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.

Report Stage

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will briefly address the need to prevent our media and politicians from descending into xenophobia and populism.

The gunman here in Ottawa, regardless of his ethnic origin or religion, was first and foremost a drug addict. There are some real risks associated with giving CSIS these new powers without proper oversight. Rather than clarifying things, this bill opens the door to a number of legal problems and could very well be struck down by the courts. In addition to legal problems, this initiative exploits a certain social malaise fuelled by a populist, sensationalist narrative that feeds the gutter press and the most base form of politics.

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

Mr. Speaker, I still did not hear a whole lot to do with the bill and so perhaps I can help the member out.

The bill before the House today that we are debating was actually to be tabled on the day of the attacks here in Ottawa on Parliament Hill and against our Canadian Armed Forces. It was not a knee-jerk reaction as some in the opposition have said. It was actually a bill that was to be tabled that day. It was in direct relation to recent court decisions that called into question the authority of our security agencies to actually be able to operate overseas, communicate with our allies, and have the ability to provide their informants with the same protection that law enforcement agencies have across this country. I thought I would add this as general information for the member, possibly for his answers.

However, I am not surprised that NDP members voted against this legislation. They voted against it in committee and will certainly vote against it again. They have not supported a single measure that we brought forward.

This is common sense. It was in the works prior to the attacks. The attack on Parliament on that day is a clear indication that this legislation is needed and why it is needed quickly.

The member's party was not able to support the Combating Terrorism Act. It certainly did not support revoking citizenship from those who commit acts of terrorism against our allies or here in Canada. NDP members are voting against this bill and voting against standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies in the global fight against terror.

My question is very general. Does the member even understand the severity of terrorism in this world, the direct threat that groups like ISIL and those who have created a jihadist movement pose against our country, and what that means to Canada?

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

The problem is that the Conservatives are twisting the concept of terrorism to suit their own interests. They are doing so quickly and abruptly, simply for election purposes.

They have trademarked themselves as the “tough on crime” party. Now they are using terrorism to pursue their agenda, because it fits in nicely with the narrative they have presented. A large portion of the Canadian population responds to that kind of message.

However, using this kind of concept in such a twisted sense and for purely elitist and election purposes is highly questionable and reprehensible.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the critic for the Liberal Party, has had an opportunity to address the House regarding why the bill does have some value. It is a bit of a step forward, but there is also an argument to be made that the government has lost an opportunity in terms of the whole idea of parliamentary oversight. When we think of the Five Eyes security nations, of which Canada is one, there was the idea of having a parliamentary oversight committee to deal with security services.

I wonder if the member might provide the House with the NDP position on parliamentary oversight for an organization like CSIS.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

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

According to information that has been brought to my attention, members of civil society must be allowed to contribute and really examine the powers given to the authorities—powers that ultimately allow them to infiltrate and intrude into the private lives of Canadians.

It is essential that a third party ensure that this system works properly and that no wrongdoing is committed in this type of situation.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his eloquent remarks and for enlightening us about this bill.

With regard to CSIS's activities abroad, various federal courts have already ruled that section 12 of the act does not contain extraterritoriality provisions that cover covert surveillance. This issue has been brought before the courts on a number of occasions.

It is troubling that, ultimately, CSIS is still conducting extraterritorial activities. Clearly, rather than remedying the situation by reining CSIS in, the government is trying to condone that behaviour by amending the act and establishing such provisions.

Would my colleague care to comment on that?

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He clearly has more information and knows much more about this topic than I do.

Could my colleague repeat his question? There were too many details and I cannot remember them.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate. We have one minute left for the hon. member for Medicine Hat. He may want to use his minute at least before the end of the time allocated for government orders for today.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise today for one minute and add my voice to the protection of Canada from terrorists act. Recently, we have seen acts of terror not limited to troubled areas of the world, such as Syria, Algeria, Iran and Iraq.

I listened to the previous member's speech who thought this was a Conservative ploy. I would ask that member in particular why it was that his leader asked for 24/7 protection from the RCMP if this was not a terrorist act? That is really beyond my comprehension.

These individuals are carrying out these acts in groups in cities right across the globe. All of these actions are done for different motives and different means but have a common goal: to strike terror and fear into the hearts of governments and citizens.

That is why our Conservative government has pushed ahead with the legislation before us because nothing is more important than keeping Canadians safe from harm and fear, whether it is in the streets of their communities, when travelling, or when living abroad. That means our Conservative government makes every effort to prevent, detect, deny and respond to terrorist threats.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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 report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 2.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt Motion No. 1?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.