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.

The House resumed from January 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about the protection of Canada from terrorists act. This is an important bill that would allow our government to move forward on our commitment to keep Canadians safe from terrorist threats.

The international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada and her allies. That is why our government has committed the Canadian Armed Forces to the broad international coalition against the so-called Islamic State. No Canadian government should ever stand on the sidelines while our allies act to deny terrorists a safe haven, an international base from which they could plot violence against us.

Recent events of terror around the globe, and particularly the two tragic attacks last October in Quebec and Ottawa and the recent attacks in Paris, have pushed this issue to the forefront of the government's agenda in a way never before seen in Canada's history. It is now abundantly clear to all Canadians that terrorism is no longer a threat in a faraway land. We must degrade and destroy the terrorists before they bring their barbaric, violent ideology to our shores.

In light of the atrocities carried out by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, ISIL, and the deteriorating situation in Iraq and Syria, the world is rallying against the threats of violent extremism. That is why we have introduced the protection of Canada from terrorists act. Now, more than ever, we must ensure that CSIS can undertake its work as it was originally intended by Parliament.

While this legislation is important, it is not lengthy or complicated. In fact, the proposed amendments are targeted and common sense. However, any time a government introduces legislation concerning national security, there are those who raise concerns, which can lead to misunderstanding. As a result, there has been some confusion about what this legislation would do.

Allow me to start with what it would not do. It would not, as some have suggested, hand broad, sweeping powers to CSIS. Just as importantly, it would not create new authorities or infringe on the rights of Canadians. We have been abundantly clear on these points. With this legislation, as with all bills that have passed through the House, our government has worked diligently to strike a proper balance between public safety and civil liberties.

Thirty years ago, when the CSIS act was passed, the Parliament of the day ensured that this balance was adhered to in the authorities given to CSIS. That is why the act put in place robust safeguards, oversight, and review mechanisms to ensure that CSIS's investigative work is done with full respect of its governing laws.

As we know, Bill C-44 responds to court decisions that are having a significant impact on CSIS operations. Before I go into the provisions of the bill, I would like to provide some context on these decisions and why they necessitate the amendments before us today.

Just last fall, the Federal Court of Appeal unsealed its July 2014 decision related to the government's appeal of Justice Mosley's decision that was issued by the Federal Court in November 2013. This decision has raised important questions about certain aspects of CSIS's mandate and investigative authorities, particularly in relation to CSIS's ability to conduct investigations outside of Canada.

It is self-evident that Parliament always intended CSIS to be able to take reasonable and necessary measures to investigate threats to the security of Canada outside of Canada. The protection of Canada from terrorists act introduces targeted amendments to the CSIS act to ensure that CSIS can continue to do just that and do so in a manner that is consistent with relevant Canadian law, the charter, and Canadian values.

To start, the bill would confirm CSIS's authority to conduct investigations outside of Canada related to threats to the security of Canada and security assessments. At the same time, the bill would also confirm the authority of the Federal Court to issue warrants authorizing CSIS to undertake certain intrusive activities outside of Canada, and it would give the Federal Court authority to consider only relevant Canadian law, primarily the CSIS act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, when issuing warrants for CSIS to undertake certain intrusive activities outside of Canada.

Why are these amendments important? It is because threats to the security of Canada do not stop at our border. Many threats, in fact, may develop entirely outside of Canada.

In order to fully investigate these threats, CSIS must be able to use intrusive investigative techniques outside of Canada, and it must have a clear means to obtain authorization to do so. The Federal Court of Appeal effectively found that, as currently written, the CSIS act may require CSIS to demonstrate that its activities will be lawful in the country where the activity will take place. This is not a reasonable threshold to require CSIS to meet. CSIS, and indeed the Federal Court, cannot reasonably expect to track the legislation of all 170 countries in the world to determine which kinds of activities are lawful in those countries and which ones are not. It is also unreasonable because subjects of investigation move around from country to country and CSIS cannot reasonably be expected to predict to which countries a subject of investigation might travel. It is clear that Parliament did not intend CSIS to meet such a threshold when it originally passed the CSIS act, and neither should we here today.

Just to re-emphasize the fact that CSIS must have a clear authority to conduct investigative activities outside of Canada, let me say this. At a time when we are witnessing Canadians travelling abroad to take part in terrorist activities, we simply cannot have ambiguity or questions about CSIS's authority to take reasonable steps outside of Canada to investigate the threat to the security of Canada that they may pose.

Turning to the second court decision affecting CSIS operations, in May 2014, as part if its decision on Mohamed Harkat, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that CSIS human sources do not benefit from a common-law class privilege similar to the informer privilege applicable to police informants. While this does not necessarily mean that these CSIS sources will be revealed during court proceedings, it has weakened CSIS's ability to provide human sources—a critical source of information for CSIS—with a credible assurance that their identity would be protected. The implications of this are serious, as those human sources may decide not to provide CSIS with information that could be vital to an investigation of a terrorist threat to Canada. To address this issue, the bill provides that the identities of CSIS human sources would be prohibited from being disclosed in legal proceedings.

However, it is worth noting that this is subject to certain exceptions to preserve the right of Canadians to fair legal proceedings. To this end, the legislation includes three measures under which this protection could be lifted.

First, the human sources could, of their own accord, agree to the disclosure of their identity in court, subject to the consent of the director of CSIS.

Second, parties to the proceedings could ask a judge to make a ruling regarding the human source. For example, is the individual in fact a human source, and could the information in question actually reveal the identity of the human source?

Third, in criminal proceedings, defendants and any other party to the proceedings would be able to ask a judge to declare that the disclosure of the identity of a human source or information from which their identity might be inferred is essential to establish the innocence of the accused.

More important, these amendments would not in any way interfere with the ability of judges to take other measures to ensure the fairness of legal proceedings beyond revealing the identity of a CSIS human source. Judges also have broad discretion to determine the weight to give to information provided by CSIS human sources in legal proceedings. The proposed amendments would not affect this discretion in any way.

The protection of Canada from terrorists act would also make technical amendments to the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act. These amendments would allow earlier implementation of provisions that ensure that dual citizens who have been convicted of terrorist acts and sentenced to a prison term of at least five years would not continue to benefit from Canadian citizenship.

The amendments that our government has proposed through the protection of Canada from terrorists act are reasonable, necessary, and consistent with the values of Canadians. The Federal Court of Appeal and decisions from the Federal Court have raised important questions about CSIS's mandate and investigative authorities, and the Supreme Court of Canada's decision has weakened CSIS's ability to protect the identity of human sources.

Parliament must respond to these decisions by affirming CSIS's existing authority to conduct investigative activities outside of Canada, clearly stating that the Federal Court does have jurisdiction to issue warrants for activities outside of Canada, including certain intrusive activities that may be unlawful in the jurisdiction where they would take place, and stating that Parliament wishes the identity of CSIS human sources to be protected from disclosure in legal proceedings, subject to certain exceptions.

CSIS would, as always, continue to be required to obtain judicial authorization to undertake certain intrusive investigative techniques in relation to Canadians, and also remain subject to robust review by the Security Intelligence Review Committee, SIRC, which has access to all information in the possession of CSIS, except cabinet confidences.

SIRC's powers of review are among the most far-reaching of any body reviewing any intelligence agency in the western world. I believe that these amendments are critical to ensuring safety and security of Canadians.

Canadians expect us to ensure that our law enforcement and national security agencies have the tools to keep them safe. That is why we have trusted our Conservative government to deliver on these important issues. Unlike the NDP, whose leader has refused to call the atrocities that occurred in late October a terrorist attack, we have taken strong action, except when he asked for 24-hour, 7-day-a-week police protection.

I have a question for the NDP leader, and perhaps some of his colleagues could answer me today. If what happened in this place was merely caused by a drug addict who was mentally unstable, why did the NDP leader demand additional RCMP security? I can tell him why. It is because, despite his leftist rhetoric, he knows that there is a real and present terrorist threat.

