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.

[Gérard Normand]

Mr. Picard, I would add that Parliament gives itself the legislation that it wants to give itself.

Bill C-44, which clarified the mandate of CSIS to act externally, also gave federal court judges the power to authorize activities abroad. This is something we would not have seen before, but which is now inserted in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. These are the same reasons for the proposed new powers of the CSE. If accepted, they will become part of the legal system, even though, in the process, charter issues will need to be addressed.

[Prof. Craig Forcese]

I'll start, and then Kent can jump in.

The Wakeling case involved information shared by the RCMP to American authorities under what's known as part VI of the Criminal Code, which is the wiretapping provision. It was a lawfully gathered wiretap that complied with the charter, and that information was then transmitted to the United States. The Supreme Court concluded that even though the information was lawfully collected, it was still subject to charter privacy protections that had to govern the manner of information sharing.

In that case the RCMP, under part VI of the Criminal Code, was successful in defending the constitutionality of that information sharing, because there was enough architecture in part VI that defined who was going to receive the information and it imposed safeguards on how that information would be transmitted. The court along the way, incidentally, made a point of noting the Arar case as an example of where things can go awry in information sharing.

Now transpose the holding in that case to the context for CSIS under the CSIS Act and for the Communications Security Establishment under the National Defence Act. There is none of the architecture that rendered the Criminal Code constitutional. None of that architecture is found in the CSIS Act or the National Defence Act, and yet those two agencies, CSIS and CSE, are elemental bodies in information sharing for the purposes of supporting Five Eyes activities and others.

I think Professor Roach and I were surprised that the government didn't take the opportunity in either Bill C-51, or before that in Bill C-44, to introduce that architecture to put this vital information sharing on sounder constitutional footing.

[Daniel Therrien]

That's an interesting question. Obviously there should be rigour before legislation is amended. I will say that obviously national security legislation needs to be up to date in terms of the threat faced by Canada, and the arguments for Bill C-44 had to do with updating the legislation to be in line with the current threat environment, the fact that it's international in nature, etc., so there was some foundation for the objective.

In terms of how to ensure the protection of rights in an environment where CSIS is given more powers, absolutely this deserves more scrutiny, and perhaps Bill C-44 should be looked at at the same time as BillC-51. That might be a possibility. All of these laws deal with what should be the legal architecture in Canada to deal with the terrorist threat. Apparently the government wants to have some form of review, particularly of Bill C-51. There would be some merit to extending that more broadly.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

So my point, Mr. Chair, is that it seems as though it was carefully crafted. That leads me to the Bill C-44 CSIS matter, which you want to review, because it seems to have some gaps in it, such as, obviously, sharing information with other jurisdictions that may not have the same level of scrutiny that we would have, or protections rights built in, therefore leading to some sad results for the people involved.

Maybe this isn't a fair question, but would the same level of scrutiny and care have been taken to frame Bill C-44? Theoretically even though we're dealing with a 30-year-old act, it worked pretty well until there were substantive changes in the way we collect and disseminate information. It seems to me, though, after a year or two, that the bill should have stood on stronger foundations than it appears to have.

I would come back again to the decision-making process and ask you whether you feel that we have to have that level in our review of everything you bring forward, but particularly of Bill C-44.

[Daniel Therrien]

Bill C-51, whose short title is the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, had a number of parts. The first part pertained to the sharing of information between federal institutions, including personal information held by federal institutions. Such information can now be shared between government departments and 17 agencies that have specific responsibilities for suppressing or detecting terrorism. What Bill C-51 does is allow all federal departments to disclose personal information to these 17 agencies if it is relevant to detecting or suppressing terrorism.

We had concerns about the lack of comprehensive oversight mechanisms and the evidence threshold for sharing information, among other things.

I understand that the government plans to introduce a bill or conduct a study to review Bill C-51. We think that is an excellent idea.

The purpose of Bill C-44 was to give the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, explicit authority to operate outside Canada. Before this bill was introduced, CSIS exercised its powers in Canada. Bill C-44 enabled CSIS to extend its activities outside the country. CSIS and the government were of the opinion that this was already provided for implicitly. Bill C-44 authorized it explicitly. The bill more explicitly authorizes information sharing between CSIS and similar agencies in other countries.

The concern we raised had to do with the risk of human rights violations, depending on the countries to which this information would be disclosed. We recommended that steps be taken to control this information sharing in order to avoid torture, for example, in the worst-case scenario.

Bill C-13 had to do with online crime in general, but amended the other law that my office administers, the Competition Act, to allow private companies to give information to police in investigations where electronic documents or personal information could be relevant. That applies in the case of online crime, but also more generally.

We had some concerns about that as well. We felt that the scope of the bill was too broad and that some provisions might not comply with a recent Supreme Court decision in Spencer, which provides for protection of some metadata when people use the Internet to share personal information.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Thank you.

I have a second question.

Regarding the disclosure of personal information, you said in your 2014-15 report that Bills C-13, C-51, and C-44, if I'm not mistaken, which now have the force of law, had a serious impact on the disclosure of personal information without people's consent.

Can you elaborate on Bill C-51? We have heard a great deal about information sharing between institutions. I am less familiar with Bills C-13 and C-44. I'd like you to talk a bit more about these three bills and the changes they made when it comes to disclosure.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you.

I will switch departments and ask you a few questions, Mr. Therrien.

During this session of Parliament, the committee considered several bills directly related to protecting the privacy of Canadians, including Bills C-44 and C-51. Unfortunately, you were not invited to testify. I think that those bills may negatively affect your ability to ensure that the privacy of Canadians is respected. What do you think?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to you, Minister, as well as the representatives from each of the agencies, for appearing today.

First of all, Minister, in your opening remarks, you mentioned Bill C-44 receiving royal assent. As well, congratulations on having Bill C-51 pass through the House last night on the vote. I'm very pleased to see that as well.

I'm a bit concerned that there are still people—maybe members of Parliament, even some of those who are on this committee—who cannot come to terms with the fact that terrorism is a real threat to Canada. During Bill C-51 testimony, we heard from many credible witnesses from our security agencies, including some who are here sitting beside you, who talked about the fact that the threat of terrorism is real, that it has evolved, and that it is a growing problem here in Canada and around the world.

Add to this the fact that during debate in the House on Bill C-51, one member of the NDP referred to the attacks of October 22 that left one member of the Canadian Armed Forces dead—and of course one was an attack here in Parliament—as merely “an unfortunate incident”. As we talk about terrorism, I want to get your opinion on why you feel that Bill C-51 is so important and on the fact that Canadians should be listening to the credible witnesses who deal in areas of intelligence gathering and law enforcement, and to those who have studied terrorism, as opposed to the opposition party.

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

Thank you very much, Chair Kramp, and I also want to thank you for recognizing the members of the Canadian safety community who are accompanying me this morning.

Of course, there is one simple reason why I am here today. It's to seek your support for allowing the resources necessary for this safety community to pursue its mission throughout the year.

In a more administrative sense, I am here to seek your support in the context of your study of the main estimates 2015-16 and of the Public Safety portfolio, as well as to answer your questions in the first hour. Experts will answer your questions in the second half of this meeting.

First things first, Mr. Chair. I want to thank all the members of this important committee for their important work over the course of the last week and the last month in their study of three major and significant pieces of legislation, the first one being the protection from terrorists act. Next is the anti-terrorism act, and I am thankful for the support we got in the House of Commons yesterday. The common sense firearms licensing act should also be on the floor very soon.

The Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act received royal assent on April 23 and represents the first major changes in three decades to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. Basically, its purpose was to clarify the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence—

Anti-terrorism Act, 2015

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle for once again pointing out that the Conservatives and the Liberals are united on Bill C-51.

When it comes to rights and freedoms, there is a less obvious problem that comes to mind. I did not get much of a chance to talk about it in my speech. I am talking about the Security Intelligence Review Committee. Although the members of this committee are good at what they do, their powers are not broad enough. This has to do with our rights and freedoms. Bill C-51 gives a lot of powers to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, as was the case with Bill C-44 a few months ago. The problem is that the additional powers given to CSIS do not come with a proper oversight mechanism. In its current form, the Security Intelligence Review Committee only conducts a review after the fact. From the beginning we have been asking for ongoing oversight to ensure that our rights and freedoms are protected at all times.

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

We are talking a lot about sunset clauses with revision, but this really has to do with the new powers being granted to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. It is doubly important to adopt a sunset clause in that regard. The recent Bill C-44 gives CSIS a lot of powers. Bill C-51 gives CSIS additional new powers. It is important that we do our job here and review the legislation to see whether everything is working.

Thank you.

[Michael Duffy]

The provision, Mr. Chair, is in fact the same wording that appears in Bill C-44, and so it's tracked in this particular piece of legislation.

As the member indicated, if the threat diminishment power is to be of use when it is done outside Canada, it would really negate the power if that were subject to the laws of the foreign jurisdiction allowing the service to do what it is they propose to do. So the issue wouldn't only arise in relation to Five Eyes partners. It could arise in relation to other jurisdictions that may actually have a hand in the very activity that the service is seeking to diminish as a threat to the security of Canada, and that is seen as an illogical result that you would have to basically get the consent or do something in accordance with the laws of that jurisdiction.

Whether or not other countries have that type of provision in their legislation, that really reflects the nature of the legislation they have. It is a rather—if I can describe it this way—indelicate thing to say in legislation, and that may be precisely why it doesn't appear in legislation. States do not like to say that on the face of a statute, but because the issue was raised in other litigation involving Federal Court warrants, and it was addressed in Bill C-44, it would have been an anomaly if, in this particular power to take threat diminishment measures, it was restricted to doing what was permissible according to foreign law, quite apart from the fact that, as was indicated, it would be extremely difficult for CSIS as well as the Federal Court judge to know fully what the foreign law on a point was.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I'll turn to the officials again on this one. We had this under Bill C-44, I believe.

The part in the bill that Ms. May would take out with her amendment states:

(4) Without regard to any other law, including that of any foreign state

That was in a previous bill. It's now in this one. It is something that we do not see, that I'm aware of, with any of our Five Eyes partners. It certainly is giving the impression to those who we consider allies that we have no regard for their law. How do you explain that, and why is that necessary there?

That's for whoever wants to answer. Don't fight over it.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I think the biggest concern with this is that it would somehow make CSIS' ability to take threat diminishment measures dependent upon the laws of other countries. I just think back to when we did our previous Bill C-44. We heard testimony, and we've heard testimony again here, about how absolutely ridiculous that would be considering some of the countries' laws and how backwards they are to what we believe is right in a democratic society and under the umbrella of the charter.

I think that's the biggest concern with this amendment, that we would be relying on other countries' laws to dictate how CSIS could carry out their work. Considering some of those countries, I think that's completely over the top and outrageous.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you.

I'd like to add as well, Madam Vincent, that I think some of your analyses of the bill is in the spirit of exactly what this kind of committee should be doing, and I hope that continues at the amendments phase.

I want to double-check a couple of things quickly with Professor Leuprecht.

You brought up oversight and review issues towards the end. In your testimony in November on Bill C-44, which is a bill that goes much less further than this bill does in terms of new powers, you said it committed “one sin of omission”. That was your language. “Many more expansive powers for security intelligence should be balanced with robust parliamentary accountability...”.

I was there in that committee with you. Certain questions were asked about the Belgian model. I just want to make sure so that everybody is clear that you're as concerned about the need for the balancing of expansive powers with robust parliamentary accountability for this bill as you were for Bill C-44. It's more or less a yes or a no.

[Prof. Garth Davies, Associate Professor, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual]

Good evening.

Thank you very much for inviting me to speak here today. It's truly an honour to be here. Out of respect for the work of the committee, I will try to make my comments brief.

I'm not a lawyer. I will leave the nuances of Bill C-51 to people who are far more qualified than I. What I am is a researcher. I've been studying terrorism for over 20 years now, and it's in my capacity as a researcher that I come before you today to offer my thoughts.

There are just a few points that I would like to make.

The first and the most important is that the danger posed by violent extremism and terrorism is real. The threats to Canada and to Canadian lives are real. I've been following the discussions in the House, and lip service is often paid to these being real, but I'm not certain that we are actually embracing the realities we're facing.

The challenges we face are unprecedented. Those challenges would include, for example, living in a hyperconnected world where borders are meaningless to terrorists. They would include the rapidly expanding use of the Internet for recruitment and for other nefarious purposes. They would include a rise in the kinds of behaviours that have not been experienced at the level we're seeing now, such as, for example, homegrown terrorism, lone actor terrorism, and the potential violence that might be attributed to returning foreign fighters.

These are all examples of the kinds of things that have changed the context of terrorism and our conversations around it. The nature of these threats suggests that we need to modernize our thinking about our approach to counterterrorism. I would argue that Bill C-51 is necessary as part of a larger process that recognizes the new dynamics in this new context, in addition to, for example, Bill C-44 and others that will inevitably follow.

Second, in studying terrorism, one of the things that I think has been most striking and particularly challenging over the years, for as long as I've been studying it, is the speed with which terrorists adapt to detection techniques. They are constantly changing tactics and constantly coming at us with new ways of thinking and doing things.

Many of the methods that we are currently trying to use to deal with these threats have become outmoded. For example, increasingly, there is no group to infiltrate. Increasingly, there is no head of the snake to cut off. There is no one with whom to negotiate. The tools that we've traditionally relied on as standard ways of trying to disrupt terrorism are not as useful to us in these contexts.

At present we are faced with a rather extreme version of Louis Beam's idea of leaderless resistance, where we've gone beyond autonomous cells and simply have individuals who at any particular moment might pop up and commit heinous acts. Also, this will inevitably change, so we are perpetually playing catch-up. It's difficult to determine what will come next. It has been suggested, for example, that the next wave of terrorism may be more technological, so that we're dealing with people and what they can do with technology, and they may not have any kind of ideological purpose other than that. Then we try to embrace and conceptualize what difficulties that might bring.

What we do know is there is learning taking place on the part of these individuals and groups, and that in all likelihood the next attacks will be different. The next attack will likely not involve storming Parliament. The next attack will be something else. We need tools, such as those proposed in Bill C-51, that are adaptable and that allow for some flexibility in responding not just for now, but for the future.

A third point is that the upshot of all this is that we need to get as much information as we can. Accurate, complete, and real-time information is needed to keep up with ongoing potential plots. This means that in certain circumstances we're going to need to use those scary words of “coalition”, of “integration” from different sources, to fill in pictures, to fill in gaps, and to give us the information we need. It also means living up to our obligations as international partners in terms of the sharing of information.

There are of course potential concerns. I'm not blind to them; nobody who has been following them can be. They have been catalogued at length in front of this committee, but I don't believe that they are insurmountable, nor that they should be insurmountable.

It has been argued that we cannot arrest our way out of the problem of terrorism, and that it would be preferable to dissuade people from this path before they've gone too far down the path to violent extremism. This is most certainly true, but we're playing catch-up again.

We don't have good profiles of who is likely to turn violent. We have many theories and many ideas. We are developing many models and we're working on many projects, but right now we simply don't know. In the interim, we need the ability to act quickly, decisively, disruptively when necessary, in part at least in response to changing conditions on the ground.

We're not talking about acting haphazardly. We're not talking about acting randomly. We believe that with any luck our tools will continue to evolve such that we can be more targeted in how we collect information. As an example, colleagues and I are working at SFU to develop a series of algorithms that allow us to parse information on the Internet in a much more effective way so that we're not just targeting out there, but trying to actually use a series of key words and phrases, and trying to be more specific in how we look for information. With any luck, the same technology that terrorists are using to recruit our young people can also be used to minimize ad hoc intrusions into privacy.

We need to be creating a framework for the future, one that's flexible enough to deal with the nature of the threat that we may not even be aware of yet. This bill, I think, reflects the times that we live in and casts an eye towards threats that may not be that far down the road.

Thank you for your time.

[Sukanya Pillay]

I thank my colleagues and OpenMedia for sharing their time. I appear on behalf of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. We are an independent national non-governmental organization which for 50 years has effectively protected civil liberties in this country. You have our detailed submissions, and in the interests of time I will restrict my comments to four minutes and two points.

Let me state at the outset that the CCLA understands that the government requires effective tools to protect Canada and its people from terrorist threats and acts. What we do not understand is why this bill is needed, given the existing robust, and in some cases exceptional, tools at our disposal and the success rate of law enforcement and courts, most recently demonstrated with the VIA Rail terrorist convictions. It has not been shown that Bill C-51 provides any necessary new tools, and we are concerned that it will increase powers without any commensurate increase in accountability mechanisms. My two points are as follows.

First, I am going to turn to the security of Canada information sharing act, which I will refer to as SCISA. SCISA expansively allows for unprecedented sharing of information across at least 17 state agencies with foreign governments and foreign and domestic private actors without enforceable privacy safeguards and without clearly limiting the information to terrorist activities or threats. This is overbroad. The legislative objective of SCISA to keep Canada safe from terrorist threat is beyond dispute, but the drafting of SCISA is not. Without enforceable safeguards, information sharing will result in error. The surnames of Arar, Almalki, Nureddin, Elmaati, Abdelrazik, Benatta, and Almrei are serious, terrible reminders of the devastation wreaked by misuse and mistake in information sharing. Failure to properly share information also resulted in the failure to prevent the Air India tragedy when flight 182 was bombed, killing all 329 people aboard.

SCISA does not heed any of the recommendations of the Arar commission for integrated review of the integrated operation of agencies, nor for statutory gateways to facilitate such review, nor does it benefit from the lessons and in-depth study of the Air India commission. Existing mechanisms for national security agencies are simply inadequate in the context of SCISA. The reference to the caveats in the guidelines is undermined by subsequent provisions which allow for further sharing of information with any person for any purpose, and also by civil immunity for information mistakenly shared in good faith. In the national security context, information sharing requires proper legal safeguards of necessity, proportionality, and minimal impairment, and requires written agreements and caveats with respect to reliability, use, dissemination, storage, retention, and destruction. All of this is wholly absent in SCISA.

Next, I will talk about the CSIS Act amendments, and I have three brief points.

First, the amendments transform CSIS from the recipient, collector, and analyst of intelligence into an agency with powers to act. There is no explanation for this radical transformation at odds with the findings of the McDonald commission, which heralded distinction between intelligence and law enforcement.

Furthermore, there is no limit on what CSIS' disruption powers will be, other than the outer limits of bodily harm, obstruction of justice, and violation of sexual integrity, thereby indicating a very large sphere within which CSIS can operate. These new powers will blur the lines between intelligence and law enforcement and may further increase tension between the mandates and practices of CSIS and the RCMP, which can undermine security. Blurring the lines between intelligence and evidence may in fact undermine terrorist prosecutions.

We are also concerned by the judicial warrant that would enable CSIS to contravene the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is a shocking prospect to the CCLA, given that Canada is a country committed to constitutional paramountcy in rule of law, not to mention independence of the judiciary. Furthermore, the process would be conducted ex parte and in camera.

In conjunction with Bill C-44, Bill C-51 permits CSIS to act at home and abroad without regard to foreign domestic law and international law. In our view, this contravenes Canada's binding legal obligation and is a dangerous signal to send to foreign governments and agencies.

We close in respectfully reminding the committee that, across the board, safeguards and accountability mechanisms are not meant to be impediments to national security; rather, they ensure that we do not, however unintentionally, violate or impair constitutional rights of innocent law-abiding people in Canada, that we do not waste or misdirect precious national security resources, that we do not tarnish, harm, or ruin the lives of innocent individuals, and in turn that our national security actions are efficacious.

As the Supreme Court stated in Suresh, it would be a pyrrhic victory if we defeated terrorism at the cost of sacrificing our commitment to the values that lie at the heart of our constitutional order.

[Prof. Kent Roach]

Well, to go back to the security of Canada information sharing act, we recognize that the threat environment is changing. The UN Security Council has also recognized that. But we don't understand why you wouldn't plug in proposed section 2, in particular the terrorism-related mandate to section 2, with respect to information sharing.

Aspects of part 1 almost seem deliberately provocative, because it has such a broad definition. Concerning the exemption for lawful protest, as Professor Forcese said, we've been here. We had that debate in 2001, and Parliament recognized, after the bill had been introduced, that it was best to take the word “lawful”—the qualifier—out. I look at that and at the lack of regard for the Air India commission's recommendation about mandatory information sharing. When you think about how that is going to interact with Bill C-44, it means that any human source to whom CSIS has promised confidentiality will have an absolute veto about being a crown witness in a terrorism prosecution.

Professor Forcese and I are actually, on some of these matters, quite “law and order”. We think that those offences that Parliament enacted in 2013 are quite valuable offences, and we see the prosecutions that are ongoing in a number of our cities now. But we worry that the combination of Bill C-51 and Bill C-44 and all the new powers and privileges that they give to CSIS could have the unintended effect of making prosecutions more difficult and also affecting CSIS-RCMP cooperation. I say this as a person who for four years was director of research legal studies of the Air India commission.

[Professor Craig Forcese, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thanks very much, and thanks for inviting me here this evening.

I come before you as someone who has regularly appeared before this committee over the last seven or eight years, generally supporting the government's security laws. Most recently, you'll recall, I appeared here in the fall in support of Bill C-44. Each time, however, I have proposed amendments designed to minimize negative repercussions, including repercussions producing unnecessary litigation. The details matter, and it is, of course, the details we are here to discuss.

I'll start with a few words on preventive detention by police, from section 83.3 of the Criminal Code, as modified now by Bill C-51. In the past, I have spent considerable time looking at equivalent laws in other countries. Kent Roach and I draw on these laws and, most notably, those of Australia to recommend a series of specific safeguards on the preventive detention power. Kent mentioned that we have a brief list of our recommended changes, which I have here in front of me. I wish, however, to focus most of my comments on the CSIS Act amendments.

The government says that CSIS needs the new powers so that, for example, CSIS can warn families that a child is radicalizing. No one, in good faith, can object to this, but the bill reaches much further. Indeed, the only outer limit is no bodily harm, no obstruction of justice, and no violation of sexual integrity, along with a more open-ended and subjective admonishment that the service act reasonably and proportionally. There is, in other words, a mismatch between the government's justifications and the actual text of the law.

We underscore both the security and legal consequences of such a proposal. On the security side, we run a considerable risk that new CSIS operations may end up overlapping, affecting, and perhaps even tainting a subsequent RCMP criminal investigation into terrorist activity. A criminal trial may be mired in doubts about whether the CSIS operation contributed to or was otherwise associated with the crime at issue. Will our most successful anti-terror tool—criminal law—in which crown prosecutors have had a stellar record in achieving convictions, be degraded by CSIS operations that muddy waters?

Any veteran of the Air India matter must be preoccupied by this possibility, but even if the government thinks that CSIS-RCMP operational conflicts are worth the risk, we can meet its stated security objective without opening the door so wide to possible mistakes by a covert agency. For instance, amend the bill to remove any reference to the charter being contravened by CSIS. The current proposal is a breathtaking rupture with fundamental precepts of our democratic system. For the first time, judges are being asked to bless in advance a violation of our charter rights in a secret hearing not subject to appeal and with only the government side represented.

There is no analogy to search warrants. Those are designed to ensure compliance with the charter. What the government proposes is a constitutional breach warrant. It is a radical idea, one that may reflect careless drafting more than considered intent. It deserves sober second thought by Parliament.

Moreover, with a simple line or two, this committee could add new and reasonable limits on CSIS powers, including, for instance, an emphatic bar on detention. We cannot risk a parallel system of detention by a covert agency able to act against people who have committed no crime. At present, whatever the government's claims to the contrary, there is no prohibition in the bill on such a system.

In the final analysis, we are dependent on good judgment by the service. I do not doubt CSIS' integrity. I do doubt its infallibility. Good law assists in exercising good judgment, as does robust review. That brings me to SIRC.

We need to reinvest in our national security accountability system. SIRC's constraints and design mean that it is incapable of reviewing all of CSIS' activities or even CSIS' conduct under all its existing warrants. A partial approach to review will be spread even thinner as CSIS' powers expand.

More than this, SIRC and other review bodies are unnecessarily hamstrung by legal limitations that stovepipe their functions to specific agencies and prevent them from following the trail when government agencies collaborate, an increasingly common practice that Bill C-51 will unquestionably increase.

As Professor Roach mentioned, the Arar commission recommended that statutory gateways be created, allowing SIRC to share secret information and conduct joint investigations with Canada's two other existing, independent national security review bodies. The government has not acted on this report. A few paragraphs of legislative language would go a long way to curing this problem. I underscore and double-underline these are concerns that SIRC itself has voiced. That message about limited power should not be lost.

As a supplement, not a replacement, we also support a special security committee of parliamentarians. It can perform a valuable, pinnacle review—a review, not command and control oversight—by examining the entire security and intelligence landscape. Someone needs to see the forest, not just the individual trees. Our allies have made parliamentary review work with expert SIRC-like review. We look in particular to the Australian example. The existence of such a committee would also contribute to a meaningful and informed parliamentary review of the effects of this far-reaching legislation after, as Professor Roach has suggested, a few years of its operation.

Let me end with a final point. In its present guise, Bill C-51 violates a principle that we believe should be embedded in national security law. Any law that grants powers, especially secret, difficult-to-review power, should be designed to limit poor judgment, not be a law whose reasonable application depends on excellent judgment. Whatever the truth as to whether these powers are constitutional or necessary, their introduction is, in our view, irresponsible without a redoubled investment in our outmatched and outdated accountability system. Anyone who has worked on accountability in the security sector knows that there was a core maxim in this area: trust but verify. We do not believe this standard will be met.

It is within your competence to pass a law that protects our security and liberty and does so without the sort of incoherence that risks actually undermining our security. Such amendments to Bill C-51 require good will and a willingness to consider suggestions made in the earnest hope of a good law that protects our country and our rights.

We thank you for your interest and for your important work.

[Professor Kent Roach, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, As an Individual]

Bonsoir. I'd like to thank the committee for allowing me to appear.

In over 200 pages of legal analysis, Professor Forcese and I have examined the effects, including unintended ones, of Bill C-51 on both security and rights. Security and rights go hand in hand both in our democracy and in legal analysis of the proportionality of the proposed measures. We are doing our best to improve the bill in light of both rights concerns and security rationale offered by the government. A short summary of our proposed amendments will in due course be translated and be available to the committee.

Starting with part 1, like the Arar commission, we recognize the need for information sharing to help prevent terrorism. Part 1, however, goes far, far beyond that legitimate goal. It introduces the novel concept of activities that undermine the security of Canada. That concept is quite simply the broadest definition of national security we have ever seen. We do not understand why it cannot be replaced with section 2 of the CSIS Act as it defines threats to the security of Canada. If implemented, this concept risks drowning 17 designated recipient institutions in not just information about terrorism but information about illegal protests by diaspora groups that could undermine the security of perhaps repressive states and illegal protests by aboriginal and separatist groups who threaten Canada's territorial integrity.

Canada prides itself on being perhaps the only country in the world that democratically debates secession. We should not be a country that shares total and secret information about peaceful protestors. The government's defence of the limited exemption for lawful protest is contrary to the prior experience that led Parliament to delete that very same word “lawful” from the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Act. If, in the few months after the disaster and tragedy of 9/11, we could see our way to tolerate peaceful protest, I do not understand why we can't do the same today.

I would also say the over-breadth of part 1 not only threatens rights; it threatens security. If everything is a security matter, effectively, nothing is. Clause 6 of part 1, which authorizes the further sharing of information to any person for any purpose, should be deleted because it forgets the hard lessons we should have learned from the story of Maher Arar and other Canadians tortured in Syria in part because of Canadian information. We support the codification of the no-fly list but we are concerned that special advocates must be able to challenge the secret intelligence that lies behind the listing process.

We share the concerns of a group of special advocates that part 5 of Bill C-51 will reduce the disclosure of secret information to those security-cleared counsel and make it more difficult for them to do their important and indeed constitutionally required job of challenging secret evidence. We note that there is no judicial review of part 1 and we note, as the Privacy Commissioner has noted, that 14 out of the 17 recipient agencies have no review, and the other three have outdated stovepipe review. We recommend the enactment of a super-SIRC or at least the Arar commission's recommendation.

Independent review should not be seen as the enemy of security and it should not be seen as the enemy of those in our security agencies who do the important and difficult work that they do. We should all understand that we will do better work if we are reviewed and, if warranted and necessary, criticized by others. The review bodies also help security agencies because they protect them against unwarranted criticism.

Next, in our view, the new advocacy of terrorism offence is not necessary. Existing offences, including section 83.22 on instruction are, in our view, sufficient. If Parliament proceeds with this offence, there should at least be defences for legitimate expression and higher fault requirements. Again, though, our concern with this offence is not narrowly on rights, it is also on security. We worry that this offence will not only chill expression but make it more difficult to work with extremists who may be radicalized into violent extremism.

We note that the U.K. legislation passed just a few weeks ago provides a statutory basis for anti-radicalization programs, which are very important given the current threat environment, but Bill C-51 does not.

Finally, I want to end on another security issue. Part 1 allows for information sharing about illegal protests, which are irritating to some, but in our view not a pressing security concern. At the same time, it ignores the Air India commission's recommendation 10 that there must be mandatory information sharing by CSIS about terrorism offences. Lest you think the Air India commission was idiosyncratic, Senator Segal's committee made the very same recommendation in the Senate in 2011.

We support Parliament's decision in 2013 to add four new terrorism foreign-fighter offences. Indeed, they place Canada in front of the curve on this new security threat. Now, Bill C-51, combined with Bill C-44, would likely make it more, not less, difficult to apply these offences. Why?

CSIS will unilaterally be able to extend privileges to its human sources, contrary to the Air India commission's recommendation, and CSIS will still unilaterally be able to withhold information about terrorism offences from the police, again contrary to the Air India recommendations.

These concerns and others suggest, in our view, that the omnibus legislation, which adds two new acts and amends 15 others, should be subject to a three-year review by a parliamentary committee. Those parliamentarians should have access to secret information, because having worked on both the Arar commission and the Air India commission, I can tell you that without access to secret information you are flying blind. There should be a four-year sunset of this entire legislation to allow for, hopefully, an informed and meaningful discussion of its necessity and proportionality in light of evolving security threats and rights concerns.

Thank you very much for your attention.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think, again, what we're dealing with here is a certain intolerance for debate on the part of the government on topics like this, so we see the use of time allocation which is more pleasantly described as scheduling when we have debate, and it says that we should have a full debate here.

The government has decided in its subamendment how many are adequate, and we are saying that given the nature of what we're dealing with here, the very fundamental nature.... This is the most important bill, I would submit, that's been before this Parliament—the only Parliament of which, of course, I have been a member. But it deals with the most fundamental threats to our society, and at the same time, in doing so, I believe the government has endangered some of our most fundamental rights.

The question of the number of witnesses and the number per session is quite important. It's not just a trivial matter. It's quite important to have a full study of this. We have to get this right. We can't end up with a bill that's tied up in endless litigation in the courts. As I said yesterday in the House of Commons, this government does have a record of passing bills that have ended up in wrangling in court, and several of which have been declared unconstitutional.

If we limit the number of witnesses and are unable as a result of that to have the constitutional scholars before us who could prevent us from passing a law that would eventually be counterproductive because of the amount of time we'd have to spend before the courts, and which actually might—and I say this with all seriousness—allow some of those who might be involved in very dangerous activities to go free because of the flaws in the law, that's a problem.

We have heard several commentators saying that, in fact, expansion of the powers of CSIS has a hidden problem in it. That problem is that because of the previous bill we passed, Bill C-44, and the confidentiality of both CSIS informants and operatives, if we expand the activities of CSIS, we may in fact make it more difficult to actually prosecute those who are guilty of terrorism offences.

I would like to have the opportunity also to have those witnesses before this committee who could give us testimony on why that's a real threat that's contained within this bill. Again, I think that's something all members of this committee would wish to avoid. No one here wants to pass a law that would inadvertently make it more difficult to prosecute those who are actually involved in violent threats to the security of this country.

So once again, we have a list of more than 60 people who h ave approached us and the committee who would like to give testimony on this bill. In the debate on the subamendment, or the debate before she introduced the subamendment, the parliamentary secretary implied that this could not be done.

I want to submit once again that members on this side are prepared to sit in this committee in the evenings. We're prepared to sit during the break weeks. We're prepared to sit however many times a day it takes to hear the important witnesses we need to hear on this.

For that reason, I remain opposed to the subamendment. I still believe it's of questionable procedural validity, but I respect the chair, and so of course we will be voting against this subamendment.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much for your generosity. Although I am known here for being consistently in my seat to vote, I am generally a man of few words, and you are about to prove it for me.

Nonetheless, it is an honour for me to participate in this debate. I recognize that many of the professionals who work at CSIS, CSEC, and VENUS Cybersecurity are residents of the district that I have the honour to represent here.

The protection of Canadians is a duty that the government holds sacred. That is why our efforts to fight terrorism, guided by a comprehensive anti-terrorism strategy, have been front and centre in our legislative agenda.

We continue to make real progress in ways that are measured and decisive to improve our country's ability to address the terrorist threat.

We passed the Combating Terrorism Act, which criminalizes travel, and attempts to travel, by those who want to participate in terrorist activities abroad.

More recently, we introduced the protection of Canada from terrorists act to ensure that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, known by the acronym CSIS, has the firm legal footing it needs to investigate threats to the security of Canada from wherever they originate.

Now, I think you are about to tell me that I just had the last word, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for this opportunity.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say I had a hard time understanding what the parliamentary secretary's point was.

I have not at any time in debate suggested that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada was in any way inferior to foreign laws. My question was very clear. Even after Bill C-44, which allows CSIS to operate in other countries, this bill says that CSIS will operate within or outside Canada, but it will only need a warrant when CSIS agents realize that they are about to break a domestic law.

This does not confine itself to countries like Iran and Somalia. CSIS agents operating anywhere in the world would appear to be, based on this reading of this act, empowered to break laws in other countries without any judicial oversight anywhere, and that strikes me as overreaching.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-44, the bill that went through the House previously, gave CSIS the ability to work outside the country and only obey Canadian laws. That is something that other international spy agencies do, but we have not done so in the past. Now we have a situation where we will do this type of work, which will obviously come back on us should others do the same to us.

I think Canada has changed its whole international perspective of trying to bring countries together and conciliate into an incredible jingoistic approach, a man-with-a-big-hat-and-no-cattle approach.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to this bill, though many of my colleagues in the House who would also like an opportunity to speak to such an important bill that mixes security and freedom will not have one because we are under time allocation.

Bill C-51 makes it very clear that the Prime Minister meant what he said when he remarked that we would not recognize Canada when he got through with the bill. The party of one will make sure that this country is not the same after his reign is finished. We will not recognize Canada after Bill C-51 is made law and used for many years. We will not recognize what this bill can do to Canada, including today when we stand to speak about a couple of jihadist threats that have potentially occurred in Canada and speak about the bill in that regard. We will not recognize what the bill would do to Canada because it will come in the actions of CSIS over many years, as CSIS uses its new powers to work in Canadian society and, through Bill C-44, in various ways abroad to change the very nature of Canadian society.

The Conservative Prime Minister has demonstrated time and again that disagreement is not something he tolerates or understands. In fact, we heard the former Public Safety minister Vic Toews call environmentalists eco-terrorists in 2012. The current finance minister, in his time as natural resources minister, basically made the same kinds of remarks.

We live in a world where we know that we have to balance the environment and the economy and where those questions require debate, disagreement and, many times, civil confrontation. Now there would be a new set of rules. It is hard to think that that type of interaction could in any way be a threat to national security when we talk about how we are balancing what we do in this country between the environment and the economy, but that is quite clearly laid out in this bill. It underlies this bill.

This bill would likely create even greater divisions and alienation in our society than exist now. That is generally what happens when there is more authoritarian and secretive behaviour in society, with more opportunities for collusion under the law to take out the people who are not liked or the people who are somehow thought to be threats to Canada.

When one views the government's actions and words of concern about environmentalists, it is understandable that many Canadians are starting to speak up about Bill C-51. Yes, the initial poll showed that a lot of Canadians liked the idea of security against terrorism; but did they understand what was in the bill, and are the Conservatives allowing them to understand that by continuing this debate in the House of Commons? No, they are not. They are closing the debate down because they know darn well that as this debate continues and things come out, others will ask for a better bill and a better understanding of the nature of what the Conservatives are proposing.

To be specific, Bill C-51 threatens our way of life by asking Canadians to choose between their security and their freedoms. It asks Canadians to choose, but the Conservatives do not actually ask Canadians; they simply put this bill forward, apply closure, and send it through committee in very little time. That is what will happen.

A bill like this should take time. We should be at it for months, maybe a year, getting the bill right. We do not have any rush. After Air India, we did not change anything for many years. We did not have significant problems. We are not having significant problems today.

Bill C-51 was not developed in consultation with other parties. That is very much the case. This thing was brought up in a very big rush after October 2014, as we heard commentators from the Conservatives Party say here today.

The bill irresponsibly provides CSIS with a sweeping new mandate without equally increasing oversight. Actually, there is no oversight; there is review, and we need to keep those separate. There is the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which is not an oversight committee but a review committee that looks at things the agency has done long after it is finished. Oversight says more immediacy. The Conservatives say that a judge will do that, but only if CSIS takes it to a judge. In many cases, they may not.

I want to talk about threat disruption, which is an interesting subject. When we think of groups that may be formed to do something the government opposes, like environmental action, CSIS might say, “Then if they might do something unlawful in the future, perhaps we should get involved right now to deal with threat disruption. Maybe we should put a CSIS member into that organization. Maybe we should undermine the organization first before it becomes a problem”. That would fit under the law. That is called threat disruption. If we disrupt something before the unlawful action is taken, how can anyone prove there was unlawful action? This works both ways. We can disrupt people now because we think in the future they may do something wrong.

The bill does not provide anything to make our society work better. The bill does not do anything to build communities, to build understanding—absolutely nothing. It is all secretive. It is all behind the scenes. There is nothing here that says we have a job to do in our society to bring people together.

When we look at the promotion of terrorism, how can we judge that? How can we judge the promotion of terrorism? What is incitement to terrorism? Is it someone saying that their son or daughter has been injured, that they are angry about it and that they do not like what the government has done. Is that incitement to terrorism? What is being suggested in this?

Quite obviously the government has made the bill so large that it simply cannot answer those questions today. How will we answer them in the future? It will only be through the actions of what happens here. If we have oversight by parliamentarians, we may have a chance to control some of the bill going forward. If we do not, then we will rely on non-elected individuals to determine what the bill does, and that is simply wrong.

Why do we not deal with this in a better fashion than what the government has proposed to do? Why did we go in this direction? The party of one is responsible for this. The Prime Minister would not come into Parliament and stand to speak to the bill. He chose to do it somewhere where he did not have anyone to criticize him, to ask him questions. Why would someone make such a large effort to promote the bill without that type of commentary in the House? I really find that wrong-headed, but it is more the style of this Prime Minister, the party of one.

Clearly, we oppose the bill. We will continue to oppose the bill because it is not done right. It will not protect Canadians. It will affect their rights in the future. We do not understand exactly how it will affect their rights, but it will do that without the proper oversight of parliamentarians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-51, the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, introduced by the Conservative government.

I want to start by talking about what has happened since the debate started in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, less than 24 hours after the debate on Bill C-51 started, the Conservative government moved a time allocation motion to restrict the time for debate. This is the 88th time that the Conservative government has done this in the House—an all-time high. There is no pride to be taken in preventing parliamentarians from doing their job.

I had to wonder why the Conservatives moved this time allocation motion, since when they introduced Bill C-51, they promised to all Canadians and parliamentarians that they would take the time to debate the bill. However, less than 24 hours after the debate started, they moved a time allocation motion. What is going on?

Yesterday, over 22,000 people signed a petition against Bill C-51. This morning, former prime ministers, retired Supreme Court justices and other prominent Canadians released a letter expressing major concerns about several aspects of Bill C-51, specifically those relating to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

The more we talk about Bill C-51 with the people we represent in our communities, and the more the experts say about this, the more we realize that this is not the right way to combat terrorism and radicalization here in Canada or elsewhere in the world. It is unfortunate that the Conservative government is doing this, but it is not a surprise.

I would like to comment on some remarks that the hon. member for Medicine Hat made in his speech just before question period. First of all, partisanship has no place in a debate on terrorism and radicalization. As parliamentarians, we are capable of debating. Second of all, there is no place for grandstanding and mockery in this debate. I think that, unfortunately, the member for Medicine Hat lacked respect in the context of the debate on Bill C-51.

We are debating an extremely important bill and he is accusing the NDP of wanting to hug terrorists just because we are opposed to Bill C-51. Nothing could be more ridiculous in the House today. I hope my colleague will take the time to apologize in the House for his comments, because they add nothing to a debate that should be respectful and orderly.

A number of members from across the way then said that we had less time for debate because the official opposition took too much time to vote on the Conservatives' time allocation motion. That too is ridiculous. We do not have enough time to debate, not because we took too long to vote, but because they moved another time allocation motion after just 24 hours. They should set the record straight, across the way.

They also accused the official opposition of playing partisan politics with Bill C-51.

I want to talk about the process that led us to study this bill very carefully because Canadians need to understand the work of the official opposition and what the Conservative government is in the process of doing with this bill on terrorism.

We believe that the extremely important Bill C-51 was a response to the attacks in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and on Parliament Hill in Ottawa. Instead of presenting this bill in the usual way, in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister presented it during a partisan gathering, hundreds of kilometres away from Parliament Hill. The Conservatives are already in campaign mode and this bill is part of their campaign.

The Conservatives are already trumpeting this everywhere as if it were the best way to counter terrorism. Partisanship had no place in this debate and certainly not like that.

I must say, I am very proud of the work done by the official opposition on this file, especially by the Leader of the Opposition and my hon. colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. As soon as we saw Bill C-51, we noticed how big it is and saw that it affects many different aspects of various laws, including legislation on citizenship and immigration as well as CSIS. We thought it was important to examine it carefully, because with the Conservatives, the devil is often in the details, and that is certainly true in the case of this bill.

The bill is huge. I want to explain why we oppose it, because it is important to do so. When Bill C-44 was introduced to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, we decided to vote with the government. It was a fair tactic, since we wanted to send the bill to committee and try to work together. Work in committee was extremely tedious and difficult because the Conservatives stymied us at every turn. Everything was very restricted: the number of sessions dedicated to witnesses, the number of witnesses we were allowed to invite and the time we were given to examine each clause of the bill. We gave the Conservatives a chance on a bill that we did not wholeheartedly support. We thought we could at least try to improve it.

