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

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

moved that Bill C-51, An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to deliver on our government's firm commitment to fight and protect Canadians from jihadist terrorists who would destroy the very principles that make Canada, our country, a nation of freedom and democracy that is the envy of the world.

The international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada and our allies. As we have seen, terrorists are targeting Canadians simply because they despise our society and the values it represents. Let us not forget the October 20 attack in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and the attack that happened right here in our national capital. Those incidents are etched in our hearts and in our memory and show us how serious these issues are for us as a country.

These attacks, like the recent attacks against our allies in Sydney, Australia, Paris, France, and Copenhagen, Denmark, speak to the violence that can be committed by determined terrorists. These events reinforced our government's determination to take action. Our Prime Minister said that we would not react excessively, but we would not remain passive in the face of the evolving terrorist threat.

That is why I have the honour to introduce, with my honourable colleague the Minister of Justice, this important bill on behalf of our Conservative government. People worked tirelessly on this bill. They spared no effort to create a balanced bill. It is a bill that ensures that Canadians can count on the government to protect them from the threat of terrorism.

Like many people here in the House, I vividly remember the events at the end of October. I remember I was sitting in the caucus room when we heard gunfire and the terrorist being killed just steps away. Frantic moments followed, but we regrouped and have since reacted moderately. In the days that followed, I attended the funeral of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent. I still remember what his sister said at the funeral. She asked us to make sure that her brother did not die in vain, that he did not fall at the hands of a terrorist in vain.

There is no higher calling of any government than to keep its citizens safe. That is a responsibility that our Conservative government takes very seriously. That is why we have taken, and are taking today, strong action on this file. We have always said that the threat is real and that we must remain vigilant. We must also adjust to that evolving threat. That is why we are tabling this bill.

Indeed, our Conservative government passed the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, which listed Syria and Iran as state sponsors of terror. More than a year ago, we passed the Combating Terrorism Act, which made it illegal to travel abroad to engage in terrorism or receive training to engage in barbaric and horrific acts here at home.

We took measures to strip the citizenship and passports of terrorists, despite the lack of support from the opposition. A few weeks ago, we passed the Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act in this House. This important legislation gives CSIS the tools it needs to investigate serious threats to Canada and confirms that it has the mandate to operate here and abroad, and to exchange information with our allies and partners.

We have also listed numerous entities as terrorist organizations, effectively cutting off the lifeblood of their resources.

Unfortunately, when it comes time to vote on these measures, Conservative members often stand alone while others play politics.

Our government has been very clear on the need to introduce new measures to guarantee our safety and ensure that our security and intelligence agencies have the tools they need to do their job.

The legislation before us today is an important step toward improving the means our intelligence gathering services and police forces have for effectively fighting the terrorist threat.

The anti-terrorism act, 2015 will give our national security agencies 21st century tools to combat jihadist terrorists, wherever they may be. There are five key elements to this important bill.

Although they are complementary in many respects, these measures will allow us to share the federal community's latest knowledge, expertise and work and to use them in a way that will enhance Canada's security.

The first element we must consider is very simple. When we take the time to explain this to people, they ask us why we did not do this sooner. I am talking about sharing information amongst the various federal agencies.

Canadians legitimately expect that if one branch of government is aware of a threat to their security that this information would be shared with other branches of government to protect Canadians. This is not the case and we need to fix this with this bill.

In many cases, barriers to effective information sharing are rampant across government, slowing the speed of this exchange to a crawl or acting as a total barrier. These barriers exist in the form of often well-intentioned legislation; however, in the national security context, they manifest themselves into unacceptable silos that put Canadians at risk.

Consider this example. A passport officer contacts an applicant's reference person as part of a routine check. Without being asked, the reference person expresses some concerns about the applicant's intentions abroad. The reference fears the applicant could go to Iraq to fight alongside ISIL, because he supports its goals. At this time, the passport officer can open an investigation in order to determine if the passport application should be denied for national security reasons. As we have seen, passports can be revoked or not issued for reasons of national security. However, that officer will have a hard time sharing information proactively for further investigation of that threat. This could push the individual to commit a terrorist act in Canada. Indeed, if we prevent him from travelling outside Canada, he becomes a threat here, since he did not get his passport. This increases the threat of a terrorist attack here on Canadian soil.

This situation is unacceptable. That is what we are trying to correct with the first of the five measures set out in this bill, in order to improve the means we have to reduce the terrorist threat here in this country. Under the anti-terrorism act, 2015, passport officers would be able to proactively share information with a national security agency in order to combat this possible terrorist threat.

These obvious changes, through the creation of the security of Canada information sharing act, are common sense solutions to real problems, and it is our duty to make it come through.

Contrary to dire suggestions by some members of the opposition, who should certainly read the bill before fearmongering, there are robust safeguards in place to protect the liberties of Canadians, such as review by the Privacy Commissioner, the Auditor General and various other oversight bodies. I will add at this point in time that we have consulted the Office of the Privacy Commissioner in the drafting of this bill.

However, I fundamentally reject the argument that protecting our security threatens our freedom. Indeed, there is no liberty without security.

Canadians I have spoken with about this legislation understand that their freedom and security go hand in hand. The fact of the matter is that our police and national security agencies are working to protect our rights and freedoms, and it is jihadi terrorists who endanger our security and would take away our freedoms.

The second element of this legislation that I would like to share with members is the secure air travel act, which finds its origin in the Air India inquiry action plan. We call it a passenger protect program, or the no-fly list. It currently relies on authorities found in the Aeronautics Act, but has never been given its own legal footing.

The air transportation system is still a target for terrorists. That is why this list was established after the attacks on the World Trade Center towers. However, we must also take additional measures to address the growing number of people who fly with the intent of committing terrorist acts abroad. Even though they are not an immediate threat to the plane on which they are travelling, they could represent a direct threat to the country of destination or to Canadian allies abroad.

Canada cannot allow people to commit terrorist acts here or abroad. That is why we must improve the program's mandate in order to include those who travel to take part in a terrorist activity.

The government will thus have another tool to prevent travel for terrorist purposes, including in cases where it is impossible to go ahead with an arrest or legal action at this time. This second element of the bill will also allow the government to use gradual or proportional security measures, such as denying boarding or an additional physical search at the airport, as additional means of managing the risk posed by people who travel on aircraft to take part in terrorist activities.

This enhanced mandate would ensure that our skies are safe and secure, both from those who cause a risk to aviation security, which is actually the case, and from those seeking to travel to seek martyrdom or carry out other twisted ideological violence. That is why, as in the first part, which includes information sharing among federal agencies, we also need to protect our skies from terrorists.

I would now like to talk about the third element of this anti-terrorist bill, which is a proposed change in the mandate of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, an agency created 30 years ago to which no major changes have been made since then.

Unlike the security intelligence agencies of our closest allies, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service can only collect intelligence in order to help identify threats against security. However, it cannot take direct measures to protect Canadians and Canada's interests.

What does it mean in practice? I think this issue was raised during question period, so I hope my colleagues are listening carefully. Let us say that CSIS becomes aware of an individual in the process of becoming radicalized. Perhaps the person is acquiring jihadist propaganda or viewing radical material posted on YouTube and, in fact, individuals within the person's own close circle have advised CSIS that they are concerned the person may travel for terrorist purposes.

Currently, CSIS can investigate, but it cannot do anything to stop the individual from travelling. The furthest CSIS can go now is to advise the RCMP that it believes the individual is about to commit an offence, and then the RCMP would launch an investigation. Therefore, we are far from action.

Under the anti-terrorism act, 2015, CSIS could engage a trusted friend or relative to speak with the individual to advise them against travelling for terrorist purposes. Further, CSIS could meet with the individual to advise them that it knows what he or she is planning to do and what the consequences of taking further action would be.

These needless roadblocks have the potential to cost human lives. As I just explained, we have seen all our western allies providing their intelligence services with these kinds of tools.

With this strengthened mandate, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service could use a variety of techniques to counter threats in order to thwart plans or even alter behaviour.

For example, CSIS could talk to the family of a potential terrorist about his travel plans. This is a legal activity in which CSIS cannot currently participate because it does not fall within the service's intelligence gathering mandate.

Let me be very clear. As is currently the case with intelligence gathering, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service would have to seek a warrant from the court to make use of any more intrusive techniques.

What is more, as with all CSIS activities, activities to disrupt a threat would be subject to a rigorous external review by the Security Intelligence Review Committee.

Under its new mandate, CSIS would be required to conduct an annual review of at least one aspect of its performance and summarize its findings in its annual report, which is tabled here in Parliament. CSIS would also be required to present statistics on its use of warrants to disrupt threats.

I realize that many of the Liberal and NDP members have expressed concerns about the level of oversight of our national security agencies. On this side of the House, we believe in and are proud of our Canadian model. We have third-party, non-partisan, independent, and expert oversight that is bringing continuity to the monitoring of the intelligence community. We believe that it is much better than importing a made-in-America political intervention in the process.

I would reiterate the important point that often seems to be forgotten around this place, that it is the jihadis who represent a threat, not our own police officers and those protecting us.

I am glad that my colleague, the hon. Minister of Justice, will speak on the bill, because there are two very important measures in it. I see that my time is running out, so let me briefly mention those two measures.

The fourth element of the bill is an amendment to the Criminal Code to allow our police forces, in co-operation with the Attorney General of Canada and with a warrant from a judge, to intervene when an individual poses a threat.

The fifth element—and my colleague and those who speak after me can elaborate on this—deals with how we will increase our prevention efforts. We can do this by eliminating the sources of terrorist propaganda, or in other words, by putting an end to activity on websites that could constitute terrorist propaganda and criminalizing those who may be encouraging terrorist acts.

We have a robust bill here with five common-sense measures. Who could oppose the federal agencies sharing information among themselves to better protect Canadians with full respect for our charter and Constitution?

I was proud to work on that bill. Unfortunately, as we might expect, we have heard the opposition members engaging in a kind of rhetoric this afternoon, but I am certainly open and hope that we will have an open and fair debate and sound questions on this important bill for the safety of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for his remarks, in which he again made reference to a full debate. Earlier in his speech he talked about giving some answers to items from question period. I will go back to the question I asked him in question period, to which he responded by saying that he was looking forward to starting the debate this afternoon.

Will the minister promise us that we will have a full debate on this bill, and that when we get it to committee, we will listen to experts who have concerns about the effectiveness and the constitutionality of this bill? Will he listen to Canadians who want to come to committee and testify on this bill, and have a complete and full debate on the bill? Will he make that commitment now, here in the House?

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

Mr. Speaker, I expected to hear a question on the bill itself, and not on the process.

The member knows full well that the committee is totally independent of me and that the committee will decide by itself how to proceed. Why do we not have a debate in the House about the merits of this bill?

The opposition members seem to laugh at this bill. This is an important bill for Canadians, and we should devote our time to seeing how we can make it even better. I think Canadians are expecting us to do a thorough review of this bill and to get it through. The threat is real. We saw it in Copenhagen just this weekend. There are no jokes to be made about the terrorist threat and what is happening here and around the world.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the minister said that the bill is well balanced. We certainly question that.

Moreover, the minister stated that SIRC, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, provides third-party oversight. Sadly, at the beginning of this debate, the minister has already misinformed the House. Let me quote from SIRC's annual report:

An oversight body looks on a continual basis at what is taking place inside an intelligence service and has the mandate to evaluate and guide current actions in “real time.” SIRC is a review body, so unlike an oversight agency....

SIRC claims that it is not an oversight agency. Why is the minister continuing to claim that it is? His seconder to this bill, the current Minister of Justice, was part of a report in 2004 that called for proper oversight, similar to what our Five Eyes have. He, at the time, refuted that SIRC is a proper oversight agency. Why did the minister leave oversight out of this bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Justice reminds me that this very member was occupying that very function not so long ago, and was working with SIRC and expressing his confidence in this great Canadian model.

SIRC is a body that is an extension of Parliament. I encourage the member to read the report a bit further, and he will see that SIRC is an extension of Parliament. It is acting on behalf of us all, but it is non-partisan. It is not a political intervention. It has continuity, expertise, and knowledge. As members may be aware, we just appointed a very respected Canadian, the dean of a law faculty, to it. Mr. Holloway is joining as an honourable member of SIRC and will assist it in its very important duty of keeping an eye on our intelligence community.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the start his speech, the minister talked about information sharing and mentioned that Canadians would expect that if one branch came across information pertinent to national security threats against Canadians, it could give that information to another branch. Canadians sitting at home might be saying to themselves, “I thought that was already being done”.

Certainly, terrorist threats and how they have evolved have changed over the years. They certainly are not the same as they were 30 years ago when the CSIS Act was first enacted. Certainly, they are not the same as they were 10 years ago.

However, when we talk about information sharing, I wonder if you could elaborate a bit more on who actually controls that information. I know some members of the opposition parties are assuming that there is going to be some sort of big database and that people could just freely access that information. That would not be the case. Could you please clarify that for the opposition parties?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I am presuming that the parliamentary secretary is not asking me to clarify this. I would like her to direct her comments to the Chair rather than directly to the minister.

The hon. minister.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for her question and her excellent work. As she comes from a large urban community, certainly one of the largest in our country, she knows how important it is to put in place measures that will keep Canadians safe.

Regarding the question on information sharing, this is enabling legislation that would empower every agency to share information related to national security and direct it to the authorities when they are concerned about national security. I gave the example of an individual who could represent a threat and that this information could be conveyed to the authorities.

We want to prevent Canadians from travelling abroad to commit terrorist attacks, but we also want to make sure that if a part of the Canadian government is aware that an individual could represent a threat and if that individual is prevented from travelling, we are not generating a home grown terrorist who could carry out an attack here on our soil. This is why the bill is so important. It addresses some of the questions that arose from the terrorist attacks that took place on October 20 and 22, especially on October 20 when we knew that the individual was prevented from travelling.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think everyone in the House would agree that terrorism is a real threat. We can also all agree that governments around the world should consider public safety an important issue.

However, Canadians do not have to choose between public safety and their rights. They go hand in hand. It makes me sad to see the Minister of Public Safety giving Canadians a false choice.

Today I would like to ask the Minister of Public Safety why there is not more civilian oversight of CSIS in this bill. Why is the government not directly addressing radicalization by working with communities on the ground? Why is the government working in a vacuum?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my hon. colleague that we brought in legislation to combat terrorism, as well as a strategy that has been around for several years now, through which we invest in prevention and research.

Unfortunately, we did not have the support of the New Democrats for the first pillar of our anti-terrorism strategy, which is prevention. This afternoon I showed that the bill before us contains elements that will improve and reduce the risk of radicalization, in particular by giving intelligence officers the ability to reduce the threat as soon as they are in contact with an individual who could fall prey to radicalization and also by shutting down websites that could be spreading terrorist propaganda.

The New Democrats have an opportunity to take action by supporting the bill before them this afternoon.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I will come back to my question on oversight. I know that the minister and his parliamentary secretary try to make the point that they want a non-partisan committee. As the current Minister of Justice knows, the other oversight committees among our Five Eyes partners are from all parties. Their interest is national security and they do it in a non-partisan way.

I will quote from the SIRC report:

To establish and maintain the confidence of both chambers of Parliament and the trust of Canadians, Parliament’s role in this area must be, and be seen to be, independent of the Executive (Cabinet).

Why, in heaven's name, would the minister not allow Parliament to do its job and provide proper oversight to all the security agencies, including CSIS and the others? Why is the signature of the Minister of Justice not worth much?

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

Mr. Speaker, let me remind my hon. colleague that SIRC is a very good oversight mechanism. I am little surprised to hear the member asking that question this afternoon. When he was minister, he was fully happy with the expertise provided by SIRC.

However, I am satisfied. I met with the current chair, the members of the board, and the executive director. I read their report. They are somewhat critical of part of the work that has been done by CSIS, and it is expected that CSIS will respond appropriately to those issues. I would like to remind my hon. colleague of one thing that is more important, that they are acting on our behalf. This is a Canadian model that has expertise and, frankly, we can be proud of the work they are doing on our behalf.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition to indicate that the New Democratic Party of Canada will oppose Bill C-51.

I do so with a deep sense of responsibility, because, as members know, over the last several months, horrific terrorist attacks have shocked the world. However, at the same time, mourning those events has brought people together and strengthened our resolve to defend our way of life against cowardly attackers who seek to intimidate us and erode our freedoms.

Canadians came together in grief and defiance the day after the Parliament Hill shooting, pledging that violence would not, even for a day, halt the work of our democracy. That day we were united. We were resolved to keep this land strong and free, to protect our freedoms, to stand by our principles.

The day after the Parliament Hill shooting, it was important to affirm our duty to stand on guard for Canada, loudly and clearly. Let us be clear: terrorism is a very real threat both at home and abroad. The events of September 11, 2001, changed the face of the world and forced countries to tighten surveillance and take threats seriously. The Canadian government has invested considerable resources over the last two decades and has taken forceful measures to strengthen its laws against terrorism.

Over the same years, many bills have come before the House. Every time, the New Democratic Party has provided a thoughtful and balanced analysis. We have supported some of these bills and opposed others, as we will oppose Bill C-51.

We do the same when there are difficult international issues to deal with. We remember when this House was asked to vote on a mission to bomb Libya in the days of Moammar Gadhafi, and the NDP voted in favour of that mission because there was a mandate from the United Nations. When the mission evolved into an American one aimed at regime change, we withdrew our support. That is what it means to have principles and be consistent.

Some legislation that was created post-2001 is working well. Moreover, that is at the heart of some of our criticism of the government. It is as if these laws that are working well did not even exist. Members will remember that in June 2006, some 400 police officers were involved in the arrest of 18 people in Toronto who were planning attacks on public places such as the Peace Tower here in Ottawa and the CN Tower in Toronto. In 2013, so recently it is still in the news, the RCMP thwarted a planned attack on a VIA Rail train. Just since the beginning of 2015, police officers have laid charges against six individuals here in the Ottawa area for participating in and facilitating the activity of a terrorist group. There are laws in place already. The current system has proved its worth. It produces results. It works well.

The NDP believes that the laws that exist today enable police and intelligence officers to do their work properly. Providing new legislative tools is not the only solution. First and foremost, we must ensure that our officers have the financial resources they need in order to better enforce the law.

In addition, some of the laws enacted to combat terrorism are never used by the police. Nonetheless, the NDP has always stood up in the House to ask questions about each new bill, at each reading, and about the measures proposed by the government, because the NDP believes that security and freedom are fundamental values that must be preserved at all costs.

We also believe that they go hand in hand and that countries where the people have the most freedom are the safest countries. I believe, fundamentally, that the first duty of every government is to ensure that its citizens are safe. That includes the duty to ensure the safety of the food supply. Let us remember that for ideological reasons, we no longer have government inspectors in meat processing plants. We have a system of self-regulation where the company says whether it is doing a good job. That is not unrelated to the fact that a few years ago, under this government, dozens of Canadians died during the listeriosis crisis. Protecting the public is a duty, and the Conservatives failed in that task. They even made tasteless and inappropriate jokes at the expense of the people who died. Even worse, the person who made those inappropriate jokes is still the Minister of Agriculture. That is shameful.

The government has a duty to ensure that hazardous materials are transported safely. We have all seen the result. Once again, this government’s ideological vision means allowing the railway companies to self-regulate, to check off a box and tell the government whether they are doing a good job. We will never forget that one of the few railway companies to have special permission from the Conservative government allowing it to have only one engineer on board was the railway company whose train exploded in Lac-Mégantic. That too is about protecting the public. We are talking about 50 deaths.

The public must be protected in all realms of life. When a legislative framework is put in place, the appropriate financial resources to enable the police and intelligence services to preserve the public peace and protect the public must also be allocated. In fact, what happened in the meat processing plants was the result of a system of self-regulation and the elimination of millions of dollars and hundreds of jobs at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. What happened with the railway companies is the same thing: a system of self-regulation where the government no longer plays the role that it is its job to play.

We can make a very long list of things that the government gave up on or did not have the courage to move forward with. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights unanimously voted in favour of legislation to crack down on impaired driving. Nothing was done. We never heard about it again. The Conservatives love to chat with groups of mothers who lost their children or loved ones to impaired driving, but in all their years in power, they have never done anything to address this important issue. Compelling evidence shows that these changes alone would have saved hundreds of lives. This too is a way of protecting the public.

There is no question that terrorism is a real threat, both here at home and abroad. Taking effective action to protect public safety must be the top priority for any government, but we as parliamentarians also have an obligation to protect Canadians' way of life by standing up for our freedoms and our values.

Parliamentarians must come together to address this threat with responsible, effective measures that are targeted on the threat, rather than playing political games as we saw today.

At a time when we need a responsible and serious approach to this threat, an approach that protects Canadians' values and freedoms, we saw the Prime Minister playing games and putting the freedoms of Canadians at risk. Canadians saw it today. We asked him five times to provide one single example, and he was incapable of doing it. Why? It is because this is a political play more than anything else.

The Conservatives have even admitted it. They see the recent events, as one of their officials put it, as a “strategic opportunity” for them, so Canadians are right to suspect that the Prime Minister's new anti-terrorism bill, Bill C-51, goes too far.

The NDP team analyzed, examined and reviewed this bill from every angle. We consulted our civil society partners to see if the Conservatives' new approach would be effective in protecting Canadians and their civil liberties. We also asked for clarification from the Prime Minister and his ministers responsible for this portfolio, but to no avail. As we have seen, they are unable to answer us. That proves that the Conservatives are playing political games.

Unlike the Liberals, who supported this bill without even reading it and abdicated all power to negotiate amendments, the NDP took the time to read, think about and analyze this long and complex piece of legislation. The NDP will not support the Conservatives' Bill C-51 in its present form because it has too many flaws and will undermine the rights of Canadians.

After studying this complex piece of legislation, after consulting with experts, after talking with Canadians, and after lengthy democratic discussions in our own caucus, the NDP has come to the conclusion that the Prime Minister's approach is one we cannot and shall not support.

Bill C-51 is sweeping, dangerously vague, and ineffective. It does not do things that are proven to work, and it puts politics ahead of protecting Canadians.

Why do I say that? Well, instead of introducing this legislation right here in Parliament, as he should have, the Prime Minister chose to do it in an election-like campaign-style event. That is called tipping one's hand. He even went so far as to make remarks that singled out Canada's Muslim community. That is not leadership that unites Canadians, and he should be ashamed of himself.

Canadians are being told by the Prime Minister that they need to choose between their security and their rights, that safety and freedom are somehow, in the Conservatives' minds, mutually exclusive. It is the classic Conservative political approach, which is not based on good policy but entirely on what Conservatives see as good partisan politics: to drive wedges, to put one region against another and one community against another, and to create false choices.

The Prime Minister should know that it is not either the environment or the economy. It is both. It is not either free trade or human rights. It is both. It is not either public safety or freedom. It is both.

The Conservatives are once again offering us a false choice. We should not have to choose between our freedom and our safety. It is our duty to protect both for everyone at all times, at every opportunity and in every way.

We can and we must have both at the same time. We are convinced that we can have them both.

The Prime Minister could have decided to put forward concrete measures to make Canadians safer and protect our freedoms. Instead, the Conservatives have once again put politics over principle and have introduced a bill that is so broad it would allow CSIS to investigate anyone who opposes the government's economic, social, or environmental policies. Bill C-51 proposes to give CSIS a sweeping new mandate to disrupt the activities of people or groups it does not like or that it believes pose any kind of threat under any of those chapters.

What has happened to the rule of law in our country? We have been asking the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to explain what that means. He has been entirely incapable. Neither he nor his officials nor the Prime Minister, for that matter, have been willing or able to describe what activities this new mandate would cover. Anyone who was here today during question period saw what happened: a Prime Minister wholly incapable of providing a single example of what this bill was supposed to correct as mischief. That is because it is a political ploy.

However, according to the brilliant and oh so talented Minister of Public Safety, we must not get caught up in definitions.

As we just heard from his empty speech, however, he has no problem at all getting caught up in the platitudes and talking points written out for him by the Prime Minister's Office, which are completely meaningless.

The rule of law is the very essence of a state of law. It is the very wording of the law; it is the construction of the law; it is what is written in the law. That is why he is incapable of talking about it, because he does not understand what he just wrote in his own bill.

For absolute clarity and so that everyone has the same understanding and the same interpretation of the bill, let us be clear. If the Conservatives had wanted to do things right, they would have begun in Parliament and announced that experts would be given the time to clarify the bill and study it together.

Instead, we were treated to an election campaign-style announcement hundreds of kilometres away from Parliament, and that revealed their deepest thoughts. This is all a political game to them.

Those experts who are starting to write about this, those highly respected individuals, are warning that the broad measures in Bill C-51 could lump legal dissent together with terrorism and lump strikers together with violent anarchists. Bill C-51 proposes to make it an offence to advocate or promote terrorism “in general”. Can the minister even explain what the words “in general” are doing in a legal text?