I was pleased to see earlier this week that the Liberals have finally adopted our approach on national security. Hopefully they have rejected their ill-advised approach of looking for the root causes of terrorism, as their leader suggested after the bombing at the Boston Marathon. I can tell the Liberals exactly the root cause of terrorism in plain language that all Canadians can understand. The root cause of terrorism is terrorists.

I hope all members will join me in supporting this very important legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his speech. We have frequently worked together as members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Even though we have often disagreed about various bills, we have always preserved a sense of collegiality in the committee.

During meetings of that committee, whether attended by witnesses and experts or private citizens, people had lots of questions. There is one question in particular that the government never answered; it was about the constitutionality of Bill C-44. We repeatedly asked the Minister of Public Safety, his parliamentary secretary and his colleagues on the opposite side of the House whether they had received any legal opinions confirming that Bill C-44 is well and truly constitutional because we do not want to end up debating the constitutionality of a bill before the Supreme Court yet again.

Can my colleague across the way tell me for sure whether Bill C-44 is well and truly constitutional?

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from across the way. We do work together well on the public safety committee. Certainly we have had the opportunity to have a lot of discussion on various issues, and I appreciate her presence and her question.

I can tell the hon. member that, in fact, any of the legislation that our government puts through the House of Commons has to go through a rigorous process to ensure that it does meet all constitutional requirements, as well as those ensuring the freedoms and protection of all Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member might be able to respond to a letter, or it may have been an email, that was actually sent to one of his colleagues in regard to exploding targets. The letter says, “I continue to find it very surprising that the Conservative government seems unable to understand that the easy availability of this explosive [referring to exploding targets]—ammonium nitrate and aluminium powder that can be simply scaled up to a very powerful bomb—is a threat to the safety of Canadians. There is no control on a radicalized person acquiring a large quantity of this explosive, once they have obtained a firearms licence. I hope that someone in the existing government will realize the major blunder made by making this powerful explosive so widely and easily available before it results in the injury and death of Canadians.”

It is regarding exploding targets, and apparently the government has done something to make it more available, that one only requires a firearms possession certificate to acquire large quantities of it.

This is a letter that I just bring to his attention, and I would be interested in his thoughts on it.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would not mind getting a copy of that letter from my colleague across the way. It is an interesting concept that people can buy a whole bunch of different products to potentially make bombs. I do not believe that is in the interest of Canadians in ensuring the protection of all our citizens.

I have not seen anything in particular with respect to the legislation, but I would be more than happy to work with him on that issue and come to some resolution.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no doubt that public safety and national security are a priority for every person here.

I think it is important to point out that this highly important question is, once again, being discussed in a hurry under a time allocation motion that restricts our speaking time. To me, that is completely unacceptable.

To be sure, we cannot pretend that we have not seen the Conservative Party's tasteless and partisan ads about these very issues.

I would like to know if the government introduced this bill for partisan reasons and is trying to ride roughshod over reason. We agree that the issue is pressing, but the government could make it a priority instead of limiting our speaking time.

If they did not do it for partisan reasons, then why is there once again no place for the amendments put forward in committee by, for example, the NDP official opposition, which, like the Conservatives, cares deeply about public safety?

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that those members have suggested that this is a political manoeuvre. It is the responsibility of the government of the day, which happens to be our Conservative government, to ensure that Canadian citizens, whether they are parliamentarians or everyday citizens, are protected from terrorists. That is our prime concern.

If we do not get the legislation through, people will ask why. This is important legislation that would protect Canadians and our country from these jihadist terrorists. It is extremely important. I would not say that this is any kind of political move.

If we talk about a political move, the leader of the NDP and his colleagues suggested that the attack in the House was because of a drug addict. Let us get real. We know what it was. The real question is this. If the NDP members think this was just a drug addict, why did the NDP leader ask for 24-hour a day police protection? I do not see the reality in his question.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, we support this bill insofar as it explores and seeks to strengthen provisions to ensure the safety of all Canadians. However, we have concerns, when the Conservatives say “a robust debate” and “a robust process”, that closure will not be used, and that when it comes to committee, they will not be scoping the input from learned Canadians to ensure the bill is improved.

My question is centred on the concern that the member had about a political leader who talked about root causes as being somehow inappropriate. My understanding is that the Prime Minister is today announcing measures in Richmond Hill that explore how we stop the root causes from creating the dangerous circumstances and how we work with our friends and neighbours in the Muslim community, who seek peace and a just world, to ensure that radicalization does not happen, and that the elements and conditions that create radicalization and dangerous circumstances are addressed before terrorism exists.

Surely, terrorism does not just create terrorism. There are root causes. That is why the Prime Minister is making his announcement. Does the member not support his Prime Minister?

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question. Of course I support the Prime Minister.

Throughout these activities, including this bill, we have talked about what we need to do to try to ensure that terrorists are stopped before they come to Canada. We already know we have about 130 individuals who have gone abroad to participate in terrorism.

I know the leader of the Liberal Party had suggested that the bombing in Boston was because we did not understand the Muslims and we needed to get to the root cause of that. The root cause of it is that those terrorists do not want to see Canadians and people across the globe have the freedoms and values that Canadians appreciate.

We have freedom of speech. We have the opportunity to work and travel abroad. These are the rights that Canadians want. In fact, our government, and all our agencies and legal authorities, such as the police, are working with Canadians right across the country to try to stop terrorism before it hits here.

I certainly do support our Prime Minister. I do not have the items that the Prime Minister will be releasing, but I am sure we will get that information in short order. However, it will be to ensure that Canadians are safe from terrorists.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to participate in the third reading debate on Bill C-44. Bill C-44 was introduced shortly after the events of October 22, 2014, which shocked us all.

I know that this bill was not a response from the government to those events, something that was not clear in the speech that my colleague just gave. It seemed like he was saying that it was a response to the attacks that took place in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and Ottawa, but it was not. Bill C-44 had already been drafted well before those attacks took place. This bill is therefore not a response on the part of the government.

We expect better answers from the Conservative government on what it wants to do to combat terrorism today. There was talk of an announcement around noon. We are anxious to see whether the government is going to present a balanced approach. I am still holding out hope.

With regard to Bill C-44, which is before us today, I would like to say from the outset that the official opposition, the NDP, is going to oppose this bill at third reading. I will try to explain why in my remarks.

I have a few things to say to my colleagues opposite after listening to their speeches. I noted a few things that they said. The sad thing about Bill C-44 and the pressure that the government is putting on the Canadian Security Intelligence Service is that the government would have us believe that giving CSIS more power is a good thing. It would be if the government also gave the agency the resources and tools it needs. However, unfortunately, the Conservatives decided to go it alone and did not hold the necessary consultations on Bill C-44. There has also been talk about a balance between public safety and civil liberties, something that we do not see at all in Bill C-44.

The whole national security context is undergoing rapid changes. The nature of the attacks we are facing has changed, and in general, the attackers are not the same either. The problems are changing extremely quickly, particularly because of the new tools that terrorists have and their access to social media.

This brings me to the issue of resources within the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. This is a fundamental part of the problem, but the Conservatives refuse to address it. All departments have been affected by austerity measures over the past few years. For example, cuts totalling over $100 million have been made to the Department of Public Safety. In 2012-13, cuts totalling about $15 million were made to CSIS.

When my colleague talks about striking a balance between security and civil liberties, I also think about the fact that the inspector general of CSIS position was scrapped, even though it was crucial to accountability at CSIS. That was not done in 2012-13, but because of cuts totalling around $24.5 million that will be announced in future budgets, it will be done in 2014-15. That was an extremely important position that helped balance civil liberties and national security.