Bill C-51 is so broad and touches on so many things at the same time. Not only does it cast a wide net, but it is dangerously vague and ineffective. In order to solve such complex and specific problems as terrorism and radicalization here in Canada, we need concrete objectives. The government cannot cast such a wide net as it does with Bill C-51, which does not directly target the problem. Instead, this bill tries to make it look like something is being done, which is not really the case, particularly since it does not propose proven and effective measures. Among other things, it puts partisan politics ahead of the protection of Canadians. I am extremely disappointed by that.

It is important to say that terrorism is a real threat. Everyone here agrees that public safety is one of the top priorities of any government anywhere in the world. Canadians really do not have to choose between public safety and civil liberties. However, with Bill C-51, the government is trying to have us make a false choice. We are told that public safety and civil liberties go hand in hand. I agree completely. However, Bill C-51 contains absolutely nothing that will improve civilian oversight of CSIS, which will be given many new powers with this bill. The government is not striking a balance with civilian oversight.

There is a problem with the civilian oversight mechanism at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. First of all, in 2012, in one of its omnibus bills, the government decided to eliminate the position of inspector general of CSIS. This individual reported on what was going on at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. The civilian oversight agency currently responsible for reviewing the activities of CSIS is flawed. These people are appointed by the Conservative government. Members will remember Arthur Porter who, coincidentally, was appointed to this body. What an excellent choice. Furthermore, the oversight mechanism does not work because not all of the positions have been filled. There is not a full complement of competent individuals at this time. Also, the mechanism works on a part-time basis half of the time.

The government often tells us that this is a very effective civilian oversight mechanism, but in reality that is not the case. According to the provisions of Bill C-51 regarding the existing civilian oversight mechanism as it exists today, it is CSIS itself that chooses what might violate the laws governing its own operations and thus decides what it will report to the civilian oversight mechanism.

CSIS itself chooses what must be investigated through its civilian oversight mechanism. That does not make any sense.

I do not want to say that the government is lying to Canadians when it says that Bill C-51 establishes a balance between public safety and civil liberties, but it is coming quite close to it.

Here is another interesting thing about Bill C-51. For weeks, we have been asking questions of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister. They tell us that CSIS will be able to disrupt threats in Canada targeting the Canadian economy and infrastructure. However, no one on the other side of the House was able to give a single example of what is meant by disrupting a threat to the Canadian economy or disrupting a threat to Canadian infrastructure. Those statements can mean many things and are very broad.

The government is saying that it is trying to deal with terrorism. However, the Conservatives have a tendency to use measures in this sort of bill to achieve completely different goals. Today, during question period, we asked whether this would create problems for environmentalists who protest against the oil sands, for example. Will those people be affected by this bill? Will the first nations who sometimes put up roadblocks to protest government decisions be affected by Bill C-51? Given the way the bill is worded, they absolutely will be. The problem is that the members opposite refuse to admit that.

I would have liked to quote the exact words of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, but he said something along the lines of: we do not want to get bogged down in definitions. This is a bill on terrorism. The right definitions are exactly what we should have, especially when it comes to problems as complex as radicalization and terrorism. I sincerely believe this is amateur hour. I do not know whether the Minister of Public Safety even read his own bill and understood it. If he understood it, then he would have realized that it goes a bit too far and he could have considered some of the ramifications. However, there is still no answer from the Conservative government.

I hope, if the hon. members across the way ask me questions, to get some examples that directly concern infrastructure or threats to the Canadian economy, and what impact this might have exactly. I look forward to hearing what the hon. members have to say about this.

I said that the terrorist threat is real. We have to recognize that and make sure we have the right tools to fight it. However, we also have to be careful, and I mentioned the false choice we are being asked to make between public safety and civil liberties. People in Quebec had first-hand experience with that in the past. I am talking about the October crisis in the 1970s when Mr. Trudeau's Liberal government passed the War Measures Act. The NDP was the only party that opposed the War Measures Act at that time, the only party that stood up for the rights and civil liberties of Canadians. I am proud to see that we are doing that again today.

We can take concrete measures to combat the terrorist threat and radicalization in this country. We can start by striking a clear balance between civil liberties and public safety. The least we can do is make sure we have a completely independent civilian oversight mechanism. Our legislative approach to combatting terrorism must be more thorough, and it must be based on facts and evidence, for once.

The bill was introduced on the Friday before the week-long break for our constituency work. As the official opposition, we took the time to meet with experts in the field and with people who will be directly affected by the measures in Bill C-51. We also consulted with people who read criminal law very well and have a good understanding of the impact this bill could have. I could give many examples. Many civil liberties organizations, such as the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association, are very concerned about the bill's potential impact, since Bill C-51 is based entirely on ideology and not on fact.

First of all, these could be laws that we might never use. In the past, this place has passed public safety legislation that, for many reasons, cannot even be used by the RCMP or CSIS, for example. Furthermore, certain communities are becoming increasingly marginalized. In his speech introducing Bill C-51, the Prime Minister targeted the Muslim community directly by talking about mosques. That is unacceptable. What we should be doing here is rallying everyone to ensure that, together, we all properly understand the problem of radicalization and work hard to eradicate it.

The key here is to have an approach centred on the fight against terrorism that includes strict control over security intelligence agencies—rather than reducing oversight, which is what is happening right now under the Conservatives. It is important to mention that.

There is something else the members across the way have been rather quiet on, because it is nothing to brag about: so far, no funding has been announced with Bill C-51. I remember their speeches. They said that over the past few years, they increased the budget for CSIS and the RCMP. I would advise my colleagues across the way to consult the Parliamentary Budget Officer's reports. Since 2012, there have been nothing but successive budget cuts in every agency that falls under the Department of Public Safety.

The government is introducing new tools without the necessary funding to go with them. Absolutely nothing. If the members across the way took the time to talk to the people who enforce the law, such as police officers, RCMP officers and Canada Border Services Agency officers, they would see that what is happening on the ground is appalling. Police officers have told us that they were aware that people were becoming radicalized and that strange things were happening, but they did not have enough resources to do anything about it. It is all well and fine to have new tools. They are lovely to have in the toolkit, but they are all for naught without the means to use them.

This is a meaningless bill that is far too broad and complex. It does nothing to address the problem directly. What is more, it does not allocate any funding. Since 2012, all the government has done is cut public safety budgets. Funding for the Department of Public Safety was cut by about 10%. It is pretty bad for the Conservatives to say that they are doing something, when the Parliamentary Budget Officer is saying quite the opposite.

Furthermore, we currently have some very good tools to fight the terrorist threat on the ground. RCMP officers have done an incredible job. A few weeks ago, a plot was thwarted in Ottawa. I believe it was February 13. Another plot was foiled in Halifax. Those are two very fine examples that prove we currently have good tools that work. We simply have to provide the necessary appropriate and adequate resources. I am not saying that nothing should be changed and that everything we have right now is fine. However, we are on the right path. We should give our officers on the ground the resources they need.

Finally, another important approach to combat terrorism is working with communities at risk through programming and developing a national strategy to counter radicalization. There is absolutely nothing in Bill C-51 to address this problem. Discussing a national strategy for countering radicalization is absolutely necessary if we want to tackle the problem.

I have a hard time believing that the Conservative government wants to work in isolation on this. They did not hold proper consultations. I am also sad to see that a number of colleagues on the other side did not take the time to fully understand the measures in the bill. Canadians want to know what is in Bill C-51. They want us to tackle the terrorist threat. Everyone wants to work on this. I do not know a single person in the House who does not want to combat terrorism or radicalization.

What is important is to have the right tools and right resources. We need to work with people on the ground and develop a national strategy against radicalization. The Conservatives cannot work in isolation and think that what they are doing is the best option.

I see that my time is almost up. I still have much more to say. I hope that my colleagues will have many questions for me. I would be happy to respond. However, I just want to tell those watching at home not to be deceived. This bill does not strike a balance between public safety and civil liberties. The official opposition believes in rights and freedoms, and we will not stand for this.

Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015

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

Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of my remarks, I intend to move a motion.

It is with a genuine sense of disappointment that I rise to speak against Bill C-51, the anti-terrorism act, 2015. I am particularly disappointed to be doing it under time allocation, which will have the effect of not allowing many of my colleagues to actually speak to this important bill. It will also have the effect of making it difficult for Canadians to understand the full extent of what is in this bill.

This is a very important bill. I would remind all of us that all of Canada, and indeed much of the world, was shocked at the deaths of two Canadian soldiers here at home last October. Certainly those deaths, along with the attack on Parliament Hill, were sobering for all of us.

All of us here in the House, and I believe all Canadians, were proud to see their MPs back at work the next morning, standing together in our determination not to be cowed by violence. At that time, all of us made the commitment to work together to meet the terrorist threats Canada now faces in this new world we live in.

What happened to those lofty promises to work together? Just days later, when the new CSIS bill, Bill C-44, was introduced, suddenly the government, by itself, had all the answers. The government argued that the urgency of the threat meant that there was no time for debate at second reading, no time for a full study at the public safety committee, and no time for serious consideration of amendments put forward by the official opposition.

New Democrats supported Bill C-44 at second reading, still hoping the government was serious about co-operation between the government and the opposition on this important topic, still hoping that there would be adequate time for debate and consideration of amendments to improve the bill.

We ended up voting against that bill, a bill of questionable constitutionality in its attempt to have judges authorize illegal activities abroad and a bill without an ounce of improvement in CSIS oversight, despite granting new powers to CSIS. It was also a bill lacking any direct connection to the events of October. The government said to wait for the next bill.

Here we are, four months later, with a new bill in front of us. Unfortunately, this is another bill of questionable constitutionality, this time attempting to get judges to authorize illegal and unconstitutional activities right here at home. As well, it is another bill without an ounce of improvement in oversight of our security agencies.

However, this bill goes even further. This is a bill that will wreak havoc on the privacy rights of all Canadians in the name of threats to national security. Further, it is a bill that contains definitions so broad and so far-reaching that it risks lumping together legitimate dissent with terrorism. It is at one and the same time broad, dangerously vague, and most likely ineffective in confronting the threats we face. This is a bill that still lacks any direct link to the actual events we faced in October or the ongoing threats we face today.

The government has rushed ahead with this bill and with changes to security on the Hill, again without consultation, and without even waiting for full reports on the October incidents. It is my understanding that when the Prime Minister was asked at his campaign-style event in Richmond Hill, where he unveiled this bill, instead of in the House of Commons, where it should have taken place, whether this bill would have prevented either of the October events, he had to say that he was not sure.

New Democrats have given this bill careful consideration before coming to our decision to oppose it in principle. We have consulted broadly with groups potentially most directly affected by this bill, with legal experts, and with our constituents when back in our ridings last week.

We have repeatedly asked the government to explain what some of the broad wording in this bill would cover and what specific new security actions will be authorized by this bill, all to no avail. The response more often that not has consisted of reciting general talking points about the severity of the threats we face, in a transparent attempt to use fear to marshal support for its bill, support that it obviously hopes will carry through to the ballot box.

We have not taken this decision to oppose Bill C-51 lightly. We have done our due diligence before pronouncing on a bill that would make major changes to over two dozen pieces of legislation and that would potentially have major impacts on privacy rights, rights to peaceful dissent, and fundamental freedoms, like freedom from detention without charge.

It will clearly have impacts on Muslim Canadians in particular because of the unfortunate tendency of the government to stray into Islamophobic rhetoric and bizarre claims by the Minister of Justice that terrorism is somehow culturally based.

It will clearly have an impact on those concerned with climate change and other environmental issues, especially when read in concert with the RCMP's 44-page memo on so-called anti-petroleum activists, a memo that, just as this bill does, tends to lump together both dissent and extremist and violent activities.

Neither the Muslim community nor environmental activists or first nations activists will be surprised to find themselves targets of the new measures in this bill. What I hope Canadians will come to understand is that it is not just the Conservative government's tendency to divide Canadians that makes some of us targets of this bill; it is the tendency of the government to overreach that makes all of us potential casualties of this bill.

Let us look at the changes the government is proposing that would have the biggest impact. Here I would start with part 1 of the bill, entitled “Security of Canada Information Sharing Act”. I believe that this part of the bill would have the broadest potential impacts for all Canadians.

This bill would allow all federal departments and agencies to share information that may be relevant to national security with Canadian intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The NDP agrees that government departments and agencies should be able to share information about real threats to public safety, but it must be done with appropriate safeguards that do not catch innocent Canadians in the net.

The Privacy Commissioner has expressed concerns that this bill would allow the information of many law-abiding Canadians to be collected and shared with a long list of other government agencies and used for purposes other than those for which it was collected. This would clearly undermine a fundamental principle of our privacy rights when it comes to the government's use of our personal information. Many of the departments and agencies that would now be allowed to share information do not have adequate privacy protections in place, nor do they have any oversight mechanisms governing their information sharing activities.

A second aspect of this bill with very broad implications is the section granting new powers to CSIS. They are powers that would change the nature of CSIS as an organization, moving it from being an intelligence gathering agency to an active arm of the government in opposing threats to security and to the economy, infrastructure, and a wide list of activities, which potentially raises the question of whether the government would be able to use CSIS for political purposes.

This rolls back the clock more than 30 years and ignores the lessons of the McDonald Commission, which resulted in the creation of CSIS. It abandons the important lesson that combining intelligence gathering activities with disruption activities not only is mostly ineffective but almost inevitably leads to the kind of sordid activities the RCMP engaged in in the 1970s in Quebec. These kinds of activities undermine public confidence in police and security agencies, and when we undermine public confidence in these agencies, we undermine the very co-operation with the public that is necessary for their success.

Bill C-51 would now give CSIS the ability to conduct threat disruption. These provisions would allow CSIS to take measures at home and abroad to disrupt threats when CSIS decides that it has “reasonable grounds to believe” that there is a threat to the security of Canada. Activities to disrupt threats that would contravene a right or freedom guaranteed under the charter would require CSIS to seek authorization from a judge. However, here is the important point on this question. The government likes to say that this amounts to oversight of CSIS activities. The point I would raise is that CSIS would not require a warrant for any and all disruption activities, only those that CSIS itself judged might involve illegal or unconstitutional activities. Once a judge issued a warrant, the judge would have no further oversight role over what CSIS did with that warrant.

If we look carefully at the Mosley decision, we see that the judge said that not only was CSIS not fully forthright in the material it presented to the court to get a warrant but that once it had the warrant, it did not carry the warrant out in the manner it had prescribed to the judge. In other words, it did not do what it said it would do with the warrant.

For me, the important point is that it would still be left for CSIS to decide if the warrant application was necessary, and it would be left to CSIS to decide on its own and without oversight what activities that warrant authorized and how it would carry them out. As I mentioned, CSIS's record before the courts leaves much to be desired on this point.

When asked in question period, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has been unable or unwilling to provide examples of the kinds of activities that would be allowed under threat disruption. We have asked him repeatedly to give us a single example of what those kinds of thing are.

The presumption always is that disruption activities would always be illegal or unconstitutional, but we know quite well that this bill would authorize CSIS to do things like shut down someone's Internet service, maybe shut off someone's phone service, or conduct surveillance on private conversations carried out in public places.

There are all kinds of things here that will not require a warrant, and there are all kinds of things, as I said, that we would leave to CSIS to decide if a warrant were even required. Remember, the power to disrupt includes giving CSIS the right to enter any place, open or obtain access to anything, as well as obtain or copy any document, install or remove anything, and to do any other thing that is reasonably necessary to take those measures. I submit that this is a pretty broad mandate when it comes to these activities.

In other words, in taking measures to reduce a threat, Bill C-51 would give CSIS a free rein. It would only prohibit CSIS from killing or causing bodily harm, violating the sexual integrity of an individual, or obstructing justice.

I know that those provisions were put in to reassure us, but I do not find it very reassuring that those are the only limitations on CSIS' disruption activities. These are not very robust limits for an organization carrying out secret activities, and not very reassuring for an agency with such weak oversight and review.

The government always likes to say that there is active, robust oversight of CSIS, pointing to the activities of SIRC. However, it is not just a technical point to say that when the government eliminated the position of inspector general in CSIS, it actually eliminated the one independent officer who provided oversight in real time of the activities of CSIS. It was the mandate of the inspector general of CSIS to make sure that CSIS' activities conformed to the law. Those responsibilities have in theory been transferred to SIRC, which has no capacity and no access to the information it would need to provide that kind of active oversight, and to make sure that CSIS were always acting legally.

I will refrain from talking about whether those appointed to SIRC have always been the best appointees, because of the limited amount of time I have. However, I only need to mention Arthur Porter. Also, I would question whether part-time appointees and non-specialists can be expected to successfully carry out the kind of oversight we need for a body like this.

If we look at the last annual report of SIRC, SIRC itself said similar things to Justice Mosley. It said that CSIS did not always provide full and timely information when SIRC was trying to investigate CSIS activities. It said that in some cases, CSIS had not been fully forthright in providing information to its review body. Therefore, we do not have robust oversight and review; we have problematic oversight and review, and now we would expect that same body to take on oversight of this much broader mandate we would give CSIS.

A third aspect of the bill that has broad implications is the provision that criminalizes the promotion of terrorism and the related provision that authorizes the removal of online terror propaganda. Bill C-51 would make it a criminal offence to knowingly advocate and promote “...the commission of terrorist offences in general”. This provision is designed to make the general promotion of terrorism an offence, in addition to the existing legislation that outlaws advocacy of specific terrorist acts. The new offence would be punishable by a prison term of up to five years.

Again, when the leader of the opposition asked the government to give us an example of what would now be illegal but is not already illegal under existing legislation, a question that I think he asked five times, he did not get an answer from the government. However, such a provision would certainly place a chill on free speech by its very enactment. It would also lower the threshold for what is considered promotion of terrorism.

The existing hate propaganda section of the Criminal Code criminalizes communication that advocates violence, where such incitement is likely to lead to breach of the peace. Why is that not adequate? Certainly we have seen RCMP able to lay terrorism charges frequently, and very recently here in Ottawa. Again, we ask, why is this new much broader provision needed?

Under the new provision, a person may be convicted if their statements are simply “being reckless” as to whether or not any of these offences may be committed. Again, this new offence would expand the existing Criminal Code offence, which makes promoting a specific terrorist act a crime, without explaining how this would help reduce threats to our security.

There is always a danger when we have limited resources—and certainly, the current government has severely limited the resources available to both the RCMP and CSIS—and when we spread the net too wide that we will miss the real terrorists, that we will miss the real threats to society, because we will not have enough resources to actually take on the hard work necessary to identify them. As one person said, “Searching for terrorists is like looking for a needle in a haystack and the last thing we need people doing is adding extra hay”. To me, when we spread this broad net, we start adding extra hay that makes it much more difficult to identify the real and urgent threats to our security.

Under the new law, a judge would be able to order Internet service providers, website administrators, and so on to remove any material when he or she has grounds to believe that the material might be terrorist propaganda. The judge could also order the custodian of a computer network to provide the court with information about who posted it. Moreover, the court would be able to order the seizure of physical materials. In both cases the authors or owners of the materials could appeal the decision before the material is destroyed.

This brings back shades of the old government bill that sparked the creation of the “tell Vic everything” campaign, by its expansion of government access to information about the online activity of perhaps any of us.

The inclusion of amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act also raise the question about how the government is proposing to spend the limited resources police and security agencies have. Again, in Richmond Hill, I understand that the Prime Minister was asked whether the bill would apply to teenagers in their parents' basement. He said yes. My question is, do we really want to waste time chasing kids in basements at the possible cost of letting the real terrorists slip through an overfull net?

A fourth element of the bill that should raise general concerns is the changes to preventative arrests and peace bonds, which threaten one of our most fundamental rights, the right to freedom from detention without charge.

I have heard many people comment that this is something that has been in place for something like 800 years in our legal system. Again, there is a serious question of what value this new provision has, especially when weighed against its negative aspects.

We should remember that legislation allowing for preventative arrests was first adopted under the Liberals after the events of September 11, 2001. This allowed police to detain someone for up to three days without laying charges. However, between 2001 and 2007, that clause was never used, before sun-setting in that latter year. Nonetheless, it was reinstated by the Conservatives in 2013.

Now, Bill C-51 proposes to lower the threshold required for a judge to authorize preventative detention from reasonable grounds that a terrorist activity “will” be carried out to “may” be carried out. The RCMP would now need to establish only that a terrorist activity might happen, instead of the previous grounds that there was some certainty that the person would commit a terrorist act. One lawyer described to me that what we had in the previous preventative detention was the lowest possible evidentiary standard, and now we are lowering that.

While keeping in mind that law enforcement agencies never found the preventative arrest provisions useful, we also need to remember the historical record of Canada on detention in times of crisis. Japanese Canadians were interned on the west coast despite the lack of any evidence at the time, or thereafter, of a single Japanese Canadian aiding the enemy in World War II. Ukrainian Canadians were similarly interned. At the time of the FLQ crisis in Quebec, hundreds of Quebeckers were arrested and detained without charge, and no one so detained was ever charged with, let alone convicted of, a criminal offence.

Certainly fears of political injustices resulting from the interaction of this bill with the apparent ongoing practices of racial profiling in Canada will need to be addressed.

Therefore, I am voting against the bill and hope that we can have a full airing of the issues. However, we have not had a very good indication of that today with the introduction of time allocation. I remain disappointed that the Liberals have given the government a blank cheque on Bill C-51, offering their support for the bill even if it is unamended.

Do I have confidence that the government will listen to evidence, experts, or the communities affected by this bill? Frankly, I do not. Therefore, I move:

That, the motion be amended by deleting all the words after “That” and substituting the following:

this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-51, An act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, because it: (a) threatens our way of life by asking Canadians to choose between their security and their freedoms; (b) was not developed in consultation with other parties, all of whom recognize the real threat of terrorism and support effective, concrete measures to keep Canadians safe; (c) irresponsibly provide CSIS with a sweeping new mandate without equally increasing oversight; (d) contains definitions that are broad, vague and threaten to lump together legitimate dissent with terrorism; and (e) does not include the type of concrete, effective measures that have been proven to work, such as working with communities on measures to counter radicalization of youth.

Anti-terrorism Act, 2015

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and take part in what is obviously a very important debate on Bill C-51, the government's comprehensive counterterrorism package. This bill, which is titled the anti-terrorism act, 2015, deals, first and foremost, with public safety and efforts by our government to embrace methods that would improve and enhance safety for all Canadians.

The bill builds upon concrete legislative steps this government has already taken to combat terrorism, including through the Combating Terrorism Act, the Nuclear Terrorism Act of 2013, as well as more recent proposals found in Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act. Therefore, members can see there is a litany of legislative action already demonstrated by this government.

We can make no mistake about it, these are real dangers, not theoretical or hypothetical scenarios. As we have seen in places like Paris, Australia, Brussels, and in Canada, these acts have deadly effects. This is why there is simply no denying the existence of the threat and the necessity to take practical steps to improve the way in which our security forces operate, coordinate and respond to acts of terrorism. This is also to increase our capacity to learn from international examples. The ability for CSIS to operate outside of our borders is the security capacity that is found in most of our allies, certainly most of our Five Eyes partners.

The government is involved in broad-based efforts to counter domestic and international terrorism in order to protect our country, our citizens and our interest in our allies. This is consistent with our counterterrorism strategy, which is to build resilience against terrorism. Therefore, clearly working through partnerships, including with all levels of government and community leaders, is key to effectively implementing this strategy.

As the Speaker may know and members may be aware, we have an outreach effort at the Department of Justice that involves a cultural round table where we regularly consult and receive input from various communities around the country. This is an effective way to gain insight and understanding of how Canadians perceive this issue of terrorism.

As well as implementing this strategy, we are including our efforts to counter violent extremism. Engaging with the cross-cultural round tables on security-related issues is of great benefit in getting the balance right. There is also significant collaboration with international partners in addressing the terrorist threat.

As the Minister of Justice, I am responsible for ensuring that Canada's laws remain robust, fair and just. This is particularly important in the area of criminal law. Canada, like its friends and allies, must ensure that our laws remain responsive and effective in combatting the scourge of terrorism, while at the same time ensuring our laws respect our fundamental rights and freedoms.

Bill C-51 contains a suite of criminal law reforms that will do just that by amending the Criminal Code to strengthen terrorism recognisance with conditions and peace bond provisions; create a new criminal offence for abdicating or promoting the commission of terrorism offences in general; provide courts with the powers to seize, forfeit and remove terrorist propaganda, including from web sites located inside our borders; and to better protect individuals participating in national security proceedings and prosecutions.

These steps, in addition to those discussed earlier by my colleague the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, will go a long way to closing any real or perceived gaps in our ability to respond to terrorist acts.

I would like to take a closer look at each of the four pillars of criminal law reform in this bill. However, I would like to begin by pointing out that these four pillars of reform have common denominators.

The Criminal Code reforms individually and collectively seek to provide law enforcement agencies with appropriate tools to thwart the activities of terrorists who actively engage in terrorism. Within these reforms, and with these in place, police officers will now be able to intervene sooner, more effectively, and achieve better results before the matters get more serious. This aims to provide our protection for all Canadians through enabling the police to pre-empt and prevent acts of terrorism.

I want to emphasize here that judicial oversight is the backbone of these criminal reforms consistent with Canada's values and principles, including, as the Supreme Court of Canada has often repeated and I will emphasize again today, the values of democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law. This is the type of oversight that should provide considerable comfort and relief to those who have criticized the bill at its early stage.

I would suggest that this type of insight that comes from the courts in enabling our security agents to make those types of interventions prior to acts of terrorism is at the very crux of what we are attempting to do. It is not just to be responsive; it is to be pre-emptive in protecting Canadians from acts of terrorism.

The first area of criminal law reform found in Bill C-51 would strengthen the existing provisions on the recognizance with conditions and terrorism peace bonds contained in sections 83.3 and 810.01, respectively, of the Criminal Code. Let me go further. This Criminal Code recognizance with conditions is already a tool that can be used. It is designed to disrupt and prevent terrorist activity from occurring in the first place. For example, this provision allows a peace officer, with the consent of the Attorney General, a prosecutor acting with delegated authority, to bring an individual before the court with evidence to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to require the individual to abide by specific conditions designed to prevent terrorist activity from occurring.

It bears noting that the individual in question would not necessarily be the person who might carry out that activity. In other words, the person could be a party to the offence or enabling the offence. It is important to note here that the provisions currently require that the court be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorism activity will occur and that there be reasonable grounds to suspect that the recognizance with conditions is necessary to prevent that activity from occurring.

To move to the reforms, those introduced in section 83.3 of the Criminal Code found in Bill C-51 would lower the threshold required to obtain the recognizance from reasonable grounds to believe that terrorist activity will be carried out to the test of may be carried out. This threshold is also lowered from reasonable grounds to suspect that conditions are necessary to prevent the carrying out of the terrorist activity to are likely to prevent the carrying out of the terrorist activity.

These changes have the practical effect of making it easier to disrupt terrorist plans before they are executed. Therefore, going before a judge and making the case, based on evidence collected, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the terrorist activity may be carried out lowers the threshold, thus allowing police to act more efficiently and, in many cases, quicker.

In the bill, our government would also increase the possible maximum period of preventive detention from a total of three days to seven days, with safeguards, including periodic judicial review of the detention, to ensure that it is still required. Again, if we look at international examples, in the United Kingdom, it is twice that period of detention. As it currently stands in Canada, it is three days. We would extend that to allow the police agencies to ensure that they are doing everything in their power to prevent the terrorist act from occurring on Canadian soil.

The bill, through the Criminal Code, would also provide similar measures with respect to preventing the commission of terrorist offences. Terrorism peace bonds, as we know, are preventive tools used to disrupt and prevent individuals from committing terrorism offences. Peace bonds and recognizance are used in the domestic criminal justice system as well, but here there are specific provisions found in this bill that expand the use of recognizance and peace bonds. An application to impose a peace bond can be brought even where there has been no criminal charge or no prior conviction, but enables a judge to impose any reasonable conditions in order to prevent the commission of an offence.

What we are talking about here is enabling the judiciary, the police and the prosecution, to put in place preventive measures, such as requiring the person to forfeit their passports, requiring them to report to police or authorities, or staying away from certain individuals, staying away from certain public places, for example, like a military base.

All of these might be seen as extraordinary in normal circumstances, but I would suggest that in the context of this entire debate, we are talking about an elevated threat assessment based on what occurred here in October, 2014, based on what is happening around the world and based on the assessment of our security forces. These are practical steps that allow our security forces, with judicial oversight, to take preventative steps.

Currently, the Criminal Code provides that any person who fears on reasonable grounds that the individual will commit a terrorism offence, with the consent of the attorney general or a prosecutor in his or her stead, can apply to the court to have a terrorism peace bond imposed requiring the individual to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, or to comply with any other reasonable condition that the court believes necessary to ensure their good conduct, some of the provisions I mentioned. These conditions can be for a period of up to one year or, in the case of a person who has previously been convicted of a terrorism offence, up to two years.

These amendments would strengthen the terrorism peace bond by lowering the threshold to obtain that peace bond to where a person believed an individual “may” commit a terrorism offence, instead of the current “will” commit a terrorism offence. The bill would extend the duration of a terrorism peace bond from two to five years for those previously convicted of a terrorism offence.

More generally, in respect of both recognizance conditions and terrorism peace bond conditions, the bill would authorize the imposition of sureties, which is someone who agrees to take the responsibility of ensuring that the person subject to the court order complies with the conditions imposed. The bill would also require judges to specifically consider the desirability of imposing geographic limitations. I mentioned earlier surrendering passports or other conditions that the judge deems appropriate.

Moreover, these reforms would increase the penalty for breaches of these court ordered conditions from two to four years of imprisonment, consistent with similar conditions imposed found in Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act.

Finally, I suggest that these reforms would have the added benefit of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of recognizance with conditions and peace bonds across the country by allowing for the use of video conferencing when necessary and interprovincial transfers of any peace bonds on the consent of the appropriate attorney general.

The proposed reform with respect to recognizance with conditions and recognizance to keep the peace relating to a terrorist offence would also apply to adolescents in accordance with the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

In short, the proposed amendments, which I have just referred to and described, seek to facilitate the use of the provisions to make them easier to obtain and to make them more effective in preventing terrorism, all with the backdrop of judicial oversight.

It is important to emphasize that the improvements we want to make to our terrorism prevention tools are compatible with what like-minded countries have in place.

For example, the United Kingdom uses similar measures to protect the public by subjecting individuals believed to pose a threat to public safety to conditions.

Australia also uses these control orders to prevent terrorist acts from occurring, which is to help enable the imposition of conditions on individuals. It is important because it shows that countries with strong democratic conditions, such as ours, and strong institutions which respect the rule of law, like ours, have also recognized that they can take measures that are firm in their response to terrorism, but fair in their approach to citizens, respecting the rights of those who are subject to these preventative tools.

Let us remind ourselves again of what we are trying to prevent: mass casualties, attacks on our institutions and the planting of bombs. What we see in other countries on the nightly news is no longer something that we are protected from merely because of our geography.

There are individuals who have sworn to cause us harm and who continue to make very pointed and prescribed threats against Canadian citizens. That is the backdrop in which we must remind ourselves this bill is rooted.

I pause here to emphasize that we are mindful of the concerns expressed by many stakeholders about these changes. Some have suggested that these proposals pose an unjustified and unnecessary infringement on fundamental charter rights. In response, I would note that there are many safeguards associated with the tools I have just described. I mentioned judicial oversight, the discretion exercised by our judiciary, and the requirement of the Attorney General's consent in their use. We have prosecutors now specifically trained in the use and application of this type of legislation.

In addition, there are reports to Parliament from our security agencies that refer specifically to recognizance with conditions. In addition, there is the requirement of a mandatory parliamentary review in 2018 and a sunset clause with respect to the recognizance with conditions I mentioned. This would all result in an ability to have eyes on and insight into the way the legislation would be applied.

Let us remember the objective of these tools: namely, the imposition of reasonable conditions on persons by the courts with a view to preventing terrorism activity and the commission of terrorism offences.

Our government takes the position that these measures are necessary to protect public safety. They are not to be used arbitrarily, and they are based on genuine concerns that put the public at risk.

The second area of the Criminal Code reform contained in Bill C-51, which would indicate a new indictable offence for advocating or promoting the commission of terrorism offences in general, is again an area of the law we think is necessary.

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.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I find it unfortunate that there is a limit.

My colleague from the Liberal Party would probably have had a lot of questions to ask, especially on the budgetary aspect.

May I remind you that, according to Senator Dagenais, all the budgets that fund the operations related to Bill C-44 will be the existing budgets? The interventions of the representative of the police forces took place before Bill C-44 was introduced. There would be many questions to ask about that, including in terms of justice.

Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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—

[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.

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.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, our government has taken strong action to combat radicalization. In fact, this is a key pillar of our counterterrorism strategy.

However, when we look at the history of what has happened here and globally around the world, just recently, in October, we had terrorist attacks in Quebec and here in Ottawa against our institution of government.

This government is moving forward with strong legislation, which we will actually be debating in the House today, Bill C-44. I would like it if, for once, that member who stands in the House and asks us questions about how we are going to counter terrorism actually stood up and supported measures that would keep Canadians safe.

Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act

[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, 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.

[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, 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 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.

[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 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 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.

[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 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, CIRC, which has access to all information in the possession of CSIS, except cabinet confidences.

CIRC'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.

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.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, let me first say happy new year to my counterpart and all hon. members.

We are back in Ottawa for another hard-working, orderly, and productive sitting of the House of Commons, a sitting in which our respective parties' policies and plans will be debated. Only one party, though, has a plan that will benefit all Canadians, and that is the Conservative plan to create jobs, keep taxes low, and keep our communities safe from crime and the threat of terrorism.

This afternoon we will conclude debate on the Liberal opposition day motion.

Tomorrow we will wrap up debate on Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act, at third reading. This bill is the first step in our legislative measures to ensure that our law enforcement and security agencies have the tools they need to meet evolving threats.

The other part of our program to counter that terrorist threat is a bill that will be introduced tomorrow. It will be called for second reading debate during the week after our upcoming constituency week. That should allow all hon. members an opportunity to study these thoughtful, appropriate, and necessary measures and to hear the views of their constituents before we start that important debate.

Before we get to that constituency week, though, there is one more sitting week. On Monday, we will debate the NDP's pick of topic, on the third allotted day. Before question period on Tuesday, we will start debating Bill C-50, the Citizen Voting Act. After question period, we will return to the third reading debate on Bill C-21, the Red Tape Reduction Act, which will help ensure job creators can focus on what they do best, not on government paperwork.

Wednesday and Friday of next week will be dedicated to Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act. This bill would put victims where they belong: at the centre of our justice system.

Finally, next Thursday will be the fourth allotted day, when we will again debate a proposal from the New Democrats.

Report Stage

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

Mr. Speaker, this speaking time I have been given allows me the opportunity to share my initial thoughts on the routine nature of the government's surveillance activities. Why routine? It is simple. In the past few years, we have been introduced to a number of government initiatives that would allow the government to intrude into Canadians' private lives. It has become recurrent, hence the routine nature. It has become so routine that even in the north, environmental activists came to see me recently for some legal and political advice on the chances of their being investigated and followed simply because of their actions during demonstrations and their environmental activism. Slowly but surely, Canadians have become paranoid. In a way, that paranoia is justified and has been fuelled by these initiatives that have been gradually introduced over the past few years. I have seen a number of them, and this bill, this initiative before us today, is no exception.

Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other Acts, contains amendments that will considerably enhance the power of our intelligence agencies to act abroad in the context of investigations related to threats to Canada's security.

I will now stress that certain isolated incidents are hastily labelled as terrorist acts so that they can be fitted into a narrative to instill fear in the population for electoral purposes.

I will provide a very simple example of an event that was hastily labelled an act of terrorism. The day after the October incident in the House of Commons, I was invited to a televised debate at a television station. I was accompanied by a Liberal colleague and a Conservative colleague. The Conservative colleague did not hesitate, at every turn, barely 24 hours after the incident, to label it terrorism. He already had speaking points, a prepared and spoon-fed message. It was already deemed an act of terrorism.

We should also realize that although there was media hype and biased reporting by some media, one English newspaper reported the information a few days later and mentioned that the person who had gone to Parliament Hill with a hunting rifle was first and foremost a drug addict. I think that should be mentioned. In fact, he was a crack user. Crack is a crystallized form of cocaine that is made using ammonia.

This is my bailiwick. At the risk of repeating myself, as hon. members know, I am a criminal lawyer and I worked mainly with mental health-related cases. The vast majority of my clientele was made up of hard drug users. They can be unpredictable at times. During a court appearance, a client might decide to sing, cry, shout or utter threats. Even judges in our legal system are used to seeing that. When you see thousands of people like that in a single year, you start to get used to it. When a client like that is put on trial, the defence lawyer will often tell the judge that he thinks that his client is currently in a fragile state of mind and that he is not necessarily in full possession of his faculties. The lawyer then suggests that the hearing or trial be postponed for a few days to give his client enough time to come back down to earth, because he will utter threats to everyone and he is currently aggressive. It often takes a number of police officers to control these people. Clients on freebase, or crack, are hard to control.

Accordingly, regardless the individual's allegiance, origin, or even religion, he was above all a hard drug user who had mental health problems. I think we also have a societal duty, because the individual is in very good company. I have been in Ottawa for four years, and I have seen that there are countless hard drug addicts. A few minutes' walk from Parliament Hill, in front of the shopping centre, you will see people selling crack in front of McDonald's in broad daylight. Young people can see this go on all day long. Hard drugs are being sold near Canada's Parliament. We have seen situations like what happened here, where an individual blows a fuse—if I can put it that way—and decides to wave a shotgun around in public.

We have seen others in Ottawa. It is not limited to this city. You can see this kind of thing everywhere. However, a distinction needs to be made here.

Rather than talking about terrorism, we should be talking about addiction to hard drugs and mental health. That is a lot more relevant. People living in Ottawa who see that on a regular basis will probably agree. This is a social problem.

What measures and resources would help drug addicts? The media reported that the individual in question used a shelter not far from here and that he was in contact with other drug addicts. This is a societal issue that deserves a little more thought than labelling something terrorism 24 hours later.

The Conservatives have used recent events to justify giving the Canadian Security Intelligence Service more powers. They claim that this bill is necessary to prevent terrorists and violent extremists from carrying out attacks in Canada.

Still, we should consider the warning that Justice Iacobucci issued about the spillover effects that rushing to expand police powers can have on freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of expression; the possible tainting of Canada's Muslim community; and the risk of overreaching by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service when sharing information in a global fight against terrorism.

I just want to point out that Justice Iacobucci, a former Supreme Court judge, is studied in law faculties across the country. I studied him for six years, and he is highly respected. He says that there is a risk of tainting Canada's Muslim community because that information is sensationalized by media outlets of dubious repute just to sell copies. Some people try to blame everything bad in the world on the Muslim community, and because of Islamophobia, we end up with situations like the one going on in Sept-Îles right now.

There are not many Arabs or Muslims in my home town. There is one who is tyring to build a mosque, and a few times now, some misguided individuals have smashed the walls of his building. He was forced to put up a barbed wire fence. We are talking about the 51st parallel. It is -25 degrees Celsius there today. While conditions are already difficult for someone from the Middle East or the Arab world, he also has to put up with the fact that the local media and our own government are misinforming the population and trying to demonize that community. This is not good for Canadian unity or for the intellectual evolution of our country and our youth. We need to put an end to this kind of discourse.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the remarks by the member for Prince Edward—Hastings, who is also chair of the public safety committee. I enjoy working with him, and he did a good analysis of the various authorities that CSIS has.

I would say that he took a lot of liberty in his remarks about the Liberal leader's comments, and the things he quoted are simply not true. It does not do much for the integrity of the member or his party when they constantly misquote people in the House.

The question I want to raise with the member is a serious concern. As he knows, the Liberal Party will be supporting this bill. Wesley Wark, when he was before the committee, had this to say about Bill C-44:

Bill C-44 does not add any new provisions to the CSIS Act to ensure proper consultation between the service and its minister, the Minister of Public Safety, and the two departments most likely to be impacted by expanded CSIS overseas operations—the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development and the Department of National Defence.

Liberals proposed an amendment. With the additional protection of sources and the additional powers granted in this act for work overseas, does the member not see it as a problem if activity takes place by CSIS abroad that could impact our trade relationship or the Minister of Foreign Affairs? If CSIS folks are caught in illegal activities, or whatever, as a result of a warrant issued in Canada, does he not see the dangers that situation could cause, such as trade and diplomatic problems? Why not put into the act a requirement that consultation has to take place?

The House resumed from December 8, 2014 consideration of Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other Acts, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Bill C-44--Time Allocation.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, those were great remarks by the Minister of Public Safety. The problem is that the remarks do not relate to Bill C-44, on which the government has introduced closure. The bill he is talking about sounds to me more like the bill that may be coming on Friday.

This bill really does nothing to address the national security concerns that have been raised as a result of the Quebec activity, the incident in Ottawa, or what has happened in Paris. We expect that to be in a new bill. This bill basically brings into law some of the practices that CSIS is now utilizing and protects CSIS sources. What the minister is trying to put urgency on is not in this bill.

This is advice for the government. If the government would work with us at committee and seriously look at some of the recommendations and the amendments we make, take them seriously to improve the bill and allow us to bring in more than just a couple of witnesses to try to satisfy our needs, bring in witnesses with expertise, then it might find the opposition parties more accommodating. It would allow Parliament to operate like it is supposed to rather than running roughshod over the opposition parties with closure when it wants.

My key point, Mr. Minister, is the bill is not talking about the issues you have been talking about in response to the last questions. It is different from that.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is going to be a problem having the Senate act as a safeguard because of the number of empty seats at present.

First, I am going to correct the minister because he obviously has a short memory when it comes to the speech given by French President François Hollande in the House on November 3. Mr. Hollande absolutely did not say what the minister reported. He spoke about a terrorist-inspired attack, which is a very important nuance.

I hope that the minister will recognize that. I believe that the minister is twisting words in order to take a very simplistic approach to a very important debate.

The right of all Canadians to be properly represented in the House and to have a full debate on fundamental issues that will truly affect their lives is being violated for the 85th time.

Bill C-44 will profoundly change Canadians' ability to understand the extent to which secret activities are carried out and the consequences this will have. This could lead to very serious abuses.

Clearly, the minister is dismissing the concerns people may have about the consequences of actions taken by a government agency.

How can the minister once again justify this time allocation and the end of debate in the chamber that represents the people, the chamber of the truly elected, here in this Parliament?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, sadly, this is the 85th time that the government has invoked time allocation and closure.

We are now talking about a sad record that we hope will never be repeated in Canadian parliamentary history. Invoking time allocation and closure seems to be the only thing the government has been able to run up.

We have lost 400,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector. There has been a lack of respect for Parliament by the government. The government has managed to outdo the former Liberal government by invoking time allocation and closure 85 times, showing its lack of respect for Parliament, which so many Canadians are seeing.

