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.

Anti-terrorism Act, 2015

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the question that was just posed to my colleague about recognizing that the Liberal Party is the party that brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Pierre Elliott Trudeau recognized the importance of the issue. It is the Liberal Party today that is recognizing that Canadians are concerned about the radicalization that has been taking place in different ways, about the potential threat of terrorism. Canadians as a whole are very much concerned and want government to do what it can to make sure that we are combatting terrorism and at the same time providing assurances in terms of rights and freedoms.

We know the Liberal Party's position is very clear. We will vote in favour of the legislation. If the government continues to fail to make those amendments, as it appears to, such as parliamentary oversight, the Liberal Party will take it as a part of its election platform where we are committed to making those changes.

The leader of the New Democratic Party on the other hand is saying that if he forms government, he will not scrap the legislation but will make changes. Could member explain the difference?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the difference ties into a comment I made early on in my remarks that the Liberal Party is the only party that is concerned about having both effective security measures to protect Canadians in a changing threat landscape and provisions to ensure privacy and the protection of rights.

Bill C-622 that I had the privilege of leading the debate on in the House last fall, which was supported by all of the Liberal members, is an expression of how our party sees not just protecting rights and freedoms, but actually enhancing them in the face of changing technologies and the changing situation in our society. That is what Bill C-622 would have done had the Conservatives not voted it down. It is the kind of measure that we strongly believe in. It can be taken as an example of our commitment to not just protecting, but actually enhancing and improving transparency and accountability of the agencies that hold our rights and privacy in their hands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that I will be sharing my time today with the member for York Centre.

There is no liberty without security. This is a principle that is fundamental to accept when we discuss the important bill before us today. I want to bring this debate back to principles. We must ensure that Canadians are protected from terrorism. The security of a country is the first responsibility of any government.

Let us not beat around the bush. The international jihadi movement has declared war on Canada and its allies. We have seen it in Paris, we have seen it in Copenhagen, we have seen it in Sydney, we have seen it in Quebec and we have seen it right here in Ottawa. In fact, just as recently as Sunday night, two jihadi terrorists tried to attack a free speech convention in Dallas.

These jihadi terrorists want to kill every westerner. Every Canadian is on their hit list. They hate us for our freedom, our tolerance and our prosperity. We need not go any further than the source to know that this is true. A spokesman for the so-called Islamic State said:

If you can kill a disbelieving American or European – especially the spiteful and filthy French – or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be.

That should send chills down the spine of every member of the House. What is more, spreading this type of jihadist propaganda in Canada is not illegal under the current law. That is why we brought forward changes in this legislation to more effectively target the material that is used to recruit Canadians to go to join terrorist groups like the so-called Islamic State.

The talking point for opposition members in the House today seems to be that there are no examples of things that would be crimes under this bill that are not crimes now. I would note that this type of hateful propaganda is exactly what is meant to be targeted.

Let us listen to the experts. Here is what Salim Mansur, a professor at the University of Western Ontario, had to say:

Bill C-51 in my reading is not designed to turn Canada into some version of Hobbes’ Leviathan or Orwell’s 1984, despite at times the fevered imagination of its critics.

Let us take a look at the five key measures that this bill would take.

It would allow Passport Canada to share information on potential terrorist travellers with the RCMP. It would stop known radicalized individuals from boarding a plane bound for a terrorist conflict zone. It would criminalize the promotion of terrorism in general. For example, statements like “kill all the infidels, wherever they are” would become illegal, as I have already discussed. It would allow CSIS agents to speak with parents of radicalized youth in order to disrupt terrorist travel plans. It would also give the government an appeal mechanism to stop information from being released in security certificate proceedings if it could harm a source.

If we put aside the heated rhetoric and the misinformation that is out there, and focus purely on the facts, we can see that this is a common sense bill that protects Canadians. I fail to see the reasons why members on the other side of the House would fail to support the bill.

Let us take a minute to examine the ideology.

We have seen before that the NDP has taken every possible step to stop our Conservative government from improving our national security. It voted against making it a crime to travel abroad to engage in terrorism. It voted against stripping citizenship from those convicted of terrorism. It also voted against any new resources for our front-line law enforcement and national security officers. It seems as though it is fundamentally opposed to any measure that would add to the protection of Canadians. This is the same party that as part of its election platform promised to repeal all national security legislation.