Canada already has strong laws that make it an offence to incite a terrorist act. That is why the Conservatives cannot give a single example of what is taken care of by this new bill that is not already taken care of by existing legislation.

Those same experts, and we are seeing more and more of their papers appear, are saying that the language in this new provision is so vague and so open-ended that it could vastly expand the kind of statements that could get a Canadian arrested. Anyone who is genuinely inciting violence against others of course should be stopped. However, we need measures that keep Canadians safe without eroding our fundamental freedoms.

This government should be known as the “government of fear”.

When a government plays with people's fear and takes advantage of Canadians' sensitivity and raw emotions following a tragedy, there is a high risk of abuse.

Like many Quebeckers, I remember the improper arrest and detention of hundreds of innocent people when Trudeau's Liberal Party passed the War Measures Act during the October crisis. At the time, the NDP shrugged off criticism, had the courage of its convictions and stood firm against this attack on the rights and freedoms of all Canadians. It was difficult at the time, but history has proven us right, and we are proud of that.

All parliamentarians are responsible for ensuring that such abuses of power are never repeated. Never again. Those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are condemned to repeat them, and that is what we are seeing with these people.

Today the Conservatives want to give significant new powers to CSIS without addressing serious deficiencies in oversight. We know that there are currently serious deficiencies in the oversight of CSIS. The last report of the under-resourced Security Intelligence Review Committee found that CSIS is “seriously” misleading the committee in one investigation after another, and it faced “difficulties”, which is their term, and “significant delays” in getting information about the spy agency's activities. In other words, they are hiding the information from the people who are supposed to be guaranteeing oversight, because the oversight is deficient, ineffective, and weak. That is the reality. That is before the enhanced responsibilities. It is already problematic.

We are concerned that the Conservatives want to give the Canadian Security Intelligence Service more powers without improving the inadequate oversight mechanisms currently in place, mechanisms that resulted in the Conservative government putting Arthur Porter in charge of that oversight. They seem to think that Arthur Porter is a model of ethical conduct.

To us, this is quite straightforward. If the government wants to give CSIS more powers, then it absolutely must increase oversight. That is crucial.

By the way, this is on top of the Conservative decision in 2012 to simply eliminate the position of CSIS inspector general. That, of course, further weakened the reviews, but that is exactly what the Conservatives wanted.

In view of these shortcomings, it is simply irresponsible to give the agency such broad new powers without providing additional oversight and without in any way attempting to prove what such new powers are supposed to do that are not already in the law. The bill also comes on the heels of cuts to our security agencies, cuts that sideline other public safety priorities, and the Prime Minister has yet to offer a plan to support Canadian communities that are combatting radicalization on the ground.

No stranger to the threat of terrorism, the United States of America, under President Obama, has taken a proactive approach to combatting radicalization. The White House has spearheaded work with at-risk communities to make them more resilient against the lure of radicalization. The U.S. government works to support community and faith leaders by connecting them with counter-radicalization experts, providing information on how to recognize the warning signs of radicalization and training in the kinds of tactics that are proven to actually work to diffuse radicalization.

Absolutely none of this is being done in Canada by the Conservatives. In fact, the Conservatives have chosen a very different approach. For example, the RCMP plan to work with communities to counter violent extremism has sat on the drawing board for years. Why? It is because it does not suit the Conservatives' purpose.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister has cut the budgets of both the RCMP and CSIS, and top officials have testified that they do not have the resources to monitor terrorism suspects and keep fully funding other areas of their policing. Why? It is because they prefer talking about it to doing anything about it.

Instead of doing the things that are proven to work, this bill sees the Conservatives once again putting wedge politics ahead of protecting Canadians.

Bill C-51 is silent on one element that we feel is essential to attacking terrorism at its root: Canada needs a strategy against radicalization right here at home. We want more measures to help communities. That is what communities are asking for. They want to be able to carry out major educational campaigns.

How we tackle the threats posed by radicalization, terrorism, and attacks by disturbed lone wolves merits a real debate, but by seeking to divide and score points, the Conservatives have succeeded in intimidating the Liberals into giving them a blank cheque to pass any laws, even before they are tabled and even when they go too far. They say that they are going to write a little something on the memo line, but it is still going to be a blank cheque.

The truth is that if we cannot protect our freedoms, we are sacrificing our freedoms. Freedom and public safety have to go hand in hand. We will hold true to our principles and oppose this overreaching legislation. Our rights and freedoms define our Canadian way of life, and as long as I am here, no one is going to undermine who we are and what we stand for as Canadians.

In the coming days, coming weeks, and coming months, we will urge the government to resist its normal urge to try to railroad legislation through. It has broken all records for using the guillotine to pass things more quickly. It has used time allocation and closure more than any other government in the history of Canada.

There are few things that we have ever looked at in this House that are more important than what we are looking at right now. It deserves serious analysis. It deserves the time to hear the experts who have a lot to bring to this debate. We will be proposing amendments, and we hope that the government will listen to our proposals and their merit and to the experts who come to the committee.

We hope that the government will invite not only experts to committee. We hope that it will invite community leaders as well. These are people we should also be listening to. These are people on the front lines who often have to deal with young people who are facing the siren song of radicalization. We should be listening to them, and we should be putting in place the types of solutions they will be talking to us about.

We also urge the Liberals to reconsider their position to support this bill unconditionally. We hope that we all, as parliamentarians, will take this bill seriously. Here, I want to salute the leader of the Green Party, who has also raised serious concerns about Bill C-51. We hope that Conservative MPs will be willing to consider practical amendments to strengthen oversight and to protect Canadians' freedoms.

Free societies are safe societies. Canadians can count on New Democrats to take a principled stand against this and any Conservative law that undermines the freedoms and values that define our Canadian way of life.

The day after the shooting here in Ottawa, I asked the Prime Minister if he would be able to resist his strong tendency to always attack anyone who speaks out against him and his positions.

I asked him if he understood, if he was able to broaden his perspective enough to realize that even though we do not agree on the approach, all parliamentarians want the same thing: to protect Canadians. Again today, the words that were used demonstrated that he is not able to broaden his perspective.

I know that all parliamentarians and all Canadians want to live in safety and peace. We all want to eradicate terrorism. In this sometimes emotional debate, no one should be playing political games, and the NDP therefore wants to do everything it can to get the government to improve its bill.

It is our duty as legislators to implement intelligent and effective policies to protect Canadians. We cannot make any compromises when it comes to safety and freedom. We need to protect both of these things at the same time and at all times.

In closing, I would simply like to say that if we give in to fear, the terrorists are the ones who win.

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

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that in his speech, the Leader of the Opposition failed to mention that with the expansion of the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the powers of the review committee would also automatically be expanded.

I expected a little more from the Leader of the Opposition. I expected more than rhetoric and lame historical references. Impaired driving and food inspection aside, I was expecting a debate on the substance of the bill. He asked whether this bill contains any practical measures.

Let us look at the first measure, which is very simple. It involves sharing information among federal agencies. How can the Leader of the Opposition be opposed to sharing information in order to protect Canadians? Take for example the fact that sometimes passports are revoked, but that information is not necessarily shared with our security agencies. That is a threat to Canadian security.

Is the member interested in supporting the first measure in this bill? If not, why is he opposed to it?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the minister's comments one by one. What he said about expanding oversight powers is totally and irrefutably false. There is nothing, nada, zilch in this bill that expands oversight over the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in any way. That is totally and absolutely false. This is conclusive evidence of our second point, which is that the minister may have read his bill, but he does not really understand it.

I personally had the opportunity this afternoon to ask the Prime Minister five times—and countless times in the case of other members—to provide a single example of an action deemed a crime under this bill that is not already a crime under existing legislation. The red herrings, the attempts to distract us, like a magician putting on a show, keep bringing us back to square one: no one is capable of showing that this bill prohibits an activity that is not already prohibited in Canada, which is proof positive that this is nothing but a political game to the Conservatives.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we share some of the concerns expressed by the leader of the official opposition. We also intend to put forward amendments to ensure parliamentary oversight and to add sunset clauses or a mandatory review, for example.

Does the Leader of the Opposition really believe that the government opposite will agree to any amendments proposed by the official opposition or our party?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his solicitude and point a few things out to him.

A few months ago, when the government introduced an undemocratic bill that would have gutted some of the safeguards set out in the Canada Elections Act, members of the Liberal Party held a press conference where they said that there was nothing they could do because the Conservatives have a majority, but that when the Liberals took office, they would change the law. That is arrogance and incompetence. It is arrogance because the Liberals are assuming that people will vote for them even though they are not doing anything. It is incompetence because they are failing to fulfill their primary obligation as an opposition party.

However, I read with great interest a letter from the Liberal member last week, in which he openly criticized the idea of bringing the RCMP into the House of Commons and provided a detailed explanation as to why. What happened when it came time to vote? The Liberals forgot to vote. He supported the Conservatives through indolence. There is a limit.

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

Mr. Speaker, as usual the Leader of the Opposition has elevated the debate in the House, clearly laying out what is at stake with this legislation.

I want to ask him about something he talked about at the beginning of his speech and then reflected on at the end. We all came together in the House the day after the shooting on Parliament Hill with a commitment that we would not let those who would use violence harm our democracy or our open society. There was an expression by members on all sides of the House that we would co-operate and work together to ensure that was the case.

What does the Leader of the Opposition think happened to that feeling that was so strong on that one day and seems so absent now in the House?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are a long way from the hug I received from my bro across.

The French have a good expression, “Chassez le naturel, il revient au galop”, which means if we chase away the natural tendencies they come galloping back, and that is what we have seen here.

When the bill was announced not in Parliament, not with respect to this institution, but as a purely partisan ploy hundreds of kilometres away from here, Canadians immediately understood that this was just another piece being moved on a board game played by the Conservatives. This is their trademark. They are telling Canadians that they have to be afraid, that we have to sacrifice our freedoms if we want to ensure our security.

We know that it is possible to do both. We are going to work hard in parliamentary committee to bring forward amendments that would accomplish that. We will bring in experts if the government does not try to railroad the bill through. We will bring in people who can talk to what could be done constructively in communities across Canada.

If our goal is to strengthen security, we will be there every step of the way. If the goal of the Conservatives is to play politics, we will stand up to them.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was quite interesting to listen to my colleague across the floor.

I look back to July 7, 2006, when three of my colleagues in the RCMP were shot, two passed away seven days later. I listen to the rhetoric here. Members are laughing about it. It is not funny.

This is about protecting Canadians. This is about protecting the law enforcement officers on the streets who have to do the daily battles against everyone. This is about protecting our men and women in the services. This is about protecting all Canadians—

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

There's nothing in the bill about that.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

It's about taking Canadians' rights away.

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

My NDP colleagues should let me finish, Mr. Speaker. Their position is hug-a-thug day. I do not agree with that.

This is about respecting my colleagues who have passed away. We hear about the abuses and about protecting the freedoms of Canadians. I look back at 2013 when my colleague drove on the Hill and the RCMP tried to pull him over. He asked the officer, “Do you know who I am?”. That is not respecting the institution.

NDP members voted to keep travelling for terrorist purposes legal. They voted to allow convicted terrorists to keep their citizenship. They voted to stop our security agencies from co-operating with our allies and now they are expressing concerns about the important--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, no doubt unwittingly, the member has just done us all a service. If there was any lingering doubt in anyone's mind that this is simply a political ploy, he has removed all doubt. There is nothing in the bill about any of the things he has just mentioned.

It also shows that, like the minister, he has not even read it, which is also bringing us straight back to what is actually driving this, the Prime Minister's Office and the Conservatives' politics for the next election.

We are going to stand up on a question of principle. We know that it is possible and it is indeed primordial for any government to defend both our security and our rights.

I very much regret that someone who believes he once enforced the law does not understand the importance of protecting Canadians' rights.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Drummond, The Environment.

The hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River is rising on a point of order. I would like to remind the hon. member that this needs to be a point of order and he needs to get to the point of order immediately.

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

Mr. Speaker, going back 18 years and having to enforce the Criminal Code, questions were asked of us about understanding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One thing that they are saying over there—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please.

This is clearly not a point of order. If the member wishes to make a point of order he may do so, but this is not a point of debate.

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

You have no respect for policing—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. The hon. member for Papineau.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have to tell anyone in the House today about the threat of terrorism and the fear it can instill within those who have witnessed it.

We all remember clearly the feelings we had in October as we heard and learned that an armed man had entered Centre Block with the intent to kill. We are still thankful for the heroism shown by our security services that day in keeping us safe during a difficult and confusing time.

Coming as it did only days after another, shameful, attack on members of our military, it was a horrible reminder of the murder in cold blood that some people are capable of doing.

No matter the motives, terrorism is designed to make us freeze in fear. It is designed to make us constantly question not only our own safety, but also the democratic institutions we have established to keep us safe. It is designed to make us question what is familiar and to suspect what would normally be insignificant.

Terrorism is designed to take us so far that we question everything we have built and everything that is good in our fair, just and open society.

That is the point of terrorism, and it is when we willingly walk over that edge of our own accord that terrorism is ultimately successful. So let us step back from that edge.

Make no mistake, the Liberal Party is alert to the threats and we know that keeping Canadians safe in a manner that is consistent with Canadian values is our most sombre responsibility as legislators and community leaders. To ensure that we never lose sight of our Canadian values and never forget who we are, we should always aim to have both the security of Canadians and the protection of their rights and freedoms in mind when we set out to combat those threats.

I believe that Bill C-51, the government's anti-terrorism act, takes some proper steps in that direction. We welcome the measures in Bill C-51 that build on the powers of preventative arrest, make better use of no-fly lists, and allow for more coordinated information sharing by government departments and agencies. However, Bill C-51 ought to be amended for a few reasons.

As I stated outside this House recently, the Liberal Party plans to bring forward amendments to Bill C-51, and I am happy to outline some of those proposed changes now.

One notable aspect of Bill C-51 is the changes it would make to the mandate of the Canadian Security Intelligence Services, or CSIS.

In its current form, Bill C-51 would amend CSIS's mandate, enabling the agency to intervene directly to address security threats, through clandestine and open operations.

That is a significant change to the current role of CSIS, which is to gather and analyze intelligence, while the RCMP is responsible for enforcing the law and taking action to counter security threats.

Yet we are now set to imbue CSIS with broad powers to disrupt not only real or perceived terrorist threats, but also real or perceived threats to economic and financial stability, critical infrastructure, and the security of other states.

The Liberal Party will be bringing forward amendments to narrow and clarify the overly broad scope of the new powers that have been a source of concern for many Canadians. If CSIS is given these new powers, we on this side believe that its mandate must be subject to much stricter supervision and review.

Canadians owe a lot to the security officials at CSIS, and the results of their work in the past have been evident. We know CSIS played key roles in disrupting plans to carry out violence against Canadians, including a plot to place bombs on VIA Rail passenger trains. However, we would now ask CSIS to do something new, and this new direction must be monitored so that we can be sure we are getting it right.

At the moment, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, or SIRC, reviews the work that CSIS does and reports to Parliament on those operations; but there seems to be some confusion in this house as to what SIRC actually does and what it does not do. This distinction is important, and it is the crux of a crucial change that we believe should be made to Bill C-51.

A couple of weeks ago, on February 4, the Prime Minister stated that “[SIRC] provides robust oversight”. However, this is not entirely entirely correct.

SIRC is a review body and it does not fulfill an oversight role. The difference between the two is not merely a quibble over language. The two words are not synonymous. In fact, SIRC states so publicly itself. On page 12 of its annual report, SIRC clearly lays out the difference between a review function and that of oversight. It says:

An oversight body looks on a continual basis at what is taking place inside an intelligence service and has the mandate to evaluate and guide current actions in “real time.”

That is crucial and must be amended, if we are giving CSIS the new powers proposed in Bill C-51 in its current form.

Right now, SIRC can only examine the past activities of CSIS. It does not conduct any real-time monitoring to ensure that those activities are in line with our expectations and fall within the parameters that have been set.

There is no mechanism for fully transparent oversight of what is done for Canadians and against Canadians by our intelligence and security agencies. A part-time oversight agency is unable to keep up with CSIS's rapidly changing operational environment, and it is unable to provide the necessary oversight.

One may ask what kind of change would ensure that these new powers CSIS is to be granted in Bill C-51 would be properly monitored. A solution can be found not far beyond our borders, as our closest allies have already addressed this issue, and I feel that we can mirror their experience to suit our needs.

Great Britain, our partner in the Five Eyes intelligence community, has established a working and viable oversight body that we can emulate here in Canada. Over there, they call it the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. It is a committee of parliamentarians that has been tasked with the direct oversight of intelligence and security matters in the U.K., including the “expenditure, administration, policy and operations” of things like MI-5, MI-6, and GCHQ, the Government Communications Headquarters. This committee is also able to scrutinize work carried out by other parts of the U.K. intelligence community, including Britain's Joint Intelligence Organisation and the National Security Secretariat in the Cabinet Office, Defence Intelligence in the Ministry of Defence, and the Office of Security and Counter-Terrorism in the Home Office. This is exactly the kind of committee we should be establishing here in Canada.

Fundamentally, our discussion of Bill C-51 is about what we are trying to protect. In that discussion, we should at all times be doing our best to protect the fundamental tenets of our democratic system: responsible government, and Parliament as the trustee of the people. This means that the only way an oversight body of this nature would be legitimate is if it were composed of elected officials. However, at the moment, Canada is the only nation of its kind without national security oversight being carried out by parliamentarians.

That should have been corrected a long time ago. Therefore, we cannot emphasize enough the importance of making this correction now, when we are giving new and broader powers to our intelligence and security agencies.

Consequently, the Liberal Party is proposing to create this oversight body. We believe that there should be a committee composed of parliamentarians to provide appropriate oversight—and not just review—of the activities of various agencies, including CSIS, the Communications Security Establishment, the RCMP and the Department of National Defence.

Therefore, we propose the following: first, that the members of this committee be sworn to a lifetime oath of secrecy; second, that the members be unable to claim immunity based on parliamentary privilege with regard to the use of the communication of information that comes into their possession or knowledge as members of this committee; and third, that this committee should not be a parliamentary committee, but a committee of parliamentarians.

I will note here that this is not the first time Parliament has discussed introducing a committee like this. Back in 2004, it was the Liberal government that introduced Bill C-81, which would have established a national security committee composed of parliamentarians. Again, in 2009, after the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security reviewed Justice O'Connor's report, it was again recommended that Bill C-81 be reintroduced to establish such a committee. The Conservative government at that time did not follow through on that recommendation.

We also believe that Bill C-51 requires changes to ensure that its provisions are not granted in perpetuity. This means that Bill C-51 ought to be subject to mandatory review. There is a precedent for this too. In 2001, following the attacks of 9/11, the Liberal government at the time introduced an anti-terrorism act that contained changes to our Criminal Code and to other relevant statutes. One of those changes was to lower the thresholds for police to be able to detain and monitor, with conditions, someone suspected of planning a terrorist activity.

This change to the law was subject to a mandatory review by Parliament and a sunset clause. In fact, the last time that these provisions were reinstated, in 2013, it was agreed that they would be subject once again to a review in future by a committee that would report to Parliament.

This is necessary for Bill C-51, because, like the anti-terrorism legislation introduced in 2001, it also makes changes to our Criminal Code. This is why Liberals plan to introduce an amendment to have a mandatory review of Bill C-51 in its entirety after three years. This has been the way we have responsibly introduced anti-terrorism legislation in the past and it strikes me that there is no credible reason to break this pattern.

Finally, Liberals believe that Parliament should consider the resources Canada currently allocates to combatting terrorism. The government should ensure that our security services have what they need to do their jobs, without the risk of depriving them of key resources in other areas.

As I said earlier, there are elements of the bill that we support. However, there are changes that should be made before the bill becomes law. Bill C-51 can be improved. This is why, though we support the bill, Liberals will propose the amendments I have highlighted on oversight, on review, and on narrowing the overly broad definition of national security.

We are prepared to work with our colleagues from the other parties to ensure that Canadians have the best, fairest and clearest legislation to keep us safe. Issues such as those that affect national security should not be partisan.

That is why we want to take a constructive approach and improve this bill. That is what the Liberals are prepared to do, and we will act in good faith to that end. We hope that the government is serious in its approach and that it will set aside partisanship in order to keep Canadians safe while protecting our rights and values.

Concerns about this bill have been expressed outside and inside the House, and I would like to reassure those who expressed them that they have been heard. We are confident that we have the necessary tools and plan to improve this bill, and we will do everything we can to achieve that goal.

Further, I want to affirm once again to our friends and fellow citizens in the Muslim community that Canadians everywhere know that recent acts of terror committed in the name of Islam are an aberration of their faith. We believe that continued mutual co-operation and respect are critical. The government should develop and fund a structured community process that brings people together and helps prevent the influence of distorted ideological propaganda posing as religion.

Rest assured that as a Liberal, I believe that when a government asks its citizens to give up even a small portion of their liberty, it is that government's highest responsibility to guarantee that its new powers will not be abused. It is not enough, especially after all we have learned in the past 14 years since 9/11, for governments to simply say, “Trust us.” That trust must be earned, it must be checked, and it must be renewed.

This is what Canadians expect of us at all times, but it is perhaps never so important as it is with issues of national security. If we are indeed engaged in a fight of good versus evil, as has been said, we should remember that the side of good cannot win by ceasing to be good. In much the same way, our democratic laws and values will not win out if they stop being based on the fundamentals of democracy: fairness, justice, and the rule of law. Let us not walk over the edge to which terrorism tries to push us.

We are a proud democracy. We are welcoming and peaceful, a country of open arms, open minds, and open hearts. Nobody should be allowed to intimidate us into changing. Instead, we must continue to rely upon these values and principles to guide us forward responsibly in our actions.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to see the Liberals reversing themselves from a soft-on-terror position to come around to the merits of the bill.

I also want to say that I appreciated the comments, certainly from this side of the House, that we believe as well that the terrorist actions we have seen are an aberration of the Muslim faith. There are so many moderate Muslims in Canada who are contributing greatly to our society.

I want to ask the Liberals a question. Canadians may want to know why the Liberals, after voting against so many of the provisions that we are putting in place to protect Canadians' freedom and security, have changed their view and want to support the bill. I appreciate that, and I am wondering if it might have something to do with a statement by the Canadian Coalition Against Terror, which said of the bill that terrorists “...are aware of some of the shortcomings and limitations of our legal systems” and “often exploit these gaps to their advantage.”

Could the Liberal leader comment on that?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for almost removing partisanship from her question.

The fact is that the Liberal Party believes that one of the most important responsibilities that exists here in this House is to assure the safety and protection of Canadians while upholding what it is to be a Canadian in our values. We believe there are specific measures in the bill that provide immediate help for police services and investigative services to keep Canadians safe, and that is why we are happy to support it.

However, we believe that when a government asks to encroach upon Canadians' rights and freedoms, it should justify that. I think one of the things that would be needed is a proper, responsible oversight mechanism, as I have detailed, and a level of review that would be brought in with this legislation.

That is why we are encouraging the government to bring forward appropriate oversight and review, and if it chooses not to bring forward that oversight and review, we will gladly be offering it to Canadians in the next election campaign.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to the member for Papineau's address on Bill C-51 and I am still having trouble making sense out of the position he has taken.

It is the primary duty of members of this House to give a full and complete review of bills and to stand up to bad bills, especially those bills that threaten basic rights and freedoms. The member for Papineau has said, “Yes, the bill is flawed, but even if the amendments aren't accepted, we're going to vote for this bill anyway.” It is very hard for me to understand when he calls for a review three years down the road. What about ensuring that the review happens now, before this bad legislation is passed? I simply cannot understand where the member is coming from in offering a blank cheque to the Conservatives on this bill.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite has difficulty in understanding, but it is quite simple.

The Liberal Party understands the importance of providing powers to keep Canadians safe in the immediate term. The bill is not perfect and is not the bill that we would have brought in had we had been in government, just as we demonstrated the capacity to do in the very difficult months following 9/11, but there are concrete and real measures in the bill that would immediately increase security for Canadians: specifically, strengthening the no-fly lists, increasing the effectiveness of preventative arrests, and creating much better co-operation and coordination across national security agencies and institutions. That means that there are measures here that would help.

We believe that approving this bill and sitting down and offering constructive amendments that would help improve the bill are exactly what this Parliament is supposed to be doing to keep Canadians safe.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member for Papineau for his excellent speech, and specifically for what he said on the relationship between security and rights. He made specific recommendations on matters regarding oversight and review. He also made reference to some of the overly broad language in the bill, so I would like to ask him a particular question.