In addition, we were disappointed to hear about some questionable spending, to say the least and to avoid unparliamentary language, by Michel Coulombe, the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

Here is just one example: during a trip, the director of CSIS actually spent over $750 on a hotel room for one night—this at a time when we are in the middle of an austerity program and his agency is suffering significant cuts. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable. The director of CSIS is spending more on himself right now than the Minister of Public Safety. It is totally unacceptable to see taxpayers' money spent like that. What are we hearing from the Conservatives right now? Nothing, radio silence. They have no response when we ask what will happen next. Will the director of CSIS be reprimanded for misusing public funds? We still do not know.

As far as Bill C-44 is concerned, many things were discussed in committee. In fact, I will come back to what happened, but to give my colleagues a sense of what is in Bill C-44, I would add that it does nothing to improve civilian oversight of CSIS, as promised. As the official opposition, we thought it was an excellent opportunity to correct the situation and work together to ensure that the government kept its promise and did more for civil liberties while sorting out the existing problems at CSIS.

Unfortunately, all of our amendments to that end were rejected. In fact, I will go even further: all the amendments that the official opposition, the third party and other members of the House proposed at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security were rejected by the government. That is absolutely unacceptable after members said they would try to work together, especially at such an important stage as review in committee, where witnesses give extremely important opinions.

I was also shocked by something else. This bill is only six or seven pages long, which is not very long. Under the Conservatives we have become accustomed to seeing bills that are often 100 or so pages long, so five or six pages is not very much. However, the Conservatives managed to create an omnibus bill out of those pages. I commend them. That is quite a feat. Bill C-44 affects not just CSIS, but also part of the Citizenship Act, which has nothing to do with what we are interested in here, namely the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

In fact, the Conservatives are playing petty politics. They passed legislation concerning the Citizenship Act and they want that legislation to come into effect sooner than they planned. They therefore included a provision in Bill C-44 to make the legislation they introduced come into effect sooner. In fact, no one in the House except for them agreed to that. This is absolutely unacceptable and illogical when we are dealing with something as important as our public safety and national security.

This brings me to the work in committee in general. We moved 12 very reasonable amendments to this bill. A number of expert witnesses were behind us. Our proposed amendments were mainly based on the evidence provided by experts to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and also that of groups of stakeholders that we managed to meet with over what I must say was a short period of time. In fact, Bill C-44 was rushed through committee very quickly. The number of hours of debate in the House of Commons was reduced, as often happens with this government, and we did not have many committee meetings. There were only two meetings where we were able to listen to witnesses and experts. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the director of CSIS, Michel Coulombe, and stakeholders associated with the minister and the director attended the first meeting. That left us with only two hours to question witnesses and experts not directly associated with the government.

As for the work in committee, I must say that the Conservatives allowed us to invite only a small number of witnesses. Clearly, you cannot have a large number of witnesses in two hours, but we had very limited time.

The committee did not hear from a lot of witnesses, and most of the witnesses came from the Conservative government. As a result, we heard very little from people who were not from the government side. This made the work very difficult because I would say that over the course of an hour, we had about six witnesses at once. This prevented us from really going into great detail on Bill C-44. The government had told us that we would all work together, that we would develop a good bill and come to a unanimous consensus on something. Unfortunately the government disappointed us yet again.

We voted in favour of this bill at second reading because we wanted to send it to committee. We thought that the Conservatives were serious about Bill C-44 and that they truly wanted to work together and put partisanship aside. There is no place for partisanship in discussions on public safety and national security or in discussions on civil liberties, when we are talking about CSIS.

It is sad to see that the government has disappointed us yet again and that we were not able to work together to create the best bill possible. Because the bill before us is not the best it could be, I want to talk about its constitutionality.

I asked the Conservative member who just spoke on Bill C-44 whether they had received legal opinions confirming that the bill is well and truly constitutional. He managed to evade the question just as well as the Minister of Public Safety and all the people who dealt with this bill. No one was able to offer any legal opinions to prove that this bill was constitutional.

This is therefore highly likely to be yet another bill that ends up before the courts in a test of its constitutionality. If that happens, millions of taxpayer dollars will be spent on something that could have been taken care of before the bill was introduced. The government is being irresponsible by introducing bills that it does not know for sure are constitutional. When we are trying to address public safety in the current global context, it is a very bad idea to introduce something that is not constitutional and that will probably be unusable until its constitutionality has been proven in court. This is extremely disappointing.

I talked about what is in Bill C-44. I would like to go back to that because I want to make one very important point about something in it. Bill C-44 contains one very important clause that will make significant changes to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, namely with respect to the protection of all the sources listed.

Bill C-44 ensures full protection of identity for all of CSIS's human intelligence sources. Those of you who know a little bit about the Canadian Security Intelligence Service will see that is a very good thing: people doing secret work on the ground and sources will be protected. That is very important, and it is already being done. Sources involved in sensitive and delicate cases are already being protected. At any time, on a case-by-case basis, judges can already protect CSIS sources.

Under Bill C-44, all employees who are currently working, used to work, or may someday work for CSIS can be protected. That might seem right on the surface, but here is what is changing: this is directly related to what the government did not do, to the balance between public safety and civil liberties.

Should CSIS end up in court for criminal proceedings, CSIS human sources may well have to testify, if necessary. Legal experts have expressed concern that full protection of identity for human sources will make it more difficult to test CSIS evidence in criminal cases, which may create obstacles to the successful prosecution of those involved in threats to national security on the basis of CSIS information.

The ability of the accused to confront their accuser and to test evidence in court is a fundamental part of Canadian criminal law.

This will add complications, as it will require a separate process in Federal Court. This unnecessarily complicates many things. We can protect sources working on extremely important investigations on a case-by-case basis. This measure is then a rather grandiose way of protecting a lot of people at the head of CSIS.

After the events in Ottawa and the attacks on Charlie Hebdo or in Australia, a few weeks ago, people are worried and expect Canadian parliamentarians to work together to find the right solutions to national and international security problems. They expect us to work with our counterparts around the world to find tangible ways to deal with radicalization and terrorism.

Unfortunately, partisan measures and a box full of unnecessary tools are not going to be the solution. There are concrete ways to address radicalization and terrorism. First of all, we need to give more resources to people on the ground. Huge cuts are being made to important programs. For instance, the Conservative government did not renew the $400 million that used to go directly to police forces in Quebec. One of the things they used that funding for was to tackle the problem of radicalization in our street gangs. This is extremely serious.

In recent months, police forces have been telling us that they are seeing people become radicalized, but they do not have the resources to do anything about it. It is all well and good to give them a nice, big tool box, but if they do not have the personnel needed do something with it, it is pointless. We are not tackling the problem directly, and that is extremely serious.

We can also address radicalization and terrorism by working on the ground with people from certain communities, regardless of their nationality and their field of work. However, this government has never included this solution in any of its bills or plans. We need to look at what is happening on the ground and understand the needs that exist in order to come up with a consensus. The Conservative government does not do that.

I am very disappointed in this bill, which has many flaws and is probably unconstitutional. It does not improve civilian oversight of CSIS and only introduces measures to further protect CSIS when it finds itself in hot water.

I would like to stress how very disappointed I am, because I wanted to give the government the benefit of the doubt. Following the events that shocked us all, I thought we would be able to agree on a positive measure that would still allow us to preserve civil liberties. It is our duty as parliamentarians to ensure the public safety of the communities and people we represent.

Unfortunately, the official opposition cannot support this bill because of how it was put together and the blatant lack of consultation of experts and communities. I am saddened to see that we have once again been presented with an omnibus bill and, even worse, that the RCMP, the Canada Border Services Agency and CSIS employees are not being given the resources they need to address the real problem of radicalization. Their budgets keep getting cut, which decreases the number of employees on the ground who could do the work and properly use the tools.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Alfred-Pellan. I especially want to thank her for explaining what happened in committee because we are not necessarily privy to what happens at every meeting. She spoke of the abysmal process in committee.