The Liberal Party simply does not take these discussions seriously. Its position on the bill is unintelligible. It will repeal it, it supports it; no one really knows for certain, although we just heard from the last speaker that it planned to support the bill.

Clearly, only our government is able to make the tough decisions that are necessary in this very uncertain world. We will never waiver from our commitment to take strong actions to keep Canadians safe, particularly from jihadi terrorists. We will do so through legislation, such as we are discussing today. We will also do so through financial resources, like the nearly $300 million that we have invested in the fight against terrorism through economic action plan 2015.

As I said at the beginning of my comments, we must bring this back to the first principle: the desire to keep Canadians safe. The international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada. Canadians are being targeted by jihadi terrorists simply because these terrorists hate our society and the values it represents.

Jihadi terrorism is not a human right; it is an act of war. That is why our government has put forward measures that protect Canadians against jihadi terrorists who seek to destroy the very principles that make Canada the best country in the world in which to live. That is also why Canada is not sitting on the sidelines, as some would have us do. We are instead joining our allies in supporting the international coalition in the fight against ISIS.

I urge all of my colleagues, on both sides of the House, to support the bill. It is an important bill and we need to see this legislation enacted.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-51, the anti-terrorism act.

The anti-terrorism act, 2015, contains a range of needed anti-terrorism measures, including, for example, provisions that will enable important improvements to the passenger protect program. The proposed legislation complements measures included in the Combating Terrorism Act, which came into force in July 2013. It enhances Canada's ability to address threats to air transportation security, while also establishing strong safeguards to protect civil liberties.

The Combating Terrorism Act created four new offences of leaving or attempting to leave Canada for the purpose of committing certain acts of terrorism. Leaving Canada to participate in terrorist training, for example, is now an offence punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Shockingly, the NDP voted against these measures. Evidently it does not believe that travelling for terrorist purposes ought to be criminal.

The changes we are making to the passenger protect program would complement this by allowing the government to potentially prevent certain people from travelling by air under specific circumstances where arrest and prosecution may not yet be possible.

Let me explain. It was this government that established the passenger protect program in 2007 to screen air passengers more effectively. The program uses measures such as denial of boarding when necessary to respond to threats to aviation security.

While the program currently operates on the basis of authorities in the Aeronautics Act, Bill C-51 would create a stand-alone framework to support the passenger protect program. This new framework would expand the program's mandate in a very important way to address both individuals who posed a threat to aviation and security and those who attempted to travel to engage in terrorist offences.

I wish to emphasize here that it would also establish safeguards with respect to information sharing and find mechanisms for review and appeal of decisions.

To accomplish all this, the bill would define new authorities for two ministers.

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness would establish a list of persons under two categories: first, those who may pose a threat to transportation security; and, second, those who may travel by air to engage in terrorist offences. Having the Government of Canada, not international air carriers, screen passengers against the list would better protect the security of the program and the privacy of those on the list.

Under the anti-terrorism act, 2015, the minister would also have the authority to respond to such threats in a reasonable and appropriate manner. Operational directions would be tailored to the specific threat. For example, in some cases, the minister could direct an air carrier to designate an individual for additional screening at the security check point. In other more high-risk cases, the minister could direct the carrier to prevent a listed person from boarding a flight.

In implementing these authorities, the Minister of Transport would serve as the primary contact with air carriers, including responsibility for: first, disclosing the list to air carriers for the purpose of screening passengers; second, collecting information on listed persons from air carriers; third, communicating response directions to air carriers on behalf of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness; and, finally, overseeing industry compliance with the new legislation

In response to concerns raised in committee, our government moved an amendment that would clarify the minister's authority when giving direction to air carriers. We believe the amendment would respond to those concerns, while ensuring the original intent of the bill would remain intact.

Let me say a few more words about information sharing.

For security and privacy reasons, the names of people who are, or were, on the list would not be disclosed, except when authorized for specific purposes. Specifically, it would authorize certain entities to disclose and collect information to help the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness administer and enforce the act. For example, under the act, the Canada Border Services Agency would be able to collect information related to air travellers who were coming to or leaving Canada, as well as screen them against the list.

The act would also authorize the minister to enter into written arrangements to share information with foreign states. Such disclosure, however, would always be subject to applicable Canadian law.