Does he believe that this legislation, given its overly broad language, must have effective vetting to ensure that it comports with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Mount Royal for his question. As always, he is deeply in tune with the issue of rights and gets right down to the heart of the matter.

In fact, there is some overly broad language in the bill that we will be recommending be tightened and clarified a bit so as to not paint an overly broad picture of national security risks to our country. There is also a need for ongoing oversight to minimize any excesses or challenges.

We have to understand that oversight is not just about checks and balances on our security agencies; it is also about ensuring that our security agencies are doing everything they can do and must do to ensure that Canadians are successfully protected. I think that is an aspect of the concerns around oversight that the current government might not be paying full attention to. Oversight actually helps our agencies do a better job of protecting Canadians. That is why we believe in it.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a former adjudicator myself, I am quite alarmed by Bill C-51. It is not, in my opinion, primarily directed against terrorism. Let us look the definition of “illegality”: “activities that undermine the security of Canada”. That is so vague and broad that it could apply to nearly any action taken in an act of non-violent civil disobedience or to groups even considering such actions. Maybe a better name for the bill would have been “an act to monitor and suppress the raging grannies”.

My question for the hon. member is this: what would stop the bill from being used against philosophical and political enemies of the party in power?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's concerns and I share a number of his concerns, which is why we have placed such an emphasis on the need for proper oversight, the need for review, and the need for narrowing the overly broad scope of some of the definitions used in the bill.

However, there are significant elements in the bill that would credibly protect Canadians from threats and immediately give tools to enforcement and security agencies to keep Canadians safe. That is what I believe needs to be top of mind.

The concerns that the member has would certainly be addressed by an election campaign, which would allow parliamentarians a chance to be once again renewed and refreshed by contact with the people across our great democracy.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the member is going to support this bill. However, I reject his comments in regard to sufficient oversight. We have a made-in-Canada model with no political interference and with experts in place, so I reject the member's concern in that regard.

I am also concerned that the member may provide only short-lived support for this bill. I say that because the Liberal Party decided to change its support for our previous legislation on the revocation of citizenship of convicted terrorists. My concern is whether that member and his party will support this bill through the whole process.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would recommend that this member look again to the annual report of SIRC. It specifically explains that SIRC is not an oversight body. It is simply a review body, after the fact, and it is a part-time body at that.

The rapidness with which our intelligence agencies must respond to very real threats means we need current and ongoing oversight. I would also be remiss if I did not point out that the government's last idea of an excellent person to oversee our security agencies is currently residing in a Panamanian jail cell.

I think the member will understand that we feel that oversight by elected parliamentarians—by the people of this fine House, on all sides—is a responsible and appropriate mechanism to make sure that Canadians' rights and security are being properly protected.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The time for debate on this bill on this day is now ended. I would advise the minister that he will have three and a half minutes to complete his speech and 10 minutes for questions and comments.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Bill C-51—Notice of time allocation motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that agreements could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-51, an act to enact the security of Canada information sharing act and the secure air travel act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

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

Bill C-51—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, in relation to Bill C-51, An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and 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, not more than two further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the second day allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate of amendment.

If this motion is adopted, it will mean that there will be three days of debate on this bill, including today and Monday, and a vote with certainty on Monday evening.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1 there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite all hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to start off by marking another milestone for the government. This marks the 88th time the government has moved time allocation or closure to limit debate in the House. It is particularly shocking this time because we had not even finished the fourth speech. We only got through three speeches in the House of Commons before the government gave notice that it intended to limit the debate.

For me, one of the most important functions of second reading debate is to let the public know what we are dealing with in the House, to shine a light on the contents of the bills we are dealing with and allow Canadians then to contact their MPs to let them know how they feel about the bills.

We on this side have had an enormous response from the public, just after yesterday. Therefore, we would like to ensure we have the time for people from all across the country to participate in this debate, people representing all different kinds of ridings and people bringing the input from their constituents into the debate. Instead, without even finishing the fourth speech, the government has moved to limit the debate. It says that three days will be enough.

I am asking the same question I have often asked at this point. Does this mean we will also see a very severe limit on the time in committee? Is the government going to refuse to hear expert witnesses? Is it going to refuse to provide enough time for Canadians who want to have input on the bill to come to the House of Commons and provide their input?

Could we get assurance from the government, even though it is limiting the debate, that it will allow a free, open and full debate in the committee on this very important bill?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would remind the member that the approach of our government has been to utilize time allocation as a device for scheduling debate, not as a device for limiting debate. If we were limiting debate, we would be concluding it today and having the vote on it.

That of is not our approach. In fact, the proof of that approach is the fact that the mother Parliament of Britain, which is held up as the model for us all to follow, debates all its bills in the normal course in the current Parliament for a much shorter period of time at each stage than we debate ours in this Parliament on average at every stage and in total. In fact, we spend on average about twice the time and at some stages much more than the members do in the mother Parliament. Therefore, we cannot in any way argue that there is a lack of adequate debate.

The hon. member is quite right, committee is a very valuable part of the process for consideration of a bill like this. It is an opportunity to hear from experts and an opportunity to look at the bill in detail, not simply to have tub-thumping speeches but rather that detailed examination. That is why committee is so important to the parliamentary process.

Far be it from me, however, to instruct the committee on the efforts it should put in. That is a question for the committee members themselves. They are masters of their own process.

As we all know, this is very important legislation for the people of Canada and their national security.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I can hardly believe the words I just heard from the government House leader. Committees at one time were masters of their own destiny, and they should do a detailed process. However, you know as well as I, Mr. Speaker, how parliamentary committees work now. The parliamentary secretary sits to the right of the chair and the Conservative backbench members sit along the line. However, back against the wall is a representative, as Mike Duffy called them, “The boys in short pants”. I expect there are boys and girls, but they sit against the wall and the parliamentary secretary takes their direction from those from the Prime Minister's Office. The members say “yea”, and that is what they follow. Also, they do not allow amendments. That is not how Parliament is supposed to work.

Would the House leader give us some assurance? The Conservatives are going to limit debate here, will he at least give us some assurance that the committee will actually hold robust hearings? The government could direct the committee. We know it does. There are dozens of people who want to come before the committee. They have concerns. Would he at least give us that assurance?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my friend need only consult the actual debates in the mother Parliament in Britain and compare those with our debates here. He will see that what I have said is indeed true. Our debates at every stage of the bills we do in our Parliament, on average, extend much longer than the debates the members have in the mother House in Britain.

Our track record on having ample and significant debate here is demonstrated. The facts are very real. I invite him to inquire into that.

One thing I will not do is take up his invitation to extend beyond what I think is my proper role as House leader and give direction and dictates to a committee on how it conducts its business.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak out against this measure. We unfortunately have a tendency to repeat our mistakes here in Canada. I did some research on the debates held in October 1970 on the War Measures Act. That legislation was also passed too quickly. Its repercussions were not properly studied and, as a result, 300 people were arrested.

There was also the unfortunate tradition whereby the RCMP did it all: it was responsible for intelligence and intervention, as well as being a police force. At the time, the RCMP had denounced Tommy Douglas as a dangerous Communist, and he was not allowed to travel to the U.S. That was also when David Lewis said it might be a good idea for the RCMP to learn to speak French, in order to combat the FLQ. However, that is the kind of debate we cannot have, because time is limited.

We will not be able to weigh the legal merits of our old laws and examine our errors together, errors made by this Parliament, in order to correct them. That is why time allocation is unacceptable. It does not allow the legislative branch to judge its own work, past work and mistakes.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill includes security measures that are very important in the wake of recent events in Canada, but also in other countries such as France.

The provisions of the bill would criminalize the promotion and advocacy of terrorism; counter terrorist recruitment by giving courts the authority to remove terrorist propaganda online; enhance the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to address threats to the security of Canadians, while ensuring that the courts continue to provide oversight; and provide law enforcement agencies with enhanced ability to disrupt terrorist activities and offences. These things are very important, especially at this time. We need to pass this bill for the safety of all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the 88th time the government has imposed time allocation on a bill. It is really a sad record for the Conservative government. When the Conservatives announced Bill C-51, they promised that we would have enough time to debate and study at length this immense bill and its very serious repercussions for Canada.

Why did the government break its promise to give us enough time to properly study and debate this bill in the House?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat that when we adopt the approach to scheduling bills for debate, it is a scheduling approach that allows certainty for members and voting. It ensures we have more debate on bills than members have in Britain, a pretty good example of the extent of debate here. I could look to the French Assemblée Nationale and the contrast is even greater, certainly in terms of the powers that exist there.

However, we feel that this is an important priority, moving forward on legislation that will give the opportunity for us to: criminalize the promotion and advocacy of terrorism in order to protect Canadians from it; counter terrorist recruitment by giving courts the authority to remove terrorist propaganda online; enhance the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service; address threats to the security of Canadians; provide law enforcement agencies with enhanced ability to disrupt terrorist offences and thereby be able to provide greater security and public safety; enhance the passenger protection program, which our air travellers rely upon, but also to use that program to prevent travellers who represent a terrorist threat from coming to our country; make it easier for law enforcement agencies to detain suspected terrorists before they can harm Canadians; and toughen penalties for violating court ordered conditions on terrorist suspects. I could go on, but these are all very important measures. .

We have seen first hand the threats that can arise to us, the threats that exist out there that have within the past year been amplified and repeatedly broadcast by those abroad, in ISIS and elsewhere, who seek to harm Canada and Canadians. They have given orders and injunctions to those who support their cause and believe in their cause. We know they do exist are out there. We have seen them actually act on that encouragement to do harm to Canadians. It has resulted in deaths right on our soil.

That is why this legislation is important. That is why we need to have these protections to keep Canadians secure. That is why the government is moving forward on this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, the importance of the legislation should speak to the need for us to be able to debate it and not to cut off debate.

I could not believe the disdain coming from the government House leader when he effectively said that one of his goals here was to cut off “tub-thumping” speeches. I have already spent dozens of hours reading and analyzing Bill C-51. I come from a background where I know a lot about security law. I will likely not get to speak to this bill. My constituents, and Canadians in general, will not have the benefit of the time I have spent on this and the knowledge I bring to the House in this area. That is a complete travesty and an affront to democracy.

A further affront that I see is that the government House leader is taking these questions, not the minister, who should be here to defend the bill. We all know, and we have already seen, that he does not even understand his own bill. It has been a travesty, listening to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, whose bill this is, when it is as clear as day that they do not know their own bill. Personally, I doubt that the minister has even read the entirety of his bill.

The time has come to speak up for what the government is doing to our democracy. It is not just one more affront in one more bill, it is undermining our entire parliamentary democracy on one of the most important bills to come before the House in the three years since I have been here.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that if the hon. member has indeed worked as hard as he said on studying this and preparing arguments, that his own House leader has not seen fit to allow him the opportunity to speak to it. I am further disappointed that having just stood and said that he has studied the bill and has lots of questions about it, he failed to ask me a single question about the bill.

I am a former public safety minister. I have some knowledge of the issues involved. I would be quite happy to answer them, and I am here to do so.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo the comments of my colleague from Toronto—Danforth. What I find incredulous is that the government would invoke a limitation on the debate of this bill that it has said is a critical bill for the safety of Canadians.

This is the point in time where we debate the fairness of the process in this place to represent our constituents across the country, yet when we raise our concerns about the time allocated to debate the very bill, the government House leader uses the opportunity to start talking about the substance of the bill. If he believes so strongly that we should have the opportunity to debate the substance of the bill, why is he putting time limitation on the debate and limiting our opportunity to debate the bill?

I have to share that it is important for Canadians to understand the ambit and extent of these measures that the government has proposed in the bill, and why it is so important that we have the time to debate and discuss the ramifications of the bill in this place and at committee. Frankly, it is my personal opinion that this bill should go across the country so people in every small community understand what they are about to face.

I am saying this because of a situation that occurred in my province of Alberta, when there was a proposal before a utility board to build an electrical transmission line. I was working with farmers who were deeply concerned because they had already put up with a lot of impacts on their farm land, and there was going to be yet another major transmission line to export electricity. During our telephone calls, it was discovered that the utility board had spied on those calls. The end result of that revelation was that the whole agency was shut down.

We are not just talking about extreme terrorists. We are talking about intrusions on the right of ordinary Canadians in their community, protecting their property rights, which is supposed to be a concern of the government, to have the right to come forward and state their objections.

I am very deeply troubled that the government is trying to reduce debate on this significant bill.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, the example raised has nothing to do with the content of the bill or the agency involved, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service is given powers to deal with threats to the security of Canada. Those are enumerated in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. However, it should also be understood by all of those who are in the House and those watching at home that they explicitly, according to the statute, do not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent.

One knows that those protections are there. There are some on the other side who have problems with that wording, but we think it is wording that properly circumscribes and identifies the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service so lawful dissents and protests are protected.

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

Mr. Speaker, we saw again this past weekend another attack in Copenhagen. We have seen attacks recently in Paris and Australia, and of course we saw them in October of last year here in Canada.

The international jihadist movement has declared war on countries like Canada and our allies, countries that believe in freedom, democracy, openness, and tolerance. Canadians are concerned about this. They understand the concepts of the bill and they support it.

Could the minister tell us why it is so important to get the bill passed and how it is going to improve our national security and the safety of our citizens?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member said, it is urgent because we are almost at a stage where rarely a week goes by without some kind of terrorist attack or incident inspired by the Islamic state somewhere in the world against those they have identified as targets, many of which are outside of what might be called the conflict area.

One of the notable things about these attacks is that they involve individuals who are already on the radar screen. These people were known to intelligence services. The bill seeks to enhance the ability of such intelligence agencies to get, with the assistance of the courts, a recognizance with conditions so that such individuals can be prevented from carrying out some of the actions they would like to carry out by identifying changes to the threshold necessary for recognizance of those people who are of concern. Even in the case of those attacks in Canada, we know we were dealing with individuals who were on the radar screen and were known to law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, just to refresh my learned colleague's memory, this debate is about closure and time allotment. It is not about the bill. Unfortunately, this moment right now is about limiting, yet again, discussion of a bill.

We are voted into this place in order to represent the thoughts and feelings of our constituents, to hear from them and bring their concerns to this place. Unfortunately, each time that the government limits time, we are less able to bring their voices forward.

A colleague across the way said that Canadians understand this. They do not. People are calling my office and telling me they do not know what this is about and asking what it means for them.

Why is the government yet again shutting down the opportunity for Canadians to learn and understand how this legislation would affect their day-to-day lives?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will remind my friend that this is not a debate on closure. The government has not moved closure. Closure is a different section in the Standing Orders. We are utilizing a scheduling device.

It is important that the bill pass in this Parliament because we are living in an era when threats continue to escalate and continue to change. The tools and devices that were available to protect us have been demonstrated to be wanting. We have demonstrated that there is a need for more. We have unfortunately learned the hard way, and other countries around the world have also learned the hard way.

We will probably never be able to make ourselves 100% safe and secure, but as a government it is most certainly our duty, as it is the duty of everyone here in this Parliament, to do what we can to make Canadians safe and secure in this country while protecting Canadians' rights and freedoms so that they can continue to enjoy the country that they have enjoyed so much.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, 22,000 people signed a petition to say “no” to the Conservatives. They do not agree with what is in Bill C-51. Today, an open letter signed by former prime ministers and Supreme Court justices made the point that civilian oversight of CSIS is virtually non-existent relative to the powers that will be given to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

I would like to ask the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons why he moved a time allocation motion for Bill C-51. Is it because the more people talk about it, the more they understand the bill and the less they agree with it?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in preparing this legislation, our government did have to deal with the question of oversight. I hear some say that the answer is to have parliamentary oversight of the actions of CSIS.

We took a different approach. We believe that the expanded powers that are to be given should not be dealt with after the fact by politicians but should be dealt with before the fact by independent judges. We thought that was the most effective form of oversight for the expanded powers this legislation seeks to give to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. We think that is actually more effective than simply turning to politicians after the fact to duplicate the work of SIRC, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, for after-the-fact review.

It is an important role. SIRC is there to play that role, but we think that these expanded powers, because of their extraordinary nature and the circumstances we are in, also require independent oversight by judges before they are used. That is why these powers can only be exercised under warrants provided by judges.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I was quite intrigued by that last answer. The government, over the course of its mandate, has brought in time and time again new laws that limit judicial discretion, that take powers away from judges, that tie the hands of judges when it comes to sentencing.

Why is it that these judges who cannot be trusted to impose a proper sentence are the only ones who should be responsible for oversight of our national security?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I reject both the premise and the conclusion of the hon. member's question.

We obviously believe that judges are best equipped to provide the oversight in advance of actions taken here through the requirement for warrants, but we also believe that is not the only oversight necessary. There is the oversight provided by the Security Intelligence Review Committee. They can look at matters after the fact. They can look at the overall pattern of issues and deal with the policy questions that result from them.

However, in terms of every individual action and the actual exercise of expanded powers such as those we are giving, there is a requirement for some ability to assess whether they are truly necessary and whether the threat justifies the exercise of the powers. We believe that having judges take evidence would be the best way of providing that kind of protection of Canadians' rights while at the same time allowing the security agencies to make their best efforts to keep Canadians safe.

It is the right balance and it is the best form of oversight for the kinds of powers we are talking about in this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think this last exchange between the Liberals and the government illustrates why we need the time to have a full debate and expose what is actually in the bill.

The government keeps saying that the new powers of CSIS are subject to judicial oversight. No, they are not. It would be only if CSIS were to decide that what it was about to do would be illegal or unconstitutional that it would then be given the choice of applying for a warrant. All the other disruption activities would not require a warrant. The government is either being disingenuous or not fully reading its own bill.

It really illustrates why we need the time to consider in debate all the provisions of the bill. The bill makes some very major changes in our basic privacy rights and in basic, fundamental aspects of our freedom of speech. At the same time, I think we need to consider whether any of these things are actually necessary or whether the existing laws already provide a good basis for acting against terrorism.

The fact is that when we had both the Commissioner of the RCMP and the Director of Operations of CSIS before committees of this Parliament, they said that because of the budget cuts by the government, they do not have enough resources to actually make effective use of the powers they already have. This, to me, illustrates why we need a full debate in this House of Commons in which all members are free to participate, not the restricted scheduling the House leader is talking about.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the question of resources provided to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the gentleman need only go through the estimates provided by the government every year since we formed the government to see that the resources we have provided to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to do its very important work have increased considerably over that period of time. That is because we recognize the importance of the work CSIS does, as well as the work done by its companion agencies.

On the question of disruption, if what CSIS was doing was entirely legal and there was no question of people's rights being infringed, then obviously there would be no need for a warrant. However, in the case of any other activity that might violate someone's rights but would be carried out for a good law enforcement reason, a warrant would be needed. That is what we are proposing here.

The benefit of the disruption is that it allows the diversion of materials, revenue, or resources away from someone planning a terrorist attack. That allows our intelligence services, which are trying to keep us safe, to take away the public security threat while at the same time allowing the course of a plot to unfold.

This not only keeps Canadians safer but also ensures that we have a higher prospect of achieving a prosecution of those who seek to conduct terrorist threats against Canada. It has those two benefits: keeping us secure from the immediate threat and also moving forward with prosecutions. The very best way to deal with terrorist threats is to be able to prosecute those who wish to carry them out.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the House leader seems to place a lot of faith in the judicial warrants, but that only works if all of the security agencies that are asking for those warrants actually do what they claim they would do with the warrants.

Justice Mosley issued a warrant in 2009 in conjunction with certain activities between CSEC and CSIS, but he found out by chance that they really had not lived up to what the warrant called for. I will read from his decision of December 20, 2013.

He stated:

CSIS breached its duty of candour to the Court by not disclosing information that was relevant to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court....

He went on:

...the Court has determined that the execution of the type of warrants at issue in Canada has been accompanied by requests made by CSEC, on behalf of CSIS...to foreign agencies for the interception of telecommunications of Canadian persons abroad.

That is a quote from the decision. The court concluded that this is not authorized under any warrant issued to CSIS. Therefore, while the government claims that judges' oversight would be the safeguard, Justice Mosley makes it very clear in his decision that CSEC and CSIS have not always lived up to the purpose of the warrants.

I would also say that the pressure on judges to issue a warrant would be unbelievable, because if they do not issue it and a terrorist incident happens, they would feel responsible. That is not oversight, nor is it a proper protection of either Canadian civil liberties or our national security.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. government House leader will have only about 40 seconds for reply.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that should be more than adequate for me to tell the House that the gap the member is concerned about was actually introduced in the previous piece of legislation that we dealt with in this House, a piece of legislation that the member himself and his party voted for, so I think his indignant outrage should be directed at himself.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #336

Anti-terrorism Act, 2015

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-51, An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened quite carefully to the speech. I completely disagree with a a whole lot of it. A lot of the things that were said were factually incorrect.

I want to go back to one of the reasons why the opposition members have claimed they cannot support the bill. They continuously talk about civil liberties. Canadians understand that civil liberties, their personal freedoms and national security, go hand in hand. The bill would ensure that they would be protected.

We talk about the bill targeting terrorism. Activities related to terrorism are not a personal freedom or a right; they are criminal activity and in fact they are acts of war.

What part of the legislation would infringe on the personal freedoms or rights of law-abiding Canadian citizens? Those members have yet to pinpoint anything, and I would like to respond to it because their argument lacks any type of merit.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the parliamentary secretary does not keep up with the work that the Parliamentary Budget Officer is doing, that she does not consult the people who work directly on the ground, that she does not realize she is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and that the Department of Public Safety's budget has been cut by 10% since 2012.

There have been serious consequences and they are evident. The Department of Public Safety reported them and the Parliamentary Budget Officer has been reporting them since 2012.

The members opposite are pretending to address the problem and are offering us a false choice between public safety and civil liberties. However, we all know how important it is to have a free country. The freer a country is, the freer and safer its people are.

I spoke to many stakeholders about the content of Bill C-51. It seems to me that the members opposite do not remember the cases of Maher Arar and Air India and the resulting reports and recommendations. Instead, the Conservatives decided to work in a vacuum. They are not working with the experts on the ground and they are not learning from their mistakes.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, with great pride the member stood in her place and seemed to be very proud of the fact that the New Democrats were voting against the legislation. She then equated that to the fact the NDP voted against the War Measures Act in 1970 during the October Crisis.

I am sure the member would be aware that the premier of Quebec and the mayor of Montreal at the time felt that it was warranted, and they approached the prime minister to ask him to invoke the War Measures Act.

Would the member clarify whether she believes all members of her caucus believe the War Measures Act was in fact wrong, even with hindsight, that it should never have been invoked even though it was requested by the premier? How does the member equate their passion for that issue with this issue we are debating today?

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

Mr. Speaker, I told the House that I was proud to vote against the bill, but I am even prouder that we took the time to read the bill before taking a position on it. We did not follow the example of the Liberals, who gave the Conservatives a blank cheque.

I do not always agree with the Conservatives, but at least they have a position. They are not copying others or deciding to approve a bill without even reading it. That is appalling.

With regard to the very cavalier way in which the Liberals managed the October crisis in the 1970s, had we all been there, we would have all voted against that proposal because it did not make sense then and it still does not make sense today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Alfred-Pellan 100%.

In the past, governments have suspended civil rights and liberties. In British Columbia, the police have arrested people who had not broken any laws.

When we suspend civil liberties, a lot can happen in our country that makes us not recognize Canada.

I want to respond to the parliamentary secretary's question. The various privacy commissioners across Canada are pointing out that the bill would violate the rights of Canadians to privacy.

Also, we have mentioned many times in this place, which seems not to be understood by any Conservative minister or parliamentary secretary who has yet to respond to me, our country has a tradition that respects people who choose to act in an unlawful way when their actions are peaceful. It is a tradition called “non-violent civil disobedience”. The bill does not distinguish between acts of non-violent civil disobedience, which by their very nature are not lawful. They are not violent or a threat to the security of Canada but are a matter of conscience.

That is what the Conservative administration does not understand, or it is deliberately misleading Canadians and fully intends to conduct surveillance and interference on people exercising that right of conscience.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her comments. She raised a number of interesting points. The crux of the matter, as she said, is the lack of balance between public safety and civil liberties.

Actually, this is not really about balance; rather, the two should go hand in hand. This kind of action is completely illogical. I am glad that she is on our side and that she said she would be voting against Bill C-51.

There is so much to say because there are so many details. I often get the impression that the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party are already campaigning on this issue. That is not what we, as parliamentarians, should be doing. To do our job as parliamentarians, we should have been given enough time to discuss this bill in the House. I highly doubt that we will have much time to discuss it in committee either. My Green Party colleague pays close attention to what happens in the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I am reaching out to the Conservatives, and I hope they will give us time to hear from a number of witnesses and allow enough committee meetings to study this bill thoroughly.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to point out that a parallel can indeed be drawn between the current situation and the October crisis in 1970. In both cases, the NDP was the only party to stand up in this House to defend people's rights and liberties and defend civil liberties, unlike the other parties that were in power in 1970 or are in power now.

