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

[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.