That reminds me, for example, of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, where the deposition of the minister who appears before the committee is considered to be that of an actual witness, whereas in reality it is just the minister's statement.

I am pleased that she explained this flaw in the system and the Conservatives' use of this absolutely dishonest method.

I also thank her for reminding us that Bill C-44 was drafted before the incidents that took place in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and elsewhere.

That incident directly concerns my riding and so I would like the member to remind us that Martin Couture-Rouleau, who was dealing with mental health issues, was already being monitored by the RCMP. He was assessed just a few months before he committed this crime. In the assessment, the RCMP concluded that he was no longer a threat.

Can my colleague explain how amending a law that governs CSIS would not have prevented this tragedy or changed it in any way? In fact, this person was already being monitored, he had been assessed and the assessment had concluded that he was no longer a threat.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saint-Jean for his question.

I know that these incidents have had a direct impact on the people that he represents and that this has been a very tough time for him. It is an extremely sensitive subject and for that reason, I thank him for asking that question in the House. I believe that this is an extremely important topic.

That brings me to the fact that the Conservatives are using these incidents to promote the idea that bills like Bill C-44 are very important.

We need to talk about this for the good of the people that we represent. If we do not look at the specifics of the bill and do not talk about exactly what it contains, people will not know. They will think that Bill C-44 is about CSIS and that it will actually have an impact should other similar incidents occur.

My colleague from Saint-Jean is completely right: this bill has nothing to do with those incidents. It is sad that the Conservatives are using those incidents to promote this type of bill, which ultimately does not have the proper focus.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments and the previous question.

One of the things we do need to emphasize is that even though there might be some concerns regarding Bill C-44, it is a step in the right direction. It does provide clarity on a number of different issues, in particular by allowing for a greater sense of comfort with CSIS and the individuals it has to deal with. It provides some greater sense of security.

As a whole, Canadians are very concerned about the issue of terrorism and want to see the government bring in necessary legislation that will to make a difference and allow CSIS and other security measures to be more effective. We in the Liberal Party recognize that this bill is somewhat of a step forward and therefore will be voting in favour of it.

Do the New Democratic members recognize that our security agency is also looking at what is being provided through this legislation? Do they recognize that at the very least, even though there are shortcomings in the legislation, it has some value and that Canadians as a whole recognize that value and want to see the bill passed?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is an example of the difference between the NDP and the Liberals. At the beginning of his remarks, the member said that Bill C-44 provides clarity on a number of issues. I strongly disagree with that statement simply because most experts that we heard from told us that they did not know whether the bill was constitutional or whether it could even be used.

What is happening with Bill C-44 is not necessarily clear. It does not necessarily address all of the issues associated with radicalization and terrorism in Canada and throughout the world. I would like to talk a bit more about the lack of clarity concerning the direction the Conservatives and the Liberals want to take. What is their position on the tools and resources available to ensure public safety and national security?

I do not think that we can talk about clarity here because the bill does not address civil liberties, does not protect Canadians from CSIS and does not allocate the necessary resources. What is more, the bill deals with issues that are not necessarily even related to the general subject of the bill.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her speech. On matters of public safety and civil liberties, the NDP is at the forefront and will do everything in its power to ensure that a bill such as Bill C-44 helps as many people as possible. We will make sure that there is a truly democratic dialogue among all members to further this very important cause.

Regarding the relationship between radicalization and terrorist acts, my colleague showed that this bill lacks concrete measures to create conditions that will prevent radicalization from taking root in our communities.

Can my colleague comment further on that and give the House some ideas for dealing with the phenomenon of radicalization?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Lambert for raising that question in the House. I think it is very important because the time is right. We will be talking about public safety and national security a lot in 2015. This issue is extremely important to most Canadians. It is important to talk about it now in the House, to try to find a consensus and to come up with good ideas for the solutions we need.

The first step is to look to our communities to see what is happening there. Many of our colleagues want to know what is going on in their community. Is radicalization happening? Are things different on the ground? There are also people who go to observe what is happening outside the country. The Charlie Hebdo attacks had a profound impact on us. The French are going through similar experiences to ours. People went to see what was happening there and to talk to people in these communities, and they realized, in the end, that the problems we are seeing here are very similar to those experienced by our French colleagues, friends and cousins across the ocean. Our fight against radicalization should be founded on an understanding of exactly what is happening on the ground .

Furthermore, we need to place more trust in our police forces, whether we are talking about the RCMP, provincial police forces, border services officers, or CSIS agents. These people work on the ground and they understand the dynamics. We must give them the tools they need.

In conclusion, my colleague mentioned at the beginning of her comments that the NDP is a champion of balancing public safety and civil liberties. We demonstrated this in committee with the various amendments we proposed to ensure that there would be a balance between the two.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate with the hon. member for Malpeque, I will let him know that there are only five minutes remaining before we go to statements by members at 11 o'clock, but he will get started and will have the remaining time in his 20 minutes when the House next resumes business on the question.

The hon. member for Malpeque.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I assume that the House is continuing the discussion on this bill following question period. My remarks then will certainly be curtailed because for some reason the government has called a briefing on the new combating terrorism act, or whatever it may call it, at 11:30, which is halfway through question period, and that will go through to 12:30 p.m. Because of the actions of the government, I will not be able to conclude my speech. It is startling that the Conservatives would call a briefing during question period when members are supposed to be here.

Instead of taking time to duplicate the discussion, the member for Alfred-Pellan talked about what happened at committee. I agree with her comments. The ability of the committee to do its work was certainly curtailed. I think we had six witnesses, which is just not adequate to do the job, especially with all the pomp and ceremony by the government and its line that it is fighting terrorism and that the bill is so important. We will see what is in the new bill coming forward this afternoon.

This bill really does absolutely nothing to address the national security concerns that resulted from the recent events in Quebec and Ottawa. It simply amends legislation to meet current CSIS practices and expedites amendments to citizenship and immigration from Bill C-24. We raised with the minister in the House and at committee the point that the government must explain why it is not using existing legislation and the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code. Here I refer to preventive arrest and section 83 of the Criminal Code, whereunder someone, if they are planning, attempting to, or leaving the country to operate with a terrorist entity abroad, can face from 10 to 14 years in prison. We have never had an answer from the government why those sections of the law are not being utilized, specifically subsection 83.18(1). Peace bonds have only been used very rarely, but they are another way of taking people off the streets.

The bill contains provisions related to clarifying CSIS' ability to operate internationally, although according to the deputy commissioner of CSIS in testimony to the Senate national security committee, it will not alter its ability to operate internationally, which it has been doing historically. The bill as well does provide protections to sources abroad. These are similar to the protections provided to informants in domestic cases. We are supportive of that. We have to be supportive of those who work with CSIS in carrying out its duties.

I will close by saying that we will be supporting the bill. We have some concerns about the bill in that the Minister of Public Safety is not required to inform the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence on activities abroad. That is a concern we raised and we stand by it, but we will be supporting the bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Malpeque will have 15 minutes remaining in his time for his speech when we return to this question, likely later this day.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour.

I am very pleased to be here today to join in the debate on Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act. Before I go into the particulars of the bill, I would like to speak about how our government has been committed to keeping our streets and communities safe by supporting the global fight against terrorist threats since we were first elected in 2006.

As we have seen, the international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada and her allies. In fact, several hundred Canadians have been killed or injured in terrorist attack incidents in Canada and abroad over the past number of decades. This includes the 1985 bombing of Air India Flight 182, which was planned and executed on our soil and killed 280 innocent Canadians. It also includes the terrorist attacks of 9/11, in which 24 Canadians lost their lives.

To guard against these domestic and international terrorist threats, our government is using a multi-pronged approach. For example, in 2007, our government implemented the passenger protect program, which identifies individuals who may pose a threat to aviation security and disrupts their ability to cause harm or threaten aviation by preventing them from boarding aircraft.