Fear usually elicits strong emotional reactions in people. Unfortunately, we are in a situation where the international context is full of horrors and atrocities that are raising fears among some Canadians. Right now I feel as though the Conservatives are using that fear to try to score political points, even though the election is six or seven months away, and I find that extremely unfortunate.

Can we have a rational debate on the real threat that exists? Can we get some rational, democratic responses to deal with the radicalization of our young people and answer our questions regarding public safety in order to keep all Canadians safe, without using fear as the main motivator?

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

Mr. Speaker, I get the same impression when I look at the content of Bill C-51 and how it was presented or when I hear the responses from across the way when we try to get more specific details about the bill.

This bill makes us feel like the election is already under way. The Liberals will have to confirm this, but I get the feeling that they looked at the polls and realized that the general public seems to support Bill C-51, so they decided they would vote in favour of it.

They are using this fear as a motive for voting in favour of a bill that has aspects that are really irrational. It is interesting because Jean Chrétien, a former Liberal prime minister, signed a letter this morning saying that civil liberties would be affected and there would be problems with the CSIS oversight mechanism.

That is the impression I get when I look at what the Conservatives and the Liberals are doing. Unfortunately, they are using fear for political gain. The NDP will not do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for York Centre.

Today I rise in the House to speak about the anti-terrorism act, 2015. Specifically, I will focus my remarks on the component that would give CSIS a mandate to disrupt threats to the security of Canada. It is abundantly clear that 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.

Terrorism is not a human right. It is not a personal freedom. It is an act of war. This is why our Conservative government put forward the legislation we are speaking to today. It would protect Canadians against jihadist terrorists who seek to destroy the very principles that make Canada the best country in the world in which to live.

In recent months, we have heard much about the role of CSIS, particularly during debates in the House and how critical it is to our national security. Given this role, the Canadian public may have been surprised to learn that currently the mandate of CSIS is limited to collecting and analyzing intelligence, which it then uses to advise the government on threats to the security of Canada.

Essentially in matters of national security, CSIS has adopted the role of Canada's note takers. Do not misconstrue my comments. This is a role that the brave men and women of the service have performed admirably for the last 30 years, stifling an unknown number of attacks. However, the fact remains that CSIS does not have the lawful authority today to take action against threats to the security of Canada.

For example, while CSIS can carry out interviews to collect information from individuals, it cannot conduct interviews to deter these individuals from engaging in terrorism. This limitation creates numerous missed opportunities that could have serious, grave consequences. This legislation seeks to amend the CSIS Act to rectify this situation by providing the service with the mandate to take action to disrupt threats before they become a serious danger to Canadians.

CSIS is uniquely placed to take action in instances where other organizations cannot. For example, it has access to intelligence not available to others. It is exposed to the full spectrum of threats to the security of Canada as defined in the CSIS Act, presenting it with opportunities to intervene. Also it can operate covertly in Canada and abroad in accordance with the laws of Canada.

Under the bill, CSIS would be authorized to use an array of techniques to reduce threats to the security of Canada. In order to preserve CSIS's operational flexibility, there is no itemized list of possible threat diminishment measures in the proposed amendments. This is quite intentional, as it means we would not have to come back and update the legislation to match the rapidly evolving threats we face.

Instead, the bill requires that all measures be reasonable and proportional in the circumstances having regard to the nature of the threat, the nature of the measures, and the availability of other means. For added insurance, the bill explicitly mimics the prohibitions found in the Criminal Code, which currently apply to law enforcement.

Further, the bill proposes a rigorous judicial oversight and authorization regime. CSIS would have to request a warrant on a case-by-case basis from a judge when its actions would affect charter rights or would otherwise be contrary to Canadian law. As with the current warrant process, the judge might include in the warrant any terms and conditions he or she deemed advisable in the public interest.

To be clear, CSIS would not be acting above the law. In accordance with the CSIS Act, it is lawfully allowed to undertake these types of measures if they are authorized by a court warrant. This has not changed. Ministerial direction would also be issued to guide CSIS by helping ensure that CSIS carefully weighed the risks of the action as well as coordinated closely with other departments as necessary.

All of these threat disruption activities would be subject to independent review by the Security Intelligence Review Committee. The bill also contains specific new reporting requirements for CSIS and SIRC related to the use of measures to reduce threats.

Let me be very clear. The changes we are proposing would not turn CSIS into a secret police force, as the Green Party leader has alleged, and it would actually be far from it. CSIS would not be handed the power to make arrests or imprison individuals. It is simply not the case. It would not undertake actions that duplicate or conflict with the efforts of the broader security and intelligence community.

Also, as I have just said, robust judicial oversight and robust review mechanisms are in place.

What we are proposing would instead strengthen Canada's national security by allowing CSIS to act rapidly to disrupt a threat. In all of its work, as it does today, CSIS would coordinate with its national and international partners as appropriate. In this regard, it is worth noting that most of the intelligence agencies run by our western democratic allies use threat disruption as part of their regular work to protect their national security. In fact, I would note comments made by S.A. McCartan, a criminal prosecutor for the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, who said:

Canada is alone amongst Western countries in not allowing its spy agencies any powers whatsoever to prevent terror. It is alone in having a spy agency still operating 30 years in the past. It’s time to fix that.

The CSIS Act was first enacted 30 years ago. I agree that it is time to fix that.

These powers would complement CSIS's work abroad, allowing it to work more closely with our allies in addressing the complex and interconnected phenomenon of terrorist travel as well as other shared threats. It would also serve to strengthen our government's capacity to address other categories of threats that fall under the CSIS Act's definition of national security. Again, the definition of what constitutes a national security risk is defined in the CSIS Act.

Thirty years ago, CSIS was created to keep Canadians safe from a wide array of threats. Today, it is a mature, well-respected organization that has a strong track record of working within the rigours of Canadian law to undertake vital security operations that keep all Canadians safe.

In light of escalating threats like terrorist travel, and considering the complex and widespread reach of global terrorist threats, it is critical that we give CSIS this new mandate so that it can build on its current operations. As part of the anti-terrorism act, 2015, this component would allow Canada to better address the threats we face, including those from violent extremists and individuals who travel abroad for terrorist purposes.

We must move forward. We must pass this legislation to strengthen our national security. Although the opposition parties have already declared that they will oppose this, I would hope that they do come to their senses and join us in supporting this bill.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary should know that we are supporting the bill, but we are very hopeful that Parliament will be allowed to work. There are a lot of clauses in the bill around which there are questions, on which we need expert testimony, and on which we need legal advice.

Could the parliamentary secretary assure us that the amendments will indeed be allowed?

She went on at length about judicial oversight. However, anybody who is watching this debate knows that judicial oversight is not enough.

Judicial oversight is between the judge and CSIS, and there might be a special advocate at times protecting the public interest, which might be different every time, but CSIS is arguing why it needs the warrant. Too many mistakes have happened in the past, and Judge Mosely, on December 20, 2013, came down with a decision. He said that CSIS breached its duty of candour to the court by not disclosing information that was relevant to the exercise to the jurisdiction by the court:

...the Court...determined that the execution of the type of warrants at issue in Canada has been accompanied by requests made by CSEC, on behalf of CSIS, to foreign agencies...for the interception of the telecommunications of Canadian persons abroad.

The court concluded that this is “not authorized under any warrant issued by CSIS...”.

The point is that there is pressure on the judges. What we need in addition to that is parliamentary oversight. Will the parliament secretary support that?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on any activities that CSIS undertakes that requires a warrant, obviously it has to be able to prove what justifies the request for that warrant.

I certainly hope that the member opposite is not passing judgement or questioning the ability of our current judges in the judicial system to make those appropriate decisions in such cases. I mean, these are judges who have been making these types of decisions ever since warrants were invented. Obviously, warrants are integral to any type of investigation.

With respect to oversight, there are a number of measures in this bill. In fact, there would be increased reporting requirements by CSIS to SIRC. SIRC would have to report back to Parliament. It would include the number of warrants, how these warrants were used, and whether they were successful in the endeavours they pursued.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.

Under this bill, CSIS will now decide whether one of its planned operations could violate the law or the charter, which would oblige it to request a warrant from a judge.

However, the Federal Court has previously accused CSIS of not providing all the information required when requesting a warrant.

I would like to know what exact measures will be included in the bill to ensure that CSIS co-operates and provides all of the information so that this does not happen again.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my last answer to the member of the Liberal Party was quite clear on how this process would work.

To be honest, I find the NDP has been so naive in dealing with the threat of terrorism. Those members talk about this legislation instilling fear into Canadians.

Just last week another incident happened in Copenhagen. There were recent attacks in Paris and Australia and right here in Ottawa in this Parliament building on October 22.

This legislation is required to protect our security and to protect Canadians. It is essential. These are common sense measures. I am not surprised that the NDP is opposing the bill. That party has opposed essentially absolutely everything we have brought forward to protect Canadians from terrorism, including making it illegal to travel overseas to engage in terrorist acts and stripping citizenship from convicted terrorists. As well, they voted against standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies in the fight against global terrorism.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are a country that holds a strong belief in equality, human rights, and the rule of law. Therefore, I would like to begin my comments today by making a statement that may seem obvious but that some in this House would deem to be controversial. 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 we represent.

That is why our Conservative government has put forward the bill we are talking about today. It is a bill that would protect Canadians from jihadi terrorists who seek to destroy the very principles that make Canada the best country in the world in which to live.

Be it the brutal and merciless attacks on Canadian soil in October or abroad in Sydney, Paris, and Copenhagen in recent weeks, terrorism attacks core values and what we as Canadians hold dear: our freedoms and our democracy. As the Prime Minister indicated following the violent attacks, “We will not be intimidated”. It is therefore essential that we provide those entrusted to investigate, analyze, and respond to terrorism with all the necessary tools to degrade and destroy threats to our national security in whatever form they may take. This is exactly what the anti-terrorism act, 2015 would do.

I would like to spend my time discussing the parts of this bill that have been the subject of considerable interest; namely, the amendments that would strengthen the terrorism recognizance with conditions and the terrorism peace bond provisions.

The ability to prevent terrorism before it happens is critically important in our overall approach to responding to terrorism at home and abroad. Preventative arrest provisions, as they are more commonly known, do just that. They are rapid response tools that can be sought even where there has been no criminal charge and no prior convictions, enabling a judge to impose any conditions.

The anti-terrorism act, 2015 would reduce the red-tape burden required to obtain a recognizance with conditions. Under the current law, a peace officer must believe, on reasonable grounds, “that a terrorist activity will be carried out”. That is an incredibly high threshold. The bill would change this and instead require that a peace officer believe that a terrorism offence “may be carried out”. This is far more reasonable. It would also replace the additional requirement that a police officer suspect, on reasonable grounds, that the recognizance is “necessary to prevent the carrying out of the terrorist activity” with a requirement that the police officer suspect on reasonable grounds that the recognizance “is likely to prevent the carrying out of the terrorist activity”.

Other important changes to the terrorism recognizance are contained in this bill. Currently, a person may be detained under these provisions for a maximum of three days. The bill would increase the maximum period of detention to seven days. I support this change, because we need to ensure that Canadians are safe from terrorist activity. I also support this change because the law would also ensure that the constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms of those detained would be fully respected by requiring police to go before a judge after the first 24 hours, and generally every 48 hours thereafter, to justify the need for continued detention.

It is important to understand how these provisions work. Under the current law, if a police officer has arrested someone without a warrant, he or she is required to bring that person before a judge within 24 hours. Once brought before the judge, the person can be ordered detained for up to an additional 48 hours if justified on various grounds, including where it is necessary to protect the safety of the public.

The anti-terrorism act, 2015 would not change this process but would allow for detention beyond this three-day period only where the continued detention remained necessary on various grounds, such as protecting the public, and where there was evidence to show that the investigation was being conducted diligently and expeditiously. In other words, there would be ongoing and meaningful judicial oversight concerning the detention of a person under these powers.

The proposed reforms would also allow young persons to be subject to recognizance with conditions under the provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, as is currently the case for terrorism peace bonds.

I would like to discuss the improvements to the existing terrorism peace bond contained in the anti-terrorism act, 2015. The proposed changes would make this tool easier to obtain. The evidence would have to demonstrate that a person believed, on reasonable grounds, that another person “may commit” a terrorism offence, instead of the current “will commit” a terrorism offence requirement.

For both the terrorism recognizance with conditions and the peace bond, the bill would authorize a court to require sureties from a defendant. A surety is someone who agrees to take responsibility for ensuring that a person subject to the court order complies with the conditions imposed.

The bill would also require a judge to specifically consider whether geographical restrictions and temporary passport surrender conditions should be imposed to prevent the carrying out of a terrorist activity or the commission of a terrorism offence.

In situations where an individual subject to a peace bond has been previously found guilty of a terrorism offence, a judge would have the authority to order the duration of the peace bond to be up to five years, up from the current limit of two years.

Finally, the bill would increase the maximum sentence of imprisonment for a breach of these court orders in relation to the recognizance with conditions and terrorism peace bonds from two years to four years.

Now, it is important to note that existing safeguards on the use of these preventative tools are maintained in Bill C-51. First, before police can use these provisions, they will be required to obtain the consent of the Attorney General, meaning that a full review of the facts will occur to ensure that there are justifiable grounds to proceed. Second, although a police officer may arrest and detain someone under these provisions without having first obtained the Attorney General's consent, they can only do so in exigent circumstances where the grounds for laying an information exist but it would be impracticable to lay the information, for example, because it is necessary to arrest someone immediately due to a concern that terrorist activity will occur unless the person is arrested.

Third, the provisions require judicial oversight. Fourth, the use of the recognizance will continue to be the subject of annual reports to Parliament by the Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of Public Safety. Parliament will, for example, be informed of how many applications were brought, how many detentions occurred, and whether the new additional periods of detention were sought and obtained. Finally, the recognizance with conditions will still have to be brought before Parliament for mandatory review and will still be subject to a sunset clause, as required by the Combating Terrorism Act of 2013.

Before concluding, it is worth noting that the proposed enhancements to our terrorism prevention tools are consistent with similar tools in place in like-minded jurisdictions. For example, the United Kingdom has used similar measures to protect the public by imposing conditions on people who have been determined to pose a threat to the safety of the community. Australia uses control orders to prevent terrorist acts from occurring and that enable the imposition of conditions on individuals.

I think this is important, because it shows that countries with strong democratic traditions and institutions and that respect the rule of law have also recognized that they can take measures that are firm in their response to terrorism and fair in their approach, respecting the rights of those subject to these preventative tools.

We have a strong set of anti-terrorism laws. Proposals in this bill would enhance these laws to enable law enforcement to intervene earlier and more effectively in terrorist investigations.

If there is a moment when I believe we can stand together, it is now. Initiatives such as those put forth in Bill C-51 send a clear message to the world that Canada is and remains a leader in implementing measures that contribute to global security and in a way that respects the rights, freedoms, and values that define our country.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have quite a specific question for the member.

On page 44 of the bill, there is a proposed change to be made to the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act. It says that if there is propaganda on a computer, and it is made available for the public, this information can be deleted.

I am wondering if the member can tell me if this means, for example, that if someone from Burnaby decides to put on his or her computer website that the person is going to cross a protest line at a pipeline protest, CSIS can now go in and delete that from that person's computer?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was Winston Churchill who once said that “an appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last”.

What this bill would do is enhance and give the right tools and proper equipment to our law enforcement officials so that they can keep Canadians safe.

In1981, the McDonald Commission reported on the wrongdoing of the RCMP at the time. CSIS was created three years later, in 1984. CSIS was created with the sole purpose of investigating foreign intelligence agencies operating in Canada. Times have changed, and our security intelligence services need to change with them. We now have new threats.

If the member remembers last October, we had a terrorist incident right here in our own Parliament. We had another terrorist incident in Quebec. There have been terrorist attacks recently in Copenhagen and Paris. Our law enforcement officials need the proper tools with which to conduct the proper investigations to keep us safe.

The opposition always asks for specific incidents. Our law enforcement officers never get saves, like in baseball. We do not hear about what they stop, but we do hear about what actually gets through. Our job here is to make sure that our law enforcement officials can continue to make those saves so that we do not ever have to hear about another terrorist incident happening in Canada or anywhere else in the world.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for York Centre talk about how the powers in this are similar to those in the U.K., and that is true. In fact, in some instances, they do not go as far. However, in the U.K., as in the U.S., Australia, and New Zealand, there is strong parliamentary oversight. I could quote from the British document all the areas that are surveilled, but I will leave that for a later time. If we are going to compare this bill to the U.K., then let us compare it in all of its aspects. The U.K. has strong parliamentary oversight. I ask the member if he would agree that we need that strong parliamentary oversight.

Second, he talked about sunset clauses in the bill and that they would continue. That is true. Some would, but the new sections of the bill would not sunset. Proposed sections 83.221, 83.222, and 83.223 would not be sunsetted, and they ought to be.

If the member is talking about how he agrees with the sunset clauses continuing, will he agree to amendments to sunset those other clauses that are new and would not be covered?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, coming from the leaning tower of appeasement party over there, I am a little taken aback. Here is a party that first of all said that it did not support our mission in Iraq, claiming that it supported the troops but not the mission. That is reminiscent of conscription if necessary but not necessarily conscription. It seems that the Liberal Party is very adept at that.

I must say, however, that our fight against terrorism is multi-faceted, and it must evolve with the times. Terrorism is the number one threat to our country right now, and our responsibility as legislators is to the people of Canada who have sent here. They have sent us here to keep them safe, first and foremost. We are committed to that. We do not waver.

We know exactly what our job is here. It is to keep the people of Canada safe, and we will not—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. The member has exceeded his time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Churchill.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to join my colleagues in the NDP who have expressed our opposition to Bill C-51. We have signalled to Canadians that what is most important for us is standing up to fear and standing up for the ability to defend our rights.

I also stand in the House to share a perspective as the aboriginal affairs critic for the NDP, to speak out on the potentially harmful and even devastating impact this piece of legislation would have on indigenous activists and communities.

Bill C-51 seeks to criminalize dissent. As we know, indigenous peoples—first nations, Métis, Inuit, or indigenous peoples in general—have often been at the forefront in fighting for what is important to them and, in many ways, what is important to all of us. These activists, these leaders, these members of their communities are not terrorists and do not pose a danger to the lives of anyone. These individuals have taken it upon themselves to stand to protect their inherent land rights, the welfare of their people, and the environmental integrity of this planet. These are the indigenous activists who work across this country seeking justice, and they are all deeply concerned by the threat posed by Bill C-51.

I should note at this point that I will be sharing my time with the member for Halifax.

The problem with this legislation is very simple. It lumps legitimate dissent together with terrorism. Indigenous peoples have a right to seek environmental and social justice through protest, communication, and activism. This bill would call that work criminal. It would call that work terrorism.

I have taken it upon myself to reach out to a number of indigenous community leaders across the country and have gathered some of their comments in this speech. Theirs is a perspective that must be heard, as we stand on the brink of passing into law a bill that would greatly curtail all of our rights and freedoms. The Conservative government is seeking to use its powers to control and censor the voices it does not want to hear.

Pam Palmater, the Mi'kmaq lawyer and Idle No More activist, gave me permission to share her thoughts. She said:

As treaty and territorial allies, First Nations and Canadians face a formidable foe and threat to our collective futures. Idle No More raised awareness about the break down in democracy in general and human and Aboriginal rights specifically. Hundreds of thousands of people across Canada rose up against Bill C-45—the large, unconstitutional omnibus bill pushed through Parliament without debate which threatened our lakes and rivers. This time, the threat is personal—any one of us could go to jail for thinking or voicing our opinions. All of the rights, freedoms and liberties upon which Canadian democracy rests will be suspended with Bill C-51. This bill creates what has been described as Harper's "Secret Police force" with terrifying expanded powers.

Ms. Palmater is not wrong. This 63-page omnibus bill includes measures that would give increased powers to CSIS not only to spy on citizens who it believes pose a threat but also give it the right to disrupt their activities whenever it deems necessary. CSIS may do this without a warrant or any checks or balances.

Under Bill C-51, no one will have oversight over the will and whims of Canada's spy agency. Without calling into question the ethics or integrity of those people who work at CSIS, I can say as a citizen that I am uncomfortable in principle and in practice with any one government body having this kind of unchecked control.

Upon until now CSIS has been an intelligence gathering agency. This bill would give it powers to act as a quasi law enforcement agency. The Prime Minister is in actuality creating a special secret police force in Canada, and these secret police will be able to surveil and target anyone they want.

Indigenous and environmental activists are afraid about what that could mean when they organize to protest a pipeline, when they communicate among themselves to reclaim territory that is theirs, and when they speak out in defence against the government in any way, which is their right to do.

Clayton Thomas-Muller, a renowned activist, wrote to me today about the work he does:

Our movements are about justice. To criminalize Indigenous dissent, then, is to repress Indigenous rights in Canada, and our responsibilities to protect the land. We are transparent, open, base-driven movements that take a non-violent, peaceful direct action approach.... The state is criminalizing Indigenous peoples who are acting within their right to exercise jurisdiction over their lands. This is an abuse of democracy. It is clearly about providing a right-of-way for the mining and energy sector.

On the front lines of much environmental activism are the first nations of the northwest coast in British Columbia. Many nations have made it their responsibility to oppose the Enbridge pipeline and other projects they see as grave threats to their lands, their fish, and their sovereignty. These people have already been targeted and insulted by the government. They have been called dangerous radicals by the Minister of Natural Resources.

Are these the dangerous people that CSIS will exert its new powers over? Will these people be spied on, arrested, and detained for unacceptable lengths of time with no clear charges? Art Sterrit, the director of Coastal First Nations, is afraid they will be. He wrote to me this morning and said:

The pipelines and oil tankers that this legislation apparently seeks to build under the guise of fighting terrorism, strike real terror in the hearts of our communities.

An oil spill in our coastal waters would be a terrorist attack. It would kill our livelihoods and wipe out our culture. How can [the Prime Minister's] government talk about threats to Canada's territorial integrity while he threatens the territorial integrity of first nations in BC and across Canada with his government's support of risky and dangerous projects like the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline? If passed, this legislation would be a major setback in building trusting relationships between First Nations and the Government of Canada.

As well, I spoke with Geraldine Fleure of the Yinka Dene Alliance. She said to me that she and her community already feel heavily targeted by the government for their anti-pipeline work. They are trying every day to create a safer, thriving community for their children. It's hard. They are challenged by poverty, but the fight to protect their lands and their waters is not one that they will ever give up. Bill C-51 will make it harder. It is another blow to their ability to provide a safer future for their children.

It is not enough for members of the House to rise and say to indigenous people that they do not have to worry about being treated as terrorists. First nation, Métis, and Inuit peoples have reason not to trust the government. For years, they have been targeted and harassed. No one knows this better than Ellen Gabriel of the Khanesatake Mohawk Nation in Oka. She writes:

During the 1990 Oka Crisis, Mohawk people on the front lines were attacked by police, shot at, denied their basic human rights and their right to privacy violated hundreds of times by the authorities under the direction of the Government of Canada and Quebec. Many Mohawks received notices by mail from authorities that they were being monitored and their phone lines tapped, and were not given much of an explanation except being provided with a photo copy of the criminal law code highlighting the reason their privacy was under attack: "suspected of criminal and terrorist activities...threat to public security". This continues today and has always been the case for Indigenous peoples who resist colonial laws and dispossession from their lands.

Too much is at stake with this bill for all Canadians, but it is crucial that those who will be disproportionally affected will have their chance to be heard in the House. It is crucial that those fighting for justice, for dignity for their communities, and for all of us be heard.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest and I applaud my colleague's enthusiasm and passion. I am equally amazed at her imagination. I was not aware that Bill C-51 was attacking fish, but I guess I have to read it more closely.

My colleague has read so much into this bill, it is truly hard to follow and truly hard to believe. As I said, I applaud her imagination. I want to talk about oversight, which she is rightly concerned about, because we should be concerned with any kind of measure like this that goes toward protecting Canadians—and the people who rely on the fish, by the way.

We talk about CSIS and what it can and cannot do; we talk about judicial oversight, which exists; and we talk about SIRC. Language is very important. It was said by a former solicitor general that SIRC does not provide oversight; it provides review. When SIRC reviews all the actions of CSIS, as it will, and comes across something that it feels has gone beyond the lines and reports that to the appropriate authorities, that now becomes oversight.

