist groups often are happy to let the world know who they are, what they believe in, and what their plans are. Through the Internet in particular, groups like ISIL and al Qaeda broadcast their message of hate and terror, calling on new recruits and followers to carry out their acts of violence against innocent civilians.

Members of the House know the influence the Internet can have on individuals and organizations. We do not need to talk about terrorism to see the effect it has. We all get emails that are inaccurate and tell the wrong story about all kinds of issues. They all end up on our desks, and we all have to respond about inaccuracies and so on. It is this kind of access to information—even erroneous, poorly informed information—that causes individuals who are not being radicalized to make inaccurate statements, believing what they are reading on the Internet. Unfortunately, for individuals who are lost in terms of their place in this world, the Internet is a source of radicalization. Terrorist organizations are able to do this through countless online outlets that are easily accessible and available throughout the globe. We need to be very diligent in that area.

However, these large groups need more than cheap communications, which the Internet provides. They need money, weapons, explosives, people, and other types of resources to carry out their work. That is why our government is taking decisive action, through legal means, to stop terrorist groups.

One way is to cut off their source of funds and resources. We know that global terrorist groups actively seek funds and resources internationally. Under Canada's Anti-terrorism Act, our government can list an entity under the Criminal Code if it has knowingly carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in, or facilitated a terrorist activity, or if it is knowingly acting on behalf of, at the direction of, or in association with any entity involved in a terrorist activity.

The listing process requires analysis of intelligence and criminal information. These reports are submitted to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness for consideration. If the minister has reasonable grounds to believe that the entity's activities fall within the parameters I just mentioned, the minister can place that organization on the list of terrorist entities. Once on the list, the entity is effectively denied its source of critical funding from Canadian sources. Its assets are frozen and subject to seizure, restraint, or forfeiture.

As a further measure, the listing makes it a criminal offence for any Canadian, at home or abroad, to knowingly participate, directly or indirectly, in the activities of a listed entity for the purpose of enhancing its ability to carry out a terrorist activity.

Which entities are on the list? They include aI Qaeda, which serves as the strategic hub and driver for the global Islamist terrorist movement; al Shabaab, a group that is waging a campaign of violence and terror in Somalia; and, of course, ISIL. As we know, this barbaric group has carried out prominent attacks involving suicide vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices, improvised explosive devices, armed attacks, hostage takings, and beheadings.

This is just one way we are able to use legal means to address threats to our safety and security.

As I have heard from all the parties, it appears that the bill is going to go to committee, which I think is appropriate. There we can discuss the issues further and gain a better understanding of them.

I hope all parties can accept the legislation put before us today. It is balanced, reasonable, and effective. It would create new and important tools to allow CSIS to continue to operate successfully. It is the first step in keeping Canadians safe.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian national anthem was heard for the first time in June 1880 at the French-Canadian National Congress. It had been commissioned by the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec, Théodore Robitaille. The lyrics were written by Adolphe-Basile Routhier and the music, by Calixa Lavallée. One of the most famous lines in the French version is “protégera nos foyers et nos droits”, which is about protecting our homes and our rights.

I wonder if my colleague thinks that it is important to protect our homes and our rights at the same time, rather making them mutually exclusive. Would he agree that it is important to protect our homes and our rights, without putting them at odds with each other, in order to ensure that our homes are indeed protected and that our rights are as well?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a reasonable question, but I do not think that Bill C-44 would change that balance.

Canadians, including those from Burlington, believe that we do have a role and responsibility as a government to protect our citizens, particularly in a world where, unfortunately, terrorism is not a far-off threat. It is something that can happen here on this soil, in homes, communities and places of work.

We have organizations, such as the RCMP, police forces and CSIS, which are our agencies to help with protection. In a careful review of what Bill C-44 would do in terms of protecting Canadians, it would actually enhance the ability for Canadians to enjoy the freedoms they have in their homes, in their communities, in their province and in their country.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member has said that the bill is a measured and reasonable step forward. However, we are supporting the bill to go to committee because it needs thorough scrutiny. There are measures in the bill that experts are concerned might violate international law. There are other measures that include provisions to enact an element of another bill that really does not have very much to do with the core elements of the provisions around CSIS.

My largest concern is that, unlike the advice that the Information Commissioner has given, any movement to strengthen or increase security measures should also be accompanied by an increase in oversight. However, that is completely ignored by the current government. In fact, the member's government has said that security oversight is just fine as it is.

In his view, does the member feel there is no need or any benefit in having an oversight that would tie together the various security agencies, such as CSEC, the Canadian Border Services Agency, RCMP, immigration and others, which, in some cases, are operating in silos in terms of oversight?

Would an integrated overview approach, as proposed by Bill C-622, which we will be voting on tonight, and other legislation, not be a positive thing in order to identify any gaps among the agencies and fix the—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Burlington.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will not be supporting the motion to have parliamentary oversight.

I have been on the Hill for eight years. One of our key functions as members of Parliament is financial oversight. Today our supplementary estimates (B) and performance reports were tabled. In having parliamentary oversight, there is a lot of room for improvement on the financial side.

If the member thinks there needs to be oversight, then we should change, improve or enhance the abilities of those organizations that already exist to provide oversight. Adding another layer, particularly a set of parliamentarians, will not enhance or improve the oversight of the spy agency or the other agencies or bodies that already exist and have that responsibility. Improve their responsibility, but do not add another layer of bureaucracy, particularly one that has a political element to it.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Burlington for sharing his time, so I can speak to Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act.

This legislation includes amendments to the CSIS Act as well as the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act and today I am going to address my comments to the CSIS Act.

Before I begin, let me explain why we have introduced this important piece of legislation. Recent events both here and in Quebec really serve as a very stark reminder that ISIL is a very real threat to Canadians. It is all too real to the people who sit in this House and I want to take a moment to thank everyone who personally called, emailed or texted me to express their concern for me.

Because of these and other threats, our Conservative government is working very determinedly to strengthen the tools that are available to the police and to our intelligence community in the areas of surveillance, detection and arrest.

The protection of Canada from terrorists act is just the first step in our efforts to do that. Canadians can be assured that we will not overreact in response to these terrorist acts, but it is also time, as the member for Burlington stated, that we stop under-reacting. To do this, we must give those who are investigating these threats to the security of Canada the tools that they need to ensure that they can investigate these threats wherever they might occur.

For the past 30 years, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service has played a key role in helping to ensure the safety and security of Canadians. Today, CSIS investigates and analyses a really wide range of threats from terrorism, to countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and foreign espionage.

CSIS has evolved into a world-class professional intelligence service that is respected and relied upon both here at home and globally. That achievement is ultimately due to the really high calibre of people who have chosen to work there. These are men and women who have joined CSIS because they really wanted to make a difference and they wanted to protect the safety and security of Canada. That is in the face of evolving national security threats.

However, those threats have changed dramatically since CSIS was created with the CSIS Act in 1984. The threat of terrorism is now a lot more complex and it is a lot more diffuse. Radical individuals or groups of extremists with the motivation and access to certain kinds of technology can really do significant harm to Canada. Global conflict, particularly the abhorrent violence that is perpetuated by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant serve as a reminder of our obligation to address these threats and this was underscored and echoed by the President of France here in the House this week.

Our government proposes to amend the CSIS Act to allow CSIS to better operate and investigate these threats to Canada's national security. I want to highlight the most recent measures taken by our government to continue to improve our counterterrorism tools, to face this evolving threat environment we are in.

The Combating Terrorism Act, which came into force in May 2013, created new criminal offences of leaving or attempting to leave Canada for the purpose of committing certain terrorism offences outside Canada. This is close to home for me because there have been people radicalized from Calgary who have done this.

This last July, a B.C. man was charged with leaving Canada to take part in a terrorist activity under this new act for the first time. Our government also employs many means to deny terrorists the opportunity to be able to carry out terrorist activities. This includes the RCMP-led high risk travel case management group and revoking and suspending passports of these prospective travellers.

However, our law enforcement people need more tools. We are committed to doing everything in our power to prevent Canadians from becoming either victims or perpetrators of terrorism-related activities.

That is why in our government's 2014 Public Report on the Terrorist Threat to Canada, it lays out our actions to address terrorism in all of its forms, including addressing this phenomenon of extremist travellers and returnees. Though the numbers are fluctuating, as early as 2014, the government was aware of more than 130 people who had Canadian connections, who had travelled abroad and were suspected of terrorism-related activities. This is real.

More recently, CSIS indicated that it is aware of 50 Canadians directly involved with activities being undertaken by ISIL and other extremist groups in the region.

Our government believes that prevention is really fundamental to combat violent extremism and that all key players, including community members who are very important, government and law enforcement and intelligence agencies, have to share a common and comprehensive understanding of violent extremism. We have to all work together to stop people from being radicalized into violence. Some of the methods are intervention and building community and law enforcement capacity.

While we are working here at home, we also have to take action on the international front. This is why we are collaborating with our allies on global efforts to counter violent extremism and to address this threat of extremist travellers.

More recently, as we know, our government voted in favour of joining our allies in the global military action in Iraq. In doing so, we are going to work to destroy the ISIL threat and its barbaric actions, which have resulted in the deaths and displacement of innocent civilians across the region and caused a global security concern.

While we are continuing to take strong action against this despicable organization, we must give our intelligence agencies the tools that they are going to need to really confront these kinds of threat to our security.

That is why we have introduced Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act. Through this legislation, our government would amend the existing CSIS Act to confirm that CSIS does have the necessary methods and tools that it needs to investigate these threats and protect the security of Canada.

The legislation governing CSIS really does need to keep pace with this evolving terrorism threat to ensure that CSIS can investigate these threats, no matter where they occur. To that end, the protection of Canada from terrorists act would specifically confirm CSIS's authority to conduct investigations outside of Canada. These would have be to related to threats and to the security of Canada and security assessments.

It would confirm that the Federal Court can issue warrants for CSIS to investigate, within or outside Canada, threats to the security of Canada.

It would give the Federal Court the authority to consider only relevant Canadian law when issuing these warrants to authorize CSIS to undertake certain intrusive activities to investigate a threat to the security of Canada or outside of Canada.

It would protect the identity of CSIS human sources from disclosure, which is very important, and it would also protect the identity of CSIS employees who might engage in covert activities in the future.

It is important to note that CSIS would continue to require judicial authority to conduct certain investigative activities both within and outside of Canada. It would still remain subject to independent review by the Security Intelligence Review Committee.

The protection, safety and security of Canadians and our interests are a top priority for the Government of Canada, and should be for all members in the House. To that end, the important role that CSIS plays cannot be overstated. We will continue to equip it with the tools that it needs to investigate threats to the security of Canadians in what we are facing right now, which is an increasingly complex global environment.

I would encourage all members of the House to ensure that they vote for this very important and needed legislation.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.

We know that Bill C-44 is not a direct response to the events of October 20 and 22. The government announced other measures in reaction to those events. I would like to hear the member's opinion on the legislator's responsibility to react responsibly.

Does the member think that reacting to specific events or isolated cases is the right way for the legislator to make laws? I have raised this question in the House on a number of occasions over the past three and a half years. I would therefore like to know what she thinks about the legislator's responsibility to be cautious. The threats change and society changes, but the laws remain. That is why it is important for us, in the House, as legislators, to be responsible when it comes to the new laws that will be passed in response to very specific and often isolated incidents.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Sherbrooke knows that the events we suffered here in this House and the events in Quebec were entirely regrettable and have affected all of us.

This legislation was in the works prior to that. Those events just brought home to us, and to all Canadians, the real need for this legislation. I think the members opposite recognize that it is not a reaction to the events that occurred here. This is a reaction to the events occurring globally that have been reported and that we have seen in Iraq and have heard about so vividly: the atrocities, the loss of life, the incredible difficulties people have faced worldwide, and the threats to our security at home.

Those events just brought that home to us. This is very well-considered legislation. I think it shows real balance.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of the member across the way.

Liberals certainly feel and believe that strong security measures that protect Canadians are very important. Our intelligence agencies, our security agencies, do very important work in this regard.

It was under a Liberal government that the Order in Council to create, for example, our signals intelligence agency were put in place by cabinet, and it was also under a Liberal government that the National Defence Act and the Anti-terrorism Act were put in place to strengthen the ability of our security agencies to do their work.

The member used the word “balance”. What is missing in the government's approach is that very idea. I was listening carefully to hear any mention of the words “freedom”, “privacy rights”, and “civil liberties”, and I did not hear those words even once.

I ask the member whether she is aware that the deputy director of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security considers the embedding of privacy rights and civil liberties in every program, system, and activity of Homeland Security to be essential to having a strong and effective security outcome for that department. How does she think that relates to the government's approach?

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think I addressed that at the outset. Canadians need not be concerned that we are overreacting. We recognize that freedom is very important, and it is that very freedom the bill would protect.

As I mentioned in my speech, CSIS will continue to require judicial authority before it can conduct certain investigative activities and will remain subject to independent review by the very important Security Intelligence Review Committee.

Those are our checks and balances in the system. It is freedom that we are interested in protecting. That is why this piece of legislation is being introduced. From the member's comments and the comments of the official opposition, I hope and pray that they will support it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the opportunity to share with members some of my personal thoughts and to express some thoughts and ideas from the Liberal Party.

It goes without saying that Canadians have a burning desire to see security measures in place that will allow them to feel safe in the communities in which they live, whether it is here in the parliamentary precinct or in communities throughout the country.

On that note, it would be a mistake not to pay tribute to all those individuals who put in the effort to make us safe. Whether it is the intelligence officers of CSIS, the RCMP, border patrols, or other policing agencies, there are so many individuals who play a proactive role in ensuring that we have a sense of security. I wanted to express my appreciation for that.

It is not easy to provide a 100% guarantee that Canada will never have to endure a terrorist attack. What we can do is work hard to prevent one, wherever possible, and adequately support the different agencies. In particular, today we are focusing on CSIS.

We can bring in new legislation, but at the end of the day, legislation is only one aspect. We have to challenge the government to ensure that it is putting in other types of resources to support the different agencies that are there to protect us. Whether the government is in fact doing enough can at times be called into question.

This is really the first opportunity I have had to comment on what we all experienced just a couple of weeks ago. In the days that followed, I happened to be on a flight to Ukraine. Whether it was at the airport in Frankfurt or in Ukraine itself, I saw our beautiful Parliament buildings on the news. What took place a couple of weeks ago made international news, as many people around the world were quite concerned about what was taking place in Canada. Constituents, family, and friends at the time also expressed a great deal of interest and concern and offered their prayers and best wishes.

As has been pointed out, from Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers all the way down, people did a phenomenal job, and they should all be applauded for their efforts in ensuring that there was minimal impact because of what took place.

We have heard some amazing speeches. There were political speeches from leaders and others who paid tribute to Corporal Cirillo, who ultimately made a sacrifice that has reached into the hearts and minds of all Canadians. I raise that because I want to put it in the context of Bill C-44.

The bill would do nothing to address the national security concerns related to the events in Quebec and Ottawa a couple of weeks ago. It would simply amend the present legislation to meet current CSIS practices and would expedite the CIC amendments in Bill C-24.

The government needs to explain why the provisions already in place in the Criminal Code have not been utilized in response to those individuals who represent a threat to this country.

The sections of the Criminal Code in question are section 83.181, relating to the laying of charges against an individual attempting to leave Canada to participate in terrorist activities; section 83.3, which could be used to place recognizance with conditions on those suspected of terrorist activities; and section 810, relating to peace bonds and possible detention.

I was intrigued by some of the discussions. One of the most interesting statements I came across was from the Minister of Public Safety on October 8 at the public safety committee. This is in regard to the 80 individuals who returned to Canada after having travelled abroad to take part in terrorism-related activities. This is what the minister stated to parliamentarians and Canadians at committee:

Let me be clear that these individuals posing a threat to our security at home have violated Canadian law.... These dangerous individuals, some skilled and desiring to commit terrorist activity, pose a serious threat to law-abiding Canadians.

This begs a number of questions with respect to whether we are acting on the current legislation that has been passed.

What would Bill C-44 actually do? There are three things I can detect. First, there would be protection for informants. I can appreciate why that would be necessary. Second, it would provide more clarity on the need for warrants. CSIS needs to investigate, and this legislation would provide more clarity with respect to warrants from judges to complete those investigations. Third is the issue of dual citizens. The House voted on this not that long ago, and it is being expedited.

The government needs to be aware of what is missing, and that is oversight. Oversight was mentioned today in questions.

In an hour, we will be voting on Bill C-622, an important piece of legislation. Bill C-622 was introduced by my colleague from Vancouver Quadra. She has done a wonderful job in recognizing the importance of parliamentary oversight. The government has been negligent on this issue, and I do not say that lightly.

What the member from Vancouver Quadra is asking of the government is already being done and is in place for our Five Eyes partners. In Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and the United Kingdom, it is already being done. They have recognized the value of having parliamentarians provide oversight.

I do not understand why the government is resisting that idea. This is not necessarily the first time, but it is definitely an opportune time for the government to recognize that the House of Commons and parliamentarians as a whole do have a role to play.

We hope that the Prime Minister will allow for an open vote on this issue. I would encourage the government to reflect, to seriously consider the benefits of accepting what the member for Vancouver Quadra, the Liberal Party defence critic, has put on the table for us today, and to vote for parliamentary oversight.

Oversight would go a long way in providing peace of mind, in many different ways. Oversight is a good way to ensure the protection of the rights of all Canadians. It is in our best interest, I would argue.

Parliamentary oversight is not just a Liberal Party proposal. As has been pointed out, our other partnering nations have already done this. Why would the government not respond in kind and recognize the value of oversight?

We in opposition recognize how important it is to provide protection for informants. It only stands to reason that there would be protection of informants, who provide critical, valuable information when a CSIS agent is doing an investigative report or conducting an investigation into the potential for some form of a terrorist act here in Canada or abroad. We have to depend on informants.

I have no sense of the actual number of informants out there, but I do understand and appreciate the need for us to protect them. In looking at this piece of legislation, we see that protection as a positive thing.

In terms of warrants and the need for warrants, again this concern does not come from any individual political party. Based on the discussions and comments I have heard here this afternoon and even previously, it seems there is virtual unanimity in recognizing how important it is that we provide additional clarity to CSIS as an organization and in terms of the role of warrants in ensuring that investigations are conducted in a proper fashion. There is an understanding that unusual circumstances come into play when terrorist activities and organizations are investigated.

As a whole, Canadians are very much aware of what terrorism is all about. We understand and appreciate that we are living in a very different world. Through the Internet and all forms of media outlets, we know there is a much higher sense of awareness. It is there and it is very real.

That, I believe, is one of the reasons that Canadians expect the Government of Canada to do what it can to ensure that they have a sense of security in the communities where they live, and I suggest many of my colleagues would concur. However, at the same time, there is an expectation that we will demonstrate leadership at the international level.

In bringing forward legislation such as we have before us today, it is very important that we consult with the different stakeholders and ensure that the legislation is, in many ways, a bit more inclusive in terms of having the right balance. I am not convinced that we have the right balance here. That is why, in my last 15 or 20 seconds, I would ask the government to recognize the importance that parliamentarians have when it comes to ensuring that Canadians feel much safer in their communities. Parliamentarians need to be, and should be, more engaged in the process. Whether it is oversight or whether it is parliamentary committees, we can make a difference.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Winnipeg North will have three and a half minutes remaining for his comments when the House next resumes debate on the motion and, of course, the usual 10 minutes for questions and comments.

Bill C-44—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, in relation to Bill—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for London—Fanshawe is rising on a point of order.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my apologies, but I have a report from the interparliamentary delegation that I would like to present to the House.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

We have already gone through that rubric, so the hon. member will require unanimous consent to revert. Is there unanimous consent to revert to presenting reports from interparliamentary delegations?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, in relation to Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other Acts, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in tum, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There will now be a 30-minute question period. I would ask members to keep their questions to around a minute and government responses to a similar length of time.

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminister.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is another sad day in the House of Commons. The government is using the guillotine for the 81st time since coming to power. Eighty-one times. Never in the history of Canada has any government shown such disrespect for the work of parliamentarians and the need to review the bills that are introduced in the House of Commons.

We are talking about a bill that the government itself has said is an important one, a complex one that requires proper scrutiny; yet after only a few hours of debate and after only a handful of members of Parliament have had the opportunity to speak, the government is imposing closure for the 81st time. Perhaps this time more egregiously than any time before, the government is simply refusing to have the proper scrutiny that needs to take place in the House of Commons. Given the impacts on Canadian society, the bill needs to be properly scrutinized.

My question is very simple. Eighty-one times now, the government has imposed closure. It does it at the drop of a hat, after only a few hours of debate. Why is it trying to do it this time when it is well aware that it has the sad record of having more pieces of legislation rejected by the courts than any other government in our history? Given the fact that the government has had shoddy legislation that needed improvement and has been rejected by the courts, why is it imposing closure yet again?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for his question. I used to work with him on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. I am glad to have the opportunity today to rise in the House to answer his questions and make some progress on a bill that is, frankly, very straightforward.

I have the bill here, and it is just four pages long. It is really very simple. We have already spent more than six hours debating it in the House, and basically, its purpose is to clarify the scope of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service's mandate so that it can protect Canadians.

Of course I will be happy to answer my colleagues' questions for the next few minutes, but the best place for that is at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, which can study the bill and bring in witnesses.

At the outset, I would like to express my gratitude to my colleagues from the official opposition and the other opposition party for supporting this bill in principle. I hope that we will be able to move it forward quickly because the service needs this clarification right now so that it can protect Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what has become very clear over the last few years is that, ever since the Conservatives obtained majority government, the current government House leader seems to have one mode in passing legislation here in the House of Commons, and that is to use the tool of time allocation. To list few of them, there was the Canadian Wheat Board pool registration, copyright legislation, back-to-work legislation, free trade agreements, first nations legislation, and massive budget bills, which are an abuse in themselves.

As has been pointed out, no government in the history of Canada has used time allocation as much as this government has. It is almost like a normal part of the process. It is wrong. It is disrespectful to democracy and the functionality of the chamber.

My question for the government House leader is this. Why does he believe his government needs to use time allocation on its legislation as opposed to allowing members of Parliament—through the normal, traditional practices that the House used prior to the majority Conservative government—to adequately debate the bills before they go to committee or even pass at third reading?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is seven pages long, which, as I said before, makes it a very simple bill.

We want to send it to committee for debate because we need to pass it in order to protect Canadians. Furthermore, both opposition parties expressed support in principle for this bill, which would clarify the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

The service has been around for 30 years, but it was never explicit that the people in charge of keeping us safe could operate here in the country as well as abroad. This is all the more important considering a growing phenomenon related to terrorist threats: high-risk travellers and foreign fighters.

That is what makes this bill so important: it will enable judicial authorities to clearly define the scope within which authorities and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service can exercise their powers while remaining in compliance with Canadian law.

As we have seen, this bill already contains provisions for court oversight of the process.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, once again I am disappointed in the government's attitude. As I have said before in this House, it seems that the government regards debate as something it has to suffer through until it gets its way, instead of an exchange of ideas that are important not only to improve legislation but also to let Canadians know what issues are at stake here in the House of Commons.

My question for the minister has to do with the fact that he has referred to the committee as the right place to examine this bill. What I would like to hear from him now is a commitment that the government will not impose time allocation and severely limit the number of witnesses at committee, because although it is a short bill, it is quite an important bill in terms of national security. Will the minister give a commitment today that the government will not impose time allocation in committee or try to limit the number of witnesses who appear?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

As he knows, committees are masters of their own destiny. It will be up to the committee to make decisions. However, there is consensus on this bill.

As legislators, we have the responsibility to provide the tools required by both the police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to protect us in compliance with Canadian laws.

Freedom requires a safe and secure environment. This bill very clearly seeks to provide that. It will define the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service at home and abroad, and provide a clear definition of “witness”, the very basis for the information on which CSIS files are based.

It is also important to have reliable information, because the information collected by CSIS is precisely what enables us to build cases and collect evidence leading to the indictment and incarceration of convicted terrorists, so that they are brought to justice.

Unfortunately, the NDP did not support our bill to combat terrorism. However, this time, it is interesting to note that they are more receptive to the bill. They have indicated that they will support it. It is therefore very important to closely examine it now. The parliamentary committee is the best forum in which to do so, and we will have the opportunity to comment on it and debate the final version of the bill once it returns to the House.

Given that this bill is important to the safety and security of Canadians, that parliamentarians support it and that there are no significant objections, I invite the opposition parties to support it so that we can go to committee and move forward with this bill, which is important for the security of Canadians.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the 81st time the government has imposed time allocation on the study of a bill. I take issue with this, particularly in the case of Bill C-44, because ever since the events of October 20 and 22, Canadians have been asking themselves a lot of questions about the way Parliament works and especially about the laws it wants to pass to deal with radicalization and give more tools to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and about what is happening with regard to the RCMP and border services.

