Bill C-51 (Historical)

Anti-terrorism Act, 2015

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

Part 1 enacts the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act, which authorizes Government of Canada institutions to disclose information to Government of Canada institutions that have jurisdiction or responsibilities in respect of activities that undermine the security of Canada. It also makes related amendments to other Acts.
Part 2 enacts the Secure Air Travel Act in order to provide a new legislative framework for identifying and responding to persons who may engage in an act that poses a threat to transportation security or who may travel by air for the purpose of committing a terrorism offence. That Act authorizes the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to establish a list of such persons and to direct air carriers to take a specific action to prevent the commission of such acts. In addition, that Act establishes powers and prohibitions governing the collection, use and disclosure of information in support of its administration and enforcement. That Act includes an administrative recourse process for listed persons who have been denied transportation in accordance with a direction from the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and provides appeal procedures for persons affected by any decision or action taken under that Act. That Act also specifies punishment for contraventions of listed provisions and authorizes the Minister of Transport to conduct inspections and issue compliance orders. Finally, this Part makes consequential amendments to the Aeronautics Act and the Canada Evidence Act.
Part 3 amends the Criminal Code to, with respect to recognizances to keep the peace relating to a terrorist activity or a terrorism offence, extend their duration, provide for new thresholds, authorize a judge to impose sureties and require a judge to consider whether it is desirable to include in a recognizance conditions regarding passports and specified geographic areas. With respect to all recognizances to keep the peace, the amendments also allow hearings to be conducted by video conference and orders to be transferred to a judge in a territorial division other than the one in which the order was made and increase the maximum sentences for breach of those recognizances.
It further amends the Criminal Code to provide for an offence of knowingly advocating or promoting the commission of terrorism offences in general. It also provides a judge with the power to order the seizure of terrorist propaganda or, if the propaganda is in electronic form, to order the deletion of the propaganda from a computer system.
Finally, it amends the Criminal Code to provide for the increased protection of witnesses, in particular of persons who play a role in respect of proceedings involving security information or criminal intelligence information, and makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Part 4 amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to permit the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to take, within and outside Canada, measures to reduce threats to the security of Canada, including measures that are authorized by the Federal Court. It authorizes the Federal Court to make an assistance order to give effect to a warrant issued under that Act. It also creates new reporting requirements for the Service and requires the Security Intelligence Review Committee to review the Service’s performance in taking measures to reduce threats to the security of Canada.
Part 5 amends Divisions 8 and 9 of Part 1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) define obligations related to the provision of information in proceedings under that Division 9;
(b) authorize the judge, on the request of the Minister, to exempt the Minister from providing the special advocate with certain relevant information that has not been filed with the Federal Court, if the judge is satisfied that the information does not enable the person named in a certificate to be reasonably informed of the case made by the Minister, and authorize the judge to ask the special advocate to make submissions with respect to the exemption; and
(c) allow the Minister to appeal, or to apply for judicial review of, any decision requiring the disclosure of information or other evidence if, in the Minister’s opinion, the disclosure would be injurious to national security or endanger the safety of any person.

[Daniel Therrien]

The Minister of Public Safety has announced that there will be a bill—before the summer, if I'm not mistaken—to amend Bill C-51. We will obviously have things to say about that. In our annual report, we will report on how Bill C-51, SCISA in particular, has been used. We have a number of investigations, such as the use of StingRay technology. The border will be an important theme. I've mentioned the executive order of President Trump, but also in Canada there is the extent of CBSA's practices in terms of border searches, the searches of technological equipment such as cellphones, etc. Issues related to the border will also be an important theme of activity.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

With respect to future activities, do you foresee further advocacy or work on Bill C-51 as the government undertakes its review? Perhaps you could speak to other initiatives that you see taking up your time—I know I spoke at the outset about StingRay—and to areas that this committee could work together with you on as you pursue these initiatives going forward.

[Daniel Therrien, Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the 2017-18 Main Estimates.

In the time allocated, I will first discuss the sustained demands on our office and the management of our financial resources. Secondly, I will talk about our policy agenda for this coming year.

In recent years, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has maintained its efforts to find efficiencies and make optimal use of existing resources of slightly more than $24 million to be as effective as possible in addressing the privacy risks of an increasingly technological world.

Fiscal year 2017-18 will be no exception. Amidst competing demands, we will not lose sight of our mandate: ensuring that the privacy rights of Canadians are respected and that their personal information is protected.

In 2017-18, we will continue to fulfill our core mandate, which includes conducting investigations, examining breach reports, undertaking audits, reviewing privacy impact assessments or PIAs, providing guidance to individuals and organizations, and offering advice to parliamentarians.

On the investigations side, we have become more efficient in part through increased use of early resolution to find appropriate solutions. In 2015-16, 38% of complaints were resolved in this manner under the Privacy Act and 50% under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act or PIPEDA. As a result, our response time on average was seven months for both public-sector and private-sector complaints.

However, the number of complex files is growing, which is creating a backlog of complaints that are not resolved after 12 months. In the coming year, I intend to devote temporary resources to address this situation.

In 2015-16, we received 88 new PIAs and completed 73 PIA reviews, in addition to opening 13 new consultation files. As you know, we would like to receive more PIAs and draft information sharing agreements, as we believe reviewing programs upstream is a good way to mitigate privacy risks.