Would my hon. colleague agree, at least on that point? She says there is no oversight in this at all. Clearly, that is blatantly untrue. Would she give a little credit and say there is some oversight? Maybe there is not enough for her and maybe she does not trust the people providing the oversight, and that is fair ball, but would she at least agree that there is some attempt at oversight in this?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to caution the member across the aisle for deriding my commentary. If he had been listening closely, he would have heard that many of the words I spoke in the House are the words of some of the strongest activists in this country, the words of Pam Palmeter, Clayton Thomas-Muller, the representatives of the Yinka Dene Alliance, and Ellen Gabriel. These are people who are known to first nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples. These are people who are known to Canadians. Therefore, I do not take it lightly when I share their words and beliefs.

As I have pointed out, these people have seen firsthand how far and inappropriate the reach of the government and its arms have been toward them, in some cases even personally. When they say that this bill spells nothing but trouble, he and the members of his government should know well that they know what they are talking about.

I will leave it at that, with the hope that the voices of indigenous peoples will not just be heard by the members of the government but also respected and acted on by their withdrawing this horrid bill.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Churchill for her remarks. I do not know what exactly was said on the other side, but it was something along the line that she has a great imagination. These are serious concerns of serious people that need to be addressed. I agree with the member for Churchill in that respect. I know she made a great effort to get here to make this speech. I ran into her at the door when she was coming in, huffing and puffing, but she still made her remarks to the House.

I come from of an organization that has been involved in many demonstrations, the National Farmers Union. To make a political point, it dissented, it demonstrated, it put tractors on the road, and maybe stretched the line in terms of whether or not it was sometimes lawful. That word worries me in the bill, where the latter states, “For greater certainty, it does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression”. Liberals will be asking that this word be taken out.

From the perspective of the member for Churchill, if that word were removed from the bill, would it make a difference or would she still have a lot of concern? I know there have to be a lot of amendments, but I would like her to answer on that particular point.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that I am proud to be part of the only recognized party in the House that is firmly against Bill C-51. I heard from indigenous activists over the last few days that they are appreciative of the kind of solidarity that New Democrats are showing with them.

This bill is deeply flawed. I will quote the leader of my party in saying that it is “...dangerously vague, and likely ineffective”. All parliamentarians should take a second look, and I especially invite my colleagues in the other two parties to stand with indigenous Canadians, farmers, environmental activists, and everyday Canadians and vote this bill down.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Churchill, Aboriginal Affairs.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have shared my time with the member for Churchill. I was so pleased to be in the House of Commons when she brought forth the voices of aboriginal leaders speaking out against this bill. As she pointed out, we are the only recognized party in the House that is opposing this bill, and we should oppose it with everything we have, because it is a terrible bill.

I will pick up on the discussion around “unlawful”. That will be the crux of my remarks today, and very much through the lens of how this applies to aboriginal and environmental groups.

A lot hinges on that word “unlawful” in looking at activity that may undermine the security of Canada if there is an exclusion for unlawful activity. “Unlawful” does not just mean the Criminal Code of Canada; it could mean municipal permits or a wildcat strike. Therefore, this is dangerous legislation, because if there is a wildcat strike or an occupy movement—an occupation of town property, such as the camps that we saw set up—that activity, under the eyes of CSIS or the current government, could potentially undermine the security of Canada without the right municipal permit, and it could all of a sudden be scooped up into this anti-terrorism legislation. That is really the crux of my argument here today.

This is a big bill. It does require thoughtful analysis, and I have been reading through some of the analysis that has been done. These are not just words on the back of a napkin, or so we hope. Every single word here matters, so we really do need to look at the word “unlawful” and the implications it has for environmental and aboriginal groups.

There is one particular piece of writing by Craig Forcese, an associate professor of law at the University of Ottawa. He has written a book on national security law and maintains a blog where he posts updates because, as members know, our security laws are ever-changing, especially with the current government. Therefore, he posts responses as the law is evolving and has posted a very thorough analysis of Bill C-51 and the “unlawful” issue.

The particular post I was reading is called “Bill C-51: Does it Reach Protest and Civil Disobedience?” In it he looks specifically at whether the bill would allow the government to target protest and advocacy groups, and he points out that there is nothing in the bill that brands democratic protest movements as terrorists. He says we cannot reasonably make that assertion.

However, there is a lot in this bill that could wrap up democratic protest movements into the orbit of security concerns. He writes:

...under C-51, the government will be able to share internally (and potentially externally) a lot more information about things that “undermine the security of Canada”. That concept is defined extremely broadly -- more broadly than any other national security concept in Canadian law. Yes, it can reach the subject matter of many democratic protest movements.

That is the end of the quote by Professor Forcese.

He talks about this exclusion stipulating that the concept of undermining the security of Canada does not apply to “lawful” advocacy, protest, or artistic expression. As I said, this exclusion for lawful activity is really important. We can understand this exclusion a bit better when we look at our legislative history on anti-terrorism legislation and look at previous anti-terrorism pieces of legislation, because “lawful” means to be fully compliant with the law. We are not talking simply about compliance with criminal law; we are talking about full compliance with municipal and regulatory rules and labour laws, including those relating to strikes and protests.

Professor Forcese continues:

I am not making this up. This is exactly the same debate we had in 2001, with the original Antiterrorism Act. That Act introduced a definition of “terrorist activity”. For one aspect of that definition (serious interference with an essential service), there was an exclusion for “lawful” protest. Concern was expressed (widely) that this reference to “lawful” meant that wildcat strikes or protests without permits that implicated “essential services” might be branded “terrorist activity”.

And so the government dropped “lawful” as the precondition to protests.

That is the end of the quote.

That is important. The government actually took out the word “lawful” because of this concern. It might sound strange on its face, because one would think things should be lawful, but we go back to labour laws and municipal laws. It does not have to be criminal law.

In the old Anti-Terrorism Act in 2001, the word “lawful” was dropped because there is no real prospect that democratic protest movements would be terrorist activity and we could argue that the lawfulness distinction is not useful when looking at terrorist activity. However, what about when looking at actions that potentially undermine the security of Canada?

I am going to continue with something that Professor Forcese wrote:

Violating regulatory or municipal rules is bad. People should be fined, and possibly prosecuted. That's why we have police, and open, transparent courts, with due process and appeal rights.

But the question before Parliament now is whether peaceful democratic protest movements should be a security issue, handled covertly, when, e.g., they don't have the right municipal permits for their protests. And specifically, should such a movement fall within the ambit of the new “undermine” definition, or the expanded CSIS powers under the existing “threat” definition.

Given the experience in 2001 and the legal views expressed by the government of the day, we have to conclude that if the government continues to include the qualifier “lawful” in its exceptions, it does so with its eyes wide open. It really does mean to include, e.g., “illegal strike[s] that take as part of its form a demonstration on the streets—and this is an example that has been used by some in the trade union movement” within its “undermine the security of Canada” concept in the information sharing rules.

And it is comfortable with the idea that, if other elements of the “threat” definition are met...democratic protest movements with tactics that do not square in every way with even municipal law may properly be the subject of CSIS investigation and possibly even disruption.

I take no view on whether CSIS would ever have the resources or the complete lack of internal governance checks and balances to actually proceed in this manner. That is not my point. My point is this: when we craft national security law, we craft it to deter bad judgment. We do not craft it to be so sweeping and ambiguous that it must depend for its proper exercise in a democracy on perfect government judgment. Very few governments are perfect. And even if you think this one is, what about the next one?

What about the next government? More importantly, what about this one?

I read an article by journalist Shawn McCarthy in The Globe and Mail, who talked about the potential for this law to be used against legitimate peaceful dissenters, such as aboriginal groups and environmental groups. He quoted a public safety spokeswoman who said that Bill C-51 doesn't change the definition of what constitutes a threat to Canadian security and added that CSIS does not investigate lawful dissent.

Why is it, then, that we know through access to information requests obtained by Greenpeace that the RCMP has characterized environmental groups as the “anti-petroleum movement” and that the RCMP has labelled this movement as “a growing and violent threat to Canada's security”? It identifies a “highly organized and well-financed anti-Canada petroleum movement that consists of peaceful activists, militants and violent extremists who are opposed to society's reliance on fossil fuels”.

We go back to the overarching purpose of the bill, which is to turn our security intelligence agency essentially into a law enforcement body. We are taking the powers of the RCMP and giving them to our intelligence security agency. That is not why it was created, and if we think that the government of this day has the good judgment not to exercise or abuse this power, then we are very sorely mistaken.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct a couple of things. I am not sure if members opposite were able to read through the entire bill. I know that the Leader of the Opposition was referring to issues concerning groups that may dissent against the government or issues with protesting and so forth. That is factually incorrect.

It is very clear in the bill on page 3. There has been some confusion between the CSIS amendments and amendments made to information sharing, but right on page 3, with regard to information sharing, it states: “For greater certainty, it does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression”.

When it comes to the activities that CSIS can investigate, that definition of what constitutes a threat to national security is actually in the CSIS act itself. It is not in the amendments that the hon. member might be referring to.

I have asked this question before. I would like to know exactly where in the bill the member thinks we are targeting people who may protest or have dissent. Clearly, it is indicated that such is not the case. The bill targets terrorism and—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. We are asking that questions be kept to one minute if at all possible.

The hon. member for Halifax.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I just stood here and gave a 10-minute speech that was the answer to that question. My entire 10 minutes were about the word “unlawful” and that exclusion, drawing on the records of the debate from 2001 when we debated this point in the House of Commons under the Anti-terrorism Act.

It is as if the question comes after the answer. Had she listened and not just been reading from talking points, my entire 10 minutes answered that question.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke extremely well and certainly enunciated an area that I am very concerned about when it comes to the issue of lawful demonstrations.

I have been part of and have viewed hundreds, if not thousands, of demonstrations on a variety of issues. Did they have permits? No, they did not, meaning that they were unlawful under the current understanding, which is why we very much, in our amendments, want the word “lawful” restricted and taken out of there.

However, does the member not recognize that there are some good things in the bill? There are the changes to the no-fly list and improvements on the powers of preventative arrests.

There are issues, and we continue to have some significant issues with the bill. We are hoping to change that with our amendments, but does the member not see any of the positives that are in the bill when it comes to protecting Canadians?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, and it is a fair question. However, my answer is no. I do not actually see any benefits in the bill, because it is not actually a choice between our security and our rights. I think that is a false choice. The two are married hand in hand.

I look at the fact that CSIS was created out of problems with the RCMP's engagement in intelligence gathering. That intelligence gathering function was pulled out specifically so that the RCMP could do law enforcement and CSIS could do intelligence gathering.

Now we have the crossover effect happening backward. CSIS is actually getting powers that really do liken it to a law enforcement body. I do not think that is appropriate in the least.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I start, I would like to inform you that I will be splitting my time with the member for Etobicoke Centre.

It is my distinct pleasure to stand in the House today to speak in favour of the anti-terrorism act, 2015.

There is a real and present terrorist threat to Canada and her allies. We saw this on our own soil in late October, and we have seen it countless times around the globe in recent months. Copenhagen, Paris and Sydney were all hit by radical jihadists who had declared war on western civilization. Again and again, we see that individuals radicalized to violence can carry out deadly acts anywhere and at any time, whether it be in the heart of our busy cities or on the streets of our small communities.

The challenge facing Canada and our global allies is how to address this evolving threat in a manner that respects the rule of law, as well as the rights of freedom upon which democratic nations are built. On this, we cannot and will not compromise. There can be no freedom without security. While each nation must ultimately decide what is best for its own citizens, we must also ensure that we coordinate our efforts on the international scale.

This same rule of thumb applies to our domestic activities. We must create a seamless and robust national security system that will be both proactive and reactive, overt in some situations and covert in others. It must be a system in which all federal agencies and departments are working from the same playbook, ensuring that we close critical gaps in information sharing and that we are confronting a threat like terrorist travel from every angle possible, using every tool at our disposal.

This is the direction toward which our government has been moving for many years. As it is laid out in Canada's counterterrorist strategy, we have a comprehensive approach to countering the terrorist threat to Canada and Canadian interests, one that rests firmly on partnership and coordination with communities.

In particular, on the domestic side, we have a developed a wide array of policies regulations, and legislation to help build a seamless national security system.

The bill before us is another step in this direction. The sheer breadth of this legislation and the number of departments and agencies that it would impact speak to the complex nature of national security and the need to engage partners. Although each element of the bill is distinct, when we step back and look at the overarching goal, we see how the pieces fit together to achieve one goal, which is to address the threat posed to Canada by violent extremists and terrorist travellers.

Allow me to briefly address the different elements of the bill and how they would work together to keep Canadians safe.

First, we would improve information sharing across federal departments and agencies as it relates to the issue of national security. As we have heard, there are a number of legal restrictions and ambiguities woven into the authorities of government departments and agencies which prevent or delay the sharing of information.

As an example, Citizenship and Immigration Canada currently collects immigration information and may share that information, but only as it relates specifically to immigration purposes. However, in today's environment of terrorist travelling and violent extremists, this type of information could also prove valuable for broader national security efforts.

This legislation would create a government-wide authority to share national security information with designated institutions that have a mandate or responsibilities as it relates to national security. Of course, this would be subject to robust safeguards to ensure accountability about how information is being shared.

The anti-terrorism act, 2015 also includes changes that would strengthen our passenger protect program, which was created to protect our aviation system by identifying threats to air passengers, crew, aircraft or aviation facilities. The proposed changes, among other things, will expand the scope of the program to address terrorist travellers, those individuals who do not pose a threat to a flight but who may be travelling to another country to take part in terrorist activities abroad.

The next element that I will speak about is the threat disruption. In this part of the legislation, we will build on CSIS' current work by providing it with the authority to proactively address threats at an early stage.

The fact is that CSIS is already working at home and abroad to collect intelligence, which it then analyzes and shares with the government. This change will add to CSIS' s mandate to allow it to capitalize on its expertise and knowledge to disrupt threats.

In carrying out its new mandate, CSIS would follow the same legal framework as it does for its current work. This means obtaining judicial or ministerial authorization before proceeding with much of these activities.

There are also proposed changes to the Division 9 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. While Division 9 proceedings are fairly rare, they are a critical tool to allow the government to use classified information to deny entry or status to non-citizens who pose a threat to our national security.

Bill C-51 would strengthen this tool in two ways. It would allow the government to appeal or seek judicial review of orders to disclose classified information during a proceeding, rather than afterwards as is presently the case. It would also clearly define in law which information would form part of a case before the court or the Immigration and Refugee Board. This includes information that is relevant to the case and that allows the non-citizen to be reasonably informed. This would enable the government to better protect classified information in immigration proceedings.

Additionally, the legislation includes elements that make changes to the Criminal Code, including making it easier for police to obtain peace bonds and recognisances; creating a new criminal offence for using the Internet to advocate or promote terrorist activity; giving courts the authority to seize terrorist propaganda materials, including removing these materials from the Internet; and ensuring that witnesses from law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies are better protected during national security proceedings and prosecutions.

As members can see, the bill contains a number of measures that have specific elements for our national security posture. Together they work to further protect Canada from violent extremists as well as strengthen our borders to ensure individuals are not leaving or entering Canada to perform acts of terror.

While we know the opposition has a spotty record on terrorism, it is not too late for the Leader of the NDP to abandon his conspiracy theorist position that the President of the United States lied about killing Osama bin Laden. It is not too late for the Liberal public safety critic, the member for Malpeque, to own up for initially refusing to list Hezbollah as a terrorist entity.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As solicitor general, I named Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorist entities. This kind of misinformation cannot continue. Call the member to order for that misinformation. That is absolute—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. That is not a point of order; it is a matter of debate. The member will have his turn to debate it in a few minutes.

The hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if those members can support this legislation, perhaps Canadians will forget about their respective party's previous soft on terrorism stances.

I ask all members to join me in supporting this important legislation.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague.

There is one thing I do not understand, and I hope he will be able to clarify it for me. We have already discussed anti-terrorism measures. I gave a speech on that topic shortly after I was elected, when we were reviewing the provisions of part II.1 of the Criminal Code, which deals with preventive arrests and all of the measures concerning the Combating Terrorism Act.

At the time, if the government thought that the measures it had passed were not working, why did it not, in 2013, give the agencies the resources necessary to do their job?

There are existing laws in place, and the government is giving them more powers when it has not promised any funding. How can the organizations on the ground and the law enforcement agencies use the powers that already exist without resources? What good will it do them?

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was a financial question and we clearly are dealing with this legislation.

I will tell a little story about myself. Between the 1970s and 1980s, when I lived in a different country, the Red Brigades in Italy were extremely active, probably some of my elderly colleagues would remember the Red Brigades and the Baader-Meinhof gang. They resorted to a lot of terrorist activities. They killed people. They killed the president of Italy. That was one of the elements that made me determined to come to Canada, a very peaceful and nice country in which to live.

I support this legislation wholeheartedly because we need to prevent our people from becoming victims of terrorists.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, where did the member get the information from about my time as solicitor general? I was the solicitor general who named Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist entities. I know a lot of members over there like to think otherwise. I can table a document in the House tomorrow to prove that point, if the member desires.

This is not the first time. Over a year ago, the member for Winnipeg South Centre, in a Standing Order 31, made the same comments. Two weeks ago, the member for Wetaskiwin made a personal attack against me, saying the same thing again.

The member's information is incorrect. This is an important debate. We are talking about national security in our country. Some of us are trying to balance that against civil liberties. Some of us have been in the position of some of those people in the front row on the other side.

Why do you lower your honour by using those talking points that are—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. I would remind the hon. member for Malpeque to address his questions to the Chair, not to other members.

The hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East has about a minute.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the member for Malpeque. He is very active in the House.

I just wanted to express my deep concern. If we do not adopt this legislation, we will expose Canadians to terrorist attacks and we will lose lives.

This legislation is very important for the reasons I spoke about before. We must be proactive in this area. We need to confront terrorists. It is not only the terrorists from the Middle East, there are also other terrorist activities, such as the Red Brigades, Marxist-Leninists, Maoists and the Baader-Meinhof gang.

It is very important for me that the legislation passes. I invite the member to support it. There might be inaccuracies and so on. I was not in the House. I encourage the member to vote for the legislation.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also share the sentiment that my hon. friend from Malpeque is an honourable man, and I have enjoyed serving with him in the House.

Thomas Jefferson once said, “In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock”, and that is this government. Those who swim with style are across the aisle in the New Democratic Party. Although they are delightful people, they are naive, and in their naivety they risk the security of this nation, and this is something that concerns us all. This is an important debate. This is something that is critical to our country at this point in history, right now.

As my hon. friend just said in his speech a moment ago, his experience in Eastern Europe is why he came to Canada, seeing the Red Brigades, the Baader-Meinhof gang, and others at those times. Those were very poignant times and very poignant moments in the history of the world in terms of terrorism. It was a portent of things to come. We saw the terrorism of the Middle East grow and develop into what is now ISIL. This group has not just threatened Canada. This group has declared war on Canada and on the entire world. It is incredibly important that we deal with this right now.

These security threats that are facing our country and the world right now are serious. The world has changed. We have to wake up to this. This government is addressing that right now, head on, because we have a responsibility to defend each and every Canadian in this country. That is our duty and our responsibility, and that is what we are doing right here. We are not going to allow obfuscation to stand in the way, nor just a simple lack of understanding of what security actually means, not only in Canada but within our security environment in the world, because the world has become much more dangerous, whether we like it or not. The end of the Cold War provided us with a peace dividend that we thought was going to last. It did not, and now we have Vladimir Putin threatening the world, threatening NATO, and threatening his neighbours as well. These are serious challenges that we face in this country, and this is something on which we have to work hard.

I would like to point out that the party opposite is on the wrong side of history. Eighty-two per cent of Canadians support what this government is doing, and out of that 82%, 36% do not think we have gone far enough. This government is going to protect Canadians.

It is clear from recent events, be they attacks in Copenhagen, Paris, Sydney, or even right here in Canada, that the international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada and our allies. There is ample evidence. It is all over the media. It is all over YouTube. It is all over the Internet. If we are blind to these things, that just makes us dangerous to the security of our country. We cannot afford to turn a blind eye to this. We must be absolutely vigilant in the security of Canada.

They have done this for no other reason than that we support freedom, we support democracy, we support the rule of law. These are the concepts that they simply despise, these barbaric terrorists who make up the so-called Islamic State, or Daesh. There is no rhyme or reason to it. There is no logic to it. They just do not like our way of life and they do not like our values. It is too bad, because we are going to combat them at every turn. We are going to defend Canadian values and Canadian democracy at every turn.

On October 23, 2014, the Prime Minister said, “Canada will never yield to terrorism, and neither will this House of Commons—we carry on.”

The introduction of the anti-terrorism act, 2015, gives voice to this resolve. The anti-terrorism act, 2015, would create a new criminal offence for promoting or advocating the commission of terrorism offences in general and is punishable by a maximum of five years imprisonment.

Terrorism strikes to the very core of our democratic institutions and our traditions. It undermines our sense of security, places our critical infrastructure at risk, and seeks to intimidate us so that we change our way of living. That is never going to happen.

When people encourage others to engage in terrorism, they harm our quality of life or infringe upon the freedom of all Canadians to live in a peaceful, open, and tolerant society guided by the respect of the rule of law. In short, they have committed an offence against all Canadians, and this is deserving of serious punishment.

Protecting Canadians is absolutely paramount, but security of this nation is also integral to our economy. Without security, the economy is at risk, and we must absolutely protect all Canadians. The concepts of advocacy and promotion are familiar to criminal law. For example, they are both used in the offence of advocating genocide. The word “promotes” is found in the hate crime provision. As well, the proposed offence would include the terms of “communicating” and “statements”, which are also familiar to Canadian criminal law and currently used and defined in hate propaganda provisions.

Some have questioned why the offence is not limited to communicating statements made in public similar to the public incitement of hatred offences. The proposed new offence is more akin to the other counselling offences that presently exist in the Criminal Code. Counselling offences are made out, regardless of whether their counselling occurs publicly or privately, because people are liable for counselling others to commit crime. Section 83.21 makes it an offence to instruct others to commit an activity for the benefit of a terrorist group. Section 83.22 makes it an offence to instruct others to carry out a terrorist activity. It is also an offence under section 464 to counsel someone to commit a crime, even where the offence is counselled and not committed.

In all these contexts, “counsel”, like the actions of advocacy or promotion, means active inducement or encouragement to commit a specific offence regardless of whether the offence counselled was or was not committed. However, it is not an offence to advocate or promote the commission of terrorism offences generally. In other words, one can be held criminally responsible for actively encouraging or inducing commission of specific terrorism offences, but one could escape criminal sanction for actively encouraging terrorism offences in general because there is insufficient detail that links the advocating or promoting to a specific terrorism offence.

In practical terms, this means that our current criminal law may not address a situation where someone encourages another person to carry out attacks on Canada, without reference to some specific activity. It is worth noting here that this is exactly what occurred in the case of the barbaric terrorist who killed Corporal Cirillo and attacked this very building. As the National Post reported, prior to committing these senseless acts, he had access to Internet sites that called for attacks on Canada and to “fulfill your duty of jihad in Canada”.

Such a call for attacks on Canada could mean any number of things. It could mean urging someone to engage in acts of violence against persons or against our public infrastructure. It could mean attacks against Canadian financial or security institutions. The problem is that we do not know for sure because this is a general call to attack without sufficient detail. This makes it extremely difficult for the police to collect the evidence necessary to lay a charge under existing laws because there is no link to any specific terrorism offence. I therefore strongly support the objective of the proposed new offence, which would bring clarity to the law and address an issue that raises significant public safety concerns.

Some have said that this proposal would violate the freedom of expression. However, I do not share that view. Advocating for jihadi terrorism where Canadians are killed en masse is not a human right; it is an act of war. Canada is not alone in dealing with the scourge of terrorism promotion. We have seen this all around the world. The United Kingdom enacted a glorification of terrorism provision in 2006. France has an offence for l'apologie du terrorisme.

Je suis Charlie, Mr. Speaker.

Australia has already enacted that offence, in a way somewhat similar to the legislation before us today.

Terrorist propaganda would be defined to include material that advocates or promotes terrorism offences in general. This takedown power would not depend on a prior conviction for this offence. Terrorist propaganda is an important tool that terrorists use to brainwash individuals into joining their barbaric cause. Information operations is a potent weapon.

I call on members of the NDP and Liberal Party to put aside their previous objections to tough on terror laws, like the combatting terrorism act, and support this important legislation—like most Canadians, 82%, who are supporting it.

I close by saying that we are a society based on openness, tolerance, and respect for the rule of law. Those who advocate terrorism undermine our values and put all Canadians at risk, and this government will not stand for it.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech of my colleague across the way with great interest.