Many people across Canada are asking themselves many questions and would like their MP to be able to take part in this debate to share their questions or thoughts on such an important bill. Of course, Bill C-44 is just a few pages long, but those pages are extremely important and will change the way CSIS operates. The question I have for the minister is the following: why muzzle the opposition MPs, and government MPs for that matter, and prevent them from properly representing their constituents, especially when Canadians are concerned and want us to make better laws following the events of this past October?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my opposition colleague for the question.

Why act? We must act because we all witnessed the tragic events that occurred near here and an attack that ended in this Parliament on October 22. We also know that on October 20, a Quebecker, Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, lost his life because he was wearing a Canadian Forces uniform in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu.

These events remind us that the terrorist threat in Canada is real. An act of terrorism is an act committed by a person who attacks a symbol of Canada, a symbol of power, or a symbol of our democracy. It is an act committed for political, ideological or religious purposes. That is what happened here, in Parliament. President François Hollande talked about that not far from here, and he condemned these acts of violence. He said that together, we must take action. That is why we are working with the French minister of the interior, Bernard Cazeneuve, and with our U.S. counterpart, Jeh Johnson.

As legislators, it is our job to put the necessary tools in place. It is important to take action. Let us be clear: we indicated that we would not over-react, nor would we stand by and leave Canadians defenceless against evolving terrorists threats. That is why we introduced Bill C-44, and that is why we plan on implementing other measures to protect Canadians and democracy. That is why, and in particular with this bill, we always do so in compliance with our country's fundamental laws. That is why, in this bill, clause 7 provides that anyone facing charges based on information from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service has the right to an amicus curiae, a friend of the court, and access to legal provisions and also provides that everything is overseen by a court. This is a balanced bill, and my colleague will have the opportunity to ask questions in committee as soon as the House decides to send this bill to committee.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness made some interesting comments, but in my opinion they were way off base, simply because Bill C-44 was not introduced in response to the events of October 22. This needs to be clear to anyone watching us.

I am still trying to understand, from the lengthy remarks he has made since the debate on the time allocation motion began, why the motion was moved. Was it because the official opposition and the second opposition party are dragging their feet and getting carried away? No. To date, there has been six hours of debate at second reading. If anything, it is the government that is dragging its feet, and I would like to hear the minister's comments on the fact that since 2007, since the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Hape, the government has known that it had to change certain laws and some of CSIS's powers. Why did the government take so long to do that and now, all of a sudden, it is introducing this legislation in order to give us the impression that it introduced the bill as a result of the events of October 22? Why use a time allocation motion to suggest that the only way to examine this major bill, which grants very significant powers to some of Canada's law enforcement agencies, is to bypass the entire parliamentary process, which is different from the process in committee? I have not heard any convincing arguments, besides the fact that the government is the one that has been dragging its feet for all these years. The Conservatives have had a majority since 2011, and if they really cared about the country's security, they would have taken measures long before now.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question posed by the member opposite is quite simple. She agrees with the bill. The Liberals agree with the bill. We have already debated it for six hours here in the House. Committee is the best forum in which to amend bills.

Today, the debate is not about passing the bill. It is simply about moving it on to the next step so that it can be thoroughly debated. Why? Because, whether we are members of the government or an opposition party, Canadians elected us to pass bills once they have been debated. That is what we have done in the House and that is what we are going to do in committee.

I understand that the two opposition parties support this bill. For that reason, which seems very clear to me, we should immediately adjourn this debate and send the bill to committee so that we can take action to protect Canadians. That is why we were elected to Parliament.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think we all know that haste is rarely a wise advisor. Before I address the House, I must say that I am really confused. I am wondering whether I should be talking about the bill or the time allocation motion, given that the time I have to speak will be cut short, perhaps even drastically reduced, in the next few hours, and this is true for many of my colleagues in the House. That is the fundamental problem we should be talking about first, before we begin discussing Bill C-44.

The Conservatives are telling 308 members, minus the few who have already had a chance to speak, that they only have a few hours left, they are to share the time that remains, and that is just how our democracy works. They are also telling members that the best way to advance a bill is through committee. What is the message here? The message they are sending is that the opinions, views, expertise and knowledge of all the members of the House, who were elected to debate each and every bill, do not matter.

After 81 time allocation motions, this has to stop. There is absolutely no reason why parliamentarians should not have the right to speak and why this bill should not take its course, even though, for now, we agree that it should be sent to committee and we plan to support it at second reading. This means that we want to be able to discuss it in committee and presumably propose amendments. However, let us face it, if the past is any indication, amendments are rarely accepted, as though the government always knows better.

Would Bill C-44 not be a perfect opportunity to show all Canadians that the parliamentary system can work, and that there are some subjects that transcend partisanship and should be allowed to go through the process, allowing all authorities to have their say, within reason and within the confines of our parliamentary system, and ensure that in the end, it is no longer a government bill but in fact a bill of this Parliament?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. He reminded us that 140 individuals with connections to the country are currently suspected of having been involved in terrorist activities abroad.

Under current rules, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service does not necessarily have the authority to investigate these people who are a threat to our safety. This is about clarifying powers, as I said. The court invited us to clarify those powers. Opposition colleagues had the opportunity to attend a briefing before the bill was introduced.

This bill was scheduled for introduction on October 22. It is on schedule. We have the support of both opposition parties. This balanced bill contains provisions that clarify the service's roles and protect citizens' rights.

I am eager to see this bill go to committee, and I am eager to see it come back to the House so that we can pass it and it can go to the Senate, where it will be debated again, become law, receive royal assent, and become an effective tool for protecting Canadians. The terrorist threat is undeniably real. We have to take meaningful action against it and make sure Canadians are protected.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, of course on this side of the House we are concerned about the protection of Canadians, but this is an ongoing thing. The greatest terrorist act committed in this country was Air India decades ago. We have not seen an incident like that since. We need to look with a great deal of scrutiny at the types of powers that we are giving to the state. The symbol of Canada, really, I think to most people, is the rights of Canadians. That is the real symbol to Canadians. That is what Canadians hold most dear.

The debate that we are having today and that we should be having on any increased security is a matter of principle. That is what we talk about at second reading of bills in the House of Commons. We talk about the principles that we are acting on in this country. We speak about the reasons we do things. This is important. This brings out the debate for Canadians. Canadians have a right to hear the debate about security and the nature of security as it impacts on our rights as Canadians. They absolutely have a right to that debate, and we should have that debate today, because, of course, the subject is very topical with the incidents that have occurred in Parliament.

Why would we close this debate off when it is such an interesting and important one for Canadians? Why would we want to send the bill to committee immediately when we are are talking about the principles involved in the relationship between security and human rights? Why would we want to foreclose that debate? Why would Canadians not want to hear us talk about this in their House of Commons?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me remind my hon. colleague what I said in my very first speech in support of this bill in the House a few weeks ago. I said that we will never turn our backs on the fundamental Canadian values of respect for individual rights and the rule of law. While this bill gives our national security agencies some of the tools they need to protect Canada from terrorists, clause 7, on proposed subsection 18.1(4), of the legislation I introduced then ensures that the right to a fair trial is protected in all cases.

I invite my hon. colleague to take a look at proposed paragraphs 18.1(4)(a) and (b). There are also some provisions in the bill that go in exactly the same direction, suggesting that we clarify the role of our intelligence agencies while protecting the rights of Canadians. That is exactly what this bill would do. That is why the hon. member's party has indicated it is willing to support this bill. So is the second opposition party.

This is a great bill that would help improve the safety of Canadians while protecting their rights. That is why we need to have this debate. We need to send the bill to committee so that we can go more in depth and make this the law of the land.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak. We will take advantage of that while we can.

Even though the minister thinks that the committee is supreme, will he at least agree to televising the committee's meetings?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I believe that this NDP member has a great deal of respect for the power of committees and elected officials, and it is up to the committees to discuss this issue. I had the opportunity to do so when I was chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Now, I have the opportunity to invite my colleague to support this bill. It will ensure the safety and security of Canadians and is in keeping with our policy direction since the events of September 11, 2001, which made terrorism the greatest threat to the security of our country.

Thanks to CSIS and our police forces, we foiled terrorist plots in Canada, including the attacks of the Toronto 18, and the attacks on the British Columbia legislature and VIA Rail. We thwarted those attacks with the laws we put in place and those terrorists are facing charges. Some have been sent to jail because of the laws we instituted.

Therefore, it is important to debate bills, but it is also important to take action, especially when the terrorist threat is real and, unfortunately, has already created victims in our country. As parliamentarians we have the responsibility to act.

I have full confidence in the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and all its members, and I trust they will review this bill and bring it back to the House so that we can adopt it at third reading, send it to the Senate and make it a law that will protect Canadians.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the minister, I think there are a couple of things in his statement that may inadvertently mislead the public. One is that the government likes to talk about six hours of debate. How many people does that actually accommodate in the House of Commons? It is 16. Sixteen people means that about 5% of the members of the House of Commons have actually been able to debate the bill. Six hours sounds long until we actually look at the number of people participating.

The second way I think he might inadvertently mislead the public is the question of committees being the masters of their own houses. His parliamentary secretary came to the public safety committee on Bill C-2 the last time with very severe limits on the debate, limiting the opposition to four witnesses and actually limiting the time we could spend debating each clause of the bill to one and a half minutes per member. This was obviously a travesty of a debate in committee.

Again, I am asking the minister for a commitment from the government that it will not use its majority on the committee to restrict debate in the committee on this important bill.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I already answered my colleague's question. The committee is master of its own destiny, that much is clear.

I am not a member of that committee, but any time the committee so desires, I make an effort to take part. I had the opportunity to go to committee meetings and have productive discussions. That is what we did a few weeks ago, when the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service came to present a status update on the terrorist threat.

It is important to take a sensible and responsible approach. That is what we are being asked to do today by supporting this motion, so that this important bill, which has the approval of all the political parties in the House, may go to committee. Then we could debate it, do a clause-by-clause review, and bring it back to the House to enact it and give the country a new law.

Every parliamentarian was shaken by what happened on October 22. That is one of the reasons we have this opportunity to pass a well-constructed, balanced bill that will ensure the safety of Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #275

Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes today.

The House resumed from November 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Second Reading

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

It gives me great pleasure to stand today and speak to Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act. We have heard in these debates that this bill contains amendments to the CSIS Act and technical amendments to the Strengthening Canada's Citizenship Act. My remarks today will focus on the amendments to the CSIS Act and why we are taking steps to give this vital agency the tools it needs to conduct investigations out of Canada related to threats to the security of Canada.

First I would like to speak to the global terrorist threat, the impacts here at home, and the steps Canada is taking to address that threat.

Acts of terror and murder have been carried out across the globe by extremist groups that have no regard for the lives of innocent people. In fact, we have all witnessed in the past weeks that Canada was the victim of two terrorist attacks within the span of one week. Because of radical Islamist terrorism, we lost two fine soldiers: Corporal Nathan Cirillo and Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, who was laid to rest this past weekend.

Terrorists kill people from all walks of life, including people from communities they claim to represent. Significant work has been done over the past decade, in particular since September 11, 2001, to counter terrorist activities. Canada has been a leader in global counterterrorism efforts. We have citizens and civil society organizations representing people of all faiths and beliefs. They work among themselves and with our government to prevent terrorism by building stronger and more resilient communities. All of these measures were captured within the four pillars of Canada's counterterrorism strategy: prevent, detect, deny, and respond. That strategy will serve us well on the difficult road we face ahead as our Canadian Armed Forces engage in a campaign to degrade and destroy the threat that ISIL poses to western civilization.

Indeed, our security agencies have been monitoring groups like al Qaeda and ISIL closely for years. We have taken concrete measures to disrupt and prevent violent and extremist activities. This is a comprehensive approach. While we join our allies in air strikes, we are also taking other measures that are working to help isolate ISIL and deny it and its partners resources, including funds and new recruits.

Let me explain.

As we know, terrorists need money, media access, weapons, and explosives among their resources to sustain themselves. We want to make sure that all groups that would assist terrorist organizations are restricted from doing so. Preventing terrorists from using the global financial system to commit an act of terror is essential in helping to suppress these groups. Therefore, we have certain provisions under the Criminal Code that we can use to deal with the assets and the operations of groups that support terrorist activities. Listing these entities under the Criminal Code is a public means of identifying a group or an individual as being associated with terrorism, and listing carries significant consequences. Once listed, an entity's assets are frozen and may be subject to seizure, restraint, or forfeiture.

Further, it is an offence for Canadians at home or abroad to knowingly participate in or contribute to, directly or indirectly, any activities that facilitate the activities of a listed terrorist entity. We know that terrorist groups are inspiring westerners to take up arms in support of their cause. In order to reach the individuals and guard against these tactics, we work closely with diverse communities, including through cross-cultural round tables on security.

We are working with leaders in communities right across the country to help engage Canadians in a long-term dialogue on matters related to national security, particularly in countering violent extremism. Through the round table, we have reached out to hundreds of respected cultural and religious leaders who have their finger on the pulse of their communities. These leaders have been integral to helping law enforcement and security agencies to address threats and identify the best ways of reaching individuals who may be leaning toward violent behaviour and redirecting them from the paths of radicalization that lead to violence.

However, rapid changes in technology, ease of communications, and the mobility of terrorist travellers have created new and complex challenges for Canada and all our allies as we work to keep our citizens safe.

As in other countries, despite everyone's best efforts, a small but significant number of individuals have left Canada to join terrorist groups in the Middle East. Denying ISIL its new recruits also means using Canadian law to crack down on those so-called extremist travellers. We brought forward the Combating Terrorism Act to make it an offence to leave Canada to take part in terrorist activities, and laws are in place to revoke the passports of Canadians who travel abroad to join extremist groups.

Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness have stated clearly that our government will continue to look at ways to help our national security agencies to investigate and track the activities of terrorists at our borders and beyond. One of the ways to do this is with the legislation that is before us today, which would amend the existing CSIS Act so that we would be better able to provide CSIS with the tools it needs to investigate threats to the security of Canada wherever those threats occur and ultimately to protect the security of Canadians.

It is important to note that the CSIS Act was created three decades ago. It was the age of the rotary phone, when our world was under the shadow of the Cold War. The act is in need of updates and upgrades that would confirm the authority of CSIS to investigate Canadian extremists and other threats abroad. That is why I urge members to support the bill that is before them.

The protection of Canada from terrorists act would confirm that CSIS has the authority to operate outside of Canada when investigating threats to the security of Canada or when conducting investigations for the purpose of security assessment. It would confirm as well that the Federal Court has the authority to issue warrants authorizing CSIS to conduct activities outside of Canada without regard to the laws of the other states. This new legislation would also reinforce CSIS's statutory authority to investigate threats abroad and that when issuing a warrant, judges would only need to consider relevant Canadian law, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the CSIS Act, and not foreign laws.

Clearly there are a number of ways our government protects the safety and security of Canada against terrorism, but first we must be sure that we have the right tools in place for our security intelligence agencies to do so. There is no time to waste. We must amend the CSIS Act and allow this vital agency to continue its work.

I urge members in this House to join me in supporting this bill.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask my colleague opposite a question about Bill C-44, particularly since we just voted on the 81st gag order imposed by the Conservatives, which I find very sad for our democracy.

Let us come back to Bill C-44 and the proposals it contains. I had the opportunity to examine it in a bit more detail and to see what measures it contains. We still have a lot of questions about some extremely technical terms. What caught my attention about this bill is the fact that it is about the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and, although it is only four or five pages long, it is an omnibus bill. It is very disappointing that the Conservatives did this. Part of this bill deals with the Immigration Act and has nothing to do with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

I would like to know whether my colleague opposite would be prepared to divide the bill so that we can address only the aspects that deal with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and not those that deal with the Immigration Act.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously everything would be impacted by this act, including immigration. It is important that we integrate all of those things into this bill to make sure that we cover what is needed to prevent terrorist acts against Canada and Canadians throughout the globe.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague relates to the good work done by my colleague from Vancouver Quadra and her private member's bill.

This is a wonderful opportunity for the government to join the ranks of most industrialized countries and our Five Eyes partners, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. The government can pick up the import of the bill that my colleague from Vancouver Quadra is bringing forward and insert it into this bill or bring it forward as another legislative instrument. The government could thus set up an all-party parliamentary committee to oversee the work of CSIS.

This is the case with Capitol Hill in the United States, with Westminster in the U.K., and with all of our Five Eyes partners. Why is the government not taking advantage of the wonderful work in the member's bill to join the ranks of our partners and get this right?

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is quite a bit of oversight already for CSIS through the various committees, et cetera, that we have, so there is no need for creating a new system. In my personal opinion, I do not think we need to take up the member's colleague's input, mainly because we already have these things under control, and there is no need to do that.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am reflecting on my friend's previous comments because there have been a number of concerns over the lack of public oversight for CSIS, and these concerns come from the authorities that deal with Canada's spy agency.

I am not sure if my Conservative colleague across the way is suggesting that the public oversight is sufficient right now. The experts who have been dealing with CSIS and some of the audits of that very program by those in charge of its oversight have noted gaps in oversight in general.

My question to the member is very specific. This large and complicated bill represented an opportunity to ensure and restore the public's faith in our spy agencies and to enhance it by having better public oversight. I have an analogy for him that might work out in this case.

After a number incidents with the RCMP, a number of us had advocated for public oversight of that particular police force. There was a desire to have the public as the arbitrator of incidents in which there was violence or potential death involved in interactions with the RCMP.

There was resistance from the Conservatives at the time, to be fair, yet the public had moved to a place where that change was seen as a way to enhance our police system and to enhance public support for the police. If that was true and if it works with the RCMP and with the various provincial police forces, why would it not also be true for our national spy agency? Why would we not enhance public oversight, which is not properly done in this legislation?

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the best definition I have for an expert is a drip under pressure. I would be very interested to find out who these experts are that my colleague is talking about who are asking about these things.

Clearly, this bill is in place to protect Canadians and Canada for the future and for the long term. It is a fine bill that needs to be put through as soon as possible.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to speak to very timely and important legislation. The protection of Canada from terrorists act is a critical bill that would enable us to do what is fundamental for any government to do, and that is to protect its nation and citizens. That is why we are taking part in the coalition that is currently conducting air strikes against ISIL and supporting the security forces in Iraq in their fight against the terrorist scourge of ISIL.

However, not all terrorism occurs abroad. Indeed, the global terror threat hits close to home, especially for members of Parliament and those in Ottawa, as well as our Canadian Forces members in Quebec. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of Patrice Vincent and Nathan Cirillo. The families and friends of these Canadian heroes know painfully well that we face the very real threat of terror here at home.

As the Minister of Public Safety has stated, we will not overreact in response to recent terrorist attacks, but it is also important that we not under react to threats against us. We know we are not overreacting when just this past week a leader of ISIL called for “volcanoes of jihad” against Canada and our allies. We are taking these threats seriously and have joined our allies in actions that are degrading ISIL's capabilities.

As the Prime Minister stated last Friday, our military fight is with ISIL. Because of the real and present danger of ISIL, we have brought forward balanced and clear measures that would strengthen the tools available to the law enforcement community in areas of surveillance, detention and arrest.

The protection of Canada from terrorists act is the first reasonable step in our efforts to do that. We are working diligently to strengthen tools available to the law enforcement community.

Why is this necessary? Recent court decisions called into question the role of our law enforcement agencies and invited the government to respond. As reasonable and transparent legislators, we brought forward legislation that would clarify the roles and activities of our law enforcement agencies that track and monitor terrorists abroad. While opposition members will argue that it is not necessary, or complain that we are overreacting or overreaching, we know there is nothing more risky than losing track of terrorist threats. Once they are in the wind, or even back in Canada, we are at a greater risk.

Canadians can know this about our government. When law enforcement agencies require additional tools to keep Canadians safe from terror threats, we on this side of the House will respond. We will give them the tools they need. We will not apologize for it and we will not support doing nothing. We will not defend inaction with fancy language about privacy and claims that we should protect the privacy concerns of terrorists over the safety of our Canadian citizens.

Safety and privacy are not competing interests. Canadians know this. Without security, we would not have the privilege of privacy. Our government has confidence in our national security agencies. The men and women of our national security agencies are working overtime, and around the clock, to keep Canadians safe.

It is not only our security agencies that our protecting us here and abroad. On November 11, we commemorated the sacrifices of the many Canadian heroes who have fought to keep us safe for the freedoms we hold dear.

We live in a dangerous world. We are not immune to the threats that our allies face. For this reason, we continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies against the very real threat that ISIL poses. I am proud of the Canadian Forces for their concerted efforts to degrade ISIL and maintain the security of Canadians. I am thankful they are working diligently to eliminate these threats so Canadians at home and abroad are safe.

Our government remains focused on ensuring the safety and security of Canadians. The crucial role that our security and intelligence service plays in keeping Canadians safe cannot be overstated. We will continue to equip the brave men and women, who put their lives on the line to protect Canadians, with the tools they need to address terrorism in an increasingly dangerous global environment.

Another key piece of the protection of Canada from terrorists act is early implementation of the revocation of citizenship provision from those who are convicted of terrorism, spying or treason, found in the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act. We passed this legislation, which will strip the Canadian Citizenship from dual nationals who engage in acts of terrorism of fight against the Canadian Armed Forces, in order to protect Canadians. The Liberals and the NDP voted against the bill, and that is a shame.

We then passed the Combating Terrorism Act and introduced Canada's first counterterrorism strategy, a four-pronged approach to prevent, detect, deny resources and respond to terrorist activity and threats. This legislation has already led to criminal convictions. Again, the NDP opposed these common sense measures.

The new provisions in Bill C-44 would enable the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to revoke Canadian citizenship from dual citizens who are convicted of terrorism, high treason and treason or spying offences. This action would reinforce the high values of citizenship to ensure that dual citizens who had been convicted of terrorist acts would not continue to benefit from Canadian citizenship.

These measures demonstrate our Conservative government's continued commitment to do what is necessary, within the law, to prevent terrorists and violent extremists from carrying out vicious attacks against Canadians.

Bill C-44 is important because it is legislation that would provide the necessary tools for law enforcement to do the job it does now. a job it needs to do.

I cannot imagine being asked to come to Ottawa as a member of Parliament and not being afforded the tools to do that job effectively. My constituents would not be well-served if I were not given the tools to do the job.

In the same way, we know Canadians will be safer and more secure if law enforcement is able to do an effective job, and not just any job, the job of tracking terrorist threats, ensuring that witnesses are safe and ensuring that threats to Canada are not allowed free rein to strike fear in our communities.

As we continue to debate the legislation, I hope all members of the House will carefully consider this important legislation and will join me in supporting our law enforcement agencies and pass the protection of Canada from terrorists act.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's comments. As a former peace officer, I know he swore an oath which transcends his time as a peace officer to his time now, as an MP in the House, to uphold the rule of law. Therefore, I want to ask him a couple of questions about the rule of law and a couple of questions around what we heard from expert testimony from CSIS and the RCMP itself.

The deputy commissioner of CSIS came to committee and said that there was a large resource question problem, and that is the financing, the capacity to do the job that CSIS is being asked to do is compromised.

The experts from CSIS and the RCMP combined also testified that although the government brought in the Combating Terrorism Act in 2013, which amended the Criminal Code, 80 Canadians had gone abroad and had participated in terrorist activities on foreign soil, and not a single Canadian of those 80 had been prosecuted.

When the member talks about upholding the rule of law, when he talks about ensuring we come to Ottawa to give our security forces and agencies the powers and the resources they need, why is the government fixated on getting additional powers when the front-line practitioners in our intelligence services and agencies are telling us it is not so much power as it is money and resources to do the job?

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr Speaker, one thing I want to point out for my colleague is that since 2006, we have increased the budget of the RCMP and CSIS by one-third.

I also want to make one thing very clear. As a former member of the RCMP, I did take an oath. The oath was to keep the peace and protect Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Going back to my RCMP days, there was an an unfortunate incident in which three of my members were shot, two passed away. I remember that to this day.

The legislation before us, which would protect Canadians and give CSIS the additional powers in the toolbox that it it needs to do its job, makes sense. A loss of any Canadian in Canada due to a terrorist extremist threat cannot be underestimated. They are there. It does not matter where they are. They could be next door to my colleague. We do not know. That is why we have to give the powers to CSIS.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the question is not directly related to this bill, but it still pertains to public safety.

Following the events that occurred in October, we all agreed to review how our security system works and look at how we can address radicalization in Canada. That is extremely important.

I am pleased to see that Bill C-44 has been introduced and to be able to examine it in committee. However, I do not think that providing tools is the only solution in this case.