In addition, we are taking steps to prepare for the coming into force of the breach provisions of Bill S-4. These new provisions will require private-sector organizations to report certain breaches to my office.

Public education and outreach are important activities to ensure Canadians are empowered to exercise their privacy rights and organizations are able to comply with their obligations. Last year, we revamped our website both in its structure and content to make it more user-friendly. This year, we will continue to update its content to provide helpful advice to Canadians.

We will continue to offer guidance to specific industry sectors deemed to be in need of greater privacy awareness, as well as vulnerable groups such as youth and seniors. We will also provide new guidance for individuals, and we will continue to advance our privacy priorities on issues such as online reputation, the body as personal information, the economics of personal information, and government surveillance.

Despite these efforts, we need to do much more to ensure that privacy rights are truly respected, a key condition for consumer trust and growth in the digital economy. Our goal is to complete all investigations within a reasonable time, to engage in some proactive enforcement, to give proactive advice to government, and to issue research-based guidance on most current and upcoming privacy issues.

In my annual report to be tabled in September, which will include our conclusions on improvements to the consent model and recommendations to amend PIPEDA, I will be able to bring more specificity to our compliance and proactive strategies. This, in turn, will inform a discussion on what might be an appropriate level of investment in OPC activities for the next few years.

I will now turn to some of the policy issues that we're seized with.

First is consent. Last May, my office released a discussion paper on issues related to privacy and consent. We then, through an extensive consultation process, sought input from industry, privacy experts, and Canadians. As mentioned, our final report will be released in September, and we will then work to implement the chosen solutions.

Second is online reputation. My office has also launched a consultation and call for submissions on the issue of online reputation as part of our efforts to address one of our strategic privacy priorities: reputation and privacy. We will share our policy position on online reputation before the end of the calendar year.

Third is legislative reform. My office has long stressed the need to modernize Canada's legal and regulatory frameworks. While the introduction of Bill S-4 was a positive development, Canada's federal private sector privacy law is now more than 15 years old. Technology and business models have changed. Our work on both consent and reputation will help inform the recommendations we will make to Parliament on reforming the law.

On the public sector side, I would like to express my gratitude to members of this committee for supporting my office's recommendations for modernizing the Privacy Act. My office now looks forward to participating in the government's review of the act to ensure that it meets the needs and expectations of Canadians, and in our view this work should proceed without delay.

On government surveillance, issues related to government surveillance will also form an important part of our policy agenda in the coming year. We note your recent report on SCISA, and we thank you for it. We also note the report just made public by SECU, the committee on national security, which also touched on information sharing under SCISA. We now await the measures the government will put forward to modify Bill C-51 to ensure that Canada's national security framework protects Canadians and their privacy.

We also have a number of investigations related to national security and government surveillance, and we are seeing heightened concerns from Canadians about privacy protections at the border and in the United States. Further to the adoption by President Trump of executive order 13768 of January 25, which deals with security in the interior of the United States, I had written to ministers to ask for confirmation that administrative agreements previously reached between Canada and the U.S. will continue to offer privacy protection to Canadians in the United States. Upon receipt of the government's response, which I expect shortly, I will inform Canadians of my conclusions.

In closing, to face the sustained volume but increased complexity of our work, we will continue this year to make the most efficient use of our resources as we have tried to do in the past.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I look forward to questions from the committee.

Freedom of the Press

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as we often said during the election campaign and as we continue to say now, it is very important for any government to do two things right: protect Canadians and defend our rights and freedoms.

That is exactly what we are doing by creating a parliamentary committee that will be responsible for overseeing all of our security services and police forces, by defending our rights and freedoms and making the necessary corrections to former Bill C-51, as we promised. That is what we are going to do in the coming months.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, given that answer, is the Prime Minister willing to tell the RCMP to drop its court case against a Vice journalist that it is now pursuing? The Prime Minister should be protecting the privacy of reporters and all Canadians, but instead, he has refused to amend Bill C-51.

The Prime Minister voted for Bill C-51 because he was afraid of Stephen Harper, but the Liberals have been in office for 18 months. What are they afraid of now?

Will the Prime Minister tell Canadians when his government is going to make the promised changes to Bill C-51?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from North Island—Powell River.

I have been listening to the debate and find this quite appalling. I am disappointed at how sterile our deliberations have become, simply because this government seems to need some intense psychotherapy. It has an acute superiority complex.

Clearly, this does not seem to stop my colleague opposite from talking over me and believing that what he has to say is relevant. That is what is funny. He talks non-stop, like a machine. It is like a car alarm that will not stop ringing. Still, no matter what we are talking about, he always has the same perspective. That is typical of this government, which got elected by saying just about anything.

The young members who are in government for the first time cannot believe how badly they have been taken for a ride. They are simply clinging on to that old ideal of the “natural governing party”. Come on. It is appalling that the Liberals pulled such a fast one on Canadian voters. This government came along with an approach based on communications and spin, promising the moon and the stars, and sugar-coating everything.

I would really like to hear the conversation between the communications people and public servants, who have to ask why they said such things during the election campaign, because now they are forced to follow through on them. There are a lot of broken promises.