As we are all aware, on October 7, 2014, the House passed a motion to support the government's decision to join coalition efforts to counter ISIL. Canada's military mission is in addition to the significant humanitarian, development, and security assistance Canada is already contributing to Iraq. Like all peace-loving nations, Canada has put a clear focus on countering terrorist acts and on working together with our international allies in all aspects.

Over the past several years, global conflicts and the factors that drive terrorism have continued to evolve. Our efforts to combat terrorism include strengthening our laws to deter terrorist-related activities within our borders and to support Canadians who fall victim to these acts.

For example, our government has listed terrorist entities under the Criminal Code. This sends a strong message that Canada will not condone terrorist activity. We also passed the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and related amendments to the State Immunity Act, which allows victims of terrorism to sue perpetrators of terrorism and those who support them, including listed foreign states, for loss or damage that occurred as a result of an act of terrorism committed anywhere in the world.

Canada continues to work hard to secure its borders at home while also working with international partners to combat terrorist threats overseas. These actions are laid out clearly in Canada's counterterrorism strategy, launched in 2012, entitled “Building Resilience Against Terrorism”. It speaks frankly about the terrorist threats we face at home and abroad and the importance of strong partnerships and collaboration with government, security agencies, law enforcement, and community groups, among others. It underscores our contribution to the global effort to counter the terrorist threat.

Canada's counterterrorism strategy is composed of four elements: prevent, detect, deny, and respond to terrorism. It sets out a clear approach for Canada to address terrorism, with a focus on building community resilience. A resilient society challenges and rejects the ideas and values associated with violent extremism and works together to mitigate the impact of a terrorist attack.

While governments today are better prepared to detect and prevent these acts, terrorist groups continue to evolve and develop their capabilities just as rapidly and to plan attacks against new targets and interests.

Without a doubt, the threat posed by homegrown violent extremists, individuals who seek to harm others in pursuit of overtly political, religious, or ideological objectives, is an important challenge facing many democratic nations today, not just Canada. There is a real concern that new and evolving conflicts in the world may lure young people to engage in violent extremist activities at home and abroad.

Canada, like all nations, has a responsibility to guard against its citizens travelling to areas of turmoil and to prevent its citizens from participating in terrorist acts abroad.

We must also be prepared for those who return home. Battle hardened and imbued with real-life terrorist ideology, some of them will be highly skilled potential domestic terrorist actors. Perhaps more importantly, they will have tremendous legitimacy in the eyes of other aspiring foreign fighters. They will have acquired both the credibility and charisma required for them to act as guides, mentors, and radicalization agents in their own right.

That is why our government passed the Combating Terrorism Act, legislation that ensures that Canada has the tools it needs to combat crime and terrorism to protect its citizens.

Particular to that legislation was a provision intended to deter persons from leaving Canada to attend terrorist training camps or to engage in other terrorist activities abroad. Through this provision, our government closed an important gap in the current laws.

Recent court decisions, however, necessitate that we amend the CSIS Act to address important questions that have been raised about CSIS's mandate and investigative authorities. That is why we have introduced Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act.

By amending the CSIS Act, Bill C-44 would do a number of things. It would confirm both CSIS' s authority to conduct its investigations outside of Canada and the Federal Court's jurisdiction to issue warrants authorizing CSIS to undertake certain activities abroad to investigate threats to the security of Canada. It would clarify that the Federal Court only needs to consider relevant Canadian law when deciding whether to issue warrants that give CSIS the authority to undertake certain intrusive activities to investigate a threat to the security of Canada from outside our borders. It would also protect the identity of CSIS human sources from disclosure, akin to those same protections afforded to police informers, and it would protect the identity of very important CSIS employees who are likely to become engaged in future covert activities.

Additionally, Bill C-44 introduces technical amendments to the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act that would enable the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to revoke Canadian citizenship from dual citizens who are convicted of terrorism, high treason, and treason or spying offences, depending on the sentence received.

Our government believes that this legislation will help us uphold the fundamental rights and liberties of Canadians and that these powers will be used judiciously.

The reality is that no government can guarantee that it will be able to prevent all terrorist attacks each and every time. Nevertheless, we are taking strong action through our counterterrorism strategy and through legislation that is before us today, Bill C-44, to address terrorism in its many forms to ensure that our streets and communities are safe.

I therefore urge all members to support the swift passage of this legislation.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there was a briefing this morning, I believe, on this legislation. Of course, on a Friday morning, as anyone familiar with Parliament would know, a third of all members are here and at least two-thirds, from all sides, are not in the city. We tend to return to our ridings.

The briefing also took place during question period, so of those members who were actually in the capital, I would imagine that almost all of us were engaged here in question period doing our job holding the government to account.

My question is twofold. One, is the government open and available to having a briefing for MPs that could happen at a time when MPs are actually able to attend so we can understand what is often a complex piece of legislation?

The second piece is a more broad question. I listened to the hon. member's comments, but I did not hear this aspect. It is about the radicalization piece and stopping the flow of sometimes Canadians, sometimes young people, who end up radicalized. This has been a struggle that has perhaps had more conversation in Europe and among some of our other allies yet not necessarily as much as it needs to here in Canada.

We have heard some of the aspects of the bill. I still have to read the briefing report, because I was here in question period, on denying travel and intervening for those who seek to go abroad, yet we saw that the incidents, as best we know, that happened here on Parliament Hill and at Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu did not have those elements of international radicalization. They were, as we say, homegrown terrorists.

The first question was around the government's willingness to provide a briefing that MPs can actually attend, including Conservative MPs, of course. The second is around the idea of how we stop the radicalization of people in the first place, be they from Canada or abroad.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question speaks to the fact that the New Democrats are not attuned to the real threat of terrorism in this country.

The member asked about a briefing that he said took place today regarding the bill. There was no briefing on this bill today. We are here in the House debating Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act.

I will go back to the reasons that this bill was brought forward.

The bill was actually supposed to be tabled on the same day that the terrorist attacks took place in Ottawa. Sadly, events unfolded, and the legislation was brought forward a short time thereafter. The bill seeks to clarify the act to allow and give the authority for our Canadian Security Intelligence Service to continue operating overseas.

Can members imagine for a moment if our Security Intelligence Service were limited by the borders that surround Canada? In committee, members of the opposition voted against this bill, and I am sure they are going to vote against it again when it comes to a vote in this House, even though the opposition members bring up questions about radicalization overseas.

There was a question brought forward by an NDP member on that committee with regard to revocation of a passport from someone who has travelled overseas. The question asked was, “What if they wanted to come back?”

Terrorism is not about a day at the beach. This is a serious issue, and I wish that the New Democrats would actually take this serious issue—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if there is one issue for which we would hope partisan sniping would be suspended, it is this one. All of us in this House want to make Canada more secure.

The issue in front of us is that we know there is a second piece of legislation that is supposedly being tabled and perhaps unveiled in another part of the country today. The briefing for this companion piece of legislation was held simultaneously with question period and at a time when most members of Parliament from all sides of the House are not in Ottawa.

A legitimate question that did not get an answer was this: will you hold a second briefing so that we can understand the complexity and the nature of the legislation, legislation that you are talking about outside the House and outside the capital region? It is a fair question, and it deserves a fair answer, rather than a cheap shot back.

My second question is very similar to my colleague's as well. The critical issue is trying to figure out what is creating this circumstance. What is creating the conditions that lead to radicalization, which in turn leads to acts of terrorism? This is a significant question. In fact, the leader of the Liberal Party has often spoken about dealing with the root causes of terrorism, as opposed to simply dealing with the symptoms of terrorism.

What would this bill do about root causes, and why, when your party talks about root causes, is it proactive, but when we do, is it something to be criticized?