The Conservative government has made over $690 million in cuts to public safety since 2012. The Canada Border Services Agency and other organizations lost front-line jobs. The RCMP had to deal with drastic cuts and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service experienced cuts as well. These front-line workers who exchanged information with our international allies lost their jobs. It is therefore extremely difficult to act under such circumstances.

It is all well and good to give tools to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. However, could my colleague tell me whether the Conservative government also intends to give our law enforcement agencies the resources they need to properly enforce the law?

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague indicated that there were no problems with the bill. Then why not support it? You stood up in the House and said that there were no problems with the legislation. Then you turned around and said—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. I would ask the member to direct his comments to the Chair rather than directly to his colleague.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I am very passionate about the RCMP. I come from that background and I take offence when I hear about cost reductions.

It is ironic that my colleague mentioned underfunding. Our government has increased funding by one-third, and that is about $700 million more than when the Liberals were in power. We are looking at and studying the backroom. There is a high level of officers in the higher ranks of the RCMP. We are trying to get grassroots police officers and investigators on the streets. We are trying to give Canadians, from coast to coast to coast, the protection they deserve.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that I will share my time with my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. As a gentleman, I would normally say that I am pleased to share my time with the member, but this morning I am holding back a bit. It is not because I do not want to hear from the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, but this morning, for the 81st time in this 41st Parliament, the members of the House are being forced to share their time if they want a chance—and not everyone will have a chance—to share a comment, thought or opinion about a bill as important as the one we are currently studying, Bill C-44. This is a serious breach of our democratic rules.

Time allocation motions should be used in exceptional circumstances, but they have become the norm here. I wanted to take a few moments to protest this, knowing full well that this would cut into my time to speak to the substance of Bill C-44, but also that I have far too little time to really cover the issue. Even if we were to add up all of the speeches made by my colleagues in the House, we would never manage to fully address the issue, in light of this government's narrow-mindedness.

First of all, I will say that I will vote in favour of this bill at second reading. There are enough elements in this bill that are worthy of consideration and discussion in the committee that handles these issues. This committee has the necessary expertise and will, I hope, hear from relevant witnesses who are much more qualified than yours truly, and who can perhaps bring a different perspective than my own, which is to reflect the vision of my riding—the mandate that we all have as members of Parliament.

Nevertheless, I do want to point out that I have some concerns, as big as this House, that the committee could also end up under a gag order, as have many others. We do not even have any assurance that the debates will be public; however, if there is one topic that it of interest to the general public, it is public safety and civil liberties in this country.

It is quite ironic to have this 81st time allocation motion on a bill as fundamental as this one.

Furthermore, we must be able to make some amendments in order to highlight the fact that what we are looking for in the bill, which I do not think is present at this time, is not some sort of balance or acceptable compromise between public safety, or what we need to put in place to guarantee it, and civil liberties. Our thinking is not focused on compromise. Rather, our thinking is more about seeing how we can do more to defend and protect the rights of all Canadians, as well as to ensure their safety, since it is the government's duty to do so.

Furthermore, the tragic events that occurred right here and in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu sharply frame the debate on public safety and civil liberties. However, as tragic as those events were, they should not be an excuse to rush the discussion that we need to have on how to respond to them. Haste is rarely a wise advisor in these matters.

In these matters, as in many other areas, the devil is often in the details, and we have a duty to make sure that the measures we want to put in place are relevant and effective. The repercussions that our decisions will have on the public safety and civil liberties of Canadians are far too important for us to rush this kind of bill through. Is it not true that enlightenment comes when ideas collide? For heaven's sake, let us take the time we need to look into, understand and analyze every aspect of this bill in light of the expertise shared by the many competent stakeholders in the field.

For the benefit of those who watch our debates and are concerned about the very nature of Bill C-44, I will provide a summary of the measures it includes. This bill was described to us this morning as being relatively simple because it has only four pages, as though the number of pages had anything to do with the complexity of the issues we have to debate.

The first element of Bill C-44 provides a legal framework to the intelligence operations conducted by CSIS abroad. As such, CSIS' activities will no longer be limited by national concerns. Second, under this bill, the Federal Court could henceforth provide CSIS with warrants that have effect outside Canada.

Third, Bill C-44 guarantees the protection of human sources who provide intelligence to CSIS in the context of legal proceedings. Finally, the fourth element speeds up the process for revoking the citizenship of those individuals who have dual citizenship and whose activities are linked to terrorism or any other serious offence. That is probably the element that bothers me the most because I wonder how it is relevant to this bill.

I have a funny feeling that the Conservative government has managed to recreate in this four-page bill, its legendary approach, namely to introduce omnibus bills that combine as many issues as possible. I think the issue of citizenship should be dealt with differently. Will this mean that the status of a Canadian citizen by birth will be different from that of a person who became a Canadian citizen through immigration?

I spent years trying to make my students understand that there is just one Canadian citizenship status. Today, the government is opening the door to a shift in perspective that would now distinguish between Canadians from here and those who came from elsewhere. It is hard to create a perfectly cohesive society or one that strives for cohesion, with comments like that. This simple clause makes me shudder and deserves in-depth discussions backed by expertise and not ideology.

Mr. Speaker, you are already motioning that my time is drawing to an end. I will therefore comply with your instructions as the timekeeper and moderator of our debates, but I think that you are once again proving that we do not have enough time in the House to clearly express our ideas. Therefore, I will skip several pages and get to my conclusion and some things that I believe to be of even greater importance.

A broad coalition of stakeholders support our position, which is that both the powers of CSIS and civilian oversight should be enhanced. The two must go hand in hand. I would not say that they must work in parallel, because then they would not talk to one another, which is an all too frequent problem. For example, both the Privacy Commissioner and the Information Commissioner recognized that security and civil liberties requirements are inextricably linked.

Mr. Speaker, as long as I can see the fingers on your hand indicating that I have some time left, I have hope. As they are disappearing at a furious rate, I will summarize my initial position with the following comments.

I said initial position on purpose because it will change as a result of meetings and discussions. I hope that we will all be open-minded so that we can find the best idea and not try to prove that our idea is the best, which unfortunately is all too often the case in Parliament. I hope that in the end, Bill C-44 will truly be Parliament's bill and not just the government's bill.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my colleague's speech, he referenced the fact that, once again, we are debating this particular bill under time allocation. An Inter-Parliamentary Union document put out celebrating the International Day of Democracy says:

The test of courage comes when we are in the minority. The test of tolerance comes when we are in the majority.

It goes on to say that political tolerance implies freedom of expression, open dialogue and a diversity of views. It also indicates that the rights of the opposition include:

[The] Right to contribute to the legislative process, such as the right to submit bills and amendments, and to put questions to members of government.

I wonder if the member could comment on how important this bill is and that we as parliamentarians representing Canadians from coast to coast to coast have the right to speak in the House of Commons to this very important matter.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.

Of course that is a fundamental right, and I am having a hard time understanding. The next election is just around the corner, and I hope that a majority of Canadians will understand and recognize the skills and experience of the member for Outremont, who would be the best prime minister. I find it hard to imagine how, under Conservative ideology, we would bring in 30 new MPs, congratulate them on being elected and tell them that they are now the proud representatives of the people who elected them and that now they should sit down and shut up.

That is exactly what is going on in this Parliament. When they use closure for the 81st time and when they make committees sit behind closed doors and refuse to televise the meetings, what are they telling the people's representatives in the House if not to shut up? This is a clear perversion of democracy that we have to fight with all our strength. I hope people will hear this message. Maybe Bill C-44 will be the first bill to earn unanimous consent because it is off to a good start now that there is consensus at second reading to send it to committee.

Why not ensure that at the end of the day, Parliament will unanimously pass this bill? It might take a bit longer, but it will send a message to Canadians that their democracy is working.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for my colleague. It is essentially the same question I asked the government.

We heard expert testimony from the heads of SIRC and the RCMP. In committee, they explained that this was not about getting additional powers. They are not asking for these so-called additional powers. They need resources to implement and oversee the existing measures in the Criminal Code of Canada, for example.

I have a question for my colleague. He will recall that since the government came to power, it has spent more than $600 million to advertise its economic action plan. Meanwhile, our security and intelligence agencies are telling parliamentarians in committee that they need additional resources to do their jobs.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for the context.

If I had more time, I would go into all of this government's expenses that I would call inappropriate. Governing a country involves making choices. For a government, as with personal finances, the main obstacle to pursuing dreams and plans is the availability of funds. Good managers are those who are capable of making good choices.

When it comes to public safety and civil liberties, many things are already possible under the existing legal framework. However, it is difficult to do anything if the resources are not there. As my father would always say, if you do not walk the talk, nothing will get done.

A study needs to be done about the funding that is available so that the agencies already on the ground can do their job effectively before they are given new tools, which will probably not be properly funded either.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-44, an act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other acts. It is important to note that, unfortunately, the government just limited the time we will have in the House to discuss this huge bill that will have a rather serious impact on Canada's oversight bodies. The government decided to gag the House. The House adopted a government motion to limit the time for debate on Bill C-44. It is very disappointing. That move limits parliamentarians' ability to do their job in the House and properly debate Bill C-44, a huge bill that proposes some fairly significant changes to CSIS.

I hope that this bill will be examined in depth in committee. That is very important since fairly major amendments need to be made to this bill. Basically, the bill increases the authority of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service or CSIS and makes three significant changes. First, the bill clarifies the legal authority of CSIS to conduct security intelligence operations abroad in response to threats to the security of Canada. Second, it confirms the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to issue warrants that have effect outside Canada. Third, it protects the identity of CSIS human intelligence sources in judicial proceedings.

It is also important to mention that Bill C-44 amends the Citizenship Act by fast-tracking the revocation of Canadian citizenship in the case of dual citizens who are linked to terrorist activities and other serious offences.

There are three very important elements to underscore in this debate. Any legislative measure passed by the House aimed at dealing with threats to the security of Canada must reflect three principles. It must provide for greater civilian oversight, the protection of civil liberties and appropriate resources. Any bill passed by this government must take those three criteria into account. First of all, greater civilian oversight is crucial if we want to give CSIS new powers. Many stakeholders have expressed concerns about this. As we know, the Security Intelligence Review Committee does not have the necessary powers for proper oversight of CSIS. In addition, as they have been known to do, the Conservatives used an omnibus bill, the 2012 budget bill, to eliminate the position of inspector general of CSIS.

The fact that CSIS lacks civilian oversight was raised at the time of the Maher Arar affair. In 2006, the commission of inquiry on the Maher Arar case made some recommendations. One of the recommendations called for new accountability measures for Canada's intelligence agencies. Eight years have passed since Justice O'Connor made those recommendations. The government still has not implemented them.

Although the Conservative government introduced this bill, which makes huge changes to the powers of CSIS, it did not do its homework. It did not consult the experts or take seriously the recommendations of the Arar commission, which date back to 2006.

It is not just this commission that called for more civilian oversight. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada and the Commissioner of the Environment, two officers of Parliament, called on the federal government to ensure that effective oversight was included in any legislative measure that would grant new powers to CSIS and law enforcement agencies. Unfortunately, we see nothing in Bill C-44 in response to this call for increased civilian oversight of CSIS.

It is crucial and non-negotiable that greater oversight go along with any new powers granted to CSIS. As several of my colleagues mentioned, the oversight is inadequate.

The Security Intelligence Review Committee is the oversight body for CSIS. For the Canadians who are watching, the members of this committee work part time, are unelected and are appointed by the Prime Minister. Two of the five seats on this committee have been vacant for months, and it seems that the Conservatives are dragging their feet on filling these positions.

In addition, SIRC merely has an interim chair, Deborah Grey, who used to be a Reform MP. This committee does not have enough members; only three of the five seats are currently filled. That is inadequate for oversight of CSIS.

In the 2012 budget—another omnibus budget with dozens of pages—the Conservatives eliminated the position of inspector general of CSIS. The inspector general was in charge of internal oversight, ensuring that the service's activities complied with the law. We can all agree that it is a very important role. Since 2012, however, the inspector general's responsibilities have been transferred to SIRC, the committee I just spoke about that functions on a part-time basis and is lacking resources.

I would like to quickly speak about the two other principles that I mentioned. As I said, three principles must be taken into consideration each time we study a bill concerning Canada's security.

I already spoke about greater oversight, but we also need to protect our civil liberties. When I spoke to my constituents in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, they repeatedly said that we need to ensure that Canadians are safe, but at the same time, we need to protect civil liberties. That is crucial because protecting civil liberties and ensuring public safety are both fundamental Canadian values that are non-negotiable. We want legislation that strengthens our civil liberties, and this bill does not clearly do that.

What is more, every measure or bill that is designed to improve security must be coupled with the appropriate resources.

The government can give CSIS more power, but if the organization does not have the resources needed to get the job done, we are no safer. The Conservatives have cut funding to our public safety organizations for three consecutive years, for a total of $687.9 million in cuts by 2015. That concerns me. This bill must be coupled with the necessary financial resources.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for that speech.

I want to speak just a moment about the CSIS Act. It was first passed into legislation back in 1984, which was 30 years ago. The things CSIS has been doing, obviously, operating overseas, tracking terrorism, protecting its human sources, are all things that have recently been called into question by court decisions.

The purpose of the legislation before us is to bring further clarity to the act to ensure that CSIS could continue operating as it has always done. I wonder why the member assumes that is not the case.

The legislation is very clear and to the point. It hits a number of issues regarding protecting human sources and the ability of CSIS to operate overseas. I wonder why the member thinks CSIS should not be able to continue operating as it always has been.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I get the feeling that the member opposite did not really listen to my speech.

I am proud to say that I will vote in favour of the bill at second reading because it should go to committee. Committee members should also study the opposition parties' proposals, including the NDP's. I will vote in favour of this bill because it contains important measures.

However, there are many flaws in the bill. The Conservative government made a mess of this because the bill does not provide for increased civilian oversight, which the 2006 commission of inquiry into the Maher Arar case recommended. The Conservative government needs to do its homework.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment further on something I mentioned a few minutes ago. This bill does not address concerns about national security related to the events in Quebec City and Ottawa earlier this month. That is for sure.

First, can my colleague tell us what she thinks of that? The government needs to explain why existing legislation, particularly the Criminal Code, was not used against individuals who pose a threat to our country. We heard about how 80 Canadians were involved in terrorist activities abroad. Even so, not a single Canadian has been charged in relation to that.

Second, can my colleague help us understand why the bill authorizes judges to issue warrants to CSIS regardless of any other laws in effect, specifically laws in foreign countries? That is an absolutely enormous power.

Can she tell us what she thinks of these two troubling measures?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments.

However, I hesitate to make the same connection he did between this bill and the events that occurred in Parliament on October 22. We know that it takes the government months to prepare its bills and that this bill was in progress well before those events occurred.

Despite what happened a few weeks ago, we still need to take a sensible approach that protects our civil liberties. That is what is missing from this bill.

I did not really have time in my speech to talk about the fact that CSIS lacks resources, so I would simply like to quote Jeff Yaworski, who appeared before a Senate committee on Monday, October 20. He is the assistant director of operations at CSIS. Mr. Yaworski indicated that CSIS does not have the resources needed to do its job. In fact, we know that $24.5 million in cuts have been made to the agency.

It is therefore all well and good to give CSIS more powers, but the Conservative government is refusing to give CSIS the resources it needs to do its job properly. That is very disappointing.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member from Don Valley West.

I am honoured to be here today to speak in support of the protection of Canada from terrorists act.

We all know that the work we are doing here is extremely important. There has been much discussion about balancing the tools the security agencies need with broader privacy concerns. I completely agree with that position. We must not overreact to horrific attacks, such as those that occurred on October 20 and October 22, but it is also time that we as Canadians stop under-reacting to the very real threat of terrorism.

The bill before us today strikes an appropriate balance. All the measures put forward in this bill are common-sense tools that would enable the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, otherwise known as CSIS, to continue keeping us safe without infringing on any of the freedoms that make this country great. To highlight this fact, I would like to discuss the three core elements of the proposal before us.

First, this bill makes minor adjustments to the CSIS Act to provide anonymity for CSIS human sources. It would confirm CSIS's mandate to investigate threats to Canada both at home and abroad and would provide anonymity to CSIS employees who may engage in covert activities.

Protecting the identity of human sources clarifies what has been an operational assumption for many years. Earlier this year the courts ruled that because this power was not legislated within the act, CSIS sources did not have that anonymity. This was a surprise to our national security agencies, and to probably many of us in the House, given that police informants have this type of protection. It is common sense that an informant for CSIS should be afforded the same protections under the law as an informant for the RCMP. This amendment would be invaluable for the brave men and women at CSIS in their work keeping all Canadians safe. We know that human sources are instrumental in CSIS's intelligence-gathering activities. Protecting their identity in court would facilitate prosecutions, future operations, and the recruitment of sources.

To illustrate the necessity of this measure, let us discuss a hypothetical example. Let us say that an individual becomes aware of a radicalized person or people within their social circle who the individual believes may be planning a terrorist attack on Canadians. Let us say that this person does the right thing and informs authorities about these individuals. Then suppose CSIS establishes a relationship with this person, who agrees to become a human source for the service to protect Canada and our citizens. Again, for the sake of this argument, let us assume that this source begins informing on not just one but on 10 suspected terrorists, if there are more players involved. Let us imagine that one of these 10 targets tells this source that he or she plans to commit an act of terror in the immediate future. In a world where CSIS can protect its source's identity, the next step in this case becomes very simple. CSIS would inform the RCMP of the imminent threat, and the RCMP would leverage the human source's information, along with other available evidence, to lay charges against the terrorist or suspected terrorist. The human source would then continue to gather evidence on the other nine individuals.

Now let us consider the decision-making process if CSIS cannot protect the identity of that human source. First, disclosing the source's identity in court would put that person at risk of retribution from the associates related to that one individual. Second, CSIS would lose the source's future value against the other nine individuals under investigation.

Our intelligence authorities cannot control the rate at which investigations proceed. It may very well be the case that the threat posed by the group of nine individuals is greater than the immediate threat posed by the lone wolf. However, if they do not have enough information to prosecute all 10, the service must make a choice: leverage a human source's information to arrest one individual who may pose an immediate threat, or wait and continue investigating a potentially larger and greater threat to Canada.

I do not think CSIS should be asked to make that choice, and I do not think Canadians across this country would expect it to. That is why I support this common-sense reform. Furthermore, I do not believe that this infringes on privacy rights or the right to a fair trial, as a judge may force the crown to disclose a source's identity if this is crucial to proving the innocence of the accused.

The other issues in this bill are, I would argue, also easy decisions. There are several proposed amendments that confirm CSIS's ability to operate abroad. This merely provides clarity in law to support CSIS's presence abroad. This is both timely and appropriate, as we know that there are individuals outside of Canada's borders who seek to do us harm here in Canada.

The terrorist threat knows no borders. We should not make our security agencies fight this threat with one hand tied behind their backs, let alone two. I am supportive of allowing CSIS to pursue warrants against Canadians abroad. This measure is particularly timely given that we know that approximately 145 Canadians have travelled abroad for terrorist purposes. CSIS should have the ability to seek warrants against these individuals and to monitor them, regardless of where their location might be. This is an important operational tool that we can provide to CSIS without hindering an individual's privacy, as CSIS will still require a warrant from a judge to use intrusive investigative techniques. I just want to reinforce that: CSIS would need a warrant from a judge.

Finally, this bill would provide anonymity to all CSIS employees who may become engaged in covert activities. Currently only CSIS employees who are engaged in covert activities are afforded anonymity before the courts. CSIS analysts and trainees are not protected and could have their identities disclosed in open court. One can imagine that this would jeopardize its employees' utility in future operations.

Providing anonymity to employees of an intelligence agency makes all the sense in the world. I do not believe for a single minute that this measure would impact the privacy rights of Canadians.

All the measures proposed in this legislation would enhance CSIS's ability to do its job effectively and efficiently. These are key to enabling CSIS to protect Canadians from those who seek to do us harm, whether it is here in Canada or abroad.

I am proud that our Conservative government has brought forward common-sense reforms while respecting the rights and freedoms that make this country so great. I encourage all members of the House to support this common-sense legislation.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the parliamentary secretary's speech on this legislation.

We on this side of the House have said that we support the bill in principle, but we have concerns about the details in the bill, in particular its granting of additional powers to CSIS without strengthening accountability measures.

My question to the parliamentary secretary goes along with the question I asked the minister earlier. Since we are under time allocation, and the minister has said that the committee is the proper place to deal with our concerns, will the parliamentary secretary commit now to allowing the committee to have a full range of witnesses appear and a full debate of possible amendments to the bill?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister answered that question clearly in the House earlier today. Committee business is done in committee. This is certainly not the public safety committee. That will be a decision made by members of that committee.

It is interesting to note that the NDP member opposite indicated that his party will be supporting this legislation going to committee. As in the past, that is the pattern of what the NDP does. Those members support sending bills to committee, and then when the bills come back, they vote against them.

This is a common-sense bill. It would not give CSIS any more powers than any other law enforcement agency across this country has. It would ensure that CSIS has the ability to continue to operate abroad, to track terrorists to keep Canadians safe, and to ensure that its human sources, or informants, have protection under the law, as do other law enforcement informants.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary may describe this as a common-sense bill, but what the government has missed here is a common-sense opportunity to improve the overall situation in Canada with respect to our intelligence and security agencies.

First, the government still has not explained why it refuses to join its partners under the Five Eyes structure. That is, why is it not joining the U.S., Britain, Australia, and New Zealand in ensuring that there is a parliamentary committee of all parties, parliamentarians together, to oversee the important work of CSIS? That is an outstanding question. The government has an opportunity to improve the situation, but it seems to be refusing to.

Second, we heard from CSIS at committee that the biggest problem it is facing right now is resources, not additional legal powers. It did not come to committee saying that it needs these precise powers. It is true we have had a series of judicial rulings, but CSIS said it needs resources.

We need to remind Canadians of two things. While the government says it has increased the budget for CSIS and the RCMP, it is not telling Canadians that it spent over $600 million in advertising and over $600 million in outside legal fees, this despite the fact that Justice Canada has 2,500 lawyers on staff.

Could the parliamentary secretary help us understand why the government is not meeting the real needs of our intelligence and security agencies on the resourcing side while speaking constantly about the need to give new powers to these agencies?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, this government is doing what the previous Liberal Party, when in office, could not do. We have increased the budgets and funding for both the RCMP and CSIS. In fact, since the Conservatives came to office, we have increased funding for the RCMP by $700 million and CSIS by $200 million. This is above and beyond what the Liberals did in the last year they were in office.

When the member talked about our partners in the Five Eyes, he listed several countries. First of all, Canada is not one of the other countries. This is Canada. I wish that member, when comparing us with other countries such as our partners, New Zealand, Australia, Britain, and the United States, had considered the same argument when he stood in the House and voted against standing shoulder-to-shoulder in our fight against global terrorism.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand in this place and offer my support for Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act. Over the past few months, Canadians have been rightly outraged by the atrocities committed by ISIL. Its barbarism cannot and should not be ignored. To do so would be to leave a ticking bomb with a lit fuse, one that stretches from Iraq to our shores.

We saw this on October 20 and October 22, when two Canadian Armed Forces soldiers were killed in cold blood. The terrorists responsible for these atrocities did so in a planned and calculated way in an attempt to intimidate Canadians into bowing to the terrorist caliphate known as the Islamic State. This is the very definition of terrorism. The President of France, the U.S. Secretary of State and most importantly, the Commissioner of the RCMP, have all confirmed this point.

We must at all costs degrade and destroy the threat posed by ISIL. That is why our government joined our allies to defuse the threat of ISIL at the source. However, military action is only one element of our response to terrorism. The other is gathering intelligence to confront the diverse array of threats to our security. That is easier said than done. The landscape for intelligence work is rapidly evolving and we need to ensure that our security and intelligence agencies have the tools they need to keep Canadians safe and secure.

The world of terrorism has changed dramatically since the 1980s. The CSIS Act, which today's legislation seeks to modernize, was originally written in the era of the Cold War and the rotary telephone. Violent extremism has taken new forms and the threats to Canadians are both more numerous and more sophisticated.

The 2014 public report on the terrorist threat to Canada identified more than 130 individuals with Canadian connections who were abroad and suspected of supporting terror-related activities. As we heard recently from CSIS, this number includes some 50 individuals who are known to be working directly with ISIL and other extremist groups in the region. These extremist travellers pose a threat both to people in foreign countries and to the citizens of Canada. We must stop them from inflicting harm on others. That is exactly what we are doing with the legislation before us today.

We know that we must approach the threat of terrorism and extremist travellers from many angles. This means bringing into force on an earlier timeline the new citizenship revocation provisions that help protect the safety and security of Canadians and safeguard the strong values associated with Canadian citizenship.