Bill C-44, which is very controversial, heard only four hours of witness testimony in committee by experts who came forward and identified problems with the bill. Only a handful of members of Parliament have been able to speak to this bill and, already, after only a handful of speakers, the government wants to ram the bill through.

As we know, the government also has another record, having more recalls of bad pieces of legislation than any other government in Canadian history.

My question for the minister is very simple. Why does the government not get it right? Why does it not listen to experts, and look at and entertain the kinds of amendments that have been brought forward by members of the opposition? Why is the government always trying to ram through legislation that has controversial aspects and should be fixed?

Bill C-44—Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to step up to the plate and advise that an agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) concerning the proceedings at report stage and third reading of Bill C-44, an act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other acts.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at those stages.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster for his last Thursday question of 2014.

Before getting to the business of the House, I hope you will indulge me a couple of moments to thank everyone for their hard work this year. As I said yesterday at a press conference, Christmastime is an appropriate point in the year to reflect on the months which have just passed.

Let me extend my thanks to all of the members' staff for the hard work and tireless efforts they put in—around here and in our constituency offices—for the cause of democracy. Without their help, our work would simply not be possible.

Mr. Speaker, as you know well, the last few months have posed a number of unique challenges around the House of Commons, but our clerks at the table have managed their way through in a sound and confident manner, all the while being short-staffed no less. However, we are looking forward to having a full team again in 2015 once our Clerk of the House of Commons, Audrey O'Brien, takes her familiar place at the head of the table.

Of course it goes without saying that everyone else around here who makes our lives easier, our work better and maintains our peace of mind deserves our hearty thanks, as we just demonstrated to one group in particular, those who provide security services.

However, I would like to single out another group in particular. I would like to take the opportunity to thank one group that works hard, often with little in the way of thanks in this place, and that being the parliamentary pages. Being a page is an extraordinary and special experience. To be able to spend a year here at such a young time in life—though nowadays it seems some can get elected to spend a year here at such a young age—is indeed a rare and special thing. The pages have been able to enjoy a particularly interesting, fascinating and dramatic first several months here. When they return home, which for many will be the first time since they began here, to their families across the country to share stories over the holidays, I think they will have more than usual eager audiences to hear their experiences and learn about their insights. I do look forward to seeing them refreshed when we come back, as I do everyone else.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I neglected to thank you and your three fellow chair occupants, and my fellow House officers for all their work this year. I wish one and all the very best for the holidays. It is fair to say that we really do have a hard-working, productive and orderly House of Commons.

As for the formal part of this statement, we will resume debate this afternoon on Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, at report stage and then, if we get there, Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act, also at report stage.

Tomorrow we will complete the third reading debate on Bill C-40, the Rouge national urban park act.

As for the business of the House for the week of January 26 when we return, I will let my counterparts know through the usual channels as the return of the House nears.

Finally, I would like to conclude by wishing everyone a happy Hanukkah, a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

Motions in amendment

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes I am surprised that the NDP often takes positions that are so radically detached from reality and the public security and safety environment in which we live.

In fact, the hon. member has Valcartier in her riding, the proud Canadian Forces base. For over 12 years, the men and women from that base saw the face of terrorism in Afghanistan. No doubt some people who are serving Canada right now have come through that base and are seeing it in other parts of the world.

Bill C-44 is intended to provide for security and keep Canada safe from some of these global networks that would do us harm.

In the case of Bill C-44, when the Canadian public is quite accustomed to protection being given to law enforcement sources, why would we not extend that same protection to sources that provide information and intelligence on national security? It would keep our men and women in uniform safe.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-44, especially after my colleagues have been speaking very eloquently with respect to the concerns we have with the bill. As I was reading through the notes on the bill, it struck me that it is a similar pattern to one we experienced on Bill C-2, which was also before the public safety committee very recently, having to do with safe consumption sites.

The bill was only approved at second reading on November 18. Here we are in early December, and already we are at report stage. That means the bill was rushed through the House and it was then rushed through the committee. In fact, there were three committee meetings. Witness testimony happened over two days, and then there was clause-by-clause at the third meeting. We have to remember that committee hearings are only two hours. We basically had four hours of testimony from witnesses and one meeting of clause-by-clause consideration.

I want us to stop and think about that.

What has happened to the legislative process in Parliament is really quite shocking. I do remember the days when a bill would have adequate debate in the House. When a bill went to committee, it was considered a very serious proposition. We might hear witnesses for a couple of weeks, over several meetings.

I know that you, Mr. Speaker, would remember. You were part of the justice committee and a very able representative for the NDP. I know you dealt with umpteen bills. Even when you were dealing with them, they were being rushed through. However, prior to that, there was a sense that as parliamentarians, as legislators, we were doing our job and we were really examining a bill.

Now we have come to this place where the attitude and the pattern of operation is to basically rush everything through, and if we dare to criticize and say that something needs a little more time, then we are told we are holding something up, that we are doing it for political reasons.

However, these are very significant bills that we debate. This one in particular has to do with the powers of CSIS. This is an organization that Canadians read about from time to time when something might come forward in terms of a particular case or situation. However, basically Canadians have very little knowledge about CSIS and how it operates, other than individuals who may have had direct contact with the organization because they were being investigated in some way.

When we look at the modernization of CSIS, and we understand that is what the bill is meant to be about, that is certainly very important. After 30 years, there is no question that it needs to be modernized. However, it does require full scrutiny. It absolutely requires full scrutiny by members of Parliament, by a committee, and by the witnesses who are called to committee.

It is shocking that of all the amendments that were put forward—I believe the NDP put forward 12, the Liberals put forward 5, and the Green Party put forward 6—as was similar to Bill C-2, none were approved. Not one.

I think we have a very serious situation. We have a majority government that basically calls the shots and does not even pretend to be interested in a legislative process and examining a bill as to whether it might be improved upon, or whether there are legitimate criticisms, flaws in a bill. In fact, what is concerning about the bill is that, as we have heard with other bills that have been before the House, if it goes through in its current form, it too may end up in some kind of constitutional challenge. Again, it is a pattern that is emerging.

I did want to put that on the record because it worries me. We come to work here to represent our constituents. We come into the House to participate in a process in good faith, but we find out that the process has been completely jigged. There is no space, no room, no engagement, to have a constructive review of an important piece of legislation. That bothers me.

In my riding of Vancouver East, I was at a very important gathering of aboriginal people, who were speaking about the missing and murdered aboriginal women and the need for a national inquiry. We think of the impact of that issue in terms of public safety, and yet we see very little movement from the government on the issue. We see a bill being rushed through here that would also have an impact on public safety and an impact on the public interest, and we see virtually no debate. It is a very sad day.

As many of my colleagues have pointed out in the debate at report stage today, the NDP did support this bill at second reading. New Democrats actually agreed that it should go to committee, that we should take a look at it. We worked diligently at committee, and I certainly want to congratulate my colleagues on the committee who brought forward the amendments. It takes a lot of time to bring forward amendments. They heard the witnesses. The witnesses themselves made a number of suggestions to improve the modernization of CSIS. With any expansion of powers, the most critical thing is to ensure that there is proper oversight.

We can go back as far as the Maher Arar commission, which surely is one of the pivotal moments in Canadian political history in terms of security. I was in the House when that travesty took place, trying to understand what happened to Maher Arar and calling for a national inquiry. Of course, that finally did happen and the recommendations of the commission of inquiry came out in 2006. I wonder what happened to those recommendations. In fact, we know that the inquiry called for a number of recommendations and urgently pointed out that measures needed to be put in place to have oversight of Canada's intelligence agencies. That was eight years ago. No one can forget the Maher Arar inquiry. No one can forget what happened to that Canadian, and the hell that he went through. If we have learned anything, surely it is an examination of our own intelligence procedures and methodologies. We have to live up to the recommendations of the commission of inquiry, and yet they have not been implemented. How awful is that?

Here we are with another bill that would change the way that CSIS operates overseas, and yet we have not addressed the fundamental question with CSIS that has been pointed out to us again and again, which is the need for proper oversight. We hear this, as well, from the privacy and information commissions of Canada. These are folks who need to be paid attention to. These are folks who pay close attention to privacy and information in Canada, and they know the balance on what is required in terms of privacy and information. Yet at their annual meeting, they also brought forward the need to have effective oversight included in any legislation established for any additional powers for intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Where is it? Why are we dealing with this bill in isolation?

Now we are at report stage, and suffice it to say that New Democrats will be opposing this bill because the oversight has not been brought in. The Security Intelligence Review Committee, which has ended up being a part-time committee, is not adequate. We have seen that the position of inspector general of CSIS was eliminated in 2012, so even the internal monitoring of CSIS has greatly diminished. We are in a bad state of affairs.

We want to ensure that if there is any expansion of CSIS, that it be done by protecting civil liberties and it be be done with proper oversight. This bill would do neither, and therefore it deserves to be voted down. There should be a proper examination that takes place.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way says, “Surprise, surprise”. I am surprised that when it came to the critical issue of public safety, the members of the government cut off debate and did not accept amendments that were very reasonable and well informed and that actually would have improved this legislation, but no, the government knows everything and does not need to hear from anyone else, because it is its way or the highway. That is the way it brought the legislation forward.

The Conservatives are then surprised when opposition members stand and say that there are flaws in this legislation that need to be addressed.

New Democrats never give up. We will keep trying to improve this legislation and will hope that the government will wake up one day and realize that there is a different way of doing things if it is really serious. We are really serious.

What would Bill C-44 do? It would make significant changes to expand CSIS's powers, but instead of giving this bill the careful study it deserved, once again the government did not feel the need to hear from experts. It knew what it wanted to do. It is its way or the highway. Independent experts and other witnesses were ignored.

The bill would give powers to CSIS without providing adequate oversight, and it presents real dangers. I fear that the government is going to end up spending taxpayers' hard-earned money fighting more legal problems and having this legislation stuck in court. However, the government does not seem to mind doing that. It would rather pay the money to the courts than provide services and good legislation to Canadians.

Even the witnesses who appeared put forward recommendations and suggestions. They were ignored.

This bill is fundamentally flawed. It is going to be very hard to support. What would we have wanted to see? We should always say what it is we want to see in legislation. I can point to lots of things that are wrong with the bill. What I wanted to see in the legislation that is not there is strong civilian oversight. It is critical that enhanced civilian oversight accompany any new powers for CSIS.

Everyone knows that the Security Intelligence Review Committee does not have the powers necessary to properly oversee CSIS. The Conservatives used an omnibus budget bill in 2012 to eliminate the position of CSIS's inspector general. Once again, anyone who questions anything the government does is deleted and the government gets rid of the position.

Something else the bill needs and that we want to see in it is strong protection of civil liberties. Some people say that we have to choose between public safety and civil liberties. I say that this is a false dichotomy. To have good public safety, we need to have protection of civil liberties. To have protection of civil liberties, we need to ensure that we have strong public safety. They are both core Canadian values, and Canadians do not have to choose A or B. It is possible to have both, and once again, the government failed to address that. There are no trade-offs here. It is not one or the other. We can have both, and that is what needs to be in this bill. We, as New Democrats, want legislation that both improves security and reinforces our civil liberties. That is essential.

My colleagues across the way always talk a good game. All the rhetoric is there. However, it is also a party that keeps cutting resources. It wants to have all these enhancements, but it has cut funding for our public safety agencies for three straight years, for a total of almost $688 million by 2015. That is not a figure I have made up. That is a figure the government can verify.

How can the government say it wants to make improvements yet at the same time take millions of dollars in resources out of the CSIS budget? CSIS will face ongoing cuts of $24.5 million by 2015, while budget 2012 scrapped the CSIS inspector general position altogether. At the same time we have this rhetoric that the government is going to make everyone safer and that public safety is going to improve, it is taking away the tools and resources our agencies need to do that. As with many other things, it is all talk. When it comes to what the government actually does, it underfunds, it cuts, or it just does not spend the money, even when it allocates it to certain programs.

A myriad of validators absolutely support the position we are taking as the NDP. I wish I had time to read all of them into the record, but I know I am short of time.

Let me say that this legislation can be fixed to get our support. First, put strong civilian oversight in place. Second, put in protection for civil liberties. Third, let us give them the resources and get the job done.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-44, an act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other acts. It is always a pleasure to stand in the House and represent the voices from the riding of Newton—North Delta.

I want to get something on the table right at the beginning. There is no one on this side of the House who supports terrorists or any acts of terrorism. Before my friends across the way start to have conversations and yell things, I wanted to make that clear. All of my life I have worked for peace. I am a mother. I am a grandmother. I have been a teacher for most of my life, and I can say that I abhor acts of violence.

Occasionally members are accused of liking terrorists, but those kinds of things do not help us when we debate in the House.

I want to talk about the substance of this bill today. First, I supported this bill at second reading. Why? It was because New Democrats, like everyone else in the House, want measures that will enhance public safety. It is because of this that we supported this bill at second reading, and it went to committee. Once it got to committee, the government repeated the same mistakes it makes over and over again. It limited hearings.

When there is such critical legislation that has not been debated or had any changes for decades, some major changes need to be made. The committee needed to hear from witnesses. As much as we all like to think we are experts on everything, there are great experts out there we need to hear from who know far more about public safety than we do. They know what works. They have evidence of what works in other jurisdictions and of what would be good in Canada. Our job is to listen to it.

Two hours to hear from officials from the department was fair enough, but two hours for all other witnesses was just unacceptable. I can assure the House that when trying to address public safety in a serious way, the government once again used the hammer of its majority to push through legislation without giving it the due process and oversight it needed. I do not hesitate in opposing this legislation any more because of what happened at committee.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to speak in the House on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North. This is an important bill that we are debating today. Bill C-44 amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other acts.

I remember getting up in the House during second reading of the bill. I actually supported it at second reading, along with other members. We were hoping that the government would allocate proper debate on the bill in committee and allow for very detailed scrutiny of some of the changes being proposed. It is a very serious matter. When we are dealing with public safety and civil liberties, we need to ensure that all angles are looked at so that any bills or laws passed in the House take into consideration those two core Canadian values of public safety and civil liberties.

What did we see from the government? I was hoping it would entertain some of the expert testimony. We had four hours on the bill at committee. Two of those hours were taken by the members of the staff and two hours were allocated for so-called scrutiny. That is not acceptable to Canadians. They expect us to scrutinize and to look through bills for any holes, to ensure that we thoroughly go through important bills that increase the powers of our spy agencies. That was not done.

We had two hours. There were a number of amendments introduced at committee stage. I have seen this movie before where we come up with some insight and some amendments that would improve a bill and the Conservatives somehow do not want to see any changes, whether from the NDP, the Liberals, or anyone else. I have seen this over the last three and a half years. Surely, of the thousands of amendments we have offered as suggestions to improve bills, the Conservatives would accept some. No, not even one has been accepted. If it is really straightforward, they may entertain it, but they do not want to see any suggestions by the opposition to improve any of the bills.

In this case, the government did not accept any of the amendments we had proposed. Basically, Bill C-44 is making significant changes to expand the powers of CSIS, but instead of giving the bill the careful study it deserved, it was rammed through in four hours. That is not enough time. Giving CSIS new powers without providing adequate oversight presents real dangers; rather than clarifying things, this will only lead to more legal problems and may ultimately be struck down by the courts.

We have seen this movie before too. There are many bills passed by the government that have been struck down by the Supreme Court. It seems to be a regular occurrence where things are rushed through the House without proper oversight or debate. Whether it is in the House or committee, we are forced to rush. We have had over 84 closures on a number of bills that have been rammed through the House. Closure basically shuts down debate. That is not what Canadians expect us to do; they expect us to debate in the House.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-44, an act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other acts.

In a sense, this bill has been a long time coming. It has been 30 years since this place turned its mind to the CSIS act. Much has changed. It makes sense to update or modernize this legislation.

We, on this side of the House, supported this bill at second reading, not because it was perfect, far from it, but out of recognition that there are many issues swirling around this and through the courts on matters of national security and intelligence services.

The bill has been returned to us, however, from committee unamended, in spite of the age of the current legislation and the issues confronting us on matters related to intelligence and national security. The bill had but four hours of scrutiny at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. True to form, amendments put forward by the opposition, recommendations put forward by expert witnesses, and cautions issued by experts were all turned aside, dismissed, and defeated.

We have before us a flawed bill, one not worthy of support. What this bill betrays is a government unprepared, unable, or incapable of doing the difficult but necessary work of ensuring that Canadians have both security and their civil liberties. Indeed, in this bill, and in the government's world view it would seem, civil liberties must wait for security.

It is arguable that in this bill and all that the government does, it tends to see civil liberty itself as a security risk. This would explain why the government so unflinchingly tramples over the rule of law, our own as well as that of others, and has such little concern about and does so little to provide civilian oversight of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

Here is my case for this. First, the bill provides blanket protection of identity for all CSIS human sources in legal proceedings, including criminal and immigration cases. There is no opportunity provided for the accused or respondent to confront the accuser and test the evidence. Such an opportunity is considered a fundamental part of our justice system.

How courts respond to such a denial in practice is left to be determined. It is unclear from here. Will the courts respond so that this becomes an obstacle to successful prosecution, will they allow this to enhance their probability of successful prosecution, or will the courts challenge the constitutionality of this provision? All of this is to be determined.

Second, the practical implications and, indeed, the threat of this amendment, become clear when one notes that this bill amends the Canadian Citizenship Act by accelerating the timeline for the revocation of citizenship for dual citizens found to be engaged in terrorist activities and other serious crimes.

It is out of our deep concern for the expedited revocation of citizenship in the broader context of this bill that we have proposed amendments before the House at this stage relating to these provisions.

Third, this bill tries to escape the views expressed by the courts starting in 2007 with respect to CSIS actions and surveillance abroad. Those views were eventually set out in a decision by the Federal Court in 2013 that declared illegal the practices of CSIS for obtaining warrants for conducting surveillance of Canadians abroad.

The response by this government through this bill comes in the form of essentially continuing its practices under the cover of the following language in the bill: “Without regard to any other law, including that of any foreign state...”.

Fourth, and perhaps most tellingly, while the bill gives CSIS new powers, it does nothing to enhance civilian oversight of the organization. More than that, it does nothing even to repair existing age-old shortcomings in civilian oversight of CSIS. The Arar commission concluded in 2006 that improved civilian oversight of CSIS was needed, but was ignored.

Privacy and information commissioners of Canada have asked the government to ensure that effective oversight be included in any legislation establishing additional powers for intelligence and law enforcement agencies, such as this one. That too has been ignored.

We echo their call. Civilian oversight is our means of ensuring that security and intelligence services can do their part to provide for the security and safety of Canadians without diminishing our civil liberties.

Under the bill, the government gives civilian oversight not even secondary consideration. It gets no consideration. Under Bill C-44, civilian oversight, such as it is, staggers forward. The current review agency, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, is a part-time committee of the Prime Minister's appointees. We have been through Chuck Strahl and Arthur Porter as chairs. Now we have former Reform MP Deborah Grey as interim chair. Two of the five vacancies on the committee have in fact been vacant for months.

In the 2012 budget, the Conservatives eliminated the position of inspector general of CSIS. The inspector general was the internal monitoring unit within the service, responsible for checking all CSIS activities for compliance with the law. The inspector general's responsibilities were passed along to the Security Intelligence Review Committee with its rotating chair and vacant seats.

NDP members of the public safety and national security committee proposed three very reasonable amendments to enhance civilian oversight of CSIS. The first of these flowed from the recent SIRC report. It called simply for a requirement that CSIS provide complete and accurate information to SIRC in a timely manner in order to facilitate proper oversight of the service.

The second proposed amendment would have ensured that those appointed to SIRC had the expertise necessary for the role, such as in the administration of justice and national security and so on.

The third proposed amendment called for appointments to SIRC to have the support of the Leader of the Opposition so as to extract ourselves from this process of partisan appointments to such critically important oversight roles.

These are all simple, reasonable amendments to a very important component of the security intelligence services, all rejected by the Conservatives, leaving civil liberties at risk, easily and unnecessarily sacrificed under a government that seems not to believe that civil liberties and national security ought, indeed, co-exist if we are to live in the kind of Canada that we desire.

Our democratic values must not be compromised in the pursuit of enhanced public safety. They need not be compromised. Protecting civil liberties and public safety are both core Canadian values, and improvements to one must never, and should not and need not, come at the expense of the other.

As Privacy Commissioner Daniel Carrion put it, 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 fact is that despite all its shortcomings, this bill could have been improved when it went through committee, a process by which we can arrive at well-informed policy. Instead of giving the bill the careful study it deserved, it was rammed through committee, which only heard four hours of testimony from independent experts.

The Conservatives have once again rushed legislation through the House with total disregard for any recommendations for improvement. This, unfortunately, has become a defining characteristic of the government.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin this debate at report stage of Bill C-44 by registering the concerns of the Liberal Party with respect to the manner in which the government has proceeded with this legislation. This was mentioned by my colleague from the NDP a moment ago as well.

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has made a great deal about the importance of this legislation, and suggests that it is well thought out. I will mention a couple of points in that regard in a moment.

However, first, the minister has left the impression that if we adopt this legislation, it will be effective in dealing with the situation we are currently facing. On page 14 of the minister's own report, “2014 Public Report On The Terrorist Threat To Canada”, it states:

The Government is aware of about 80 individuals who have returned to Canada after travel abroad for a variety of suspected terrorism-related purposes.

That number ranges from 80 to 93 individuals. The fact is that although the government tries to leave the impression with the public that Bill C-44 would deal with that issue, it would not.

What I cannot understand for the life of me is why the government is not using the current authority that it has to get these terrorists off of Canadian streets. I asked the minister that question in the House today. I believe the government has the authority under section 83.181 of the Criminal Code, which covers leaving or attempting to leave Canada for the purpose of participating in any activity of a terrorist group outside of Canada. Under that section, they are eligible for a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years, and that can go up to 14 years, depending on the offence.

It is very specific. It says “leave or attempt to leave Canada”. The minister went on at length, talking about the individual who released the video over the weekend. He is a Canadian who became radicalized abroad and is trying to inspire other Canadians to join ISIL and fight Canadians. I cannot understand why that authority has not been used to get those individuals off the streets. It is somewhere between 80 and 93 people.

The legislation we are dealing with would not deal with that problem, so why are the minister and the agencies he is responsible for not using what is currently available to them and at least testing it in the courts? Get these people off the streets and test it in the courts. If we have to fix something else, let us fix it, and ensure that we do not have terrorists operating within our own borders who were either home-grown radicalized or radicalized abroad. I have to make that point.

Bill C-44, on the other hand, is basically a bill that would ensure that CSIS, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, has the authority to do what we always thought it could do. Its authority has been somewhat jeopardized, though that may not be the right word, by previous courts' decisions. This bill, to the government's credit, would try to address the concern outlined by the courts, and I believe that it does. As my colleague in the NDP said earlier, the government is overreaching in some aspects of the bill, which we tried to have amended and were not successful in doing.

The other aspect of the bill relates to protecting informants who are necessary for CSIS in order to operate.

The bill deals with those points, and not the current crisis that we face within Canada as a result of radicalized individuals taking on terrorist acts.

I said that I would note two things relating specifically to what happened during the process in bringing this legislation back to here.

First, the committee process was rigged by the government to prevent any serious consideration of the legislation. Canadians will note that no amendments were passed, even though it would have made good sense to pass some of the amendments that either the Liberal Party, the NDP, or the Green Party put forward. We all had one amendment, and it was the same amendment. The government did not see the wisdom in adopting those points.

The bill would enshrine in Canadian law, provisions that declare that our lead intelligence agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, will be empowered to seek a warrant from a federal court to conduct operations in any foreign country that would be in violation of the laws of those countries. That is an undertaking that requires far more scrutiny.

Incredibly, the committee, more precisely the Conservative majority on committee, permitted only two hours for witnesses to appear on this legislation. For example, we did not hear from the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which oversees CSIS, in spite of the fact that this legislation would broaden the powers of the service. It would have been interesting to hear from SIRC, considering that in its most recent annual report for 2013-14, the review body found that “[...] the Minister of Public Safety is not always systematically advised of such activities”, referring to sensitive intelligence gathering, “nor is he informed of them in a consistent manner”.

Of even greater concern, and an issue on which the committee was denied the ability to question SIRC, is that the bill could permit possible illegal international operations. This was of great concern. We tried to propose an amendment that the Minister of Foreign Affairs be informed. We felt we needed to hear from SIRC on that issue. There could be an illegal operation that violates the laws of another country and our operatives are found out. If we are in a trading relationship or a security relationship or whatever with that country and the Minister of Foreign Affairs is not even informed, would it not put our country's trade and commerce in a bad position?

The Conservatives would not accept a simple amendment asking for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to be informed of such illegal activities by CSIS in other countries. SIRC was making the point that before Bill C-44 was even tabled, the Minister of Public Safety was apparently willing to be kept ignorant of much of what CSIS might actually be doing.

The last point I would make is that there needs to be national oversight over all of our security agencies, as all of our Five Eyes partners have in place. Parliamentary oversight makes sense. We would be doing our job and being held responsible for the oversight of these national security agencies.

We have some concerns with the bill, in that the amendments were not accepted, but for the greater interest of our country and the authorities of CSIS, the bill does need to go through in order to protect our sources and to implement the other measures in it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise with some regret today to speak to Bill C-44 at report stage. This comes from the fact that when the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness introduced this bill, he said he wanted all-party support on a very important national security matter. On this side of the House, we took him seriously and looked forward to having a full debate and discussion about what we could best do to combat some of the serious problems we face.

Instead, when we came to debate at second reading, there was a severe time allocation motion imposed. During that debate, I asked the hon. minister, who had said that he thought committee was the proper place for the debate to occur, for assurance that in committee, there would be adequate time to consider this bill. He then pretended, I would have to say, that his parliamentary secretary and his majority on the committee would be completely independent and free to make sure there was adequate time in committee. Of course, that was not the case.

On this side, we believe that with co-operation and full debate, we might actually have been able to come to a consensus on this bill. The actions of the Conservatives show that they were really never interested in doing that. Instead, what they wished to do, which I think the House will hear a lot from the Conservatives following my speech, was try to divide Canadians for their own partisan advantage.

Why do we need full debate? I have said many times in the House that we are a diverse country, with representatives who have very different interests in their constituencies and very different points of view and backgrounds, and when we bring all of that experience together in the House, we can get better and more effective legislation and legislation that would actually accomplish what it sets out as its goals.

We waste time in the House, and later waste time and resources in the courts, if bills are defective, if they are not well designed, and if they do not take into account the question of whether they are going to ultimately be found constitutional.

As I said, New Democrats had great hopes that the minister was serious and that we would have a full debate on this bill. It has been 30 years since CSIS was established, and obviously, it is time now to look at what we could do better.

Instead, in committee, there was the same kind of severe restriction on time. There were just four hours to hear witnesses, and after the minister and his officials had taken their two hours, there were just two hours for non-government witnesses. This meant that the official opposition was only allowed to call two witnesses and the third party one witness. Then there was a large group of people who actually approached the chair of the committee and said they would like to appear before the public safety committee on this bill. Of course, that left zero time for any of those witnesses.

The witnesses the committee heard were very valuable. We heard professors Wesley Wark, Craig Forcese, and Kent Roach, who raised some very important concerns about the bill, which I will return to in a minute. However, who did the committee fail to hear from? The Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner wanted to appear and talk about the impact of the expansion of CSIS powers on information and privacy law. The Canadian Bar Association wanted to appear. The Federation of Law Societies of Canada wanted to appear, and civil liberties associations, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the BC Civil Liberties Association, also submitted requests to appear.

Probably the most important group of witnesses the committee could have heard and did not have time for were the commissioners who investigated incidents like the Air India bombing, the hon. Justice John Major; the Maher Arar case, Justice Dennis O'Connor; and the El Maati, Almalki, and Nurredin cases, Justice Frank Iacobucci. In all of these cases, there were recommendations from former Supreme Court judges and senior judges on how to make CSIS more effective and make sure that there was proper oversight of a body that necessarily has to do a lot of its work in secret. There could have been a chance to see if recommendations from those three inquiries could have been incorporated into this bill, but instead, no time was allowed to call them as witnesses.

Having used their majority in the committee to limit discussion and the hearing of witnesses, the committee also limited discussion of any amendments to this bill to just one two-hour session. There was one two-hour session to deal with 12 substantive amendments from the NDP and 11 substantive amendments from other members of Parliament. The government proceeded to reject all of them one by one in a fashion that so rapid, one could hardly turn the pages fast enough, let alone have a good debate.

I want to draw attention to just one of those amendments that was rejected, to give members an idea of what happened in this committee.

The NDP's first amendment was an amendment that would have required CSIS to provide its oversight body, SIRC, the security intelligence review committee, with complete and accurate information in a timely manner. That is something we would presume a government body would do. It is something that is not specifically required anywhere in the legislation. Why were we putting forth such an amendment? It was because in its last annual report, SIRC, the supervisory body, said that CSIS repeatedly failed to provide the oversight body with complete and accurate information and failed to do so in a timely manner.

What possible harm could there have been in such an amendment? Obviously, a lot of good could have been done by having the oversight body able to cite responsibility, in the legislation, for providing them with the information they request in a timely manner.

The Conservatives went on to reject 11 more amendments that focused, again, on increasing accountability, improving oversight, making sure the bill is effective, and making sure the bill is constitutional. The result is a flawed bill that we cannot support on this side of the House.

The amendments we introduced today take out a piece of the bill that I think is fairly egregious, when we are talking about CSIS. In fact, it makes the bill almost an omnibus bill. It has in it amendments to the Citizenship Act to bring forward the coming into force date of the ability of the government to remove citizenship from dual citizens convicted of serious offences. This really has nothing to do with the topic in the CSIS bill.

We have suggested that those be removed today, but I have no confidence that the government will be any more willing to consider amendments here than it was in committee.

What is the bill about? One day the minister assured us that it was one of the most significant bills we could possibly have on national security and that it was absolutely necessary. On his appearance at the committee, the minister said the bill was just clarifying what CSIS already does.

It is very hard for me to get a sense of whether the minister believes that this is important and significant legislation or housekeeping legislation, since he said both of those to the committee.

The minister also said that the courts had invited the government to bring in this piece of legislation. I think that is an interesting interpretation of the court decision. The court said that some of the things CSIS is doing lack legal authority and that if the government wished to correct this, it needed legislation. It did not in fact invite the government to present this kind of legislation.

What we see again and again in this bill is over-reach by the government, whether it is with regard to the warrants it is asking the superior courts to issue or whether it is with respect to protecting the identity of CSIS staff. We presented a very simple amendment that would have said that we recognize that staff who are, or are about to be, involved in covert operations might need to have their identities protected. However, what this bill says is that CSIS could keep all of its employees' names secret for all time. The person who is the receptionist could have his or her name kept secret. It is over-reach. It is overkill in this bill.

When it comes to the question of constitutionality, I specifically asked the minister if he would table in the committee the advice he had received that this bill was constitutional. We hear the Minister of Justice and we hear the Minister of Public Safety assuring us that they always check and get such advice. Well, if they do get such advice, I would like to see them share it with us on this side of the House.

We have seen, in other bills that have been passed through the House, when we had that assurance, that the courts eventually found that the bills were not constitutional. I think it is an important question, because it causes us to waste time in the House and waste the court's time later on.

When it comes to oversight, which is probably our major concern, we missed the opportunity in this bill to turn SIRC into something much more substantive. Right now it has a temporary chair. Two of its positions have been vacant for months. It is a part-time, non-specialist committee, yet any amendments we had to strengthen the qualifications of the members of SIRC and also to get all-party agreement on the appointments to SIRC were rejected by the government.

I know my time is drawing to a close. I just want to say, first of all, that we believe we need strong oversight for our national security agencies. We believe that we can protect national security and civil liberties at the same time. We believe that we have to provide adequate resources to do that.

What we will hear from the Minister of Public Safety in just a few moments is how the NDP is weak on national security and how we failed to support certain interventions in the Middle East. None of that has anything to do with this bill.

This bill fails on the grounds of providing the kind of oversight we need and providing an effective bill that would protect national security and civil liberties at the same time.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to deletions to Bill C-44, the so-called protection of Canada from terrorist act. While we all agree that Canadians must be protected and that reforms to the way CSIS operates are certainly necessary, I question whether the bill would move us any closer to safety from terrorists.

The way the bill is being rushed through the House of Commons, it looks like the Conservatives are trying to ensure that we parliamentarians do not have the chance to finally read it. After the Conservatives imposed time allocation on the bill at second reading, the committee heard from witnesses for one meeting, two hours, and not a single opposition amendment was accepted.

The Privacy Commissioner had serious concerns. He wrote to the committee that he would, “welcome the opportunity to speak” to the committee. He was not invited. Again, we see the Conservatives' contempt for expert advice, even from their Privacy Commissioner.

It is possible to find a balance between our safety and our freedoms, our security and our rights. However, the government seems to want to weaken our privacy laws without achieving any security objectives.

Further, as our intelligence operations increasingly involve working with other countries, the bill would potentially undermine the possibility of any meaningfully safe co-operation. In the words of the Canadian Bar Association:

—Bill C-44 would undermine established practices that balance national security against fundamental rights, and potentially call into question Canada's compliance with its international law obligations.

In committee, the minister himself proudly stated, “I think this is the most constitutional bill we have introduced”. That probably speaks less favourably to the government's record than the minister quite intended. It is quite ironic.

Apart from quite serious democratic issues, my concerns also relate to the provisions in the bill amending the way the CSIS Act would treat human sources and the bizarre wording regarding activities beyond Canada's borders. The bill would redefine the privilege given to human sources, but according to legal experts, Bill C-44 would actually lessen the protection given to sources. I am also concerned the bill would seriously interfere with the proper administration of justice in Canada.

Although the stated purpose of these amendments is supposedly “is to ensure that the identity of human sources is kept confidential”, the new wording would limit this protection to only apply “in a proceeding before a court”.

According to the Canadian Bar Association:

—disclosure of information relating to confidential human sources appears to be limited to disclosure of information during the course of judicial proceedings. The proposed amendments to section 18 do not include any general prohibition against disclosure of information outside the judicial proceedings, such as found in section 18(1) [of the Act]. Accordingly, if a confidential human source provides information about a matter that does not result in a judicial hearing, the CSIS Act would no longer prohibit disclosure of either the information or the identity of the source.

Human sources risk their lives for our safety. The bill would reduce their protection unless the matter was before the courts.

The second major issue is a serious constitutional one. The place where we need to be most careful when granting confidentiality is in the justice system. The charter guarantees that every person be granted “a fair and public hearing”. The wording of the definition of “human sources” is so vague that it may become even more difficult to convict any terrorists at trial.

The definition in clause 2 does not require that the promise of confidentiality be explicit or written for a source to effectively veto proceedings. May I remind members that the Supreme Court ruled just last year that a promise of confidentiality may even be “implied”.

In the context of police informants the court wrote:

An implicit promise of informer privilege may arise even if the police did not intend to confer the status or consider the person an informer, so long as the police conduct in all the circumstances could have created reasonable expectations of confidentiality.

Expert witness Professor Kent Roach testified before committee. He said:

—I have a concern that virtually every human source CSIS talks to under the proposed legislation would then have the benefit of the privilege and a veto on any identifying information being disclosed, whether it's to defend a search warrant in a terrorist investigation or to be called as a witness in a terrorism prosecution.

He went on to say that these ambiguous promises could “hinder or even thwart subsequent prosecutions”.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that CSIS informants are not given enough protection. This is a solution in search of a problem. It would actually open informants to new vulnerabilities and handcuff our justice system in the fight against terror.

I also want to address the wording of clause 8 and highlight some of the serious consequences that could arise.

I am a former police officer and I am not naive. I know that for the sake of protecting Canadians, we sometimes do need to investigate outside of Canada. However, it is absurd and belligerent to require that the federal court grant warrants for actions in another country, “Without regard to any other law, including that of any foreign state”.

Even if we ignore the highly questionable notion that our courts have the jurisdiction to authorize activities outside of Canada, this language is highly problematic. The wording is so bold and so broad that it opens up serious questions. Does it apply to international law? What are the limits? When is a warrant even needed here? Did anybody think about how this would look, how it would affect our international co-operation and, especially, how it could invite other countries to violate and disregard our laws?

I am shocked but not totally surprised by this anti-democratic piece of legislation from a government whose party has shown itself to be repeatedly anti-democratic here at home.

Our intelligence regime certainly does need changes. CSIS could definitely use an update. We seek more effective measures to prevent terror and we desperately need to overhaul our barely existing oversight program. If we take a look at evidence and listen to the experts—what a novel thought—there is no reason why we need to give up the search for balance between a strong legal system and national security.

We can have oversight and safety, rights and protection. The amendments the Green Party proposed in committee, which were rejected out of hand, could have helped to do that.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are five motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-44. Motions Nos. 1 to 5 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 5 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other Acts, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue the second reading debate on Bill S-6, the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act.

Tomorrow we will debate Bill C-43, the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 2. This bill would put into place important support for families, as well as key job-creating measures, which would build on our government's record of over 1.2 million net new jobs created since the economic downturn.

On Monday, before question period, we will resume the second reading debate on Bill C-12, the Drug-Free Prisons Act. By tackling drug use and trafficking in federal penitentiaries, we will make the correctional system safer for staff and inmates, while also increasing the success of rehabilitation.

After question period, we will consider Bill C-44, the Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, at report stage. I understand that, regrettably, the NDP will be opposing this bill.

Tuesday will see the House debate Bill C-43 before it gets its third and final reading.

Wednesday we will consider Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, at report stage and I hope at third reading. This bill was reported back from the very hard working justice committee yesterday. It was adopted unanimously after a thorough and exhaustive study all autumn. The victims bill of rights act would create statutory rights at the federal level for victims of crime for the very first time in Canadian history. This legislation would establish statutory rights to information, protection, participation, and restitution and ensure a complaint process is in place for breaches of those rights.

The chair of the justice committee implored House leaders yesterday to pass the bill expeditiously. I hope my colleagues will agree.

Next Thursday we will resume the uncompleted debates on Bill C-32, Bill C-12, Bill C-44, and Bill S-6, as well as taking up Bill S-5 at third reading to establish the Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve act.

Next Friday, the House will complete the third reading debate on Bill C-40, the Rouge national urban park act, to create Canada's first national urban park.

After that we will have an opportunity to wish everybody a Merry Christmas.

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

Let me make one point very clear. You have been in a capacity to know that there is a difference between having intelligence and being able to present a robust charge that will stick and bring an individual, or any terrorist in this case, to jail. That's why we have to look at the way our system is working, and we also have to look at the tools that we are currently providing to our law enforcement. Once again, we may feel that an individual can represent a threat but not necessarily have the evidence, because as you are well aware, we are in a state of law. We are proud of that, and this is how we conduct ourselves when dealing with terrorists. This is why we, as parliamentarians, have such an important role to set the rules, and this is why Bill C-44 and the coming legislation are so important.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Minister and agency heads. Thank you for coming.

Mr. Carmichael mentioned this, Minister, but he didn't really include all committee members. I think you can be assured that all committee members, ourselves on this side as well, would certainly pass on our regards and best wishes with respect to the RCMP officer who was shot early this morning.

With respect to the last question, Mr. Minister, on exchanging information with other agencies abroad, and the interchange you just had, I was in Washington, D.C., yesterday. I met with the chair of the homeland security committee, among others, and this is one of their concerns. They're wondering where Canada is on that.

Bill C-44 doesn't deal with that issue, as I see it. I believe you were anticipating bringing in other legislation, but to my knowledge Bill C-44 does not deal with that specific issue. It deals with protecting informants and sources abroad in a number of other areas, but it does not deal with what we just talked about. That will require other legislation. Am I correct?

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

We certainly rely on our experts to assess the threat level. Certainly that can be done either now or in the second hour of this important meeting, but at this point I would like to stress that we have to adjust to this evolving threat.

We were witness to those actions here in this very Parliament. As you will remember, you and I were in that very same room not so long ago.

This is why we won't overreact to the terrorist threat, but we won't under-react. This is why we are moving forward. We are also looking at what other western countries are doing when faced with a similar situation. I was in France recently. They are implementing a measure such as the one we already have implemented or are contemplating it for the near future. We are not alone in the fight against these barbaric actions that are taken by terrorists, and this is why we will move forward.

There is certainly an important need—as the courts said—for Bill C-44, the bill that is in front of Parliament now. As of now, CSIS does not have the same capability it had in the past. So it's not about adding new powers, it's just about restoring existing authorities so they can exchange information about terrorists who are travelling. This is why I feel...and once again, I really would have appreciated having the support of this committee.

This bill has to move as fast as we can do it as parliamentarians, so that we can restore the capability of CSIS to protect Canadians. I am confident that this bill will go back to the House in the coming days and that we will be able to see it move through the Senate quickly to get royal assent, so that CSIS can protect Canadians by two means—making sure, when they are establishing a bond of trust with a witness, that they can protect the witness and the witness can have some confidentiality, and of course making sure that we can exchange information with our partners.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Colleagues, welcome to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security meeting number 42.

Today we are doing clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-44. You'll notice the chair had committee business right at the start, but in order to make it easier to move people in and out and off, we will have just a very brief amount of committee business in order to set a date. If the committee is comfortable, I will move the committee business to five or ten minutes at the end of the meeting.

Mr. Easter.

[Daniel Therrien]

First on the question of security and privacy, I'll just say that ultimately I think it's possible to have both, and that position informs quite a few comments that I have made, whether it's about Bill C-13 or Bill C-44. I think security is obviously very important, and legislators should act to protect the public, but it is possible to have both security and privacy and not one at the cost of the other.

As to the question of my overall resources, if I understand correctly, and whether there are enough resources to do the job, with all the tasks, obviously there are important work pressures that we're facing. My starting point on the question of whether we have sufficient resources is, of course, that I will try very much to achieve our mandate within the budgets allocated to Parliament because, of course, these moneys come from taxpayers and I want very much to be able to achieve our goals within these budgets.

That being said, there are important work pressures, and I'll just name a few. First of all, the number of complaints that are made under the Privacy Act and PIPEDA is growing continually. The government has an ambitious policy agenda, which means that we're called upon to comment on legislation, but also we're called upon to make comments to departments on the proposed procedures and policies. The rapid evolution of technologies in the private sector also, of course, creates privacy risks that we have to react to. As I've indicated to your colleague, it's important to ensure that individuals are able to exercise control over their information, which implies that we have an important public education role that is part of our role. So these are the work pressures.

