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.

[Michel Coulombe]

We could certainly look into it, if we get there. With what's proposed in Bill C-44, if we come to a point where we would have to identify our source, I guess with discussion there's either the option—and it's a crown decision—to pull the information and possibly the case would collapse, or we disclose the identity of the source and then there's the question of assessing the risk to the security of that source and what we can do to mitigate that.

[Michel Coulombe]

Yes, in fact all Bill C-44 would do in terms of.... Section 21 is the one that deals with acquisition of warrants. We're just adding “outside”, so it is the same article, the same criteria, that would be used.

[Nicole Girard]

There is not, as contemplated by Bill C-44 nor the changes under the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm glad to see you back in the chair.

One concern I was raising with the minister is that, in fact, part of national security, protecting the country, is protecting the rule of law. I just want to go to something that Director General Girard said. In terms of the revocation of citizenship of dual citizens, she said there was the right to see the evidence.

I'm wondering how the provisions in Bill C-44 protecting the identity of CSIS human sources connect with the citizenship process. In other words, if evidence that's being used from CSIS sources is the evidence that is being used for the revocation of citizenship, then what provisions are there? The only exemption for defence here is about criminal prosecutions, not citizenship. Is there an intersection between the two bills there, or any exemption provided for use in those citizenship processes?

[Nicole Girard]

Thank you very much for your question.

I would just note at the outset, as mentioned earlier, that the provisions in Bill C-44 are technical amendments that would not bring any changes to the provisions of the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, which received royal assent in June earlier this year. They would enable the government to pursue an earlier implementation of the changes to the revocation provisions in the Citizenship Act.

Nevertheless, to come directly to your question, I think the first, most important point to make is that Canada is alone compared to like-minded countries and other democratic countries in not having this ability already to revoke citizenship for egregious actions that are done against the national interest, so the recent changes that Parliament made in June to expand the grounds for citizenship revocation limited to specific actions—namely convictions for high treason, treason, spying, terrorism, or being in the service of an organized armed group or armed force engaged in armed combat with Canada—is broadly in line with what like-minded countries already do.

I would also like to add that with regard to fairness there are many safeguards that are provided in the law and as a matter of procedure with regard to the revocation process itself. Those include: notice, the ability of the person concerned to know the grounds against them; to see the evidence; to have an opportunity to respond and make their submissions; to receive a decision in writing; to potentially have a hearing with the decision-maker; and of course, to seek judicial review if in the end that decision is against them and revoking their citizenship.

Thank you.

[Nicole Girard, Director General, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

I don't have much to add to what the minister said. He provided a very good description of two separate elements of Bill C-44.

The objectives are complementary insofar as the proposed technical changes to the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act will help attain the same objective, which is to strengthen the safety of Canadians, the value of Canadian citizenship and the integrity of the program.

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

It is to facilitate and accelerate the removal of dual citizenship in those cases where individuals have been found guilty. There are no new legislative elements, except for the provisions aimed at expediting the implementation of the legislation that has been adopted. Perhaps Ms. Girard can round out my answer.

As for the oversight mechanisms, clause 7 of Bill C-44 amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act by adding subsections 18.1(4) and (5) to enable the courts to intervene if there is a possibility that a source's identity would no longer be protected. The bill contains such provisions.

Ms. Girard, could you perhaps comment on citizenship and accelerating the implementation of the legislation?

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

I have another question about the part relating to the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act.

Bill C-44 concerns CSIS. Why include that act? Does it have any kind of relationship? I don't understand the connection between CSIS and moving up the implementation dates.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, I would like to thank you for being here today.

I would like to come back to a question that my colleague, Mr. Garrison, asked. Can you confirm, with a yes or no, whether Bill C-44 is constitutional?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the minister for appearing, as well as the officials.

Minister, in your opening remarks you talked about the incident that happened at the National War Memorial as well as what took place here on Parliament Hill. These incidents of terrorism were not simply attacks against an individual or a place where people go to work. These were attacks against our Canadian Armed Forces and against our institutions of governance. This was an attack against all Canadians.

At the start, when we talked about Bill C-44, I heard some comments that this was simply a knee-jerk reaction to those terrorist attacks that took place in Ottawa and in Quebec. In fact, Minister, this legislation has been in the works for some time and was to correct a problem that, as you mentioned, we saw an issue with before the courts, which were calling into question the authority of CSIS.

I'm just wondering if you could speak about that particular aspect, that this was not a knee-jerk reaction, and why this is absolutely critical for the operations of CSIS to continue to keep Canadians safe.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I begin by saying that what I have to say is not in any written speech, Mr. Chair.