That is the goal of the first part of the protection of Canada from terrorists act. We are proposing technical amendments to the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, which received royal assent on June 19, 2014. These amendments will allow for earlier implementation of provisions related to revocation of Canadian citizenship.

These provisions include expanded grounds for revocation of citizenship and a more streamlined decision-making process to allow the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to make revocation decisions depending on the grounds. Our government firmly believes that we must move quickly to implement provisions that permit the revocation of Canadian citizenship from those radicalized individuals who are convicted of an act of terrorism or who travel overseas to engage in armed conflict with Canada.

We will not hesitate to do what is necessary to protect our country and other innocent citizens of the world who may fall victim to acts of terrorism overseas. Revocation is an important tool to safeguard our strong Canadian values and the integrity of our citizenship program. While we have strengthened our citizenship laws, we know that there are already individuals who have left Canada to join extremist groups and that we must ensure that we can track and intercept those individuals before they commit acts of terrorism.

With the second part of this legislation, we will work to do just that. The proposed amendments to the CSIS Act will add another tool to our counter-terrorism toolbox.

CSIS is a highly professional organization that has succeeded in adapting its tactics and tools to keep up with the ever-changing environment. However, the time has come to amend its governing legislation, the CSIS Act. In doing so, we can ensure that CSIS is well positioned to take reasonable and necessary measures to investigate threats to the security of Canada, wherever they may occur. Reasonable people can agree that CSIS must have this ability. Threats to the security of Canada are more global and complex than they were when the CSIS Act came into force.

Allow me to highlight the major amendments proposed by this legislation. The first major amendment is to confirm CSIS' authority to conduct investigations outside of Canada related to threats to the security of Canada and security assessments. CSIS has always had the authority to undertake investigative activities outside of Canada. However, this authority is not as clearly stated in the CSIS Act as it needs to be. It is important that Parliament provide clarity on this matter. This is a limited and focused amendment, one that merely confirms CSIS' existing authority and makes it even more explicit in law. We cannot afford to leave any gray areas with respect to the scope of CSIS' mandate.

Equally important, we need to clarify the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to issue warrants authorizing CSIS to undertake certain intrusive activities outside of Canada. To enable CSIS to properly investigate threats outside of Canada, the proposed amendments would clarify that the Federal Court need only consider the CSIS Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when determining whether a warrant is required.

A third major amendment concerns the protection of sources. Common law has long afforded protections for the identity of police informants. Without such protection, witnesses may be reluctant to come forward and criminals may not be prosecuted. The stakes are just as high when it comes to threats to Canada's national security. Through the information of human sources, CSIS may be able to help thwart an attack on Canadians and Canadian interests. Obviously the ability to recruit human sources depends on their confidence that their identity will in fact be protected.

Some hon. members may be surprised to learn that the current CSIS Act does not explicitly protect the identity of intelligence sources during court proceedings. This bill would fill that gap. This protection will of course be consistent with Canadian values of the protection of individual rights and the rule of law. If the information is required in a criminal proceeding to demonstrate the innocence of the accused, the protection can be overturned.

The CSIS Act also has shortcomings that must be addressed with respect to protecting the identity of CSIS employees. Currently, it is an indictable offence to reveal the identity of a CSIS employee who is or has been involved in covert operations. However, the existing legislation does not protect those employees who are not yet but may be engaged in covert activity in the future. Another amendment addresses this oversight. In this way, CSIS employees who are training to become covert officers can be assured that their identity will be protected.

In summary, the amendments proposed today would allow for earlier implementation of citizenship revocation provisions, protect Canadians and other innocent citizens from the acts of violence carried out by extremist travellers, and give our intelligence service more effective tools and clearer authorities to fight violent extremism, including violence perpetrated by Canadians themselves.

I urge all hon. members to join me today in supporting the protection of Canada from terrorists act.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier when I asked one of the Conservative members a question, Bill C-44 is an omnibus bill. In their speeches, members on the other side of the House are talking a lot about the fact that this bill affects the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, but that is not all that it does.

At the end of the bill, there is a provision regarding the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that has nothing to do with the rest of the bill. That provision moves up the coming into force date of a bill the Conservatives passed a few months ago that makes changes to the immigration system. It has nothing to do with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

Perhaps my colleague can provide a better answer to my question than his predecessor. I would like to know whether he is prepared to divide the bill in two in order to ensure that we are talking only about the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and that we are working on this issue, which is extremely important, particularly given the events that occurred in October. Canadians deserve to know what the government wants to do about this.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians from coast to coast to coast will agree that we are in changing times. We are under threats from global terrorism and we must adapt with legislation and momentum that will give Canadians comfort that their security is seen as paramount by the House.

This bill would do just that. It would bring current the CSIS Act, which I spoke to at length, filling gaps where there need to be protections afforded to CSIS employees and their informants, et cetera, thereby giving our officers and security forces the comfort and the ability to do what is necessary to protect Canadians.

The member opposite brought up the question of the immigration act and the ongoing reformation of that act. Clearly, I believe that the parts of that act that are incorporated into this bill merely bring common-sense timing into place to ensure that the respective acts are aligned so that Canadians can have the comfort that, whether it is a citizenship issue covered under that act or the CSIS portion under that act, the provisions are aligned and would work together to the betterment of Canadian security.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member says that this bill would fill gaps. Let us talk about a few of those gaps.

The first gap is this. Why is the government not ensuring that Canada join its four partners under the Five Eyes structure to ensure that we have proper parliamentary oversight over CSIS? That is one question.

The second question is this. Given the legislation that is already on the books, for example, the Criminal Code and the amendments made to it by the government under the Combating Terrorism Act, the government has to explain why so many of these existing provisions of the Criminal Code have not been used in response to those who represent a threat to this country, and explain whether it was actually informed of this problem by our security agencies.

Here is yet another gap. We know that as recently as October 15, the Conservative government failed to implement provisions of the 2011 border security agreement with the U.S. on information sharing with respect to the travel of potential terrorists. It is troubling to hear the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Prime Minister talk about new legislation and new powers when the government has not complied with the international agreements it has already signed, in this case on the international movement of those suspected of being associated with terrorist entities.

If we are to talk about filling gaps, can the government provide answers to those three simple questions?

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the member opposite's questions asked several times today. Clearly, I thought they had been well answered on all counts.

Most importantly, Canada is a sovereign nation. We determine our own future. We have oversight that is adequate, professional, and committed to ensuring that CSIS meets its objectives. In that oversight, we should be more than comfortable as Canadians that our oversight body is getting the job done to ensure that CSIS meets its objectives.

As far as working with other countries is concerned, all countries work together as allies in some form or another, but this country will determine its own direction. It is only right that as Canadians we would want to see that maintained and that Canada maintains its control over its own security direction in the future.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, I would like to let the chamber know that we have surpassed the five-hour limit for the debate on this motion since the first round of speeches on the question. Consequently, we are now at the spot where each of the following interventions will be limited to the 10-minute speech, and then the 5-minute period for questions and comments.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House of Commons to speak to this bill. As my colleagues before me have already indicated, the NDP plans to vote in favour of this bill.

However, I am very disappointed that we are debating this bill under a time allocation motion. This is the 81st time that a gag order has been imposed on debate on a bill, even though this is a very important bill that deals with security and gives CSIS greater powers. It is therefore very important that we have an extensive debate on this, but a time allocation motion was adopted this morning. This is very frustrating. I think this may even be a record, for I cannot remember any other government having imposed as many gag orders in such a short time.

The bill before us, Bill C-44, makes three important changes regarding CSIS. The first change is that it clarifies the legal authority of CSIS to conduct security intelligence operations abroad in response to threats to the security of Canada. It also confirms the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to issue warrants that have effect outside Canada, and it protects the identify of CSIS human intelligence sources in judicial proceedings.

I think it is very important to talk about a number of cases that were brought before the Supreme Court, where warrants were issued that did not expand CSIS' capacity to spy or conduct national security related activities in other countries. A number of Supreme Court and Federal Court rulings raised that matter.

The amendments being presented are quite interesting. However, it is important to note that we are effectively telling CSIS that it can increase its co-operation activities in the Five Eyes community. I am not sure what the French term is for Five Eyes. We usually use the English term. We are allowing CSIS to seek warrants for this purpose. This process was clarified to some extent to respond to the legal void raised by the Supreme Court.

We are in the process of increasing CSIS' powers, but this bill completely misses the boat on strengthening oversight of CSIS' operations. This bill could have included better protections and better oversight, such as civilian oversight. Many people made requests to that effect. As far as oversight is concerned, we currently have the Security Intelligence Review Committee. This committee only meets part time and is made up of un-elected individuals appointed by the Prime Minister. At this time, there is an acting chair. There is no official committee chair. What is more, two out of the five seats on the committee are vacant. In other words, we have a group of three, un-elected, appointed people who are assuring us that everything is fine. I think that Canadians expect better than that, and rightly so, because this is totally inadequate.

We hear all kinds of stories about abuses. We want to ensure that their operations are justified. Of course, much of what they do is secret. Clearly, we cannot give away national secrets or jeopardize national security. We are well aware of that, but there are ways to put legitimate oversight systems in place in order to ensure that there are no abuses and that all operations comply with Canadian law. There is absolutely nothing about that in the bill. For years, both the opposition and the community at large have been calling on the government to increase oversight of CSIS operations.

For example, during the Maher Arar inquiry, recommendations were made for improving accountability at CSIS. However, eight years later—that was in 2006—nothing has been done.

As well, the Privacy Commissioner recommended that each time a bill that increases CSIS's powers is introduced, oversight measures should automatically accompany it. If the government wants to increase powers, it must also improve the system, the accountability mechanism that ensures there are no abuses. That is very important, yet it is very much lacking.

It is also important to point out something else. The government eliminated the position of inspector general, who played an internal role, ensuring that the service's activities complied with the law. Instead of increasing oversight—which is what should be happening—the government is decreasing it. That is very problematic.

I should point out that it is very important that our agencies have the tools they need to protect public safety. However, this is not a negotiation. We cannot completely ignore our civil liberties and rights just because more security is needed. That is not how it works. These aspects are very important, and we need to ensure they are protected. As parliamentarians, we have a duty to protect our country and to examine national security issues. However, we also have a duty to protect civil liberties and rights. That is why oversight is so important and why it should be a mandatory part of any proposal to increase powers. Even if we were not increasing CSIS's powers, civilian oversight would still be very important. This oversight certainly deserves more resources than three people sitting on a committee part time. It is is very important.

We absolutely want the appropriate resources. However, the Conservatives have cut funding for our public safety agencies for three straight years, since 2011. By 2015, this will represent a total of $687.9 million. As a result, CSIS will see $24.5 million in cuts in 2015, while budget 2012 scrapped the CSIS inspector general position altogether, as I already mentioned. We are concerned that these cuts also impact the government's ability to exercise appropriate oversight over these agencies. The service is being asked to do more and more, but its budget is being cut. It is a little hard for this agency to implement an adequate oversight system.

I want to share what Daniel Therrien, the Privacy Commissioner, had to say. He said that it was understandable that the government would want to consider boosting the powers of law-enforcement and national security agencies to address potential gaps, but that any new tools should be accompanied by a beefed-up role for the watchdogs who keep an eye on spies and police.

That is what the commissioner said, and that is what we are asking for today. It is all well and good to increase powers, but we also need to increase oversight, because we need to ensure that civil liberties and rights are not violated. As I mentioned, we cannot sacrifice one for the other. It is a two-for-one special, if you will. The protection of civil liberties and rights goes hand in hand with national security. They are both possible if there is meaningful, enhanced oversight.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville for her excellent speech. I know that she does really important work on digital issues and she is particularly concerned about Canadians' privacy, as she mentioned in her speech.

In this debate, there is a very fine line between civil liberties and public safety. However, as my colleague mentioned, they go hand in hand. Does my colleague believe that it is important for the Privacy Commissioner to appear before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, where we will be discussing the bill, to tell us what he thinks of it? Does she believe that we should closely examine certain elements of the bill and perhaps add others to ensure that we have excellent or at least better civilian oversight of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service?

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I would also like to congratulate the member on her excellent work as our deputy public safety critic.

I agree that we should invite all of the experts on protecting our rights and freedoms. We cannot be ministers or critics of everything. We cannot know everything. We have to rely on experts. We in Canada are very lucky to have amazing experts and world-renowned academics, so we have to invite them, have a genuine consultation with them and ask them good questions.

Given the quote I read from the Privacy Commissioner, I am sure that the experts will recommend increasing civilian oversight and implementing measures to ensure that the police and spies, among others, obey the law. I know that some things have to be done in secret, but that does not mean we should violate people's freedoms or privacy.

Therefore, let us invite the experts. I hope that all committee members will do their best to ensure that all of the experts come to the table, including the Privacy Commissioner, who has an important part to play in this debate.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to add my voice of support for Bill C-44. This is an important piece of legislation that would give more powers to policing agencies in Canada to protect Canadians from terrorists.

I keep hearing from the opposition about the need to protect civil liberties, especially from a privacy standpoint, and we want to do that. We want to find the right balance. However, what it is proposing is that it should trump protecting Canadians from terrorists. We have to make sure, first and foremost, that we identify risks to the Canadian public and ensure that Canadians are not harmed.

I am wondering if she actually believes that terrorists deserve to have the same rights as law-abiding citizens.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member's lead-up had very little to do with his question. I would like to talk about something that my colleagues have not talked about today.

We are not asking for one to be more important than the other. This is not about choosing between national security and our rights and freedoms. No. We want both, and the two can coexist. That is already the case in some countries, which already have enhanced oversight in place.

We can do it. We do not have to choose one or the other. We can choose both. If the government cannot understand that, it is a good thing we are going to study the bill in committee.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and privilege to rise today to add my voice to the debate on the protection of Canada from terrorists act.

As members know, the bill was not tabled in haste, and it has not been tabled as a stopgap measure in reaction to the terrible acts of violence our nation has witnessed in recent weeks. Indeed, as the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has made abundantly clear, this legislation was drafted and ready for tabling on the very day that a terrorist killed one of our Canadian Armed Forces members who was standing watch over the tomb of the unknown soldier, on the very day that this same terrorist ran down the hallways of this building before our brave law enforcement and House of Commons security forces brought him down. This bill was drafted with much thought and consideration in the light of the evolving terrorist threat facing all western democracies.

The two Canadian Armed Forces members who were murdered on October 20 and October 22 were the victims of individuals who had the same goals: to terrorize Canadians and frighten us into losing our resolve for doing that which is right and just.

Today we are debating Bill C-44, which would make amendments to the CSIS Act. These amendments include, among others, ensuring that CSIS has the tools it needs to investigate threats to the security of Canada outside of Canada, as well as creating a means to protect the identity of CSIS' human sources from disclosure. The bill would also make technical amendments to the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act to allow our government to seek earlier implementation of the citizenship revocation provisions, which received royal assent on June 19.

These amendments are critical to clarify the role of CSIS in light of recent court decisions that have addressed the important aspects of the mandate and investigative authorities of CSIS.

However, legislation is only part of the solution to countering terrorism and violent extremism.

A key part of our government's counterterrorism strategy involves building partnerships with Canadian communities over the long term. The focus of these partnerships is to develop resilience and foster critical thinking about extremist messaging and to help devise effective means to intervene during the radicalization to violence process.

The troubling phenomenon of individuals travelling to commit terrorism is a fast-emerging component of radicalization to violence. As we have heard from CSIS and the RCMP recently, we know of a significant number of Canadians who have travelled to hot zones like Afghanistan, Somalia and Syria to join terrorist organizations, to undergo terrorist training and to conduct terrorist activity.

This is of grave concern for many reasons.

We are concerned because we care about young Canadians dying abroad. We are concerned because we want to prevent the damage that may cost human life and to societies struggling in the face of deep divisions. We are also concerned about what happens if these foreign fighters return home. Battle hardened and fully radicalized, they have tremendous potential as terrorist actors in Canada, and, even more important, real credibility as agents of radicalization in their own right.

However, we are tackling this issue in a number of ways.

One way is the revocation of citizenship of dual citizens who have, for example, served as members of an armed group engaged in conflict with Canada or have been convicted of terrorism.

Another way is to attack the movements and activities of those who have managed to leave the country in order to engage in activities that are a threat to the security of Canada. Again, this is part of the bill before us, which is to ensure the authority of CSIS is clear and is able to investigate threats outside of Canada.

Still another way is through initiatives like the Cross-Cultural Roundtable on Security, CCRS, jointly led by Public Safety Canada and the Department of Justice. The CCRS is an excellent example of collaboration between the federal government and diverse communities across Canada. It brings together leading citizens from their respective communities, with extensive experience in social culture issues, to regularly engage with the government on long-term national security issues.

The CCRS meets three times a year to cover a wide scope of issues under the national security umbrella: resiliency, cybersecurity and airport security, among many others.

Over the past several years, the CCRS has focused much of its attention on the topic of countering violent extremism. It has been key in providing guidance and shaping how we talk to Canadians about this issue.

Through this forum, we look to our leaders and communities to help us better understand how to build trust with diverse communities, identifying the tools that communities need, and identifying contributing factors and intervention programs for persons who may be at risk to radicalization to violence.

CCRS members have also helped bridges into communities. Most recent, Public Safety undertook dedicated dialogues with communities on the topic of radicalization leading to violence. Communities are often the first to see suspicious signs or behaviours by others if they are planning something such as travel, attack planning, radicalization and recruiting others. We value the input we receive through these regular meetings.

Countering violent extremism is a defining challenge of our times, a challenge facing Canada and all nations that believe in the rule of law and the rights of our citizens to live in a safe and secure society.

As members can see, our government has been actively pursuing a robust strategy to counterterrorism activity and violent extremism well before the recent attacks on the Canadian Forces members last month.

We have been open in discussing that threat with the citizens of Canada through our counterterrorism strategy released in 2012 and two subsequent public reports on the terrorist threat to Canada which were released in 2013 and 2014.

Today, I have shared just a vew of the measures we are taking that speak to the “prevent, detect and deny” pillars of our strategy. This includes fostering trust and encouraging collaboration between government and communities. It includes preserving the integrity of Canadian citizenship by allowing certain provisions found within the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act to come into force earlier than planned. It also includes getting our society and intelligence agencies the tools they need to protect the safety and security of Canadians.

We must move ahead with these amendments with purpose and without delay.

I ask all members to join us in supporting the legislation. I ask all members to join us in protecting Canadians.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech with great interest.

The history of national security in Canada is one of long debate and a lot of study. However, it seems as though the bill is not only being rushed through the House but, from the minister's statements this morning, it will also be rushed through committee, with as few as eight witnesses called to discuss the act.

We are talking about significant increases in the power of CSIS to not only protect Canada, but also to possibly intrude in lives of Canadians.

Does my colleague think that eight witnesses are enough or does he think we should perhaps show more diligence in the review of this act?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the events we have seen around the world, especially when it concerns the radicalization of citizens within their own countries, and the evidence we have already received from the RCMP and CSIS before the public safety and national security committee just a few weeks ago, before the terrible events of October 20 and 21, shows us that we have had this conversation. We have talked about these issues and discussed them.

If we listen to the member's adjectives and adverbs, the powers we would be giving CSIS are no greater than the powers we already give our police officers. We want to put them on a level playing field. I firmly believe we have the checks and balances in place with our police forces. They would be the same checks and balances that exist with CSIS. It has an oversight body that would ensure this legislation would meet with the desired results.

CSIS is there to keep us safe. CSIS is not the enemy of Canada. CSIS is our friend, our protector and is there to ensure the safety and security of Canadians. This is why we need to ensure we give that organization the tools it needs to do its job.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague across the floor that when he says CSIS has an oversight mechanism, it has something like an oversight mechanism, but it is certainly not to international best standard. That is why my colleague, the member for Vancouver Quadra, has a private member's bill in the House. It could easily be migrated into this bill if the government were so inclined. It would actually create a parliamentary all-party committee to oversee CSIS. That is the case with our four partners in the five eyes structure that we so robustly support. That is one thing I would like him to address.

The second is this. Why has the government not already enforced the legislation it has in place? We were told at committee by CSIS and RCMP that at least 80 Canadians, and we heard a parliamentary secretary say today that number was 145, have been involved in terrorist activities outside of Canada on foreign soil. Why has there not been a single prosecution with respect to those 80 or 145 Canadians, depending on the number the government is now putting forward?

Finally, along the same lines, why did the government reveal on October 15 that it had failed to implement provisions of the 2011 boarder security agreement with the U.S. on information sharing with respect to the travel of potential terrorists?

There is a lot of explaining that needs to be done, which is why the bill has to go to committee and have a very thorough hearing.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find the member's comments interesting. The Liberal Party was the government for some 13 years before this. If the oversight body is that bad, why did the Liberals not do something about it? It is funny how when it is the third party, it begins to see the light and things happen. Quite frankly, it was good enough in their 13 years, and I accept that. I believe this oversight body is good enough for us now. It has done, and is doing, a fine job.

With regard to why the police, CSIS or someone not laying charges against this person or that person, after 30 years of policing and people sitting back quarterback judging, I would like the police and the authorities do their jobs. There are reasons things happen and there are sometimes reasons things do not happen. I leave it up to the people who do the job. It is not members of Parliament who are investigating these 80 or 140 people.

When we stand here and begin to criticize authorities because they did not do something or should be doing something, we are meddling in affairs about which we have to be careful. Let us let the police and CSIS authorities do their job as to when it is appropriate for charges to be laid, or not laid. There is intelligence going on here and we should not be second-guessing the people who are here to make us feel safe. I trust their judgement and will support them from this very chair. From this side of the House, our Conservative government supports our law enforcement agencies.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are having a decent debate here, but I would like to have more. It is too bad we now have time allocation on it and will also not get much discussion on it at committee. However, with the time I do have, I want to touch on a key theme, which is accountability and how it applies to this act.

Of course national security is an important issue that we all take seriously, especially after recent events. However, over the past decades it has been something that all countries have taken seriously. We have had to balance national security and what keeps us safe versus accountability to ensure things do not go too far in terms of protecting privacy and the rights of citizens.

There are two kinds of accountability. With CSIS, there is the idea of accountability to the public and to the legislature. That is one general aspect. However, there is also our accountability to the Canadian public to ensure we are doing our due diligence when we are considering these laws. Therefore, the history of the previous reviews of national security are worth looking at, because they show us how past parliamentarians have shown respect for the public in considering these issues. Professor Reg Whitaker, who is a famous expert in this area, has done a lot of work reviewing this in the past, and I will borrow from some of his work today.

In the review of this, my colleagues may come across the 1969 MacKenzie report, which was really the first major review of Canadian security that we have done in this country. It was an extensive report. However, even the generation of the report was difficult, because the government could not decide how much to keep public and how much to keep private. The 1969 MacKenzie report did not come out with much of a recommendation. However, a few months later we had very serious incidents occur in the province of Quebec—the FLQ crisis and the murder of a cabinet minister. Some had viewed the actions by what was then the RCMP security forces as a huge overreaction, because not only were the separatists in Quebec investigated but it was if they threw a giant net over anybody who might be deemed suspicious. Therefore, people who were in union or left-wing organizations were under surveillance and in some cases detained, which led to a huge scandal.

I think that still sticks with many of us today, seeing as how an overreaction by a security force can not only endanger those who are involved but can cause huge national strife. Therefore, the McDonald commission reported on that in 1977. It was set up to review what had happened in Quebec and to also look at our national security service in general. It was from the McDonald commission that we had the suggestion of the creation of CSIS.

What is interesting about this report is that it came out in 1977 but it took a full three years for the government to respond. There was not a response until 1980 because these kinds of issues require serious attention and consideration: the setting up of an entirely new security body, determining which powers stayed with the RCMP and which went with the security service, deciding how this was all supposed to be administered and funded, and those types of things. It took a full three years before there was even a response to the report. It was another four years before CSIS was officially created in 1984.

This was a major undertaking but also showed the amount of consideration past parliamentarians have shown when it comes to issues of security. It stands in stark contrast to what is happening in the House today, where we have a limit on debate on this bill and these changes, and we will also have limits at committee. It is important to note that, if we are to make any changes to this body, much more consideration and time should be given for all aspects of society to come in and explain their points of view.

What I found astounding from the questions earlier was that the members on the other side were essentially saying that the committee is totally irrelevant. They are saying we have heard everything we had to hear and we do not have to worry about committee work at all because we have already heard it. They are saying there is nothing that could possibly be said that would be of interest or that could help.

I find that arrogant. I do not think there is any other word for it. When we are dealing with something that is so important that we have to get the balance right, hearing from more than eight people would seem to be a good idea.