As we know, there is a brand new oil pipeline slated to be built through my riding of Burnaby—Douglas by the Kinder Morgan company. The government on that side of the House will stop at nothing to push this pipeline through, the Liberals are also supporting it, and everybody in Burnaby is dead set against it. In fact, the mayor of Burnaby, Derek Corrigan, said he would lie down in front of bulldozers to stop this pipeline.

I am wondering if the member can help me. That seems to be something that could be construed as a threat to our economic development in Canada, which would be covered by this act. Would Mayor Derek Corrigan of Burnaby be considered a terrorist under this act, and with the new powers being given to CSIS, would it then be allowed to disrupt the mayor's activity and anybody else's in the city of Burnaby? As members know, there were 126 people arrested there who were trying to stop this pipeline. Grand Chief Stewart Phillip crossed the exclusion zone in the protest area. Would this new bill have any impact on that, and would the mayor of Burnaby be a terrorist?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his example. I hesitate to use this word, but it sounds somewhat bizarre to me, because Canadians would not be targeted under this act.

For example, working with his scenario, if there were any charter implications in the surveillance of any individual for any act of terrorism, regardless of the type of example, and it did not pass muster with a judge, a warrant would never be issued. That is another level of oversight. Judges would not allow this sort of thing to happen if charter rights were violated in any way, shape, or form. However, none of that would apply to that scenario, because Canadians have the right to express themselves, and that is simply what category it would be under.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reinforce that there is a need for legislation to deal with potential terrorist threats. We know that because we have been in constant consultations and connecting with Canadians to get a sense of what type of legislation they would like.

The Liberal Party has been very clear that it supports the legislation, albeit with some very serious concerns. We are calling on the government, for example, to recognize the need for a parliamentary oversight committee. It is not that much to ask for, when we are talking about protecting the rights of individuals here in Canada. When we think of the other countries that are part of the Five Eyes, such as England, the United States, and Australia, they all have it. It is not that much to ask, in order to provide assurances.

New Democrats are saying they absolutely do not recognize any benefit to this legislation, which is unfortunate, but at least there is some value to allowing some amendments. Will the member give his personal assurance that the government will accept worthy amendments in making this legislation stronger?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the oversight that is in place right now is sufficient, strong, and robust, because as was mentioned earlier, there is a review done, but if inconsistencies are identified, they get reported and then something is done about it.

Within this bill, the ability for government departments to speak to each other, collaborate, and harmonize information is another form of oversight in being able to manage the information, so the left hand knows exactly what the right hand is doing. As I said earlier, it is a charter issue. If CSIS, for example, were trying to watch over an individual and its request for a warrant did not pass charter muster, a warrant would never be issued. That, again, is another judicial level of oversight.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to speak today to Bill C-51, the anti-terrorism act, 2015. It is an important bill and all sides have expressed strong views about it. We saw that in the lead-off speeches yesterday and have seen it in some of the discussions here today.

The bill should not, and I underline this, become a wildly partisan debate. Let us show Canadians that in the House, the 300-plus of us who are here, we can make this a better bill. The government does not have all the answers, but collectively we can produce a better bill. I ask the government to allow amendments to improve the bill.

This is an extremely serious matter. It does indeed affect all Canadians. We have a responsibility as parliamentarians to find the proper balance between national security and civil liberties and freedom of expression.

In my remarks today I do not want to get into all the technicalities of the bill, the unlawful versus the lawful distinction, et cetera, but to focus on two key areas: one, process; and two, oversight, which is extremely important. The last speaker said there is oversight. There is not oversight in this bill and the Conservatives should know that.

I will start with a statement by the leader of the Liberal Party yesterday:

...keeping Canadians safe in a manner that is consistent with Canadian values is our most sombre responsibility as legislators and community leaders. To ensure that we never lose sight of our Canadian values and never forget who we are, we should always aim to have both the security of Canadians and the protection of their rights and freedoms in mind when we set out to combat those threats.

The question is, how do we do that? How do we find that balance? We can do that, certainly by allowing witnesses from a strong cross-section of Canadian society to be heard, and when they speak at committee, we all have to listen.

The government must be prepared to accept amendments based on legal expertise, based on human concerns, and based on evidence-based testimony. I will in a moment outline some of those concerns, just to touch base with the concerns expressed in that area by individuals and groups and to make the point why they must be heard.

May I also say in fairness to the cabinet that I and a number of colleagues in this corner in the Liberal caucus understand the pressures that one is subject to when looking at an intelligence briefing in the morning about a terrorist threat. We understand the pressure that pushes government to give security and police agencies greater power and authority to challenge those threats.

I hope those threat assessments coming to the government are brutally honest, telling the facts as they are and are not exaggerated. I was not impressed, to be quite honest, by the Prime Minister's speech in Richmond Hill, where I do think he went over the top in terms of the threat to Canadian society. However, only those who have those assessments would really know what that threat is.

I can remember in my own caucus, as my colleagues here with me can recall, and certainly the member for Mount Royal, the strenuous debate we had and how fortunate we were to have that both there and within Canadian society and in committee when we brought in the Anti-terrorism Act of 2001 and expanded on it later.

However, because of that debate we put in sunset clauses to ensure that certain authorities granted to the police and CSIS would cease to exist at a certain point in time. We put in place a mandatory statutory review so that this chamber and the committee could review the good, the bad, and the ugly of that legislation at a certain period in time.

We do not see any of that in Bill C-51. Hopefully, amendments can be made that will draw in those points. However, in order to have amendments, the process has to change. Let us not fool anyone here. We all know what happens at committees. I talked about it earlier today. The parliamentary secretary sits fairly near to the chair of the committee on the government side. Government members are lined up in a row. Over against the back wall is the staff for the government side. Sitting among them is the staff for the whip's office. In there too is the staff for the PMO. Mike Duffy called them “The boys in short pants”. Well, they are both boys and girls because I have seen them, women and men. It is as if that guy or gal against the back wall is pulling the string of the parliamentary secretary.

[Randy Hoback]

You want to be serious, so be serious.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I am serious, Mr. Speaker, and the member knows that is what happens. It happens at my committee. Members follow that direction. They are members in their own right; they can stand on their own two feet. What I am saying is that the process has to change if we are going to make this legislation good legislation. I ask members to really look at this issue seriously and not to take direction in that fashion. There is concern about the civil liberties of Canadians and freedom of expression. We have to listen to those witnesses.

I want to give an example of what a couple of people I have talked to have to said, people whom we will put forward as witnesses. First, there is quite a series of articles in the press these days by two individuals, Craig Forcese and Kent Roach. They have a paper they sent us that is close to 40 pages long. They are doing a summary of the key concerns with the bill. This is what they say at the beginning of the summary:

If Bill C-51 passes, CSIS will be expressly authorized to “take measures, within or outside Canada, to reduce” very broadly defined “threats to the security of Canada”. Where authorized by Federal Court warrant, these “measures” may “contravene a right or freedom guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” or may be “contrary to other Canadian law”.

It does not matter whether I agree or disagree with that statement. There is a concern expressed there that we should look at seriously. These two individuals admit it themselves. They add an additional word relevant to this in a document dealing with CSIS. They say:

We are legal academics who have been researching and writing on issues of national security law (Canadian, international and comparative) for a sum total of 26 person years (between the two of us).... We are, in other words, an occasional and minor part of the national security “accountability sector”, to the extent that such a thing exists in Canada.

These people have a point of view. They have an expression of interest that we ought to listen to.

I also met with the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association, which also has concerns. That association was founded in 1998 by a small group of Toronto based Canadian Muslim lawyers. It has over 300 members across Canada and active chapters in Ontario and Quebec. The association states:

Bill C-51 is deeply flawed legislation that should not become law. Before we begin to integrate and concentrate power in government agencies on national security matters, we should first implement the remedial findings of many commissions of inquiry into the matter, most notably the Arar Inquiry.

As national security functions become more integrated it makes sense that there is a concomitant and effective counterbalance in terms of independent review and oversight. Such a body would have jurisdiction over all national security agencies and functions, including CSIS, CSEC, the RCMP and a host of other agencies (some of them currently have no oversight).

That is their opinion. They are suggesting that there needs to be much broader oversight.

These are just two examples of witnesses that we need to listen to. However, in order to make the proper amendments, accept them, and bring in those ideas, the government has to be willing to make some amendments.

To turn specifically to the issue of oversight itself, sadly, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Public Safety, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and, today, the Minister of Justice have been misinforming Canadians. Let me repeat that. Some of the highest officers and political ministers in this land have been misinforming Canadians on what exists, and what is and is not in this bill. It really is troublesome that the top political office in the land either does not know the limits of the Security Intelligence Review Committee or has not been totally forthright. I do not know which it is.

Let me turn to what the Security Intelligence Review Committee itself has said. It said that it is not an oversight body. Let me turn to its annual report for 2013-14. On page 12 of that report, in section 2, it says:

An oversight body looks on a continual basis at what is taking place inside an intelligence service and has the mandate to evaluate and guide current actions in “real time.” SIRC is a review body, so unlike an oversight agency....

SIRC itself admits that it is not an oversight agency, but even if it were an oversight agency, which it is not, it is not broad enough to really review national security. If we look at schedule 3 of Bill C-51, another seven agencies have been included there. I think some of them were here before. We are adding the likes of the departments of health, national defence, and transport to SIRC, CSIS, CSEC, the RCMP, and police forces of local jurisdictions, all of which are involved in these security matters, and transferring information across departments. There needs to be a much broader oversight that even a slightly improved SIRC could handle.

I mentioned earlier the protections that we as a Liberal government put in place on the extended powers in the anti-terrorism act of 2001. There were sunset clauses in which laws would cease to exist. There was a mandatory review. In 2004, we recognized that there was still a greater need, which was for the oversight of all security agencies. As a result, an all-party committee was proposed and put in place. It held hearings and made some recommendations, and Bill C-81 was introduced. However, it died on the order paper. I will come back to that in a moment.

Simply put, a previous Liberal government introduced legislation to provide for oversight by parliamentarians similar to that of our Five Eyes partners, the U.K., the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. Today, in The Globe and Mail, four former prime ministers put an article in the paper, signed by a number of justices and former attorneys general, et cetera, entitled: “A close eye on security makes Canadians safer”.

It starts by saying:

The four of us most certainly know the enormity of the responsibility of keeping Canada safe, something always front of mind for a prime minister.

They went on to say:

Yet we all also share the view that the lack of a robust and integrated accountability regime for Canada's national security agencies makes it difficult to meaningfully assess the efficacy and legality of Canada's national security activities. This poses serious problems for public safety and for human rights.

They went to say said:

Canada needs independent oversight and effective review mechanisms more than ever, as national security agencies continue to become increasingly integrated, international information sharing remains commonplace and as the powers of law enforcement and intelligence agencies continue to expand with this new legislation.

People who have been in the same position as the Prime Minister are calling on the need for oversight. Such a security oversight agency was called for by a former public safety committee while the current Prime Minister was in office. In a report dated June 2009, tabled in the House of Commons, it called for that, in recommendation 5:

The Committee recommends, once again, that Bill C-81, introduced in the 38th Parliament [by a Liberal government], An Act to Establish the National Security Committee of Parliamentarians, or a variation of it, be introduced in Parliament at the earliest opportunity.

That recommendation was supported by six members who currently sit in the House: the member for Yorkton—Melville, who chaired that committee; the member for Oxford; the member for Brant; the member for Northumberland—Quinte West; the member for Edmonton—St. Albert; and the member for Wild Rose.

The previous recommendation for Bill C-81 was supported by the current Minister of Justice and the current Minister of State for Finance. What has happened to those members since the leadership changed and we have the current Prime Minister? How come they are not still calling for oversight? They know that SIRC is not oversight. SIRC has claimed that it is not oversight. Did they lose their voice? Do they not stand by what they previously believed in, what they held hearings on? Oversight is important, and that is what we must implement in this bill, as well as a number of other amendments we will be putting forward.

As a final point, I will report on what the British Intelligence and Security Committee does. The members of the committee are subject to the Official Secrets Act. In their annual report, they say this:

The Committee sets its own agenda and work programme. It takes evidence from Government Ministers, the Heads of the intelligence and security Agencies, officials from the intelligence community, and other witnesses as required.

They monitor on a day-to-day basis. They keep intelligence agencies honest. They protect on two sides, as Bill C-81 would have done. It would have ensured that security agencies are doing what they are supposed to do and second, that they are not going too far in terms of infringing on civil rights and freedoms.

Let me close with a quote from my leader in yesterday's speech:

We are hopeful that the government is serious about reaching across the aisle to keep Canadians safe, while protecting our rights and our values.

It can be done. We need sunset clauses. We need a mandatory statutory review, and we definitely need oversight. I am sure both the NDP and Liberal Party will have many amendments to improve the bill in other ways, but the government has to reach across the aisle and allow Parliament to work.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his presentation. It was a good presentation, and I want to compliment him on that.

The problem I have with his presentation, and a problem I have with a lot of the Liberal members' presentations, is the credibility they present them with.

When we see the NDP members present something, we know where they are. We know, for example, that on the long gun registry, they are in favour of putting our farmers and hunters in jail. They are consistent on that. When it comes to dealing with victims of crime or criminals, we know that they will defend the criminal time after time. They are consistent on that.

When I go to Liberal Party, we do not know what its members believe in. They have no policy for us to read. What they do is actively look at the polls and then decide what they are going to say and do.

It is really interesting in this situation. The member says that he wants to be taken seriously. He says that he wants to make a serious presentation. Yet when I look at the history of this member and how he has treated this Parliament, how he has treated the government, how can we look at him seriously when he makes snide remarks like “kids in short pants”, when he has partisan overtones in everything he says in regard to this bill?

There is a book by Dale Carnegie called How to Win Friends and Influence People. If the member was truly serious and the Liberal Party was truly serious about dealing with this issue, would they not take the partisanship away and actually talk about what is in the bill? No, they cannot help themselves. They are so partisan. It is just the way they are.

When will the Liberal Party quit being so partisan and actually do what is right for Canadians and get behind this legislation?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

My, my, Mr. Speaker, that was quite a line.

We have tried to be, and we have to be, non-partisan to a great extent, but we all have our partisan side. This place is a place of active debate and discussion, and so partisanship is going to show through. However, we are talking about national security. We are talking about doing things right.

The member and I fought over the Wheat Board. That is fine. We will put that behind us for the moment. However, I would ask the member to talk to his current House leader. When I was chair of the fisheries committee and the parliamentary secretary, the current House leader and I actually worked together. I think there were 32 motions, 20-some from government members, opposing government policy. They were all debated in public. All but one carried. Most of them were tough on the government, and when we wrote the report, with the member of the opposition, who was the critic at time, we actually sat down together and wrote the report.

This place could come back to that kind of time if the government would allow it. That is what we need to do on the bill. We need to improve it in many aspects, and we definitely need oversight. It is not there.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the hon. member, and I listened to what he was saying here today about oversight and the things that are needed to fix this bill. I have some sympathy for the member's position in a sense, because his leader has said that no matter what the member says, no matter what amendments are made or refused, he is going to vote for the bill.

I wonder why the members of the Liberal Party have abdicated their responsibility as parliamentarians such that when a measure is coming forward that they say they do not agree with, they have committed in advance to voting for it. How is that doing one's parliamentary job?

I just do not understand it. A party that seeks to be in government says, “Well, we are not in government, but we will support the government, even though we are opposed to what it is putting forth”.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the member immensely. I actually quite enjoy being on a number of panels with him.

I think all we really have to do in response to that question is go to the article with the extensive number of signatures in today's Globe and Mail, entitled: “A close eye on security makes Canadians safer”.

Four former prime ministers signed that paper. I did myself, as well as a number of others who have been justice ministers and solicitors general. It is actually calling for more oversight.

The difference between the Liberals and the NDP is that we have been in government. We have made the hard decisions on public safety. We know that there are hard decisions, when the terrorist threat is higher, on public safety issues.

However, when we were in government, we also balanced that legislation. We believe this legislation can be balanced yet again. It can be amended to improve it. It can be balanced with sunset clauses, mandatory reviews, and oversight to make it better legislation to ensure that the security agencies really do what they ought to do.

If that does not happen, if the government does not accept our amendments, then we will put those three key amendments in our election platform, and Canadians will have the opportunity to decide on the balance of national security and civil liberties.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I realize that this issue is a critically important issue, not only for all of us in Parliament but for all Canadians. Sometimes we have to put water in our wine, as the saying goes. We are saying that the most important thing is to make sure that we are reinforcing the security of Canadians.

If we can get some amendments that will protect people's privacy and allow people to have open discussion and debate without having to be fearful of being put in jail and so on and we can get those amendments through, I think we are doing a good thing on behalf of all Canadians.

Would the hon. member like to elaborate a little more on the lawfulness issue and what that would mean to people who would like to be able to go out on a Sunday to join a protest in their neighbourhood? What could actually end up happening if we cannot get our amendments through?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of areas of concern in the legislation that we think go too far.

The member for York West mentioned the fact that it says in the bill:

For greater certainty, it does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression.

The word “lawful” really changes the ability of certain activist groups to show their dissent in many ways. We are going to ask the experts. We may put forward an amendment to remove that word.

In fairness to the House, I think we have between 26 and 30 amendments at the moment on technicalities in the bill. Therein lies the reason we need sound, robust parliamentary hearings with legal experts and people who work in the security field. It is to make sure that we get the bill right in all areas.

I would again emphasize the three key areas we are asking for: sunset clauses to allow certain laws to cease to exist; a statutory mandatory review, so we can look at the good, the bad, and the ugly in the bill down the road; and parliamentary oversight, as our Five Eyes partners have in their democracies around the world.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a certain definition of a word that I am not going to repeat in the House, but it says that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is not the best thing to do.

We adopted an anti-terrorism act in 2001 that lapsed in 2007, which was reconstructed by the Conservatives in 2013, that included most of these measures, but we never used them once, from 2001 to 2007.

What more does this bill bring than what we already have under the Combating Terrorism Act? We have not used it, not even once.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-51, An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The member for Malpeque in response to the question from the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. There are certain areas, and I cannot think of the section, in the original Combating Terrorism Act extended in 2007, that have not been utilized. One should note that some of the current arrests were made under the old legislation.

Be that as it may, the point she has raised comes back to my original point. What is really needed is a lot of oversight, and we have expressed this at committee. Questions can be raised of the national security agencies. Why are they not using current laws? Is there a reason? Is there a problem on the prosecution side? Is the law not strenuous enough? Is the threshold too high?

It comes back to the whole substance around my remarks in which we would put members of both Houses on an oversight committee with expertise in the field, who could see classified information, who could ask the hard questions on a day-to-day basis of those security agencies to ensure that they were using the laws available, that they were doing their job and that they were not overextending their powers and getting into civil liberties and undermining our freedoms and values.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to resuming debate and the hon. Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs, I will let him know that there are approximately 13 minutes remaining in the time allowed for government orders this afternoon, so he will not have his full 20 minutes in this case. He can judge himself accordingly in that regard. Whatever time he does not use here today will remain when the House next resumes debate on the question.

The Hon. parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs and La Francophonie.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for La Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-51, the anti-terrorism act, 2015. This is obviously an important bill in this time of troubles around the world and in Canada.

The legislation before us today is comprised of five elements relating to national security. I will limit my comments to the proposed amendments to Division 9 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA. Those amendments are in part 5 of the bill. I am also going to comment on other important aspects of the bill that define some of the threat disruption activities in which CSIS can engage. That is contained in part 4 of the bill.

Since we took office, our Conservative government has made the safety of Canadians a special priority.

Since being elected in 2006, we have spent a lot of effort as a government in putting a focus on keeping Canadians safe. Specifically, we have taken strong action to crack down on terrorist, both at home and abroad.

It is clear that the international jihadist movement is one dimension of terrorist threats that we face, and that movement has declared war on Canada and her allies, that is western liberal democracies. That is why we have taken strong action under the leadership of our Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and put forward this legislation.

We have made it a criminal offence to go overseas to engage in terrorist activities. We have created provisions to strip citizenship from those convicted of terrorist offences. We have created mechanisms for individuals to sue state sponsors of terrorism, like Iran. We have also declared war on the barbaric caliphate, or the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL.

We are doing even more today, denying access to Canadian territory to non-citizens who pose a threat to national security and maintaining the safety of Canadians among the objectives set forth in IRPA.

Generally, determining the admissibility to Canada of non-citizens is made by immigration officers, or members of the Immigration and Refugee Board, using information that can be made public.

Some non-citizens are found inadmissible on the basis of serious grounds, such as national security, human or international rights violations, and serious or organized criminality. In such cases it is sometimes necessary to rely on classified information to support a finding of inadmissibility.

The Division 9 of IRPA establishes a mechanism to allow the government to use and protect classified information in those immigration proceedings by allowing part of the proceedings to be held in a closed setting.

Under IRPA, classified information includes security or criminal intelligence information and information obtained in confidence from a source in Canada or from a foreign government that is protected from public disclosure if its release would be injurious to national security or the safety of any person.

Also, Division 9 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act includes three mechanisms that allow the use and protection of classified information during proceedings. Section 77 provides the authority as it relates to security certificates before the federal court. Section 86 provides authority as it relates to applications for non-disclosure before the Immigration and Refugee Board. Finally, section 87 provides the authority as it relates to applications for non-disclosure in the context of judicial reviews before the Federal Court.

Closed portions of the proceedings are not open to either non-citizens or their lawyers, and the public may not participate in order to protect the classified information. During the closed portions of these proceedings, a judge appointed special advocate, who is non-governmental and security cleared, represents the interest of the non-citizen.

Special advocates are empowered to cross-examine and make submissions to the court. They are empowered to challenge the government's claim that the disclosure of information would be injurious to national security or would endanger the safety of any person and, with the permission of a judge, exercise any other powers necessary to protect the interests of the non-citizen.

Division 9 cases also include open, public proceedings in which the non-citizen and his or her lawyer can participate. In this open part of the proceedings, a summary of the classified information is produced to allow the non-citizen to be reasonably informed of the allegations against him or her.

In some instances, Division 9 cases have involved a significant amount of classified information, some of which was not useful to the government to prove its inadmissibility allegations or to the non-citizens to be reasonably informed of the case against them. Hence, the anti-terrorism act of 2015 includes measures to clarify the classified information that would form the security certificate cases before the Federal Court and cases involving applications for non-disclosure before the Immigration and Refugee Board.

This information includes the following: it has to be relevant to the case; it has to be information on which the case is based; and it would allow the person to be reasonably informed of the case against him or her. In other words, the government would file only information and other evidence that it relies upon to make its case, and provide relevant information that is useful to the non-citizen.

Another important step we are taking in this legislation involves the appeal and judicial review of an order to publicly disclose classified information. Currently, an appeal or judicial review of a disclosure order may be available only at the end of a proceeding. Even if the government successfully seeks to have a disclosure order overturned at the end of the proceeding, it may be too late as the injury to national security may already have occurred or a person's safety may have already been endangered. While the government could seek to withdraw this information from the case to mitigate the risk of injury, this might not always be possible or doing so could dramatically weaken the case. Bill C-51 therefore seeks to allow the government to appeal or have the court review orders for public disclosure during Division 9 proceedings rather than at the end.

Let us be clear. The proposed amendments to IRPA would facilitate and reinforce Division 9 proceedings. The Division 9 regime, while exceptional, provides for a fair and constitutional process. In fact, in 2014 the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutionality of Division 9 when it found the statutory framework to be consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When considering whether the government can protect information in a given case, the judge must ensure that it does not impede a fair process and that the non-citizen is reasonably informed of the case against him or her. To make this decision, the judge has the discretion to ask special advocates for submissions and to communicate with special advocates to allow them to make these submissions. When taken together, these new provisions would preserve the discretion of the judge to ensure fairness.

Ultimately, the objective of the process is the removal from Canada of non-citizens who are inadmissible on the most serious grounds and who may pose a serious threat to Canada and Canadians. Overall, these amendments would ensure that Division 9 proceedings continue to be fair, while offering more robust protections for classified information.

Our government takes the obligation to protect public safety very seriously. We are also determined to respect the rights of individuals under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to meet our international human rights obligations.

Now I want to talk about some of the threat-disruption activities in which CSIS could engage because of changes being proposed in this bill. I will just give one example.

A young Canadian activist becomes disenchanted with Canada, and he has reviewed some YouTube videos, for example, and has listened to some influential people in his community. Individuals within his local place of worship have advised CSIS that he is planning to travel overseas to engage in terrorist activities.

Currently, in this scenario, without this piece of legislation, CSIS can investigate but cannot do anything to stop the individual from travelling. The furthest CSIS can go is to advise the RCMP that it believes the person is about to commit an offence and the RCMP could launch its own investigation, which could take several days. Under the anti-terrorism act of 2015, CSIS could actually engage with a trusted friend or relative to speak with this individual to advise against travelling for terrorist purposes. Further, CSIS officials could meet with the individual to advise him that they know what he is planning to do and what the consequences of taking further action would be. Members can see how this could lead to preventing terrorist activities and why it is important to have that.