There are other safeguards that would respect the privacy of individuals and would give them a fair process to challenge the minister's decisions. For example, any listed person who has been denied the right to board an aircraft could apply within 60 days to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to be removed from the list. The minister would have 90 days, or a longer period agreed upon by the minister and the applicant, to review the case. If after this review the minister decided to keep the individual on the list, that individual could apply to the Federal Court for a review of the minister's decision.

Given the national security objectives behind this legislation, decisions made under the new authorities could involve sensitive information that, if disclosed, would be injurious to national security or endanger the safety of a person. Therefore, the legislation would define special streamlined procedures for judges to review decisions that relied on sensitive information, similar to the procedures that are used to review other national security programs, such as the terrorist entity listings under the Criminal Code.

Finally, let me highlight compliance and enforcement provisions.

For consistency with the existing regulatory framework for civil aviation, the bill would mirror the Minister of Transport's inspection and enforcement authorities under the Aeronautics Act. Contraventions of the new act, whether they relate to the duties of air carriers, the prohibition on disclosure of information, or the obligation for passengers to undergo screening, are all offences punishable on summary conviction. Contravening the clause related to obstruction can be punished either as an indictable offence or by means of summary conviction.

An individual who contravenes the provisions under the act could be fined up to $5,000 or be liable to up to a one-year imprisonment term, or both. Meanwhile, a corporation that is convicted of an indictable offence is liable to a fine of up to $500,000.

The proposed legislation would balance the need to address air transportation security and terrorist travel by air with safeguards that give individuals the right to administrative recourse and appeal. These amendments are also in line with the recent UN Security Council resolution on foreign terrorist fighters, aimed at stemming the flow of extremist travellers, as well as the measures being put in place by many of our international partners to address this threat.

The anti-terrorism act 2015 is an important step in expanding our tools to address extremist travellers who participate in terrorist activities, and I call on all members of this House to support it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as we get closer to the dying minutes of debate on this particular piece of legislation, I would like to again highlight what I believe the government has really messed up on, which is the issue of parliamentary oversight.

I ask the member quite simply, when we have our Five Eyes partner countries, the United States, England, New Zealand, and Australia, all recognizing the importance of parliamentary oversight, all having in place parliamentary oversight, why it is that only the current Prime Minister and current Conservative government feel that parliamentary oversight is not necessary.

I would remind the member that the current Minister of Justice actually used to support parliamentary oversight. Why does the Conservative government stand alone in believing that parliamentary oversight is not necessary?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am really perplexed by the Liberal Party, and I continue to be. Remember, the Liberal Party is rooted in the belief of conscription if necessary but not necessarily conscription.

Here we see the Liberals again getting up in this House with regard to Bill C-51, ranting and raving and complaining against the bill, yet at the same time saying that Canadians should not worry, because they can read public opinion polls too and they are going to support it.

One of the Liberal Party members from a downtown riding—I do not recall which one exactly; Trinity—Spadina, I think—actually appeared at Toronto City Hall in a rally against Bill C-51.

My question to the Liberal Party is this. Which is it? Do you support the bill or do you not support the bill, or is this another typical Liberal ruse where you just kind of gauge public opinion and just go with the wind on this one?

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I would remind all hon. members to direct their comments to the Chair rather than directly to their colleagues.

The hon. member for Trois-Rivières.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I listened to the speech of one of my Conservative colleagues, and I am finding it increasingly difficult to not see it as propaganda. What would really get my attention is seeing a kernel of coherence.

My question is very simple. Given that the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness had its budget cut by a total of $688 million in the last three years, and that the $300 million or so that was presented to us in the last budget will be disbursed in 2017, how could this bill be anything but rhetoric if we do not have the means for what is being put forward?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if that is not rhetoric, I do not know what is.

We on this side of the House know exactly what we are doing. Our foreign policy is based on principle.

The radical jihadists declared war on this country, Canada. If there is one thing we can count on terrorists to do, that is to keep their word. They said they are coming to the west to drink our blood. It was this House that went to debate over whether or not we should be sending our forces to Syria and Iraq to bomb ISIS positions. It is this side of the House that voted to send our brave men and women to Iraq and Syria to bomb ISIS positions.

