Roxanne James

[Public Safety, February 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what part of the answer the opposition has not heard clearly. That is absolutely false.

In fact, our government has increased spending for our security agencies by one-third. It is a common practice that when we create budgets for departments and they do not spend it, it is either rolled over or returned back to the government.

I find it completely unacceptable that party members across the way, who have voted essentially against every measure to get tough on crime, to fight terrorism and protect our children, have the audacity to stand in the House and bring up these types of issues.

[Public Safety, February 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we have increased funding for our security agencies since we took office in 2006. Unfortunately, when it comes to protecting our citizens, the opposition parties have voted against every increase in resources.

As I stated earlier as well, the previous Liberal government lapsed over $3 billion from these agencies.

This is a normal practice, and I wish the opposition would stop playing political games with such an important issue.

[Justice, February 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give an example of the good work that the National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre does. In 2014, in a coordinated project, five children were removed from harm and 150 individuals were arrested. This investigation involved the seizure of over two million images. Imagine the impact this has on the people who work in this area. These videos were seized from several hundred different computers.

It is remarkable that these types of questions come from the New Democrats when they actually voted against creating tough new sentences for child exploitation and also against tougher penalties for the child predators act. Shameful.

[Justice, February 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, once again, it is absolutely false. I will say it one more time to be perfectly clear. Perhaps the opposition members should hear it this time. No funding for protecting children from sexual predators has been cut.

I will quote something from the report, because we talk about the importance of finding qualified people to deal in this area with regard to child pornography and sexual exploitation. It is a very difficult field and very difficult on the law enforcement people who get involved. This is one of the reasons why. Basically in the report it speaks of “online child exploitation” in particular “is a psychologically demanding field of law enforcement specialization”.

[Public Safety, February 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, that question by the member just shows how the opposition cannot be trusted with this country's finances. In fact, the previous Liberal government lapsed over $3 billion from this agency. The member opposite is simply trying to play politics over an accounting issue.

The truth of all of this is that seven times our Conservative government brought forward new resources to fight terrorism, and seven times the NDP and the Liberals voted against these resources.

[Public Safety, February 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely false. That member should not let the CBC do the research for her.

Let me be clear, no funding for the protection of children from sexual predators has been cut. The RCMP did not spend the full budget allocated to the National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre due to human resource challenges stemming from the nature of work, and I think members can imagine the nature of the work involved here, and high qualification standards.

That member's remark was absolutely false.

[Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, February 19th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct a couple of things. I am not sure if members opposite were able to read through the entire bill. I know that the Leader of the Opposition was referring to issues concerning groups that may dissent against the government or issues with protesting and so forth. That is factually incorrect.

It is very clear in the bill on page 3. There has been some confusion between the CSIS amendments and amendments made to information sharing, but right on page 3, with regard to information sharing, it states: “For greater certainty, it does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression”.

When it comes to the activities that CSIS can investigate, that definition of what constitutes a threat to national security is actually in the CSIS act itself. It is not in the amendments that the hon. member might be referring to.

I have asked this question before. I would like to know exactly where in the bill the member thinks we are targeting people who may protest or have dissent. Clearly, it is indicated that such is not the case. The bill targets terrorism and—

[Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, February 19th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, my last answer to the member of the Liberal Party was quite clear on how this process would work.

To be honest, I find the NDP has been so naive in dealing with the threat of terrorism. Those members talk about this legislation instilling fear into Canadians.

Just last week another incident happened in Copenhagen. There were recent attacks in Paris and Australia and right here in Ottawa in this Parliament building on October 22.

This legislation is required to protect our security and to protect Canadians. It is essential. These are common sense measures. I am not surprised that the NDP is opposing the bill. That party has opposed essentially absolutely everything we have brought forward to protect Canadians from terrorism, including making it illegal to travel overseas to engage in terrorist acts and stripping citizenship from convicted terrorists. As well, they voted against standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies in the fight against global terrorism.

[Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, February 19th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, on any activities that CSIS undertakes that requires a warrant, obviously it has to be able to prove what justifies the request for that warrant.

I certainly hope that the member opposite is not passing judgement or questioning the ability of our current judges in the judicial system to make those appropriate decisions in such cases. I mean, these are judges who have been making these types of decisions ever since warrants were invented. Obviously, warrants are integral to any type of investigation.

With respect to oversight, there are a number of measures in this bill. In fact, there would be increased reporting requirements by CSIS to SIRC. SIRC would have to report back to Parliament. It would include the number of warrants, how these warrants were used, and whether they were successful in the endeavours they pursued.

[Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, February 19th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for York Centre.

Today I rise in the House to speak about the anti-terrorism act, 2015. Specifically, I will focus my remarks on the component that would give CSIS a mandate to disrupt threats to the security of Canada. It is abundantly clear that the international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada. Canadians are being targeted by jihadi terrorists simply because these terrorists hate our society and the values it represents.