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I would just remind hon. members again to direct their comments and questions in the third person and through the Speaker.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as that member knows, we have already publicly said that we would offer additional briefings on the future bill, which is certainly not the one we are talking about today in the House, which is a bill we have been debating for quite some time. I would like to make sure that all members who are present are aware that we have already said we would offer additional briefings.

The briefing that was offered was offered out of courtesy, and it was offered today with regard to the future bill, which has been tabled, in order to avoid offending the conventions of parliamentary privilege. I think everyone in the House already knows that.

With respect to the bill we are debating today, it is important to complete this bill and have it receive royal assent. We have to do everything possible to ensure that our security agencies have the authority to operate overseas and to protect their informants in the same way as other police and law enforcement agencies do across this country.

The measures that are included in Bill C-44 are common sense measures. The bill is a result of recent court questions that called into question the authority of CSIS to do these types of things. The reality is clear. This act had not been changed for almost 30 years.

The bill that is before us is important. Why the NDP continues to vote against something as common sense as the measures included in this bill, I have absolutely no idea.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to clarify that we are discussing Bill C-44 today. Bill C-51 was recently tabled, and we look forward to some very important debate on this complementary legislation for protecting Canadians.

I rise in support of the protection of Canada from terrorists act, which is another important step taken by our government to protect Canada against terrorism. We are looking at amending two key pieces of legislation. This bill would strengthen our response to so-called extremist terrorist travellers and confirm the tool kits of our security agencies.

Before highlighting the most important amendments, let me situate this legislation within a global context and explain how it would build on our existing legislation and policy.

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, has become a household name around the world. It is destabilizing Iraq and Syria while carrying out horrific acts against innocent people. As members know, as part of international coalition, Canada's CF-18 fighter jets are targeting ISIL forces in Iraq. We have joined our allies in this fight because we know that groups like ISIL pose a serious threat not just to regional security but to the citizens of Canada as well.

However, the fight against terrorism does not take place only under foreign skies. Every day, along our borders, in front of our computer screens, within our communities, and with our partners, Canada's intelligence security and law enforcement agencies are standing on guard against terrorism. They carry out their work guided by the four tenets of Canada's counterterrorism strategy, which are prevent, detect, deny, and respond. They are supported by legislation passed by Parliament, which includes the Combating Terrorism Act, for example, which makes it illegal to leave or attempt to leave Canada with a view to committing certain terrorism offences outside the country. Indeed, the RCMP laid its first charges under that act last summer.

The landscape for terrorism, however, is rapidly evolving, and our agencies need better tools to keep Canadians safe and secure. Members may want to consider the findings of the 2014 Public Report on the Terrorist Threat to Canada. In 2013, Canada added six groups to the list of terrorist entities, bringing the total to 53. Moreover, as early as 2014, the government had identified approximately 145 individuals with terrorism connections who may have been involved in terrorism-related activities in foreign countries. These are Canadians that groups like ISIL are trying to recruit through sick propaganda.

When Canadians are lured into fighting for a terrorist cause, they can inflict harm on innocent people in a foreign country. What is more, with the training that they receive and the propaganda that they are subjected to, extremist travellers may return home motivated to carry out terrorist acts on our own soil. Thus, while our brave men and women take part in combat missions overseas, it is our responsibility here to prevent, detect, deny, and respond to terrorism in all of its forms.

This brings me to Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act.

This act addresses two key pieces of legislation that are essential in our fight against terrorism. As members will recall, the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act received royal assent in June and expanded the grounds for the revocation of Canadian citizenship. It also streamlined the process for making those decisions. Once in force, there will be authority to revoke Canadian citizenship from dual citizens convicted of terrorism, high treason, and treason or spying offences, depending on the sentence that is imposed. It will also provide authorities with the authority to revoke citizenship from those who have served as members of an armed force of a country or an organized armed group engaged in an armed conflict against Canada.

Those convicted cannot get time off for good behaviour. These individuals will never be allowed to become Canadian citizens again.

The amendments of Bill C-44 introduced technical changes to the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act that would allow the government to bring into force the revocation provision of the act earlier than, and separate from, the remaining provision.

I would also note that there is a second important change included in the strengthening Canadian citizenship bill. It relates to the process for revoking citizenship. Without these new provisions, the process for revoking citizenship can take up to three years, which I believe, and I believe many Canadians believe, is much too long. Let us imagine a dual citizen who has been radicalized. We may have the evidence to revoke citizenship, but we cannot do it in a timely way because the process is so lengthy. It was vital to streamline the process for revoking citizenship, while respecting the rights of the people involved.

To that end, depending on the grounds for the decision, once the provisions are in force, there would be authority for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or the Federal Court to decide on revocation cases.

These amendments to our citizenship laws introduced in the strengthening Canadian citizenship bill would protect the safety and security of Canadians and value and safeguard of value of Canadian citizenship.

Bill C-44 would also amend another piece of legislation, the CSIS Act. We heard earlier that when the CSIS Act was introduced 30 years ago, the expression “extremist traveller” was not part of our lexicon, and neither was “social media.” Who could have imagined that messages of intolerance and hate would one day be transmitted without filters to a mobile telephone? Who could have foreseen how this propaganda could turn someone with mainstream views into an extremist?

However, this is the world we now live in. We must adapt, and adapt quickly, to ensure that CSIS has the tools it needs to investigate threats in a new world. To do this, we must affirm key elements of CSIS' mandate that have been brought into question by recent court decisions. That is really what Bill C-44 is all about. It is not about new powers.

First, this bill would confirm CSIS' existing authority to undertake investigative activities outside of Canada in relation to the security of Canada or to security assessments.

Second, it would confirm the existing jurisdiction of the Federal Court to issue warrants to authorize CSIS to undertake certain intrusive investigative activities outside of Canada.

Third, it would clarify that in determining whether to issue warrants for activities outside of Canada, the Federal Court need only consider relevant Canadian law.

Fourth, it would ensure that the identities of CSIS' human sources would not be disclosed in legal proceedings, except in certain circumstances. This provision is similar to the common law privilege protections that already exist for front-line police informers.

In addition to protecting the identity of CSIS sources during legal proceedings, it would also protect the identity of CSIS employees who are likely to become involved in future covert operations.

Taken together, the amendments proposed in Bill C-44 address recent court decisions related to CSIS and ensure that CSIS has the tools it needs to fulfill the mandate it was given by Parliament 30 years ago.

Canadians depend on our government to protect them from terrorist activities, and we must not fail them. I urge all members to join me in offering unconditional support for Bill C-44, a much-needed response to a rapidly changing security environment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will have the honour of speaking to this debate a little later this afternoon. I thank my colleagues for their remarks. I will have the chance to explain why the NDP is opposed to this Conservative government bill, even though we supported it at second reading.

I would like to ask my Conservative colleague why the Conservative government refused to accept any of our amendments in committee.

Why did the government refuse to consider comments and criticisms from stakeholders and experts? Why did it refuse to enhance oversight of CSIS, which is a major flaw in this government bill?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what we created with Bill C-44 is a strong piece of legislation that needed all its elements to do the tasks we set out for it. The opposition proposed amendments, but in general the amendments would have eroded the ability of this piece of legislation to take on the responsibilities it needed in responding to the court decisions.

I note that there are complementary pieces of legislation. The member talked about some gaps and some additional needs; I welcome her response, and I also look forward to the support that I hope we get from the NDP on Bill C-51.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on what legal opinion did my colleague base her assurance that creating two classes of citizens—based on whether they have dual citizenship or not—for something as serious as revoking Canadian citizenship would not be considered by the courts to be inconsistent with the charter?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have the benefit of being a lawyer, as I believe my colleague on the other side is. The Minister of Justice has a number of lawyers within the justice department and all legislation that we bring forward has had a full analysis in terms of the protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech.