At this point, I would say that I'm still assessing, frankly, whether we have enough to achieve all of these objectives, but I will try as much as possible to do that. In part, what is at play, given the work pressures, is that we have to be constantly looking for new and efficient methods to do our work. This is something that the OPC has done over the years, and we're still very much in that mode. For instance, investigations, which constitute roughly 50% of our work, are the subject of more efficient processes, for instance, that use early resolution as opposed to a full-fledged investigation into complaints. We're trying to have more efficient methods, and this is working. Productivity is up, there are more files being closed in the office than ever before, but unfortunately, the growth in complaints exceeds the growth in our productivity. That's an issue we have to tackle.

In particular, the number of complaints made under the Privacy Act is growing. Our response times to these complaints is also growing because of the phenomenon I was describing: the growth in complaints exceeds the growth in productivity. In early 2015, we will launch an audit into the activities of that branch to see whether it could be possible to be even more efficient than we are currently.

Essentially, there are important work pressures. My objective is to work within the budget that was given to me. At this point I'm not asking for additional moneys. If I come to a different view, I will let you know.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

I will read from the paragraph that applies to this, because it is open ball. It says:

There are no specific rules governing the nature of questions which may be put to witnesses appearing before committees, beyond the general requirement of relevance to the issue before the committee

Now, there is an issue of relevance, in that when the letter was directed to the committee, it was relevant to Bill C-44. It is relevant, so at this particular point, it would then be admissible and accepted, according to the paragraph that is in here.

So yes, it is in order.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Leif-Erik Aune]

The Privacy Commissioner was not invited to appear before the committee for its study of Bill C-44.

[Prof. Kent Roach]

The issue of whether CSIS has extraterritorial powers is a matter that has actually been under litigation under the act before Bill C-44. Justice Blanchard said in a decision that it didn't have extraterritorial powers. Justice Mosley—and here my interpretation is a little bit different from Professor Leuprecht's—actually said that it did have extraterritorial powers. He only drew it back when he found out they were using the Five Eyes to exercise what he had authorized as extraterritorial CSIS investigations.

When I say “new powers”, I mean this a matter of legal dispute. Leave to appeal in the Justice Mosley decision is now, I understand, being sought from the Supreme Court of Canada. It is possible the Supreme Court of Canada will hear that case, we really don't know right now.

When I say “new powers” I mean black letter law, new powers that spell it out.

But you're right that the Attorney General of Canada has argued that in the existing CSIS Act there are powers for CSIS to conduct investigations outside of Canada.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Is there a way to deal with the concern?

It's true that the court said that there doesn't exist a current, in common law, class privilege, and that's what now being accorded by Bill C-44.

Is your sense though that the courts were more or less content with the case-by-case qualified privilege? Is that what you think should remain?

[Dr. Christian Leuprecht, Associate Dean and Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual]

Ladies and gentlemen, I will give my presentation in English, but I can answer any of your questions in either official language.

Mr. Chair, distinguished members of the committee.

I have entitled my intervention “Peace, Order and Good Government: Parliamentary supremacy as the ultimate sovereign constitutional responsibility”.

There is a ubiquitous claim that Canada does not have a foreign intelligence service. This is a misunderstanding of Canada’s security intelligence community. Given the legislated limitations on Canadian security intelligence's areas of operations or AOR, beyond Canada—CSIS' areas of operations beyond Canada—one might say that Canada does not have a human foreign intelligence service, certainly not one of the scope of the human services operated by some of our key allies, especially in the Five Eyes—CIA, MI5, and ASIS, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service.

Canada has a foreign signals intelligence service, the Communications Security Establishment, and a good and respected one at that. Canada has compensated for AOR limitations on CSIS in several important ways.

Two of the key mechanisms had been under specific conditions. First, the exchange of certain human intelligence information on certain Canadian citizens and residents—and some other individuals with a direct bearing on Canada and Canadian interest—with allied foreign HUMINT services, in general, and with the three aforementioned Five Eyes partners, in particular. The New Zealand Security Intelligence Service, similar to CSIS, does not have a broad foreign human intelligence mandate akin to that of the U.S., U.K., and Australia.

Second, under specific conditions, the exchange of signals intelligence on certain Canadian citizens and residents—and some other individuals with a direct bearing on Canada and Canadian interest—with CSE, the Communications Security Establishment.

As reported widely in the media, including The Globe and Mail in November 2014, Justice Richard Mosley of the superior court of Canada found that CSIS had not been sufficiently open about all the surveillance alliances it planned to form. Five years ago CSIS had persuaded him to sign off on a foundational eavesdropping warrant to extend its reach outside Canada. Judge Mosley learned the full extent of the information sharing between Canadian spy agencies and foreign allies after reading the watchdogs’ public reports.

His ruling indicates he had never been told of this by Canada’s intelligence agencies during five years of secret hearings. He took the extraordinary step of reopening a case he had settled in 2009. In the November 2013 ruling he rebuked CSIS and the Communications Security Establishment for breaching their duty of candour to his court. A statement released by the court added that, despite perceptions to the contrary, “the Court considers it necessary to state that the use of ‘the assets of the Five Eyes community’ is not authorized under any warrant issued.”

The case appears to be related to concerns about one particular instance where CSIS failed to disclose to the court one specific piece of information about a certain individual. The result of Justice Mosley’s decision has been to blind CSIS once Canadians or non-Canadians with court-authorized surveillance leave the country.

The merits of Judge Mosley's decision, with respect to that particular instance of disclosure to the court aside, raises at least two fundamental issues. First, in light of at least 130 Canadian extremist travellers who have left the country as reported in testimony before this committee by the Director of CSIS, and another at least 80 returnees, this is problematic. CSIS now has trouble following extremist travellers and their activities outside of the country. This has second-order effects with respect to its ability to provide timely and accurate advice to the administrative branch of government and the political executive to which it reports, and the ability to liaise tactically with criminal intelligence and enforcement agencies, notably the RCMP and CBSA.

Second, what is and should be the purview of judicial supremacy with respect to matters of national security? The committee will already have heard plenty of testimony with respect to the former. I shall not belabour the proximate implications of this point other than to reinforce the point and concerns raised by others about the deleterious tactical, operational, and strategic consequences of this decision for CSIS, national security policy and enforcement, and Canada’s political executive ability to make informed decisions with respect to public safety and Canada’s national interest.

The second point, by contrast, has more distal implications. Canada is a democracy. Its ideological foundations are premised on those of small-L liberalism; that is, limited state intervention in people’s lives with a core value of freedom and subsidiary values of equality and justice. One of the hallmarks of this type of democracy is the rule of law and an independent and impartial judiciary. By virtue of being in this room we are all agreed on these basic principles that underlie Canada’s Westminster constitutional monarchical system.

Constitutionally, Canada balances the premise of limited state intervention with a small-C conservative ideological premise about the role of the state, in general, and about the role of the federal government, in particular. Quoting from the preamble of section 91 of the British North America Act:

It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces.

For our purposes at least two observations follow.

Insofar as security is demonstrably of national concern, it falls within the purview of the federal government. Such is the case in terms of national security intelligence and its interactions with foreign security intelligence entities.

Second, the federal government has an overarching duty to ensure the peace, order, and good government of Canada. That is, the federal government has inherent obligations for the collective security of Canadian society.

What exactly POGG denotes has been defined and circumscribed by both the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the Supreme Court of Canada and shall not detain us here. Suffice it to say that Canada’s Constitution imposes limits on judicial supremacy.

Unlike Americans, Canadians are not inherently skeptical and mistrusting of their government. This is readily demonstrable empirically in terms of polling.

I shall skip over this section and it can be read into the record at a later time.

[See appendix]

My point here is that people may have concerns about particular issues, but by and large, confidence in our security institutions and the federal government's handling of national security is very high.

The security sector, of course, is one form of government intervention. One might argue that it is actually the ultimate form of government intervention precisely because it empowers the government to curtail freedoms in pretty dramatic ways. Critics like to cite the case of Mahar Arar. As tragic as that case may be, a single case does not make a pattern. To the contrary, it demonstrates the learning effects in our security sector by virtue of the fact that a case like Arar’s would be highly unlikely to recur given the changes in policies now in place. Moreover, it is public knowledge that intelligence from the Arar case came from the RCMP and not from CSIS. And so to be sure, there are other cases where judges have had certain questions about CSIS evidence but none of this has called into question the professionalism and lawful conduct of the organization. Similarly, CSE’s watchdog has repeatedly affirmed the lawful and professional conduct of its activities.

So where does the skepticism arise?

It appears to be driven by a curiously denatured interpretation of the Canadian Constitution since the introduction of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that somehow the sole and primary purpose of the Constitution is somehow to limit government intervention in the lives of citizens. The result of this interpretation would have it that privacy, civil liberties, and due process, as well as judicial supremacy, should trump any and all other considerations. As someone who has published on Canadian constitutional politics, the conventional view is that of the Constitution that actually enables government to do good in people’s lives, at least when it comes to fundamental obligations such as peace, order, and good government.

At times, that means having to balance considerations of due process with those of public safety and national interest. Confidential informants may be an anathema to lawyers, but certain dimensions of security intelligence would be difficult to carry out without such confidentiality and the trust that we have as a result from our allies.

Again, here, is a section that will be read into the record.

[See appendix]

Allies such as the U.K., France, Germany, and Spain have had to learn to live with terrorism for decades. As a result, their courts and their societies have developed greater sensitivity towards the protection of public safety. He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither, Benjamin Franklin famously said. But what about he who sacrifices security for freedom? Freedom and security are not a zero-sum dichotomy. To the contrary, they are complementary. You cannot enjoy one without the other. However, you cannot enjoy your freedoms if you are dead.

CSIS exists at the fulcrum of public security. Critics concerned about changes to Bill C-44 are also the ones who will be first to complain why CSIS did not do more, should an extremist traveller return to Canada and commit mischief here. Overall, they fail to account for the possibility of keeping individuals safe in spite of themselves, that sharing intelligence may allow for intervention abroad to prevent individuals from harming themselves, Canada, Canadians, and Canadian interests. I value my freedoms, but I value my life and the lives of my compatriots even more.

By the same token, with respect to changes proposed to the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, I believe that the potential for revocation of citizenship imposes an important deterrent against bringing one’s citizenship into disrepute. After all, those who hold dual citizenship have made a conscious choice to divide their loyalty. As a naturalized dual citizen myself, I should know. Those who wish to protect themselves against the eventuality introduced by this amendment have the option to renounce their second citizenship. Some countries make it impossible to renounce citizenship, so the onus is on such citizens to conduct themselves in a manner so as not to run afoul of the amendment being proposed. Canada’s administrative and judicial system would necessarily be sensitive to the revocation of Canadian citizenship in circumstances where that imposes demonstrable risks for an individual’s life. Ergo, revocation is judiciable, and thus has a built-in review mechanism.

The current equilibrium needs rebalancing. Justice Mosley deemed it within his purview to constrain certain types of intelligence sharing activity, but he did so in a somewhat unusual fashion. Often judges will give Parliament time to remedy these types of deficits. Justice Mosley afforded no such opportunity to Parliament. This, in my view, is disconcerting. While Justice Mosley may have been within his right to render the decision he did, the far-reaching implications of his decision could have let past practice prevail for a limited amount of time to allow for a legislative remedy to be introduced.

[Prof. Kent Roach, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Chair. I'd like to thank the committee for inviting me to appear here today.

The terrible terrorist attacks last month confirmed Parliament's wisdom in 2013 in enacting four new terrorist offences that can apply to foreign terrorist fighters. Unfortunately however, Bill C-44 may have the unintended effect of making it more difficult to apply these valuable new offences to potential foreign terrorist fighters. That will be my primary focus in my submissions.

My second focus will be that the “innocence at stake” exception to the new CSIS human source privilege is required by the charter, but it is unconstitutionally under-inclusive as applied to non-criminal proceedings where section 7 charter rights are in play.

Finally, I will suggest that while it is correct that Bill C-44 gives CSIS new powers to conduct investigations outside of Canada and that this responds to the threat environment that we live in, there is a concern that we need new and integrated review mechanisms as well as better ministerial and parliamentary oversight of CSIS foreign activities.

To move to my first point, Bill C-44 would overturn the Supreme Court's recent decision in Harkat as well as reject the recommendations of the commission of inquiry into the bombing of Air India that CSIS informants not be given the same privilege as police informants. Both the Supreme Court and the Air India commission stress the danger that because of its intelligence-gathering mandate, CSIS may make premature promises of anonymity to informants, which could hinder or even thwart subsequent prosecutions.

Clause 2 of Bill C-44 would give CSIS human sources a veto on disclosure of any identifying information once they have received “a promise of confidentiality” from CSIS. The courts have most recently, in 2013, in the context of police informer privilege, said that these promises of confidentiality may even be implicit. I have a concern that virtually every human source CSIS talks to under the proposed legislation would then have the benefit of the privilege and a veto on any identifying information being disclosed, whether it's to defend a search warrant in a terrorist investigation or to be called as a witness in a terrorism prosecution.

These are not hypothetical concerns, and I should mention that I spent four years as director of research and legal studies on the Air India commission studying this question. In 1987 the prosecution of Talwinder Singh Parmar, the alleged mastermind of the Air India bombing, collapsed when an informer refused to allow his name to be disclosed. Now, that informer was in a very difficult position, and the crown attorney at the time said in open court that if he were in that informer's position, he would make the same decision because of fear for his life—as you have heard from earlier witnesses. But the fact is, that prosecution fell apart because of the informer privilege and the informer's ability to veto disclosing any identifying information.

This legislation would have given the two informants in the Toronto terrorism prosecution a veto on whether they would be called as witnesses or on disclosing any identifying information about them. As you heard yesterday, CSIS is not in the business of collecting evidence, and it was for this reason that the Air India commission warned it would have an incentive to promise anonymity and confidentiality when necessary to fulfill CSIS' intelligence mandate.

This is not an issue of CSIS deliberately abusing the privilege, but simply because of its functions, it will have an incentive to promise confidentiality. And then later on down the stream, perhaps months or even years later, the police and prosecutors may have a very difficult time dealing with the consequence of this near absolute privilege that would be bestowed on all CSIS human sources under Bill C-44.

The Air India commission was acutely aware that there is a dilemma. Sometimes it is more important to have intelligence than prosecution, but its solution was that this dilemma should not be resolved unilaterally by CSIS or, indeed, by the RCMP, but that decisions should be made in the public interest on the basis of all available information, by the Prime Minister's national security advisor.

The second point is simply that the “innocence at stake” exception in paragraph 18.1(4)(b), as required by the charter, would apply in criminal prosecutions. But the Supreme Court, in Charkaoui, has made it very clear that section 7 also applies in the non-criminal context, and in particular the security certificate context. It would be my submission that you should consider expanding the “innocence at stake” exception to allow judges to order disclosure that would pierce the privilege whenever it is required under section 7 of the charter.

Similarly, I realize that a policy decision to extend the privilege may have been made, but I would also propose that when you go into clause by clause, you should look at the section 2 language of the promise of confidentiality. That language should at least be limited so that it is only an explicit promise made by CSIS of anonymity that would trigger this broad privilege that, as I suggested, could hinder subsequent police investigations and prosecutions.

Finally, my last point is that I agree that, given the threat environment, CSIS needs to be able to conduct its investigations outside of Canada. But I do have some concerns about the “without regard to any law including that of any foreign state” language. I have concerns that this may override the restrictions that the National Defence Act places on CSEC or signals intelligence agency. I also think there is a need for an integrated review, or at least statutory gateways, as recommended by the Arar commission and as Professor Forcese in his submission advocated to you, and indeed has proposed some language to that effect.

I would also add that there is a need to ensure both ministerial and parliamentary oversight as CSIS uses its new powers to act abroad.

Thank you very much.

Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two points. I am a former municipal police board member, and I have done a lot of international policing work.

It is very rare to come across police who believe that gun regulations are red tape. Police are very supportive of reasonable regulations. They do not want extra forms. They do not want extra time wasted. However, the police are quite often in favour of reasonable regulations.

I very much look forward to having the time in committee to hear from law enforcement officials on the question of transportation of weapons. However, I have to say, as I did earlier, that after my experience with Bill C-44, I have kind of lost my faith that we are going to have adequate time in committee.

I would ask the minister again, but I know his answer will be that it has nothing to do with him, his parliamentary secretary, or the government majority on the committee. These restrictions on time and on the number of witnesses just come out of the air.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. friend. We sit on committee together.

The member raised a number of points in terms of some of the witnesses we would need to hear from at committee, including Canadian firearms officers, police, people who are involved with the transport of guns, et cetera.

Both the member and I are missing the debate on Bill C-44 because the government called this bill at the same time. Could the member share with Canadians his thoughts about the debate on this bill? We are having a debate here in the chamber that will likely have closure put on it at some point in time, while at committee our ability to hear the proper people we should hear from to deal with this issue is being curtailed.

One of the most important issues to deal with was raised by my leader in question period, the open-ended transportation of guns. Yes, they have to be in a locked trunk, but as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture said, criminals do not follow the rules. Of course they do not. There will be guns in car trunks, and most of the guns criminals use are stolen from legitimate gun owners. Is that not a problem with the new transport rules?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against Bill C-42, the so-called common sense firearms licensing act. While this is not the most egregious short title assigned by the Conservatives to a bill, even in this session, the bill might better be titled “the special interest firearms licensing act”.

What we have before us is a bill that only looks like common sense when viewed from the point of view of the gun lobby. New Democrats believe that public safety must always trump politics when it comes to firearms licensing and regulation.

The Conservatives, on the other hand, have been promoting the dangerous ideas of the gun lobby, a small minority of Canadians, and perhaps even a small minority among gun owners. In particular, there is the idea that any regulations at all on firearms pit the interests of law-abiding gun owners against the government and the police, and that these regulations amount to nothing more than excessive red tape. New Democrats have a different view, one that clearly puts public safety first.

The Conservatives like to pose as the only ones here who understand rural Canada, but let me say, perhaps to the shock and surprise of some, that I actually grew up on a farm. My father and his father before him were hunters of quail, pheasant, duck, deer, and moose, and all but one of these later graced our table when I was a kid. I have to say that sometimes there would not have been much on the table without the hunting that went on in my family. I learned to shoot at a young age, an age that most now might consider inappropriately young, and yes, my grandpa always kept a shotgun behind the door for scaring away the coyotes. It must have worked because I never saw any. This was in the day before those proper storage regulations. When those came in, he changed his behaviour. He did not see these as unnecessary red tape. He saw them as good advice for keeping his family safe, and the shotgun disappeared from behind the door and into a locked cabinet.

Subsequently I lived in the Northwest Territories as a young adult. I was fresh out of university, and while there I was privileged to go hunting out on the traplines with my Dene friends. By that time I was not such a fan of doing the shooting myself. It was a great life experience I had there. None of them regarded safety regulations as red tape.

Now I represent a riding that stretches from the Victoria Harbour all the way out to the head of the West Coast Trail at Fort Renfrew, so I do know something about law-abiding gun owners and something about communities where hunting is much more than just a prop to use in arguments about gun registration and licensing.

When the Conservatives abolished the gun registry, we on this side of the House warned that it would be necessary to remain vigilant on the question of gun licensing and gun regulations. We all knew that members of the gun lobby would not be happy to stop at the abolition of the registry, that with their U.S.-influenced ideological viewpoint they would keep pushing to weaken all the other measures in Canada that place restrictions on firearms in the interest of public safety.

Like his gun lobby allies, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has fallen into the habit of using U.S. rhetoric in his comments on firearms. This was never clearer than on July 23, 2014, when the minister said:

To possess a firearm is a right, and it's a right that comes with responsibilities.

Here we have a minister of the Crown, one of the government's chief legal ministers, directly contradicting the Supreme Court of Canada. In 1993, the Supreme Court found, in a case called Regina v. Hasselwander, that:

Canadians, unlike Americans do not have a constitutional right to bear arms. Indeed, most Canadians prefer the peace of mind and sense of security derived from the knowledge that the possession of automatic weapons is prohibited.

Therefore, the minister is in direct contradiction of the Supreme Court in the rhetoric he is using around gun licensing. The court could not have been clearer, nor could there have been any doubt about the precedent, since the Hasselwander case was precisely about the right to possess automatic weapons.

The court later reiterated in the 2010 case of Regina v. Montague that in Canada there is no right to own firearms. In that case, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal against an Ontario Court of Appeal decision rejecting the existence of such a right in Canada.

Like their gun lobby colleagues, when the Conservatives are challenged on the rights question, they often switch gears and try to argue that gun ownership is somehow a property right, which I would point out is another right that is not found in the Canadian constitution.

What the minister's comments last July clearly indicate, unfortunately, is that we have a government that likes to pander to the gun lobby. At least in this case, however, I would have to say that the Conservatives do so fairly transparently and in order to generate political support from their base.

When the Conservatives made their first appointments to the Firearms Advisory Committee, the committee responsible for advising the minister on firearms regulations, the appointees were drawn entirely from representatives of the gun lobby. It took until 2012 for the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police to prevail on the government to add three police chiefs to the nine gun advocates the government had already placed on the advisory committee.

This was only after the committee came forward with a set of extreme recommendations for the government, including such great ideas as extending the ownership licences to 10 years and, unbelievably, a proposal that the police should re-sell guns that had been seized rather than destroying them as is now the case. It is hard for me to even imagine the police running a garage sale of seized weapons. These are the kind of recommendations that came from the Firearms Advisory Committee, which was loaded with gun lobby advocates. When it comes to the specific firearms regulations adopted by the Conservatives, the influence of the gun lobby is quite apparent.

In 2011, the Department of Public Safety drafted new regulations for gun shows that would have required things that most Canadians would see as common sense. These included things like notifying the local police of gun shows to be held in their jurisdiction. That does not seem like red tape to me; that seems like common sense. It would have required the tethering of guns on display at a gun show. Cellphones are tethered at cellphone kiosks, so why not have this important public safety measure of tethering guns at a gun show.

These gun show regulations were to have been brought into force in 2012, but that did not happen. Instead, the Conservatives junked the proposed regulations altogether after complaints from the gun lobby that the new requirements were too onerous. I guess we should have seen this coming, because the Firearms Advisory Committee called for scrapping the gun show regulations in its March 2012 report.

I am worried about who was consulted, as I said in my question to the minister at the beginning of this debate. Who did he talk to? He says he talked to the hunting lobbies and to members of his caucus. He probably looked at the reports of the Firearms Advisory Committee. We see that the committee's slanted approach has influenced what the minister is already doing.

Regulations were also due to come into force in December 2012 to require that each gun manufactured in Canada have an individual serial number. It is surprising to me that it is not a requirement, as it is actually required by the international treaties to which Canada is already a party. It is something that seems like common sense when it comes to the police being able to trace guns used in crimes or in the fight to combat illegal international trade in small arms.

In November 2013, for a second time, the Conservatives quietly implemented a regulation delaying the coming into force of this requirement for serial numbers on each gun manufactured in Canada. This time they delayed it until December 2015, conveniently after the next scheduled election date.

The connection to the gun lobby is not so clear in this regulation, but I have no doubt that it exists. Why else would the Conservatives have appointed a representative of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association as a member of the Canadian delegation at international arms treaty negotiations? A representative of the sports shooting association and a member of the Firearms Advisory Committee became part of the international delegation to debate the small arms trade treaty internationally. Now, at a time when 50 other nations have signed the arms trade treaty, why has Canada failed to do so? Why are we excluding ourselves from the important discussions about how to end the illegal arms trade? The minister in his speech made reference to the important role in public safety of stopping the smuggling of illegal arms into Canada, yet we have excluded ourselves from the very process that would make that possible.

When it comes to Bill C-42, I guess we should be glad that the government abandoned the most extreme recommendations of the Firearms Advisory Committee, the ones I mentioned a minute ago of 10-year licences and the resale of seized weapons.

Now we are seeing complaints in the media from the gun lobby that Bill C-42 does not go far enough. That is why I am worried about the private member's bill that was placed on notice today, which we will see later this week, and how it will relate to this bill. The minister can say all he likes that it is a private member's bill and that it has nothing to do with him, but we will see. We will see if it has nothing to do with this legislation. When I heard the gun lobby say that Bill C-42 should have gone further, I am concerned about the contents of this new private member's bill.

Let me turn to the contents of the bill we have in front of us. It is one that is still clearly a child of the gun lobby. I should point out, as I did in my question to the minister, that there is no evidence of broad consultations throughout the community. If this is such common sense legislation, I do not understand why such a narrow group of people were the only ones consulted on this bill.

For me, despite the short title, there is nothing common sense about the two major provisions in this bill. One of those would make the gun classification process a clearly political process. The other would remove the requirement for having a permit for the transportation of firearms in any vehicle carrying them. Neither of these provisions has any public safety purpose. Instead, they respond only to the explicit complaints from the gun lobby. All of the other things that the Conservatives want to address in this bill could be accomplished without these two provisions.

Let me discuss the first change that is proposed in the way weapons are classified.

Right now, recommendations on classification are under definitions contained in law, and those recommendations are made by firearms experts in the RCMP, who both the gun lobby and the government members have referred to as “bureaucrats”. They are, in fact, the RCMP firearms experts.

The minister's signature is required on any reclassification, but there is no discretion for the minister, providing the recommendations fall within the scope of the existing legislative definitions. What Bill C-42 suggests is that the cabinet should be able to ignore the classification recommendations from the public experts and substitute its own wisdom about how weapons should be classified. The minister has already told us today that when the bill passes, he intends to use this political process to reclassify two individual types of guns. Therefore, by varying the definitions in the legislation, Bill C-42 would go even further by allowing the cabinet to grant exemptions for guns and ammunition that would otherwise have been prohibited.

Where did this perceived need for a change come from? It came from a single case of reclassification of a single weapon, the Swiss Arms PE 90, or Classic Greens, as they are sometimes called. These are military-style weapons that have been sold for nearly 20 years in Canada as semi-automatic weapons limited to firing five rounds. Before 2013, there were approximately 2,000 of these weapons in Canada, worth about $4,000 each.

So why the reclassification? What we had in Calgary in 2013 was the sudden appearance of so-called “refurbished” models of this gun, which were now operating as automatic weapons. That meant that these weapons were now easily converted to automatic weapons capable of firing a long series of shots from a single trigger pull, exactly what the “prohibited” designation was designed to keep off the streets of Canada.

When there was an immediate outcry from the gun lobby, the Conservatives were quick to grant a two-year amnesty in March of 2014. It is an amnesty for which I believe legal authority is doubtful, at best. How can the government grant an amnesty on possessing a weapon that is prohibited by law in Canada?

Now the government has presented Bill C-42 as the solution, giving the Conservative cabinet the power to decide if these dangerous weapons should be allowed in Canada.

Quite apart from the danger of ending up with automatic weapons on the street, there is another principle at stake here. When we make laws, we make them in public after public debate, and they stay in force until there is another public debate about changing them. Public debate before changing law is essential to democracy and accountability. In fact, what we would have in Bill C-42 is the creation of a process whereby Canada could in effect change our gun classification system and the classification of individual weapons through decisions made behind closed doors and without any public debate.

The other major change in Bill C-42 would remove the requirement that exists in most provinces to have a permit in any vehicle transporting restricted firearms, and the bill would go further: it would prohibit any province from reintroducing such a requirement. Currently, permits must specify a reason for transporting the firearm and specify that the travel must be from a specific point A to a specific point B. This makes it easy for police to enforce the prohibition on the illegal transportation of firearms, since a specific permit and a specific route must be provided.

Bill C-42 rolls transportation permits into the licence to own firearms. This would automatically allow the transportation of firearms between the owner's home and a list of five kinds of places: to any gun range, to any gun shop, to any gun show, to any police station, and to any border post for exiting from Canada. This change would provide a vast array of excuses for having weapons in a vehicle along a myriad set of plausible routes, and it would make the prohibition on illegal transportation of weapons virtually impossible for police to enforce.

Again I want to say that is why I am concerned about the notice the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette has given about a bill to amend the Criminal Code on firearms storage and transportation. I am looking forward to having law enforcement representatives present in committee so that we can talk to them about the impact of no longer requiring permits for transporting restricted firearms to limit them to travelling from a specific place to a specific place. There is a great deal of danger here for Canadians.

We have some questions about some other provisions in this bill. Most of those questions will be about whether proposed changes, such as combining the two kinds of licences and creating a grace period after the expiry of a licence, would have negative consequences on completing timely checks as to whether owners remain authorized to own firearms after criminal or mental health incidents. We will be asking for assurances from the minister on these questions in committee. There is nothing more important to public safety than ensuring that the system works so that those who are convicted of criminal activity or those who have experienced mental health difficulties are no longer in possession of firearms. We have to look no farther than this Parliament Hill to understand the importance of those kinds of checks.

Does anything in this bill look good to New Democrats? The minister was asking me that question earlier, as a kind of heckle. Certainly measures that make prohibitions on gun ownership easier in cases of domestic violence are very welcome, as are expanded requirements for gun safety courses. In a sense, there are a couple of positives in this bill.

The minister might ask, “Why are we not trying to improve this bill in committee? Why have we said we will not support it at second reading?” I have to say I have become more than a bit cynical about this idea.

On Bill C-44 just last week, the minister assured me we could have full debate in committee on the bill expanding the powers of CSIS. He said it was up to the committee to make its own decision, as if the government does not have a majority on every committee and as if his parliamentary secretary did not move motions that restrict debate in committee. It beggars belief that he would make this argument in the House of Commons. The Conservatives said they would like all-party support on Bill C-44, and we clearly were told by the minister that the public safety committee was the place for detailed debate. However, this afternoon, while we are here in the House, the committee is getting its only afternoon with opposition witnesses, its only two hours to discuss the bill that would expand the powers of CSIS.

That is why, even though there are a couple of good things in this bill, I cannot argue that we should support sending the bill to committee to try to fix the rest of it. The experience that we have in committee again and again is limited time, limited witnesses, and the absolute refusal of the government to accept even the best-intentioned, most non-political amendments from the opposition.

Clearly public safety is not the priority for Conservatives in Bill C-42. In fact, its two main provisions seem to me to present clear threats to public safety. Making political decisions about whether or not a gun is a prohibited weapon does not bode well for public safety. Introducing this grey area in terms of transportation of weapons does not bode well for public safety.

Let me conclude by saying that I find it both sad and insensitive on the part of the government to be discussing this bill in the lead-up to December 6. This is a national day dedicated to remembering the victims of the École Polytechnique massacre 25 years ago, and a day set aside to recommitting to the fight against violence against women. As well, I do not understand why the Conservatives want to proceed so abruptly with this bill to loosen gun regulations in the aftermath of the murder of Corporal Nathan Cirillo at the National War Memorial and the attack here in Parliament. I would ask the government to put off further consideration of this bill until well into the new year, a less emotional time for victims, and to give time for the air to clear after the October 22 incident here on the Hill.

Will the government show more respect for Canadians and our democratic process by delaying this bill? I doubt it. Instead, I expect the Conservatives to press on to the tune of a dog whistle played by their gun lobby friends. Unfortunately, I think Canadians already know the answer to this question. The gun lobby rules, and this bill will press ahead. That is why, as a New Democrat, I will be proud to vote against Bill C-42.

[Wesley Wark, Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, it's a privilege to appear before you. I'm grateful for the opportunity. I'm the long-winded witness, so I'm going to read a condensed version of my statement.

Since the 9/11 attacks, the role of intelligence in Canadian national security policy has been revolutionized. Canadian intelligence has become more significant, more powerful, better resourced, more closely aligned with allied partners, and more globalized in terms of its operations and capabilities. As an important constituent of what is called the Canadian security and intelligence community, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, has undergone its share of revolutionary change since 2001. CSIS has become, de facto, a hybrid service, required to deal with an ever-expanding range of threats to national security and to operate both at home and abroad.

The issues that arise with regard to Bill C-44 reflect the fact that CSIS’ functions have changed enormously since the 9/11 attacks, and also, clearly, since the passage of the original CSIS Act itself, and have changed both in terms of the kinds of threats that CSIS must operate against and in terms of its geopolitical scope.

In my specific remarks on C-44 I intend to focus on what I think are its key provisions regarding CSIS overseas operations, including those targeting Canadians. C-44 would add clarifying language to section 12 of the act, indicating that in the performance of its security intelligence function it can operate both within and outside Canada. It further adds that Federal Court judges may issue warrants to allow CSIS to collect threat-related intelligence on Canadians abroad under its section 12 powers. C-44 also stipulates, in amendments to section 21 of the CSIS Act, that CSIS may apply for warrants to conduct section 16 operations, that is, the authorized collection of foreign intelligence within Canada.

To understand the key elements of Bill C-44 we need to put these in the context of a series of judgments made by the Federal Court with regard to CSIS extraterritorial warrant applications. This history begins in 2005 and follows a winding and complex path down to the present. There is not time in these hearings to adequately summarize this history, but let me note that the current stage was set by a ruling from the Federal Court of Appeal this past summer, which has been followed by an appeal by the Attorney General to the Supreme Court that remains pending.

In his application for leave to appeal, originally dated September 29, 2014, and unsealed in November of this year, the Attorney General summarized what was at stake as follows, “This case is about how the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) may lawfully enlist the aid of foreign security agencies in monitoring the activities of that small number“ of Canadians who leave the country to engage in activities that threaten national security.

Whatever is ultimately decided by the courts with regard to the lawful enlistment by CSIS of foreign security agencies, there are other issues of principle and practice at stake. The most important such issue concerns sovereign control. To enlist the aid of foreign security partners, such as the Five Eyes countries, in intelligence sharing is one thing. To outsource intelligence collection to a foreign partner, no matter how close and trusted an ally, is another. Outsourcing means potential loss of control of an operation, loss of control of Canadian intelligence, and loss of control over outcomes. The Security Intelligence Review Committee commented on this matter by saying:

The risk to CSIS, then, is the ability of a Five Eyes partner to act independently on CSIS-originated information. This, in turn, carries the possible risk of detention or harm of a target based on information that originated with CSIS. SIRC found that while there are clear advantages to leveraging second-party assets

—that is, the Five Eyes countries—

in the execution of this new warrant power

—the so-called CSIS 30-08 warrants—

—and, indeed, this is essential for the process to be effective—there are also clear hazards, including the lack of control over the intelligence once it has been shared.

C-44 cements the evolution of CSIS into a hybrid agency that conducts both domestic security intelligence and foreign intelligence missions. Clarification of the legal standing of CSIS in these regards poses the danger of closing off discussion of the eventual need for a separate foreign intelligence service as a better solution to Canada’s intelligence needs, and a solution much more in keeping with the practices of our close Five Eyes partners.

More important than what C-44 does is the question of what it does not do. What it does not do is provide any sensible underlying definition of the kind of hybrid agency that CSIS has now become, and it does not provide any added controls, accountability measures, cooperative frameworks, or transparency measures around increased overseas operations by CSIS.

I want to conclude with a selection of some of the issues that I see arising from Bill C-44.

Bill C-44 applies legal band-aids to the conduct of section 12 and section 16 operations, only because we persist with a wholly artificial legacy distinction between security intelligence and foreign intelligence. CSIS officials used to make the distinction between security intelligence and foreign intelligence in terms of security intelligence being what Canada needed to have and foreign intelligence being a category of knowledge that it might be nice to have.

In a post-9/11 world, I would suggest that a distinction between foreign and security intelligence is meaningless for Canada, and the fact of its meaninglessness underscores the need for a more root-and-branch redrafting of the CSIS Act itself.

Having decided to appeal to the Supreme Court, the Federal Court of Appeal's ruling with regard to the Mosley judgment on CSIS' use of extraterritorial warrants, the legislative provisions of Bill C-44 may be rendered null or may require further amendments, depending on whether the Supreme Court agrees to hear the appeal and depending on the nature of its findings.

The Federal Court of Appeal's decision was available to the government long before Bill C-44 was tabled. Why the government decided go down two separate forks of the road, with partial amendments to the CSIS Act and with an appeal to the Supreme Court, when these two forks might well bring them to a collision at a future junction, remains a mystery to me.

Bill C-44 does not add any new provisions to the CSIS Act to ensure proper consultation between the service and its minister, the Minister of Public Safety, and the two departments most likely to be impacted by expanded CSIS overseas operations—the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development and the Department of National Defence. Both of these departments engage in their own overseas intelligence and information collection through dedicated branches.

Bill C-44 does not add any statutory requirements on the part of the CSIS director to inform the minister with regard to the undertaking of sensitive overseas intelligence collection. The most recent SIRC annual report found that CSIS needed to keep the minister more fully informed about foreign operations and section 16 investigations. SIRC, in a special study of what it calls a “sensitive CSIS activity” also urged that CSIS reporting to the minister be done in a “formal and systematic manner”.

These are indications that not all is well in terms of the relationship between the service and the minister, and that ministerial accountability for CSIS may be less rigorous than it should be.

Bill C-44 does not restore the functions of the Inspector General's office, originally established in the CSIS Act in 1984, and closed down by the government as part of an omnibus budget implementation bill in 2012. The role of the Inspector General as the “eyes and ears of the Minister” might be considered all the more critical in an age of expanding CSIS overseas operations. As the former long-serving CSIS IG, Eva Plunkett stated that the abolition of the IG function was a “huge loss” for ministerial accountability.

Bill C-44 adds no new clarifying mandate or resources for the Security Intelligence Review Committee, in keeping with the statutory provisions authorising CSIS collection under section 12 abroad.

Last but not least, Bill C-44 is silent on the issue of the need for a dedicated, security-cleared parliamentary committee to ensure the ability of Parliament to properly scrutinize the activities of CSIS and related Canadian intelligence agencies in an age of globalized operations and diverse threats to national security. Such a committee of Parliament was recently proposed by Joyce Murray in her private member's Bill C-622, and has also been proposed in the Senate Bill S-220 advanced by now-retired Senators Hugh Segal and Romeo Dallaire. And Wayne Easter of this committee earlier offered the House a similar version of proposed legislation, Bill C-551. The government continues to deny the need for such a new structure, despite all-party support for just this thing in 2005.

In conclusion, Bill C-44 in my view is a poor quality band-aid. It may also be a very temporary one, depending on a future Supreme Court ruling. It is unimaginative and it fails to address the most significant legacy issues around the CSIS Act, which is now 30 years old and was created for a different threat environment, in a different technological age, and in a different climate of democratic legitimacy.

It persists with an artificial statutory distinction between security and foreign intelligence, offers insufficient clarity about CSIS powers, and offers no new measures of transparency and accountability concomitant with the new and increased role being played by CSIS.

Thank you.

[François Guimont]

Yes, and as was said earlier by the minister and others, essentially Bill C-44 is a result of court decisions, if you wish—in one case, that of Justice Mosley—so we are essentially fixing this very transparently. My colleague in CSIS was operating under a regime that we thought was understood, so we're clarifying that. That's why the word “clarifying” is always there, even in the bill, as I remember.

With respect to the protection of sources, it is also as a result of court proceedings—the Harkat decision, essentially. Again, out of the logic put forward by my colleague Monsieur Coulombe, we feel that being able to offer that protection is important for them to be effective in delivering protection to Canada.

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

Okay.

In clause 9 of Bill C-44, it makes reference to making information, which is otherwise protected by the protection of identified sources, available to SIRC. Again, we don't have anyone from SIRC here, but it seems to me that this provides an element that is more complicated than some of the other stuff that SIRC has dealt with in the past. I'm just wondering about the capacity of SIRC as the oversight body to deal with this new responsibility that I believe does add a responsibility to SIRC. I know the Minister says there's nothing about oversight here. I wonder if CSIS maybe shares that same interpretation that there is a new responsibility for SIRC included here in the bill.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I think you make a very good point, because we're really dealing with several different types of countries.

Mr. Chair, on the earlier question from Randall, I do have a Library of Parliament question we asked him here that basically states that we were talking about the wording “within or outside Canada”. I do have a Library of Parliament document here I can provide to the committee. It's only in English, but you could get it translated. It states that exact or similar wording to that found in clause 8 of Bill C-44 is not found in the relative legislation of Five Eyes nations. It names the relevant pieces. So if the committee wants that, I can table it.

The last question is on the source. On the sources protected, is there any different protection to sources outside Canada versus inside Canada? For those outside Canada, how do you perceive to protect those sources?

[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.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak about something that is very near and dear to my heart, oversight, in particular of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

We have before us Bill C-44. This legislation would amend a statute that is now 30 years old and obviously needs some fine tuning, which this bill would provide. I say at the outset that we would support this legislation and hope to address some of its deficiencies in detail at the appropriate committee at the appropriate time.

The thing that strikes me as wanting in this legislation is its failure to address oversight in a meaningful way. Currently, the chair of that committee is the former co-chair of the Conservative campaign. Another individual on the committee is a prominent, well-respected lawyer but is the former law partner of former prime minister Mulroney. A security person, a well-respected police intelligence person, rounds out the threesome on the committee.

I had the opportunity to be counsel to the Security Intelligence Review Committee when the first chair of that committee was established, the hon. Ron Atkey, a former Conservative minister of immigration. In those days there were five members on the committee, not three, and they were appointed after real consultation with those parties having more than 12 members in the House. That meant there were Liberals, Conservatives, and New Democrats on that committee, so the Canadian public could have genuine confidence that they would do their oversight work taking into account the views of most Canadians.

I had the opportunity to work with the late Rosemary Brown, a prominent member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, doing national security hearings in those days. I had the opportunity to work with Liberals. I had the opportunity to work with Saul Cherniack from Manitoba. Those days appear to be gone.

The framers of the CSIS Act, the bill that is now 30 years old, wanted to get it right. They wanted to make sure Canadians would have confidence, given the incredibly intrusive powers provided to this secret police intelligence-gathering service. It is critical for the excellent work that CSIS does that there be that oversight in which Canadians can have confidence.

The former head of SIRC, Mr. Porter, languishes in a Panamanian jail. We have three people, none of whom appear to have any connection with the opposition in the House whatsoever. That contrasts dramatically with what used to be the case when the hon. Ron Atkey chaired SIRC and insisted that there be that kind of credibility. Why are we debating a bill to modernize CSIS that does not even address these obviously patent inadequacies in that statute?

The other thing missing is that the inspector general no longer exists. That officer, the late Richard Gosse, was highly respected on all sides of the House. He did some of the heavy lifting for Canadians, to make sure they could go in and do root and branch assessments of CSIS operations and provide confidence that, as the inspector general's reports provided, it was working within the four corners of the law.

This legislation deserves support, but it needs to get it right on such an important issue as oversight. The legislation has essentially nothing to say on oversight, and that is a real, tragic shortcoming. I hope the government would be willing to address that deficiency when we get the bill to the appropriate committee of this place for further review.