I will give an example from the bill. CSIS would now be empowered, if there is a warrant granted, to break the laws of other countries when it is carrying out surveillance of people of whom it might be suspicious. We can think about how that may cause trouble. This is, of course, a clause that would be written into the act. If we think about it, a security intelligence officer might go to a Canadian judge and get a warrant for surveillance of somebody in another country; and that might be fine. This person may be of particular interest, but what is concerning to me is who that person is talking to.

For instance, let us say that CSIS is carrying out surveillance on an international businessperson who is from another country and flies to Washington, D.C. That businessperson then starts to talk to different members of American organizations, perhaps the government or other business interests in Washington, and all of a sudden, we have a warrant that has been issued to a CSIS officer who can then apply that warrant in the national capital of the United States. The officer could carry out surveillance not only on this businessperson who is under suspicion but also on whoever that businessperson is talking to.

We can see how we could run into considerable difficulty there. If this is allowed to go ahead and it is not changed through our very short committee considerations, we could see how it could cause difficulty, because the United States also has security forces and they might notice this. We then have international incidents that would, of course, cause us considerable difficulty.

It may also mean that other security forces may be less inclined to co-operate with us. This is the kind of thing we should be conscious of. It is one example of how extra consideration of these powers is warranted.

What we are seeing is a bit of a rush. We hear all kinds of rhetoric from the other side about the very serious events we had here and how they prompt this legislation; but this legislation was drafted before all of those events. This has been on the government's agenda for some time. Again, we should have had ample time to have full consideration of this, but there seems to be a great disrespect for this place and for others who may want to comment on this bill by again shutting down debate in the House and within committee.

I cannot tell members how much consideration to give the balance between accountability and efficiency or effectiveness of security services, in order to get it just right. Although we are supporting this to go to committee, I would urge the committee to take some time to make sure we have the proper witnesses, not just government witnesses who will back up what it wants to do. I know that the committee has some jurisdiction to this. It is not just told by the PMO exactly what to do. I urge the committee to have witnesses who will challenge this and bring up scenarios and situations that members perhaps have not spoken or thought about, so that we get this right and do not face some kind of international incident that causes embarrassment.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for a very sincere and thoughtful speech. He has raised a number of important, probative questions around the bill, which seemingly the government does not want to answer. The government has had a series of questions put to it here again today. The minister, several parliamentary secretaries, and countless MPs have refused to answer.

I want to ask how risky the member thinks that is. I am reminded, very much, of what happened in the United States post 9-11, in terms of the American response to a lot of the security challenges that, at that time, Congress and Capitol Hill were facing.

There has been a lot of backtracking in the United States. There has been a lot of concern about the amount of power and authority vested in its intelligence and security agencies and collection services, for example.

Maybe the member could take a moment to explain to Canadians why it is so important for us to take the time we need to improve. Everybody in this House wants to improve what we are trying to improve today. Collectively, everyone wants to make it better.

What are some of the inherent risks in going too quickly and not hearing from some of the best minds available in the country?

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure working with my colleague on various committees. My colleague is right. “Haste makes waste” may be the proper term here if we try to rush this through and do not properly investigate the possible ramifications. We could run into all kinds of problems.

Actually, the history of CSIS itself shows that in the past there have been considerable problems; for example, with CSIS providing evidence in court. There have been investigations of how CSIS was not providing proper information during court hearings. Again, that is where proper oversight could come into play.

If there were proper oversight, if we did not just have an oversight committee that is often packed with government cronies rather than actual folks who are dedicated to the job, then we would not have these mistakes. That is a concern, not only international embarrassment but actually serious infringements of Canadians' rights.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech. He raised a really essential point about this bill: if we are expanding CSIS' powers when the organization was established because of abuses of authority, then we certainly have to be looking at increasing accountability for CSIS.

I wonder if the member has any remarks about the current system of accountability in CSIS, especially in view of the annual report this year in which SIRC said that CSIS did not provide full and complete information in a timely manner to allow it to exercise its responsibilities for oversight.

That is a key of the hon. member's speech and of the essence of this bill.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for the excellent work he has done on this and other bills in his role as the public safety critic.

The key here is prudence. Why risk a large mistake? Why not have increased oversight initially? If it is found to be too onerous and there are a few problems, then perhaps it could be adjusted at that point. It is better than doing it the other way around, which is to really limit oversight, have a problem, and then correct it later.

The history of CSIS has shown that is the case. There have been problems that had to be corrected. I would say that prudence in this case would be a better response: perhaps make some accountability changes to make sure that CSIS fully discloses information to the oversight body and is compelled to do so; appoint good people who know what they are doing and who are objective; then review that oversight later to see if it is indeed too onerous.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of our government's unwavering commitment to protect Canadians from terrorism and I am proud of our government's decision to stand with our allies in an international mission to counter the threat ISIL poses to the Middle East and, by extension, to the world. I am also proud of the fact that when our government says it is committed to giving our intelligence services the tools they need to keep Canadians safe, we follow through with decisive action.

In that spirit, I am pleased to rise today in support of the protection of Canada from terrorism act. Before I begin the substantive portion of my remarks, I would like to take the time to mention a couple of the recent events that brought the terrorist threat home for many Canadians.

On October 20, Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent was killed by a jihadist just outside of Montreal. The individual responsible for this terrorist attack was known to authorities, but because of the lack of appropriate legislative tools, he was able to execute his sadistic plot. On October 22, just steps from where we stand today, Corporal Nathan Cirillo was killed by a jihadist bent on terror. These horrific terrorist attacks—and, indeed, they were terrorist attacks—underscore the need for new tools for our security agencies.

Some may say that there are already tools on the books right now and that we need not overreact. To that I would make two comments.

First, two brave Canadian heroes are dead and families are ripped apart. It is clear to me that the status quo is unacceptable.

Second, we will not overreact. We will not give up our fundamental Canadian values of respect for individual rights, but we must stop under-reacting to the threats that we are facing. The bill before us today is an important first step in doing just that.

This bill contains two separate sets of amendments. First, it proposes certain technical amendments to the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act to allow revocation of citizenship provisions to come into force earlier than anticipated. These provisions, which are already part of an act that received royal assent, include expanding the grounds for revocation. This includes authorizing the revocation of citizenship of dual citizens who have served as members of an armed force or an organized armed group engaged in armed conflict with Canada, as well as those who have been convicted of terrorism, treason, or spying. It includes as well a streamlined decision-making process that would authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to make decisions on revoking Canadian citizenship, depending on the grounds.

The second part of the legislation, which is what I will focus most of the rest of my remarks on today, are the amendments being proposed to the CSIS Act.

For the last 30 years, CSIS has played a vital role in ensuring a safe and secure Canada. The threats we face as a country today have changed significantly since then, but the CSIS Act, the legislation that governs CSIS, has not. With the bill before us, we are taking a critical step forward in ensuring that CSIS is well positioned to confront terrorist threats as they exist today.

It is useful to provide a bit of context about the work of CSIS and the associated sections of the CSIS Act that govern that work.

Section 12 of the CSIS Act mandates CSIS to collect and analyze intelligence on threats to the security of Canada and, in relation to those threats, to report to and advise the Government of Canada.

Section 16 of the CSIS Act authorizes CSIS to collect within Canada foreign intelligence relating to the capabilities, intentions, or activities of a foreign state or group of foreign states. This is subject to the restriction that its activities cannot be directed at Canadian citizens, permanent residents, or corporations.

Sections 13, 14, and 15 authorize CSIS to provide security assessments to the Government of Canada, provincial governments, and other Canadian and foreign institutions; to provide advice to ministers of the crown on matters related to the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; and to conduct investigations to perform these functions.

Clearly these are all very challenging mandates, and fulfilling them requires that CSIS use a suite of investigative techniques. These techniques can include, for example, open source research, physical surveillance, interviews, and analyzing intelligence from a variety of sources. What is particularly important to note here is the importance that human sources play in allowing CSIS to fulfill its mandate to investigate and advise on threats to Canada's security.

Other techniques used by CSIS are more intrusive in nature. These techniques may include, among other things, searches of a target's place of residence, analysis of financial records, or telecommunication intercepts.

CSIS is required to obtain warrants under the CSIS Act to pursue intrusive investigative techniques. In order to obtain a warrant, CSIS must satisfy a designated Federal Court judge that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a warrant is required to enable CSIS to investigate a threat to the security of Canada or to perform its duties and functions under section 16 of the CSIS Act.

In addition, co-operation with domestic agencies is also critical. Section 17 of the CSIS Act now authorizes CSIS, with the approval of the minister, to co-operate with any department of the Government of Canada or the government of a province or any police force in that province. Therefore, CSIS works closely with the RCMP, the Canada Border Services Agency, and other government departments and police forces across our nation.

When it comes to investigating threat-related activities occurring outside of Canada, CSIS's relationship with Communications Security Establishment Canada, or CSE, is particularly important. CSIS relies heavily on the capabilities and expertise of the CSE in order to conduct telecommunication intercepts outside of Canada. CSE's legal authority to provide assistance to CSIS stems from paragraph 273.64(1)(c) of the National Defence Act.

The CSIS Act authorizes CSIS to enter into an arrangement or otherwise co-operate with a government of a foreign state or an institution of that state with the approval of the Minister of Public Safety after consulting with the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Co-operation with foreign entities is critical to CSIS's ability to fulfill its mandate. Individuals being investigated often leave Canada to engage in a wide range of threat-related activities. No country can assess the full range of threats on its own, and CSIS must be able to work with foreign partners, subject to oversight by the Minister of Public Safety and a review by the Security Intelligence Review Committee.

Now that I have outlined some of the important work that CSIS does and how the CSIS Act allows for that work, I will speak to how this legislation would allow CSIS to move effectively and operate in the evolving threat environment.

Specifically, the bill would confirm CSIS's authority to conduct investigations outside of Canada related to threats to the security of Canada and to conduct security assessments. It would confirm that the Federal Court can issue warrants for CSIS to investigate, within or outside of Canada, threats to the security of our nation.

The bill would give the Federal Court authority to consider only relevant Canadian law when issuing warrants to authorize CSIS to undertake certain intrusive activities outside of Canada.

The bill would protect the identity of CSIS human sources from disclosure and protect the identity of any CSIS employees who may engage in covert activities in the future.

These are all measured changes that would amend the legislation governing CSIS's activities so that it would have the clear ability and authority to investigate threats to the security of Canada wherever those threats might occur.

I urge all members to support this legislation. It would give our security agencies much-needed tools to protect all Canadians and our nation.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, we in the NDP agree with most of what is in this bill. We look forward to getting it to committee to make some amendments.

One of the things we are most concerned about is the oversight of CSIS activities. My colleague talked about the evolution of the threat of terrorism; in fact, the largest terrorist occurrence in Canada was some 20 to 25 years ago, the Air India incident. That was a major terrorist attack on Canadians in Canada.

We have dealt with terrorism in the past. We have done certain things, and if we look at the record of CSIS during that time, we would think that civilian oversight would have served Canada well in determining how that particular large and tragic incident occurred and how things transpired between the agencies that dealt with it. Civilian oversight by Canadians would have made a difference in how we viewed that event and how we moved on from it. Would my colleague not agree?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, what I would say is that Canadians and the security intelligence agencies, whether CSIS or any others involved, including Canadians affected by that tragedy, would have benefited far more from the tools that we would provide today in this legislation than they would from an oversight committee to explore how it happened. Preventing that activity would have been far more beneficial to Canadians than reviewing it and trying to find lessons learned.

This body of legislation would take lessons learned from that event and from the most recent terrorist events in North America right here in our country to ensure we are not reviewing them to see what we could do better the next time it happens.

The intention of this legislation is to give the Canadian Security Intelligence Agency the opportunity, the means, and the tools it needs to stop these events from occurring. It is not to review them, in effect, but to prevent them. That is what Canadians deserve, that is what Canadians expect, and that is what this government is going to deliver for our nation.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question that goes back to the beginning of my colleague's comments.

He made a rather incredible assertion, one I have not heard before from anyone in any party, and certainly not from the government. I want to read back his words. He said that the events last month, which occurred here in my home city of Ottawa, “occurred because of the lack of legislative tools available.” That is the first time this House, I believe, has heard that kind of assertion.

He then went on to say in his closing remarks that he was looking forward to learning from what transpired here with these unfortunate events last month, and improving the situation, which we all agree is the objective of Bill C-44.

Can the member explain to Canadians precisely how he has concluded that it was a lack of legislative tools that led to the tragedies that took place in this city a month ago?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it is well known that when law enforcement agencies and security intelligence agencies have the tools that we are going to be able to provide—whether it is intercepts, utilization of human sources, or carrying on with investigative techniques that they did not have the ability to do—these tools are going to help these agencies recognize a threat before the threat manifests itself in a very real way, as happened not only in Quebec but here in Ottawa. It only stands to reason that providing the agencies with these tools is going to help them cut off these kinds of threats before they happen.

Will they prevent absolutely everything in our country? No, that is pretty clear. The tools will not stop every single threat that we face, but I do not think anybody is proposing that we are going to eliminate absolutely every threat in the nation. What we do recognize clearly is that this legislation would provide the tools that law enforcement and security intelligence agencies are telling us they need in order to gather appropriate information in an effective manner and to share that information with one another so that they can start to act on that information in a more meaningful way to try to reduce the volume and the intensity of some of these events.

As the member across the way mentioned in his initial question, terrorist events were occurring a long way back. However, although they are not happening now with necessarily the same level of intensity in one single event, they are certainly happening more frequently than we have ever seen before. These are tragic events that need to be dealt with, and we are taking that responsibility very seriously.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it really is a privilege to be here this afternoon to participate. This is one of those debates that cuts to the very core, the pith, of what we are doing here as parliamentarians and legislators. Bill C-44, which amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other acts, is very profound. It speaks to the powers of the state and the rights and responsibilities of our citizenry.

Moments ago the member for Selkirk—Interlake asked a question of the NDP speaker at the time, asking if New Democrats were prepared to give more rights to terrorists than to law-abiding Canadian citizens. That is another astonishing assertion and it reminds me of the very famous passage in the brilliant play written by Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons, which is the story of the life of Thomas More who is being prosecuted.

The prosecutor is William Roper, who says to Thomas More, “So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law”? Sir Thomas More responds, “Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil”? William Roper responds to the prosecutor, “I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”, to which Sir Thomas More responds, “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you—where would you hide”? “Yes” says Thomas More, “I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake”.

That is precisely what we are talking about when we discuss the balance the government continues to allude to when it comes to making sure that our intelligence and security services have the power and authority to do their jobs, while at the same time safeguarding our rights. When we play fast and loose with our rights, it is a very dangerous game.

Bill C-44 is trying to make some positive improvements to the status quo. I think everyone in the House agrees with this. However, there are series of profound and probative questions that have been put to the government that remain unanswered. These are deserving of an answer, because they do cut to the chase and speak to whether or not we would give the benefit of law to the devil.

There are questions, for example, like why the government cannot explain why legislation already in place has not been enforced. Specifically, under the provisions of the Criminal Code brought in by the government in 2013 in the Combating Terrorism Act, why have we not seen a single prosecution? I raised the question earlier to a former peace officer who has sworn an oath to uphold the rule of law, and his answer was, “You're criticizing law enforcement agencies”. I am doing nothing of the kind. I am asking why, if we know there are anywhere between 80 and 145 Canadians who have been abroad participating in terrorist activities on foreign soil, there has not been a single prosecution under the new powers brought in by the government just a short year ago?

Canadians deserve an answer from the government. The sections of the Criminal Code are 83.18, which relate to laying a charge against an individual attempting to leave Canada to participate in a terrorist activity; or 83.3, which could be used to place recognizance and conditions on those suspected of terrorist activity; and section 810, related to peace bonds and possible detention. We have not received an answer.

The government likes to speak about being a sovereign state and having its own standards—not being bound by its partnership with the Five Eyes, and not relating to the work and best practices of the United Kingdom, United States, Australia, and New Zealand. It says that it is sovereign when it comes to security issues, yet when it comes to climate change, we have hitched our wagon to President Obama. There we are not sovereign. However, let us take the Conservatives at their word that they are sovereign when it comes to questions of security laws and the enforcement of those laws. Well then, why is it that on October 15 we learned that the Conservative government has failed to implement provisions of the 2011 border security agreement with the United States on information sharing with respect to the travel of potential terrorists?

It is troubling to hear the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, or even worse, the Prime Minister, talk about new legislation, new powers that we need, when existing international agreements we have entered into and signed have not been complied with, including on the international movement of those suspected of being associated with terrorists entities. That question remains to be answered.

We hear repeatedly from members of the government, and in particular former peace officers, like the last speaker from the Yukon, who swear an oath to uphold the rule of law. They become peace officers by swearing an oath. We hear from them repeatedly that we need new powers, but that is not what we hear from the front-line practitioners. That is not what we have heard from CSIS. That is not what we heard from the RCMP. They are telling us that they need more resources and the capacity to do their jobs. They need to be able to follow up on the existing statutory powers that we have in order to enforce them and to bring them to bear in Canadian society. That is what they are telling the Canadian population. That is what they are telling parliamentarians.

We are supportive of sending the bill back to committee. However, we need the time in committee to make sure that we get that expertise, not from the propaganda or rhetoric of government members, but from those who are actually on the front lines involved in enforcement. They are our best asset and allies in this regard.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Fourteen of us over here and zero on your side.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

The member said there are 14 of them over there. Unfortunately, as former peace officers, none of them have the courage of their convictions to stand up and tell the truth in this matter, which is that front-line enforcement officers are telling us that they need more resources.

In closing, and to remind Canadians that governments do make choices, $600 million has been spent on advertising in the last eight years, and $600 million more on hiring outside lawyers by the Department of Justice when there are 2,500 lawyers on staff already. That amounts to $1 billion that could be directed more properly to the enforcement of our existing powers.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague might provide some further thought regarding the Five Eyes and those countries that want to work with Canada.

Here we have found that Canada has fallen short in terms of having an independent parliamentary overview of some of these very important issues, such as privacy. We are the only country out of the Five Eyes that has not seen fit to include or incorporate parliamentarians as part of that oversight. Would there in fact be some value in doing that?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think this is one of the most glaring gaps in the bill. If the government were honest in its examination of best international practices today, it would say that the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, the four foundational partners in the so-called Five Eyes partnership, have all moved forward, particularly the United States, which has made a lot of mistakes. The congressional leadership in the U.S. will tell us that they made a lot of mistakes because they over-reacted after 9/11. Since then they have tried to move the balance back to the centre.

Part of that involves, as my colleague for Vancouver Quadra has put forward in her bill, Bill C-622, the idea that we would create an all-party committee to oversee the important work of CSIS. That would be foundational to improving the status quo, which is something for the life of us on this side of the House cannot understand why the government would not be embracing.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the speech given by the hon. member for Ottawa South.

The hon. member for Yukon seemed to be suggesting that Bill C-44 is a response to very specific events that took place in October. However, when I look at Bill C-44, which existed before the events of October 22, I see that it is a response to all of the jurisprudence that has existed since 2007 in relation to this issue.

That includes the 2007 Supreme Court ruling in R. v. Hape concerning CSIS's powers, the 2008 Federal Court ruling in which Justice Blanchard stated that section 12 of the act did not contain extraterritorial provisions with respect to covert surveillance, and the 2013 Federal Court ruling by Justice Mosley, who learned of the practice of obtaining warrants to conduct surveillance overseas and called CSIS in and informed them that this practice was not legal.

Can the hon. member explain why it took so long for this government to introduce a bill designed to increase CSIS's powers to combat terrorism?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a series of questions that should be put directly to expert witnesses at committee. That is why the government should not just speed ahead and should ensure that the committee has the time it needs to hear all of the viewpoints from all of the necessary experts.

This is a very important issue for Canadian society. We are talking about a balance between protecting human rights and granting surveillance powers to our police forces and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. We need to move slowly, pianissimo, as they say in Italian, so that we are sure to strike that balance.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated the intervention by my colleague, the member for Ottawa South. It shed a great deal of light on many of the issues around the legislation.

However, getting back to his earlier question for the member for Yukon, I did not quite get the essence of the answer, or even if there were an answer by the member in response to the fair question posed about whether the senseless tragedy that took place here on the Hill recently could have been averted with changes to the regulations and laws.

I wonder if he has any sense as to where that rationale would come from?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is, no. I think I posed a fair question to the member for Yukon, who, to restate what he said, stated that the events last month occurred “due to the lack of appropriate legislative tools” available.

I asked the member for Yukon and the government to describe and explain exactly how that was. What was the causal connection that he was asserting? It was a very serious assertion to make. What powers were not already in place that could perhaps have trumped or prevented this from occurring? Where have CSIS, the RCMP, or our law enforcement agencies said publicly that they need X new power or Y new power to make sure that this does not happen again? The government has not explained this.

This is precisely why we need to get this to committee and ask the tough and probative questions so that we can make sure that we achieve what Aristotle once described in French as le juste milieu, the right balance between the powers we invest in our law enforcement agencies and that human rights that make our Canadian lifestyle the best in the world.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act. Countering terrorism is a key priority of our Conservative government. Events in the Middle East, including the ongoing conflict in Syria and Iraq, as well as the recent tragic events on Canadian soil, have raised the spectre of violent extremism.

These events have only strengthened our resolve as we have heard our law enforcement and intelligence officials speak about the threat posed by extremist travellers and indeed as we have witnessed some very disturbing attacks on our soldiers and on the House.

Our government will do anything we can to prevent Canadians from becoming either victims or perpetrators of terrorism-related activities. Make no mistake, the horrific events that happened in Canada on October 20 and 22 were most certainly terrorism. While the leader of the NDP is entitled to his own opinions, he is not entitled to his own facts.

The Criminal Code clearly states that a terrorist act is one of violence, seeking to create fear for political, religious or ideological ends. The RCMP confirms that both of these events had those elements, and our allies agree. Just yesterday, the President of France confirmed his country's position, as recently did the U.S. Secretary of State that these were terrorist acts.

We continue to be guided by the four-pronged approach laid out in our counterterrorism strategy, namely measures to prevent, detect, deny and respond to the threat of terrorism. I will take my time today to speak about some of the important work being done in support of our strategy, namely in the area of prevention and detection.

In terms of the prevent element, I would note that Public Safety Canada is the lead federal department for addressing the issue of violent extremism and it does so in close collaboration with a number of departments and agencies, in particular, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. An important way to address violent extremism is by preventing it from happening in the first place. Our work to counter violent extremism is predicated on three complementary elements: building community capacity; building law enforcement awareness through training; and developing programs to stop radicalization to violence through early intervention.

There are a number of specific initiatives I could point to here, including in-depth dialogue with communities on radicalization to violence, but I want to emphasize the importance of the work being done under the Kanishka project contribution program.

Named in memory of the victims of Air India Flight 182, our government committed $10 million over five years in support of valuable academic research to help inform our understanding of what we could do to stop terrorism.

Research supported by the project will increase our knowledge of the recruitment methods and tactics of terrorists, which will help produce more effective policies, tools and resources for law enforcement and people on the front lines.

In terms of the detect element, I first want to note that we have had some noteworthy successes in disrupting terrorist plots in our country. Successful arrests, prosecutions and convictions in Canada are a testament to the fact that our national security agencies work effectively with partners and communities. Yet, to be clear, more needs to be done in the areas of surveillance, detention and arrest.

The events of late October this year offered a stark reminder that the status quo simply is unacceptable. Sadly, we had to lose two brave members of the Canadian Armed Forces to have the point hit home that while we must not overreact to the terrorist threat, we certainly must stop under reacting

That is why work to improve our capabilities in support of detection is an area in which the Government of Canada is active. That is, in fact, why we are here today to debate the first step forward.

The Prime Minister has been clear about the need to ensure our security and intelligence community have the tools they need to confront the terrorist threat.

As members may be aware, the legislation before us today contains provisions to update the governing legislation of CSIS, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. There is no question the threats to Canada's security have changed dramatically since the passage of the CSIS Act in 1984. For context, this legislation has not been updated since the first Apple Macintosh was sold.

Given that the threat from terrorism is now more complex and diffuse, this legislation would go a long way toward giving CSIS the clarity it would need to investigate threats to the security of Canada wherever they may occur.

To that end, the proposed legislation contains amendments that would confirm CSIS' authority to investigate threats outside of Canada.

CSIS has always had authority to conduct investigations outside of Canada, because threats to the security of Canada do not stop at our border. However the CSIS Act needs to be clearer in stating this fact. Confirming CSIS' authority would ensure that CSIS has the ability to fully investigate the threat posed by Canadians who travel abroad to engage in terrorist activities. This would help ensure that those individuals would be tracked, investigated, and ultimately prosecuted.