Since the Conservatives keep referring to the murder in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu committed on October 20, 2014, can my colleague explain how, to her knowledge, a change in the way CSIS operates would have prevented the act committed by a person who was being tracked and assessed by the RCMP, which found that this person was no longer a threat to the public?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it strange how the NDP cannot look at the definition of terrorism and call a spade a spade in what happened in both events in Canada last October.

More important, lone wolf attacks are difficult to prevent and our law enforcement agencies need modern tools to do the job that we want them to do with respect to protecting us.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

I am speaking today to Bill C-44, a terrorism bill. However, before I get into the more technical aspects of my speech, I want to talk a bit about the threat of terrorism in Canada.

I have heard my colleagues across the way describe the events of last fall as being one of the most egregious terrorism acts that we have seen in Canada, but I do not think it actually deserves that title. The most egregious act of terrorism that occurred in Canada was Air India in 1985. It was a very tragic occurrence. CSIS at the time was tracking the terrorists, and we did not have very good oversight over CSIS and its operations then. For many years, Parliament was unable to get to the bottom of it, and required quite extensive action on the part of government to do that. What we saw in 1985 was a large act of terrorism, in which hundreds of people were killed. That is, in my mind, the primary event of terrorism in Canada in the time I have been here.

We have seen other acts of terrorism. We have seen it in the Alberta gas fields, where people have blown up gas wells on numerous occasions. We have seen acts of terrorism on the west coast against hydroelectric facilities. Terrorism has shown up in Canada quite often over the course of our lifetimes.

Only today do we see this kind of knee-jerk reaction to incidents for which we have much difficulty understanding as pure terrorism, because the individuals involved had mental and social issues. They may well have been influenced by ideology from one ethnic group or the other, but they were not driven or coerced by that. They acted on their own and in some ways acted haphazardly and in a way that suggested they were simply emotional outbursts. To me, that is not the same type of thing as a carefully planned and executed destruction of an airliner, killing hundreds of people. That is truly a definition of, if not terrorism, the relative degree of importance of the acts that take place.

It is unfortunate that in the events we have seen in the last few months, we now will make decisions about the way we run Canada that we did not choose to make in 1985 or at other times when we were faced with acts that we could justifiably call terrorism. Therefore, why are we doing it now? Why are we taking these actions now? What is the larger threat that we see and perceive that will curtail more human rights and the basic freedoms we have in Canada, those that we have worked very hard to maintain? What are we doing?

With the latest bill, we would increase the powers of Canada's spy agency. We are offering it up as another international body to engage in espionage and spy on other countries. We have created this situation in the law. Clause 8 of the bill calls for enabling “the Service to investigate, within or outside Canada, a threat to the security of Canada or to perform its duties and functions under section 16”. The important words are “outside Canada“. Now we will give our intelligence service more latitude to pursue its objectives outside of Canada.

Section 21 of the act asks that we also give the agency the ability to act without regard to any other law, in other words, any other law of another country. We are asking our intelligence service to open up the opportunity to spy on other countries, to disregard the laws that other countries might have toward their citizens and pursue our intelligence system in that regard. We are taking a step to a more confrontational approach to other nations based on one single perceived threat of ISIL, or al Qaeda, or those foreign agencies that we see as being the prime international threat to the stability of the world right now.

We are on a fairly slippery slope and this is simply the first piece of legislation that the government is coming forward with, and we are going to see some more. We were given public notice of another bill today, and I have not had the opportunity to review it. However, certainly we are moving in that direction. It is something that we have to take very seriously. It is not simple. It is not simply to jump on the bandwagon and let us go after increased surveillance abilities our intelligence service overseas. Within Canada we will see our intelligence service taking other kinds of actions which would not have been permitted in the past.

Is the threat of that significance why we need to move in that direction? I would argue that after the larger incident of terrorism that occurred in 1985, we made some changes to our airport security system. We did some things to help reduce that threat. We did not really provide that same coordination within the country that perhaps was required. I think we are all in favour of greater coordination between our protective services. However, at that time, we did not see the need to give our intelligence service these types of powers to take out of the country, yet we have seen incidents far less serious than that which are now driving us in that direction. Why? Is it simply by politics?

That is a concern that we all have on this side of the House, that we are moving ahead with restrictions of the rights and privileges of Canadians based on the political necessity of creating this threat in the Canadian political process. It is unfortunate that we would then choose to change our laws, laws that have been in place for a long time.

In some ways, politics is important in terms of our international relationships. When we see a Canadian foreign minister abroad being pelted with eggs and shoes, that is an unusual occurrence for Canada. Perhaps we should look at the politics of what we are doing rather than simply looking at ways that we can intervene militarily. We have moved away from a Canadian position of enlightened centralism into one that picks sides. That is the greatest threat to Canadian security in this day and age.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I want to better understand what the member said. In his speech, he said that he was uncertain whether ISIL, or ISIS, was a real threat to Canadians, both at home and abroad. He was also arguing about the degree to which an event or a terrorist act should cause us to strengthen our security services.

I wonder if the member could clearly identify for me at what level of death, destruction, and terror does he suggest that Canada should begin to strengthen its laws. Would it be if 300 people died, or one person, or 50 people?

Specifically, since he is suggesting that the attack on Ottawa and the death of Corporal Cirillo do not necessitate this and that Air India was not at a level he believed warranted our strengthening the laws, what level of terror, death, and destruction does this member and his party believe would warrant the Government of Canada reviewing and strengthening the security laws and apparatus?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, to put a number on it in that regard is really difficult.

However, what I was trying to point out was that after the Air India incident, in which 300 people were killed, we did certain things. Most of them dealt with the physical security of our airports. We tried to better coordinate the agencies engaged in dealing with terrorist incidents within our country. We took some actions there; we did not change the law. We took actions within the services that we provide to Canadians to protect them to ensure that we did manage to maintain the same level of personal liberties and freedoms through that time.

Now, we are in a different time and we have had a number of deaths. They were terribly unfortunate and no one wants to see any of this happen, but, of course, it is part of any society that these things do happen. Now, as a result, are we going to make these changes? Now, are we now going to reduce these freedoms? Now, will we send out our intelligence agency to play a larger role in the international community? I do not find that appropriate.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is about the oversight of CSIS. Bill C-44 would give significant new powers to CSIS, yet significant new oversight is not proposed.

In fact, I remember that when I was finance critic, in one of the many omnibus budget bills the Conservative government brought forward, one of the provisions was to eliminate the position of inspector general, the person charged with full-time oversight of CSIS. We heard expert testimony—ironically at the finance committee, even though it was a national security issue—from the person who had been in charge of setting up the machinery of CSIS when it was first created. The witness warned the government not to remove that position because it was the government's eyes and ears on CSIS. The witness said it was the only way the government could prevent the people charged with securing and protecting the public, people who had unique powers, from not exceeding their powers.

Would the member comment on the lack of oversight of CSIS, especially now that the government wants to increase the powers of CSIS?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am very much in favour of greater oversight of these bodies by Parliament in a fashion that would provide us with quicker answers than we received in regard to the Air India incident. That showed me how important it is to interact continually with the intelligence agency to understand what it is doing, why it is doing what it is doing, where its shortfalls are, and how the agency can be improved. Without that, I think there is extreme danger to Canadian values because it simply does not give the intelligence agency the opportunity to look carefully at what it is doing and to ensure it is doing things according to every law we have in place now. I think that goes without saying.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time I have spoken in the course of this debate, since I spoke at second reading of Bill C-44. If members would like to know more about my feelings on this bill, they can have a look at my other speech.

I would also like to thank my colleague from Alfred-Pellan for the work she has done on this issue. She made an excellent speech this morning. Anyone watching at home should watch my colleague's speech if they want more information.

Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other Acts essentially makes three substantive changes with regard to CSIS.