We on this side of the House are protecting Canadians. That is a solemn oath we took and a guarantee we have given the Canadian people. We put their national security and the security of people here in Canada first and foremost, unlike the NDP members who cannot even utter the word “terrorist”.

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

Mr. Speaker, international jihadi terrorists recognize no border. If frustrated in their will to travel overseas to join their so-called caliphate, they will seek to commit acts of terrorism here in Canada.

We do not believe in exporting terrorism. Can the member expand on the tools this legislation would provide our law enforcement agencies to help them get the job done?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, finally, this is an intelligent question.

I would say that this legislation is absolutely necessary. The world is not the same place it was decades ago. It is not the same world it was in 1970 when the Liberal Party brought about the biggest breach in civil liberties in the history of our country, when it imposed the War Measures Act.

Our government's job is to protect Canadians. We take that job very seriously. Bill C-51 would give the national security and law enforcement officials the tools and resources they need to protect Canadians here in Canada.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in debate on this important move by the government to do a number of things. One of the things it cites is that it is trying to take serious measures to deal with the terrorism threat in this country.

I was, frankly, struck by the testimony at committee of the Commissioner of the RCMP when he was asked repeatedly whether there is anything in this legislation that would have prevented the unfortunate incidents that took place in and around the House of Commons and in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu in October of last year, and he said no. He was also asked whether they had sufficient powers now to be able to properly enforce and properly protect Canadians, and he said yes.

What I heard repeated time and time again from experts at committee who raised a number of different concerns about this legislation—and I will get to those concerns—was the fact that part of the problem we are facing, whether it is the Canada Border Services Agency, whether it is the RCMP at our airports or their ability to surveil, or whether it is CSIS itself and its ability to carry out its responsibilities, a big part of the problem we are facing in this country is this. While the government likes to pat itself on the back for all of the tough-on-crime legislation it has introduced and all the rhetoric the Conservatives spout about making communities safer, what they in fact have done is the opposite, and they have done that through failing to properly fund these important public security agencies in our country.

We heard the Commissioner of the RCMP talk about how he has had to redeploy 600 officers from other duties—and the majority of the files, he testified, had to do with major crime—and assign them to the terrorism initiatives of this government. Let us not forget that this is on top of the 500 personnel that are to be cut from the RCMP this year as a result of the 2014-2015 budget.

Clearly, a big issue at play when it comes to the government fulfilling its responsibilities is that it is a responsibility we appreciate, we understand, and we agree with: to keep Canadians safe. That is our number one responsibility, but the government has been falling short in that respect because of the fact that it has been failing to fund those agencies properly. Whether it is ensuring, for example, that for cross-border travel or travel to other countries or from other countries to North America, the agencies responsible, whether they be CSIS, the RCMP, or the Canada Border Services Agency, just simply do not have the resources to properly do the job.

That is kind of at the heart of this issue, because the government has trotted out this legislation as being a response to the terrorism threat we are facing here in this country.

Yet we recognize at the outset that the government is failing to do enough now with its ability to enforce the laws and powers that already exist, without this legislation being brought into force.

I have heard from a lot of Canadians and from a lot of my constituents from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour about this bill. People are concerned about the intrusion of the government and its various agencies and departments into their personal lives. In essence, they would be mining their personal data as CSIS, with its new mandate, went about sifting through everything to try to find a particular threat.

People are concerned. We have already heard about personal data being released, metadata being released, by communications companies to government agencies. We have already heard about those intrusions into the privacy of Canadians, and this bill would be that level of intrusion on steroids.

Let me quickly go over some of the main issues.

This bill, a 62-page omnibus bill, would expand the mandate of CSIS without strengthening existing oversight mechanisms. We have had debate in this country about the mandate of CSIS. It was determined, after incidents when CSIS tended to overstep the boundaries from time to time, that it was important to limit CSIS to the role of surveillance. If, through its surveillance activities, it had sufficient evidence that laws were being broken, and the RCMP needed to carry forward with an investigation, CSIS would then hand that information over to the RCMP. However, under this legislation, CSIS would be able to do both. CSIS would be able to continue the surveillance activities, the spying, and it would have the power, under this legislation, to disrupt. There has been some discussion as to what that would mean and who would be targeted.