Bill C-44 also contains amendments to help CSIS protect the identity of its human sources in court proceedings, as well as its employees who are likely to engage in covert operational activities in the future.

While we debate Bill C-44, I would like to draw to members' attention a few other important pieces of legislation that only further demonstrate our government's resolve to combatting terrorism.

The Combating Terrorism Act, which came into force in May 2013, makes leaving or attempting to leave Canada for terrorist purposes a criminal offence. Unfortunately, the NDP voted against this common-sense legislation.

Another important tool that we continue to use is the listing of terrorist entities under the Criminal Code. Once a terrorist group is listed as an entity, it becomes a criminal offence for any Canadian to provide financial assistance to the group or to enhance its ability to carry out terrorist activity.

In light of ongoing events in Iraq, the Government of Canada listed ISIL, for example, as a terrorist entity. The listing of terrorist entities facilitates prosecution of both the perpetrators and supporters of terrorism. Given the fact that these groups require money to function, listing is also advantageous in countering terrorist financing.

It is also important to note that Canada works closely with its international allies to confront the terrorist threat. Clearly, the challenges Canada continues to face with respect to terrorism are ones our allies also face, so collaboration with our partners will be key to our counter-terrorism efforts.

In conclusion, I want to assure all Canadians that our government is, as ever, committed to ensuring the safety and security of Canadians at home and abroad. That is what Bill C-44 is all about. I call on all members to support it.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for my friend across the way, when the government was considering Bill C-44, did it take into consideration the recommendations of Justice O'Connor from the Maher Arar commission and Justice Iacobucci from the investigation into the torture of Abdullah Almalki?

Both of those reports were very significant and very important to Canadians, especially in the area of oversight of Canadian civil rights.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course that report was considered. All of the intelligence we have gained over the years and the developments in terrorist activities we have seen in Canada and around the world have led to the formation of this bill.

One of the important conclusions that came from that report and others is the need for clarity, in terms of the role of CSIS and the role of the Federal Court in providing oversight. It is that lack of clarity that can lead to problems; hence the need for Bill C-44. It would give CSIS and other intelligence services a clearer mandate in exactly what their roles and responsibilities are, clearer protection for witnesses and informants, and also a clearer definition of the role of the Federal Court, as well as the oversight bodies, to make sure that these kinds of injustices do not occur in the future.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that part of the bill would confirm the authority of CSIS as it has been operating, and that is true. We support that.

However in response to the last question, he talked a little about oversight. There are two issues here. One is the proper financial resources for CSIS and others it is connected to under the responsibility of the government to do its job.

We now know that CSIS has lapsed $18.2 million last year. The RCMP has lapsed $158.6 million. Canada Border Services Agency has lapsed $194.2 million. These are monies that were allocated to them and not used. That is a problem, and we had better put our finger on it.

On the oversight the member mentioned, why did the government not seize this opportunity to provide proper parliamentary oversight to all our national security agencies when it brought in this bill? All our Five Eyes partners have parliamentary oversight, and that is something Justice O'Connor looked at as well. Why did the government miss that opportunity to give this House the ability to take its responsibility to provide oversight to those national security agencies?

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there were two questions there. I will talk about the second question first, and then I will try to address the first question.

To the second question on oversight, there actually is very good oversight right now, and multiple levels of oversight. Very independent judges provide that oversight. I would also note that the Liberal Party did nothing to change the oversight of CSIS during its tenure of 13 years in a majority government. Having said that, it actually works quite well. The federal judge who oversees the oversight board has commented that Canadian laws are respected in all of the activities of CSIS.

With respect to the funding of CSIS and making sure Canadians are protected from acts of terrorism, we are getting into the business of appropriations and supply, and lapses of project-based spending. The Government of Canada is committed to investing in our security capabilities. This House should rest assured that we will spend the money necessary to protect Canadians from terrorist activities.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I would hate for there to be wrong information on the record. The Liberals did, in fact, introduce a bill in 2005 for oversight.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place on behalf of the good people of Davenport in the great city of Toronto.

The people in my community are watching this debate very carefully. I think it is fair to say that Canadians from coast to coast to coast are watching this debate carefully because we are in an era where we have a government that believes we can treat our civil liberties as a secondary thought to security. The position of New Democrats has always been that we must treat both in equal measure and be as vigilant in protecting civil liberties as we are in protecting security. It is not a question of balance; it is a question of what our values are as Canadians and who we believe we are. These values, which are the foundation of a liberal democracy, are what we are trying to protect and secure. We cannot trade them away in that pursuit.

The NDP's questions around some of the issues in this bill are around oversight, and the questions on oversight exist because we believe there is not a trade-off. This is not an either/or situation. It is not that we have to find a balance, that in order get security right, we may have to clamp down a bit on civil liberties. We do not believe that is the case, and Canadians share those concerns.

I want to focus on a couple of elements of the bill, which are concerns for the community I represent. This flows from other decisions that the government has made around the creation, in a way, of two-tiered citizenship in Canada, where people in Canada could be stripped of their citizenship. The government often says that the NDP is soft on these issues, but in fact, when people break laws in this country, they should go to jail. If they are citizens of Canada, they should go to jail.

I am proud to represent a riding in the west end of Toronto that has huge communities of immigrants. More than half of those who live in Toronto were born elsewhere. They take their belonging to Canada very seriously and are very proud of it. The notion is of grave concern that down the road their status in Canada, through no fault of their own, could be somehow diminished or lessened by legislation and the direction of the government. I hear it in my office; I hear it out on the street; I talk to people all the time who are really very concerned about the government. I am talking about immigrants in Toronto who are very concerned about the government's fixation on picking off certain communities and creating a climate of concern and fear. Quite frankly, it is our role as parliamentarians to elevate the debate, bring out the best in who we are, and bring people together.

The changes to the Canadian Citizenship Act in Bill C-44 would not really provide any major changes, other than accelerating the timelines for citizenship revocation for dual citizens involved in terrorist activities, the process for citizenship revocation that we debated in the House and I am proud that my party opposed. They remain unchanged; it is just the speed with which this can be achieved.

Our citizenship is a precious thing. We have laws in our country to deal with those in our society who break them. Our position has always been that our tinkering with citizenship is a slippery slope, and it is not what we should be doing, especially given the history of our country, the history of immigration in this country, and the successful history of our immigrant communities in Canada. We have a phenomenal story to tell. Our immigrant communities have a phenomenal story to tell.

In light of recent events, the Muslim community in particular in my riding is concerned about being targeted. It is a disturbing reflex of the Conservative government to try to place responsibility for individuals on a whole community. The concern in the Muslim community I represent is real. These are hard-working, honest, proud Canadians, and they abhor violence, just like anyone else in Canadian society. What we are talking about today connects to that concern. It is spoken about in a number of supporting documents, which I would like to underline.

I want to particularly point out comments made by former Justices O'Connor, Major, and Iacobucci at the October 29, 2014 conference called “Arar +10: National Security and Human Rights a Decade Later”:

Retired Supreme Court justice Frank Iacobucci, who investigated the overseas detentions and torture of three Muslim Canadians...warned that history has much to teach legislators....

Iacobucci cautioned about “the spillover effects” that any rush to expand police powers could have on freedom of religion, association and expression; the possible “tainting” of Canada's Muslim community, and the risk of “overreaching” by security intelligence agencies when sharing information in a global fight against terrorism.

It is important for us to bring the issue of what Justice Iacobucci refers to as tainting Canada's Muslim community close to home.

A couple of days after the shooting that took place here, I visited the mosque in my riding. As members may remember, Torontonians were in the middle of a municipal election in Toronto, and Muslim candidates in that election had signs vandalized that day. Muslim candidates were facing threats at public meetings.

It is incumbent upon us as legislators here in the Parliament of Canada to ensure that all Canadians, all people living in Canada, feel safe and feel that their civil liberties are protected and are as important as every other consideration in security.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that this is my second time rising. In regard to my question to the government a few minutes ago about Justice O'Connor and the recommendations from the Maher Arar inquiry and the recommendations by Justice Iacobucci relative to the Abdullah Almalki case, I would like to ask my friend if, when he reviewed Bill C-44, he saw in the information we have before us any indication that the government followed any of those recommendations. I do not see it.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very important work on issues of human rights and civil liberties.

Indeed, I have not heard the government speak once about the importance, if we expand the scope of CSIS, of expanding its oversight. This is a very clear gap in this legislation. It is one we will need to close. I believe that we will be advocating quite strongly for that if this bill goes to committee.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any question that this bill should go to committee. In fact, I am on that committee.

The member said he would like to see some amendments. We are not very successful in this Parliament, with government legislation, in having the government actually listen to sensible positions from opposition parties of any stripe. I would give the member the opportunity to talk a little bit about what needs to done and to maybe explain why it is necessary that the government see this as an opportunity to accept an amendment or two and actually improve the legislation.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of civilian oversight of CSIS and our security apparatus is crucial here. Again, it is fundamental to the protection of civil liberties and to the foundation of a liberal democracy to have that civilian oversight. This is not just the opposition speaking. Privacy commissioners across Canada and senior members of the Canadian legal establishment have said the same thing.

We have seen this government steamroll through legislation and in a very determined way not listen to any advice from the opposition. I really hope, especially in light of the tragic events of the last month, that the government does not use those events and the feelings and concern they have created among Canadians to make some serious mistakes with this bill. We will all be working very hard in committee to ensure that this does not happen.

I hope the government proceeds in the spirit of doing what we need to do to preserve, nurture, and enrich civil liberties while maintaining a rigorous security understanding of what we need here in Canada.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is pleasure to rise today to speak to this important legislation. Bill C-44 is a bill I am proud to support, because it introduces much-needed amendments that will help keep Canadians safe and secure from terrorists. Before highlighting the proposed changes, I would like to have a few moments to situate the bill in a larger context.

Earlier this year, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness released the “2014 Public Report on the Terrorist Threat to Canada”. The report updates Canadians on the terrorist threat in, unfortunately, a sobering way.

In 2013, Canada listed six groups as terrorist entities. There have been four more added so far in 2014, which means that there are currently 53 groups on Canada's terrorist entity list. If I may, I would like to give members one example of a group that was listed in December 2013 and explain why it is a dangerous group.

The Nigerian-based Boko Haram is a group that believes that western education is sinful. Six months ago, it kidnapped some 200 girls from a remote school. Earlier this month, in what can only be described as a toxic and hate-filled video, the leader of Boko Haram put the release of these girls in serious doubt. Horrifically, the leadership of this despicable terrorist organization has talked openly about how these kidnapped girls have been sold off as chattel and given away as sexual objects.

Whether terrorist acts are carried out by entities or individuals, the number of incidents is staggering. In 2013, more than 9,700 terrorist incidents were reported in 93 countries. Some 33,000 people were injured, and nearly 3,000 were abducted or held hostage.

Canadians are at risk. When al Shabaab attacked the Westgate mall in Nairobi last year, they killed 68 people. Among the dead were a Canadian businessman and an employee of the Government of Canada. Through no fault of their own, those two Canadians were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Unfortunately, in our globalized world, where Canadians travel frequently for pleasure and business, it is easier than ever for this to occur.

More disturbing still, the impact of terror on Canadians is not always a matter of coincidence. As the report makes clear, Canadians are not only the victims of terrorism. Unfortunately, in some cases, there are those in Canada who are also the perpetrators.

Members may recall that in the spring of 2013, two men living in Toronto and Montreal were charged with plotting to attack a VIA Rail passenger train. Through the diligence of our security agencies, the attack was thwarted before any damage was done. However, the incident could easily have been a tragedy. A few months later, in Victoria, two other individuals were arrested in connection with a separate plot to bomb the provincial legislature on Canada Day. Thanks to collaboration between intelligence and law enforcement officers, the attack was foiled. Again, this incident could easily have turned out much worse.

I hope these two incidents were a wake-up call to the sceptics. They reaffirmed that the threat of terrorism is not limited to far-flung lands across the ocean. No, these despicable acts could also take place right here on our own soil.

I spoke a moment ago about globalization and how the terrorist threat to Canada continues to evolve, but as the report makes clear, there is also a group of Canadians who travel for the sole purpose of engaging in terrorist activities. They are known by various names: extremist travellers, foreign fighters, or terror tourists. It is a complex phenomenon, but there is one thing that is clear: these extremists pose a threat to innocent people, both here at home and abroad.

Let us look more closely at this emerging trend, because it is closely related to the proposed amendments contained in Bill C-44.

The government knows of approximately 145 individuals with Canadian connections who were abroad and who were suspected of supporting terrorism-related activities of various groups. These activities range from serving in combat to learning how to support terrorism through fundraising, propaganda, and training. Some of these recruits may return home with new skills to spread hatred and, unfortunately, with the resolve to plan and carry out terrorist attacks here in Canada.

What sends a person down the dark road to terrorism? What happens to make someone adopt such extremist views? How can we manage the risks of radicalization more effectively?

These are difficult questions, and they have no simple answers. Nevertheless, our government is taking action to answer these and other difficult questions. In this way, we continue to build resilience to the threat of terrorism in our country, and I will give members several examples.

At the community level, we work through the Cross-Cultural Roundtable on Security to better understand how to combat the appeal of extremist ideologies.

On the policy level, the government released its counterterrorism strategy in 2012. This is a comprehensive road map to help us better prevent, detect, deny, and respond to terrorist threats. On the legislative side, Parliament enacted legislation in 2013 that created four new offences to deter so-called extremist travellers. These are all necessary and positive steps, but we must do more.

This brings me, of course, to Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act.

There are two components of the proposed legislation.

First, the bill before us would amend the CSIS Act to address court decisions that are having an impact on CSIS's mandate and operations. In light of these decisions, our government is acting to ensure that CSIS has the tools it needs to investigate threats to the security of Canada. It is doing this by confirming the authorities granted to CSIS outside of Canada and creating stronger protection for the identities of CSIS's human sources. The amendments proposed in Bill C-44 would ensure that CSIS is able to fully investigate threats in a manner that is consistent with the rule of law and with Canadian law and Canadian values.

The second element of the bill would amend the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, which received royal assent this past summer. Specifically, it would expand grounds for revocation of Canadian citizenship and streamline the process for making these difficult decisions. These provisions are aimed at dual citizens who have served as members of an armed force or an organized armed group engaged in armed conflict with Canada. They also target dual citizens who have been convicted of terrorism, high treason, treason, or spying offences, depending, of course, on the sentence imposed.

The events of recent weeks have certainly brought into sharp focus the fact that Canada is not immune to acts of violence. In fact, we have learned it is far from that. Canadians have been victims of terrorism, and a small but unfortunately notable number are also suspected of supporting terrorism-related activities. We must ensure that our security and intelligence agencies can take reasonable measures at home and abroad to protect the safety and security of Canadians.

The bill before the House today would move us closer toward these goals, and I urge all hon. members to join me in supporting it.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way talked about the need to deflect radicalization. As my colleague, the member for Davenport, mentioned earlier, one of the biggest issues for all immigrants is a sense of inclusion in their adopted land. These individuals are vulnerable because they feel a lack of inclusion.

How can the changes to passports or citizenship make individuals feel as if they belong when there will be this perpetual cloud hanging over them because they are “not from here”? I wonder how that would help create a sense of inclusion and how that would help with the non-radicalization of new arrivals in Canada.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question, but I think he should have taken more note of the remarks I made.

There are two aspects, I believe, to trying to prevent these kinds of acts. Our government has undertaken initiatives to prevent these kinds of instances by trying to ensure that people have the resources necessary. There are programs out there to try to discourage people from becoming radicalized. There certainly have been many efforts in that regard, and I think that issue is what he speaks to.

However, if and when people do involve themselves in these kinds of activities, we have to ensure that we do everything we can to protect Canadians from those kinds of individuals and groups that seek to do them harm.

Unfortunately, I think this is where the NDP really lacks and fails in terms of its ideology. It does not seem to share our thought as a government that it is important to ensure that Canadians are protected from those kinds of individuals.

We even heard it from his leader. His leader denied that these attacks on Canada were acts of terror. Frankly, we all know that they were, in fact, acts of terror. We must do everything we can to protect Canadians and we certainly hope that the NDP will finally get on board and join us in those attempts to protect Canadians.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Wild Rose's remarks. I believe he exaggerates a bit on what the bill would do, because even CSIS itself admits that the bill would really just confirm in law what CSIS is already doing and, hopefully, satisfy the court on it.

However, I have a concern over what the government and CSIS are not doing. They already have the authority, under the Criminal Code, to arrest. In fact, the minister himself said before a committee that these Canadians who have been involved in terrorist acts abroad have broken Canadian law, and the director of CSIS said, that very same day, that CSIS knows where they are.

The government has the authority under the Criminal Code to arrest them, under, I believe, section 83, but it has not used it. I have to ask why not. That is one thing that could be done that it is not doing.

The other point I want to make is that I am pleased the member has shown an interest in finding the root causes of homegrown terrorism. We need to look at that.

I put a bill before the public safety committee to ask the committee to do a study on finding out the cause of these individuals getting into homegrown terrorism in Canada. The bill went into committee and never came out, so I guess the member can figure out what happened.

Does he not think that this Parliament has the responsibility, through its committee system, to do that kind of work, to do that kind of study, and look at the root causes of homegrown terrorism in this country?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member ask a question of the previous government member who spoke, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, about funding. I want to be very clear that our government has in fact increased funding to CSIS and the RCMP by over one-third. In fact, our government has provided $700 million more than what was provided in the last year the Liberals were in power, so there was certainly a failing on their part.

The bill is another step in the right direction. Is there more we can do? Certainly. I know that the government has committed to doing what needs to be done to ensure we protect Canadians and keep them safe.

I hope the member will join us in those efforts.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to represent the citizens of Surrey North and to speak on their behalf on this particular bill, Bill C-44, which makes some amendments to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.

Basically, this bill would broaden the powers of our intelligence agencies, CSIS and others, so that they have additional powers to carry out their work.

Defending public safety and civil liberties are key responsibilities of any government. I hope the Conservative government will take these responsibilities seriously when it comes to Canadians' safety and, equally, will carefully examine the civil liberties we have as Canadians.

Moving forward, we must do the hard work of ensuring Canadians' safety while guarding our values of freedom, tolerance, and inclusive democracy. As parliamentarians, as elected officials from our communities, we also have an equal responsibility to carefully review laws, security procedures, and legislation to make sure that we get them right the first time.

However, we have seen the government rush things through a number of times. This particular bill is under time allocation, and I will talk about that in a second.

The government tries to rush these things through, but as representatives of Canadian citizens, we have a responsibility to ensure that we go through any legislation that passes through this House with a fine-toothed comb. We are going to make sure the work is done responsibly and that there is careful study and evidence-based decision-making.

My friends across the aisle do not like to make evidence-based policy. We have seen that over and over. It is not only that a number of court cases and legislation have been thrown out by the Supreme Court, but sometimes the government picks numbers out of the air. We have seen the census eliminated by the government because it does not believe in actual numbers that will show Canadians what is happening.

The Minister of Employment and Social Development and his department have used numbers from Kijiji. For those who may not be familiar with Kijiji, it is—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member for Langley is rising on a point of order.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am listening carefully to the member across the way. We are neighbours, but it is important to have relevance. We are dealing with the protection of Canada from terrorists act, not with what he is talking about, so I would ask that he make his comments relevant.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I have some difficulty with that. I can see the connection. It is a bit of a stretch, and I will recognize that, but there is a connection between the security he is referring to and the bill that is before the House.

I will give him some more leeway and ask him to try to rein it in a bit tighter.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am mentioning this because this is a critical piece of legislation that deals with Canadian civil liberties and also deals with Canadians' safety.

I am asking Parliament to consider fact-based, evidence-based arguments to ensure that we go through this legislation, Bill C-44, with a fine-toothed comb, to ensure that we as parliamentarians take our responsibilities seriously, to ensure that the legislation we pass is protecting not only Canadians but also civil liberties. It is fair to lay out the record of what the government has done in the past and, absolutely, what I am talking about is related to this bill.

Let us talk about what has been lacking when we think about giving broad powers to intelligence and security agencies, but equally Canadians expect us to look at the other side, the oversight of these agencies, how much power they have, and whether we have a civilian and parliamentary oversight of these agencies.

Let us take a look at CSIS. The oversight for CSIS is being provided by SIRC, which is a part-time committee not made up of parliamentarians, but the current chair is a former member of the Reform Party, which was the Conservative Party. It has an additional two members. Two of the seats are vacant. Those are the facts of what the committee is made up of today.

Not only that, but the inspector general, which was an internal position that used to look at the activities of CSIS, was eliminated by the Conservative government. Therefore, when we give more powers to these agencies, Canadians expect us to ensure that there is proper oversight. The oversight of CSIS is already lacking. The NDP has been calling for more civilian oversight of these agencies, yet the Conservatives have stonewalled on this issue many times. This is one of things that Canadians expect us to debate in the House to ensure not only their safety but equally the civil liberties component.

In the Maher Arar inquiry there were a number of recommendations brought forward by the committee for the government to implement an oversight of these civilian organizations. Yet, we have seen over a period of time that basically the Conservatives have failed to deliver on those recommendations that Canadians expect us to implement to make sure that not only do we have these agencies protecting us but there is also some sort of oversight to ensure that they are within the law and ensuring Canadians' safety in a manner that is expected of them.

There are many concerns with the bill, one of which I have just talked about. The Conservatives could have brought in better oversight, especially when bringing in additional powers. It is equally important that we have oversight to make sure the work is being done properly.

The other aspect of the intelligence and security apparatus is that we have seen unspent money in the last three years. Not only that, but we have seen budgets being cut for these intelligence agencies that are supposed to be protecting Canadians. We have seen budget cuts under the current government. Conservatives pretend they are concerned about the safety of Canadians, yet when it comes to actually delivering resources for these agencies, they have failed to do that.

I am talking about millions of dollars to ensure that security agencies have the proper tools to protect Canadians, which have been cut.

I will quote some of the validators for the particular position that New Democrats are taking with regard to oversight. The privacy and information commissioners of Canada, while attending their annual meeting, noted the events in Quebec and Ottawa, and stated:

We acknowledge that security is essential to maintaining our democratic rights. At the same time, the response to such events must be measured and proportionate, and crafted so as to preserve our democratic values.

To sum up, Conservatives want to give additional powers to CSIS and other security intelligence agencies, and Canadians expect us to equally protect their civil liberties. Previously the Liberals and now the Conservatives have failed to deliver on that.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this came before the standing committee and the member said it was rushed through, which I do not believe is accurate.

He said he has concerns about changes to the census, about oversight, and regarding the Maher Arar commission. Were these issues that he or his colleagues brought up at the standing committee when this was thoroughly debated and sent back to the House?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of course this is being rushed through. The government just moved time allocation on this bill this morning. I am glad the member has given me the opportunity to explain to Canadians what time allocation is. It is basically shutting down the debate. There are many members on this side of the House, as well as on the Conservative side of the House, who will not have the opportunity to represent their citizens. This is one aspect of it. When we look at the recommendations that were made by the Maher Arar commission, none of them have been implemented by the current government over the last eight or nine years.

We have been screaming and yelling on this side of the House and were nudging the Conservatives in committee to ensure that there is proper civilian oversight of the intelligence agencies, and the Conservatives have failed on that.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I would put on the record that there are really no additional powers for CSIS in the bill that it does not already have. The bill responds to some court decisions and would allow CSIS to do legally what it has already been doing.

The member mentioned oversight, and he seems to be talking about civilian oversight. There already is SIRC, which is an after-the-fact oversight agency. I will admit that it is difficult for the government to find a balance between national security and civil liberties, but we have to find it and assure Canadians. I will ask for the member's comment on this. Would it not be better to have parliamentary oversight through a proper parliamentary oversight committee of all our national security agencies, as all our Five Eyes partners do? Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and the U.K. all have oversight.

There is a private member's bill, Bill C-551, before Parliament that would do that and on which there was all-party agreement. Mr. Speaker, you were on the committee, as was the Minister of Justice and the current Minister of State for Finance, where there was all-party agreement on parliamentary oversight. Would the member for Surrey North not see that as a good possibility?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the wonderful question from the member for Malpeque. I have had the chance to work with him on the public safety committee.

One thing is very clear. What we currently have is not independent. It is not civilian oversight. It is a committee that is appointed. It is a part-time committee. Not only that, but we only have three members when we should have five. In addition, the head of this interim or part-time committee is actually a former member of Parliament from the Reform Party.

What Canadians expect us to do is come together as a multi-party committee to ensure that we have proper oversight of these intelligence agencies, to ensure that the course they are following does not infringe on Canadians' rights and civil liberties, and to ensure that somebody is watching over them.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to rise to speak to Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorism act.