I find it particularly special to be here in this room, in this very room where I was with my colleagues on October 22. We spent hours here. You were here as well, Mr. Chair. We will remember those hours for a very long time, as will our opposition colleagues, who were just on the other side of that room. We were all somewhat involved, against our will, in the terrorist attack that took place.

A few weeks before the attack, I was here with Mr. Coulombe, Mr. Guimont, and also with our RCMP commissioner to state that we are—we were at that time and still are—taking the terrorist threat very seriously, and that the threat is real.

Unfortunately, we have been exposed to the hatred of those individuals who committed the two terrorist attacks in mid-October. That makes this meeting even more important.

With that, I would like to begin by talking to you about Bill C-44, for which I seek your support.

I will mainly address the provisions that amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, which has not been dramatically altered in the last 30 years.

I would like to point out that Ms. Girard will address the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, which received royal assent earlier this year. The section that deals with Canadian citizenship is not a new legislative component; it only encourages quicker implementation.

I am here today as Minister of Public Safety because the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, comes under my department's responsibility. This service must have effective tools to fight the terrorist threat.

CSIS collects and analyzes information from across the country and abroad, and informs the Government of Canada of threats to national security, especially threats involving terrorism and violent extremism.

Obviously there should be no doubt about the direct and persistent threat terrorism and violent extremism pose to our security. No one can argue that what took place here in this Parliament and in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu are not terrorist attacks. That's why, colleagues, we need to move swiftly forward with this legislation. CSIS' ability to investigate threats to the security of Canada no matter where they may occur is vital to the safety and security of Canadians, and indeed our ability to respond to the threat of terrorism.

Our government is keeping Canadians safe. That is what this bill is all about. Let's dive straight into the very reason of the bill before us today, and therefore so critical in its importance to keep Canadians safe, to use it as a shield. The protection of Canada from terrorists act responds to two key core decisions that have important implications for CSIS' mandate and operations. Those of you who have taken the opportunity to get the technical briefing provided by my department understood that well. I could see it was the case when we had exchanges in the House about the bill.

In May 2014 the Supreme Court of Canada issued its ruling in the Harkat case. The Supreme Court's decision stated that CSIS human sources do not benefit from a common law class privilege similar to the informer privilege applicable to police informers. Human sources are a critical source of information for CSIS. They are at the very base of CSIS, yet, Mr. Chairman, they do not benefit from a protection as this court has ruled. In turn this significantly hampers our intelligence-gathering capabilities and therefore it puts Canadians at risk. This bill is not seeking at this point in time for new powers. It's just seeking to clarify the existing authority under which CSIS can protect us in an efficient manner. That's why the protection of Canada from terrorists act addresses this gap.

These amendments bring about automatic protection of the identity of CSIS' human sources.

This bill is balanced. This bill is reasonable and that's why I'm seeking your support. That's why you've been expressing your support in the House so far. Why? Because it fully respects the spirit of our Constitution.

The parties will be able to obtain an order from a judge to declare that the person in question is not a human source or that the information in question will not reveal the identity of that person.

In criminal proceedings, defendants will have the ability to seek an order from a judge declaring that disclosure of the identity of a human source is essential to establishing their innocence. The fundamental right to a fair trial is preserved and reinforced.

Turning to the second court decision affecting CSIS' mandate, the Federal Court of Appeal recently unsealed its July 2014 decision related to the government's appeal of Justice Mosley's decision that was issued by the Federal Court last year. The protection of Canada from terrorists act confirms CSIS' authority to conduct investigations outside of Canada related to the threats, to the security of Canada, and security assessments. This is not a big thing. CSIS can operate within and outside Canada. That's fairly simple.

CSIS has always had the power to undertake investigative activities abroad. The Federal Court of Appeal acknowledged this fact when it found that section 12 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act in no way suggests geographic limitations for CSIS' activities.

However, the power of CSIS to conduct activities abroad in order to investigate threats to Canada's security is not indicated as clearly as it should be in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. It is therefore important that Parliament and the elected representatives of the people clarify this matter.

At the same time, the bill also confirms the authority of the Federal Court to issue warrants authorizing CSIS to undertake certain activities outside of Canada, and it gives the Federal Court authority to consider only relevant Canadian law when issuing warrants for CSIS to undertake certain activities outside of Canada.

These amendments are important. We believe that the Canadian Constitution, especially the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is far superior to the decrees of a dictator in a far-off land. Canadian law, and even more importantly, Canadian values, are what should solidly ground our legal deliberations around national security, and that is exactly what this bill is accomplishing.