As the critic for cultural industries, I can tell you that the government is doing nothing. It is fine for the minister to be ambitious and hold big consultations, but it is very clear that there is no movement on the other side. She can say whatever she wants, but right now we do not have the crucial measures needed to protect our entrepreneurs in the cultural industries and in other areas threatened by what is being offered online. Although we cannot be against progress, we nevertheless have to recognize that entrepreneurs have a challenge. However, absolutely nothing is happening. It is really pathetic.

This government comes into power with its blue blood complex and thinks it is the natural governing party and that it is royalty. It may seem that members of this government are blue bloods because they are friends with the Bay Street kings, who have their own agenda. No matter what the little candidate said during the election campaign, they are going to tell him that this is not how things go.

It is sad because regular people expect solid social measures in health or social housing. Regular people who watch television are steadily turning to Netflix. In other words, fewer and fewer people are purchasing ads on network television and in our newspapers. In other words, we have smaller budgets for our productions and our own culture, of which we are so proud. The money is drying up. Our media are suffering and we all know it.

Everyone has a weekly paper that is losing ground because it is no longer able to sell ad space, since everyone is sending our advertisement dollars over the Internet. That money is going to California, Mountain View for Google and Palo Alto for Apple.

These are urgent matters, but there is far too much concern over whether the Crown looks good. It is pathetic. It is crazy because it is runs completely counter to what was presented during the election campaign. They presented themselves as a government of and for the people and the middle class. I am here to tell you that their agenda does not reflect that.

It is quite clear that this government is more interested in listening to its cronies. We have a government that is fuelling cynicism, when it promised there would be none.

When I was here from 2011 to 2015, when the Conservative government was not interested in a word anyone had to say, we knew what we were dealing with. It said it was going to follow its agenda and if we did not like it, then too bad.

However, the Liberals set certain expectations. They say that things could be better, but they are getting worse because issues that are being pushed aside are far more important than what we are seeing here right now.

What a sad situation we are in this week. We are extremely far from the issues that matter to Canadians and Quebeckers.

Those who work short-term, temporary jobs just want to make ends meet. Ultimately, they would like to be able to do more than that. They would like to have ambitions for their children and themselves. They would like to be able to envision a happy retirement. They would like their children to have a better standard of living than they did, and they would like progress to continue. That is not what is happening.

Instead, we now have a government that refuses to listen and is putting on blinders so that it does not have to deal with any issues it does not consider to be a priority. For example, it would be a good idea to ensure that online merchants do not cannibalize the sales of local retailers and entrepreneurs, whether they have an online presence or not. I sometimes get the impression that this government firmly believes that it does not have to listen to us. That is why I was talking about the government's superiority complex, and that is why the entire opposition is united in saying that this does not make sense. We represent the Quebeckers and Canadians who elected us, whether the government likes it or not or believes it or not. There is an alternative to this government. Oh yes, your royal highnesses, there is.

The electors have placed their trust in us, whether we be New Democrats, Bloc members, Greens or Conservatives. It is our duty to speak not only on behalf of our party, but above all on behalf of the citizens who elected us, and even those who did not.

I heard someone mention the magic number of 100,000 constituents. That is a lot of pressure! We have our work cut out for us, as we must represent them all. That is why we are joining together to tell the government that its way of moving its agenda forward is unacceptable. It is elegant in its way of forcing its agenda on us, and its communications are very skilfully put together.

I met with some friends, and there was a seven-year-old girl who asked me what I did for a living. I told her I was a politician. She asked me what a politician was. I told her that my job was to represent the people who chose us in an election, so we could represent their values, their needs and their aspirations. She asked me if it was enjoyable. I told her that usually it was enjoyable, but that for a while now it had started becoming not so much fun. She asked me why. I told her that we were used to expressing ourselves in a parliament that truly respected democracy, but that at the moment, we had the feeling that we had fallen under the influence of certain, let us say, unsavoury countries. She told me that she liked the prime minister a lot. I will not tell him she said so, naturally. She said she thought he was handsome. I told her that was great, that he is very handsome, very nice, which is what we were sold during the election campaign. Behind all that, however, you might say there are some older gentlemen who are not so nice, people who have some very specific priorities and are responsible for this government saying one thing and doing the opposite.

The government talks about its election promises; it is always harping on about them. It says it is doing what it promised in its platform. Come on! The government never once mentioned this sort of change. If we have succeeded today in getting this government to listen to reason a little, it is because we, in the opposition, stood firm. We are still a long way from all the promises it made. Funnily enough, what comes to mind is Bill C-51. What is the government going to do with that?

I am looking at my colleagues who were with me in the last parliament, who were ranting and raving, saying that the bill was scary, that they were going to vote in favour of it but then amend it later on. The Liberals have been in power for a year and a half. Let them get on with it, then, let them do something. One might say the government is suffering from acute “consult-itis”: it consults and then consults again on the consultation.

We need to get going. There are important subjects to address. I understand that most of them are deserving of wise reflection, but what is certain is that we need action. When we look at the situation of the portfolio I am responsible for, culture and the news media, it is a wholesale massacre. The government must hurry up and do something, and must take advice from the people who are there to express the views of their fellow citizens.

