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.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Minister.

I find it very ironic that we're hearing from the NDP that they want your department to spend more money, yet they're voting against all the initiatives that your department is coming up with. They voted against the protection of Canada from terrorists act, and as you indicated they also voted against the Combating Terrorism Act. It would seem to me that when it comes to issues of national security, the NDP aren't getting it, and they're out of their depth.

You wanted to move this legislation along very quickly. Can you comment a little further on the seriousness of the nature of the threats that Canada is facing today? Why was it important to move the bill expeditiously?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Absolutely, and I thank you for this question.

Even as the bill was tabled, members were provided with the opportunity to get some technical briefings. Those who have benefited from those briefings then could clearly understand that due to some court decisions, it was important to update the CSIS Act, which has not really been updated for the last 30 years. This is exactly what the protection of Canada from terrorists act is doing, clarifying the authority of CSIS.

One important thing, which is now obvious to us, is clearly defining that CSIS has the capability to operate abroad. That seems very obvious, but this needed to be added to the CSIS Act. This is exactly what Bill C-44 achieves.

While we can protect witnesses, which is very important for an intelligence agency, there is a mechanism that anyone who could be accused under the information provided by those witnesses is entitled to a fair trial. Once again, there is the amicus curiae legal mechanism so that the law will help the court and help CSIS in its mandate while clarifying its mandate.

There are some other elements in that bill like improving and accelerating the removal of dual citizenship. This bill was already adopted, but now we are willing to move forward as the terrorist threat evolves. These are the measures in the bill. These are certainly measures that I would appreciate and seek support on from all members.

Unfortunately, as I have pointed out—through the chair, of course—I would have expected that the NDP support this important bill, especially as the terrorist threat is real. I was given the opportunity to highlight this fact, so were the experts in this area. Unfortunately we did not get support. I still feel that when we're placed in front of accurate facts, we should seek support.

You may recall that the NDP did not support the Combating Terrorism Act. I think we as Canadians can be very relieved today to know that charges have been laid under this new act. With the law we have in place in this country, terrorists are now prevented from committing a terrorist act. This is why it is important as legislators that we provide the tools to those who are there to protect us. This is why I intend to come back in the near future with additional measures that will fully comply with our Canadian law, but in the meantime will provide tools necessary for our national security agency and law enforcement agency to better protect Canadians.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to start off by expressing my gratitude to all of you who represent our different security agencies here in Canada: correctional service, border services, the Department of Public Safety, CSIS, RCMP, and police services. Thank you for the most important work that you do in providing safety and security for Canadian citizens.

Minister, you've already mentioned it in some of your comments here, that the NDP voted against the protection of Canada from terrorists act, and I believe you answered a House question yesterday on exactly that.

Could you comment further on the need for this very important law, Bill C-44, which clearly helps to clarify the law under which CSIS needs to operate?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Once again, I thank you for your question.

I would be really happy to see the NDP supporting more investment in increasing our national security measures. I must tell you that I would have really appreciated it if you could have supported providing more tools by supporting Bill C-44. I think we had an open debate in the House of Commons. I came here and brought very reasonable arguments. You had many witnesses. I would have liked the NDP to support Bill C-44, because I believe this is what this country needs to keep Canadians safe. This is about the tools, and when it comes time to speak about money, it is also time for the budget.

But let me tell you why I'm here today for CSIS and what is, if I can use the expression, their cashflow. In supplementary estimates (B), the net amount for CSIS is $5.2 million or 1% of authorities to date. CSIS has received from the Treasury Board authority to increase its voted appropriation by $5.3 million as follows: an increase of $3.6 million to recover proceeds from the sale of homes purchased under the home sale plan and of $1.2 million for parking fees, and $559,000 to recover costs related to the security screening of employees.

This is the increased authority. There's been a decrease from DFATD and DND. Actually, it's money that was transferred from CSIS to DFATD, DND, or the RCMP. These amounts range from $220,000 to $1.6 million. They are to provide support to the department staff allocated at missions abroad; an amount for the integrated terrorism assessment centre and for the Canadian safety and security program; and there's also a transfer from the RCMP for “software tools”.

What I'm asking for today is that the committee allow these funding transfers so that we can reflect the real expenses incurred. I certainly am looking forward to coming back to this committee to seek support for additional funding to increase our safety and for the evolving threat of terrorism.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'm sorry for this unintentional loss of time.