It is important to begin this debate by acknowledging that all activities of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service are conducted in accordance with Canadian law. CSIS activities are also subject to full and complete review by the Security and Intelligence Review Committee, CSIS' dedicated review body. This seems to be something that my colleagues opposite are quite concerned about. They seem to think that we are in the movies where spies wantonly disregard our laws in order to put a stop to whatever threat may exist. While our security agencies do phenomenal work every day to keep us safe, it is not the content of a James Bond movie. Employees of CSIS follow the law, and that has constantly been found to be the case by the oversight bodies.

Let me put it quite simply for my friends across the way. This legislation would not change any of the robust review mechanisms that are currently in place. CSIS will continue to be subject to review and require judicial authorization for certain intrusive activities. CSIS will also continue to be accountable to its minister and to this Parliament. I say accountable to Parliament very deliberately. The director of CSIS, the commissioner of the RCMP, and the Minister of Public Safety recently appeared before a parliamentary committee for a frank and open discussion about the terrorist threat to Canada.

While some may call for these roles to be formalized and more bureaucracy to be created, we will continue to live by the old adage “if it ain't broke, don't fix it”.

This legislation would clarify elements of CSIS' mandate and address serious operational gaps, particularly for CSIS' international activities, by confirming its authority to operate abroad; clarify that the court can issue warrants for CSIS' international activities in consideration of relevant Canadian law; prohibit the disclosure of the identity of CSIS human sources, with narrow exceptions; and finally, protect the identity of the CSIS employees who are likely to be engaged in covert activities. These amendments to the CSIS Act are vital to address threats to the security of Canada.

For the sake of debate, I will focus my remarks on the aspect of this legislation that prohibits the disclosure of CSIS human sources. However, before doing that I would like to provide some historical and organizational context for this debate.

Like our allies, intelligence is collected in Canada through a range of sources, including open source research, signals intelligence, foreign reporting, authorized intercepts, and, important for us here today, human sources.

Human intelligence includes, but is not limited to, information provided to CSIS by individuals acting covertly and in confidence as human sources. All forms of intelligence collected are vital to Canada's national security interests. CSIS has its own distinct mandate and corresponding review and authorization regimes that reflect the nature of its investigative activities.

CSIS' mandate is clearly defined in law. The CSIS Act authorizes it to collect and analyze intelligence to the extent that is strictly necessary and to provide advice on threats to the security of Canada. CSIS must be able to conduct investigations within and outside of Canada in order to fulfill that mandate.

CSIS' role in Canada's national security community is to investigate threat-related activity and to advise the Government of Canada's partners so that decisions may be taken on the basis of all information available. This role is specifically provided for by Parliament. In this manner, CSIS intelligence, which by its very nature must remain secret, may inform decisions related to entry into Canada, immigration status, government security clearances, aviation security, and criminal investigations, just to name a few.

CSIS' human-source-based intelligence collection is a fundamental component of its investigations. One could question whether CSIS would even continue to be an intelligence agency without information from its human sources. CSIS human sources regularly provide CSIS with valuable information on threats to national security and, like any modern intelligence agency, the identities of these CSIS human sources are closely guarded secrets to protect their ongoing access to relevant information and, most importantly, to protect their personal safety.

When these sources share information with CSIS, they often do so at great risk to both themselves and their families, and do so out of a desire to keep Canada safe. These individuals should be lauded for their sense of duty to Canada and our way of life. I challenge members in the House to imagine what would befall these persons divulging information on the activities of such nefarious individuals should they be found out. Undoubtedly, such individuals would be viewed as traitors for sharing information with CSIS. Needless to say, the physical safety of CSIS sources is at risk should their status as informants become known. To ensure the safety and security of these CSIS human sources, it is essential that their identities remain confidential and that the government be able to provide a degree of certainty to secure their co-operation.

In that regard, the Supreme Court recently ruled that CSIS human sources do not benefit from a class privilege as police informants do. This means there is currently no guarantee that a human source's identity will be protected from disclosure in legal proceedings; therefore, there is the need for change. At the same time, the court acknowledged that the practice of putting CSIS sources before the courts, even in closed proceedings, could have a chilling effect on the willingness of citizens to come forward. Failing to protect the identity of CSIS human sources could undermine existing human-source operations, weakening the very foundation of CSIS' investigative tradecraft. That is why I support adding human-source protection amendments to the CSIS Act, and I hope others do too.

Without clarity on such measures, CSIS risks seeing its sources compromised, together with the investigations connected to them. We should be clear, however, that the proposed amendments were drafted to comply with the principles of fundamental justice and as such provide for narrow exceptions to this prohibition. At the order of a judge, the identity of a human source could be disclosed if that information were critical to prove the innocence of the accused at the criminal trial or, were the judge to determine that the individual was not a human source or that the information could not be revealed through a source's identity. That creates the balance that we are concerned about. While such provisions would likely be used infrequently, they balance the need for human-source-identity protection and the right of the accused to a fair trial.

Modern intelligence collection draws on a variety of sources, including open-source research, interviews, information from domestic and international partners, and warranted intercepts. However, the voluntary and confidential reporting of human sources remains the cornerstone of CSIS investigations. The complex terrorist threat that Canada faces, including events abroad and those here at home, demands careful consideration of all tools at our government's disposal to protect the safety and security of Canadians and our way of life. Protecting the identities of individuals who put their lives in jeopardy to assist our Security Intelligence Agency in this effort is a very important element in this response. That is why I call on all hon. members to support the important legislation of Bill C-44 before us today.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speakers, as members can see, we feel that this bill certainly does need to go to committee so that required changes to it can be discussed. On this side of the House, I do not think we feel that we should not be strengthening legislation when it comes to terrorism. However, at the same time, we have heard members on the other side talk about resources. They can put every legislative change under the sun in place, but if they do not provide the proper resources these are never going to be effective.

When I look at the appropriate resources section, it is important to note that the Conservatives actually cut funding for our public safety agencies for three straight years. There will be a total of $687.9 million in cuts by 2015. CSIS itself will be subject to ongoing cuts of $24.5 million by 2015, while Budget 2012 scrapped the CSIS position of inspector general altogether.

With that in mind, how can government members think we could take them seriously when they are cutting the very resources that need to be in place to protect Canadians?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question, but unfortunately the comments she made are not accurate.

In fact, our government has increased funding to CSIS and the RCMP by over one-third. Our government has provided $700 million more than the last years of the Liberals. That is a lot of money. It is a priority for this government to make sure Canada is safe.

The bill before us, Bill C-44, provides that balance that the NDP has spoken about. I hope those members will be part of that balance to make sure that Canada is secure, and civil liberties and Canadians are protected.

To be misleading by discussing funding cuts when in fact funding has increased is very unfortunate, and I hope the member will get on board.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is aimed at trying to understand something here.

My hon. colleague spoke about the need in some cases to protect informants or sources. I can understand that intuitively, and the reasons he brought forward are logical, but at the same time I would like to better understand exactly what is involved.

I am not a lawyer, but if somebody is accused of an act of terrorism, for example, I assume there is some sort of proceeding in a court. Is it as simple as the prosecution saying that it has information from a source that the accused did this or that? Is that the way it would actually happen, where the informant's identity is hidden and what is put out by the prosecution is taken as fact? Is that the way it works?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. It is a good one.

It is a fundamental condition of good democracy that we provide the judiciary with discretion, and that is built into Bill C-44. The courts would have the discretion to make an exception. At the order of a judge, the identity of a human source could be disclosed if that information were critical to proving the innocence of the accused at the criminal trial, or where the judge determines that the individual were not a human source or that information would not reveal the source's identity.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today to discuss the important measures contained in Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act. Our government has a duty to keep Canadians safe, and the bill contains prudent and responsible measures that give our law enforcement and security agencies the support and tools they need to protect our national security.

Before I begin the substance of my speech today, I would like to reflect on a quote from a constitutional lawyer and author. Phyllis Schlafly once said:

In a world of inhumanity, war and terrorism...citizenship is a very precious possession.

That is a very important part of what we are here to talk about today. Several key measures designed to keep Canadians safe are in this legislation. I will touch on each of them.

However, first I would like to talk about the measures to give effect to legislation recently passed in Parliament. I am talking about the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act. The key part of this legislation was about stripping citizenship from Canadian citizens who are engaging in terrorist activity. The bill before us today would expedite this measure coming into force. That is a very good thing. We have seen, sadly, numerous instances in the past several weeks in which Canada has been afflicted by terrorism. These acts have highlighted some of the challenges of keeping our citizens safe in a changing world.

We just saw, this past weekend, some extremely gruesome footage of Islamic State terrorists beheading 18 men, including an American humanitarian aid worker and former U.S. Ranger, Peter Kassig. In cold blood, these terrorists cut off the heads of nearly two dozen fellow men simply because they disagree. This is the definition of barbarism and pure evil. Should any of those terrorists be Canadian citizens, I believe we would all agree they should not have the precious possession of Canadian citizenship.

I know that some of my colleagues opposite, specifically those from the Liberal Party, have previously disagreed with this notion. I hope that recent events will give them cause to realign their thinking.

My constituents do not agree with the leader of the Liberal Party when he says that taking the passport away from someone who is planning on travelling for a terrorist purpose is “an affront to Canadian values”.

The legislation before us today would do more than simply create a technical fix to bring legislation into force. It would also create, for the first time, protection for intelligence sources that is similar to that for law enforcement sources. Individuals on the ground in war-torn countries who work with CSIS are often putting themselves and their families at great personal risk. They do it simply because they know it is the right thing to do. We will not force their identities to be disclosed unless it impedes the right to a fair trial.

I make that point very deliberately. The bill before us today has a specific exemption to protect the rule of law, because we believe in the fundamental protection of individual freedoms, rights, and the rule of law. To do otherwise in the face of a threat would be allowing the terrorists to win. However, we must also strike the appropriate balance. We must not overreact, but we must not underreact to the threat of terrorism. These threats are real and must be taken very seriously in order to keep Canadians safe.

There are many common-sense solutions that can be brought to bear to combat terrorism, including those we are debating today. They include measures in the area of surveillance, detention, and arrest.

I am pleased to hear that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and others are working on bringing these tools forward.

However, those tools are a matter for another day. I would like to discuss the next piece of the bill, which confirms that CSIS would have the authority to conduct investigations outside of Canada and which confirms that the Federal Court would only have to consider relevant Canadian law when authorizing these activities.

There are two points that underscore the importance of this measure. First, all intrusive activities conducted by CSIS are judicially authorized. There is no freelancing or haphazard violation of privacy. Second, it is important that only Canadian laws be considered in authorizing these warrants. Currently, and bizarrely, the courts consider whether the decrees of a foreign dictator would be broken when CSIS was engaging in an investigation to protect Canadian security. I would argue that the Canadian Constitution is the only relevant document.

The last element of the bill that I would like to touch on today is the protection of the identity of CSIS employees who are likely to become engaged in covert activities. Currently, it is an offence to disclose the identity of an employee who is engaged in these activities, but there is no protection for individuals who are training to become covert operators or those who are in between covert activities. These individuals are just as at risk as individuals actively engaged in surveillance work. They must also be protected, and the bill would fix that situation.

As we debate these measures today, it is important to place them in some context and make note of our Conservative government's strong record of enhancing public safety and national security. We have given law enforcement new tools by making it a crime to go overseas to engage in terrorist activity. We have given authorities tools to strip Canadian citizenship from those engaged in terrorist activities. We have increased the funding for our national security agencies, such as the RCMP and CSIS, by a third. We introduced new measures to allow our national security agencies to better track threats in Canada.

These are all important measures, but there still remains more work to be done. That is why I urge all of my colleagues in this place to join me in supporting this vital legislation, which represents another prudent and responsible step forward to protect our national security.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, I must reiterate this. They are trying to make it look as if they did not cut any funding out of public safety, but they did. They can take the money out and say that they have put some back in, but it does not change the fact that they have already taken some money out and that it has already been shortchanged.

My colleague spoke about the changes to the Citizenship Act, which are in this bill as well. That is interesting, because the amendments to the Citizenship Act would not actually provide any real change, other than accelerating the timelines for citizenship revocation for dual citizens involved in terrorist activities and other serious crimes.

We have had some debate on this with respect to the previous bill that they tabled about revoking citizenship. I am concerned that everything they are doing would remove some of the civilian oversight that should be in place. It would not protect the civilian oversight.

As we have mentioned before, with respect to the revocation of citizenship, the fact is that we have immigrants who are here and who do not know anything about any other country. We have to be mindful about how we do business, and we need to ensure that, when we put legislation in place, it will actually withstand the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Can the member tell me whether or not what they are putting in place would actually withstand a challenge under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me just say from the outset that in no way, shape, or form is civilian oversight diminished in the current bill we are discussing nor in any other bills that we have placed before Parliament that protect public safety.

I will again take issue with the member saying the opposite to what is actual fact, which is that we have increased the budgets for the RCMP and CSIS by a third. That is a fact and something that again needs to be clarified.

What we are talking about is taking steps to confirm that the existing powers of CSIS are the powers that are under the rule of law in this country. When citizens come to this country, they have to understand the laws of Canada and understand that if they are to live in this country they will need to abide by the laws of this country. That is what we are here for as legislators, to set those laws and make sure that the citizens who come here realize that we all abide by that rule of law.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental mischaracterization of some of the challenges we are facing. This notion that people come to this country to create some of the challenges we are facing is not borne out by the fact that Canadian-born citizens have become responsible for some of the issues we are trying to deal with here.

The member opposite spoke about the Constitution being fundamental to this issue. He described this bill as something that would strengthen citizenship by in fact undermining its basic tenets—to take away someone's citizenship is to weaken the meaning of citizenship completely.

The issue that concerns us most is this way in which the Conservative Party speaks out of both sides of its mouth on the issues of judicial oversight. The Conservatives complain about activist judges, and they complain about judges who use too much discretion, yet now we are supposed to rely on those very same judges to use their discretion in a way that makes us safe.

I would like the member opposite to clarify his remarks. Does this party trust judicial discretion? If it does, why is it such a big fan of mandatory minimum sentences?

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect, the hon. member's last comment has nothing to do with the debate here today. It goes off into another area, which is typical of the Liberal members.

He talks about the fact that, if individuals in this country are known as terrorists who are intending to travel for the purposes of expanding their role as terrorists, somehow it infringes on their personal freedoms and rights that we would take citizenship away. That is the position of the Liberal Party. It is totally unacceptable.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to rise for the debate on this very important issue.

I would like to start with a pretty simple statement, one which I think may be a radical notion to some of my colleagues. Evil is real, and evil exists in the world around us today. Canadians listening to this debate at home may say that this is an obvious statement, but listening to some of the members opposite and beside me, this is one that bears repeating.

We see evil in many facets of our life. It endangers our communities, our homes and our families. The most recent manifestation of this evil has shown itself in the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, known as ISIL. It has engaged in untold and unbelievable atrocities, shocking the senses of ordinary Canadians and decent human beings around the globe.

This past weekend a video was released showing more than a dozen men being beheaded by ISIL terrorists, including the American aid worker and former U.S. army ranger, Peter Kassig. Kassig's parents wrote on Twitter that they were heartbroken to learn their son had lost his life as a result of his love for Syrian people and his desire to ease their suffering. However, I was heartened to see our Conservative government condemn the barbaric actions of these terrorists in the strongest possible terms.

In addition to these horrific scenes from Iraq and Syria, recent frightening terrorist attacks right here at home are a stark reminder that ISIL is a threat to every Canadian. Perhaps we were naive to think the atrocities happening in far off places, in areas of the world that we may never visit, could happen right here at home and could impact us.

Unfortunately they have happened here, and we must use all available means at our disposal to ensure this does not happen again. If we do not, we are simply failing in our duty.

We must take action. This is why we are taking part in the coalition currently conducting air strikes against ISIL and supporting the security forces in Iraq in their fight against this terrorist threat. It is also the reason we are working diligently to strengthen the tools available to the police and intelligence community in Canada. The protection of Canada from terrorists act is just the first step in our efforts to ensure police and intelligence services have the tools at their disposal to keep our communities and our families safe.

Let us take a moment to look back at what our government has already done in the area of protecting Canada and our national security from those who wish to harm us.

First, we have given law enforcement new tools by making it a crime to go overseas to participate in terrorist activity. We have also given authorities tools to strip Canadian citizenship from those engaged in terrorist activity. We have increased funding to our national security agencies, including the RCMP and CSIS, by one-third. Finally, we have introduced new measures to allow our national security agencies to better track threats against Canada.

This is a good foundation, and we should be proud of the work done by those entrusted to protect all of us. However, recent events, including those which took place just mere steps from where we are today, show more needs to be done to ensure our national security.

As I have stated, Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act, is one tool which will allow us to achieve that goal. This legislation addresses four problems which have stymied CSIS over the years.

First, the bill would confirm CSIS would have the authority to conduct investigations outside of Canada. This is something that is common sense, but it really does need legal clarity.

Second, it would confirm that the Federal Court could issue warrants for CSIS to investigate, within or outside Canada's boundaries, any threat to the security of Canadians.

Third, this would give the Federal Court the authority to only consider relevant Canadian laws when issuing warrants authorizing intrusive activities conducted by CSIS abroad.

Last, it would create an automatic protection for the identity of CSIS human sources subject to the protection of the right to a fair trial.

I would like to take time to emphasize that last point.

Like all Canadians, our Conservative government values freedom, liberty and the rule of law. While some have accused this government of trying to use the horrific events of late October as a pretext to clamp down on civil liberates, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact the legislation before us today contains a clause that specifically enshrines the fundamental right to a fair trial.

Let me be abundantly clear. We will not overreact in response to the recent terrorist attacks. However, it is also time that we stop under reacting to the threats against us here in Canada. Bill C-44 would give our national security agencies some of the tools they would need to protect Canadians from terrorists, while at the same time respecting the rights of all of us.

We will never turn our back on the fundamental Canadian values to respect individual rights and the rule of law.

I am pleased to see my colleagues in the other parties will be supporting this legislation being studied by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. This represents a major and positive step forward, and I applaud them for making an informed decision. I say that because previously the NDP voted against legislation making it illegal for individuals to travel abroad to engage in terrorist activities.

This is really quite relevant when we consider the media's reporting that some of those gruesome acts committed by ISIL over the last weekend, which I referenced earlier, were committed by a British medical student. All of us here have also seen radicalized Canadians who have gone overseas to participate in terrorist attacks and terrorist activities in Syria and Iraq.

Even further afield than that, the Liberal leader has said that he believes revoking a passport from a terrorist is an affront to Canadian values. I could not disagree more. What is more, the leaders of both major opposition parties refused to call the individual who killed Corporal Nathan Cirillo a terrorist, even though it was clear he had religious and ideological motives and despite the fact the Commissioner of the RCMP confirmed what all of us already knew, this was a terrorist act. Opposition members seemed to ignore the clear evidence that was in front of them.

That is why I began my speech today to remind all of us that evil does exist in this world today. This is not merely a piece of political rhetoric. Nor is it something drawn up in the backrooms by Conservatives. It represents issues facing all of us as legislators. If we are being responsible, if we are respecting the office we hold and if we are standing up for those who sent us here, we will take this issue seriously.

I am truly glad to see that both of the opposition parties have rejected their previous position and now support providing our police and intelligence officials with the tools they need to keep all of us safe, tools they must have to protect our communities, our homes and, speaking as a father and husband, to protect our families. I hope the support for our Conservative government's common sense and balanced approach to national security continues in the future.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill certainly needs to have that discussion. As I said, we will be making some recommendations for changes at committee stage.

What we are disappointed about is the bill does not include improved civilian oversight of CSIS, and that is very important. Over and over again, we heard the need for that to occur. If the government wants to enhance the powers of CSIS, it must also act on recommendations to strengthen the civilian oversight. As we indicated, civil liberties are at stake and we need to ensure we get it right if we are to make such drastic changes.

Some of the proposed changes could significantly impact the judicial proceedings and that is why it needs to be looked at quite closely. We also need to examine the government's safeguards around information sharing with allies to ensure appropriate safeguards are in place.

There have been people who have ended up on the no-fly list, but they had done nothing wrong. They were not terrorists or had never been charged. One of my colleagues had been on the no-fly list. We need to ensure that all of those safeguards are in place. More important, we need to ensure that civilian oversight is in place.

Could the member confirm that civilian oversight will not be an either/or, that there will be civilian oversight in the bill to protect civilians?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague brought up some good points, but I want to reiterate what I said earlier. The bill does enshrine the rule of law and that CSIS, as in the past, must act strictly by Canadian law. The bill would further strengthen that Canadians and people around the world who CSIS might deal with, whether it is within our borders or outside our borders, it must act and follow Canadian law. That is an important aspect of the bill which is further solidified in this document.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we all share a desire to make our country safer for our families and all Canadians. I do not think that is in dispute.

If we look at the laws that are on the books, for example, it is illegal to go abroad to participate in a terrorist organization. Those laws already exist. What has been extended is the ability of judges to use their discretion and police forces to use their investigative techniques to prosecute those individuals differently. That happens under a cloak of judicial discretion and there is no way of checking to see whether discretion is being applied properly.

A cornerstone of good lawmaking is civilian oversight. It is why we are here. Yet we find ourselves in a situation of being asked to support legislation that makes it extremely difficult to get a passport, while at the same time contemplating making it easier to get assault weapons. Individuals are deemed too dangerous to get a passport, but not dangerous enough to be prevented from getting semi-automatic weapons. In fact, the party opposite is actually proposing to take the RCMP out of the equation when it comes to accessing very dangerous weapons.

Why is a passport more dangerous to the safety of Canadians than semi-automatic weapons?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, comparing the ability to access a passport and a semi-automatic weapon is a pretty far reach. If we were to ask almost any law-abiding gun owner about some of the issues they face in getting licences and using their firearms, they are quite extensive compared to what it takes to get a passport.

The opportunity for us to revoke citizenship and passports from those who we know, and our security forces have identified, as either planning terrorist acts or going abroad to participate in terrorist acts is something we need to do. As I said before, CSIS will be governed by the rule of law and our courts, and everybody will have an opportunity for a fair trial.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today I as well rise to speak in support of Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act. The bill aims to make amendments to the way CSIS, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, does business.

CSIS was created in 1984 in response to the McDonald commission's identifying a need for an intelligence service independent from the RCMP. Thirty years later, the nature of the work CSIS does has changed dramatically, and Bill C-44 is about having our laws reflect these changes.

As evidenced by recent events, be it the acts of terrorism on Canadian soil, the barbarism of ISIL in Iraq and Syria, or the actions of jihadist groups such as Boko Haram in Africa, it is clear that the threats we face have evolved.

The protection of Canada from terrorists act would help our intelligence service better identify and respond to the threats we face today. This would ultimately protect both Canadians and Canadian values.

Presently CSIS operates in a much more limited scope than many Canadians realize. I believe many Canadians would be appalled to discover that CSIS agents cannot protect their identities when they travel outside of Canada.

It is equally unthinkable that their human sources, the individuals upon which national security cases may be depend, are not protected to the same level as informants in cases such as organized crime.

I also believe Canadians would be shocked to learn that CSIS has not been mandated to work outside of Canada.

The protection of Canada from terrorists act aims to fix all this. It would essentially work by providing our intelligence services the tools most Canadians believe they already have and always should have had.

CSIS does a remarkable job in protecting Canadians. I thank the women and men of the service for the work they do every day in keeping Canadians safe. They truly are unsung heroes when it comes to protecting this country.

It is time to give them a hand. CSIS agents should not have to risk their safety and security when working abroad. Bill C-44 aims to correct all this. It represents the modernization of CSIS, the first major changes to the operation of the organization since its establishment.

In 1984, when CSIS was created, the Cold War was still raging. Russia was in Afghanistan, and Communism was the greatest threat to world peace. Much has changed since this time and, yet the legislative structure of CSIS has remained the same.

While the Leader of the Opposition may be debating what constitutes terrorism—and indeed, will not even utter the words—on this side of the House, it is clear. The past month has plainly demonstrated the terrorist threat to Canadians, and when terrorists threaten the Canadian way of life, we must take reasonable and responsible measures to strike back.

As my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, has said, we must not under-react or overreact; however, the reality is that freedom is not free. Our military's actions in Iraq have struck multiple terrorist targets, including equipment being used to divert a river in order to force civilians onto roads that are more easily attacked.

The threat is more diffuse than it once was. The ranks of ISIL and other terrorist organizations are filled with foreign fighters, brainwashed and converted westerners who travel to these regions to engage in war crimes and acts of barbarism. These individuals are often converted at home before travelling abroad.

The bill would help ensure that our intelligence service can gather intelligence on these individuals while they are abroad, so as to ensure they face the full weight of our justice system if they return.