This bill deals with our fundamental freedoms as Canadians. To think that it would not include that oversight function to make sure our rights and freedoms are protected shows the government's complete disdain for that kind of oversight that would give Canadians the confidence we must have when we give a police department, an intelligence-gathering operation like this, these kinds of powers. I am sad that this bill, which could have got it right and done these things properly, does not go there at all.

The idea of acting abroad, the second of the two things that this legislation would do, is fine.

It is kind of hard to know how our court would be able to issue warrants with effect outside Canada, but that has to be dealt with in terms of national sovereignty. Nevertheless, I understand the intent. It regularizes what, no doubt, is already going on and provides the cloak of rule of law over those operations.

Providing greater protection to the identity of human intelligence sources is another matter that is clearly worthy of our support. Undertaking operations overseas was a matter of great debate 30 years ago when the CSIS Act was before the House. Bill C-44 would clarify the authority of CSIS to conduct security intelligence operations abroad, but only if those operations could be demonstrated to deal with genuine threats to the national security of Canada. That needs to be underlined. In that context, I would like to go into it in some more detail.

Operating abroad to investigate threats to the security of Canada is something that many have asserted has already been undertaken. In other words, this would simply provide legal authority for operations that are already extant in Canada and abroad. Therefore, to provide the cloak of rule of law over those operations is important. We cannot have, in Canada or overseas, intrusive activities that do not come under the cloak of rule of law. Therefore, I commend Bill C-44 for providing that legal cover, so that Canadians can be sure that operations going on not only in our country but also abroad have that legal cover, if I can call it that, to provide rule of law protection, so to speak, for those kinds of activities.

The other thing that needs to be said is that CSIS uses a number of different kinds of investigative techniques that are well known. One of them is a critical one in practical terms, and that is human sources talking to people about activities for which CSIS has genuine concern because they affect the national security of Canada, such as counter-espionage, of course, and counterterrorism being one of the biggest ones now.

Providing protection for the identity of those sources is absolutely critical if people are going to have confidence to come forward to CSIS in order to address issues that could affect the security of us all. Protecting people's identities means protecting their lives and security.

Being able to facilitate the sharing of intelligence with other intelligence agencies is also what many members in this debate have talked about, because CSIS is not an island in itself. CSIS is part of an international operation with other agencies. They share information all the time. They share human source information and other information, all designed to keep us safe in this country. That is what needs to be addressed here.

The protections being sought are important. The devil is always in the detail. That is why the committee will look at this in great detail, but the objective cannot be criticized at all in this legislation.

I will now end where I began. This bill represents an enormous missed opportunity. To not address the woeful inadequacy of the civilian oversight of CSIS is something that the House ought to insist be addressed, and I hope that when the bill gets to committee, there will be that opportunity. To allow this oversight agency to wither to the extent that it has is a national disgrace. To have three part-time people who apparently have, unlike in the past, no connection with opposition politics is, to me, exactly counter to what was sought 30 years ago when we made the brave choice to create our own national security service, CSIS. No inspector general, part-time, and mostly non-NDP and non-Liberal members on an oversight body just does not cut it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act. This legislation would make important changes to modernize the CSIS Act as well as bring into force provisions related to revoking the citizenship of terrorists and those who take up arms against the Canadian Armed Forces.

Our government has a strong record of action in protecting Canada's national security. We have given law enforcement new tools by making it a crime to go overseas to engage in terrorist activity. We have given authorities tools to strip Canadian citizenship from those engaged in terrorist activities. We have increased the funding for our national security agencies, such as the RCMP and CSIS, by one-third. We have introduced new measures to allow our national security agencies to better track threats to Canada. However, it is clear that there is still much more work to be done.

This past Sunday, we all saw a video released of more than a dozen men being beheaded by ISIL terrorists, including the American aid worker Peter Kassig. His parents said that they were heartbroken to learn that their son had lost his life as a result of his love for the Syrian people and his desire to ease their suffering. As Canadians, we all, in this House and across this country, condemn these barbaric actions in the strongest possible terms.

In addition to the horrific reports from Iraq and Syria, recent horrific terrorist attacks right here at home, as we all know, have been and are a stark reminder that ISIL is a threat to Canadians. That is why we are taking part in the coalition that is currently conducting air strikes against ISIL and are supporting the security forces in Iraq in their fight against this terrorist scourge. That is also the reason we are working very determinedly to strengthen the tools available to the police and the intelligence community. The protection of Canada from terrorists acts is just the first step in our efforts to do that.

As chair of the public safety committee, I am certainly pleased to discuss in a bit more detail some of the key measures that would appear before the committee for evaluation. This bill has several key measures that I would like to discuss, then, in more detail.

First is the authority to investigate threats, collect foreign intelligence within Canada, and provide security assessments. Section 12 of the CSIS Act mandates CSIS to collect and analyze intelligence on threats to the security of Canada, and in relation to those threats, to report to and advise the Government of Canada. These threats are defined in the CSIS Act as espionage or sabotage, foreign-influenced activities that are detrimental to the interests of Canada, activities directed toward the threat or use of acts of serious violence, and activities directed toward undermining the system of government in Canada.

Section 16 of the CSIS Act authorizes CSIS to collect within Canada foreign intelligence relating to the capabilities, intentions, or activities of any foreign state or group of foreign states, subject to the restriction that its activities cannot be directed at Canadian citizens, permanent residents, or corporations.

Sections 13, 14, and 15 authorize CSIS to provide security assessments to the Government of Canada, provincial governments, and other Canadian and foreign institutions; to provide advice to ministers of the crown on matters related to the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; and to conduct such investigations as may be required to perform these functions.

I would like to discuss investigative techniques in more detail. Fulfilling these mandates requires that CSIS use a suite of investigative techniques. These techniques can include, among others, open-source research, physical surveillance, interviews, and analyzing intelligence from a variety of sources. Human sources, however, are at the core of CSIS's ability to fulfill its mandate to investigate and advise on threats to the security of Canada. Techniques used by CSIS may include, among others, searches of a target's place of residence, analysis of financial records, or telecommunication intercepts.

Section 21 of the CSIS Act authorizes CSIS to apply for a warrant to conduct activities where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a warrant is required to enable CSIS to investigate a threat to the security of Canada or to perform its duties and functions pursuant to Section 16 of the CSIS Act. The CSIS Act requires that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness approve warrant applications before they are submitted to the Federal Court. Co-operation with other domestic agencies is also critical.

Section 17 of the CSIS Act authorizes CSIS to co-operate with any department of the Government of Canada or the government of a province or any police force in a province. CSIS, as such, works closely with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canada Border Services Agency, other government departments, and police forces across Canada. CSIS's co-operation with these entities must be approved by the Minister of Public Safety.

In investigating threat-related activities occurring outside of Canada, CSIS's relationship with Communications Security Establishment Canada is particularly important. CSIS relies heavily on the capabilities and expertise of CSE to conduct telecommunications intercepts outside of Canada.

CSE's legal authority to provide assistance to CSIS stems from paragraph 273.64(1)(c) of the National Defence Act. CSIS must obtain a warrant from the Federal Court of Canada to seek assistance from CSE to intercept the telecommunications of a Canadian outside of Canada.

As well, we cannot forget the importance of co-operation with foreign intelligence agencies. Fulfilling CSIS's mandate also requires that CSIS undertake investigative activities outside of Canada and co-operate and share intelligence with foreign entities. Targets of CSIS's investigations often depart Canada to engage in a range of threat-related activities. At the same time, in some cases, threats to the security of Canada develop entirely outside of Canada.

CSIS cannot limit itself to undertaking investigative activities only within Canada. Pursuant to section 17 of the CSIS Act, CSIS may, with the approval of the Minister of Public Safety, after consulting with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, enter into an arrangement or otherwise co-operate with the government of a foreign state or an institution thereof.

Unfortunately, in the past, the opposition has been less than supportive of measures to keep Canadians safe from terrorists. The NDP voted against making it a criminal offence to travel abroad to engage in terrorism. The Liberal leader has said that it was an affront to Canadian values to strip passports from those who may engage in terrorist acts.

I am pleased to see that all parties in the House have expressed support for further studying this important bill at committee. I hope that this support continues, and I encourage all members to support these most important measures.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for that question. It is a very good one.

Certainly if these people were not to receive the protection that is offered in this bill, their lives would be jeopardized. I think that is an untenable position to put Canadian people in when they are trying to do their very best in regard to the security of our country and all of its citizens.

The situation would be such that CSIS would not be able to track people in offshore areas either. It is an absolute necessity for our CSIS agents to be able to follow people who are becoming radicalized and hunting our own comrades down. They fight against democracy and freedom and against people having the life that we enjoy in our country and in many of the countries that we believe strongly in helping. Bill C-44 would certainly be a benefit to all of those countries and to ourselves in providing security to our intelligence agencies. As the member for Scarborough Centre has indicated, many informants would certainly be put at risk without the bill.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today I as well rise to speak in support of Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act. The bill aims to make amendments to the way CSIS, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, does business.

CSIS was created in 1984 in response to the McDonald commission's identifying a need for an intelligence service independent from the RCMP. Thirty years later, the nature of the work CSIS does has changed dramatically, and Bill C-44 is about having our laws reflect these changes.

As evidenced by recent events, be it the acts of terrorism on Canadian soil, the barbarism of ISIL in Iraq and Syria, or the actions of jihadist groups such as Boko Haram in Africa, it is clear that the threats we face have evolved.

The protection of Canada from terrorists act would help our intelligence service better identify and respond to the threats we face today. This would ultimately protect both Canadians and Canadian values.

Presently CSIS operates in a much more limited scope than many Canadians realize. I believe many Canadians would be appalled to discover that CSIS agents cannot protect their identities when they travel outside of Canada.

It is equally unthinkable that their human sources, the individuals upon which national security cases may be depend, are not protected to the same level as informants in cases such as organized crime.

I also believe Canadians would be shocked to learn that CSIS has not been mandated to work outside of Canada.

The protection of Canada from terrorists act aims to fix all this. It would essentially work by providing our intelligence services the tools most Canadians believe they already have and always should have had.

CSIS does a remarkable job in protecting Canadians. I thank the women and men of the service for the work they do every day in keeping Canadians safe. They truly are unsung heroes when it comes to protecting this country.

It is time to give them a hand. CSIS agents should not have to risk their safety and security when working abroad. Bill C-44 aims to correct all this. It represents the modernization of CSIS, the first major changes to the operation of the organization since its establishment.

In 1984, when CSIS was created, the Cold War was still raging. Russia was in Afghanistan, and Communism was the greatest threat to world peace. Much has changed since this time and, yet the legislative structure of CSIS has remained the same.

While the Leader of the Opposition may be debating what constitutes terrorism—and indeed, will not even utter the words—on this side of the House, it is clear. The past month has plainly demonstrated the terrorist threat to Canadians, and when terrorists threaten the Canadian way of life, we must take reasonable and responsible measures to strike back.

As my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, has said, we must not under-react or overreact; however, the reality is that freedom is not free. Our military's actions in Iraq have struck multiple terrorist targets, including equipment being used to divert a river in order to force civilians onto roads that are more easily attacked.

The threat is more diffuse than it once was. The ranks of ISIL and other terrorist organizations are filled with foreign fighters, brainwashed and converted westerners who travel to these regions to engage in war crimes and acts of barbarism. These individuals are often converted at home before travelling abroad.

The bill would help ensure that our intelligence service can gather intelligence on these individuals while they are abroad, so as to ensure they face the full weight of our justice system if they return.

The radicalization of individuals often occurs in their homes. As such, it is often members of the family who first see the signs that could alert authorities to potential threats. Whether they are family, friends, or co-workers, it is important to remove all the obstacles from the path of those willing to testify against those who would commit acts of terrorism against all Canadians.

That is why the provision in the bill that would provide for the protection of human sources is so important. Those taking this step should be commended and be provided the best protection we can offer, in hopes that they and others would be encouraged to testify and put dangerous individuals behind bars.

Witnesses should not face the uncertainty of their identity potentially being exposed to the media and those who would do them harm. By providing all witnesses protection in these sensitive cases, we can ensure that others will be willing to come forward, in turn ensuring that dangerous individuals are put behind bars.

While there are those who have expressed concern regarding the anonymity of sources, I note that there is a provision in the bill that would protect the right to a fair trial. I would draw members' attention to proposed subsection 18.1(4) in the bill.

This subsection would provide for an amicus curiae, which literally means “friend of the court”, who is charged to act as a special advocate to determine the validity of maintaining the source's anonymity when there is belief that it is essential to establishing the innocence of the accused. In this way, a neutral third party is used to ensure that the Canadian value of a right to a fair trial is properly balanced with the safety and security of those who would testify to make Canada a safer place.

While I am not a lawyer, I believe this provision would successfully navigate tricky constitutional waters to deliver Canadians a remarkably well-balanced and effective bill. Bill C-44 would protect Canadians from terrorists and make Canada a safer place.

The tools that Bill C-44 would provide our intelligence service are long overdue and a necessary part of modern intelligence gathering. Let us bring our spy agency up to date and in doing so protect all Canadians.

I therefore urge members of all parties to send this bill to committee, where they can study it and come to the same realization that I have: Canadians deserve the protection of Canada from terrorists act.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to rise for the debate on this very important issue.

I would like to start with a pretty simple statement, one which I think may be a radical notion to some of my colleagues. Evil is real, and evil exists in the world around us today. Canadians listening to this debate at home may say that this is an obvious statement, but listening to some of the members opposite and beside me, this is one that bears repeating.

We see evil in many facets of our life. It endangers our communities, our homes and our families. The most recent manifestation of this evil has shown itself in the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, known as ISIL. It has engaged in untold and unbelievable atrocities, shocking the senses of ordinary Canadians and decent human beings around the globe.

This past weekend a video was released showing more than a dozen men being beheaded by ISIL terrorists, including the American aid worker and former U.S. army ranger, Peter Kassig. Kassig's parents wrote on Twitter that they were heartbroken to learn their son had lost his life as a result of his love for Syrian people and his desire to ease their suffering. However, I was heartened to see our Conservative government condemn the barbaric actions of these terrorists in the strongest possible terms.

In addition to these horrific scenes from Iraq and Syria, recent frightening terrorist attacks right here at home are a stark reminder that ISIL is a threat to every Canadian. Perhaps we were naive to think the atrocities happening in far off places, in areas of the world that we may never visit, could happen right here at home and could impact us.

Unfortunately they have happened here, and we must use all available means at our disposal to ensure this does not happen again. If we do not, we are simply failing in our duty.

We must take action. This is why we are taking part in the coalition currently conducting air strikes against ISIL and supporting the security forces in Iraq in their fight against this terrorist threat. It is also the reason we are working diligently to strengthen the tools available to the police and intelligence community in Canada. The protection of Canada from terrorists act is just the first step in our efforts to ensure police and intelligence services have the tools at their disposal to keep our communities and our families safe.

Let us take a moment to look back at what our government has already done in the area of protecting Canada and our national security from those who wish to harm us.

First, we have given law enforcement new tools by making it a crime to go overseas to participate in terrorist activity. We have also given authorities tools to strip Canadian citizenship from those engaged in terrorist activity. We have increased funding to our national security agencies, including the RCMP and CSIS, by one-third. Finally, we have introduced new measures to allow our national security agencies to better track threats against Canada.

This is a good foundation, and we should be proud of the work done by those entrusted to protect all of us. However, recent events, including those which took place just mere steps from where we are today, show more needs to be done to ensure our national security.

As I have stated, Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act, is one tool which will allow us to achieve that goal. This legislation addresses four problems which have stymied CSIS over the years.

First, the bill would confirm CSIS would have the authority to conduct investigations outside of Canada. This is something that is common sense, but it really does need legal clarity.

Second, it would confirm that the Federal Court could issue warrants for CSIS to investigate, within or outside Canada's boundaries, any threat to the security of Canadians.

Third, this would give the Federal Court the authority to only consider relevant Canadian laws when issuing warrants authorizing intrusive activities conducted by CSIS abroad.

Last, it would create an automatic protection for the identity of CSIS human sources subject to the protection of the right to a fair trial.

I would like to take time to emphasize that last point.

Like all Canadians, our Conservative government values freedom, liberty and the rule of law. While some have accused this government of trying to use the horrific events of late October as a pretext to clamp down on civil liberates, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact the legislation before us today contains a clause that specifically enshrines the fundamental right to a fair trial.

Let me be abundantly clear. We will not overreact in response to the recent terrorist attacks. However, it is also time that we stop under reacting to the threats against us here in Canada. Bill C-44 would give our national security agencies some of the tools they would need to protect Canadians from terrorists, while at the same time respecting the rights of all of us.

We will never turn our back on the fundamental Canadian values to respect individual rights and the rule of law.

I am pleased to see my colleagues in the other parties will be supporting this legislation being studied by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. This represents a major and positive step forward, and I applaud them for making an informed decision. I say that because previously the NDP voted against legislation making it illegal for individuals to travel abroad to engage in terrorist activities.

This is really quite relevant when we consider the media's reporting that some of those gruesome acts committed by ISIL over the last weekend, which I referenced earlier, were committed by a British medical student. All of us here have also seen radicalized Canadians who have gone overseas to participate in terrorist attacks and terrorist activities in Syria and Iraq.

Even further afield than that, the Liberal leader has said that he believes revoking a passport from a terrorist is an affront to Canadian values. I could not disagree more. What is more, the leaders of both major opposition parties refused to call the individual who killed Corporal Nathan Cirillo a terrorist, even though it was clear he had religious and ideological motives and despite the fact the Commissioner of the RCMP confirmed what all of us already knew, this was a terrorist act. Opposition members seemed to ignore the clear evidence that was in front of them.

That is why I began my speech today to remind all of us that evil does exist in this world today. This is not merely a piece of political rhetoric. Nor is it something drawn up in the backrooms by Conservatives. It represents issues facing all of us as legislators. If we are being responsible, if we are respecting the office we hold and if we are standing up for those who sent us here, we will take this issue seriously.

I am truly glad to see that both of the opposition parties have rejected their previous position and now support providing our police and intelligence officials with the tools they need to keep all of us safe, tools they must have to protect our communities, our homes and, speaking as a father and husband, to protect our families. I hope the support for our Conservative government's common sense and balanced approach to national security continues in the future.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today to discuss the important measures contained in Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act. Our government has a duty to keep Canadians safe, and the bill contains prudent and responsible measures that give our law enforcement and security agencies the support and tools they need to protect our national security.

Before I begin the substance of my speech today, I would like to reflect on a quote from a constitutional lawyer and author. Phyllis Schlafly once said:

In a world of inhumanity, war and terrorism...citizenship is a very precious possession.

That is a very important part of what we are here to talk about today. Several key measures designed to keep Canadians safe are in this legislation. I will touch on each of them.

However, first I would like to talk about the measures to give effect to legislation recently passed in Parliament. I am talking about the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act. The key part of this legislation was about stripping citizenship from Canadian citizens who are engaging in terrorist activity. The bill before us today would expedite this measure coming into force. That is a very good thing. We have seen, sadly, numerous instances in the past several weeks in which Canada has been afflicted by terrorism. These acts have highlighted some of the challenges of keeping our citizens safe in a changing world.

We just saw, this past weekend, some extremely gruesome footage of Islamic State terrorists beheading 18 men, including an American humanitarian aid worker and former U.S. Ranger, Peter Kassig. In cold blood, these terrorists cut off the heads of nearly two dozen fellow men simply because they disagree. This is the definition of barbarism and pure evil. Should any of those terrorists be Canadian citizens, I believe we would all agree they should not have the precious possession of Canadian citizenship.

I know that some of my colleagues opposite, specifically those from the Liberal Party, have previously disagreed with this notion. I hope that recent events will give them cause to realign their thinking.

My constituents do not agree with the leader of the Liberal Party when he says that taking the passport away from someone who is planning on travelling for a terrorist purpose is “an affront to Canadian values”.

The legislation before us today would do more than simply create a technical fix to bring legislation into force. It would also create, for the first time, protection for intelligence sources that is similar to that for law enforcement sources. Individuals on the ground in war-torn countries who work with CSIS are often putting themselves and their families at great personal risk. They do it simply because they know it is the right thing to do. We will not force their identities to be disclosed unless it impedes the right to a fair trial.

I make that point very deliberately. The bill before us today has a specific exemption to protect the rule of law, because we believe in the fundamental protection of individual freedoms, rights, and the rule of law. To do otherwise in the face of a threat would be allowing the terrorists to win. However, we must also strike the appropriate balance. We must not overreact, but we must not underreact to the threat of terrorism. These threats are real and must be taken very seriously in order to keep Canadians safe.

There are many common-sense solutions that can be brought to bear to combat terrorism, including those we are debating today. They include measures in the area of surveillance, detention, and arrest.

I am pleased to hear that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and others are working on bringing these tools forward.

However, those tools are a matter for another day. I would like to discuss the next piece of the bill, which confirms that CSIS would have the authority to conduct investigations outside of Canada and which confirms that the Federal Court would only have to consider relevant Canadian law when authorizing these activities.

There are two points that underscore the importance of this measure. First, all intrusive activities conducted by CSIS are judicially authorized. There is no freelancing or haphazard violation of privacy. Second, it is important that only Canadian laws be considered in authorizing these warrants. Currently, and bizarrely, the courts consider whether the decrees of a foreign dictator would be broken when CSIS was engaging in an investigation to protect Canadian security. I would argue that the Canadian Constitution is the only relevant document.

The last element of the bill that I would like to touch on today is the protection of the identity of CSIS employees who are likely to become engaged in covert activities. Currently, it is an offence to disclose the identity of an employee who is engaged in these activities, but there is no protection for individuals who are training to become covert operators or those who are in between covert activities. These individuals are just as at risk as individuals actively engaged in surveillance work. They must also be protected, and the bill would fix that situation.

As we debate these measures today, it is important to place them in some context and make note of our Conservative government's strong record of enhancing public safety and national security. We have given law enforcement new tools by making it a crime to go overseas to engage in terrorist activity. We have given authorities tools to strip Canadian citizenship from those engaged in terrorist activities. We have increased the funding for our national security agencies, such as the RCMP and CSIS, by a third. We introduced new measures to allow our national security agencies to better track threats in Canada.

These are all important measures, but there still remains more work to be done. That is why I urge all of my colleagues in this place to join me in supporting this vital legislation, which represents another prudent and responsible step forward to protect our national security.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. It is a good one.

It is a fundamental condition of good democracy that we provide the judiciary with discretion, and that is built into Bill C-44. The courts would have the discretion to make an exception. At the order of a judge, the identity of a human source could be disclosed if that information were critical to proving the innocence of the accused at the criminal trial, or where the judge determines that the individual were not a human source or that information would not reveal the source's identity.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question, but unfortunately the comments she made are not accurate.

In fact, our government has increased funding to CSIS and the RCMP by over one-third. Our government has provided $700 million more than the last years of the Liberals. That is a lot of money. It is a priority for this government to make sure Canada is safe.

The bill before us, Bill C-44, provides that balance that the NDP has spoken about. I hope those members will be part of that balance to make sure that Canada is secure, and civil liberties and Canadians are protected.

To be misleading by discussing funding cuts when in fact funding has increased is very unfortunate, and I hope the member will get on board.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to rise to speak to Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorism act.

It is important to begin this debate by acknowledging that all activities of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service are conducted in accordance with Canadian law. CSIS activities are also subject to full and complete review by the Security and Intelligence Review Committee, CSIS' dedicated review body. This seems to be something that my colleagues opposite are quite concerned about. They seem to think that we are in the movies where spies wantonly disregard our laws in order to put a stop to whatever threat may exist. While our security agencies do phenomenal work every day to keep us safe, it is not the content of a James Bond movie. Employees of CSIS follow the law, and that has constantly been found to be the case by the oversight bodies.

Let me put it quite simply for my friends across the way. This legislation would not change any of the robust review mechanisms that are currently in place. CSIS will continue to be subject to review and require judicial authorization for certain intrusive activities. CSIS will also continue to be accountable to its minister and to this Parliament. I say accountable to Parliament very deliberately. The director of CSIS, the commissioner of the RCMP, and the Minister of Public Safety recently appeared before a parliamentary committee for a frank and open discussion about the terrorist threat to Canada.

While some may call for these roles to be formalized and more bureaucracy to be created, we will continue to live by the old adage “if it ain't broke, don't fix it”.

This legislation would clarify elements of CSIS' mandate and address serious operational gaps, particularly for CSIS' international activities, by confirming its authority to operate abroad; clarify that the court can issue warrants for CSIS' international activities in consideration of relevant Canadian law; prohibit the disclosure of the identity of CSIS human sources, with narrow exceptions; and finally, protect the identity of the CSIS employees who are likely to be engaged in covert activities. These amendments to the CSIS Act are vital to address threats to the security of Canada.

For the sake of debate, I will focus my remarks on the aspect of this legislation that prohibits the disclosure of CSIS human sources. However, before doing that I would like to provide some historical and organizational context for this debate.

Like our allies, intelligence is collected in Canada through a range of sources, including open source research, signals intelligence, foreign reporting, authorized intercepts, and, important for us here today, human sources.

Human intelligence includes, but is not limited to, information provided to CSIS by individuals acting covertly and in confidence as human sources. All forms of intelligence collected are vital to Canada's national security interests. CSIS has its own distinct mandate and corresponding review and authorization regimes that reflect the nature of its investigative activities.

CSIS' mandate is clearly defined in law. The CSIS Act authorizes it to collect and analyze intelligence to the extent that is strictly necessary and to provide advice on threats to the security of Canada. CSIS must be able to conduct investigations within and outside of Canada in order to fulfill that mandate.

CSIS' role in Canada's national security community is to investigate threat-related activity and to advise the Government of Canada's partners so that decisions may be taken on the basis of all information available. This role is specifically provided for by Parliament. In this manner, CSIS intelligence, which by its very nature must remain secret, may inform decisions related to entry into Canada, immigration status, government security clearances, aviation security, and criminal investigations, just to name a few.

CSIS' human-source-based intelligence collection is a fundamental component of its investigations. One could question whether CSIS would even continue to be an intelligence agency without information from its human sources. CSIS human sources regularly provide CSIS with valuable information on threats to national security and, like any modern intelligence agency, the identities of these CSIS human sources are closely guarded secrets to protect their ongoing access to relevant information and, most importantly, to protect their personal safety.

When these sources share information with CSIS, they often do so at great risk to both themselves and their families, and do so out of a desire to keep Canada safe. These individuals should be lauded for their sense of duty to Canada and our way of life. I challenge members in the House to imagine what would befall these persons divulging information on the activities of such nefarious individuals should they be found out. Undoubtedly, such individuals would be viewed as traitors for sharing information with CSIS. Needless to say, the physical safety of CSIS sources is at risk should their status as informants become known. To ensure the safety and security of these CSIS human sources, it is essential that their identities remain confidential and that the government be able to provide a degree of certainty to secure their co-operation.

In that regard, the Supreme Court recently ruled that CSIS human sources do not benefit from a class privilege as police informants do. This means there is currently no guarantee that a human source's identity will be protected from disclosure in legal proceedings; therefore, there is the need for change. At the same time, the court acknowledged that the practice of putting CSIS sources before the courts, even in closed proceedings, could have a chilling effect on the willingness of citizens to come forward. Failing to protect the identity of CSIS human sources could undermine existing human-source operations, weakening the very foundation of CSIS' investigative tradecraft. That is why I support adding human-source protection amendments to the CSIS Act, and I hope others do too.

Without clarity on such measures, CSIS risks seeing its sources compromised, together with the investigations connected to them. We should be clear, however, that the proposed amendments were drafted to comply with the principles of fundamental justice and as such provide for narrow exceptions to this prohibition. At the order of a judge, the identity of a human source could be disclosed if that information were critical to prove the innocence of the accused at the criminal trial or, were the judge to determine that the individual was not a human source or that the information could not be revealed through a source's identity. That creates the balance that we are concerned about. While such provisions would likely be used infrequently, they balance the need for human-source-identity protection and the right of the accused to a fair trial.

Modern intelligence collection draws on a variety of sources, including open-source research, interviews, information from domestic and international partners, and warranted intercepts. However, the voluntary and confidential reporting of human sources remains the cornerstone of CSIS investigations. The complex terrorist threat that Canada faces, including events abroad and those here at home, demands careful consideration of all tools at our government's disposal to protect the safety and security of Canadians and our way of life. Protecting the identities of individuals who put their lives in jeopardy to assist our Security Intelligence Agency in this effort is a very important element in this response. That is why I call on all hon. members to support the important legislation of Bill C-44 before us today.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am mentioning this because this is a critical piece of legislation that deals with Canadian civil liberties and also deals with Canadians' safety.

I am asking Parliament to consider fact-based, evidence-based arguments to ensure that we go through this legislation, Bill C-44, with a fine-toothed comb, to ensure that we as parliamentarians take our responsibilities seriously, to ensure that the legislation we pass is protecting not only Canadians but also civil liberties. It is fair to lay out the record of what the government has done in the past and, absolutely, what I am talking about is related to this bill.

Let us talk about what has been lacking when we think about giving broad powers to intelligence and security agencies, but equally Canadians expect us to look at the other side, the oversight of these agencies, how much power they have, and whether we have a civilian and parliamentary oversight of these agencies.

Let us take a look at CSIS. The oversight for CSIS is being provided by SIRC, which is a part-time committee not made up of parliamentarians, but the current chair is a former member of the Reform Party, which was the Conservative Party. It has an additional two members. Two of the seats are vacant. Those are the facts of what the committee is made up of today.

Not only that, but the inspector general, which was an internal position that used to look at the activities of CSIS, was eliminated by the Conservative government. Therefore, when we give more powers to these agencies, Canadians expect us to ensure that there is proper oversight. The oversight of CSIS is already lacking. The NDP has been calling for more civilian oversight of these agencies, yet the Conservatives have stonewalled on this issue many times. This is one of things that Canadians expect us to debate in the House to ensure not only their safety but equally the civil liberties component.

In the Maher Arar inquiry there were a number of recommendations brought forward by the committee for the government to implement an oversight of these civilian organizations. Yet, we have seen over a period of time that basically the Conservatives have failed to deliver on those recommendations that Canadians expect us to implement to make sure that not only do we have these agencies protecting us but there is also some sort of oversight to ensure that they are within the law and ensuring Canadians' safety in a manner that is expected of them.

There are many concerns with the bill, one of which I have just talked about. The Conservatives could have brought in better oversight, especially when bringing in additional powers. It is equally important that we have oversight to make sure the work is being done properly.

The other aspect of the intelligence and security apparatus is that we have seen unspent money in the last three years. Not only that, but we have seen budgets being cut for these intelligence agencies that are supposed to be protecting Canadians. We have seen budget cuts under the current government. Conservatives pretend they are concerned about the safety of Canadians, yet when it comes to actually delivering resources for these agencies, they have failed to do that.

I am talking about millions of dollars to ensure that security agencies have the proper tools to protect Canadians, which have been cut.

I will quote some of the validators for the particular position that New Democrats are taking with regard to oversight. The privacy and information commissioners of Canada, while attending their annual meeting, noted the events in Quebec and Ottawa, and stated:

We acknowledge that security is essential to maintaining our democratic rights. At the same time, the response to such events must be measured and proportionate, and crafted so as to preserve our democratic values.

To sum up, Conservatives want to give additional powers to CSIS and other security intelligence agencies, and Canadians expect us to equally protect their civil liberties. Previously the Liberals and now the Conservatives have failed to deliver on that.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to represent the citizens of Surrey North and to speak on their behalf on this particular bill, Bill C-44, which makes some amendments to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.

Basically, this bill would broaden the powers of our intelligence agencies, CSIS and others, so that they have additional powers to carry out their work.

Defending public safety and civil liberties are key responsibilities of any government. I hope the Conservative government will take these responsibilities seriously when it comes to Canadians' safety and, equally, will carefully examine the civil liberties we have as Canadians.

Moving forward, we must do the hard work of ensuring Canadians' safety while guarding our values of freedom, tolerance, and inclusive democracy. As parliamentarians, as elected officials from our communities, we also have an equal responsibility to carefully review laws, security procedures, and legislation to make sure that we get them right the first time.

However, we have seen the government rush things through a number of times. This particular bill is under time allocation, and I will talk about that in a second.

The government tries to rush these things through, but as representatives of Canadian citizens, we have a responsibility to ensure that we go through any legislation that passes through this House with a fine-toothed comb. We are going to make sure the work is done responsibly and that there is careful study and evidence-based decision-making.

My friends across the aisle do not like to make evidence-based policy. We have seen that over and over. It is not only that a number of court cases and legislation have been thrown out by the Supreme Court, but sometimes the government picks numbers out of the air. We have seen the census eliminated by the government because it does not believe in actual numbers that will show Canadians what is happening.

The Minister of Employment and Social Development and his department have used numbers from Kijiji. For those who may not be familiar with Kijiji, it is—

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is pleasure to rise today to speak to this important legislation. Bill C-44 is a bill I am proud to support, because it introduces much-needed amendments that will help keep Canadians safe and secure from terrorists. Before highlighting the proposed changes, I would like to have a few moments to situate the bill in a larger context.

Earlier this year, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness released the “2014 Public Report on the Terrorist Threat to Canada”. The report updates Canadians on the terrorist threat in, unfortunately, a sobering way.

In 2013, Canada listed six groups as terrorist entities. There have been four more added so far in 2014, which means that there are currently 53 groups on Canada's terrorist entity list. If I may, I would like to give members one example of a group that was listed in December 2013 and explain why it is a dangerous group.

The Nigerian-based Boko Haram is a group that believes that western education is sinful. Six months ago, it kidnapped some 200 girls from a remote school. Earlier this month, in what can only be described as a toxic and hate-filled video, the leader of Boko Haram put the release of these girls in serious doubt. Horrifically, the leadership of this despicable terrorist organization has talked openly about how these kidnapped girls have been sold off as chattel and given away as sexual objects.

Whether terrorist acts are carried out by entities or individuals, the number of incidents is staggering. In 2013, more than 9,700 terrorist incidents were reported in 93 countries. Some 33,000 people were injured, and nearly 3,000 were abducted or held hostage.

Canadians are at risk. When al Shabaab attacked the Westgate mall in Nairobi last year, they killed 68 people. Among the dead were a Canadian businessman and an employee of the Government of Canada. Through no fault of their own, those two Canadians were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Unfortunately, in our globalized world, where Canadians travel frequently for pleasure and business, it is easier than ever for this to occur.

More disturbing still, the impact of terror on Canadians is not always a matter of coincidence. As the report makes clear, Canadians are not only the victims of terrorism. Unfortunately, in some cases, there are those in Canada who are also the perpetrators.

Members may recall that in the spring of 2013, two men living in Toronto and Montreal were charged with plotting to attack a VIA Rail passenger train. Through the diligence of our security agencies, the attack was thwarted before any damage was done. However, the incident could easily have been a tragedy. A few months later, in Victoria, two other individuals were arrested in connection with a separate plot to bomb the provincial legislature on Canada Day. Thanks to collaboration between intelligence and law enforcement officers, the attack was foiled. Again, this incident could easily have turned out much worse.

I hope these two incidents were a wake-up call to the sceptics. They reaffirmed that the threat of terrorism is not limited to far-flung lands across the ocean. No, these despicable acts could also take place right here on our own soil.

I spoke a moment ago about globalization and how the terrorist threat to Canada continues to evolve, but as the report makes clear, there is also a group of Canadians who travel for the sole purpose of engaging in terrorist activities. They are known by various names: extremist travellers, foreign fighters, or terror tourists. It is a complex phenomenon, but there is one thing that is clear: these extremists pose a threat to innocent people, both here at home and abroad.

Let us look more closely at this emerging trend, because it is closely related to the proposed amendments contained in Bill C-44.

The government knows of approximately 145 individuals with Canadian connections who were abroad and who were suspected of supporting terrorism-related activities of various groups. These activities range from serving in combat to learning how to support terrorism through fundraising, propaganda, and training. Some of these recruits may return home with new skills to spread hatred and, unfortunately, with the resolve to plan and carry out terrorist attacks here in Canada.

What sends a person down the dark road to terrorism? What happens to make someone adopt such extremist views? How can we manage the risks of radicalization more effectively?

These are difficult questions, and they have no simple answers. Nevertheless, our government is taking action to answer these and other difficult questions. In this way, we continue to build resilience to the threat of terrorism in our country, and I will give members several examples.

At the community level, we work through the Cross-Cultural Roundtable on Security to better understand how to combat the appeal of extremist ideologies.

On the policy level, the government released its counterterrorism strategy in 2012. This is a comprehensive road map to help us better prevent, detect, deny, and respond to terrorist threats. On the legislative side, Parliament enacted legislation in 2013 that created four new offences to deter so-called extremist travellers. These are all necessary and positive steps, but we must do more.

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

There are two components of the proposed legislation.

First, the bill before us would amend the CSIS Act to address court decisions that are having an impact on CSIS's mandate and operations. In light of these decisions, our government is acting to ensure that CSIS has the tools it needs to investigate threats to the security of Canada. It is doing this by confirming the authorities granted to CSIS outside of Canada and creating stronger protection for the identities of CSIS's human sources. The amendments proposed in Bill C-44 would ensure that CSIS is able to fully investigate threats in a manner that is consistent with the rule of law and with Canadian law and Canadian values.

The second element of the bill would amend the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, which received royal assent this past summer. Specifically, it would expand grounds for revocation of Canadian citizenship and streamline the process for making these difficult decisions. These provisions are aimed at dual citizens who have served as members of an armed force or an organized armed group engaged in armed conflict with Canada. They also target dual citizens who have been convicted of terrorism, high treason, treason, or spying offences, depending, of course, on the sentence imposed.

The events of recent weeks have certainly brought into sharp focus the fact that Canada is not immune to acts of violence. In fact, we have learned it is far from that. Canadians have been victims of terrorism, and a small but unfortunately notable number are also suspected of supporting terrorism-related activities. We must ensure that our security and intelligence agencies can take reasonable measures at home and abroad to protect the safety and security of Canadians.

The bill before the House today would move us closer toward these goals, and I urge all hon. members to join me in supporting it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that this is my second time rising. In regard to my question to the government a few minutes ago about Justice O'Connor and the recommendations from the Maher Arar inquiry and the recommendations by Justice Iacobucci relative to the Abdullah Almalki case, I would like to ask my friend if, when he reviewed Bill C-44, he saw in the information we have before us any indication that the government followed any of those recommendations. I do not see it.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place on behalf of the good people of Davenport in the great city of Toronto.

The people in my community are watching this debate very carefully. I think it is fair to say that Canadians from coast to coast to coast are watching this debate carefully because we are in an era where we have a government that believes we can treat our civil liberties as a secondary thought to security. The position of New Democrats has always been that we must treat both in equal measure and be as vigilant in protecting civil liberties as we are in protecting security. It is not a question of balance; it is a question of what our values are as Canadians and who we believe we are. These values, which are the foundation of a liberal democracy, are what we are trying to protect and secure. We cannot trade them away in that pursuit.

The NDP's questions around some of the issues in this bill are around oversight, and the questions on oversight exist because we believe there is not a trade-off. This is not an either/or situation. It is not that we have to find a balance, that in order get security right, we may have to clamp down a bit on civil liberties. We do not believe that is the case, and Canadians share those concerns.

I want to focus on a couple of elements of the bill, which are concerns for the community I represent. This flows from other decisions that the government has made around the creation, in a way, of two-tiered citizenship in Canada, where people in Canada could be stripped of their citizenship. The government often says that the NDP is soft on these issues, but in fact, when people break laws in this country, they should go to jail. If they are citizens of Canada, they should go to jail.

I am proud to represent a riding in the west end of Toronto that has huge communities of immigrants. More than half of those who live in Toronto were born elsewhere. They take their belonging to Canada very seriously and are very proud of it. The notion is of grave concern that down the road their status in Canada, through no fault of their own, could be somehow diminished or lessened by legislation and the direction of the government. I hear it in my office; I hear it out on the street; I talk to people all the time who are really very concerned about the government. I am talking about immigrants in Toronto who are very concerned about the government's fixation on picking off certain communities and creating a climate of concern and fear. Quite frankly, it is our role as parliamentarians to elevate the debate, bring out the best in who we are, and bring people together.

The changes to the Canadian Citizenship Act in Bill C-44 would not really provide any major changes, other than accelerating the timelines for citizenship revocation for dual citizens involved in terrorist activities, the process for citizenship revocation that we debated in the House and I am proud that my party opposed. They remain unchanged; it is just the speed with which this can be achieved.

Our citizenship is a precious thing. We have laws in our country to deal with those in our society who break them. Our position has always been that our tinkering with citizenship is a slippery slope, and it is not what we should be doing, especially given the history of our country, the history of immigration in this country, and the successful history of our immigrant communities in Canada. We have a phenomenal story to tell. Our immigrant communities have a phenomenal story to tell.

In light of recent events, the Muslim community in particular in my riding is concerned about being targeted. It is a disturbing reflex of the Conservative government to try to place responsibility for individuals on a whole community. The concern in the Muslim community I represent is real. These are hard-working, honest, proud Canadians, and they abhor violence, just like anyone else in Canadian society. What we are talking about today connects to that concern. It is spoken about in a number of supporting documents, which I would like to underline.

I want to particularly point out comments made by former Justices O'Connor, Major, and Iacobucci at the October 29, 2014 conference called “Arar +10: National Security and Human Rights a Decade Later”:

Retired Supreme Court justice Frank Iacobucci, who investigated the overseas detentions and torture of three Muslim Canadians...warned that history has much to teach legislators....

Iacobucci cautioned about “the spillover effects” that any rush to expand police powers could have on freedom of religion, association and expression; the possible “tainting” of Canada's Muslim community, and the risk of “overreaching” by security intelligence agencies when sharing information in a global fight against terrorism.

It is important for us to bring the issue of what Justice Iacobucci refers to as tainting Canada's Muslim community close to home.

A couple of days after the shooting that took place here, I visited the mosque in my riding. As members may remember, Torontonians were in the middle of a municipal election in Toronto, and Muslim candidates in that election had signs vandalized that day. Muslim candidates were facing threats at public meetings.

It is incumbent upon us as legislators here in the Parliament of Canada to ensure that all Canadians, all people living in Canada, feel safe and feel that their civil liberties are protected and are as important as every other consideration in security.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course that report was considered. All of the intelligence we have gained over the years and the developments in terrorist activities we have seen in Canada and around the world have led to the formation of this bill.

One of the important conclusions that came from that report and others is the need for clarity, in terms of the role of CSIS and the role of the Federal Court in providing oversight. It is that lack of clarity that can lead to problems; hence the need for Bill C-44. It would give CSIS and other intelligence services a clearer mandate in exactly what their roles and responsibilities are, clearer protection for witnesses and informants, and also a clearer definition of the role of the Federal Court, as well as the oversight bodies, to make sure that these kinds of injustices do not occur in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, for my friend across the way, when the government was considering Bill C-44, did it take into consideration the recommendations of Justice O'Connor from the Maher Arar commission and Justice Iacobucci from the investigation into the torture of Abdullah Almalki?