I am always impressed when I appear before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, especially when I am surrounded by officials from agencies responsible for the protection and security of Canadians.

I am accompanied today by Harvey Cenaiko, from the Parole Board of Canada; Michel Coulombe, from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service; Mike Cabana, from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; Don Head, from the Correctional Service of Canada; Luc Portelance, from the Canada Border Services Agency; and François Guimont, who is the Deputy Minister of Public Safety Canada.

I would like to tell the members of the committee that these people work very hard, particularly when we were called to respond to the recent terrorist attack. We were in the House a few minutes ago, and I had the chance to meet the person who administered first aid to Warrant Officer Nathan Cirillo at the National War Memorial. We are currently preparing a proper and balanced response to this growing terrorist threat. Obviously, we are not going to overreact, but we are not going to stand idly by in the face of this threat, either.

Furthermore, I would like to publicly thank the heads of the agencies that help us to adapt. They have already taken concrete action to protect Canadians.

We are here today to make budgetary adjustments that will allow these important individuals to continue to ensure our protection. As you know, our department was created in response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Even now, I note that the priority for national security is fighting terrorism.

That said, we must not in any way neglect the other important aspects of public safety, which is why I am here this afternoon.

As you know, we have implemented many initiatives to move forward our government's ambitious public safety program. This involves cracking down on crime, improving the rights of victims and strengthening our national security. For example, I recently announced the coming into force of the Safer Witnesses Act, which will increase the effectiveness of the federal government's witness protection program for the individuals it protects, while meeting the needs of law enforcement agencies.

Furthermore, we just sent Bill C-32, An Act to enact the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to amend certain Acts, back to the House for debate at report stage. This fundamental bill will change the way we handle justice in Canada and will put victims at the heart of our justice system.

I also want to thank the committee for its work on division 17 of Bill C-43, which amends the DNA Identification Act to create Lindsey's law. This important measure will create a DNA-based missing persons index to help provide closure to the families of missing persons.

I understand that Judy Peterson made a very emotional presentation to the committee. I would like to thank you all for your support on this important legislation that she has advocated for on behalf of her daughter.

Many of you may remember that November 16 was the sad anniversary of the disappearance of Julie Surprenant, in Terrebonne. Her sister, Andréanne, wanted to pay tribute to her on that occasion. It was a moving experience. It allowed us to remind the victims and loved ones of the families of missing or murdered individuals of the implementation of this act, which will help them to get through this type of situation and to find some comfort.

On other fronts, I have introduced measures to provide a simple and safe firearms licensing regime with Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act. This bill was thoroughly debated one week ago. I look forward to this bill being referred to this committee for study in the very near future.

Just last week, I appeared before you regarding Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act. I know the committee has completed its study, and has returned the bill to the House without amendments. As I said earlier, recent terrorist attacks are a reminder that the terrorist organization ISIL is a very real threat to Canadians. It is the reason we are working very determinedly to strengthen the tools available to the police and intelligence community in the areas of surveillance, detention, and arrest. The protection of Canada from terrorists act is just the first step in our efforts to do that.

My department and its agencies continue to give priority to efforts to fight terrorism and violent extremism, which includes working with our international allies.

Mr. Chair, I could speak more about the measures that we are implementing, but I would now like to move on to the Supplementary Estimates (B), 2014-15. Essentially, these are adjustments to the budget envelope that we were allocated and some modifications that need to be made to properly reflect the actual accounting and current expenses.

These estimates demonstrate our ongoing commitment to keeping Canadians safe from those who wish to harm them without creating billion-dollar boondoggles.

Allow me to provide some highlights of what I mean.

As the committee members can see, the Supplementary Estimates (B), 2014-15, aim to transfer $3.3 million from the Canada Border Services Agency to the RCMP to build a joint use firing range in British Columbia. It also aims to obtain a transfer of $5.2 million from the Correctional Service of Canada to the RCMP to support the renovations of C block at the RCMP training academy for correctional officer training.

These are prime examples of how we are using taxpayers' money. This way of operating is more effective. We are achieving this by grouping resources, while creating stronger ties within the department.

In addition, the estimates seek $5.2 million for CSIS in support of national security initiatives. I would also like to highlight two key items related to the RCMP. First, on November 28—as of Monday—the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act came into force, bringing in a new era of modernization and accountability for the RCMP. In order to implement that act, these supplementary estimates provide for $7.9 million to the RCMP to implement new processes relating to grievances and public complaints.

