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.

Second Reading

[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, 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.