Both of those reports were very significant and very important to Canadians, especially in the area of oversight of Canadian civil rights.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act. Countering terrorism is a key priority of our Conservative government. Events in the Middle East, including the ongoing conflict in Syria and Iraq, as well as the recent tragic events on Canadian soil, have raised the spectre of violent extremism.

These events have only strengthened our resolve as we have heard our law enforcement and intelligence officials speak about the threat posed by extremist travellers and indeed as we have witnessed some very disturbing attacks on our soldiers and on the House.

Our government will do anything we can to prevent Canadians from becoming either victims or perpetrators of terrorism-related activities. Make no mistake, the horrific events that happened in Canada on October 20 and 22 were most certainly terrorism. While the leader of the NDP is entitled to his own opinions, he is not entitled to his own facts.

The Criminal Code clearly states that a terrorist act is one of violence, seeking to create fear for political, religious or ideological ends. The RCMP confirms that both of these events had those elements, and our allies agree. Just yesterday, the President of France confirmed his country's position, as recently did the U.S. Secretary of State that these were terrorist acts.

We continue to be guided by the four-pronged approach laid out in our counterterrorism strategy, namely measures to prevent, detect, deny and respond to the threat of terrorism. I will take my time today to speak about some of the important work being done in support of our strategy, namely in the area of prevention and detection.

In terms of the prevent element, I would note that Public Safety Canada is the lead federal department for addressing the issue of violent extremism and it does so in close collaboration with a number of departments and agencies, in particular, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. An important way to address violent extremism is by preventing it from happening in the first place. Our work to counter violent extremism is predicated on three complementary elements: building community capacity; building law enforcement awareness through training; and developing programs to stop radicalization to violence through early intervention.

There are a number of specific initiatives I could point to here, including in-depth dialogue with communities on radicalization to violence, but I want to emphasize the importance of the work being done under the Kanishka project contribution program.

Named in memory of the victims of Air India Flight 182, our government committed $10 million over five years in support of valuable academic research to help inform our understanding of what we could do to stop terrorism.

Research supported by the project will increase our knowledge of the recruitment methods and tactics of terrorists, which will help produce more effective policies, tools and resources for law enforcement and people on the front lines.

In terms of the detect element, I first want to note that we have had some noteworthy successes in disrupting terrorist plots in our country. Successful arrests, prosecutions and convictions in Canada are a testament to the fact that our national security agencies work effectively with partners and communities. Yet, to be clear, more needs to be done in the areas of surveillance, detention and arrest.

The events of late October this year offered a stark reminder that the status quo simply is unacceptable. Sadly, we had to lose two brave members of the Canadian Armed Forces to have the point hit home that while we must not overreact to the terrorist threat, we certainly must stop under reacting

That is why work to improve our capabilities in support of detection is an area in which the Government of Canada is active. That is, in fact, why we are here today to debate the first step forward.

The Prime Minister has been clear about the need to ensure our security and intelligence community have the tools they need to confront the terrorist threat.

As members may be aware, the legislation before us today contains provisions to update the governing legislation of CSIS, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. There is no question the threats to Canada's security have changed dramatically since the passage of the CSIS Act in 1984. For context, this legislation has not been updated since the first Apple Macintosh was sold.

Given that the threat from terrorism is now more complex and diffuse, this legislation would go a long way toward giving CSIS the clarity it would need to investigate threats to the security of Canada wherever they may occur.

To that end, the proposed legislation contains amendments that would confirm CSIS' authority to investigate threats outside of Canada.

CSIS has always had authority to conduct investigations outside of Canada, because threats to the security of Canada do not stop at our border. However the CSIS Act needs to be clearer in stating this fact. Confirming CSIS' authority would ensure that CSIS has the ability to fully investigate the threat posed by Canadians who travel abroad to engage in terrorist activities. This would help ensure that those individuals would be tracked, investigated, and ultimately prosecuted.

Bill C-44 also contains amendments to help CSIS protect the identity of its human sources in court proceedings, as well as its employees who are likely to engage in covert operational activities in the future.

While we debate Bill C-44, I would like to draw to members' attention a few other important pieces of legislation that only further demonstrate our government's resolve to combatting terrorism.

The Combating Terrorism Act, which came into force in May 2013, makes leaving or attempting to leave Canada for terrorist purposes a criminal offence. Unfortunately, the NDP voted against this common-sense legislation.

Another important tool that we continue to use is the listing of terrorist entities under the Criminal Code. Once a terrorist group is listed as an entity, it becomes a criminal offence for any Canadian to provide financial assistance to the group or to enhance its ability to carry out terrorist activity.

In light of ongoing events in Iraq, the Government of Canada listed ISIL, for example, as a terrorist entity. The listing of terrorist entities facilitates prosecution of both the perpetrators and supporters of terrorism. Given the fact that these groups require money to function, listing is also advantageous in countering terrorist financing.

It is also important to note that Canada works closely with its international allies to confront the terrorist threat. Clearly, the challenges Canada continues to face with respect to terrorism are ones our allies also face, so collaboration with our partners will be key to our counter-terrorism efforts.

In conclusion, I want to assure all Canadians that our government is, as ever, committed to ensuring the safety and security of Canadians at home and abroad. That is what Bill C-44 is all about. I call on all members to support it.

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 second time and referred to a committee.

Second Reading

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it really is a privilege to be here this afternoon to participate. This is one of those debates that cuts to the very core, the pith, of what we are doing here as parliamentarians and legislators. Bill C-44, which amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other acts, is very profound. It speaks to the powers of the state and the rights and responsibilities of our citizenry.

Moments ago the member for Selkirk—Interlake asked a question of the NDP speaker at the time, asking if New Democrats were prepared to give more rights to terrorists than to law-abiding Canadian citizens. That is another astonishing assertion and it reminds me of the very famous passage in the brilliant play written by Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons, which is the story of the life of Thomas More who is being prosecuted.

The prosecutor is William Roper, who says to Thomas More, “So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law”? Sir Thomas More responds, “Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil”? William Roper responds to the prosecutor, “I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”, to which Sir Thomas More responds, “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you—where would you hide”? “Yes” says Thomas More, “I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake”.

That is precisely what we are talking about when we discuss the balance the government continues to allude to when it comes to making sure that our intelligence and security services have the power and authority to do their jobs, while at the same time safeguarding our rights. When we play fast and loose with our rights, it is a very dangerous game.

Bill C-44 is trying to make some positive improvements to the status quo. I think everyone in the House agrees with this. However, there are series of profound and probative questions that have been put to the government that remain unanswered. These are deserving of an answer, because they do cut to the chase and speak to whether or not we would give the benefit of law to the devil.

There are questions, for example, like why the government cannot explain why legislation already in place has not been enforced. Specifically, under the provisions of the Criminal Code brought in by the government in 2013 in the Combating Terrorism Act, why have we not seen a single prosecution? I raised the question earlier to a former peace officer who has sworn an oath to uphold the rule of law, and his answer was, “You're criticizing law enforcement agencies”. I am doing nothing of the kind. I am asking why, if we know there are anywhere between 80 and 145 Canadians who have been abroad participating in terrorist activities on foreign soil, there has not been a single prosecution under the new powers brought in by the government just a short year ago?

Canadians deserve an answer from the government. The sections of the Criminal Code are 83.18, which relate to laying a charge against an individual attempting to leave Canada to participate in a terrorist activity; or 83.3, which could be used to place recognizance and conditions on those suspected of terrorist activity; and section 810, related to peace bonds and possible detention. We have not received an answer.

The government likes to speak about being a sovereign state and having its own standards—not being bound by its partnership with the Five Eyes, and not relating to the work and best practices of the United Kingdom, United States, Australia, and New Zealand. It says that it is sovereign when it comes to security issues, yet when it comes to climate change, we have hitched our wagon to President Obama. There we are not sovereign. However, let us take the Conservatives at their word that they are sovereign when it comes to questions of security laws and the enforcement of those laws. Well then, why is it that on October 15 we learned that the Conservative government has failed to implement provisions of the 2011 border security agreement with the United States on information sharing with respect to the travel of potential terrorists?

It is troubling to hear the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, or even worse, the Prime Minister, talk about new legislation, new powers that we need, when existing international agreements we have entered into and signed have not been complied with, including on the international movement of those suspected of being associated with terrorists entities. That question remains to be answered.

We hear repeatedly from members of the government, and in particular former peace officers, like the last speaker from the Yukon, who swear an oath to uphold the rule of law. They become peace officers by swearing an oath. We hear from them repeatedly that we need new powers, but that is not what we hear from the front-line practitioners. That is not what we have heard from CSIS. That is not what we heard from the RCMP. They are telling us that they need more resources and the capacity to do their jobs. They need to be able to follow up on the existing statutory powers that we have in order to enforce them and to bring them to bear in Canadian society. That is what they are telling the Canadian population. That is what they are telling parliamentarians.

We are supportive of sending the bill back to committee. However, we need the time in committee to make sure that we get that expertise, not from the propaganda or rhetoric of government members, but from those who are actually on the front lines involved in enforcement. They are our best asset and allies in this regard.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question that goes back to the beginning of my colleague's comments.

He made a rather incredible assertion, one I have not heard before from anyone in any party, and certainly not from the government. I want to read back his words. He said that the events last month, which occurred here in my home city of Ottawa, “occurred because of the lack of legislative tools available.” That is the first time this House, I believe, has heard that kind of assertion.

He then went on to say in his closing remarks that he was looking forward to learning from what transpired here with these unfortunate events last month, and improving the situation, which we all agree is the objective of Bill C-44.

Can the member explain to Canadians precisely how he has concluded that it was a lack of legislative tools that led to the tragedies that took place in this city a month ago?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and privilege to rise today to add my voice to the debate on the protection of Canada from terrorists act.

As members know, the bill was not tabled in haste, and it has not been tabled as a stopgap measure in reaction to the terrible acts of violence our nation has witnessed in recent weeks. Indeed, as the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has made abundantly clear, this legislation was drafted and ready for tabling on the very day that a terrorist killed one of our Canadian Armed Forces members who was standing watch over the tomb of the unknown soldier, on the very day that this same terrorist ran down the hallways of this building before our brave law enforcement and House of Commons security forces brought him down. This bill was drafted with much thought and consideration in the light of the evolving terrorist threat facing all western democracies.

The two Canadian Armed Forces members who were murdered on October 20 and October 22 were the victims of individuals who had the same goals: to terrorize Canadians and frighten us into losing our resolve for doing that which is right and just.

Today we are debating Bill C-44, which would make amendments to the CSIS Act. These amendments include, among others, ensuring that CSIS has the tools it needs to investigate threats to the security of Canada outside of Canada, as well as creating a means to protect the identity of CSIS' human sources from disclosure. The bill would also make technical amendments to the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act to allow our government to seek earlier implementation of the citizenship revocation provisions, which received royal assent on June 19.

These amendments are critical to clarify the role of CSIS in light of recent court decisions that have addressed the important aspects of the mandate and investigative authorities of CSIS.

However, legislation is only part of the solution to countering terrorism and violent extremism.

A key part of our government's counterterrorism strategy involves building partnerships with Canadian communities over the long term. The focus of these partnerships is to develop resilience and foster critical thinking about extremist messaging and to help devise effective means to intervene during the radicalization to violence process.

The troubling phenomenon of individuals travelling to commit terrorism is a fast-emerging component of radicalization to violence. As we have heard from CSIS and the RCMP recently, we know of a significant number of Canadians who have travelled to hot zones like Afghanistan, Somalia and Syria to join terrorist organizations, to undergo terrorist training and to conduct terrorist activity.

This is of grave concern for many reasons.

We are concerned because we care about young Canadians dying abroad. We are concerned because we want to prevent the damage that may cost human life and to societies struggling in the face of deep divisions. We are also concerned about what happens if these foreign fighters return home. Battle hardened and fully radicalized, they have tremendous potential as terrorist actors in Canada, and, even more important, real credibility as agents of radicalization in their own right.

However, we are tackling this issue in a number of ways.

One way is the revocation of citizenship of dual citizens who have, for example, served as members of an armed group engaged in conflict with Canada or have been convicted of terrorism.

Another way is to attack the movements and activities of those who have managed to leave the country in order to engage in activities that are a threat to the security of Canada. Again, this is part of the bill before us, which is to ensure the authority of CSIS is clear and is able to investigate threats outside of Canada.

Still another way is through initiatives like the Cross-Cultural Roundtable on Security, CCRS, jointly led by Public Safety Canada and the Department of Justice. The CCRS is an excellent example of collaboration between the federal government and diverse communities across Canada. It brings together leading citizens from their respective communities, with extensive experience in social culture issues, to regularly engage with the government on long-term national security issues.

The CCRS meets three times a year to cover a wide scope of issues under the national security umbrella: resiliency, cybersecurity and airport security, among many others.

Over the past several years, the CCRS has focused much of its attention on the topic of countering violent extremism. It has been key in providing guidance and shaping how we talk to Canadians about this issue.

Through this forum, we look to our leaders and communities to help us better understand how to build trust with diverse communities, identifying the tools that communities need, and identifying contributing factors and intervention programs for persons who may be at risk to radicalization to violence.

CCRS members have also helped bridges into communities. Most recent, Public Safety undertook dedicated dialogues with communities on the topic of radicalization leading to violence. Communities are often the first to see suspicious signs or behaviours by others if they are planning something such as travel, attack planning, radicalization and recruiting others. We value the input we receive through these regular meetings.

Countering violent extremism is a defining challenge of our times, a challenge facing Canada and all nations that believe in the rule of law and the rights of our citizens to live in a safe and secure society.

As members can see, our government has been actively pursuing a robust strategy to counterterrorism activity and violent extremism well before the recent attacks on the Canadian Forces members last month.

We have been open in discussing that threat with the citizens of Canada through our counterterrorism strategy released in 2012 and two subsequent public reports on the terrorist threat to Canada which were released in 2013 and 2014.

Today, I have shared just a vew of the measures we are taking that speak to the “prevent, detect and deny” pillars of our strategy. This includes fostering trust and encouraging collaboration between government and communities. It includes preserving the integrity of Canadian citizenship by allowing certain provisions found within the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act to come into force earlier than planned. It also includes getting our society and intelligence agencies the tools they need to protect the safety and security of Canadians.

We must move ahead with these amendments with purpose and without delay.

I ask all members to join us in supporting the legislation. I ask all members to join us in protecting Canadians.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to add my voice of support for Bill C-44. This is an important piece of legislation that would give more powers to policing agencies in Canada to protect Canadians from terrorists.

I keep hearing from the opposition about the need to protect civil liberties, especially from a privacy standpoint, and we want to do that. We want to find the right balance. However, what it is proposing is that it should trump protecting Canadians from terrorists. We have to make sure, first and foremost, that we identify risks to the Canadian public and ensure that Canadians are not harmed.

I am wondering if she actually believes that terrorists deserve to have the same rights as law-abiding citizens.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand in this place and offer my support for Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act. Over the past few months, Canadians have been rightly outraged by the atrocities committed by ISIL. Its barbarism cannot and should not be ignored. To do so would be to leave a ticking bomb with a lit fuse, one that stretches from Iraq to our shores.

We saw this on October 20 and October 22, when two Canadian Armed Forces soldiers were killed in cold blood. The terrorists responsible for these atrocities did so in a planned and calculated way in an attempt to intimidate Canadians into bowing to the terrorist caliphate known as the Islamic State. This is the very definition of terrorism. The President of France, the U.S. Secretary of State and most importantly, the Commissioner of the RCMP, have all confirmed this point.

We must at all costs degrade and destroy the threat posed by ISIL. That is why our government joined our allies to defuse the threat of ISIL at the source. However, military action is only one element of our response to terrorism. The other is gathering intelligence to confront the diverse array of threats to our security. That is easier said than done. The landscape for intelligence work is rapidly evolving and we need to ensure that our security and intelligence agencies have the tools they need to keep Canadians safe and secure.

The world of terrorism has changed dramatically since the 1980s. The CSIS Act, which today's legislation seeks to modernize, was originally written in the era of the Cold War and the rotary telephone. Violent extremism has taken new forms and the threats to Canadians are both more numerous and more sophisticated.

The 2014 public report on the terrorist threat to Canada identified more than 130 individuals with Canadian connections who were abroad and suspected of supporting terror-related activities. As we heard recently from CSIS, this number includes some 50 individuals who are known to be working directly with ISIL and other extremist groups in the region. These extremist travellers pose a threat both to people in foreign countries and to the citizens of Canada. We must stop them from inflicting harm on others. That is exactly what we are doing with the legislation before us today.

We know that we must approach the threat of terrorism and extremist travellers from many angles. This means bringing into force on an earlier timeline the new citizenship revocation provisions that help protect the safety and security of Canadians and safeguard the strong values associated with Canadian citizenship.

That is the goal of the first part of the protection of Canada from terrorists act. We are proposing technical amendments to the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, which received royal assent on June 19, 2014. These amendments will allow for earlier implementation of provisions related to revocation of Canadian citizenship.

These provisions include expanded grounds for revocation of citizenship and a more streamlined decision-making process to allow the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to make revocation decisions depending on the grounds. Our government firmly believes that we must move quickly to implement provisions that permit the revocation of Canadian citizenship from those radicalized individuals who are convicted of an act of terrorism or who travel overseas to engage in armed conflict with Canada.

We will not hesitate to do what is necessary to protect our country and other innocent citizens of the world who may fall victim to acts of terrorism overseas. Revocation is an important tool to safeguard our strong Canadian values and the integrity of our citizenship program. While we have strengthened our citizenship laws, we know that there are already individuals who have left Canada to join extremist groups and that we must ensure that we can track and intercept those individuals before they commit acts of terrorism.

With the second part of this legislation, we will work to do just that. The proposed amendments to the CSIS Act will add another tool to our counter-terrorism toolbox.

CSIS is a highly professional organization that has succeeded in adapting its tactics and tools to keep up with the ever-changing environment. However, the time has come to amend its governing legislation, the CSIS Act. In doing so, we can ensure that CSIS is well positioned to take reasonable and necessary measures to investigate threats to the security of Canada, wherever they may occur. Reasonable people can agree that CSIS must have this ability. Threats to the security of Canada are more global and complex than they were when the CSIS Act came into force.

Allow me to highlight the major amendments proposed by this legislation. The first major amendment is to confirm CSIS' authority to conduct investigations outside of Canada related to threats to the security of Canada and security assessments. CSIS has always had the authority to undertake investigative activities outside of Canada. However, this authority is not as clearly stated in the CSIS Act as it needs to be. It is important that Parliament provide clarity on this matter. This is a limited and focused amendment, one that merely confirms CSIS' existing authority and makes it even more explicit in law. We cannot afford to leave any gray areas with respect to the scope of CSIS' mandate.

Equally important, we need to clarify the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to issue warrants authorizing CSIS to undertake certain intrusive activities outside of Canada. To enable CSIS to properly investigate threats outside of Canada, the proposed amendments would clarify that the Federal Court need only consider the CSIS Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when determining whether a warrant is required.

A third major amendment concerns the protection of sources. Common law has long afforded protections for the identity of police informants. Without such protection, witnesses may be reluctant to come forward and criminals may not be prosecuted. The stakes are just as high when it comes to threats to Canada's national security. Through the information of human sources, CSIS may be able to help thwart an attack on Canadians and Canadian interests. Obviously the ability to recruit human sources depends on their confidence that their identity will in fact be protected.

Some hon. members may be surprised to learn that the current CSIS Act does not explicitly protect the identity of intelligence sources during court proceedings. This bill would fill that gap. This protection will of course be consistent with Canadian values of the protection of individual rights and the rule of law. If the information is required in a criminal proceeding to demonstrate the innocence of the accused, the protection can be overturned.

The CSIS Act also has shortcomings that must be addressed with respect to protecting the identity of CSIS employees. Currently, it is an indictable offence to reveal the identity of a CSIS employee who is or has been involved in covert operations. However, the existing legislation does not protect those employees who are not yet but may be engaged in covert activity in the future. Another amendment addresses this oversight. In this way, CSIS employees who are training to become covert officers can be assured that their identity will be protected.

In summary, the amendments proposed today would allow for earlier implementation of citizenship revocation provisions, protect Canadians and other innocent citizens from the acts of violence carried out by extremist travellers, and give our intelligence service more effective tools and clearer authorities to fight violent extremism, including violence perpetrated by Canadians themselves.

I urge all hon. members to join me today in supporting the protection of Canada from terrorists act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member from Don Valley West.

I am honoured to be here today to speak in support of the protection of Canada from terrorists act.

We all know that the work we are doing here is extremely important. There has been much discussion about balancing the tools the security agencies need with broader privacy concerns. I completely agree with that position. We must not overreact to horrific attacks, such as those that occurred on October 20 and October 22, but it is also time that we as Canadians stop under-reacting to the very real threat of terrorism.

The bill before us today strikes an appropriate balance. All the measures put forward in this bill are common-sense tools that would enable the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, otherwise known as CSIS, to continue keeping us safe without infringing on any of the freedoms that make this country great. To highlight this fact, I would like to discuss the three core elements of the proposal before us.

First, this bill makes minor adjustments to the CSIS Act to provide anonymity for CSIS human sources. It would confirm CSIS's mandate to investigate threats to Canada both at home and abroad and would provide anonymity to CSIS employees who may engage in covert activities.

Protecting the identity of human sources clarifies what has been an operational assumption for many years. Earlier this year the courts ruled that because this power was not legislated within the act, CSIS sources did not have that anonymity. This was a surprise to our national security agencies, and to probably many of us in the House, given that police informants have this type of protection. It is common sense that an informant for CSIS should be afforded the same protections under the law as an informant for the RCMP. This amendment would be invaluable for the brave men and women at CSIS in their work keeping all Canadians safe. We know that human sources are instrumental in CSIS's intelligence-gathering activities. Protecting their identity in court would facilitate prosecutions, future operations, and the recruitment of sources.

To illustrate the necessity of this measure, let us discuss a hypothetical example. Let us say that an individual becomes aware of a radicalized person or people within their social circle who the individual believes may be planning a terrorist attack on Canadians. Let us say that this person does the right thing and informs authorities about these individuals. Then suppose CSIS establishes a relationship with this person, who agrees to become a human source for the service to protect Canada and our citizens. Again, for the sake of this argument, let us assume that this source begins informing on not just one but on 10 suspected terrorists, if there are more players involved. Let us imagine that one of these 10 targets tells this source that he or she plans to commit an act of terror in the immediate future. In a world where CSIS can protect its source's identity, the next step in this case becomes very simple. CSIS would inform the RCMP of the imminent threat, and the RCMP would leverage the human source's information, along with other available evidence, to lay charges against the terrorist or suspected terrorist. The human source would then continue to gather evidence on the other nine individuals.

Now let us consider the decision-making process if CSIS cannot protect the identity of that human source. First, disclosing the source's identity in court would put that person at risk of retribution from the associates related to that one individual. Second, CSIS would lose the source's future value against the other nine individuals under investigation.

Our intelligence authorities cannot control the rate at which investigations proceed. It may very well be the case that the threat posed by the group of nine individuals is greater than the immediate threat posed by the lone wolf. However, if they do not have enough information to prosecute all 10, the service must make a choice: leverage a human source's information to arrest one individual who may pose an immediate threat, or wait and continue investigating a potentially larger and greater threat to Canada.

I do not think CSIS should be asked to make that choice, and I do not think Canadians across this country would expect it to. That is why I support this common-sense reform. Furthermore, I do not believe that this infringes on privacy rights or the right to a fair trial, as a judge may force the crown to disclose a source's identity if this is crucial to proving the innocence of the accused.

The other issues in this bill are, I would argue, also easy decisions. There are several proposed amendments that confirm CSIS's ability to operate abroad. This merely provides clarity in law to support CSIS's presence abroad. This is both timely and appropriate, as we know that there are individuals outside of Canada's borders who seek to do us harm here in Canada.

The terrorist threat knows no borders. We should not make our security agencies fight this threat with one hand tied behind their backs, let alone two. I am supportive of allowing CSIS to pursue warrants against Canadians abroad. This measure is particularly timely given that we know that approximately 145 Canadians have travelled abroad for terrorist purposes. CSIS should have the ability to seek warrants against these individuals and to monitor them, regardless of where their location might be. This is an important operational tool that we can provide to CSIS without hindering an individual's privacy, as CSIS will still require a warrant from a judge to use intrusive investigative techniques. I just want to reinforce that: CSIS would need a warrant from a judge.

Finally, this bill would provide anonymity to all CSIS employees who may become engaged in covert activities. Currently only CSIS employees who are engaged in covert activities are afforded anonymity before the courts. CSIS analysts and trainees are not protected and could have their identities disclosed in open court. One can imagine that this would jeopardize its employees' utility in future operations.

Providing anonymity to employees of an intelligence agency makes all the sense in the world. I do not believe for a single minute that this measure would impact the privacy rights of Canadians.

All the measures proposed in this legislation would enhance CSIS's ability to do its job effectively and efficiently. These are key to enabling CSIS to protect Canadians from those who seek to do us harm, whether it is here in Canada or abroad.

I am proud that our Conservative government has brought forward common-sense reforms while respecting the rights and freedoms that make this country so great. I encourage all members of the House to support this common-sense legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to speak to very timely and important legislation. The protection of Canada from terrorists act is a critical bill that would enable us to do what is fundamental for any government to do, and that is to protect its nation and citizens. That is why we are taking part in the coalition that is currently conducting air strikes against ISIL and supporting the security forces in Iraq in their fight against the terrorist scourge of ISIL.

However, not all terrorism occurs abroad. Indeed, the global terror threat hits close to home, especially for members of Parliament and those in Ottawa, as well as our Canadian Forces members in Quebec. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of Patrice Vincent and Nathan Cirillo. The families and friends of these Canadian heroes know painfully well that we face the very real threat of terror here at home.

As the Minister of Public Safety has stated, we will not overreact in response to recent terrorist attacks, but it is also important that we not under react to threats against us. We know we are not overreacting when just this past week a leader of ISIL called for “volcanoes of jihad” against Canada and our allies. We are taking these threats seriously and have joined our allies in actions that are degrading ISIL's capabilities.

As the Prime Minister stated last Friday, our military fight is with ISIL. Because of the real and present danger of ISIL, we have brought forward balanced and clear measures that would strengthen the tools available to the law enforcement community in areas of surveillance, detention and arrest.

The protection of Canada from terrorists act is the first reasonable step in our efforts to do that. We are working diligently to strengthen tools available to the law enforcement community.

Why is this necessary? Recent court decisions called into question the role of our law enforcement agencies and invited the government to respond. As reasonable and transparent legislators, we brought forward legislation that would clarify the roles and activities of our law enforcement agencies that track and monitor terrorists abroad. While opposition members will argue that it is not necessary, or complain that we are overreacting or overreaching, we know there is nothing more risky than losing track of terrorist threats. Once they are in the wind, or even back in Canada, we are at a greater risk.

Canadians can know this about our government. When law enforcement agencies require additional tools to keep Canadians safe from terror threats, we on this side of the House will respond. We will give them the tools they need. We will not apologize for it and we will not support doing nothing. We will not defend inaction with fancy language about privacy and claims that we should protect the privacy concerns of terrorists over the safety of our Canadian citizens.

Safety and privacy are not competing interests. Canadians know this. Without security, we would not have the privilege of privacy. Our government has confidence in our national security agencies. The men and women of our national security agencies are working overtime, and around the clock, to keep Canadians safe.

It is not only our security agencies that our protecting us here and abroad. On November 11, we commemorated the sacrifices of the many Canadian heroes who have fought to keep us safe for the freedoms we hold dear.

We live in a dangerous world. We are not immune to the threats that our allies face. For this reason, we continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies against the very real threat that ISIL poses. I am proud of the Canadian Forces for their concerted efforts to degrade ISIL and maintain the security of Canadians. I am thankful they are working diligently to eliminate these threats so Canadians at home and abroad are safe.

Our government remains focused on ensuring the safety and security of Canadians. The crucial role that our security and intelligence service plays in keeping Canadians safe cannot be overstated. We will continue to equip the brave men and women, who put their lives on the line to protect Canadians, with the tools they need to address terrorism in an increasingly dangerous global environment.

Another key piece of the protection of Canada from terrorists act is early implementation of the revocation of citizenship provision from those who are convicted of terrorism, spying or treason, found in the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act. We passed this legislation, which will strip the Canadian Citizenship from dual nationals who engage in acts of terrorism of fight against the Canadian Armed Forces, in order to protect Canadians. The Liberals and the NDP voted against the bill, and that is a shame.

We then passed the Combating Terrorism Act and introduced Canada's first counterterrorism strategy, a four-pronged approach to prevent, detect, deny resources and respond to terrorist activity and threats. This legislation has already led to criminal convictions. Again, the NDP opposed these common sense measures.

The new provisions in Bill C-44 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. This action would reinforce the high values of citizenship to ensure that dual citizens who had been convicted of terrorist acts would not continue to benefit from Canadian citizenship.

These measures demonstrate our Conservative government's continued commitment to do what is necessary, within the law, to prevent terrorists and violent extremists from carrying out vicious attacks against Canadians.

Bill C-44 is important because it is legislation that would provide the necessary tools for law enforcement to do the job it does now. a job it needs to do.

I cannot imagine being asked to come to Ottawa as a member of Parliament and not being afforded the tools to do that job effectively. My constituents would not be well-served if I were not given the tools to do the job.

In the same way, we know Canadians will be safer and more secure if law enforcement is able to do an effective job, and not just any job, the job of tracking terrorist threats, ensuring that witnesses are safe and ensuring that threats to Canada are not allowed free rein to strike fear in our communities.

As we continue to debate the legislation, I hope all members of the House will carefully consider this important legislation and will join me in supporting our law enforcement agencies and pass the protection of Canada from terrorists act.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

It gives me great pleasure to stand today and speak to Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act. We have heard in these debates that this bill contains amendments to the CSIS Act and technical amendments to the Strengthening Canada's Citizenship Act. My remarks today will focus on the amendments to the CSIS Act and why we are taking steps to give this vital agency the tools it needs to conduct investigations out of Canada related to threats to the security of Canada.

First I would like to speak to the global terrorist threat, the impacts here at home, and the steps Canada is taking to address that threat.

Acts of terror and murder have been carried out across the globe by extremist groups that have no regard for the lives of innocent people. In fact, we have all witnessed in the past weeks that Canada was the victim of two terrorist attacks within the span of one week. Because of radical Islamist terrorism, we lost two fine soldiers: Corporal Nathan Cirillo and Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, who was laid to rest this past weekend.

Terrorists kill people from all walks of life, including people from communities they claim to represent. Significant work has been done over the past decade, in particular since September 11, 2001, to counter terrorist activities. Canada has been a leader in global counterterrorism efforts. We have citizens and civil society organizations representing people of all faiths and beliefs. They work among themselves and with our government to prevent terrorism by building stronger and more resilient communities. All of these measures were captured within the four pillars of Canada's counterterrorism strategy: prevent, detect, deny, and respond. That strategy will serve us well on the difficult road we face ahead as our Canadian Armed Forces engage in a campaign to degrade and destroy the threat that ISIL poses to western civilization.

Indeed, our security agencies have been monitoring groups like al Qaeda and ISIL closely for years. We have taken concrete measures to disrupt and prevent violent and extremist activities. This is a comprehensive approach. While we join our allies in air strikes, we are also taking other measures that are working to help isolate ISIL and deny it and its partners resources, including funds and new recruits.

Let me explain.

As we know, terrorists need money, media access, weapons, and explosives among their resources to sustain themselves. We want to make sure that all groups that would assist terrorist organizations are restricted from doing so. Preventing terrorists from using the global financial system to commit an act of terror is essential in helping to suppress these groups. Therefore, we have certain provisions under the Criminal Code that we can use to deal with the assets and the operations of groups that support terrorist activities. Listing these entities under the Criminal Code is a public means of identifying a group or an individual as being associated with terrorism, and listing carries significant consequences. Once listed, an entity's assets are frozen and may be subject to seizure, restraint, or forfeiture.

Further, it is an offence for Canadians at home or abroad to knowingly participate in or contribute to, directly or indirectly, any activities that facilitate the activities of a listed terrorist entity. We know that terrorist groups are inspiring westerners to take up arms in support of their cause. In order to reach the individuals and guard against these tactics, we work closely with diverse communities, including through cross-cultural round tables on security.

We are working with leaders in communities right across the country to help engage Canadians in a long-term dialogue on matters related to national security, particularly in countering violent extremism. Through the round table, we have reached out to hundreds of respected cultural and religious leaders who have their finger on the pulse of their communities. These leaders have been integral to helping law enforcement and security agencies to address threats and identify the best ways of reaching individuals who may be leaning toward violent behaviour and redirecting them from the paths of radicalization that lead to violence.

However, rapid changes in technology, ease of communications, and the mobility of terrorist travellers have created new and complex challenges for Canada and all our allies as we work to keep our citizens safe.

As in other countries, despite everyone's best efforts, a small but significant number of individuals have left Canada to join terrorist groups in the Middle East. Denying ISIL its new recruits also means using Canadian law to crack down on those so-called extremist travellers. We brought forward the Combating Terrorism Act to make it an offence to leave Canada to take part in terrorist activities, and laws are in place to revoke the passports of Canadians who travel abroad to join extremist groups.

Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness have stated clearly that our government will continue to look at ways to help our national security agencies to investigate and track the activities of terrorists at our borders and beyond. One of the ways to do this is with the legislation that is before us today, which would amend the existing CSIS Act so that we would be better able to provide CSIS with the tools it needs to investigate threats to the security of Canada wherever those threats occur and ultimately to protect the security of Canadians.

It is important to note that the CSIS Act was created three decades ago. It was the age of the rotary phone, when our world was under the shadow of the Cold War. The act is in need of updates and upgrades that would confirm the authority of CSIS to investigate Canadian extremists and other threats abroad. That is why I urge members to support the bill that is before them.

The protection of Canada from terrorists act would confirm that CSIS has the authority to operate outside of Canada when investigating threats to the security of Canada or when conducting investigations for the purpose of security assessment. It would confirm as well that the Federal Court has the authority to issue warrants authorizing CSIS to conduct activities outside of Canada without regard to the laws of the other states. This new legislation would also reinforce CSIS's statutory authority to investigate threats abroad and that when issuing a warrant, judges would only need to consider relevant Canadian law, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the CSIS Act, and not foreign laws.

Clearly there are a number of ways our government protects the safety and security of Canada against terrorism, but first we must be sure that we have the right tools in place for our security intelligence agencies to do so. There is no time to waste. We must amend the CSIS Act and allow this vital agency to continue its work.

I urge members in this House to join me in supporting this bill.

The House resumed from November 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Bill C-44—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, in relation to Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other Acts, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in tum, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-44—Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I must advise that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other Acts.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at a future sitting motions to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages of the said bill.

Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the opportunity to share with members some of my personal thoughts and to express some thoughts and ideas from the Liberal Party.

It goes without saying that Canadians have a burning desire to see security measures in place that will allow them to feel safe in the communities in which they live, whether it is here in the parliamentary precinct or in communities throughout the country.

On that note, it would be a mistake not to pay tribute to all those individuals who put in the effort to make us safe. Whether it is the intelligence officers of CSIS, the RCMP, border patrols, or other policing agencies, there are so many individuals who play a proactive role in ensuring that we have a sense of security. I wanted to express my appreciation for that.

It is not easy to provide a 100% guarantee that Canada will never have to endure a terrorist attack. What we can do is work hard to prevent one, wherever possible, and adequately support the different agencies. In particular, today we are focusing on CSIS.

We can bring in new legislation, but at the end of the day, legislation is only one aspect. We have to challenge the government to ensure that it is putting in other types of resources to support the different agencies that are there to protect us. Whether the government is in fact doing enough can at times be called into question.

This is really the first opportunity I have had to comment on what we all experienced just a couple of weeks ago. In the days that followed, I happened to be on a flight to Ukraine. Whether it was at the airport in Frankfurt or in Ukraine itself, I saw our beautiful Parliament buildings on the news. What took place a couple of weeks ago made international news, as many people around the world were quite concerned about what was taking place in Canada. Constituents, family, and friends at the time also expressed a great deal of interest and concern and offered their prayers and best wishes.

As has been pointed out, from Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers all the way down, people did a phenomenal job, and they should all be applauded for their efforts in ensuring that there was minimal impact because of what took place.

We have heard some amazing speeches. There were political speeches from leaders and others who paid tribute to Corporal Cirillo, who ultimately made a sacrifice that has reached into the hearts and minds of all Canadians. I raise that because I want to put it in the context of Bill C-44.

The bill would do nothing to address the national security concerns related to the events in Quebec and Ottawa a couple of weeks ago. It would simply amend the present legislation to meet current CSIS practices and would expedite the CIC amendments in Bill C-24.

The government needs to explain why the provisions already in place in the Criminal Code have not been utilized in response to those individuals who represent a threat to this country.

The sections of the Criminal Code in question are section 83.181, relating to the laying of charges against an individual attempting to leave Canada to participate in terrorist activities; section 83.3, which could be used to place recognizance with conditions on those suspected of terrorist activities; and section 810, relating to peace bonds and possible detention.

I was intrigued by some of the discussions. One of the most interesting statements I came across was from the Minister of Public Safety on October 8 at the public safety committee. This is in regard to the 80 individuals who returned to Canada after having travelled abroad to take part in terrorism-related activities. This is what the minister stated to parliamentarians and Canadians at committee:

Let me be clear that these individuals posing a threat to our security at home have violated Canadian law.... These dangerous individuals, some skilled and desiring to commit terrorist activity, pose a serious threat to law-abiding Canadians.

This begs a number of questions with respect to whether we are acting on the current legislation that has been passed.

What would Bill C-44 actually do? There are three things I can detect. First, there would be protection for informants. I can appreciate why that would be necessary. Second, it would provide more clarity on the need for warrants. CSIS needs to investigate, and this legislation would provide more clarity with respect to warrants from judges to complete those investigations. Third is the issue of dual citizens. The House voted on this not that long ago, and it is being expedited.

The government needs to be aware of what is missing, and that is oversight. Oversight was mentioned today in questions.

In an hour, we will be voting on Bill C-622, an important piece of legislation. Bill C-622 was introduced by my colleague from Vancouver Quadra. She has done a wonderful job in recognizing the importance of parliamentary oversight. The government has been negligent on this issue, and I do not say that lightly.

What the member from Vancouver Quadra is asking of the government is already being done and is in place for our Five Eyes partners. In Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and the United Kingdom, it is already being done. They have recognized the value of having parliamentarians provide oversight.

I do not understand why the government is resisting that idea. This is not necessarily the first time, but it is definitely an opportune time for the government to recognize that the House of Commons and parliamentarians as a whole do have a role to play.

We hope that the Prime Minister will allow for an open vote on this issue. I would encourage the government to reflect, to seriously consider the benefits of accepting what the member for Vancouver Quadra, the Liberal Party defence critic, has put on the table for us today, and to vote for parliamentary oversight.

Oversight would go a long way in providing peace of mind, in many different ways. Oversight is a good way to ensure the protection of the rights of all Canadians. It is in our best interest, I would argue.

Parliamentary oversight is not just a Liberal Party proposal. As has been pointed out, our other partnering nations have already done this. Why would the government not respond in kind and recognize the value of oversight?

We in opposition recognize how important it is to provide protection for informants. It only stands to reason that there would be protection of informants, who provide critical, valuable information when a CSIS agent is doing an investigative report or conducting an investigation into the potential for some form of a terrorist act here in Canada or abroad. We have to depend on informants.

I have no sense of the actual number of informants out there, but I do understand and appreciate the need for us to protect them. In looking at this piece of legislation, we see that protection as a positive thing.

In terms of warrants and the need for warrants, again this concern does not come from any individual political party. Based on the discussions and comments I have heard here this afternoon and even previously, it seems there is virtual unanimity in recognizing how important it is that we provide additional clarity to CSIS as an organization and in terms of the role of warrants in ensuring that investigations are conducted in a proper fashion. There is an understanding that unusual circumstances come into play when terrorist activities and organizations are investigated.

As a whole, Canadians are very much aware of what terrorism is all about. We understand and appreciate that we are living in a very different world. Through the Internet and all forms of media outlets, we know there is a much higher sense of awareness. It is there and it is very real.

That, I believe, is one of the reasons that Canadians expect the Government of Canada to do what it can to ensure that they have a sense of security in the communities where they live, and I suggest many of my colleagues would concur. However, at the same time, there is an expectation that we will demonstrate leadership at the international level.

In bringing forward legislation such as we have before us today, it is very important that we consult with the different stakeholders and ensure that the legislation is, in many ways, a bit more inclusive in terms of having the right balance. I am not convinced that we have the right balance here. That is why, in my last 15 or 20 seconds, I would ask the government to recognize the importance that parliamentarians have when it comes to ensuring that Canadians feel much safer in their communities. Parliamentarians need to be, and should be, more engaged in the process. Whether it is oversight or whether it is parliamentary committees, we can make a difference.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Burlington for sharing his time, so I can speak to Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act.

This legislation includes amendments to the CSIS Act as well as the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act and today I am going to address my comments to the CSIS Act.

Before I begin, let me explain why we have introduced this important piece of legislation. Recent events both here and in Quebec really serve as a very stark reminder that ISIL is a very real threat to Canadians. It is all too real to the people who sit in this House and I want to take a moment to thank everyone who personally called, emailed or texted me to express their concern for me.

Because of these and other threats, our Conservative government is working very determinedly to strengthen the tools that are available to the police and to our intelligence community in the areas of surveillance, detection and arrest.

The protection of Canada from terrorists act is just the first step in our efforts to do that. Canadians can be assured that we will not overreact in response to these terrorist acts, but it is also time, as the member for Burlington stated, that we stop under-reacting. To do this, we must give those who are investigating these threats to the security of Canada the tools that they need to ensure that they can investigate these threats wherever they might occur.

For the past 30 years, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service has played a key role in helping to ensure the safety and security of Canadians. Today, CSIS investigates and analyses a really wide range of threats from terrorism, to countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and foreign espionage.

CSIS has evolved into a world-class professional intelligence service that is respected and relied upon both here at home and globally. That achievement is ultimately due to the really high calibre of people who have chosen to work there. These are men and women who have joined CSIS because they really wanted to make a difference and they wanted to protect the safety and security of Canada. That is in the face of evolving national security threats.