[Prof. Sébastien Grammond, Professor, Civil Law Section, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I will speak in both languages.

I wish to speak to you today about a problem related to the national security exception, particularly the fact that the government seems to interpret this exception as excluding the jurisdiction of courts.

I'm not an expert in national security like Mr. Cox, nor in computer science. I am a lawyer, and that is why I'm addressing you.

Perhaps I could start with a personal example. I was a young lawyer in the 1990s, and I had to work on several bidding cases. Our office represented bidders who had been excluded from a process or were denied a contract.

At that time, the decisions of the courts made it very difficult to challenge decisions, such as those concerning contracts awarded by municipalities. I remember a case where the City of Montreal had awarded a contract to our competitor, despite the fact that there were irregularities in his bid, which had not been a problem. In another case, my client was accused of similar irregularities, and his bid was found to be invalid. I did not understand why the City did one thing in one case and something else in another.

A few years later, the Charbonneau Commission—as you may recall—allowed us to learn a lot about the integrity of the bidding process. The lesson I took away from this was that court oversight is essential to ensure that bidding processes work, that processes are followed, and that people make decisions based on criteria and not on arbitrary considerations or favouritism. As the saying goes, “when the cat's away, the mice do play”. Obviously, the cat is the courts.

I'd like to make an important point. I read the transcript of your last meeting—in February, I think—and the point was made that, well, the national security exception was invoked in a number of cases, but still, it was a competitive process. However, what I've learned shows you that, if you don't have an external control, you can never be sure that it's actually competitive. In the cases I talked about, yes, it was supposed to be competitive. There was a call for tenders and there were criteria, but the City of Montreal, in those cases, was doing what it wanted, essentially.

I want to go beyond that. Beyond protecting competitiveness, I think it's an issue about the rule of law. There's nothing in the act respecting the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, nor in the Agreement on Internal Trade, that ousts the jurisdiction of the tribunal when the national security exemption is invoked.

What the government is essentially asserting is a right to exempt itself from the law as it sees fit, without any statutory basis. That's called a dispensation power, and that was abolished by the Bill of Rights—not Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights, but the Bill of Rights that ended the Glorious Revolution in England in 1689. That's been with us for a long time, the principle that a government cannot exempt itself from the law. That is so, even when national security is at stake.

I don't want to minimize in any way the importance of national security, but the fact that national security is at stake does not mean that we oust the jurisdiction of courts and tribunals. What we do is design processes that reconcile the needs of national security and the need for judicial review, the requirements of the rule of law.

Let me give you a few examples. In the last Parliament there was Bill C-51. There was an important debate about this piece of legislation. Let me just give you an example from it. There were provisions with respect to the no-fly list. What you see is that the bill gave a statutory basis for the no-fly list, but it put into place a process for people to appeal or to contest before a court of justice their possible inclusion on the no-fly list. Even if there is a concern for national security, Parliament found a way to address it in a way that would preserve the individual's right to present his or her case before a court, and the needs of national security, especially with respect to confidentiality.

It's the same thing with respect to the famous security certificates. When you want to deport someone who's a threat to national security, there is a process for that person to challenge the designation in court, and there is a process for keeping information confidential when it relates to issues of national security, so it's possible to combine the two.

It's never done in a blanket way. It's never done in a way that prevents a court from looking at a particular case and asking itself if it is satisfied that there is really a national security concern. If there is one, it will address it; but if there are none, then it'll go public and deal with the case.

I think that gives us an idea of how the courts deal with these issues. The courts are sensitive to national security issues and have all the tools necessary to ensure the confidentiality of information that may pose a risk in this regard. In my view, nothing in the Agreement on Internal Trade that was mentioned earlier allows the government to say that the courts lose jurisdiction when it invokes a national security exception.

Thank you.

National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak at the third reading of Bill C-22, which will create a committee of parliamentarians to oversee Canada's security bodies.

In Canada, our security apparatus and oversight must be constructed in ways that protect our freedoms and rights. Our Canada, strong and free, is the best country on the planet, and these are mutually reinforcing qualities that make our country. The recent terror attacks in Quebec, Strathroy, and indeed here on Parliament Hill in 2014, remind us that no country is immune to actions by those who would seek to challenge that freedom and security. While our strong global relationships, solid crisis response plans, and interconnected law enforcement networks are among the world's finest and meet rapidly changing global threats, we must guarantee independent parliamentary oversight to stand on guard of Canadians' individual rights and freedoms.

Canada is behind our international allies in this regard, and has been for far too long. Bill C-22 will help us catch up, better inform the public on crucial national security issues, and eliminate a weak link in the national security chain of accountability. In fact, the version of this bill introduced last June would already have put us far ahead of many other countries in terms of parliamentary oversight of national security. With the amendments adopted by the House earlier this week, Canada is poised to become a world leader in the area of national security and accountability.

It is worth remembering the history that accompanies the inception of this new committee of parliamentarians and the spirit of debate that has brought us to this point in its creation. We have certainly come a long way. Thirty years ago, the McDonald commission proposed an independent security review committee, in part as a result of public demands to make sure that mechanisms were in place to enforce the enforcers. There was widespread and growing concern that law enforcement operations carried out in secret but left unchecked could result in an above-the-law mentality and illegal activities by our paramilitary policing and security agencies. However, neither did the public want any parliamentary or government body with powers that were too broadly defined.