Mr. Chair, the proposed amendments in Bill C-44 are reasonable and necessary for ensuring that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service can carry out its mandate adequately. They are also consistent with the spirit of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the recommendations of the 1981 McDonald Commission.

Unfortunately during debate on this legislation at second reading, I heard some allegations related to CSIS operating outside the law. That's what this bill would prevent from happening, because it would clearly define that CSIS is operating within the law. Let me be clear. CSIS will, as always, continue to be required to obtain judicial authorization to undertake certain intrusive activities.

I believe this clearly lays out the technical aspects of this legislation, and nobody can challenge the motive of this bill.

Again today, Mr. Chair, we have learned that the Islamic State armed group is recruiting eight-year-old children, as if all the images and atrocities we have been exposed to were not enough. I am thinking of a video that was released showing over a dozen men being decapitated.

Among those individuals was humanitarian worker Peter Kassig. His parents wrote on Twitter that they were heartbroken to learn that their son had lost his life because of his love for the Syrian people and his desire to lessen their suffering. Our government resolutely condemns the acts of violence by the Islamic State armed group in the strongest possible terms. That is why we are providing humanitarian aid to the people affected by these barbarians and are supporting the coalition's efforts to neutralize and diminish their capacity to conduct major operations.

In addition to these distressing reports out of Iraq and Syria, recent terrorist attacks here remind us that this organization is also a threat within our own country. That is why we are steadfastly working to improve the tools available to the police forces and the intelligence community. The Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act is just the first step toward achieving this objective. Our Conservative government has taken strong action to protect our national security.

As you know, Mr. Chair, we passed legislation to fight terrorism over a year ago now. That act gives the authorities tools that enable them to revoke the citizenship of individuals who take part in these activities. As I mentioned, the component of the bill that is before us today basically consists of accelerating the measures that have already been adopted and received royal assent.

We have increased funding to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and CSIS by a third. We have implemented new measures. Unfortunately, we have not been able to count on the support of the opposition, neither the New Democrats nor the Liberals, for the revocation of passports and dual citizenship of individuals found guilty of terrorist acts. However, I have noted during debates that there is some receptiveness to the bill that was introduced today.

I realize this bill was not formally opposed during the debate at second reading, and I look forward to answering your questions today. Ultimately, and I would say much more importantly, I look forward to this legislation being returned to the House after thorough study so we can move forward and get this bill adopted, so that we as parliamentarians, elected officials, can better do our part to keep our country safe. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am here this afternoon to invite you to support Bill C-44—

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Good afternoon, colleagues and guests. Welcome to meeting number 40 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Today, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, November 18, Bill C-44, an act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other acts, will be dealt with.

Appearing before us here today is the Honourable Steven Blaney, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. We also have François Guimont, the deputy minister. From the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, we have Mr. Michel Coulombe, director; and from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, we have Nicole Girard, director general, citizenship and multiculturalism branch. These will be our witnesses for the first hour.

At the end of the first hour, Minister Blaney will be excused. The other witnesses, I believe, will be staying. We have other additional witnesses who will be arriving for the second hour.

With that understanding, I will now open the floor to opening statements by our witnesses.

Minister Blaney, you have the floor.

Report Stage

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and pleasure for me to illustrate to this House my party's support for Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act.

First, I wish to express not only my appreciation but that of the farmers in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, and I believe the large majority of farmers across Canada, to the Minister of Agriculture for his foresight and action in bringing this bill forward and the work that the parliamentary secretary has done to get the bill to committee. I also want to thank the committee, which has worked hard to get the bill to the form it is in today, so that we can move the industry of agriculture forward.

At one time or another, all of us have read the sign “If you ate today, thank a farmer”. In fact, I have a few of those in my office. I have one around the licence plate of one of my vehicles. It is an important sign as a consumer, farmer, dairy farmer and cash cropper. It raises the importance of not only what agriculture is but the importance of food.

As parliamentarians we need to do more than talk. We need to express more than just saying “thanks”. I need to ensure that farmers, and the industry as a whole, have the support of this effective legislation that is before us.

Before I focus on the main element of the bill, I would like to address the amendments that have been proposed by opposition members. If members can imagine, there are 56 amendments on the order paper, which would meet their objective to gut the bill and take away its effectiveness.

I will not, and my party will not, support those of types of motions. In fact, I urge everyone with a level head on their shoulders not to support the amendments, and move forward and adopt this great bill. Should we start to approve the gutting of the bill, it would turn the clock back in agriculture about 25 years. We are not prepared for that and I do not believe the country is prepared for that.