Terrorism is not a human right. It is not a personal freedom. It is an act of war. This is why our Conservative government put forward the legislation we are speaking to today. It would protect Canadians against jihadist terrorists who seek to destroy the very principles that make Canada the best country in the world in which to live.

In recent months, we have heard much about the role of CSIS, particularly during debates in the House and how critical it is to our national security. Given this role, the Canadian public may have been surprised to learn that currently the mandate of CSIS is limited to collecting and analyzing intelligence, which it then uses to advise the government on threats to the security of Canada.

Essentially in matters of national security, CSIS has adopted the role of Canada's note takers. Do not misconstrue my comments. This is a role that the brave men and women of the service have performed admirably for the last 30 years, stifling an unknown number of attacks. However, the fact remains that CSIS does not have the lawful authority today to take action against threats to the security of Canada.

For example, while CSIS can carry out interviews to collect information from individuals, it cannot conduct interviews to deter these individuals from engaging in terrorism. This limitation creates numerous missed opportunities that could have serious, grave consequences. This legislation seeks to amend the CSIS Act to rectify this situation by providing the service with the mandate to take action to disrupt threats before they become a serious danger to Canadians.

CSIS is uniquely placed to take action in instances where other organizations cannot. For example, it has access to intelligence not available to others. It is exposed to the full spectrum of threats to the security of Canada as defined in the CSIS Act, presenting it with opportunities to intervene. Also it can operate covertly in Canada and abroad in accordance with the laws of Canada.

Under the bill, CSIS would be authorized to use an array of techniques to reduce threats to the security of Canada. In order to preserve CSIS's operational flexibility, there is no itemized list of possible threat diminishment measures in the proposed amendments. This is quite intentional, as it means we would not have to come back and update the legislation to match the rapidly evolving threats we face.

Instead, the bill requires that all measures be reasonable and proportional in the circumstances having regard to the nature of the threat, the nature of the measures, and the availability of other means. For added insurance, the bill explicitly mimics the prohibitions found in the Criminal Code, which currently apply to law enforcement.

Further, the bill proposes a rigorous judicial oversight and authorization regime. CSIS would have to request a warrant on a case-by-case basis from a judge when its actions would affect charter rights or would otherwise be contrary to Canadian law. As with the current warrant process, the judge might include in the warrant any terms and conditions he or she deemed advisable in the public interest.

To be clear, CSIS would not be acting above the law. In accordance with the CSIS Act, it is lawfully allowed to undertake these types of measures if they are authorized by a court warrant. This has not changed. Ministerial direction would also be issued to guide CSIS by helping ensure that CSIS carefully weighed the risks of the action as well as coordinated closely with other departments as necessary.

All of these threat disruption activities would be subject to independent review by the Security Intelligence Review Committee. The bill also contains specific new reporting requirements for CSIS and SIRC related to the use of measures to reduce threats.

Let me be very clear. The changes we are proposing would not turn CSIS into a secret police force, as the Green Party leader has alleged, and it would actually be far from it. CSIS would not be handed the power to make arrests or imprison individuals. It is simply not the case. It would not undertake actions that duplicate or conflict with the efforts of the broader security and intelligence community.

Also, as I have just said, robust judicial oversight and robust review mechanisms are in place.

What we are proposing would instead strengthen Canada's national security by allowing CSIS to act rapidly to disrupt a threat. In all of its work, as it does today, CSIS would coordinate with its national and international partners as appropriate. In this regard, it is worth noting that most of the intelligence agencies run by our western democratic allies use threat disruption as part of their regular work to protect their national security. In fact, I would note comments made by S.A. McCartan, a criminal prosecutor for the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, who said:

Canada is alone amongst Western countries in not allowing its spy agencies any powers whatsoever to prevent terror. It is alone in having a spy agency still operating 30 years in the past. It’s time to fix that.

The CSIS Act was first enacted 30 years ago. I agree that it is time to fix that.

These powers would complement CSIS's work abroad, allowing it to work more closely with our allies in addressing the complex and interconnected phenomenon of terrorist travel as well as other shared threats. It would also serve to strengthen our government's capacity to address other categories of threats that fall under the CSIS Act's definition of national security. Again, the definition of what constitutes a national security risk is defined in the CSIS Act.

Thirty years ago, CSIS was created to keep Canadians safe from a wide array of threats. Today, it is a mature, well-respected organization that has a strong track record of working within the rigours of Canadian law to undertake vital security operations that keep all Canadians safe.

In light of escalating threats like terrorist travel, and considering the complex and widespread reach of global terrorist threats, it is critical that we give CSIS this new mandate so that it can build on its current operations. As part of the anti-terrorism act, 2015, this component would allow Canada to better address the threats we face, including those from violent extremists and individuals who travel abroad for terrorist purposes.

We must move forward. We must pass this legislation to strengthen our national security. Although the opposition parties have already declared that they will oppose this, I would hope that they do come to their senses and join us in supporting this bill.