Fast-forwarding to 2005, only a few years after the tragedy of 9/11, an uncertain and changing environment meant growing demands for increased protection and stronger security measures. Prime Minister Paul Martin's government introduced legislation to create a parliamentary committee on national security and intelligence, reflecting renewed public demand for stronger oversight. That bill, as we know, died on the Order Paper.

In the last decade, the public and parliamentary debate in this area has intensified, and the issue of how to protect our security and our rights has become a major point of interest and now a driver of public policy. In recent years, we have discussed and debated stronger accountability for national security and intelligence agencies, following internal judicial inquiries and events surrounding the Maher Arar case.

Various bills have come and gone, including one introduced by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, which was rejected by the Conservative government of the day mere months before Bill C-51 was introduced.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the most important thing is that the bill would provide a closure to a gap that existed. That gap existed because of what the previous government proposed in Bill C-51.

What the government, through the committee, will be able to accomplish is to provide a balance between security and rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre.

I am very pleased to stand in the House today in support of Bill C-22, an act to establish the national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians and to make consequential amendments to certain acts. Bill C-22 fulfills the commitment made by our government to Canadians that it will bring forward legislation to create a national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians, otherwise known as NSICOP.

Throughout this speech, I will highlight three key points that outline the importance of the creation of NSICOP, namely: first, strengthening the accountability and transparency of our government; second, providing a comprehensive and reactive security framework through a wide-ranging mandate; and third, having extraordinary access to classified information in order to closely examine intelligence and security operations.

Bill C-22 is an essential component in the Government of Canada's efforts to ensure our country's national security is not beyond parliamentary oversight while simultaneously respecting the rights and freedoms of Canadians. This, I believe, is one of the most important fundamental duties our government can perform.

Many western democracies, including our Five Eyes allies—the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand—have parliamentary oversight bodies on national security similar to what is being proposed in the bill. Just like those parliamentary bodies, Bill C-22 permits an examination of the national security work of federal departments and agencies, and holds them accountable as concerns their actions and responsibilities.

Canada currently has several oversight bodies that examine the activities of government organizations and agencies involved in national security operations. While each body does important work, they are organization specific and do not engage parliamentarians directly with their reviews.

The creation of NSICOP would strengthen transparency, accountability, ensure the possibility for government-wide reviews, and warrant greater effectiveness and efficiency throughout the larger review framework. In addition, it would allow for the complete independence of a parliamentary body in reviewing matters while not impeding on national security.

I would also like to point out that our government remains committed to addressing the problematic features and concerns of Canadians surrounding Bill C-51, which was introduced by the former government, and present new legislation that better balances our collective security with our rights and freedoms. Bill C-22 is one step towards addressing that.

The first key message that highlights the importance of the creation of this committee is that it would fill the accountability gap that has been outlined for more than 10 years by private sector experts, commissions of inquiry, and the Auditor General regarding the lack of an independent parliamentary body to scrutinize security and intelligence operations.

To give the committee the time and opportunity to learn the serious task it is undertaking and to get to know and understand the security and intelligence context on both a national and international level, our government has built an automatic review of NSICOP after five years to ensure it can accurately instill all the lessons it has learned in a timely and appropriate manner. This shows that our government understands the ever evolving nature of security threats and shows that we are remaining vigilant, responsive, and accountable to our security framework.

The government put forward the bill. The bill was studied at committee and amendments were proposed. The government, after careful consideration, has agreed to accept a majority of what the standing committee has requested.

One of these amendments is to add a whistle-blower clause, clause 31.1, which requires the committee to inform the appropriate minister, as well as the Attorney General, if it uncovers any activity that may not be in compliance with the law. I believe that this amendment adds to Bill C-22's already strong legislation, as it ensures Canadians that we are remaining vigilant to further enhance our capacity to keep Canadians safe through increased responsibility and accountability.

Second, the committee itself would have a broad government-wide mandate to scrutinize any national security matter.

The committee would also have the power to perform reviews on national security and intelligence activities, including ongoing operations, and the ability to conduct strategic and systemic reviews of legislative, regulatory, policy, expenditure, and administrative frameworks under which such activities are conducted.

Additionally, the committee would conduct reviews of matters specifically referred to it by a minister.

Given its broad mandate to review any operation, including an ongoing operation, the minister would have the authority to stop a review if it was deemed to be detrimental to national security.

It is important to note that the minister would have discretionary authority to withhold special operational information on a case-by-case basis should it also be believed that disclosure would be injurious to national security.

While these ministerial powers are within reason, I want to stress that ministers would not be able to withhold just any information. They are only permitted to do so in special and specific circumstances involving legally defined categories involving the most sensitive national security information where disclosure would have harmful national security implications for Canada.

Our government has recently agreed to adopt the amendment put forth by the public safety committee regarding the narrowing of the minister's authority to determine that a study of the committee is injurious to national security, which applies only to ongoing operations. The minister would have to explain that decision to the committee and would need to alert the committee as soon as the decision changed or as soon as the operation was no longer ongoing.