Bill C-18 proposes broad controls to ensure the safety of Canada's agriculture inputs. It would allow the licence and registration of fertilizer and animal feed operators, and facilities that import and sell products across provincial and international borders. That is in addition to the current system, which registers feed and fertilizer individually, product by product. However, licencing and registering facilities and operators is a more effective and timely method to verify that agriculture products meet, and surpass in many cases, Canada's stringent safety rules and other standards.

The bill is also important because we need to ensure that we align ourselves with our major trading partners and help our feed, seed and fertilizer industries maintain access to those markets, especially with our closest neighbour, the United States.

For the information of members, exports in the agriculture industry range up to 85% of what we grow. That is an incredibly high number. It means that one in eight jobs in this country is related to the agriculture industry. The agricultural growth act proposes to keep these jobs safe and secure, but that can only be done through modernizing our current antiquated legislation and by improving Canadian access to the latest farming technology.

Exports are part of the solution, but what we grow here is the other part. Members may recall that during the last Parliament, Motion No. 460 was debated. It read:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should ensure that production management tools available to Canadian farmers are similar to those of other national jurisdictions by considering equivalent scientific research and agricultural regulatory approval processes by Health Canada, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

I was glad that the motion was adopted by the House, but I did not get help from the NDP, which I find strange. It is clear that it does not support the idea, but do members know who does support it? Farmers. Who is fulfilling the promise to farmers? Our Conservative government.

During the 2011 federal election, the Conservative Party platform said:

Like other businesspeople, Canadian farmers want access to the latest innovations, to succeed in the global economy. Unfortunately, long and burdensome approval processes imposed by the federal government are preventing Canadian farmers from obtaining the best fertilizers, pesticides, and veterinary drugs available on the market. We will revise current approval processes to allow for international equivalencies in such products. We will eliminate needless duplication, while protecting our national sovereignty and maintaining the highest safety standards.

What did the stakeholders tell us about this at committee? The president and CEO of the Canadian Association of Agri-Retailers, for example, said in October 2014:

...allowing the CFIA the opportunity to use data that is sourced externally to Canada, not having to be reproduced, and to use data that is from a country that is considered to be equivalent to the standards in Canada is, I think, a significant improvement in terms of allowing the CFIA the freedom to operate, and reducing that administrative burden of recreating data that would be already acceptable in terms of identifying the safety and the ability to use that product in Canada.

Our bill would do this. Indeed, we have such a strong belief in this idea that clauses 56, 67, 77, and 96 of Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act, would implement this idea. The amendments proposed in Bill C-18 would provide the CFIA with stronger tools to fulfill its mandate to protect Canada's plant and animal resource base. The changes would provide additional reassurance that imported agricultural products meet Canadian requirements. Those are strict requirements. Bill C-18 would be part of our government's strong agricultural agenda—and I am not alone in seeing Bill C-18 as a key milestone for Canada's agriculture sector.

The Grain Growers of Canada, the Canadian Seed Trade Association, and the Canadian Horticultural Council are only a few of the many agricultural organizations anxiously waiting for the proposed legislation.

New, stronger border controls for agricultural products are urgently needed. Bill C-18 would respond to that. It would give inspectors from the CFIA the authority to have important shipments of feeds, fertilizers, or seeds that do not meet legal requirements to be ordered out of Canada. That would be similar to the current treatment of imported plants and animals that do not meet those requirements now.

Canadian farmers would benefit because they would be competing on a level playing field with their international counterparts. That is so important because Canadian consumers would benefit from a strengthened food safety regime.

To be clear, the CFIA already takes action to seize illegal animal feeds, seeds, fertilizers, and related products. Bill C-18, however, would propose to update that as we do this.

In some cases, under the current process, seizure of illegal products is followed by lengthy and costly court proceedings and, at that time, Canada must pay to dispose of those illegal products. Members can see that being able to order the products out of the country becomes a much more efficient and a much more practical procedure.

At the same time, Bill C-18 would give CFIA inspectors the ability to allow the importer to fix the problem at the border, if there are no safety concerns and if the inspector can be certain that the issue would be addressed.

It has been an honour and privilege for me to make this presentation on Bill C-18 on behalf of our government and I look forward to addressing any of the questions or comments that may come forward.

Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have repeatedly raised with a number of members in this place today the concern about the fact that I do not see the recommendations that came from Justice O'Connor in the Maher Arar case and the recommendations that came from Justice Iacobucci in the Abdullah Almalki case in Bill C-44. I would like the member to comment, because those were for the protection of the rights of Canadians and will be very critical moving forward. Hopefully the committee will be able to address it. I understand the focus and intent of the bill, but we do not see those protections.