However, those threats have changed dramatically since CSIS was created with the CSIS Act in 1984. The threat of terrorism is now a lot more complex and it is a lot more diffuse. Radical individuals or groups of extremists with the motivation and access to certain kinds of technology can really do significant harm to Canada. Global conflict, particularly the abhorrent violence that is perpetuated by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant serve as a reminder of our obligation to address these threats and this was underscored and echoed by the President of France here in the House this week.

Our government proposes to amend the CSIS Act to allow CSIS to better operate and investigate these threats to Canada's national security. I want to highlight the most recent measures taken by our government to continue to improve our counterterrorism tools, to face this evolving threat environment we are in.

The Combating Terrorism Act, which came into force in May 2013, created new criminal offences of leaving or attempting to leave Canada for the purpose of committing certain terrorism offences outside Canada. This is close to home for me because there have been people radicalized from Calgary who have done this.

This last July, a B.C. man was charged with leaving Canada to take part in a terrorist activity under this new act for the first time. Our government also employs many means to deny terrorists the opportunity to be able to carry out terrorist activities. This includes the RCMP-led high risk travel case management group and revoking and suspending passports of these prospective travellers.

However, our law enforcement people need more tools. We are committed to doing everything in our power to prevent Canadians from becoming either victims or perpetrators of terrorism-related activities.

That is why in our government's 2014 Public Report on the Terrorist Threat to Canada, it lays out our actions to address terrorism in all of its forms, including addressing this phenomenon of extremist travellers and returnees. Though the numbers are fluctuating, as early as 2014, the government was aware of more than 130 people who had Canadian connections, who had travelled abroad and were suspected of terrorism-related activities. This is real.

More recently, CSIS indicated that it is aware of 50 Canadians directly involved with activities being undertaken by ISIL and other extremist groups in the region.

Our government believes that prevention is really fundamental to combat violent extremism and that all key players, including community members who are very important, government and law enforcement and intelligence agencies, have to share a common and comprehensive understanding of violent extremism. We have to all work together to stop people from being radicalized into violence. Some of the methods are intervention and building community and law enforcement capacity.

While we are working here at home, we also have to take action on the international front. This is why we are collaborating with our allies on global efforts to counter violent extremism and to address this threat of extremist travellers.

More recently, as we know, our government voted in favour of joining our allies in the global military action in Iraq. In doing so, we are going to work to destroy the ISIL threat and its barbaric actions, which have resulted in the deaths and displacement of innocent civilians across the region and caused a global security concern.

While we are continuing to take strong action against this despicable organization, we must give our intelligence agencies the tools that they are going to need to really confront these kinds of threat to our security.

That is why we have introduced Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act. Through this legislation, our government would amend the existing CSIS Act to confirm that CSIS does have the necessary methods and tools that it needs to investigate these threats and protect the security of Canada.

The legislation governing CSIS really does need to keep pace with this evolving terrorism threat to ensure that CSIS can investigate these threats, no matter where they occur. To that end, the protection of Canada from terrorists act would specifically confirm CSIS's authority to conduct investigations outside of Canada. These would have be to related to threats and to the security of Canada and security assessments.

It would confirm that the Federal Court can issue warrants for CSIS to investigate, within or outside Canada, threats to the security of Canada.

It would give the Federal Court the authority to consider only relevant Canadian law when issuing these warrants to authorize CSIS to undertake certain intrusive activities to investigate a threat to the security of Canada or outside of Canada.

It would protect the identity of CSIS human sources from disclosure, which is very important, and it would also protect the identity of CSIS employees who might engage in covert activities in the future.

It is important to note that CSIS would continue to require judicial authority to conduct certain investigative activities both within and outside of Canada. It would still remain subject to independent review by the Security Intelligence Review Committee.

The protection, safety and security of Canadians and our interests are a top priority for the Government of Canada, and should be for all members in the House. To that end, the important role that CSIS plays cannot be overstated. We will continue to equip it with the tools that it needs to investigate threats to the security of Canadians in what we are facing right now, which is an increasingly complex global environment.

I would encourage all members of the House to ensure that they vote for this very important and needed legislation.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a reasonable question, but I do not think that Bill C-44 would change that balance.

Canadians, including those from Burlington, believe that we do have a role and responsibility as a government to protect our citizens, particularly in a world where, unfortunately, terrorism is not a far-off threat. It is something that can happen here on this soil, in homes, communities and places of work.

We have organizations, such as the RCMP, police forces and CSIS, which are our agencies to help with protection. In a careful review of what Bill C-44 would do in terms of protecting Canadians, it would actually enhance the ability for Canadians to enjoy the freedoms they have in their homes, in their communities, in their province and in their country.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Centre.

It is my honour this afternoon to speak to Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act. As the House knows, this measure was introduced before the events on the Hill on October 22.

Before I start my speech, I want to say one thing. First, I am glad to be anywhere to give a speech after the events on October 22, but what surprised me was the outpouring of concern and affection for my family back home, not just for me but to find out how my wife and kids were doing that day. There were hundreds of calls and contacts and emails to my wife and family. I appreciate the outpouring of concern for my family and myself on that day from the people of my riding. It was very heartwarming. I sent a letter off to the local newspaper thanking people for their concern.

It is my privilege, as I said, to rise today to voice my opinion in this debate on the protection of Canada from terrorists act. As we have seen over the last number of weeks, acts of terror are not limited to troubled areas of the world, such as Syria, Iran, and Iraq. They are carried out by individuals and groups in cities and regions around the world. All of these actions are done for a variety of motives and by different means, but they all have a common goal, which is to strike terror and fear into the hearts of governments and citizens and all of the people they affect.

We will not be intimidated by those cowardly acts. In late October, terrorism hit Canada twice in the span of only a few days. In our typical Canadian fashion, we picked ourselves up, got back to work in the House, came together to grieve for our fallen heroes, and carried on.

The one thing I will never forget is the opportunity I had to attend Corporal Cirillo's funeral in Hamilton. My riding of Burlington is a neighbouring riding to Hamilton, where Corporal Cirillo and his family are from, and many of his colleagues in his regiment live and work in my riding. It was a great honour to be at the funeral to pay my respects on behalf of my community and of the House.

We will continue to strive to protect individuals' rights and stand up for the rule of law, because that is who we are. However, it is clear that our national security agencies need new tools, particularly in the areas of surveillance, detention, and arrest. We will not overreact to threats against us, as some have suggested, but it is high time that we stop under-reacting. We need to be more proactive and start taking terrorist threats seriously, because nothing is more important than keeping Canadians safe from harm and fear, whether in the streets of their communities or when they are travelling or living abroad.

No government can guarantee that it will be able to stop every terrorist act from occurring, but we can make every effort to prevent, detect, deny, and respond to terrorist threats. At its most basic, this means reaching out to communities and religious leaders who will help law enforcement identify individuals who are threats to our collective peace and security.

There are a number of initiatives and programs in place to help governments and law enforcement build those relationships, and we have seen that trust and collaboration flourish over the past few years. This type of interaction is invaluable in terms of helping to uncover potential threats.

We often hear the terms “lone wolf” and “radicalized individuals” used to describe people who may become radicalized to violence without law enforcement having any signals or warnings. While these individuals may be hidden from view, they are often inspired by terrorist entities that are strong in number and loud in their calls for death. Terrorist groups often are happy to let the world know who they are, what they believe in, and what their plans are. Through the Internet in particular, groups like ISIL and al Qaeda broadcast their message of hate and terror, calling on new recruits and followers to carry out their acts of violence against innocent civilians.

Members of the House know the influence the Internet can have on individuals and organizations. We do not need to talk about terrorism to see the effect it has. We all get emails that are inaccurate and tell the wrong story about all kinds of issues. They all end up on our desks, and we all have to respond about inaccuracies and so on. It is this kind of access to information—even erroneous, poorly informed information—that causes individuals who are not being radicalized to make inaccurate statements, believing what they are reading on the Internet. Unfortunately, for individuals who are lost in terms of their place in this world, the Internet is a source of radicalization. Terrorist organizations are able to do this through countless online outlets that are easily accessible and available throughout the globe. We need to be very diligent in that area.

However, these large groups need more than cheap communications, which the Internet provides. They need money, weapons, explosives, people, and other types of resources to carry out their work. That is why our government is taking decisive action, through legal means, to stop terrorist groups.

One way is to cut off their source of funds and resources. We know that global terrorist groups actively seek funds and resources internationally. Under Canada's Anti-terrorism Act, our government can list an entity under the Criminal Code if it has knowingly carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in, or facilitated a terrorist activity, or if it is knowingly acting on behalf of, at the direction of, or in association with any entity involved in a terrorist activity.

The listing process requires analysis of intelligence and criminal information. These reports are submitted to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness for consideration. If the minister has reasonable grounds to believe that the entity's activities fall within the parameters I just mentioned, the minister can place that organization on the list of terrorist entities. Once on the list, the entity is effectively denied its source of critical funding from Canadian sources. Its assets are frozen and subject to seizure, restraint, or forfeiture.

As a further measure, the listing makes it a criminal offence for any Canadian, at home or abroad, to knowingly participate, directly or indirectly, in the activities of a listed entity for the purpose of enhancing its ability to carry out a terrorist activity.

Which entities are on the list? They include aI Qaeda, which serves as the strategic hub and driver for the global Islamist terrorist movement; al Shabaab, a group that is waging a campaign of violence and terror in Somalia; and, of course, ISIL. As we know, this barbaric group has carried out prominent attacks involving suicide vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices, improvised explosive devices, armed attacks, hostage takings, and beheadings.

This is just one way we are able to use legal means to address threats to our safety and security.

As I have heard from all the parties, it appears that the bill is going to go to committee, which I think is appropriate. There we can discuss the issues further and gain a better understanding of them.

I hope all parties can accept the legislation put before us today. It is balanced, reasonable, and effective. It would create new and important tools to allow CSIS to continue to operate successfully. It is the first step in keeping Canadians safe.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise to speak to Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act.

The bill seeks to clarify elements of CSIS' mandate that address serious operational gaps at CSIS bases, including protecting the identities of CSIS's human sources and employees.

The bill would also confirm that CSIS can operate abroad to investigate the threats that have become all too common of late on the nightly news, threats such as the Islamic State, which has demonstrated particular brutality and is drawing individuals from all over the world to join its cause.

As we have now unfortunately seen over these past few weeks, events abroad can inspire radicalization at home with terrible consequences. The RCMP has been quite clear that both of the terrorists who committed these attacks against members of the Canadian Armed Forces had radical ideological motives inspired by extremist views.

The bill is important to ensuring CSIS remains able to investigate such threats to Canada's national security. Whether those threats be radicalized individuals at home, those seeking to travel abroad and cause harm to others, or Canadians abroad committing acts of terrorism, the Canadian public expects and rightly demands that CSIS have the legal authorities to take all necessary steps to investigate threats to the security of Canada and ensure our safety and security.

That said, Canadians also rightly expect that our security agencies be subject to proper review and accountability to ensure they operate within the law. Some members of the House have noted such concerns, and I would like to address these matters directly.

Just over 30 years ago the House passed the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. CSIS was created on the basis of recommendations made by the McDonald commission, itself an independent commission of inquiry.

The McDonald commission spanned four years, from 1977 to 1981 and carefully examined complaints against the RCMP security service at the time. Notably for our discussion here today, its primary recommendation was to create a civilian security intelligence agency separate from law enforcement. This key recommendation is what led to the creation of CSIS.

At the time, the establishment of CSIS had bipartisan support. It is important that the legislation also created a sophisticated and extensive system of accountability and review. That review system is built on the function and role of the Security Intelligence Review Committee or SIRC, judicial authorization, and accountability to the minister and Parliament.

Canadians should be aware that historically SIRC's membership has consisted of individuals from diverse political backgrounds and walks of life. Such a varied membership helps to ensure the trust of all Canadians. It is also important to note that SIRC is one of the most robust review bodies in the western world.

SIRC's mandate is threefold. First, SIRC's review function allows it to make observations and provide recommendations in regard to CSIS' activities, operations and tradecraft. Such review helps ensure that CSIS' operations are effective, safe and legal.

Second, SIRC's complaints function mandates it to investigate formal complaints from members of the public in regard to specific activities of CSIS. Commonly, such complaints are in regard to the denial of a government security clearance by their deputy head, but SIRC can certainly examine any complaint regarding an activity of CSIS.

Third, SIRC is also charged with certifying that CSIS' investigative activities, as described in the director's annual report to the minister, are consistent with the CSIS Act and ministerial direction, and demonstrate a reasonable and necessary use of the service's powers. In that regard, in its most recent report, SIRC found that the operational activities of the service complied with the act and ministerial direction, and were reasonable and necessary in the execution of its mandate.

Canadians should be aware that SIRC's mandate knows no geographic boundary. In that regard, SIRC can and does review CSIS' foreign operations and stations abroad.

As CSIS has increasingly expanded its operations abroad in response to growing threats, particularly after 9/11, SIRC, too, has expanded its own review of those operations. SIRC's expansive mandate means that it provides a robust system of checks and balances on the powers and activities of the service. Canadians can be assured that SIRC continues to carefully review both CSIS' domestic and international activities.

In its 30 years of existence, CSIS has adopted or addressed the majority of SIRC's recommendations, and the director of CSIS has stated forthrightly and publicly that it is a better organization because of SIRC's recommendations. It should also be noted that CSIS' activities can be and regularly are reviewed by the Privacy Commissioner who can issue public recommendations. Members should also be aware that certain CSIS investigative activities require judicial authorization.

CSIS' warrant powers are managed through a rigorous and comprehensive regime and require the prior approval of the Minister of Public Safety. The Federal Court has complete discretion whether to approve, deny or renew warrant applications from CSIS. Markedly the bill would clarify that the Federal Court can also issue warrants for certain intrusive investigative activities by the service abroad, and in consideration only of relevant Canadian law.

Members should also know that such a rigorous warrant regime for international intelligence operations is unprecedented among our closest allies and provides a level of assurance both for the legality and appropriateness of CSIS activities abroad. Further still, the service reports directly to the Minister of Public Safety who is accountable to Parliament for the activities of CSIS and tables an annual public report on CSIS' activities.

CSIS appears regularly before parliamentary committees to address concerns of members and senators. In fact, as recently as October 8, the CSIS director and RCMP commissioner appeared at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to provide members with a frank, open and candid discussion of the terrorist threat. I am quite sure that CSIS officials will appear at the public safety and national security committee to address any concerns and answer any questions on the bill before us today.

Simply put, CSIS' review and warrant regimes are robust and extensive. Canadians and members of the House can be assured that CSIS is acting well within its mandate to investigate threats to the security of Canada.

To me, this is all very impressive. It is reflective of our shared Canadian values of respect for individual rights and the rule of law. However, still the Liberals continue to bring forward proposals that would create duplicate oversight mechanisms. It seems that many, especially the members for Vancouver Quadra and Malpeque, seem focused on well-meaning proposals that have the unintended consequence of causing our national security agencies to go head to head with the terrorist threat with one hand tied behind their backs.

I would like to take this opportunity to encourage all members of the House to stop under-reacting to the terrorist threat and to support this important legislation.

Lastly, we all like our privacy and security, but we live in a different world today. I know that there is an expectation among most Canadians that the government has to take action. Some of the things that happened here in the last two weeks in this place and this city has made that reality very apparent to all of us. The Government of Canada will and has to respond to that threat.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House to debate Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act. I am confident that in the bill before us we have effective legislation that will go a long way toward improving our national security.

This bill contains two separate elements. Let me turn to the first part of the bill, which deals with the changes to the CSIS Act.

This act is the legislation that governs CSIS's activities. It was introduced three decades ago when CSIS was first established, and the act itself has not changed. Given what has occurred in the last few weeks, I would submit that it is certainly time.

When this was done 30 years ago, it was the era of the rotary phone. The Internet was just in the experimental stage. Social media did not exist, so social media were not applied toward the recruitment and radicalization of people across the world. Therefore, as all Canadians can appreciate, the nature of the environment in which CSIS must operate has changed. As an example, the terrorist threat has evolved considerably. All the way from the Cold War, we expected a peace dividend, but threats are more dangerous now, and with Mr. Putin and others threatening global borders, we have to be vigilant.

Mr. Speaker, please let me state that I am also splitting my time today with the great member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

Canada has had some notable successes in this country in detecting and disrupting terrorist plots, but the reality is that Canada is not immune to violent extremism. This is especially clear now that it has touched us on our very own soil, including on the very day and in the very place that we had planned to introduce this carefully considered legislation in this House.

While it is true that we have always been vigilant about the threat of terrorism, in recent months we have become particularly seized with the task of moving beyond vigilance to decisive action. This is something that we have an obligation to do for all Canadians. As parliamentarians, we can and we must take action to ensure that our security and intelligence agencies have the tools they need to protect Canada. Our government has been clear about its commitment to doing that.

With keen awareness of the challenges that CSIS faces in investigating threats to Canada, we have proposed measured yet critical amendments to the CSIS Act. It is evident to us, as I hope it will be to members on all sides of this House, that CSIS must have clear authority to investigate security threats to this country, whether they originate here or they originate abroad.

How would this bill allow for that? First of all, the bill would allow confirm CSIS's authority to carry out investigations outside of Canada. Specifically, it would amend the CSIS Act to state, for greater certainty, that CSIS has the authority to perform its duties within or outside of Canada for the purposes of investigating threats to the security of Canada or conducting security assessments.

Another important change would see to it that the Federal Court need only consider relevant Canadian laws, such as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the CSIS Act, when issuing warrants authorizing CSIS to undertake certain intrusive activities in order to investigate a threat to the security of Canada outside of Canada.

In addition, the bill would address a shortcoming in the act as it stands with respect to the disclosure of human sources in court proceedings. At the present, there is no automatic protection for the identity of CSIS human sources similar to the common law privilege available to police informers. This is problematic, given that human source intelligence is so central to CSIS's work.

To address this problem, we have proposed an amendment that would create a prohibition on disclosing in court proceedings the identity of any CSIS human sources who have provided information to CSIS on the condition of confidentiality.

There are two exceptions that would allow this information to be disclosed. One is if a person is not in fact a confidential human source; the second is if the information is needed to demonstrate the innocence of the accused in a criminal proceeding. Overall, with these exceptions included, we believe that this amendment would successfully balance the need to protect the identity of CSIS human sources with the need to ensure fairness in legal proceedings.

Finally, we have proposed an amendment to safeguard the identity of CSIS employees who are likely to become involved in covert operational activities in the future. This is critical. Our operatives are serving in perilous situations on our behalf, so it is incumbent upon us to ensure that their families are safe as they do their very important work to ensure that our families remain safe.

Our government is convinced that these amendments are needed to ensure that the CSIS Act provides CSIS with the means to use reasonable and necessary measures to investigate threats to the security of Canada for the safety and security of our nation.

Nevertheless, as we make these carefully considered changes that will help CSIS investigate threats to Canada, I want to reassure Canadians that some fundamental elements will not change.

First and foremost, the rule of law applies. A judicial warrant is absolutely required in order to authorize CSIS's more intrusive activities. To be sure, this requirement serves as an important safeguard on the rights of Canadians. The CSIS Act clearly states that in order for a warrant to be issued, CSIS must satisfy a judge that, among other things, there is reason to believe the activity constitutes a threat to the security of Canada.

Second, I want to stress that CSIS's activities will continue to be consistent with the rule of law and Canadian values.

Last, CSIS will remain subject to robust oversight by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, just as it will remain subject to external arm's-length review by the Security Intelligence Review Committee, SIRC.

For the safety and security of Canadians, we need to move forward with these targeted and limited amendments to the CSIS Act to ensure that CSIS has the tools it needs to investigate threats to the security of Canada.

At the outset of my remarks, I mentioned that there were two elements to this legislation. Now I am going to turn to the second part.

The bill also contains technical amendments to the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, which received royal assent earlier this year.

These amendments will allow for quicker implementation of the citizenship revocation provisions in that act, including provisions to enable the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to revoke Canadian citizenship from dual citizens convicted of terrorism, treason, or spying offences. We believe that an earlier timeline to implement these important provisions is warranted.

Citizenship is a pledge of mutual responsibility and shared commitment to the values rooted in our history and to our fellow Canadians. Dual citizens convicted of serious crimes such as terrorism should not continue to benefit from Canadian citizenship, a citizenship that provides foundations of democracy, human rights, and the protections afforded to all Canadians in this great nation.

In closing, I would like to clearly state that it is imperative that all parties support this legislation. In the past, both the Liberals and the NDP have been guilty of under-reacting to the threat posed to Canadians by radical extremists. Clearly both parties, I hope, have now come to realize the true threat that we face and will work with us to ensure that all Canadians are protected and safe.

The Liberals opposed taking citizenship away from terrorists. Bizarrely, they claimed that it was an affront to Canadian values. I am quite sure that they may have re-evaluated that position. Even further afield, the NDP opposed the Combating Terrorism Act, which was well ahead of its time. It effectively criminalized what we have now come to know as foreign fighters. What is more, the NDP leader has rejected the assessments of the President of France, the U.S. Secretary of State, and even the Commissioner of the RCMP, who said what Canadians knew all along: that the horrific events of late October were the acts of deranged terrorists bent on establishing an Islamic caliphate.

I hope that in the coming days, all parties in the House will take this opportunity to stand up for security and to stand up for all Canadians. Our nation must be preserved, and to do so, we must ensure that we provide those who protect us with the right tools to enable them to do it.

The House resumed from November 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C-44, an act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to stand in the House representing the people of Timmins—James Bay, who put their trust in me to speak for them.

I am very pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-44. This is the first time I have spoken in the House in debate since the brutal attack at the cenotaph and the attack on Parliament Hill. I would like to begin by reflecting a little of what I experienced on that terrible day.

I certainly experienced a sense of relief when I found that we were safe. I experienced thankfulness for the incredible security people who literally put their lives on the line to make sure that we were safe. I felt an enormous sense of pride—not a bullish beating of the chest pride, but a quiet pride—watching the Canadians around me who went about their day unafraid and helped each other. It reminded me that no matter what our differences in this nation are, there is a sense of community that will not be intimidated.

The last thing I felt that day was a real anger, an anger that the House of the people had been desecrated by violence. I felt it when I went out in the early morning about 5 a.m. and went to the cenotaph and saw a crime scene tape. I was very angry that such a symbol of who we are as a nation could be cut off from us and suddenly become a crime scene of mindless, hateful violence. It made me feel very angry.

When we reflect on how we deal with this kind of violence, it is incumbent upon us to take that sense of anger, that sense of pride, that sense of relief, and step back and ask ourselves what the Canadian people expect from us to ensure that they are safe. We are dealing with some very complex issues that are now being thrust before us.

Bill C-44 is not a response to what happened last week. This is a bill that has been on the order paper for some time, and it is important to look at it in that light. There are certainly specific elements that will need to be examined clearly, which is why we want the bill to go forward to committee.

One aspect is the international role of CSIS in in spying on and maintaining coverage of potential perpetrators who may be overseas. Certainly we see the issue of radicalization of people who have gone overseas, but this is a question that does confront the House, and we need to address it.

We know that CSIS has been found to have breached the courts and the laws of our land on numerous occasions, as reported in the 2007 Hape decision. In 2008, Justice Blanchard found that section 12 of the CSIS act did not contain extraterritorial provisions with respect to covert intelligence. In 2013, Justice Mosley said that the practice of seeking warrants for foreign surveillance was not legal. Therefore, the bill needs to look at how the actions of CSIS will be done within a legal frame.

To put this in context, maintaining legal provisions that will protect the Canadian people has to be seen in terms of the resources that exist or do not exist to follow through on whatever laws we bring forth.

There is also the issue of oversight. The issue of oversight means that when we debate laws in this country to offer police more tools, we make sure that these tools are being applied where they were intended and that they are not opening the door to all manner of warrantless intervention in the lives of ordinary Canadians.

In terms of oversight, the government has a fundamental problem. The government may feel that CSIS needs the tools and that CSIS has to be the front-line fighter in terms of international terrorism, but the oversight mechanisms have been abysmal.

The Prime Minister appointed Arthur Porter, a notorious international criminal who is sitting in a jail in Panama, to sit on the oversight body of CSIS. I would think that Canadians who witnessed the attacks last week would not be comfortable knowing that the man who was supposed to be making sure that our spy agency followed the laws and had the tools necessary was now sitting in a Panamanian jail on all manner of charges and allegations.

The replacement for him was Chuck Strahl, a former minister in the House. We found later that he was acting as a lobbyist for Enbridge at a time when CSIS was apparently spying on anti-Enbridge activists. There is damage to credibility here.

Maher Arar was sent to a foreign jurisdiction, wrongly, and tortured. He was an innocent man. One of the recommendations from the Arar report was to have better oversight of these provisions. This oversight is important in making sure there are no more cases like Maher Arar's, cases of people who are innocent but are in the wrong place at the wrong time and are rendered because the feeling of the day is that we do not need to follow the rule of law. The rule of law is essential. It keeps us separate from the kinds of bandits who want to attack who we are as a nation.

In terms of resources, the government is cutting $687.9 million from its overall security in the coming years, and $180 million is being cut from border security. Telling us it is going to get tougher in terms of protecting us while at the same time limiting the resources being used to protect us certainly raises questions about the government's overall credibility.

There is the recent Privacy Commissioner's ruling on the RCMP and its warrantless access provisions. The RCMP does not even have an ability to track how it is gathering information and under what circumstances it is gathering it.

Do we need to look at rules that may provide better tools to go after potential threats? That is certainly the discussion we should have. However, when every 72 seconds we have a request made to a telecom by a government agency that wants personal information on Canadians, that is certainly not within justification.

The fact is, contrary to what the Prime Minister said, the killers of Warrant Officer Vincent and Corporal Cirillo were not killers who washed up on our shores, as we were told last week. These were home-grown Canadian men. The Prime Minister said that our international allies would be standing with us as we went after the men who brutally killed Corporal Cirillo. Where were our international allies when he was going into a McDonald's with a stick, trying to get himself arrested?

Clearly, the rhetoric does not match the reality here. The reality is that we are not talking about what happens when people fall through the cracks and become increasingly marginalized. We had the snow plough killer and the bus beheader. We have people who, in mental instability, do terrible, brutal crimes. In the case of Zehaf-Bibeau, we were glad that the RCMP was able to seize his passport to prevent him from going anywhere else, but he was not on their terror watch list because he was considered mentally unstable. We need to understand that if we are to respond to the brutal crimes we saw, we must put provisions in place that protect us.

In terms of Bill C-44, the reasonable step here is to move it to committee to see what provisions CSIS needs to deal with international radicalization, especially in the case of someone who is trying to go to a place like Syria or Iraq to engage in the murderous activities there. What provisions would still be within the laws of our country? What oversight will be there to ensure that CSIS does not abuse its function within Canada? What role will we take, as a federal House of Commons, to address the fact that there is clearly a problem when Canadian men, born and bred in our country, can fall so far from the norm that they can pick up any kind of murderous death cult ideology because of all manner of instability, drugs, broken lives, and the fact they were living on the streets?

There are other people out there who may be in that same situation, whether they identify themselves as radical or not. What provisions are we going to put in place to ensure public security?

This is a long, ongoing discussion that we need to have in the House. However, we need to have it within the context of figuring out what works, what resources are in place, and what will maintain the overall standards we have for the rule of law in our country and the fact that we are an open, democratic, and unafraid society.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Timmins—James Bay.

I am pleased to participate in this debate today on Bill C-44, an act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other acts. I understand that it is a bill the government had on the books and was preparing to introduce, and it is doing so now, following the recent events here in the House and another tragedy in the province of Quebec.

In short, it makes three substantive changes to CSIS. It would clarify the legal authority of CSIS to conduct security intelligence operations abroad in response to threats to the security of Canada. It had run into some difficulties in the courts with respect to this, so it now wants clarification and changes because of that.

It also confirms the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to issue warrants that have effect outside Canada. It provides for the protection of the identify of CSIS human intelligence sources in judicial proceedings. It also amends the timeline for changes to the Citizenship Act with respect to the revocation of dual citizenship for dual citizens who are involved in terrorism or other serious offences. That bill was passed this past June.

I want to state that I join with all my colleagues in this House, and in fact all Canadians, in paying tribute to Corporal Nathan Cirillo and Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent. We joined many of our colleagues today at the cenotaph in Ottawa to lay wreaths. The veterans minister was there as well. It was a very moving time. I think Remembrance Day, in a few short days, will be a moving time for our country. My dad and my grandfather fought in the First and Second World Wars. I know how emotional, painful, and deep these experiences are for the entire Canadian psyche.

The violence that took place here in Canada a couple of weeks ago was something that certainly touched the hearts of Canadians and was something we need to take very seriously. I believe we will do that.

I have had a tremendous number of constituents contact my office and encourage us as parliamentarians to react in a measured, considered way and to not overreact to the events that took place, which indeed were terrible and terrifying. I am hopeful that as parliamentarians, we will do that, because we believe that defending both public safety and civil liberties is important. This is not a balancing act, where we shave off a little of one to gain some of the other. We believe, on this side of the House, that we can do both. We can move forward and ensure the safety and security of Canadians while guarding our shared values of freedom, tolerance, and an inclusive democracy. That is why we are all here as parliamentarians. It is because we value that democracy.

We must carefully review our laws in light of the tragic circumstances of the last two weeks and ensure that our laws and security measures are adequate and appropriate for the needs of our country while ensuring, at the same time, that our civil liberties are protected. We have to make sure that this work is done responsibly and with careful study based on the evidence we have at hand. Of course, we do not have all the evidence in yet, because investigations are ongoing.

On this particular legislation, details matter a great deal. We will support the bill going to committee, because we would like a thorough, rigorous, detailed study to take place.

I want to spend a bit of time on the notion of improved civilian oversight of CSIS. We are disappointed that the bill does not include that additional civilian oversight.

I had the great privilege of sitting on the finance committee in 2012, when under yet another budget implementation act, there was a debate about CSIS oversight. Members might well ask why the finance committee would be debating CSIS oversight, and that is a very good question. It was a measure included in the budget implementation act, 2012. The measure specifically included the elimination of the inspector general, a position I am sure most Canadians did not know we had, and if they did know, they were not sure what it did.

We had the terrific privilege of having as a witness at committee one of the key people responsible for setting up that position, Mr. Paul Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy has a long history of over 20 years in the public service. He has advised ministers. For a number of years, he was the senior assistant deputy minister of public safety responsible for national security activities. He spent five years as senior chief counsel to CSIS and four years as chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. He was the senior general counsel of justice and coordinated all the legal advice among intelligence agencies. I am sure members would agree that he was an eminently qualified person to speak about CSIS and advise the committee.

I want to tell the House some of the facts he gave us. We had heard from officials that eliminating the position of inspector general would save $1 million of the public purse and that this was good value for money. We heard that SIRC would be able to take up the slack and take on the monitoring responsibilities.

Mr. Kennedy told the committee that we would save $1 million in a $7-billion public safety department budget but that ultimately, it could cost the government, and therefore Canadians, a great deal more when there were problems. He said there would inevitably be problems. For example, he said that the Arar inquiry, about the illegal arrest, imprisonment, and torture of Mr. Arar, was a $30-million inquiry, $10 million of which the government paid in compensation. It was tremendously expensive, and that $30 million did not include all the hours public servants spent on that inquiry.

There was the ongoing investigation of the Robert Dziekanski case at the Vancouver airport. There have been many other inquiries.

Mr. Kennedy pointed out that if we were talking about a consolidation of the responsibilities of this oversight position and SIRC, then we should have a transfer of staff and files and money to make that happen. None of that happened. In spite of many inquiries recommending greater oversight and more resources, that simply has not happened.

This is the direct responsibility of the Minister of Public Safety. The buck stops with the minister. Without the inspector general in place, who can keep an eye on the spies, Canadians have no guarantee that their public interests are protected.

We need that position. We need greater oversight. At committee, parliamentarians should make sure that this happens.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act. The legislation is both necessary and timely.

As members know, this House recently expressed its support of the government's decision to join the alliance to strike at the heart of Daesh, or as it is most commonly called, ISIL or ISIS. However, there are many other ways that the Government of Canada addresses terrorism at home and abroad.

The proposed legislation includes two distinct elements that work together toward one common goal, that of keeping Canadians and Canadian interests safe from the threat of terrorism.

First, the legislation includes amendments to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, and this act is three decades old. Since that time, through its analysis, assessment, and intelligence work, CSIS has helped to protect our country from a wide variety of threats. In the process, it has become a central player in Canada's national security system and a respected member of the international intelligence community.

However, the nature of these threats has evolved dramatically since the 1980s. The 2014 public report on the terrorist threat to Canada makes it clear that we can never take our safety and security for granted. Around the world, there were more than 9,700 terrorist incidents in 93 countries reported in 2013 alone. More than half of those occurred in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.

That said, Canadians should not think that our country is immune to the scourge of terrorism. In fact, as we all know only too well, just steps from where we stand today we witnessed a horrific terrorist attack that cost a young Canadian Armed Forces member his life at the hands of a radicalized violent extremist. That cowardly act was preceded two days earlier by another senseless attack by a radicalized extremist, one that claimed the life of another member of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Indeed, the legislation we are debating today is designed to address a disturbing trend: the involvement of Canadians who travel abroad to get involved with terror-related activities. These so-called extremist travellers pose a threat not only to innocent people in foreign countries but to Canadian citizens as well, because those travellers who survive their adventures in foreign countries often return armed with more tools to engage in violence and to spread hate here at home.

Fighting terrorism and violent extremism requires the concerted efforts of many players on many different levels. One way to prevent violent extremism is to build good will and trust between law enforcement and Canadian communities. Another way is to improve how we gather intelligence, and that is why we are proposing changes to the CSIS act.

A measure in the protection of Canada from terrorists act is to specifically confirm that CSIS has the authority to conduct investigations outside of Canada related to threats to the security of Canada and security assessments.

Another key measure in the act would clarify the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to issue warrants authorizing CSIS to undertake certain intrusive activities outside of Canada. To enable CSIS to properly investigate threats outside of Canada, we are proposing amendments that would clarify that the Federal Court need only consider relevant Canadian laws, namely the CSIS act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, when it is determining if a warrant is required.

A third important measure of the bill would protect the identity of human sources. As members know, the confidentiality of police informants is protected by common law. However, while this has long been the practice in the law enforcement context, the Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled that the protection afforded to police informants does not extend to CSIS' human sources. At the same time, there are no provisions in the CSIS act to protect people who provide vital information related to a threat to Canada's national security. Bill C-44 would include protection for CSIS' human sources during legal proceedings. This protection would be consistent with Canadian law.

In doing so, the protection could be challenged under two conditions: if the protection does not apply to the person or information in question, or if the information is needed for a criminal trial to demonstrate the innocence of the accused.

While it is vital to CSIS to protect human sources, it is equally important for the service to protect its employees. Existing legislation protects the identities of CSIS employees who are or have been involved in covert operations. It does not, however, protect employees who are training to be engaged in covert activity. This is a small but essential gap that must be filled. The legislation before us proposes to protect the identity of all CSIS employees who have been, are, or are likely to be involved in covert activities.

I will turn now to the second part of this proposed legislation, which relates to Canadian citizenship.

Revocation is an important tool to safeguard the value of Canadian citizenship and to protect the integrity of the citizenship program.

The proposed technical amendments would allow our government to proceed with quicker implementation of the new revocation provisions under the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, which received royal assent June 19, 2014.

A number of the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act provisions have already come into force. Based on how the coming into force provisions of that act are written, the majority of the remaining provisions are required to come into force at the same time.

With these technical amendments, we can move ahead with doing what is necessary to protect our country and ensure the safety and security of Canadians by enabling early implementation of provisions related to citizenship revocation. These provisions expand the grounds for revocation of Canadian citizenship and establish a streamlined decision-making process for revocation.

The new provisions would enable the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to recommend to Treasury Board the revocation of Canadian citizenship from dual citizens who are convicted of a terrorism, high treason, treason, or spying offence, depending on the sentence.

They would also provide the Federal Court with the authority to revoke Canadian citizenship from dual citizens for membership in an armed force or organized armed group engaged in armed conflict with Canada.

The revocation provisions underscore our government's commitment to protecting the safety and security of Canadians and promoting Canadian interests and values. They also reinforce the value of Canadian citizenship.

These technical amendments would also allow for faster implementation of other supporting provisions, including those related to renunciation, resumption, prohibitions, regulatory authorities, changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and the delegation of authority provision for the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

This earlier implementation would help better protect the safety and security of Canadians.

The provisions contained in this bill are critical to Canadian safety. We must move swiftly to strengthen our citizenship program and remove any questions about CSIS' ability to conduct investigations outside of Canada, as well as the authority of the Federal Court to issue warrants authorizing CSIS to undertake certain intrusive activities outside of Canada.

It is imperative that we stop this outmoded mindset of underreacting to the terrorist threat.

There are other aspects to the challenge that we face writ large. We all know that a minority of violent extremists from any religious or other group should not cause us to discriminate against the majority.

We need to find ways to work together to prevent radicalization, to nip it in the bud where possible, and to deal with it firmly and swiftly when necessary.

I would point to the Phoenix Multi-Faith Society for Harmony, a non-profit organization founded in Edmonton and dedicated to the promotion of interfaith co-operation.

Its objectives are to create a forum through which dialogue and discussion can take place, with a view to facilitating understanding and respect for all faiths; to seek continued peaceful co-existence and positive relations, through open communication, interfaith dialogue, education, and participation across our communities; and to carry out initiatives to address negative stereotyping, hatred, bias, and prejudice.

The Phoenix Society is an excellent example of a community initiative, but despite its best efforts, it will not stop all radicalization.

I believe that the majority of members of any religious or other group are peaceful and law-abiding. I also believe that unless the majority takes action to control the violent minority within its ranks and actively co-operate with security authorities, then we will continue to face growing threats from within.

There are many historical examples of peaceful majorities being led into extremely violent international actions by obsessed leaders with murderous and illegitimate intent.

Canada has a heart and a soul. The heart of Canada is our freedom and our democracy. That is represented in no better place than this House.

A week and a half or so ago, our heart was attacked and wounded, but it certainly was not killed. In fact, our heart will continue stronger than ever before.

Canada has a soul. That soul is embodied in the kind of people who make the ultimate sacrifice for our freedoms, to protect the democracy and freedom we cherish so much. That soul is represented in no better place than the people who wear the uniform and the people who have worn the uniform in the past, as represented by the National War Memorial and the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

A week and a half ago our soul was wounded, too. Our souls will survive, stronger than ever.

It is in all Canadians' interest to be part of that solution, to keep the heart and soul of Canada alive and well. That is why I ask all hon. members to join me in supporting the protection of Canada from terrorists act as the first step to keeping our land strong, glorious, and free.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Edmonton Centre.

It is a great privilege for me to stand today to speak to Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act. As we have heard in these debates, the bill includes amendments to the CSIS Act and technical amendments to the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act. My remarks today will focus on the amendments to the CSIS Act and why we must take steps to give this vital agency the tools it needs to conduct investigations outside of Canada related to threats to the security of Canada itself.

First, I would like to speak to the global terrorist threat, its impact here at home, and the steps Canada is taking to address that threat. Acts of terror and murder have been carried out across the globe by extremist groups that have no regard for the lives of innocent people. In fact, as we all witnessed in the past weeks, Canada was a victim of two terrorist attacks within the span of one week. Due to radical Islamist terrorism, we lost two fine soldiers, Corporal Nathan Cirillo and Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, who was laid to rest this past weekend.

Terrorists kill people from all walks of life, including people from communities they claim to represent. Significant work has been done over the last decade, particularly since September 11, 2001, to counter terrorist activities. Canada has been a leader in global counterterrorism efforts. We have seen citizens and civil society organizations representing people of all faiths and beliefs work among themselves and with our government to prevent terrorism by building stronger and more resilient communities.

All of these measures are captured within the four pillars of Canada's counterterrorism strategy: prevent, detect, deny and respond. That strategy will serve us well on the difficult road we face ahead as our Canadian Armed Forces engage in a campaign to degrade and destroy the threat that ISIL poses to western civilization, and it is a threat to western civilization.

Indeed, our security agencies have been monitoring groups such as al Qaeda and ISIL closely for years and we have taken concrete measures to disrupt and prevent violent and extremist activities. This takes a comprehensive approach. While we join our allies in air strikes, we are also taking other measures that are working to isolate ISIL and deny it and its partners resources, including funds and new recruits. Let me explain.

As we know, terrorists need money, media access, weapons and explosives, among other resources, to sustain themselves. We want to make sure that all groups that would assist terrorist organizations are restricted from doing so. Preventing terrorists from using the global financial system to commit their acts of terror is essential to help suppress these groups. Therefore, we have certain provisions under the Criminal Code that we can use to deal with the assets and operations of groups that support terrorist activities.

Listing an entity under the Criminal Code is a public means of identifying a group or individual as being associated with terrorism. It carries significant consequences. Once listed, an entity's assets are frozen and may be subject to seizure, restraint or forfeiture. Further, it is an offence for Canadians at home or abroad to knowingly participate in or contribute to, directly or indirectly, any activity that facilitates the activities of a listed terrorist entity.

We know that terrorist groups are inspiring some westerners to take up arms with their cause. In order to reach these individuals and guard against these tactics, we work closely with diverse communities, including through the cross-cultural round table on security. We are working with leaders and communities right across the country to help engage Canadians in a long-term dialogue on matters related to national security, particularly in countering violent extremism.

Through the round table, we have reached out to hundreds of respected cultural and religious leaders who have their fingers on the pulses of their communities. These leaders have been integral in helping law enforcement and security agencies address threats and identify the best ways to reach individuals who may be leaning toward violent behaviour and to redirect them from pathways of radicalization leading to violence. However, the rapid changes in technology, the ease of communications, and mobility of terrorist travellers have created new and complex challenges for Canada and all of our allies as we work to keep our citizens safe.

As in other countries, despite everyone's best efforts, a small but significant number of individuals have left Canada to join terrorist groups in the Middle East. Denying ISIL its new recruits also means using Canadian law to crack down on these so-called extremist travellers. We brought forward the Combating Terrorism Act to make it an offence to leave Canada to take part in terrorist acts. We have laws in place to revoke the passports of Canadians who travel abroad to join extremist groups.

Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness have stated clearly that our government will continue to look at ways to help our national security agencies investigate and track the activities of terrorists at our borders and beyond. One of these ways is the legislation that is before us today to amend the existing CSIS Act so that we are better able to provide CSIS with the tools it needs to investigate threats to the security of Canada, wherever they occur, and ultimately to protect the security of Canadians.

It is important to note that the CSIS Act was created three decades ago. That was in the age of rotary phones, when our world was under the shadow of the Cold War. This act is in need of updates and upgrades that would confirm CSIS' authority to investigate Canadian extremists and other threats abroad. That is why I urge the House to support the bill that is before us today.