Third, our government is also supporting amendments to clause 14, which is the section that lists the type of information to which the NSICOP would not have access. This amendment expands the level of access to the different types of information available to the committee. We have removed from this exclusions list information about ongoing defence intelligence activities supporting military operations, privileged information under the Investment Canada Act, and information collected by the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada.

I believe the bill is stronger as a result, and I thank the members of the public safety committee for suggesting this amendment.

The committee will also decide on which national security and intelligence matters it will review. Additionally, the government may also refer matters for discussion at the committee.

The government is committed to protecting Canadians from national security threats. Bill C-22 would ensure that our national security framework will be working effectively to keep Canadians safe while not overriding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Such an accountability mechanism is crucial to Canada, and it represents what Canadians asked for. That is exactly what our government is delivering. Canada is taking a step forward so that Canadians can see real and positive results on the serious issue of national security.

Bill C-22 would provide parliamentarians with extraordinary access to classified information and bring Canada in line with similar parliamentary oversight bodies that are already in place in the countries of our national security allies.

Bill C-22 represents a promise made and a promise kept.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to address Bill C-22 at third reading stage. Unfortunately, this is the final day of debate on an issue of national security that has divided the government from every opposition party.

Government members have remarked on the extraordinary nature of the proposed committee. They note that it would end our laggard status among the so-called Five Eyes, that it would allow some parliamentarians extraordinary access to classified information, and that it would enjoy a whole-of-government mandate. These claims are all true, but they are also the bare minimum requirements. They are simply the essential features of an oversight committee.

I hope government members are unsettled when they notice that every opposition party, and respected experts from across the political spectrum, are all pointing to the same flaws in the government's bill. I have spoken about these flaws in detail in the public safety committee and in this chamber. My colleagues and I have consulted with non-partisan experts to craft more than one dozen amendments to resolve them.

Let me summarize these flaws as succinctly as I can for Canadians.

This committee's job is to oversee the functioning and classified operations of every government agency linked to intelligence and national security. This 11 member committee will face a multi-billion dollar array of some 20 government departments and agencies, some of which have never yet been subject to any oversight. When these 11 members sit down together for the first time, all they will have to rely on is a dedicated staff, a limited budget, and the powers laid out in black and white in the bill. That is where they will begin to hit roadblocks.

Despite their top secret security clearances, this bill would bar those parliamentarians from accessing certain operational information. They would find themselves unable to summon witnesses or order documents. Instead they could only request information from cabinet ministers, who are permitted to withhold it.

While it clips the committee's wings at every turn, the bill bestows sweeping powers on cabinet and on the Prime Minister. Ministers can shut down investigations. The Prime Minister can appoint every member of oversight committees and censor its reports.

Canadians might well ask this. With such little power for Parliament and so much power for the cabinet, can this oversight body actually do its job? It is precisely in that context that the government has now shut down debate, after barely one-tenth of Canadians' elected representatives have been permitted to participate. That is the context for today.

I want to focus on what I see as the essential question for each member now, and that is this. Are the powers granted by this bill sufficient to create the degree of rigorous operational oversight that Canadians expect in the era of Bill C-51, and the extraordinary powers now granted to our security services? That is the important question because the test for this committee is not whether it can monitor uncontroversial activities. The true test is whether it can stand up to a government that is violating the law in certain circumstances, failing to protect Canadians, or encroaching on their hard-earned rights and liberties.

Let me be clear. I cannot support this bill in that context, in its current form. I believe it would fail that test and it would fail Canadians. At the very moment when they need it to be strong, independent, and effective, it would fail the test because it chooses to sacrifice transparency for secrecy, and favour executive authority over accountability.

In the wake of an intelligence failure that cost thousands of innocent lives, the American 9/11 commission report warned as follows: “Secrecy stifles oversight...current organizational incentives encourage overclassification. This balance should change...”. It also warned, “So long as oversight is undermined...we believe the American people will not get the security they want and need.”

That is what this is all about: giving Canadians not just empty assurances but hard proof that their security is protected and their rights upheld. Does this bill meet that standard when it comes to operational oversight?

In arguing against strengthening the committee, the public safety minister compared it to counterpart committees in the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. He correctly noted that each of those allies allows the government to withhold sensitive information from the oversight committee, but he left out an important fact, and that is that none of them is an operational oversight committee. Canada's would be, and it would be only second among the Five Eyes.

How would its powers compare to those American congressional committees? What do the Americans require for the same kind of job we are asking our committee to do? In the United States, special committees of the House and Senate are kept informed in real time of all intelligence operations. They can cut funding and even overrule the White House to order the release of previously classified information, if it serves the national interest. This goes far beyond even what the opposition parties have proposed for Canada.

If we passed this bill without fixing it, we would be giving the committee a mandate but not the tools required to get the job done. Yet, the government resists all calls by the opposition and non-partisan experts to grant these tools to the oversight committee. This gets to the central question of trust.

To justify cabinet's sweeping powers to obstruct oversight, the government has hidden behind a straw man, the one limit to which nobody has ever objected, and that is the safeguard to protect individuals in the witness protection program. We heard all about that earlier today. One government member referred to the need to segregate especially sensitive information. With respect, this misses the point. Everything this committee would work on is, by definition, especially sensitive. Nothing should leak, and I am confident that nothing will leak, just as it has not in Britain in the 22 years that it has had a similar committee under way.