Additionally, there is $710,000 to the RCMP External Review Committee to maintain the committee's existing operations. This entails the review of certain grievances and appeals of decisions and disciplinary and other labour relations matters involving members of the force. This is a very important accomplishment, Mr. Chair. We've been working on that for years. In less than two years, the RCMP has been able to implement this major shift. The deputy commissioner can expand on this later on, but this is certainly a great accomplishment. As you know, we now have beefed up—if you allow me this expression—the oversight of the RCMP.

Second, the estimates seek to transfer $41.9 million to the RCMP for policing services provided pursuant to the first nations policing program. This funding will further support policing services that are professional, dedicated, and responsive to the first nation and Inuit communities they serve.

In addition, $3.7 million is set aside for the national public safety campaign for the next phase in the fight against bullying, called “Get Cyber Safe”. I must tell you that we have had very interesting results in terms of market penetration and our ability to reach out to young people.

We are very proud of the success of this campaign, which is having a significant impact across the country. More than a million people have visited the “Get Cyber Safe” website, and there have been different initiatives in that respect. Of course, I encourage committee members to pass on these constructive messages on the importance of having healthy practices when visiting social media sites and using information technology or any electronic device.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, it is clear that our Conservative government is taking strong action to keep Canadians safe. We are ensuring that victims are at the heart of the justice system and ensuring that child sexual predators face serious consequences. We are making our firearms laws safe and sensible, and we are making sure that our law enforcement and national security organizations have the tools they need to do their jobs.

The one threat that seems to run through all of these initiatives is that they have been delayed, obstructed, or sometimes opposed outright. But we are prevailing, Mr. Chair, and I am proud to say that we intend to stay the course. We have the protection of Canada act coming back into the House of Commons, and we intend to come in the near future with additional legislation so that we can tackle this evolving terrorist threat.

With that in mind, Mr. Chair, I would be more than happy to respond to questions from the members of this important committee.

Merci.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

First, I would like to thank the committee members who ensured that Bill C-44, which aims to protect Canada, can return to the House of Commons for third reading and, therefore, be sent later to the Senate, obtain royal assent and become law in Canada.

I am pleased to be here with you today. As you can see, I have with me—

Public Safety

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are concerned about the protection of our national security. Too often, the collective instinct is to under-react to these threats. While I do not believe that the government should overreact, I believe that a fulsome response to these threats is necessary.

Last night, the NDP voted to block the protection of Canada from terrorists act from proceeding, despite the need to give security agencies the tools they need to do their job.

Could the Minister of Public Safety please update the House on the progress of this important legislation?

Public Safety and National Security

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in relation to Bill C-44, an act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other acts.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't want to spend too much time on this either, but I want to express my disappointment regarding our study of Bill C-44.

First of all, we tried to present several amendments to ensure a good balance between public safety and civil liberties in Bill C-44. Following the events of last October 22, and after the introduction of this bill by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness in the House, the importance of the balance between public safety and civil liberties was very much in the forefront, in the questions asked and the debate that took place.

Immediately after the events, it was also pointed out that it is important for parliamentarians to work together to ensure our national security.

The first test was the study of Bill C-44. Insofar as working with the official opposition is concerned, this was a total failure. We worked in the same way as with all of the other bills we have studied. Our amendments were systematically refused by the government. A time limit was placed on the debate, be it in the House or in committee where we were only entitled, unfortunately, to four hours with witnesses, and two of those hours were with officials, whereas only two were allotted to witnesses who were potentially opposition witnesses.

Moreover, the government refused to invite the Privacy Commissioner to come and testify, a rather surprising fact in the case of Bill C-44. As I mentioned, none of the amendments we presented, and none of the suggestions we made with regard to this bill, were accepted by the government.

This has all been a huge disappointment, all the more so since Bill C-44 is a crucial bill for the government, as the parliamentary secretary mentioned earlier. So, why not study it properly in committee? If it is such a crucial bill, why only allocate four hours to witnesses ?

Mr. Chair, amending the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act is an extremely serious matter. I think this bill should have been examined in much greater depth.

What is worse is that several witnesses raised extremely important points during their testimony before the committee and they were not listened to properly. I think we have not carefully considered what was mentioned in committee during the study of this bill.