Here is another example before I wrap up my remarks. Let us say that CSIS learns through its intelligence activities that a planned shipment of chemicals may be used in a terrorist attack on a Canadian business operating in a foreign country. The exact timing is vague or unknown. Currently, CSIS can share this information with the foreign government and other foreign partners, and a travel alert could potentially be issued by foreign affairs. That is all it could do.

With the anti-terrorism act, 2015, CSIS could actually engage in a joint operation with a foreign partner to disrupt the shipment. For example, the shipment could be rerouted so that it is not delivered into the hands of terrorists.

I will give a third example. A Canadian ally warns CSIS that foreign spies are planning to meet with a Canadian avionics firm. CSIS investigates and determines that the spies are posing as businessmen in order to purchase telemetry equipment. This dual-use technology is a civilian application in flight test programs but is also used in ballistic missile targeting. Under the current laws, as part of its investigations, CSIS can interview officials from the Canadian company to gather information and ask the CBSA to check the parts' paperwork at the time of export to determine if there are customs violations. That is all it can do.

With Bill C-51 enacted, CSIS could seek and receive a warrant to intercept the equipment and alter it so that it would not have any suitability for non-civilian applications.

These measures could save lives. These measures could disrupt terrorist organizations from terrorizing innocent populations. That is why they are very important.

I will wrap up. I have heard some exaggerations on the part of the opposition and some fabrications about what is in this bill. Canadians understand the importance of security and countering terrorist threats at home and abroad. That is why, if we talk to Canadians about what it is actually in the bill, the reasonable measures within it that put our security agency, CSIS, on par with what other security agencies do around the world, they support it. They understand the importance of these measures and the importance of giving them some additional powers that still respect the rights and freedoms we have in this country.

As the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and many of my colleagues have said, and as I have told people in my constituency of Etobicoke—Lakeshore, there is no liberty without security. Security is fundamental to our freedoms, and that is why it is important that we have strong security measures in this country.

I call on the opposition parties and members throughout the House to support this important piece of legislation.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. parliamentary secretary will have seven minutes remaining for his remarks when the House next returns to debate on the question.

It being 6 p.m., the House will proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from February 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-51, an act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate at the outset that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Victoria.

Bill C-51 is now before us so that we can debate something that is of great importance to the people of Canada. I think its short title is the “anti-terrorism act, 2015”. There is a real question as to what it is really about.

In fact, The Globe and Mail, one of the oldest and most prominent newspapers in Canada, says:

On close inspection, Bill C-51 is not an anti-terrorism bill. Fighting terrorism is its pretext; its language reveals a broader goal of allowing government departments, as well as CSIS, to act whenever they believe limply defined security threats “may”—not “will”—occur.

That is a pretty fierce condemnation of a piece of legislation by what purports to be a serious government interested in dealing with terrorism.

Let us make no mistake. Terrorism is a real threat and everyone agrees that public safety is a top priority for any government. However, Canadians do not have to choose between their security and their rights. This is in fact a false choice presented to the people of Canada by the current government and by the Prime Minister.

When the member for Ottawa West—Nepean was announcing his retirement as foreign minister, he quoted John Diefenbaker that "Parliament is more than procedure—it is the custodian of the nation's freedom.”

I believe that is right. What we are doing here today on this side of the House is what we can and must do as parliamentarians to protect the freedoms of Canadians, because that is the issue here. The issue is that we need to have concrete measures that would keep Canadians safe without eroding our freedoms and our way of life. Unfortunately, time and time again, the current Prime Minister and the current government is putting politics ahead of principle.

Once again, The Globe and Mail stated, on February 1:

Under the cloud of fear produced by his repeated hyperbole about the scope and nature of the threat, he [the Prime Minister] now wants to turn our domestic spy agency into something that looks disturbingly like a secret police force.

Canadians should not be willing to accept such an obvious threat to their basic liberties.

Where does that come from? It comes from the provisions in the bill itself, which would give additional powers to CSIS that it does not already have and, arguably, does not need; and which would allow for information-sharing broadly between 16 government departments. The bill does not specify this would be limited in nature. It would cause problems that have been described and outlined by many prominent citizens—former prime ministers, former leaders of political parties, academics, legal expects, former justices of the Supreme Court of Canada—all of whom have condemned the legislation as going too far and giving unnecessary and dangerous powers to government agencies with a profound lack of parliamentary oversight.

The government's position on oversight is that we already have enough, that we have a robust system. We do not. We do not have any system of oversight for the Canada Border Services Agency. We have an appointed body, SIRC, that deals with CSIS, but it is not an oversight agency. It says so itself in its most recent report and it makes the distinction between oversight and review. It says it is a review agency that looks at things some time after the fact. It does not have oversight on a continuous basis over what is going on in the moment on the day. Therefore, it is not an oversight agency. It says so itself and recognizes that oversight is a different value and is required.

Its provisions have been put before the House to provide the kind of oversight that we could use, oversight that some of our Five Eyes friends have over intelligence. Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America have robust parliamentary or congressional oversight with the power to know what is going on and to keep an eye on things.

This has been rejected outright by the government. There was private member's bill, Bill C-622, that would have modernized a piece of legislation that was before the House in 2006, a piece of legislation that arose out of the committee that you, Mr. Speaker, sat on, along with the current Minister of Justice, who said at that time that this would be a desirable, necessary, and important measure to be undertaken. That bill died on the order paper, but Bill C-622, which proposed modernizing that legislation to some extent—which I am not saying we agreed with entirely—was before the House and was defeated by the government at second reading.

Also before the House is Motion No. 461, a motion that I presented to the House on October 24, 2013, calling for a special select committee of the House, like the one the Speaker and the Minister of Justice sat on, to devise the best and appropriate form of oversight by Parliament that might be required given the change in circumstances since 2004 and the experiences of other jurisdictions, for us to devise the best system for our Parliament.

Although it was offered up for debate, the government House leader refused to allow it to be debated, saying there was no necessity for any more oversight than already in place. That flies in the face of all the experts, the academic experts and people who have studied this time and time again, such as lawyers, judges, former leaders, and former prime ministers, who have all said that parliamentary oversight must be present in a system that protects the rights and freedoms of individuals in this country when we are dealing with this kind of legislation.

The bill is is extremely intrusive. It gives significant police powers, including the power to disrupt activities. I heard the Minister of National Defence—who all of a sudden is the spokesperson for Public Safety, as I do not know what happened to the Minister of Public Safety, who seems to have disappeared off the map since the new Minister of Defence was appointed—say several times over the weekend in various interviews that “No, no, no, we're giving powers to the judiciary, not to CSIS”. That is wrong. The power to disrupt in section 42 of the bill would be given to CSIS directly. It would only be when CSIS decided that whatever it wanted to do would actually violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that it would have to go a judge, and the judge supposedly would be allowed to tell CSIS that it could break the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I do not think that is constitutional. I do not think a judge can have a licence by legislation to violate the Constitution of Canada, which is what the bill would allow. That is how bad this legislation is. that in itself is enough to say that the bill is bad, wrong, unconstitutional, and cannot be supported. I will leave it at that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member just finished saying that the legislation is bad, unconstitutional, and cannot be supported. The New Democrats were saying last week that they would vote against this bill at second and third reading, and that in principle it is a bad bill. Over the weekend we heard the leader of the New Democratic Party saying that if in fact the New Democrats were elected as government, they would not revoke the legislation, that they would leave it in place. There seems to be some inconsistency in the NDP position on the issue.

In principle, if the New Democrats support the legislation if it ultimately passes—and that is what the leader of the New Democratic Party is saying they would do if they formed government—then why would they be voting against it in principle here? In the Liberal Party, we have indicated that we support the bill in principle, but that it has to be amended. We are pushing hard for those amendments.

Why will the New Democrats not join the Liberal Party and be more transparent in their position and just say what needs to be said, that in principle the legislation has some steps worthy of support but that it must be amended, and then push for those amendments?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the member gets his information. I am sure he must have misunderstood whatever might have been said by the Leader of the Opposition, because we are clearly not going to support it, nor would we keep in place if it were passed, as it is unconstitutional legislation. I cannot imagine how the son of the father of the charter of rights can ask his caucus to vote in favour of legislation that clearly would give a judge the power to override in secret, on an individual case, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I say to the hon. member that if they are pushing hard against it, they are pushing with a straw.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his address on this bill, which I am sure he could speak to for several hours with his concerns about it, but which he put very succinctly in the brief time he had.

What the hon. member from Newfoundland and Labrador has raised is one of the most significant aspects of the bill, the misleading, uninformative statements by the Minister of National Defence on it. In fact, as the member pointed out, the bill would add very strong additional powers to the intelligence body. As the member said, the minister has said that the new powers would be only for the judges.

Could he elaborate on my understanding? It would only be in the discretion of CSIS to choose to think that if it were maybe acting beyond the bounds of the law, then it could go to a judge.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the discretion to decide whether there is a violation of the charter of rights is quite astonishing. In fact, clause 42 says, “The Service shall not take measures to reduce a threat to the security of Canada if those measures will contravene a right or freedom guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”, unless they go to a judge.

The determination would have to be made by CSIS officials that they would violate the charter. Who is CSIS to make these determinations in the first place? Only if the people at CSIS were sure that it would, would they then go to a judge.

When we look at the experience of CSIS in dealing with the judiciary already, it has been found to have misinformed—in other words not told the truth—to Mr. Justice Mosley in an application in relation to getting secret powers. There is a real question here as to whether this would be abused, would likely be abused, or would be possible to abuse, particularly if there is no oversight.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with great sadness today to debate Bill C-51. I am sad because the Conservatives appear to be using national security as a wedge issue, using fear to divide us at the very time Canadians rightly demand non-partisan collaboration to keep us safe from very real threats and to protect the very rights and freedoms that define our precious democracy. I am sad because it did not need to be this way.

Canadians will remember the touching speeches given by our Prime Minister and all leaders in the House in the aftermath of the shooting incident in Parliament in October.

On October 23, the Prime Minister said, “In our system, in our country, we are opponents but we are never enemies. We are Canadians, one and all”. Then he introduced this bill in a campaign-style rally away from Parliament. He used rhetoric of war and spoke in front of the largest Canadian flag I have ever seen.

I am also sad the Liberals did not stand up. I guess they fear that they will have to support a bill like this because the polls say that. It is very difficult to explain on the doorstep their position on such critical legislation.

On a personal note, I do understand the very real threats to security in our country. For many years, I was legal counsel to the Security Intelligence Review Committee. I received a top secret clearance and conducted terrorism hearings. A couple years ago, the present Minister of Foreign Affairs, then justice minister, appointed me as a so-called special advocate to do national security work under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act where national security issues arise. I do understand the need to take action on national security. Would that we can do it while holding hands across the aisle, as we did on October 23.

The government has simply failed to make the case for the new powers it seeks. This is another omnibus bill by the Conservatives, containing 62 pages, and amending a great number of statutes. It would expand the powers of CSIS dramatically but would fail utterly to strengthen oversight and review powers. Noted anti-terrorism expert and University of Toronto Law Professor Kent Roach told me a few days ago that we already had a dozen anti-terrorism sections in the Criminal Code.

The government has failed over and over again to give a single example of how the amendments it seeks in Bill C-51 would be used. It has added offences such as “communicating statements, knowingly advocates or promotes the commission of terrorism offences in general”. Most lawyers who I have consulted with have no idea how words as vague as “terrorism in general” appear in a legal text.

Terrorism, let us break that down. When the Attorney General of our country, the Minister of Justice, was asked what that meant, he said, “Look it up in the dictionary.” What do the words “in general” have to do in a legal text. Under section 7 of the charter, unconstitutionally vague language is bound to be thrown out by the courts as soon as they get a chance to see it.

The Minister of National Defence, who appears to be the new spokesperson on this bill, argued that it was wrong to describe Bill C-51 as a bill that would give new powers to police and intelligence agencies. In his view, it would award new authority to judges and courts to approve the use of the extra discretion afforded in the bill.

How is that working so far? In its annual report last year, the Security Intelligence Review Committee said, “In one investigation, SIRC...had been seriously misled by CSIS”.

As well, my colleague from Newfoundland has reminded us that in 2013 Mr. Justice Mosley said that CSIS “withheld information in a deliberate decision to keep the Court in the dark”. That is, in and of itself, very disturbing.

The government has refused calls for more oversight of our national security apparatus, notwithstanding that information sharing among many departments would now be permitted, despite the Privacy Commissioner of Canada's serious concerns about what that would mean as information of a personal nature goes across the bureaucracy unimpeded.

We are already limiting debate on this bill. We will have had three days to debate this important bill. Notwithstanding the fact that former prime ministers, former justices of the Supreme Court of Canada and all sorts of experts have looked at it and said that it is unconstitutional and should not be adopted, the government appears to be willing to bull ahead and will probably not accept amendments that will be offered, which is disturbing.

When I was at SIRC, I was very proud, after consultation with all three of the parties in the House at the time, to work under Rosemary Brown, former B.C. cabinet minister, wartime expert in security, Saul Cherniack, who had been cabinet minister in Manitoba, Frances Lankin, Liberals, NDP, Conservatives, all working in the national interest. That is now how the Conservatives have let it unravel at this point.

What does “consultation” mean? Apparently, the Leader of the Opposition gets a phone call from someone saying, “We're going to appoint this person. How do you feel about that?” There is no one in whom the official opposition would have any confidence in this work. The proof in the pudding is that the person who was appointed to chair, this, by his own admission, with little or no vetting, is now serving time in a Panamanian jail. That is how this proud agency has been deformed.

Let us talk about lack of money and lack of new powers to deal with the kinds of new powers that have been given to CSIS, such as disrupting. This was supposed to be an intelligence agency. Does nobody remember what happened when barns were burned in Quebec and we said, after the McDonald Commission of Inquiry, we should have an intelligence-gathering agency. CSIS will not be that anymore. Apparently, now it will be given the powers to disrupt, whatever that means, and to do so not only in Canada but anywhere else it wants. The Conservatives are turning that agency into another law enforcement agency. That is not what was intended in CSIS. They have utterly deformed the bill.

As my friend from Newfoundland so ably pointed out, one really has to ask what the Conservatives understand by the rule of law. They would amend section 42 to apparently allow the agency to decide what is contrary to the charter or unlawful. It is shocking what this section would appear to do. Do not take my word for it. Read clause 12.1 as it would be amended by this statute. Apparently, the service would be able to take measures that would contravene the charter and other laws if it were authorized to take them by a warrant that a court would give, as if that is supposed to make us happy.

Notwithstanding the lack of oversight that I have tried to describe, it would provide new powers that are frightening to many people in my community. The job of the official opposition is to inform and engage with its communities. All opposition members do that. This Friday night there will be a town hall meeting in Victoria, which I know will be packed with national security experts, my colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, the NDP public safety critic and me, all speaking to this.

I was on people's doorsteps this weekend, and they are very concerned. We hope they will rise up and fight, like they did against the unfair elections act, to try to get the government to actually see why all of these former prime ministers and supreme court justices just might be onto something.

The government will tell us not to worry, that lawful advocacy protest and dissent does not matter, that the act will not affect dissent. If people are blockading a road, if Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King were engaging in civil disobedience, that is, by definition, unlawful. People may be blockading a road on a mountain. Grand Chief Stewart Phillip was arrested in the Burnaby protest against Kinder Morgan. He has reason to fear once these powers are used against him, which, of course, will spread across 16 government agencies and possibly go abroad as we share information with other intelligence agencies around the world.

People are concerned, especially when the Conservatives call us who opposed, for example, the Enbridge pipeline eco-terrorists or foreign-funded radicals. Does anyone think there is a reason why people in my community may be a tad worried about what the government is doing? We are worried. Canadians should be worried. This is overkill and it is unnecessary.

I was proud to be in a party that stood up against another government when 465 people were thrown in jail, not one of whom was ultimately convicted, when the War Measures Act was passed. We stand up against this bill proudly because our constituents demand us to do so, and we will.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, could the member provide some clarification on actual position of the New Democratic Party?

I will quote a Global news story from yesterday. The headline is that the NDP leader “won't commit to scrapping anti-terror bill, if ever in power”. It states:

Though vehemently against the bill, NDP Leader...if in power, would not necessarily scrap the Conservative’s “anti-terror” bill—but he would definitely change it, he said in an interview Sunday.

When I posed the question to his colleague, the member for St. John's East, he was very clear that the NDP would revoke the legislation. Who does the member believe is correct, the leader of the New Democratic Party who says that the party would revoke it or his colleague from St. John's East who says that it would not revoke it?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me be perfectly clear. As others have said, we are voting against the bill.

I understand my colleague from the third party believes it is coherent to say that the bill is bad, that we need new powers and that we need to change oversight, but they will support it anyway. In my view, that is not coherent.

If there is any doubt about it, let me just say it as loudly and clearly as I can for my colleague that we will vote against this unconstitutional, unnecessary, inefficient legislation.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague from Victoria mentioned the matter of unlawful. The Minister of National Defence mentioned many times over the weekend that we should not worry, that lawful protests and dissent were okay.

However, so many times, whether it be a strike that is not exactly in keeping with the existing labour laws, protest movements like Idle No More, or some of the matters that the member mentioned, they are clearly not authorized by law, which is the proper definition of “unlawful”. It seems to me that it is a very serious problem. It is fooling people into thinking that it is harmless, because if they are not breaking the law, they have nothing to worry about. However, the issue of lawfulness is a real problem for the application of this legislation.

Would the member care to comment on that?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the government defend that somehow, the magic incantation of lawful advocacy, protests and dissent is the Holy Grail, and that we need not worry about it. However, as the member properly points out, the word “lawful”, as with so many of the key terms in the bill, is completely undefined. The member is right that it is not authorized by law.

What I have tried to say in my remarks is that sometimes civil and or criminal injunctions are transgressed by people. That, by definition, is unlawful, I presume. They are engaged in civil disobedience because they understand that there is a consequence of civil disobedience. That is what the sense often involves in the labour context and in the environmental context.

I have had indigenous leaders come to me, frightened by what this might mean as they engage in the kind of dissent that is obviously taking place up and down our coast against the Enbridge northern gateway pipeline. They have asked for legal advice and what this would mean. Would CSIS be going after them, disrupting their activities, infiltrating them?

Do we need our intelligence gathering agency to do that? We have a perfectly competent RCMP that does that, and has done it well, and that understands the need to gather evidence carefully, and so forth. To turn an intelligence agency into some kind of law enforcement agency like this is really reprehensible.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to debate Bill C-51, the anti-terrorism act, 2015, and I want to mention at the outset that I will be sharing my time with the member for Yukon.

This is a very important bill. Over the last few years, I have noticed a real change in what is happening across the world and in Canada. Hardly a week goes by that I, like many Parliamentarians, do not wake up to news of extreme incidents or threats somewhere in the world. A couple of days ago we heard that al Shabaab was threatening Canadians in malls, malls where our children go, malls where grandmothers go. The West Edmonton Mall was named specifically.

Clearly, times have changed. Times are a lot different from what they were in the sixties and the seventies, before communication changed and before the Internet. If I mention places like Copenhagen, Brussels, Sydney, Paris, and Ottawa, one would think I was listing some of the freest cities in western democracies. Sadly, however, this is a list of the locations of the most recent jihadi terrorist attacks.

Let us make no mistake: the international jihadi movement has declared war on Canada and war on our allies. That is important. We are seeking to degrade and destroy the so-called Islamic State through the committed and professional work of our Canadian Armed Forces, and I think everyone in this House should be very proud that when Canada calls, they do the job we ask of them and they do an amazing job. We are taking important measures to strengthen the protection of Canada.

I have been listening carefully and I think the NDP has been sowing some confusion about what is contained in the bill. I will reflect on some of the comments made by the leader of the NDP and share some of the inaccuracies in his comments last week.

The leader of the NDP has accused Bill C-51 of being both overly broad and not doing anything. That is a bit of a square circle. How can a bill be overly broad on one hand and not really do anything on the other?

That in itself reflects an issue in terms of the approach of New Democrats to the bill, whose leader said that the provisions to criminalize the promotion of terrorism generally have no business in the criminal law.

It is currently not a criminal offence to advocate or promote terrorism generally. The ability to arrest someone who is, in general terms, advocating or promoting the activity of terrorism does not exist. The threshold for arrest in the Criminal Code is specific to someone who knowingly instructs, directly or indirectly, any person to carry out a terrorist activity.

As an example, the jihadists are saying, “Go hurt Canada.” In the case of the threat to the West Edmonton Mall, are the jihadists instructing specifically or more generally? We need to make sure we capture those sorts of threats to Canadians.

The anti-terrorism act of 2015 would make it an offence to advocate or promote terrorism in broader terms. It states:

Every person who, by communicating statements, knowingly advocates or promotes the commission of terrorism offences in general

—which could mean malls or hurting Canadians—

—other than an offence under this section—while knowing that any of those offences will be committed or being reckless as to whether any of those offences may be committed, as a result of such communication, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.

By way of example, if someone posts a video on YouTube calling for death to infidels wherever they may be, as was done by a recent Canadian-linked jihadist, it is not currently a criminal offence. I am sorry if the opposition does not believe that should be a criminal offence, but frankly, I believe that if someone makes that kind of threat, it clearly should be defined as a criminal offence. This legislation will change that.

The leader of the NDP has also said that the legislation before us today would allow the targeting of legitimate protesters, and that too is inaccurate. Again, it is an attempt to fearmonger about this particular bill.

Under the legislation, the threshold for CSIS to engage in disruption is met if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a particular activity constitutes a threat to the security of Canada. Previously, CSIS did not have disruption powers, allowing it only to collect and retain information. We previously heard that this was an issue. To be quite frank, if CSIS knows of an imminent threat, I want it to be able to act, not turn the information over to another agency so that maybe some action will be taken after whatever has been planned has been completed.

“Threats to the security of Canada” are qualified by the following points, but “threats” do not include lawful advocacy, protests, or dissent unless carried on in conjunction with any of these listed activities, which would not be amended by Bill C-51: first, espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada, or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage; second, foreign-influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person; third, activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state; and four, activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of the constitutionally established system of government in Canada.

What the leader of the NDP may be getting confused about is the power of the sharing of information between government institutions. The bill states:

...a Government of Canada institution may, on its own initiative or on request, disclose information to the head of a recipient Government of Canada institution whose title is listed in Schedule 3, or their delegate, if the information is relevant to the recipient institution’s jurisdiction or responsibilities under an Act of Parliament or another lawful authority in respect of activities that undermine the security of Canada, including in respect of their detection, identification, analysis, prevention, investigation or disruption.

The NDP leader's claims are simply false. Absolutely no change would be made to what constitutes a threat to the security of Canada. The measures he is pointing to deal with information sharing between government departments.

Further, the CSIS Act specifically states that threats to the security of Canada do not include lawful advocacy, protest, or dissent. The new legislation states that activity that would undermine the security of Canada does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent, and artistic expression. It is very clear, and again I think some fearmongering has gone on.

We reject the arguments that every time we talk about our security, our freedoms are threatened. Canadians understand that freedoms and security go hand in hand. Canadians expect us to protect both, and there are protections in this legislation that would do exactly that. The fundamental fact is that our police and our national security agencies are working to protect our rights and our freedoms, and it is jihadi terrorists who would endanger our security and who would take away our freedoms.

We have covered what the bill would not do, but we should look at what it would do. I have a lot of things to say about what it would do, but it looks as if I will not have time to discuss them all. I will quickly try to fit in a few.

Bill C-51 is a comprehensive package that would criminalize the advocacy or promotion of terrorism. It would counter terrorist recruitment by giving our courts the authority to remove things that are online. It would enhance CSIS' power to address threats, in that we are not going to sit and wait for threats but are going to address them. The bill would provide law enforcement agencies with enhanced stability to disrupt terrorist offences and activities.

Another issue is the passenger protect program related to people who are travelling by air for the purpose of engaging in terrorism. The bill would make it easier for our law enforcement agencies to do the job that we ask them to do and share relevant national security information.

Many of my colleagues will speak to other components of the bill. This is important legislation, and we are doing the right thing for Canadians. We have hit the important balance between security and the protection of freedoms.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives eliminated the position of inspector general of CSIS and left two agency positions open for months and months.

Why are the Conservatives insisting on reducing civilian oversight rather than enhancing it?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, oversight is important. SIRC has done an annual report indicating the measures it takes and the watching it is doing.