If the identities of protected witnesses were this committee's only blind spot, I would welcome it, but alongside the others, it has begun to serve as a litmus test for the government's trust in this committee. I say that because there is no meaningful distinction between that information and anything else within the committee's unique mandate. All of it is potentially damaging to national security and individuals' safety. It makes us wonder, if the government cannot trust the committee with the names of witnesses, why would it hand over operational details? The answer, I fear, is that it will not. If we passed the current bill, we would give the government the power to withhold that information at every turn. We would give the government the power to deny Canadians the operational oversight they were promised, and we would fatally undermine Canadians' faith in this new institution, because if cabinet does not trust the committee, why should Canadians?

Of course, the government insists that it would use these powers sparingly and only with the best intentions. The Liberals' faith in their own good intentions I believe is sincere, but it blinds them to the actual wording of the bill. Take clause 21 as an example. Several amendments have targeted cabinet's power to filter the flow of information from this committee to Canadians. No fewer than six government members have repeated the claim that the sole purpose of that power is to screen out classified information. Again, if that were true, I would support it, but it is simply not true. In fact, the relevant clause does not even use the word “classified”. In fact, it empowers the Prime Minister to censor any information he believes may be injurious to national security or defence, or even international relations. All he has to do is believe it and it is so, and it is not available.

A similar claim, repeated by five government members, is that this revision power could not be applied to the committee's findings. Again, I would support that clause, but it is not in the bill.

This has become a theme. Too often, government members assure us of the good intentions of this bill's authors and simply forget that legislation must be built to outlast the authors of the bill. We are making law not just for this regime but for the future.

The current Prime Minister may not intend to use his powers to suppress embarrassing committee findings, but another one may. The current cabinet may not intend to use its power to quash investigations or to hide mismanagement or scandal, but another one may. The current government may not intend to ban the official opposition from the committee or use appointments to control the agenda or hide illegal surveillance by withholding operational details on security grounds, but another government may.

Consider, for instance, the investigations taking place right now south of the border into President Trump's ties to Russia and his wiretapping claims. If Bill C-22 were the law there, President Trump could revise the reports of congressional intelligence oversight committees to remove information he felt could harm foreign relations. His cabinet could obstruct, and even shut down, investigations simply by asserting security privilege.

That is why Canadians are demanding that this committee be built to a higher standard of strength and independence, so that when the time comes, it can stand as a genuine check on the executive overreach and end operations that violate Canadians' rights or mismanagement that undermines their security. As it stands, it is simply not built to that standard.

However, I do want to recognize the progress that has been made and acknowledge the good work done by the members of the public safety committee. Because of an amendment from the NDP, the new oversight committee would now have a legal duty to alert the Attorney General to any potentially illegal activity within the entire national security apparatus.

While future prime ministers would still be able to censor reports on broad grounds, Canadians could now see exactly how much text had been revised in a particular report and the reasons the revision occurred. While cabinet ministers unfortunately retain the power to withhold information and even shut down investigations, Canadians could now monitor the use of those powers each year.

I want to personally recognize the hard work of every member of the public safety committee. They showed that progress is possible when the government is willing to work with opposition parties. However, before the government congratulates itself for accepting a handful of ideas from other parties, let us be clear about what it rejected.

The plan we proposed gave the oversight committee full access to information and the power to summon witnesses and order documents. It offered freedom to investigate any issue without interference by cabinet ministers. It let the committee choose its own chairperson from among the membership that would actually match the partisan balance of the House. It allowed the free flow of insights back and forth within the existing expert review bodies. Every last one of those proposals was rejected by the government.

While progress was made at the margins, the government is now asking Parliament to approve an oversight committee with only partial access to the information it needs to do the job for Canadians: a committee that can only request information from cabinet, not order it directly; a committee whose entire membership is selected by the Prime Minister, with no requirement that it even include members from the biggest opposition parties. This committee would not be out of place in Australia, New Zealand, or France, where there is no expectation of operational oversight, but it is entirely inappropriate in Canada.

I cannot accept the design set by the government for two fundamental reasons: first, it tilts the balance too far toward executive power at the expense of parliamentary accountability; and, second, it fails to meet the high standard of operational oversight that the Liberals made necessary when they joined with the Conservatives to dramatically expand security powers through Bill C-51.

It is against these two standards that the government's attitude toward this bill is so very disappointing. The government has adopted an approach which says that something is better than nothing insofar as parliamentary oversight is concerned, and that we should just be happy we got a little bit. It suggests to me the belief that national security is the exclusive domain of the executive branch and that Parliament is somehow an ungrateful guest on the government's turf. That is dead wrong.

Members will remember this question was addressed and answered by Speaker Milliken in 2010 when he ruled on the government's attempt to deny Parliament documents relating to the Afghan detainee affair. In denying Parliament's role as a watchdog for Canadians, the executive claimed that Parliament's general right of inquiry was limited by the executive's countervailing interest in protecting national security. Parliament, the government argued, was overreaching by demanding information on security matters and threatening the constitutional separation of powers. The parallels to our current debate are clear.