First, it clarifies the legal authority of CSIS to conduct security intelligence operations abroad to respond to threats from outside Canada.

Second, it confirms the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to issue warrants that have effect outside Canada.

Third, it provides for protection of identity for CSIS human intelligence sources in judicial proceedings.

The NDP does not deny that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act is in need of some changes. We do not deny that the world has changed in recent decades and that Canada's commitments abroad have also changed. The realities we face have changed. Naturally, we need to amend this act so that CSIS can act abroad in a way that is adapted to today's realities.

That is why we voted in favour of this bill at second reading. We had hoped to work with the government to improve this bill and make amendments, because even at second reading we saw some huge flaws in the bill. We had a lot of concerns about the bill, especially with respect to protections, civilian oversight of CSIS and the fact that the government does not give CSIS adequate resources.

I would like to point out that the NDP participated in the committee's study in order to improve this bill so that it would meet Canadians' criteria for civilian oversight.

We moved several amendments in committee but, unfortunately, even though we wanted to work in good faith with the government, it rejected all our amendments without even studying them. That is truly deplorable.

The amendments we proposed addressed the concerns expressed by witnesses and experts who appeared before the committee. With respect to warrants for overseas covert actions, we moved an amendment that would require the director, and not an employee designated by the minister, to make the application in every case. It is simply a question of transparency.

I know that all Canadians want CSIS to be as transparent as possible. The purpose of our amendment was to ensure that covert activities do not become routine. We wanted the director to be accountable.

I listened to the debate very carefully today, and the Conservative government has still not explained why it rejected this amendment, which would have resulted in more transparency and accountability.

Additionally, we put forward an amendment to delete the following from clause 8(2):

Without regard to any other law, including that of any foreign state,...

It is important that we remove this part of the bill because we wanted to remove any contradiction with international law and the explicit granting of power to Canadian courts to authorize illegal activity in other states. Canadian activities must comply with international law. Unfortunately, the government also rejected this amendment without consideration for the opinions of experts.

We also proposed another amendment to add specific accountability for the use of warrants to authorize activities of CSIS abroad to the CSIS director. We would like the director to submit an annual report to the Security Intelligence Review Committee specifying the disposition of all such warrant applications and the activities carried out under the warrants.

In my opinion, this is simply about accountability. That is why MPs are elected. It is our job in this place to ensure that there is accountability. The committees are an important mechanism for ensuring that the government is accountable to Canadians. That is why we moved this amendment, which once again was rejected by the Conservative government.

Lastly, in order to prevent possible abuse regarding surveillance warrants, we asked the government to accept one of our amendments, which was about clarifying exactly when a foreign surveillance warrant was necessary. That is very important.

This is a concern not only for Canadians, but for citizens of the United States and other countries who are worried about the extent of surveillance and activities of organizations like CSIS.

If the investigative activity was supposed to take place in Canada and required a warrant under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or if the activity violated international law or the laws of the country where it was to take place, the Federal Court of Canada would have to issue a warrant for that activity to take place outside of Canada.

We examined this bill very carefully and, unfortunately, we cannot support it as it stands, because our amendments were not accepted.

I would also like to explain to the House the criteria we use to assess all legislative measures intended to combat threats to public safety.

Our analysis is based on three criteria. The first criterion is enhanced civilian oversight. It is absolutely crucial that enhanced civilian oversight accompany any new powers for CSIS. The second criterion is the protection of civil liberties. Having spoken with my constituents in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, I know that they are very worried about this. They strongly believe that civil liberties must be protected. Yes, we need to increase security measures, but not at the expense of civil liberties. This is an important criterion. The third criterion we use to assess public safety legislation has to do with adequate resources. We know that the Conservative government continues to cut resources in terms of funding and personnel. CSIS can definitely be given the tools it needs to do its job.

However, if CSIS does not have the resources and staff it needs, this whole exercise is pointless, and the agency will not be able to properly tackle the problem of terrorism.

Some cuts have been made. The Conservatives have cut as much as $600 million and $87.9 million from our public safety agencies. There have been cuts everywhere.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

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

She mentioned something that I believe is critical to democracy. When a power is granted, there must be control over it. We need a balanced approach between security and the ability to make sure that there are no abuses once that power is granted.

I would like my colleague to comment further on the need for a balance between granting powers to ensure security and the ability to ensure that there are no abuses of those powers.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is actually a concern that many of the witnesses raised in committee. We have to take a close look at that issue. During the committee's study, the Conservative government prevented officers of Parliament, such as the Privacy Commissioner, whose job is to protect Canadians' privacy, from appearing before the committee. He was unable to appear before the committee to express his concerns about Bill C-44, and I find that deplorable.

This also shows the Conservative government's contempt for officers of Parliament and the people who are responsible for protecting Canadians and their privacy. The government also refused to accept their submission. It acted in bad faith at the committee stage. Unfortunately, the government did not take a balanced approach, and the bill does not contain enough measures to protect Canadians' privacy.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Minister of State (Social Development)]

Mr. Speaker, of course all of the laws we have introduced, and this bill specifically, balance the rights and privacy of Canadian citizens. They also do something that Canadians have asked us to do, which is a full commitment and full responsibility of any government, and that is to protect citizens from threats, whether from abroad or direct threats right here on Canadian soil.

Although the New Democrats in one sense talk about protecting Canadians, when it comes to supporting strong legislation like the bill we are introducing today, they will not support it with their votes.

How dire would the situation have to be and under what circumstance would the New Democrats support giving our law enforcement the tools they need to fight threats, whether at home or abroad? What would they see as warranting this kind of protection for Canadians?

We believe it is warranted and warranted now. We need it. It is disappointing that they will not support it. Under what circumstances would they support this kind of legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, frankly, I find the question by the hon. parliamentary secretary insulting. The government's rhetoric on how many deaths there would need to be before we would act, frankly, enrages me. They seem to suggest that we did not deeply grieve the events that happened in Ottawa and Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu.

This rhetoric is extremely problematic. The government is presenting legislation that is not balanced. It does not protect the private life of Canadians and it does not actually ensure civilian surveillance of our security organizations. The government bill is completely problematic and yet at the same time the Conservative members are accusing us of being complicit with terrorists. That is completely inappropriate rhetoric for this kind of debate.

In closing, I would like to quote Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien, who expressed serious concerns over this bill. He said:

It is understandable that the government would want to consider boosting the powers of law-enforcement and national security agencies to address potential gaps.

But any new tools should be accompanied by a beefed-up role for the watchdogs who keep an eye on spies and police.

The NDP agrees with Privacy Commissioner Therrien.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate. We have about a minute and a half left in the time provided for government orders this afternoon.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise on Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act.

If Canadians have been listening for the last half hour or so, or even longer, they will have heard the official opposition, the NDP, and the Liberal Party members become increasingly more concerned about the conduct of our security agencies than they are about the conduct of terrorists and terrorist threats to Canadians.

That is not the case with our government, our Prime Minister and our Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, who work every day to ensure that Canadians are kept safe, that our security agencies have the tools they need to investigate threats, and that our police agencies working in concert with them have the tools they need to apprehend and ultimately successfully prosecute those who are threats to our country.

The clarification in the bill being brought forward is important, particularly in light of a recent court case, which if one can imagine—and I will put it in layman's terms for Canadians to understand very clearly—rendered our security agency effectively an island with respect to the rest of the world. That is, it was not able to share intelligence with other foreign intelligence agencies or receive it and, therefore, able to successfully investigate threats abroad or receive intelligence on threats against Canada here at home.

We are clarifying that, to ensure they can ultimately do the job they need to do and keep Canadians safe. The opposition should get on board, not worry and obsess about the wrong priorities. They should get with Canadians, give our agencies the tools they need, and support this bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made Wednesday, January 28, 2015, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, 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.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, February 2, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it I believe you will find consent to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from January 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred record division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-44.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #319

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)