I would like to say one last thing: we were not even able to find out whether the bill is constitutional. Did we do all of this work—or the small amount of work we were allowed to do, unfortunately—for nothing? The minister was not even able to confirm that the bill was constitutional.

Honestly, in light of what we had been promised, that is to say to see to it that all parties work together to ensure our national security, I must say that I am extremely disappointed with the government's handling of Bill C-44.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

I thank our staff here on this issue, and I will read the ruling of the chair.

Obviously, the amendment seeks to amend section 34 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on pages 766 and 767, “an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.” Since section 34 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act is not being amended by Bill C-44, the amendment is inadmissible.

That is the ruling, of course, from our clerk and analyst, who have researched this, Mr. Garrison.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Just to add on the other side of that argument from Mr. Garrison, the amendment would increase the proceedings where the innocence at stake exception could be raised, and yes it would apply to immigration proceedings, security certificates, etc., and other instances where an individual could be deprived of his liberty or in prison. The amendment would reduce the scope of the protection of CSIS human sources. The point of Bill C-44 is to deal with situations where innocence and freedom are at stake, and not every administrative tribunal available should be considered for this. So on those points alone I would disagree with Mr. Garrison on this.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Garrison, for bringing that forward. I'm not sure whether it's within the total scope of the actual bill that's before us, because we're not dealing with anything necessarily associated with SIRC, but I think, according to the information I have, that the whole issue of SIRC oversight is contained in section 39 of the CSIS Act. It's already in there. It achieves the same objectives. Of course SIRC is the oversight body. It oversees the actions of CSIS. It's just provided a report, as you know. That's its job and it's already doing it. So I'm not going to support this amendment. Whether it's within the scope or not—I think it might possibly be outside of the scope of what's being dealt with in Bill C-44—for obvious reasons, I'm not supporting it.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes, Mr. Chair. It is as follows:

That Bill C-44, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 1 with the following:

“human source” means an individual who resides or who is present in Canada and who, after”

The purpose of the amendment is to clearly define that a human source who provides information to CSIS under the conditions prescribed in the bill should be accessible by some means in the course of any prosecution. That individual would then be accorded protection from disclosure. I think it is fair to say this issue is not clarified in the legislation on how the courts would have access to an individual who is afforded protection from disclosure by CSIS when a charge is laid against someone in Canada. If a charge is laid against someone in Canada, how does that person get his just due in court if he can't access an individual because he or she is not in Canada?

That's the dilemma. You do need the right of fairness under the law and the right to question the individual who provided the information against you should you be charged.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Okay. That is duly registered.

Are there any further comments?

I see none.

Before we go to clause-by-clause, I will just update the committee with a little bit of information regarding the incident at the end of last meeting. The chair has had discussions with the Sergeant-at-Arms. The clerk is also having discussions, and there is an ongoing investigation with the superintendent of our emergency planning. The chair will report back to this committee with further information. Of course we will do so in camera at that time for security reasons. I just bring that to your attention so that you feel comfortable that the matter is being looked into at this point.

Thank you very much.

Colleagues, we will now go to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-44.

Pursuant to standing order 75(1) consideration of clause 1, the short title, is naturally postponed until after the clauses are all moved. Should there be any variation in the title, consideration of that will be postponed. So at this point we will go directly to clause 2.

(On clause 2)

Mr. Easter has an amendment I do believe.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I think it's a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I'm okay with what you're suggesting, but I do want to express a concern if I could put it that way. Given the haste with which we do these bills, neither the critic for the NDP nor I was able to be here for witnesses we had called for at the meeting the other day since Bill C-42 was being debated in the House at the same time.

I read the minutes as soon as they were available to me. Based on some of the evidence, especially that from Professor Craig Forcese, there are other amendments that I think could be made to this bill. We haven't heard from the Privacy Commissioner either. Whatever the reason the government has for wanting to push these bills through, we run the risk of not doing an adequate job of our work as parliamentarians because of that haste in doing it, and I just want to issue a complaint. I think that's absolutely wrong. I don't feel we're doing our job correctly. We haven't had time to review all the evidence and make appropriate amendments. We do have amendments, but other information comes up out of those minutes of the meetings I was unable to attend. Why the government wants to move with such haste, I don't know. Haste makes waste. The better thing to do is a good job.