What was the outcome? After an exhaustive analysis, Speaker Milliken ruled that Parliament's right to access information, to do its job, to perform its duties is “absolute”. In fact it was the executive that jeopardized the proper separation of powers by attempting to censor information provided to Parliament.

The Canadians' elected representatives in Parliament must be named the ultimate watchdog in our system. That should be a point of unanimous agreement for everyone in this place. We all recognize, as Speaker Milliken did, that special safeguards must be put in place to allow Parliament to exercise that oversight role in sensitive domains like national security and intelligence.

That is why New Democrats supported many safeguards to protect sensitive information. For example, we supported security vetting for every member. That was a step that was rejected by the British Parliament. We agreed. Similarly, we think it is reasonable that members waive parliamentary immunity from prosecution should they leak information. We think that is entirely reasonable. That step, however, was rejected by another of our Five Eyes allies, namely, New Zealand.

These additional safeguards should be used to facilitate the greater flow of classified information required for operational oversight, but the bill turns those safeguards into shackles. It asks Parliament to accept that oversight cannot be exercised through a parliamentary committee, but only through an adjunct to the executive, the Prime Minister's Office. It asks Parliament to grant the executive veto power over its access to information against the advice of experts and the Speaker's analysis of parliamentary procedure as well. It asks Parliament to legislate limits on its own authority to investigate how well the government of the day serves the security interests of Canadians and defends their civil liberties.

Because we believe in upholding Parliament's place as the final watchdog, and because we cannot accept inadequate operational oversight of the powers that Liberals and Conservatives granted to our security agencies in Bill C-51 over the protests of so many Canadians, the New Democratic Party cannot support Bill C-22 as it stands.

However, we have everything we need to fix the bill. We have consensus among the opposition parties. We have the willingness to work together to compromise. We have all the tools we need. We just need the time.

I am asking all members to do what the members of this committee will soon be asked to do, and that is to set partisanship aside and consider whether this bill, with all the flaws agreed upon by so many security experts, meets the standards of operational oversight that Canadians rightfully demand in the context of Bill C-51, and if they have any doubt that it might fail to meet that test for Canadians, I would ask them to support the following amendment. I move:

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

“Bill C-22, An Act to establish the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for the purpose of reconsidering Clauses 8, 14, and 16 with a view to assessing whether the investigatory powers and limits defined in these clauses allow for sufficiently robust oversight of ongoing intelligence and national security activities.”

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, during the 2015 election, the Conservative bill, Bill C-51, was of major concern to constituents in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia. Rallies were held across the riding, and a lot of concern was expressed, particularly on its impact on personal privacy, and the lack of parliamentary oversight. Therefore, it seems to me that a very small band-aid is being put on a very large wound.

My question for the member is this. Clause 8 of the bill would let a cabinet minister halt an investigation into his or her own department for security reasons, but offers no way to test whether in fact he or she would be merely covering up sloppy management or even a scandal. In the member's view, is this adequate to ensure Canadians get the facts on the government's handling of security?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to emphasize that when the Conservative Party was on the government benches and we had that great debate on Bill C-51, we knew where the NDP were standing on that and we knew where the Liberal Party stood. We supported the legislation and indicated that if we became government, we would ensure there would be parliamentary oversight. We are fulfilling that commitment.

On the other hand, the Conservative Party, while it was in government, opposed having a parliamentary oversight committee. When I say that there are members of this chamber who oppose having an oversight committee, it is based on past voting records. I sit inside the chamber and I have heard a number of members across the way express concerns in regard to it. Hopefully I am wrong. Hopefully we do see that unanimous support. I would love to see it, because it would send a nice positive message. However, I am inclined to believe that the Conservatives are still out of touch with what Canadians really think on this particular issue. We will find out when it ultimately comes to a vote.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North for outlining and bringing back some of the thoughts we had during the campaign around Bill C-51. I can remember knocking on doors myself, making phone calls, and explaining why the Liberals wanted to adjust that legislation rather than remove it, the way the New Democrats were recommending.

Now with having an oversight committee, the New Democrats are also making comments that we do not need this. In fact, this committee would include members from the Senate, and New Democrats would like to get rid of the Senate.

I think the Senate brings some value to this. Maybe the hon. member for Winnipeg North could talk to us a bit about why we would like to engage the Senate in this discussion, as well as changing legislation, rather than removing all security legislation, the way the New Democrats are suggesting.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with astonishment and exasperation to the member's speech on Bill C-22. It included everything from reminding us that this is the only thing the Liberals have to say about Bill C-51, which I have a bill before the House to repeal—they have not presented anything other than this bill—to him saying that if we have objections to stand up and speak about them, when this is under time allocation and the NDP gets exactly one speaker at third reading. I am a bit exasperated.

The final thing I would say is that the member is somehow proud of a bill that, when the committee provided teeth, as the Liberal Prime Minister said he would allow committees to do, then the government proceeded to take the teeth out of this bill and put them in a glass by the Prime Minister's bed. We have a bill here that has absolutely no ability to do what it is supposed to do.

I am exasperated and astonished to hear a speech like this, which would revise history and tries to recast this in a way that is completely false. What we have here is the government taking control of a committee, overruling what was done, and producing a committee that is very important to this country, without any support from the opposition parties. What does the member have to say about that?