It would make it easier to put people in preventative detention for longer periods. It would make it a crime to promote terrorism. It would allow police to seize terrorist propaganda. It would make it easier to share information between government departments. It would change the system for establishing a no-fly list. It would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Nothing is said about the current government actually being involved in counter-radicalization programs, which have already been seen to be effective.

There is a lot that can be said about this bill. A lot of my colleagues have been eloquent in their arguments as they presented, as have people in my constituency who have talked about why we should not support this piece of legislation. We should not commit to people by saying, “Do not worry. We will fix it when we are in government”. If one stands on a principle, then one has to stand on it and argue it. That is the way I will be voting as it relates to Bill C-51 on behalf of my constituents.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please.

Earlier this afternoon there was a motion passed, by unanimous consent, that rather than moving to the question at 5:15, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands would be given 10 minutes to make a speech to the House. Subsequent to that, there will be five minutes of questions and comments. Subsequent to that, this House will move to the question.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin, of course, by thanking all parties in this place and all members. If even one voice had said no, I would not have had this opportunity to speak to Bill C-51 at third reading. I am genuinely grateful for the generosity of spirit in accepting this as a motion by unanimous consent.

Having participated in the debates on Bill C-51 from the very beginning, and having been the first member of Parliament to declare firm opposition to the bill, I am enormously concerned that we have made such little progress in addressing those concerns.

Let me acknowledge at the outset that one of the first concerns I had was the use of the word “lawful” as a modifier for protests and actions in civil society. That word “lawful” has been removed, and that is a small improvement, but it is insufficient to deal with the dangers that are embedded in this act.

Sitting here today through third reading, I heard a great number of propositions from Conservative members of Parliament. I have no doubt that they believe those propositions in their speaking notes to be true, but they are consistently repeating fallacies that I would like to try to explain and deconstruct so that Canadians will understand why these repeated bromides are just not true.

The three fallacies I want to address in the time I have are the following. One notion is that information-sharing, which is part one of the bill, is designed to ensure that our security services, which are the RCMP, CSIS, Canada Border Services Agency, and CSEC, the agencies of policing and intelligence, share information with each other. That was put forward earlier today several times, and that, indeed, is something that must be done, but this bill does not do it.

The second fallacy is that there is judicial oversight in this bill, because judges are involved in one section. I want to deal with that one as well.

The other fallacy is that the terrorism and propaganda sections in the amendments to the Criminal Code in this omnibus bill would actually make it more likely that we could stop youth from being radicalized.

There are some things that are not in this bill, and I want to mention those, because I do not understand why, if the Conservative Party and administration were serious about avoiding radicalization, they would not have followed the example of the United Kingdom. Not everything the U.K. is doing in this area do I endorse. However, in December of last year, the U.K. came up with a very specific anti-terrorism bill, with proactive programs to go into schools and prisons to find those people at risk of radicalization and stop them, prevent them, dissuade them. We know that the horrific attacks recently in Europe were by people who were allegedly radicalized in prison. Why do we have nothing in Canada to deal with that?

On the other hand, and I will get to this by starting with my last point first in terms of fallacies, the fallacy that the provisions in the act to take terrorist propaganda off the Internet will in fact stop radicalization needs to be understood in the context of a legal analysis of the words that are used. In the section of the bill that deals with the Criminal Code and what I now call the thought-chill section in part three of the act, what it says is that this bill would deal with something called promoting terrorism “in general”, which is not a defined term. Terrorism and general propaganda would include any visual image or general language.

Legal experts have looked at this and are concerned about a couple of things. This business of getting things off the Internet is not brand new to Canadians. We have hate speech laws that take things off the Internet, and we have child pornography laws that take things off the Internet. In what way have we constructed these provisions on terrorism in general that are fundamentally different from what we did about hate speech and child pornography, which I think we would all agree we take very seriously? Those kinds of laws have statutory defences, and more significantly, those laws specifically exclude private conversations. This one does not.

A person could be arrested and go to jail for a private conversation, for discussing things that, in general, and it is very vague, could be seen to promote terrorism or might be reckless as to whether they promoted terrorism or not. Legal experts are concerned that this chill provision would make it harder for a community to continue to converse with people who are at risk of radicalization to stop them, to argue with them, to say that their understanding of Quran is entirely wrong and that they need to talk about this.