The protection of Canada from terrorists act would confirm that CSIS has the authority to operate outside Canada when investigating threats to the security of Canada or conducting investigations for the purpose of security assessments, and that the Federal Court has the authority to issue warrants authorizing CSIS to conduct activities outside of Canada without regard to the laws of other states. This new legislation would also reinforce CSIS' statutory authority to investigate threats abroad and to ensure that judges would only need to consider relevant Canadian law, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the CSIS Act, and not foreign laws when issuing a warrant.

Clearly there are a number of ways our government protects the safety and security of Canada against terrorism, but first we must ensure that we have the right tools in place for our security intelligence agency to do so. There is no time to waste. We must amend the CSIS Act and allow this vital agency to continue its work. I urge members of the House to join me in supporting the bill.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to discuss this very important piece of legislation, legislation that is timely, that is consequential, that will help the House and this government uphold its principle duty to Canadians, which is to ensure their safety and to protect them from threats that we know to be all too real.

The protection of Canada from terrorists act gives our security agencies the vital tools they need to keep Canadians safe. So far in the debate, we are pleased to see the emerging recognition from parties opposite that these tools are needed, that they are part of our national response to the threat of terrorism and that it is time we took action to make sure that the agencies on which we rely to carry out that duty on behalf of government, on behalf of our democratic institutions, have these tools available to undertake the reasonable activity required to, once again, keep Canada and Canadians safe.

Before I begin my remarks on the substance of the legislation, let me remind us all once again why these measures, which were contemplated long before the attacks of last month, are doubly warranted and doubly relevant given the events that occurred at the National War Memorial and in our Hall of Honour just steps from where we are today.

Those events are a reminder that ISIL and other terrorist groups are a very real threat to Canadians. That is why we are taking part in air strikes against ISIL this week. That is why we are supporting the security forces of Iraq in their fight against the scourge of terrorism. All of these measures go together to ensure that Canada and Canadians are kept safe, that we work in concert with allies and partners in NATO and in the region to ensure that this threat that is principally victimizing the people of Iraq and Syria does not become an even greater threat to them or to our population further afield.

It is also the reason why we are working with great determination to strengthen the tools, to strengthen the effectiveness of the tools already available to police, to the intelligence community in the areas of surveillance, detention and arrest. The legislation before us today is just the first step in our efforts to do that and as the Prime Minister has been clear, so are we all clear on this side of the House that we will not overreact to these events. We will not be intimidated by ISIL or any other group, but at the same time, Canadians want us to stop under-reacting to a threat that is indeed very real.

Section 83 of the Criminal Code of Canada defines terrorist activity as an act committed for a political, religious or ideological purpose with the intention of intimidating the public and that intentionally causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence or disrupts an essential service, facility or system.

Given that definition, I think we can all agree that last week in late October, Canada was a victim of terrorist attacks. This was the view confirmed in the immediate aftermath of those attacks by Bob Paulson, Commissioner of the RCMP. It was shared by the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry during his visit shortly after the attacks. He said, “...anybody who walks up in a premeditated way with a loaded rifle and attacks someone in uniform then purposely goes to a parliament, is committing, by common sense standards, a terrorist act”.

Unfortunately, we still have the leader of the NDP on record disagreeing with this assessment, despite the fact that it was reinforced yesterday by another important visitor to Canada.

The President of the French Republic had no doubt about the nature of the terrorist attacks two weeks ago. We agree with him and are grateful for the show of solidarity from France, other European allies, the U.S., and dozens of other countries that recognize that the acts committed here in Ottawa two weeks ago were related to terrorism.

I would like to quote a recent Toronto Star editorial on the leader of the NDP's position. It states:

Most people grasp it instinctively—what occurred last week and the ongoing risks in our midst. That NDP Leader Tom Mulcair cannot admit this, even now, drawing an irrational, pedantic distinction between the deadly attack in Ottawa and a terrorist assault, reflects abysmally on his judgment and aspirations of political statesmanship.

That is a strong statement coming from a newspaper that I, for one, do not often quote in this place. I think it speaks for itself.

Ambiguities in the CSIS Act have been impeding the ability of our national security agencies to investigate threats to the security of Canada. The bill would address these problems by confirming that CSIS has the authority to conduct investigations outside of Canada, confirming that the Federal Court can issue warrants for CSIS to investigate targets outside of this country, giving the Federal Court the authority to consider only relevant Canadian laws when issuing warrants for CSIS, and creating automatic protections of the identities of CSIS employees who may engage in clandestine operations.

The bill would also make technical amendments that would allow our government to seek quicker implementation of the new citizenship revocation provisions under the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, the former Bill C-24, which received royal assent earlier this year on June 19. While it is important to ensure that citizenship revocation provisions come into force as soon as possible, the pith and substance, the main motive for the legislation, relates to our national security agencies.

Let me remind the House that there are three challenges being met. The first is to clarify that for greater certainty CSIS may perform its duties and functions within or outside of Canada. It has been doing this since its foundation, but as we all know, there has been an inability, particularly in recent months, for it to fully execute those functions outside of Canada to the degree required by its mandate to counter threats to Canada, above all, the threat of terrorism.

It would also clarify that the courts may issue warrants for certain investigative activities within or outside Canada and for that purpose, warrants may be issued without regard to the law of a foreign state. In other words, these warrants would be in full conformity to Canadian law, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, all aspects of our legal system, but not necessarily with regard to the law of a foreign state.

Second, the legislation would create a statutory prohibition on disclosure of identities or information from which identities could be inferred of individuals who provide CSIS with information in return for a promise of confidentiality. In other words, we need to ensure in this day and age that those in a position to provide the most sensitive information, the most time-sensitive information, information of the highest delicacy, can do so safely and have their identities protected under our legal system.

Third, the CSIS Act makes it an offence to disclose the identities of CSIS employees who are or were engaged in covert operational activities. The legislation would expand this protection to also cover CSIS employees who are likely to become engaged in such activities, making it possible for those recruited to do these jobs, being trained to do these jobs, being retasked to do these jobs, to have their identities protected as well.

All of these changes, as I think the House now understands, are vital to the protection of our national security. They would help stop individuals from travelling for terrorist purposes, especially given recent global events. Our government remains seized, like dozens of other governments around the world, with the issue of foreign fighters, individuals from Canada, from our European partners, from the United States, from the Middle East itself, travelling to places such as Iraq, Syria, Somalia or Pakistan, which is still well known, unfortunately, as a training ground for Sunni extremist terrorist groups, to engage in terrorist activities.

These individuals often pose a direct danger to the countries where they are operating. Any country that has experienced terrorist violence on a large scale, as is the case, obviously, for Iraq and Syria, but also for Pakistan, Somalia, Libya, many countries of the Maghreb and even sub-Saharan Africa, fall into this category. They, too, have the threat of terrorist training, recruiting, financing of terrorist activities in their territory and of foreign fighters flowing into their borders to join those training efforts and that fight.

This bill would update the CSIS Act to allow our intelligence community to operate and investigate threats to Canadian national security much better. It would clarify the investigative functions under sections 12 and 15 of the CSIS Act within or outside of Canada.

Keep in mind that section 12 already authorizes CSIS to investigate threats to Canada's security, and terrorism is very high if not continuously at the top of the list in terms of those threats.

Section 15 relates to the security assessments that CSIS performs for departments like mine to allow us to take responsible decisions about visa issuance and to prevent foreign fighters, terrorist kingpins, those who have been involved in terrorist violence or committed atrocities abroad from coming to Canada either as visitors or permanent residents.

The bill would also clarify that the courts may issue warrants for investigative activities, once again, within or outside Canada but without regard to the law of a foreign state.

Indeed, if there is one central advantage to this proposed legislation, strength in this legislation, it is that it will help our government meet its security priority of securing convictions for those who engage in terrorist activity. This is the solution to the global phenomenon of terrorism. These people and groups need to be fought, as we are fighting them in Iraq, but they also need to be brought to justice not only in Canada but in all the states where these crimes are committed.

As members know, in May 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutionality of the security certificate process in a decision on the case of Mohamed Harkat. This helped to show that we could gather evidence in a way that would allow it to be used in court proceedings without compromising operations.

However, as part of this decision, the Supreme Court also found that, unlike police informers, the identity of CSIS sources were not automatically protected from disclosure. CSIS obviously relies heavily on such information from human sources. Without such assurances, human sources may simply stop co-operating with CSIS, stop-co-operating with Canada, and we would operate blind and open ourselves to threats that we would have a duty to combat.

To address this issue, the bill would create a statutory prohibition on disclosure of the identities or information from which the identities could be inferred of individuals who provided CSIS with information in return for a promise of confidentiality.

As with all of our legislation, this act would continue to respect the Canadian values of individual rights and the rule of law. All of the investigative activities of CSIS must take place in accordance with its mandated authorities under the CSIS Act, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ministerial direction and internal policy.

When threats demand more intrusive investigative measures, the service requires judicial authorization for each and every one of those activities. CSIS is also subject to a full review by the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which has access to all information held by the service.

We have heard the Liberals and others call for more oversight or review by parliamentary committees. However, the issue at hand today is not whether CSIS is carrying out its mandate in accordance with the law. There is no evidence of CSIS not having done that. Our supervisory process is working well in our view and in the view of independent third parties that assess that performance. The issue is whether CSIS has the mandate, the authority under the law to perform its mandate, which is to keep us safe from threats to our national security, including terrorism.

The bill would also speed up the process of implementing legislation to revoke citizenship of dual nationals engaged in terrorist activities or who would engage in combat against the Canadian Armed Forces.

I am struck, as the Minister of Immigration, by the contrast between the approach of the opposition parties to this issue in April/May of this year, when we debated Bill C-24, and their approach today, which seems to be much more accommodating of the idea that Canadian citizenship be allegiance to our institutions, the willingness to uphold our laws and fulfill one's duties as a Canadian citizen. This is incompatible with taking violent action to murder people or commit bodily harm in the name of an ideology or political agenda that seeks to intimidate the whole population. That is why we brought forward these measures to revoke citizenship in cases of gross acts of disloyalty. We are pleased to see support for this idea growing on the opposition benches.

These proposed provisions will also provide the federal court with the authority to revoke Canadian citizenship from dual citizens for membership in an armed force or organized armed group engaged in armed conflict with Canada. Today, that would include ISIS. It is both a terrorist group and an armed group engaged in conflict with our forces now in combat in Iraq.

These provisions would bring Canada in line with peer countries, such as Australia, the United States, United Kingdom, New Zealand and the vast majority or our allies in NATO and beyond, by providing that citizenship could be revoked under very strict conditions from dual nationals convicted of terrorism, high treason, spying offences or who take up arms against Canada.

This underscores our commitment to protecting the safety and security of Canadians, but also to promoting Canadian interests and values. They also reinforce the value of Canadian citizenship.

The amendments on the revocation of citizenship are merely technical. There is no cost to pursuing these amendments as a revocation decision-making model is more efficient and less costly to the government.

While we are adding grounds to revoke citizenship upon conviction of dual nations for terrorism, treason or espionage, we have long had the power, and the House has supported it, to prevent terrorists, criminals, those who would do harm to our country and those who embrace violent ideologies from becoming citizens. Indeed, if they acquire citizenship without disclosing a terrorist affiliation and that comes to light, we have had the power to revoke that citizenship on the basis of misrepresentation

Now we are simply adding a power to revoke on the basis of a terrorist conviction, a much more serious and much higher threshold of proof of terrorist activities, all of which hangs together very coherently. All of these provisions will work together to keep Canada safer.

Last, I would like to emphasis the oversight of our national security agencies. The security intelligence review committee provides a robust and comprehensive review of CSIS. The recent annual report shows, once again, the level of access it has to all aspects of CSIS operations. It plays a key role in ensuring our national security agencies are held fully and publicly to account. CSIS is reviewing the latest recommendations and will implement those that will keep Canada safe, while protecting the rights and privacy of Canadians.

I see my time is drawing close, and I would like to leave all members of the House with key points to consider before voting on this important legislation.

First, Canada is a beacon of freedom and opportunity in a turbulent and uncertain world, a world that in recent years has become more violent, especially in the Middle East and especially because of the escalating conflict in Iraq. For that very reason, those who despise freedom and democracy, those who reject modernity, who reject our way of life, who reject the very idea of the prosperity we have so painstakingly built in our country, want to cause harm and wreak havoc on Canada and Canadians.

I can say this first hand, as 40,000 of our fellow Canadians who served in Afghanistan can tell the House and all Canadians, that these threats are real. They were in control of Afghanistan before the fall of the Taliban. They remain all too present and dangerous a reality in Iraq and Syria today.

The threat of domestic terrorism is heightened to a point that we have not seen in many years. The bullet holes in the Hall of Honour stand as a sober reminder of this threat. In light of this reality, it is important we take the steps provided for in this bill as quickly as possible.

Second, it is important to remember that in doing so we will respect the Canadian values of individual rights under the rule of law, while ending the practice of under-reacting to the terrorist threat.

Our freedom and our commitment to the rule of law are not an either or choice and are not choices that are mutually exclusive. We choose to be free as Canadians and to work for freedom in the world by having a standard of the rule of law in our country that is second to none. These measures will help to keep it that way.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-44, an act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other acts. It is a bill the government really had to introduce following two adverse court rulings on the activities of CSIS.

In beginning, I want to just spin off a little of that last question and answer. I would speak directly to the minister. I would hope, in this instance, given the concern about the balance between national security and civil liberties, that the minister would push the committee to allow a full list of witnesses, not the kind of stacked list we get sometimes from the Conservatives, and a full hearing, an in-depth hearing, so the committee can do its proper job and come back with the best legislation possible. I support the point raised a moment ago by my colleagues.

There are some serious questions related to the provisions in Bill C-44 that need to be raised when the bill is before committee, and we intend to raise those questions and those concerns at that time.

The Liberal Party will be supporting this bill going to committee. However, I hope that the committee is really allowed to do its job and get in the proper expert witnesses and have the proper balance so that we can come back with the best legislation possible.

We have to look not just at this bill but at CSIS and its connections to the RCMP, CSEC, Canada Border Services Agency, and our allies we work with abroad.

There are three points I would like to raise specifically on this issue and this bill. One is tools. The minister is suggesting that this bill provides more tools, but there are really not many.

The second area is resources, the financial, human, and technological resources, for CSIS to do its job.

The third area is oversight and the need for proper oversight, and not of just CSIS. We have after-the-fact oversight, but there really needs to be parliamentary oversight of all our national security agencies. I will talk about that in a moment.

Before looking at the specific provisions in Bill C-44, it is necessary to place on the record our concern about the government's response to the terrorist threat to Canada and from within Canada. I would begin by asking the government a direct question. Why is it that the legislation currently in place, the provisions in the Criminal Code, some of which were put forward by the government in the Combating Terrorism Act, have not been utilized?

On October 27, in the House, the Minister of Public Safety admitted that the response of his office and his government to the threat represented by homegrown terrorists was not quite what it should be. According to the minister at that time, it is “time we stop under-reacting to the great threats against us.”

Yet the government still fails to act. I submit that it possesses the necessary tools to react. In fact, under section 83.181 of the Criminal Code, there is all kinds of authority for anyone who “leaves or attempts to leave Canada” for the purpose of participating in any activity of a terrorist group outside Canada.

There are four different sections there. The penalties are maximum terms in prison of 10 to 14 years, depending on the severity of the act.

The Minister of Justice stated publicly last week that the laws currently in place to combat a terrorist threat are “robust measures” that provide the police with the tools necessary to take action in response to a terrorist threat. The minister specifically referred to sections 83.3 and 810 of the Criminal Code, either of which would enable authorities to detain individuals under the provisions of a peace bond and could impose specific recognizance on individuals. In other words, action to limit certain individuals from taking action could be imposed. I ask the minister why those provisions have not been utilized.

The Minister of Public Safety has to this day failed to clarify a statement made before the public safety committee on October 8 with respect to the 80 individuals who returned to Canada after travelling abroad to take part in terrorist-related activities. He stated:

Let me be clear that these individuals posing a threat to our security at home have violated Canadian law....These dangerous individuals, some skilled and desiring to commit terrorist activity, pose a serious threat to law-abiding Canadians.

The minister also reconfirmed the following at committee:

...leaving or attempting to leave Canada to participate in terrorist activities is now a criminal offence.

The minister is quite correct on those points. There is authority under the Criminal Code to act. I have to again ask the question: Why has the government not acted with those authorities that are already there? Those authorities would not be changed in this particular legislation, other than confirming in law what CSIS already does.

I ask why section 83.181, which states that “Everyone who leaves or attempts to leave Canada” for terrorist acts abroad, is not being applied. It certainly was not in the case of the individual involved in the murder of the Canadian Forces member in Quebec earlier this month. According to public information, that individual had his passport revoked on the grounds of attempting to travel to Syria or Iraq to join known listed terrorist entities.

According to testimony by the Commissioner of the RCMP to the Senate national security committee on October 27, this individual was known to authorities to have intended to use his passport to leave Canada for Syria or Iraq to participate in “jihad”, yet the commissioner confirmed that the evidence the authorities had of this intent, while enough to have his passport revoked, was not enough to lay a charge. I ask the minister, and maybe he can answer this at committee, whether this bill will correct that shortcoming. I personally do not see it in the legislation, but I would ask the minister and his staff to come prepared to answer that question. Would this legislation correct that shortcoming the RCMP Commissioner seems to have outlined? We really do not know as yet, because the minister has not been specific on that point.

A great deal has been said by members of the government with respect to the provisions of the Combating Terrorism Act, which came into force in 2013. According to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, one individual has been charged under the provisions of the Combating Terrorism Act. The minister confirmed, as well, when he testified before the public safety committee on October 8, that only a single individual has been charged under the Combating Terrorism Act.

However, what neither the minister nor the parliamentary secretary bothered to tell Canadians was that the single individual charged had left Canada six months prior to the charges being laid, and that individual's whereabouts are still unknown.

Could one of the reasons these provisions in the Criminal Code have not been acted upon be the limited resources available to our security and intelligence services? That was mentioned in a previous speech. What good are legal sanctions if our security agencies cannot utilize them? If the reason is that the current government has been starving those agencies' critical resources, who is responsible for the security failure?

I would submit that in many things that the current government has been doing in the last two years, it has been blindly focused. Good government requires it to provide services, security, and financial resources, and yes, it has to establish priorities. However, part of the problem with the current government is it is blindly focused on getting as huge a surplus as possible so it can throw out election goodies. Is part of the cost of doing that starving CSIS and the RCMP of the funds necessary to do their job? I really do not know, but it looks that way. Good government cannot be blindly focused just on achieving a surplus to provide goodies at the next election; it has to be focused on the needs and the services of Canadians. I see that as a problem.

There is another issue beyond this bill that the government must respond to, something that does not require legislation but requires the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness simply to do the job assigned to him. The most recent annual report of the Security and Intelligence Review Committee, the only oversight body for CSIS, raised a number of troubling concerns. The Commissioner of the RCMP told the Senate national security committee on October 27 that there were now 93 individuals identified as high-risk travellers. The director of CSIS informed the public safety committee on October 8 that there were 80 individuals who have returned to Canada after having engaged in terrorist activities abroad, and CSIS knows where they are.

The problem there is that in terms of the RCMP doing its job, Commissioner Paulson said before a committee:

...we are reallocating the necessary funds and personnel from other priority areas to combat this threat. In recent months, and over the past week, over 300 additional resources were transferred in to enhance the capacity of INSET [Integrated National Security Enforcement Teams] from other federal policing priority areas such as organized crime and financial crime.

That tells me that the RCMP is indeed short of resources.

The deputy director of CSIS told the same committee on October 20:

...we work within the budget that is assigned to us. We do have to prioritize.

I would be foolhardy to say we have all the bases covered. We do what we can with the budget we have, sir.

There are clearly some concerns over financing.

There is another problem that the minister can deal with as well, and that is the operational mandate within CSIS. The most recent SIRC report, entitled “Lifting the Shroud of Secrecy: Thirty Years of Security Intelligence Accountability”, the annual report for 2013-14, said the following on page 16:

With surveillance teams spread across Canada all sharing identical job functions, SIRC expected to see solid communication among surveillance practitioners. Instead, SIRC found that, for the most part, regional surveillance teams operate in total isolation from one another and communicate only sporadically with their HQ counterparts.

That is worrisome, because if CSIS is not communicating properly within regions and between regions and headquarters, there is a serious problem. That is something that the minister can deal with.

The other point in the report that I just mentioned—and I am pretty sure that the minister knows this—is that at page 19, SIRC also found that with respect to the activities of CSIS:

...the Minister of Public Safety is not always systematically advised of such activities, nor is he informed of them in a consistent manner.

Those are two areas the minister can deal with without needing a bill. The minister just needs to ensure that the job is getting done within his own department.

The government has placed within Bill C-44 the enactment provisions of Bill C-24, which the minister talked about earlier. Bill C-24 would revoke the citizenship of dual nationals. We are concerned about that. The minister said in his remarks that it is included so as to enact that section faster. In an earlier question for the minister I said, and I will say again, that it is not enough to have something in legislation; it has to stand up to the courts. Some of us are concerned that this section just may not do that.

If the government, RCMP, CSIS, and other authorities are spending a lot of time on that particular area of taking away dual citizens' citizenship, it needs to be time well spent. I asked the minister to provide legal opinion to the committee to show that it is, in fact, charter-proof.

In an earlier question to the minister, I also raised the point that there is fairly strong wording in this particular bill. Subclause 8(2) reads:

Without regard to any other law, including that of any foreign state, a judge may, in a warrant...authorize activities outside Canada to enable the Service to investigate a threat to the security of Canada.

This would basically allow for a warrant to be issued to allow agents to break the law in a foreign country. We have checked the wording extensively, and similar wording is not found in the relevant legislation of our Five Eyes counterparts. I ask the minister why we need that specific wording when other countries do not, and I hope he could report the answer to committee,

An important part of the legislation deals with protecting our sources and informants abroad. At committee we would want to have more specific information on that aspect and know how it would be accomplished. I look forward to the government providing that information to the committee.

I will move on to the last point that I would like to make. I said first of all that I would deal with tools, resources, and oversight. One of the major shortcomings of this bill is the fact that the government did not bring accompanying legislation to provide proper parliamentary oversight to all of our national security agencies in Canada, as is done by all of our Five Eyes counterparts.

My colleague, the member for Vancouver Quadra, has a private member's bill, Bill C-622, as one option that the government could consider. I have a private member's bill, Bill C-551, which could be considered.

To find the balance between national security, civil liberties, and individual rights and freedoms in Canada, the government should be bringing in accompanying legislation that provides that parliamentary oversight. On the one hand, it would ensure that the agencies are doing their jobs, and on the other, it would ensure they are not going too far and violating the civil liberties of Canadians.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague across the way, and I believe that the minister has reached that balance of protecting the security of Canadians but also the civil liberties that Canada is well known for.

Members of our law enforcement agencies put their lives on the line in order to thoroughly investigate threats to our national security. Presently, CSIS agents travelling to work abroad have to travel under their given names. They are provided little protection of their identities, a risk that puts them and their families in danger. This bill would provide protections for CSIS employees to protect their identities when working abroad.

Would the member and the NDP support such common-sense measures? He spoke about using a broader tool on this specific part of Bill C-44. Would he support that?

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

Mr. Speaker, as this may be my last opportunity to speak to the House before Remembrance Day, I really look forward to these Remembrance Day services. I know all members of Parliament are. We expect to be joined by record crowds of Canadians this year.

Unfortunately, this year, we have two new names to add to the Canadian heroes who have given their life in service to Canada. They are Corporal Nathan Cirillo and Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent. Once again, I would like to express my sympathies to their families. I know Canada will do them proud this Remembrance Day by showing how much we respect the sacrifices their families have made.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-44, an act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other acts. In the aftermath of the two attacks at St-Jean-sur-Richelieu and in Ottawa just two weeks ago, concern about national security is certainly front and centre in the public mind and, indeed, in all of our minds. There is no doubt that concern already existed about the spread of extremist views and the radicalization of Canadians, whether on the basis of ideological or religious grounds.

As New Democrats, we have taken a strong stand, but we must not rush to judgment on any of the recent events until the full story is known. We have also argued that we cannot let fear warp who we are as a nation and distort our values. We should beware of falling into the trap of looking for solutions in some kind of trade-off, giving up some of our freedom for greater security. Instead, the New Democrats know that it is the responsibility of the government to protect both our civil liberties and public safety. There is no contradiction between the two. We believe Canadians expect the government to do no less.

We know that Bill C-44 was in preparation months before the events of October 22. In fact, if we look at its content, it is easy to see that there is no apparent connection with the events in Ottawa or St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, judging on the information we have before us so far.

In fact, Bill C-44 seems to be a legislative response to difficulties created for CSIS as a result of two court decisions. One is from the Supreme Court of Canada in 2007, called Regina v. Hape, and the other is from the Federal Court in the following year, known as Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act (Re), 2008.

In short, what seems to have happened is that these two decisions made it difficult for CSIS to co-operate and share information with allied spy services, the so-called “five eyes group”, made up of the United States, the U.K., Australia, New Zealand and Canada. At the heart of these two cases was the question of whether CSIS could use warrants obtained in Canada to conduct surveillance abroad, using methods that would have required the authorization of a judge if they were to take place in Canada.

By providing a clear framework for overseas surveillance work and express authority for the courts to issue warrants authorizing these activities in Bill C-44, the government is arguing that CSIS would be better able to protect national security. Indeed, this may be the case. We are certainly prepared to look carefully at this measure in committee.

This is what lies at the heart of Bill C-44, and it may indeed be the case that CSIS needs these new expanded or clarified powers, however we wish to describe them. The New Democrats are therefore prepared to support this legislation to go to committee, recognizing their potential importance for national security.

However, details matter very much in bills like this, so we will be asking tough questions about what the government proposes to accomplish in this bill and about whether and how this expansion of CSIS' powers will actually help keep Canadians safe.

Again, as we have said, just as it is important to protect public safety and national security, it is also necessary to protect civil liberties. What we see missing in this bill are any improved accountability measures to accompany the proposed expansion of the powers of CSIS. I will return to this question of accountability in just a moment.

Let me stop here to consider what else is in Bill C-44, in addition to clarifying the international mandate of CSIS and its ability to carry out surveillance abroad.

The third element in Bill C-44 is the provision of a blanket protection on the identity of the human sources of CSIS. Again, we will have some serious questions to ask in committee about this provision. Right now, judges can grant protection for the identity of CSIS sources on a case by case basis. The onus is on the government to show why this protection is actually needed. Bill C-44 would reverse that onus. The presumption would be that the identity of CSIS sources would always be protected.

Even the bill itself acknowledges that this could be a problem when it comes to using CSIS information as the basis for criminal charges. Our criminal justice system, quite rightly, does not look favourably on anonymous testimony or evidence whose validity cannot be challenged in court.

Bill C-44 would create an exception for criminal law, allowing the disclosure if the defence could establish that doing so would be necessary to establish the innocence of the accused. This would add a large potential complication to any such criminal cases, as it would require a separate process to be carried out in Federal Court. On this side of the House, we remain concerned that this provision may perversely make it more difficult to secure criminal convictions of those who threaten national security.

There is in the bill, however, no such exemption to the blanket provision for protection of identity of CSIS sources for immigration and refugee cases. In fact, Bill C-44 makes reference to the use of special advocates in cases where the identity of CSIS sources seems likely to affect the outcome of the case.

The fourth provision of Bill C-44 has nothing at all to do with CSIS and which we could say, in a way, makes Bill C-44 a mini omnibus bill. This is the provision that would advance the coming into force date for the provisions in the Citizenship Act, passed last year, that allow the revocation of Canadian citizenship for dual citizens convicted of terrorism or other serious offences. This is something the New Democrats opposed at the time, and continue to oppose, as creating two different classes of Canadian citizen.

When we look at the provisions of Bill C-44 in the current context, there are some other questions we need to ask ourselves, which may not fall neatly into the confines of a debate on legislation alone. We must ask ourselves if legislation is always the answer to every problem or, as the government sometimes seems to believe, the only answer to every problem.

We must ask ourselves if there are other things we can do when it comes to the question of how we respond to the use of violence at home by Canadians. Perhaps most important among these questions is how we respond to homegrown radicalization of youth, whether it is a young Canadian who murders three Mounties in New Brunswick or another who seeks to go abroad to join an armed religious or ideological movement. A lot of good work has been done on this question at the community level, and we need to reach out to those communities concerned and work with them on prevention and early intervention strategies.

Another serious question we must ask ourselves about national security is whether the the federal government assigned sufficient resources to the task of protecting national security. Testimony at the Senate Standing Committee on National Defence on two successive October Mondays cast doubt on whether the government had done this.

On October 20, the deputy director of Operations of CSIS told the Senate that CSIS was forced to prioritize its resources when it came to monitoring radicals returned from abroad or prevented from going abroad. The deputy director said that CSIS did not have the resources to monitor all 80 or 90 names on that shifting list and that this must be seen as a public safety concern.

Just a week later, RCMP Commissioner Paulson told the same Senate committee that in the wake of the October attacks, he was forced to expand the 170 personnel assigned to the integrated national security enforcement team, the front-line teams on national security, by seconding 300 personnel from organized crime and financial crime units, reassigning them to national security. This means weakening one important area of crime fighting in order to strengthen the fight against threats to national security, and is surely an indication of inadequate resources for the RCMP at this time.

Is this a choice the government really should be asking the Commissioner of the RCMP to make, protecting national security or continuing to fight organized crime? The record of the Conservatives on this issue is clear, despite the attempts of the minister again this morning to make historical references to funding going back, sometimes it seems, to the beginning of time.

In 2012, on page 277 of the economic action plan, the Conservatives clearly laid out their intention to cut $688 million from the public safety budget over the three fiscal years ending this year, 2014-15, and they have done this. We have seen cuts beginning in 2012 now amounting to $24.5 million annually for CSIS, something like a 5% cut in 2012. Never mind what the level was in 2006 or 2007, it is a cut from 2012.

There were $143 million cut from the Canadian Border Services Agency, a cut of nearly 10%, including cutting more than 100 intelligence staff from the CBSA, those who are charged with finding out who is trying to violate our borders and might potentially be a threat to national security. It includes a cut of $195 million from 2012 to the budget of the RCMP.

It also appears, from the tabling of the 2014 Public Accounts, that each of these agencies has also been subject to the same pressures from the Conservatives to underspend even those reduced budgets in the quest for an ever larger surplus on paper.

I want to return now to the question of the importance of oversight for our national security agencies.

We all in this House know good models for accountability when we see them, and we have many good examples, like the independent officers of Parliament who have special expertise and report directly to Parliament and not just the minister of the day. These are officers of Parliament like the Auditor General or the Privacy Commissioner, whose reports can be debated in Parliament, shining light on what the government has or has not done, and holding the government to account.

It is strange to think that the CBSA has no such oversight body. This is despite four specific recommendations for the establishment of an oversight body that I can think of: from the 2003 recommendation of the Auditor General to the 2006 O'Connor commission report, to the 2008 Canadian Council of Refugees recommendation, to the most recent 2014 calls for better accountability by both the Canadian Council of Refugees and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association in the wake of the death in custody in Vancouver of Lucia Vega Jimenez.

Now the government will be quick to respond that CSIS already has sufficient oversight in the form of the 30-year-old Security Intelligence Review Committee, but keep in mind that this is the same government that significantly reduced accountability in CSIS by eliminating the position of inspector general, the CSIS internal watch dog who reported directly to the minister each year on CSIS' record of complying with the law. Instead, this important function was transferred to SIRC, a part-time body of non-specialists, and that responsibility was transferred short of roughly $1 million of resources, which the Conservatives promptly booked as “savings”.

SIRC already has very important responsibilities, including investigating public complaints about the way CSIS deals with things like security clearances, their approval or revocation, which affects people's employment; dealing with public complaints about CSIS' exchange of information with foreign governments, and we know we have had problems where that exchange of information has led to mistreatment of Canadians abroad; and CSIS' functions in providing information in immigration and refugee cases.

The responsibility of the inspector general was added to the work SIRC was already doing, again, without the transfer of the full resources, and again, under the responsibility of a part-time, non-specialist committee.

In addition to the structural weaknesses of SIRC—as I mentioned, a part-time body of non-specialists—there are concerns about whether the Conservatives have taken SIRC seriously. It currently has only a temporary chair, and two of the five positions on the committee have been vacant for months. What was previously a serious consultation process, involving the opposition in appointments to SIRC, seems to have deteriorated to the point where we found SIRC was chaired by a patronage appointee, Arthur Porter, a former fundraiser for the Conservatives who is now facing fraud charges from a Panama prison.

Even with its current limitations, SIRC itself has tried to draw Parliament's attention and the attention of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to the question of CSIS' accountability. In its recently tabled 2012-13 annual report, SIRC points to serious problems with CSIS in terms of accountability. SIRC reported serious delays in receiving information from CSIS, which impeded its investigations. SIRC even noted that CSIS had been less than forthright in its responses to questions from the accountability body.

The most serious concern raised in the 2012-13 annual report has to do with arming CSIS personnel in high-risk and dangerous operating environments abroad.

We know that CSIS did first have armed agents abroad in Afghanistan. From 2002 to 2007, they were trained by Canadian Forces, and special forces close protection units provided protection to CSIS agents in the most dangerous operations. As well, DFAIT provided diplomatic accreditation to protect those armed CSIS agents against local accountability

After 2007, CSIS launched its own firearms program with its own policies, training, and armed operational support teams. SIRC, in 2010, expressed concern about the expansion of the use of armed CSIS agents beyond Afghanistan and said that this should be done: “...only after...consultation with, and approval of, the Minister of Public Safety”.

SIRC raised significant concerns about the liability of CSIS staff who might be armed abroad under the criminal and civil law of a foreign jurisdiction. It also raised concerns about how a CSIS staff member, if found negligent in the use of firearms, could be dealt with under our domestic legal regime. Of course, it raised concerns about the possibilities of violations of international law and the sovereignty and laws of foreign governments.

I am not arguing that perhaps CSIS agents do not sometimes need to be armed, but what SIRC asked for was that a written justification be supplied to the minister explaining the legal authority permitting CSIS staff outside Afghanistan to be armed. In 2012-13, SIRC found it unacceptable that there was no record of any meetings or discussions between the CSIS director and the minister on this topic.

As Bill C-44 attempts to clarify CSIS' authority to operate abroad, the question of CSIS officers carrying weapons abroad becomes a critical policy question as well as a critical accountability question.

The SIRC report clearly states that CSIS needs to:

...provide a full explanation of how the arming of some of its employees is consistent with CSIS’s policy framework, which is rooted in the premise that activities are lawful and authorized, necessary and proportionate, and represent an effective and efficient use of public resources.

This demonstrates the point I am trying to make about the clear necessity of strengthening accountability along with any expansion of CSIS powers.

Bill C-44 presents the House of Commons with its first test of whether any new legislation on national security in the current climate will conform to Canadian values. This would require that the legislation aim to protect both public safety and civil liberties at the same time. The question should not be whether there will be some new balance where we give up some portion of our liberties for security, which unfortunately seems to be the position of both the Conservatives and the Liberals on this important question. Instead, Canadians expect us to take on the tougher task of protecting both freedom and security in a climate where extremists of all kinds are attacking the essence of our free and open society.

Equally unfortunate is the tendency to act as if legislation is the government's only tool. As the old saying goes, “If you only have a hammer, then everything looks like a nail”. The New Democrats will continue to urge the Conservative government to take a broader view. We will urge the government to examine whether the tools it already has are being used effectively. We will urge the government to skip its clever rhetoric about a mythical 30% increase in public safety budgets and ask serious questions about the impacts of three consecutive years of cuts on national security. We will ask the government to engage in a dialogue with Canadians from all communities on how else, other than legislation, we can respond to these new national security threats.

Above all, we are asking the government to consider what we can do together as a nation to respond to the need to protect both public safety and civil liberties.

I look forward to the debate we will have when we get to committee, but as I said, we have many serious questions to ask the government and we hope we will be given time to bring forward the expert witnesses we need at committee to have a full debate, as these are important questions to national security in Canada.

We have seen an unfortunate tendency in the public safety committee to limit the number of witnesses who appear, to limit the debate, and to limit the discussion of any necessary amendments. We will be asking tough questions about accountability because, as has been the theme of my remarks today, we believe that if there is a need for an expansion of powers for agencies like CSIS, then we must ensure that we have adequate accountability measures in place to protect civil liberties.

As I see my time is drawing to a close, I want to thank the minister for providing a briefing on this legislation for the opposition. It was quite a useful briefing, although I have to say it seems it is the first time we received such a briefing. I hope it indicates a new spirit of co-operation on any legislation coming forward in the future, because we have to make sure we get this right. Things that affect national security and civil liberties go to the very heart of who we are as Canadians.

Once again, New Democrats ask the government to consider very seriously not asking Canadians to give up some civil liberties for security, but consider how we can protect both civil liberties and public safety and keep this the nation that we all treasure so much.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that was quite an answer for my colleague from the NDP. We might as well go back to 1992 to try to compare figures. The fact of the matter is that in the public accounts, the Department of Public Safety and National Security has cut over $600 million in a number of agencies that are all related to security in one fashion or another. Those are the facts and the minister might as well admit it.

I have two questions.

First, the minister talked quite a bit about revoking the citizenship of dual citizens. Although the Conservatives have been promoting that for some time, we find it strange that it is in this bill. However, if it is in the bill to invoke it earlier then that is the position the government is taking. Making a law is important but making a law that they are sure is going to stand up to court scrutiny is critical. Could the minister table in this House, or would he be prepared to table at committee, the legal opinion that would suggest that this part of the law is charter sound and that it would stand up to the courts if it is challenged. If it would not, then we are really wasting our time with that particular clause in the law.

Second, the minister talked a fair bit about confirming that Canada has a clear authority to undertake certain activities beyond Canada's borders. There is a specific section in Bill C-44 for that, and I understand that. However, why are we going with a warrant and very narrowly focused legal words in the bill when in our research none of our Five Eyes partners are doing that? None of them have a similar clause in their legislation. The deputy director of CSIS has said before a Senate committee that all this bill would do is to put in law what CSIS is already doing. Why is that clause necessary when none of our other Five Eyes counterparts have that particular piece and they are able to do their jobs?

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, the first responsibility of a government is to protect its citizens. We are promoting reasonable policies such as Bill C-44. We are seeking support from the opposition.

In the meantime, there is robust oversight. SIRC is doing a remarkable job. I want to congratulate Deborah Grey, Gene Mclean and Yves Fortier for keeping an eye on CSIS, which is there to keep us safe.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member has in front of him a very rational bill, Bill C-44, which would help to protect Canadians. I invite the member and all parties to support this very reasonable bill. I can also assure the member that we are moving forward.

Let me be clear. On this side of the House, a terrorist act is a terrorist act, as Secretary of State John Kerry said, as the RCMP said, and as the Criminal Code of Canada says.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for having me here this afternoon at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I look forward to coming back here to discuss Bill C-44, The Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, which was just tabled in the House and aims to protect Canada against terrorism.

As Minister of Public Safety I strongly believe that we must do everything in our power to keep our streets and communities safe for us and for our children. That is why I would like to thank my colleague Minister Ambrose for her leadership on this vital piece of legislation, and more specifically for involving communities in a decision that could so dramatically transform their neighbourhoods.

Bill C-2 proposes new requirements for organizations that seek an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act in order to set up supervised consumption sites.

The bill you will be examining guarantees that those who could be affected by the creation of these centres will be consulted before such a centre is built in their community.

In other words, ordinary Canadians, civic-minded community groups, and front-line law enforcement will be able to have their voice heard as to whether or not these drug consumption sites belong in their backyards.

Canadians expect that the decision to allow for a designated area where laws can be broken and illicit drugs can be consumed by addicts will not be taken lightly. But shockingly not a single Canadian would be consulted if one of these drug consumption sites were to open today in any one of your constituencies. What I find shocking is the deputy leader of the NDP, Ms. Davies, announced that they oppose allowing members of their community to add their voices on this decision. For me consulting is a key principle of a democratic decision process, and that's why I am so grateful to stand by Minister Ambrose, Minister of Health, and also to bring my full support to this bill so people involved, people impacted, or consulted can have a say.

On a public safety issue we saw the New Democrats call for a plan to give needles to convicted criminals so that they could continue their drug habits while behind bars. I don't agree. I don't think this is part of rehabilitation where we want our inmates to go on with their lives when they are free. Instead we brought forward the drug-free prisons act. On the other side we have the Liberals' stand. Mr. Trudeau's signature policy is to legalize the sale of marijuana, which would make it easier for our children to access. He has made clear that his vision of legalization would make smoking marijuana a normal everyday activity. I don't agree. I think we can do more for our children. I think we can offer them more as a protective society.

That's why I totally reject this radical pro-narcotic ideology. Let's take a look at what the bill before us today actually does.

First and foremost, this bill guarantees that requests to allow the consumption of controlled substances in our communities will be carefully reviewed.

Proposals to set up such sites raise important public safety concerns on the part of the staff in those sites, families and local police services.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the viewpoint of local enforcement organizations should be taken into consideration.

Substances obtained from illegal sources have a nefarious and devastating effect on public safety and could favour organized crime.

This summer I saw first-hand some of the challenges police officers face while safeguarding our communities, including in areas where drug use is prevalent. I walked the streets of the downtown eastside with the Vancouver Police Department. These are certainly not the types of criminal activities I would want occurring near a school, or near any community. Front-line police officers tend to agree.

Tom Stamatakis, President of the Vancouver Police Union and the Canadian Police Association said:

...my experience in Vancouver is that these sites also lead to an increase in criminal behaviour and disorder in the surrounding community and have significant impact on police resources.

Is it the kind of Canada we want, Mr. Chair?

For these reasons, I support Minister Ambrose's bill. Not only does it give a voice to Canadians who are directly affected by the decision to build a supervised consumption site, but it adds to other rigorous measures taken by our government to counter drug consumption.

As I mentioned, the Drug-Free Prisons Act is another important bill being examined by Parliament. That bill will guarantee that the Parole Board of Canada has additional legal power when it makes decisions on the conditional release of offenders who have obtained parole, but whose tests have come back positive, or who refuse to submit to a drug test before being released from an institution into a community.

This bill will also guarantee that the Parole Board of Canada pays particular attention to whether or not the obligation to abstain from consuming drugs or alcohol should be made a condition of the offender's parole.

Our Conservative government is proud of our efforts to support communities and keep them safe, including through tackling the problem of illicit drug use.

Thank you for your time today to discuss this very important issue.

Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other Acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)