The radicalization of individuals often occurs in their homes. As such, it is often members of the family who first see the signs that could alert authorities to potential threats. Whether they are family, friends, or co-workers, it is important to remove all the obstacles from the path of those willing to testify against those who would commit acts of terrorism against all Canadians.

That is why the provision in the bill that would provide for the protection of human sources is so important. Those taking this step should be commended and be provided the best protection we can offer, in hopes that they and others would be encouraged to testify and put dangerous individuals behind bars.

Witnesses should not face the uncertainty of their identity potentially being exposed to the media and those who would do them harm. By providing all witnesses protection in these sensitive cases, we can ensure that others will be willing to come forward, in turn ensuring that dangerous individuals are put behind bars.

While there are those who have expressed concern regarding the anonymity of sources, I note that there is a provision in the bill that would protect the right to a fair trial. I would draw members' attention to proposed subsection 18.1(4) in the bill.

This subsection would provide for an amicus curiae, which literally means “friend of the court”, who is charged to act as a special advocate to determine the validity of maintaining the source's anonymity when there is belief that it is essential to establishing the innocence of the accused. In this way, a neutral third party is used to ensure that the Canadian value of a right to a fair trial is properly balanced with the safety and security of those who would testify to make Canada a safer place.

While I am not a lawyer, I believe this provision would successfully navigate tricky constitutional waters to deliver Canadians a remarkably well-balanced and effective bill. Bill C-44 would protect Canadians from terrorists and make Canada a safer place.

The tools that Bill C-44 would provide our intelligence service are long overdue and a necessary part of modern intelligence gathering. Let us bring our spy agency up to date and in doing so protect all Canadians.

I therefore urge members of all parties to send this bill to committee, where they can study it and come to the same realization that I have: Canadians deserve the protection of Canada from terrorists act.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Brandon—Souris for that speech as well as for his previous work on the public safety and national security committee.

It is interesting to note that in one of the last statements in your speech, you said, “It is time to bring the spy agency”—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I am sorry, but the parliamentary secretary should be aware that she has to address her comments to the Chair and not to individual members of Parliament.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for reiterating that. I appreciate it.

One of the member's last comments in his speech was with regard to bringing the spy agency up to date. I think that is important to note, because the CSIS Act was first passed way back in 1984. In fact, I remember being in high school and using my dad's typewriter to type up my first resumé to get a part-time job. I think most Canadians would agree that it is certainly time to bring the act up to date. Obviously the threats against our country and security have changed, as have the factors that participate in or contribute to that national threat.

The bill would give CSIS the ability to operate overseas and to protect its informants. I would like to ask the member what he thinks would happen if this legislation did not pass. What would happen if all of a sudden CSIS no longer had the ability to protect its human sources or informants in the same way that other law enforcement agencies do across this country, or did not have the ability to operate overseas to track terrorists who leave this country and engage in acts of terrorism across the globe?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for that question. It is a very good one.

Certainly if these people were not to receive the protection that is offered in this bill, their lives would be jeopardized. I think that is an untenable position to put Canadian people in when they are trying to do their very best in regard to the security of our country and all of its citizens.

The situation would be such that CSIS would not be able to track people in offshore areas either. It is an absolute necessity for our CSIS agents to be able to follow people who are becoming radicalized and hunting our own comrades down. They fight against democracy and freedom and against people having the life that we enjoy in our country and in many of the countries that we believe strongly in helping. Bill C-44 would certainly be a benefit to all of those countries and to ourselves in providing security to our intelligence agencies. As the member for Scarborough Centre has indicated, many informants would certainly be put at risk without the bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has a special relationship with New Zealand, Australia, the U.K., and the U.S.A.. We are known as the Five Eyes group. The other four nations have what they call a parliamentary oversight, whereby politicians are afforded the opportunity to ensure that there is oversight of national security agencies.

As part of the Five Eyes group, why is Canada the only nation that does not have parliamentary oversight of its national security agencies?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I referred to proposed subsection 18.1(4) in the bill. The amicus curiae is an opportunity for at least some protection with regard to having an anonymous third party. This third party would keep the people in the security system anonymous, whether offshore or here in Canada, and this would benefit the security of all Canadians.

My colleague indicated that we work closely with all of these other nations. They are involved in the world's security as well. It is a privilege to be able to continue to work with them on a daily and timely basis.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in this debate on Bill C-44, which we are very concerned about. As we have heard today, this bill would make changes to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, more commonly known as CSIS. The bill would also amend the Canadian Citizenship Act, which has nothing to do with CSIS, but we are starting to get used to seeing omnibus bills from this government.

I want to talk about three main concerns: the need for an in-depth study, the modernization of CSIS and the fight against radicalization. Bill C-44 is a hot topic, in light of last month's traumatic events, which we all went through. Everyone here in the House, and all Canadians, were affected by these tragic events.

First, as many of my colleagues have mentioned in previous debates, I believe that Bill C-44 is a piece of legislation that requires careful examination. It is simple. We want to send the bill to committee to be studied. This involves consulting experts in all areas, conducting comparative analyses of the measures in other countries, identifying past mistakes and shortcomings, and studying best practices here and abroad.

How will this legislation change legal proceedings? Will this bill affect my civil liberties here and abroad? Are we becoming more of a police state? These are the kinds of questions that Canadians are asking, and they deserve answers. Only a comprehensive, transparent study in a multi-party parliamentary committee can clarify this issue.

Second, we were extremely disappointed when this bill received first reading, because the bill does not strengthen civilian oversight of CSIS. Let us be clear: the bill would legally authorize CSIS to conduct security intelligence operations abroad, enable the Federal Court to issue warrants that have effect outside Canada, and protect the identity of CSIS's human intelligence sources in judicial proceedings. This combination of powers is a source of concern.

CSIS has been the subject of much criticism over the course of its existence. Its lack of a civilian oversight mechanism and the absence of accountability measures are two criticisms that often make headlines.

The Conservatives want to change CSIS's powers, but we should start by fixing what is broken. Over the past eight years, the government has ignored a number of recommendations to modernize CSIS. Take the Maher Arar inquiry, for example, and the advice of the Information Commissioner of Canada and the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. All of their recommendations are along the same lines and call for effective and increased civilian oversight of CSIS.

Some countries went to war because their intelligence agency assured them that there were weapons of mass destruction in another country. It was a hasty decision, made with little oversight, that resulted in many errors and regrets. Relying on inaccurate information or making false accusations will not help improve security—quite the opposite.

For this to work, we need to draw inspiration from best practices instead of repeating our own or others' mistakes. Currently, the CSIS oversight organization, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, is a part-time committee. Members are appointed by the Prime Minister, and one of them is a former Reform MP. Two of the seats have been vacant for months. Is that an example of best practices that we can be proud of?

Today, we have an opportunity to do things properly. The Conservatives want to make major changes to CSIS, but so do we. We want a real civilian oversight mechanism, not the inadequate committee that is currently in place.

Third, many public safety experts who appeared before House of Commons committees mentioned that there are not enough resources. Public safety agencies like CSIS have been affected by three consecutive years of budget cuts. The Conservatives seem to think that they can make up for years of cutbacks by giving the agencies more powers and responsibilities.

I would also like to point out a very significant shortcoming in the government's approach. The Conservatives want to combat terrorism without any real plan for addressing the root causes of radicalization. Communities are asking the government for help, but no measures have been announced to create partnerships with communities.

We support an in-depth study, but the government must be open to amending the bill. This is about keeping Canadians safe, while protecting the pillars of our inclusive democracy and therefore our shared values of freedom and tolerance.

Why not make this a Parliament of Canada bill, rather than an ideological bill? We are prepared to work with all members of the House in order to reach a parliamentary consensus.

In closing, I would like to remind the House that the first thing we need is an in-depth study demonstrating that the bill is necessary, which means conducting a full and transparent study in committee, looking at best practices around the world, and consulting with experts from all walks of life.

Next, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service needs to be completely modernized, which would include a real civilian oversight mechanism, not the one currently in place, since it is flawed. Lastly, the government must re-examine the resources available to public safety agencies and create a plan to combat radicalization, in partnership with Canadian communities.

We hope the government will be open to our proposals, so that we can reach a consensus that will benefit all Canadians.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct a few things I heard in that speech that are absolutely not true. With regard to there being years of cutbacks by our government, that is contrary to what has actually happened under the Conservatives. We have increased funding for our agencies by one-third since taking office. In fact, we have increased funding for the RCMP by $700 million and our Canadian Security Intelligence Service by $200 million, so that is an absolute misrepresentation of the facts here in the House.

I would also like to bring to the attention of the member that in her speech she talked about having parliamentary oversight like that of the United States, but also said that the United States intelligence agencies misled their government about weapons of mass destruction, leading to the war in Iraq. Therefore, it is quite a conundrum, looking at two sides of the same stone and trying to come up with their position on this.

The real question is whether the NDP member actually understands what terrorism is. Past quotes from the Leader of the Opposition indicate that he does not believe that the attack here in Ottawa that took the life of Corporal Nathan Cirillo and attacked our government institution here on Parliament Hill was in fact terrorism in the sense that he understands it. The RCMP understands it. The Criminal Code defines it. The U.S. Secretary of State was here and said it was terrorism. In fact, the President of France stood in the House and called it terrorism. Perhaps that is the real question here: the NDP simply does not understand it.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the member is well aware that the terrorist acts committed here in Ottawa by a person who entered Parliament while we were all in the House, and the events that we went through recently, were based on values that we do not share and do not want to see.

We cannot say that those people were immigrants. They were born here in Canada. As I said in my speech, those people need help and support. Communities are asking to take some time to have a discussion and put in place measures to help individuals before they act. We know that the individual was acting alone.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about protecting Canadians' security while protecting true Canadian values, or something along those lines. I agree with that point and it is why I believe we need a broader oversight agency than the one that a number of NDP members have been proposing. I want to speak in defence of SIRC, the after-the-fact oversight agency of CSIS at the moment. It does good work, though I do not believe it has the resources to do all the work it needs to do.

I will refer to SIRC's report entitled, “Lifting the Shroud of Secrecy”, which is its last report. It outlines in a number of places serious concerns with the way that CSIS is currently operating, and I will read one quote so that the member is aware of it. It states:

With surveillance teams spread across Canada all sharing identical job functions, SIRC expected to see solid communication among surveillance practitioners. Instead, SIRC found that, for the most part, regional surveillance teams operate in total isolation from one another and communicate only sporadically with their HQ counterparts.

That is a serious concern that SIRC has found. I think it is doing its job as best it can. I do not believe there should be another civilian oversight agency. But in addition to SIRC, which provides an after-the-fact review, Parliament needs to have an oversight agency that is sworn to secrecy, can see classified documents, and can be aware of what all the national security agencies are doing together. It would ensure, on the one hand, that the national security agencies are doing their jobs and, on the other hand, that they are not exceeding their bounds and infringing on civil liberties in this country. Would the member not agree that is a necessary oversight agency?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our national anthem says that we must protect our homes and our rights. Those two things sum up the issue very well.

We believe that the government is responsible for protecting both public safety and civil liberties.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act. This legislation would make important changes to modernize the CSIS Act as well as bring into force provisions related to revoking the citizenship of terrorists and those who take up arms against the Canadian Armed Forces.

Our government has a strong record of action in protecting Canada's national security. We have given law enforcement new tools by making it a crime to go overseas to engage in terrorist activity. We have given authorities tools to strip Canadian citizenship from those engaged in terrorist activities. We have increased the funding for our national security agencies, such as the RCMP and CSIS, by one-third. We have introduced new measures to allow our national security agencies to better track threats to Canada. However, it is clear that there is still much more work to be done.

This past Sunday, we all saw a video released of more than a dozen men being beheaded by ISIL terrorists, including the American aid worker Peter Kassig. His parents said that they were heartbroken to learn that their son had lost his life as a result of his love for the Syrian people and his desire to ease their suffering. As Canadians, we all, in this House and across this country, condemn these barbaric actions in the strongest possible terms.

In addition to the horrific reports from Iraq and Syria, recent horrific terrorist attacks right here at home, as we all know, have been and are a stark reminder that ISIL is a threat to Canadians. That is why we are taking part in the coalition that is currently conducting air strikes against ISIL and are supporting the security forces in Iraq in their fight against this terrorist scourge. That is also the reason we are working very determinedly to strengthen the tools available to the police and the intelligence community. The protection of Canada from terrorists acts is just the first step in our efforts to do that.

As chair of the public safety committee, I am certainly pleased to discuss in a bit more detail some of the key measures that would appear before the committee for evaluation. This bill has several key measures that I would like to discuss, then, in more detail.

First is the authority to investigate threats, collect foreign intelligence within Canada, and provide security assessments. Section 12 of the CSIS Act mandates CSIS to collect and analyze intelligence on threats to the security of Canada, and in relation to those threats, to report to and advise the Government of Canada. These threats are defined in the CSIS Act as espionage or sabotage, foreign-influenced activities that are detrimental to the interests of Canada, activities directed toward the threat or use of acts of serious violence, and activities directed toward undermining the system of government in Canada.

Section 16 of the CSIS Act authorizes CSIS to collect within Canada foreign intelligence relating to the capabilities, intentions, or activities of any foreign state or group of foreign states, subject to the restriction that its activities cannot be directed at Canadian citizens, permanent residents, or corporations.

Sections 13, 14, and 15 authorize CSIS to provide security assessments to the Government of Canada, provincial governments, and other Canadian and foreign institutions; to provide advice to ministers of the crown on matters related to the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; and to conduct such investigations as may be required to perform these functions.

I would like to discuss investigative techniques in more detail. Fulfilling these mandates requires that CSIS use a suite of investigative techniques. These techniques can include, among others, open-source research, physical surveillance, interviews, and analyzing intelligence from a variety of sources. Human sources, however, are at the core of CSIS's ability to fulfill its mandate to investigate and advise on threats to the security of Canada. Techniques used by CSIS may include, among others, searches of a target's place of residence, analysis of financial records, or telecommunication intercepts.

Section 21 of the CSIS Act authorizes CSIS to apply for a warrant to conduct activities where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a warrant is required to enable CSIS to investigate a threat to the security of Canada or to perform its duties and functions pursuant to Section 16 of the CSIS Act. The CSIS Act requires that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness approve warrant applications before they are submitted to the Federal Court. Co-operation with other domestic agencies is also critical.

Section 17 of the CSIS Act authorizes CSIS to co-operate with any department of the Government of Canada or the government of a province or any police force in a province. CSIS, as such, works closely with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canada Border Services Agency, other government departments, and police forces across Canada. CSIS's co-operation with these entities must be approved by the Minister of Public Safety.

In investigating threat-related activities occurring outside of Canada, CSIS's relationship with Communications Security Establishment Canada is particularly important. CSIS relies heavily on the capabilities and expertise of CSE to conduct telecommunications intercepts outside of Canada.

CSE's legal authority to provide assistance to CSIS stems from paragraph 273.64(1)(c) of the National Defence Act. CSIS must obtain a warrant from the Federal Court of Canada to seek assistance from CSE to intercept the telecommunications of a Canadian outside of Canada.

As well, we cannot forget the importance of co-operation with foreign intelligence agencies. Fulfilling CSIS's mandate also requires that CSIS undertake investigative activities outside of Canada and co-operate and share intelligence with foreign entities. Targets of CSIS's investigations often depart Canada to engage in a range of threat-related activities. At the same time, in some cases, threats to the security of Canada develop entirely outside of Canada.

CSIS cannot limit itself to undertaking investigative activities only within Canada. Pursuant to section 17 of the CSIS Act, CSIS may, with the approval of the Minister of Public Safety, after consulting with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, enter into an arrangement or otherwise co-operate with the government of a foreign state or an institution thereof.

Unfortunately, in the past, the opposition has been less than supportive of measures to keep Canadians safe from terrorists. The NDP voted against making it a criminal offence to travel abroad to engage in terrorism. The Liberal leader has said that it was an affront to Canadian values to strip passports from those who may engage in terrorist acts.

I am pleased to see that all parties in the House have expressed support for further studying this important bill at committee. I hope that this support continues, and I encourage all members to support these most important measures.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, defending public safety and civil liberties are both key responsibilities of any government. What we have seen from the Conservative side over the last three years have been cuts to Public Safety to the tune of more than $688 million. Of that, $24 million in cuts have been made to CSIS.

If we are going to ensure safety for Canadians, how can the government justify cutting the very tools needed to provide that safety? Can the member respond to this question?

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two points.

First, regretfully, I heard one of the members of the official opposition state that balance was not necessary, that balance between civil liberties and public safety was not necessary. That is absolutely shocking.

However, when it comes to reductions, the fact remains that over the past number of years, we have added, by one third, the amount of expenditures for our surveillance services.

There has been a reduction as of late. However, we met with CSIS Director Michel Coulombe, Commissioner Paulson from the RCMP, the minister, and senior departmental people. We asked them if the reduction has had any influence on their ability to do the job for Canadians. They assured us that it did not. They knew darn well that the small reductions were made at the administrative level, at the front office level, and have had absolutely not been enacted on those in the field of operations.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is always great to hear the chair of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security hold forth, and I like the opportunity to question him.

He would know that we support the bill going to committee,in general. We will have some questions on how to protect foreign sources. The minister failed to answer.

I would ask the chair if he knows why the government is not using the tools that are already available to it in terms of protecting Canadians from terrorism. Section 83.181 of the Criminal Code has penalties for those who leave or attempt to leave Canada for terrorist purposes abroad. The government has not used that section. The chair of the committee will certainly know that Bill S-7 reinstated the provisions allowing for preventive arrest, and the government has not used that section either.

I ask the chair of the committee if there is a reason the government is not using the tools that are already available to it. We support the bill, but why are Conservatives not using the tools currently available?

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome the interjection of my hon. colleague. Though we may occasionally have a philosophical difference, I do respect the time he has spent in the House and as attorney general. He certainly has experience in this field.

As such, I think he made a very clear point. To obtain a warrant and/or have a course of action, we must have sufficient evidence to access those instruments. One of the challenges we have is that without the proper legislation, without the proper oversight, without the capacity and ability to ask for functions, we have instruments in place right now that we cannot fully utilize.

Give us the opportunity to offer more scrutiny so that when we approach the judiciary, the departmental level, or the senior bureaucrats within the department, they will know that they will then operate within the expanded capacity of investigative techniques that are sufficient to allow them to act with the warrant. Without that, there are so many times we sit with our hands tied and are not able to properly defend the interests of Canada.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak about something that is very near and dear to my heart, oversight, in particular of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

We have before us Bill C-44. This legislation would amend a statute that is now 30 years old and obviously needs some fine tuning, which this bill would provide. I say at the outset that we would support this legislation and hope to address some of its deficiencies in detail at the appropriate committee at the appropriate time.

The thing that strikes me as wanting in this legislation is its failure to address oversight in a meaningful way. Currently, the chair of that committee is the former co-chair of the Conservative campaign. Another individual on the committee is a prominent, well-respected lawyer but is the former law partner of former prime minister Mulroney. A security person, a well-respected police intelligence person, rounds out the threesome on the committee.

I had the opportunity to be counsel to the Security Intelligence Review Committee when the first chair of that committee was established, the hon. Ron Atkey, a former Conservative minister of immigration. In those days there were five members on the committee, not three, and they were appointed after real consultation with those parties having more than 12 members in the House. That meant there were Liberals, Conservatives, and New Democrats on that committee, so the Canadian public could have genuine confidence that they would do their oversight work taking into account the views of most Canadians.

I had the opportunity to work with the late Rosemary Brown, a prominent member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, doing national security hearings in those days. I had the opportunity to work with Liberals. I had the opportunity to work with Saul Cherniack from Manitoba. Those days appear to be gone.

The framers of the CSIS Act, the bill that is now 30 years old, wanted to get it right. They wanted to make sure Canadians would have confidence, given the incredibly intrusive powers provided to this secret police intelligence-gathering service. It is critical for the excellent work that CSIS does that there be that oversight in which Canadians can have confidence.

The former head of SIRC, Mr. Porter, languishes in a Panamanian jail. We have three people, none of whom appear to have any connection with the opposition in the House whatsoever. That contrasts dramatically with what used to be the case when the hon. Ron Atkey chaired SIRC and insisted that there be that kind of credibility. Why are we debating a bill to modernize CSIS that does not even address these obviously patent inadequacies in that statute?

The other thing missing is that the inspector general no longer exists. That officer, the late Richard Gosse, was highly respected on all sides of the House. He did some of the heavy lifting for Canadians, to make sure they could go in and do root and branch assessments of CSIS operations and provide confidence that, as the inspector general's reports provided, it was working within the four corners of the law.

This legislation deserves support, but it needs to get it right on such an important issue as oversight. The legislation has essentially nothing to say on oversight, and that is a real, tragic shortcoming. I hope the government would be willing to address that deficiency when we get the bill to the appropriate committee of this place for further review.

This bill deals with our fundamental freedoms as Canadians. To think that it would not include that oversight function to make sure our rights and freedoms are protected shows the government's complete disdain for that kind of oversight that would give Canadians the confidence we must have when we give a police department, an intelligence-gathering operation like this, these kinds of powers. I am sad that this bill, which could have got it right and done these things properly, does not go there at all.

The idea of acting abroad, the second of the two things that this legislation would do, is fine.

It is kind of hard to know how our court would be able to issue warrants with effect outside Canada, but that has to be dealt with in terms of national sovereignty. Nevertheless, I understand the intent. It regularizes what, no doubt, is already going on and provides the cloak of rule of law over those operations.

Providing greater protection to the identity of human intelligence sources is another matter that is clearly worthy of our support. Undertaking operations overseas was a matter of great debate 30 years ago when the CSIS Act was before the House. Bill C-44 would clarify the authority of CSIS to conduct security intelligence operations abroad, but only if those operations could be demonstrated to deal with genuine threats to the national security of Canada. That needs to be underlined. In that context, I would like to go into it in some more detail.

Operating abroad to investigate threats to the security of Canada is something that many have asserted has already been undertaken. In other words, this would simply provide legal authority for operations that are already extant in Canada and abroad. Therefore, to provide the cloak of rule of law over those operations is important. We cannot have, in Canada or overseas, intrusive activities that do not come under the cloak of rule of law. Therefore, I commend Bill C-44 for providing that legal cover, so that Canadians can be sure that operations going on not only in our country but also abroad have that legal cover, if I can call it that, to provide rule of law protection, so to speak, for those kinds of activities.

The other thing that needs to be said is that CSIS uses a number of different kinds of investigative techniques that are well known. One of them is a critical one in practical terms, and that is human sources talking to people about activities for which CSIS has genuine concern because they affect the national security of Canada, such as counter-espionage, of course, and counterterrorism being one of the biggest ones now.

Providing protection for the identity of those sources is absolutely critical if people are going to have confidence to come forward to CSIS in order to address issues that could affect the security of us all. Protecting people's identities means protecting their lives and security.

Being able to facilitate the sharing of intelligence with other intelligence agencies is also what many members in this debate have talked about, because CSIS is not an island in itself. CSIS is part of an international operation with other agencies. They share information all the time. They share human source information and other information, all designed to keep us safe in this country. That is what needs to be addressed here.

The protections being sought are important. The devil is always in the detail. That is why the committee will look at this in great detail, but the objective cannot be criticized at all in this legislation.

I will now end where I began. This bill represents an enormous missed opportunity. To not address the woeful inadequacy of the civilian oversight of CSIS is something that the House ought to insist be addressed, and I hope that when the bill gets to committee, there will be that opportunity. To allow this oversight agency to wither to the extent that it has is a national disgrace. To have three part-time people who apparently have, unlike in the past, no connection with opposition politics is, to me, exactly counter to what was sought 30 years ago when we made the brave choice to create our own national security service, CSIS. No inspector general, part-time, and mostly non-NDP and non-Liberal members on an oversight body just does not cut it.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have repeatedly raised with a number of members in this place today the concern about the fact that I do not see the recommendations that came from Justice O'Connor in the Maher Arar case and the recommendations that came from Justice Iacobucci in the Abdullah Almalki case in Bill C-44. I would like the member to comment, because those were for the protection of the rights of Canadians and will be very critical moving forward. Hopefully the committee will be able to address it. I understand the focus and intent of the bill, but we do not see those protections.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we spent a lot of money and endured international embarrassment for what happened in the tragedy of Maher Arar. Justice O'Connor conducted a thorough investigation, which made a number of important recommendations that have yet to be implemented

Justice Iacobucci did the same thing in the Almalki case.

We have this background. That is why the bill needs to be of particular concern. In the face of all that excellent advice we received, at great expense, none of those recommendations appear to be found in this bill. That is why the bill is even more problematic: we have no excuse for not going forward with the excellent advice that those two learned jurists provided to us.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 5:45 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

It being 5:46 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's order paper.