By failing to exclude private conversations, we increase the likelihood that no one will reach out to that person, and we have no programs to deal with it.

The second fallacy, going backward, is the notion that we have judicial oversight. We have no judicial oversight in the bill. First, one needs to understand what oversight means. For this, I quote from a paper by the very dedicated law professors who took this bill on and have published hundreds of pages on it, Professor Craig Forcese and Kent Roach, who wrote the following:

“Review” and “oversight” are often confused. Oversight is a real-time (or close to real time) operational command and control strategy. Review is a retrospective performance audit....

We can say that SIRC provides review, although it has part-time employees and part-time members of the SIRC board and a very inadequate structure, but there is no oversight. We used to have an inspector general for CSIS. The inspector general for CSIS was done away with in omnibus Bill C-38 in spring of 2012.

The term “judicial oversight”, as used by members of the Conservative Party in this debate, is truly a perversion of reality. It is one of the most offensive sections of the whole bill. It is the notion in part 4 that CSIS agents with an operational role now, what Roach and Forcese describe as “kinetic” functions, would go from collecting the data in the information to taking up disruptive activities themselves. If they thought they were going to break a domestic law or violate the charter, they would go to a judge in a secret hearing and ask for permission to violate the charter. Do not take it from me. Every legal expert who testified before the committee said that this was outrageous and that no other government, and certainly none of our Five Eyes partners, allows their spy agencies to violate the Constitution through the simple expedient of going to a federal court judge in a secret hearing.

Earlier today, the parliamentary secretary for public safety ridiculed a speech from the official opposition when it pointed out that no one would be there. How could anyone be there, she asked.

That brings me to a brief from a group that was excluded from giving testimony to the committee, the special advocates. Special advocates are security cleared lawyers who operate in secret hearings, usually on security matters, to ensure that the public interest is protected. These experts who were not heard before committee did submit written evidence urging that the bill be changed to ensure that we do not have secret hearings with no one present other than the minister and CSIS.

This kind of secret hearing, by the way, is particularly egregious, because it is very unlikely to ever be subjected to judicial challenge. It would be hard to ever find out what happened in a secret hearing. It would not come before the Supreme Court of Canada and be struck down. Establishing standing, for instance, for a civil liberties organization to challenge this would be nearly impossible. That is why my position is so firm that the bill must be repealed if it should ever pass.

The last fallacy is the really large one. It is part 1, about information-sharing making us safer. First, another witness who was not allowed to testify was the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Daniel Therrien. He was very clear. He said that he was:

...concerned with the breadth of the new authorities to be conferred by the proposed new Security of Canada Information Sharing Act. This Act would seemingly allow departments and agencies to share the personal information of all individuals, including ordinary Canadians who may not be suspected of terrorist activities....

This is an important point. However, what the information-sharing section does not do, which is critical if we want safety, if we want to ensure that Air India does not happen again, is ensure that the spy agencies and the policing agencies are talking to each other so that they are not letting critical information be hoarded.

By the way, Joe Fogarty, a U.K. expert in security, testified before the Senate about recent examples, on the public record, where CSIS found out that the RCMP was tracking the wrong people and decided not to tell it, or where CSIS found out there was a training camp for terrorists and decided not to tell the RCMP. We need to ensure that these agencies share the information.

Part 1 of the bill would allow agencies of government to share information about individual Canadians, but there is no requirement and no pinnacle control to ensure that an RCMP operation tracking terrorists has information and the benefit of information from CSIS. As a structural matter, experts, from John Major, who was the chair of the Air India inquiry, to former heads of CSIS and former heads of SIRC, have all urged that the bill not be passed as is.

It is not too late. I ask my colleagues to vote no to Bill C-51.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments and the assessment she has made on the bill. Previously I spoke in the House after the member for Vancouver Quadra gave her remarks saying that when I was 21 years old and voted in 1968, I stressed I did not vote for Pierre Trudeau, but later when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into place, I really respected the effort that was made to bring that to Canada.

At this juncture, when we have four former prime ministers saying no to the bill, when we have 100 law professors and lawyers from across the country saying that this bill is a shambles and should not be proceeded with at all, the warnings of court challenges and a number of things, would the member agree with me that this perhaps has gone much further than even the Conservative members understand in the damage it could potentially do to Canadians?