It is also important to note that this particular legislation would give powers to CSIS to stop threats. We need to look at it currently. If CSIS knew something was going to happen imminently, it would have some warrant provisions, but oversight over these powers is there, and it is important.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party and the leader of the Liberal Party will argue, and I support it wholeheartedly, that there is no real oversight. In fact, the government could be doing a whole lot more.

Canada is a member of the Five Eyes nations. We are talking about the United States, England, Australia, and a fifth one. Only Canada does not have parliamentary oversight. All the others have parliamentary oversight.

Why does the member believe that Canada should stand alone and not have parliamentary oversight, given the importance of individual rights and freedoms?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, our government believes that independent, expert, third party oversight is absolutely critical. There is no question.

However, even though every country does something one way, does the member actually think that we should not have the sovereignty to determine what a good way would be for Canada?

I believe his party, back in the day, actually did not support changes to the system because at the time it believed that third party independent oversight was important. Obviously, the third party oversight does report through the normal parliamentary channels.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening with great interest to the speech of my colleague, the parliamentary secretary. Bill C-51 contains provisions of information sharing. The information sharing component is a common sense measure to keep us safe.

Could the parliamentary secretary provide examples of how reducing silos within the government can keep us safe?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we need to look at what Canadians think is common sense. For example, if someone comes in to see a consular official in Beirut and the official is very concerned about the history that person presents and about injuries that might be consistent with some activities that are less than savoury, to think that this consular official could not actually share those concerns with an organization such as the RCMP and CSIS does not make sense, although obviously that information sharing has to be done in a prudent way.

I think most Canadians will agree that if someone was raising five or six red flags, they would be concerned about that person and what that means to the safety and security of Canada. It would be more than appropriate to take some measures and flag that particular person.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-51, anti-terrorism act, 2015.

First and foremost, my support for the bill is driven by one single overarching principle, that the international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada.

In the bill, the preamble sets out something that is important to note. I will read directly from Bill C-51, which states:

Whereas activities that undermine the security of Canada are often carried out in a clandestine, deceptive or hostile manner, are increasingly global, complex and sophisticated, and often emerge and evolve rapidly;

That is important because as we ask Canadian security intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies across our country to detect, assess, and prevent threats in an ever-evolving global terrorism climate without themselves evolving, it is both unfair to Canadians, unrealistic to the agencies we task with this role, and irresponsible as a government.

Information sharing can provide critical and otherwise unrecognizable links to exclude or include certain individuals, activities, or groups that could pose a threat to the security of Canada. It is not unusual for Canadian security intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies to share information to determine inculpatory or exculpatory evidence that would help them focus their investigations, to prevent or exclude the possibility of a particular activity, group, or individual from participating in those threats.

We have put forward measures to protect Canadians against the jihadist terrorists, as I have said, who have clearly waged a war on Canada. They have done so because they target our society and they hate the values that we represent.

The legislation effectively breaks down silos that exist between government agencies. These silos put Canadians' lives at risk. I think any constituent, mine in particular, would expect that if one branch of government knows information that would be a threat to our security, then naturally that information could be shared with other branches of government.

Currently, it is not a clear case. This legislation seeks to achieve that. Of course, we on this side of the House reject the fundamental argument that is always put forward by the opposition, that every time we talk about security somehow our freedoms are threatened.

We understand that freedom and security go hand in hand and that Canadians expect us, as parliamentarians, to protect both. As I read through the entirety of this bill, all 63 pages of it, there are many checks and balances that I am sure I will be able to talk about as this debate continues. They ensure both the protection and preservation of Canadians' freedoms while at the same time ensuring that security intelligence agencies, our law enforcement agencies, and the multiple departments within the Canadian government that are tasked with Canadians day-to-day security are able to do the job that we expect them to do.

Sometimes I believe that those on the other side of the House forget all of this, but the fundamental fact is that our police and our national security agencies are working to protect our rights and freedoms. That is what jihadist terrorists want to endanger. They want to take that away from us. In essence, the provisions of this bill are designed to do specifically what the opposition is proposing that this legislation is threatening

That being said, of course, it is important that there be a robust accountability structure. In my view, the Canadian model of third party, non-partisan, and independent oversight of our national security agencies is superior to the political intervention in the process that is being suggested by the opposition.

Further, we also know that well-ingrained in this bill are key elements of new legislative authorities that require judicial review and judicial authorization. In other words, in plain language, before any action can be taken, each of the agencies tasked with the responsibilities require show cause. They require warrant authorization, and those warrants require in-depth explanation as to the reasonable and probable grounds that exist to ask for warrants, to ask for intervention, to ask for the mechanisms to disrupt, interrupt, or proceed with investigations to deal with the threats that they face.

Therefore, any characterization by the opposition that this would impede Canadians' rights, when certain sections specifically express the legal requirements to respect that, in my opinion, is the opposition challenging the ability of our courts to exercise their judicial oversight when it comes to assessing the merits, need, and expeditious requirements of anything that law enforcement or security intelligence agencies come to them with. Obviously, I have full confidence that our courts and judiciary can determine, based on the merits, evidence, and information provided by law enforcement agencies on their own, without Parliament trying to intervene.

Additionally, we have heard comments that there are not enough resources to combat terrorist threats in Canada. We have increased the resources that are available to our national security agencies by a third. The Liberals and the NDP have voted against those increases each step of the way. Despite their votes against these increases, of course, our government will continue to ensure that the national security agencies have the resources they need to keep Canada safe, and that includes the legislative resources they require.

There can be no liberty without security, and I will tell members what Canadians feel about this.

Four in five Canadians surveyed by the Angus Reid Institute say that they support this legislation, with 91% in favour of making it illegal to promote terrorism. There are 89% who favour blocking websites that promote terrorism, and 87% support making it easier for law enforcement agencies to add a terror suspect's name to an airline's no-fly list. There are 80% who favour extending the length of time that a terrorist suspect can be detained without charges to seven days from three days; and 81% support giving government departments the authority to share private information, such as passport applications or commercial data, with law enforcement agencies.

It is fairly clear that Canadians understand this legislation. Canadians understand the threats that we face. Canadians understand the roles of law enforcement agencies and security intelligence information. Canadians understand the gaps that currently exist. Canadians also understand the measures we are taking to fill those gaps, to allow Canadians, those agencies, and those groups and organizations that work with those agencies, with an opportunity to engage in this battle without one hand being tied behind their backs.

As I said in my introductory remarks, it is both unfair, unreasonable, and irresponsible for us to expect law enforcement agencies and security intelligence agencies in this country to fight an evolving global terrorism threat without themselves evolving. That makes no sense. We are effectively asking them not to utilize all of the tools and resources that the terrorists are able to utilize in terms of access to information. We are asking them to operate two steps behind in a world that is continually and rapidly changing, effectively, efficiently and harmfully, not only to our nation but to other nations.

It is incumbent upon us to make sure that we are providing our security intelligence and law enforcement agencies with these tools. As I have said, and as is it contained within the bill, there are the necessary protections and preservation of Canadians' freedoms, respect for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, judicial oversight and review, as well as three and four stages of checks and balances.

I think this piece of legislation has struck the right balance between allowing our law enforcement and security agencies to do the job we expect them to do while at the same time ensuring the privacy and protection of the freedoms we enjoy and deeply respect in this country.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the previous government speaker talked about fearmongering. It is the Conservatives who are fearmongering. Now this colleague talks about the fight evolving on global terrorism threats and that they need to evolve as well. What Conservatives need are dollars to use the current legislation already in place, and they can only do that if they have enough staffing in place. We saw last week, with respect to the fight against sexual exploitation for children, where the government held back $10 million in unspent funding, basically to take down the deficit.

We have current laws in place that are not being used, which would help to protect that. The Conservatives are the ones who are trying to instill fear in Canadians, in believing that they need to look over their shoulder day after day. That is wrong. We should ensure that the RCMP and police officers have the right tools, which takes dollars. The Department of Public Safety has seen a total of $688 million in cuts over the past three consecutive years.

Does my colleague not believe that these cuts by the government are negatively impacting the ability of our public safety agencies to conduct their work and keep Canadians safe?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my introductory remarks, our government has increased investments in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. We continue to invest. That is one piece of it. We can also talk about front-line law enforcement agencies. It was our government that brought in things like the police officer recruitment fund and doubled and tripled the number of RCMP officers. I recall, in 1998, when the Liberal government actually cut the funds, and I was in depot when they closed it down. There were no front-line police officers coming out at the time. It has been our government that brought forward police officer recruitment, put more law enforcement officers on the front line, and more in our communities. Guess who voted against that? The opposition voted against it.

It is not just financial resources that would allow law enforcement officers to do the job they need to do. They need the legislative tools. They also need to know, and Canadians need to know, that there are consequences to actions that people take. Coincidentally, not only are we giving law enforcement agencies the tools to do their jobs, we are providing consequences for the judiciary to consider when people are convicted.

However, guess what? Once again, the opposition voted against that. Members think that having law enforcement running around this community in great numbers, not enforcing any laws with any tools, or not having any consequences for actions, is public safety. It is not at all. It is a total package, and it is a package that opposition members never support.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, in the past year, I have had many debates about democratic reform regarding the Senate and the judiciary, about how many of the members of the government, primarily the backbench, talk about being less keen on seeing people appointed as opposed to people who are elected as serving as some sort of oversight.

The member talked about judicial review and how he has completely satisfied that. Although I appreciated many parts of his speech, the part of the package I am concerned about is this oversight that gives power to Parliament. Very specifically, why is parliamentary oversight not a good idea for this legislation?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, most of what is embedded in the legislation is around law enforcement agencies and security intelligence agencies discovering, on reasonable and probable grounds, either an offence or an activity that would cause them concern. Clearly, members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Transport Canada, Canada Border Services Agency, or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service are not going to take the information they have and provide that to members of Parliament so we can all vote on whether or not they get a warrant to act. They have to show cause in front of a justice. That is the natural course of law enforcement investigative procedures. The justice needs to consider that.

There are parameters clearly detailed in this legislation around what the law enforcement and security intelligence agencies have to present in a show cause. There are considerations that are deeply embedded in this legislation that tell the justices what they have to consider, including the nature, extent, and quality of the information in context to the current environmental conditions. Then they can apply that to granting of a warrant or granting of an activity for law enforcement agencies. That is something we cannot debate in the House of Commons. There are protective measures that are required because of national security, individual security, witness security. It only stands to reason that it happen in the courts, and not on the floor of the House of Commons.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying how proud I am of our leader and our party for taking a principled stand against this flawed piece of legislation.

As I move closer to retirement, I have been reflecting on my past nine years here in Ottawa. I often think about all those individuals, not only in my riding but right across this country, who are deeply committed to the cause of social justice. As a member of Parliament, it has been an honour for me to work with them in our common struggle for a better world. The issues have been many: world peace, food sovereignty, climate change, the environment, poverty, violence against women, and many others.

As a party, we have taken principled stands against the ideologically driven policies of the current Conservative government, such as its so-called tough-on-crime agenda, the abandonment of environmental protection, and anti-labour legislation. Today our position on Bill C-51 is consistent with this proud NDP tradition.

I should say that with all this anti-terrorism and anti-Muslim hype generated by the Conservatives, it would have been easy to come out in support of this draconian piece of legislation. After all, it appears, as the polls are saying, that Canadians are afraid, and they want tougher laws to protect them against terrorists. However, as the official opposition, that would not be in the best interests of Canadians.

I believe that my party has taken the responsible approach, and I am very proud of it. After carefully listening to experts and studying Bill C-51 in detail, we have determined that the bill would be a direct threat to the rights and freedoms we currently enjoy in this country. Here I would like to offer my sincere thanks to my colleagues from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and Alfred-Pellan and the research team for their due diligence on Bill C-51.

The following points summarize our concerns.

This bill threatens our way of life by asking Canadians to choose between their security and their freedoms. The bill was not developed in consultation with the other parties, all of whom recognize the real threat of terrorism and support effective, concrete measures to keep Canadians safe.

What is more, the bill irresponsibly provides CSIS with a sweeping new mandate without equally increasing oversight. It contains definitions that are broad, vague and threaten to lump together legitimate dissent with terrorism. It does not include the type of concrete, effective measures that have been proven to work, such as working with communities on measures to counter radicalization of youth.

We agree that terrorism is a real threat and everyone agrees that public safety should be a top priority for any government, but Canadians should not have to choose between their security and their rights. The Prime Minister is offering them a false choice.

We need concrete measures that protect Canadians without eroding our freedoms and undermining our way of life. However, time and time again, the Prime Minister goes too far and puts politics before principles.

As I endeavoured to study this bill, I read through various articles that appeared in our mainstream media. A number of them, such as the National Post editorial of February 19, dealt with the efforts of university professors and national security specialists Craig Forcese and Kent Roach, who have produced three exhaustive analyses of Bill C-51. They are concerned about the new powers granted to CSIS to engage in disruptive activities.

We have also recently learned from an internal RCMP document that the environmental movement is already being targeted as a national security threat. According to the National Post, “that does not require a particularly paranoid mind to be interpreted as evidence that the environmental movement is already being targeted as a national security threat”.

Prior to CSIS being created in 1984, the RCMP had engaged in disruptive activities that were illegal. That is why the McDonald Commission was created and why CSIS was given a mandate to collect and analyze information and produce intelligence about potential national security threats to Canada. Now, under Bill C-51, they would be able to do legally what the RCMP was doing illegally in the 1960s and 1970s. This is a direct threat to the rights and freedoms we currently enjoy.

As our leader stated:

Bill C-51 would expand CSIS’s mandate to spying on ‘interference with infrastructure and interference with economic or financial stability.

The language is so broad that it would allow CSIS to investigate anyone who challenges the government’s social, economic or environmental policies. What is to stop this bill from being used to spy on the government’s political enemy?

We have also learned that former CSIS officer Francois Lavigne is alarmed by this bill. According to an article that appeared in The Windsor Star:

He believes the measures proposed in C-51 are unnecessary, a threat to the rights of Canadians and that the prime minister is using fascist techniques to push the bill.

Mr. Lavigne was part of the barn burning, off-the-leash Mounties group whose law-breaking ways led to the McDonald Commission and the eventual establishment of CSIS in 1984. He spent years tracking dangerous radicals without the powers the government wants to give CSIS. He said:

I find it a little convenient that in the past few years that these radicalized people are the biggest threat to ever hit us. There are more people dying because of drunk drivers or because of gang violence.

It would also appear that the Conservative government is using terror to deflect us from real problems facing Canadians, such as the loss of jobs, the growing disparity between the rich and the poor, and climate change, to name a few. History is full of examples of irresponsible leaders rallying their citizens by exaggerating threats to their security. As Mr. Lavigne goes on to say:

Some of these tactics are taken right out of the fascist playbook. Create an enemy that is hard to identify. Make it an enemy that is nebulous and seems to be able to do things that nobody else can. Don't define the enemy. Just identify. Generate fear around that enemy. Then send out the message that the only people who can deal with this enemy are us.

This is totally irresponsible and, I would say, immoral on the part of the Conservative government.

As our leader said, the NDP believes that current laws, at this time, allow the police and intelligence officers to do a good job. Providing new legislative tools is not the only solution. We must first ensure that our officers have the financial resources they need to better enforce laws.

In the end, any legislative measure to fight security threats must satisfy the following principle: the legislative measure must protect both Canadians and their civil liberties. The protection of civil liberties and public safety are both fundamental Canadian values. What is needed is a more rigorous legislative approach to fight terrorism based on evidence and facts, an approach that provides for strict monitoring of security agencies.

There is a lot of concern that this bill has been rammed through with the typical time allocation, not giving enough time for experts and the public to consult with the government, as happened in 2001 after what happened in New York City, when it took time, and committee meetings and hearings were held. This is being rammed through under the guise of fear.

I would like to quote from a disturbing article I read this morning in The Globe and Mail by Campbell Clark, which said:

Two things are clear: First, the Conservatives think this bill will help them win an election, and second, they don't want people to understand it. That's a bad combination for a bill that will change things in secret, in ways we won't know for years.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would give it a different twist. We recognize that when we are fighting terrorism, one of the issues is resources. When we think about the RCMP, there has been a question as to the government's commitment to ensuring that it has the resources necessary to deliver on its current responsibilities. We have seen cutbacks and budgets that have been intentionally underspent.

My question for the member is related to the idea that we can bring forward legislation, but unless we provide the resources necessary to support the legislation, we will not really be that much further ahead. I wonder if the member might comment on the issue of resources, whether it is for the military, for fighting terrorism, or for whatever it may be.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one would think that when we had a new perceived or real threat, we would do our homework. One would think we would look at the existing legislation to see what was working and what was not. One would think we would look at the resources that should be there, and if they were not there, one would think a responsible government would add additional resources, using the current system we have. One would also think there would be good parliamentary oversight of a new piece of legislation we were trying to put in. None of this has happened.

The bill is being rammed through without any kind of oversight. It is being rammed through as a fear tactic. It is meant to kind of wield all this hype and fear of so-called jihadists and Muslims, all lumped into one, as a fear tactic, and, I am afraid, as an election platform for the next election.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the member for British Columbia Southern Interior, very much for his presentation. Since I will not have an opportunity to speak to the bill, because of closure, I want an opportunity to put one of the concerns I have in opposing the bill to my friend and ask for his comments.

Much has been made of the notion that the bill would have judicial oversight. I want to make it very clear that it would not have judicial oversight unless CSIS agents themselves decided that a step they were about to take would violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I put to my friend that we know that the Minister of Justice often disagrees with the Supreme Court of Canada about when the charter is being violated, yet we are to trust that somehow CSIS agents, who have at this point been empowered with the responsibility to interfere with and reduce a nebulous cloud of potential threats to Canadian security, would have the judicial wherewithal to figure out when something is about to violate the charter. Only then would they have to go to a judge for a warrant, and they would never have to go back to that judge to report on their activities.

This is not judicial oversight. This is not checks and balances. This is creating a scenario we have been warned about, as my friend pointed out, by numerous royal commissions. That is why we should keep intelligence services separate from police and keep them under close scrutiny.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her comments. It is good that she had a chance to make them.

I agree. I have been going through all sorts of papers over the last few weeks. One of the common themes is that there is not this oversight. One of the common themes is that the bill would grant power without having careful control. This is why the bill needs to be studied carefully, not in the span of two days or one and a half days. It needs to be looked at, and it needs to be amended. I certainly hope that even if the bill goes further, the government will look at the amendments we have proposed.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

We are going to be resuming debate, but I would draw to the House's attention the fact that we have used up the five hours allowed for speeches of 20 minutes and questions and comments of 10 minutes. We are now down to speeches that would only be for 10 minutes and questions and comments for five minutes.

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Nipissing—Timiskaming.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today in support of Bill C-51, the anti-terrorism act, 2015. This important and timely legislation, as many of our colleagues have said, fills important gaps in Canadian law relating to threats to our national security. This bill is comprehensive and would address, among other things, improved information sharing so that national security and law enforcement agencies can more effectively share information relating to threats, and improved security for air transportation. It would also strengthen the tools available to our intelligence and law enforcement communities.

The anti-terrorism act, 2015, would help prevent, detect, and respond to terrorist threats and activities. There are two important prevention measures in the bill that I would like to speak to today, namely, the terrorist propaganda seizure and take-down powers. Prevention can come in various forms, and this legislation has a number of measures that would support this pillar, including improved information sharing.

As we all know, the international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada and her allies. As we have seen in Copenhagen, Brussels, Sydney, Paris, and even right here at home in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and Ottawa, jihadi terrorists are attempting to destroy the values that make Canada the best country in the world to live, work, and raise a family. Clearly, Canada is not immune to homegrown terrorist threats. Therefore, the legislation before us today also includes, in support of the terrorism prevention pillar, measures to address the radicalization of these homegrown threats.

Bill C-51 proposes two provisions that would address the proliferation and availability of terrorist propaganda that can contribute to the radicalization of our youth and turn them toward terrorism. These new powers would complement the proposed indictable offence of promoting and advocating the commission of terrorism offences in general.

Specifically, the proposal is to create two warrants that would allow for the seizure of terrorist propaganda. “Terrorist propaganda” would be defined to mean any writing, sign, visible representation, or audio recording that advocates or promotes the commission of terrorism offences in general—other than the proposed new offence of advocating terrorism offences, which I just mentioned—or counsels the commission of a terrorism offence. The effect of this change would be to authorize courts to order the seizure and forfeiture of terrorist propaganda material, whether in a tangible form, such as a poster, or in electronic form, such as a website.

Currently there exists a shocking gap. The Criminal Code does not presently authorize the confiscation of terrorist propaganda produced for sale or distribution in Canada, or that is stored on or made available by a Canadian server. The first new warrant would be similar to the provision in the Criminal Code governing the seizure and forfeiture of hate propaganda in a hard-copy format, such as in books or magazines.

Terrorist use of websites and social media to recruit and radicalize youth to violence is a growing concern. Currently, police can only ask that a website host voluntarily remove the material, which would usually only occur after a conviction. However, when the person who posted the material cannot be found because they are abroad or have posted it anonymously, the removal of such offensive material is very difficult, and it may be available to the public for some time thereafter.

The anti-terrorism act, 2015, proposes to authorize a court to order the removal of terrorist propaganda from Canadian Internet services, even when the person who posted it cannot be found. This proposed power is similar to ones that already exist for other materials that Parliament has deemed harmful, such as hate propaganda, child pornography, voyeuristic material, and most recently with the passage of Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act, intimate images.

Some of these provisions have been in the Criminal Code since 2002 and help facilitate the removal of such harmful content from Canadian Internet services, which in turn limits Canadian exposure to such harmful content.

Courts must have the power to order the removal of such terrorist propaganda when posted online. That is exactly what this new take-down provision is designed to accomplish. Under this new provision, judges may order both the person who posted the terrorist propaganda and the Internet service provider to remove the material that is terrorist propaganda. It is focused only on the removal of the material that is available to the public, so that even in the absence of a prosecution, police will still be able to remove this material from Canadian servers.

As I mentioned earlier, these types of warrants are not new to the Criminal Code. They are also not new to the international community. For example, the United Kingdom has had similar powers in place since 2006, and Australia provides for the takedown of restricted online material, such as terrorist propaganda, through its Broadcasting Services Act.

As an additional complementary amendment to these new tools, Bill C-51 also proposes changing the customs tariff to include the new concept of terrorist propaganda. This change would ensure that Canada Border Services Agency officers would be authorized to inspect and seize terrorist propaganda material.

These new tools are not only complementary to the proposed new offence of advocating and promoting the commission of terrorism offences in general, but they are also consistent with Parliament's past approach relating to content that we have deemed harmful to Canadian society.

As I have said, these tools are designed to help address the radicalization of Canadian youth toward violence by assisting in the removal of terrorist propaganda material. I would like to quote Avi Benlolo, the president and CEO of the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre, who says:

It is especially significant that this new legislation will enable the removal of websites promoting jihad and related materials on the internet. Jewish communities are a favourite target of jihadis, and the provisions of this bill will do a great deal to help ensure the safety and security of all Canadians as we continue to fight this threat to western democracies.

I hope that all members of the House heed these words and support these proposals in Bill C-51 as a positive step toward making Canada and the world a safer place.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech on this bill, but I remain very puzzled by the member's comments.

The Minister of National Defence has been quoted as saying that none of the new powers in Bill C-51 accord new powers to CSIS, that the new powers are only accorded to the courts.

I am wondering if the hon. member can elaborate for us. Would the member agree with the minister that in all cases where CSIS officials take down material that is is explained publicly or posted on a website, or intervenes directly in an activity where they fear that there are “terrorism activities” taking place, those are not new powers for CSIS? Does the member agree with the Minister of National Defence, or is he taking another position that the bill in fact accords specific new powers to CSIS?

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, I am puzzled why the NDP is against safety and security for Canadians.

This is not hard. These measures will make Canada safer. Back in 2001, when we had the first terrorist incident, similar measures to these were passed.

We simply think that third-party, non-independent, expert oversight of our national security agencies is the model. Furthermore, key powers of the new legislation will be subject to judicial review and judicial authorization.

Let us get on with protecting Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party has been fairly clear on this legislation, in the sense that we support it and will be voting in favour of it in principle, primarily because it is a step forward.

We have pointed out a concern that many Canadians share, that the government needs to do more to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians. We take this seriously. When addressing the House on the legislation, the leader of the Liberal Party put forward a model of parliamentary oversight.

Surely to goodness, the member recognizes that other countries like England and the United States already have parliamentary oversight in some form to deal with these issues. Given that other countries have oversight, and because there is such a great need for Canada to do more on the oversight issue, why would the government not accept a Liberal Party amendment that would ensure parliamentary oversight? Everyone wants parliamentary oversight. Why will the government not allow Canada to have parliamentary oversight?

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my earlier remarks, I go back to 2001 and the first terrorist attack. The member might recall that it was a Liberal government that passed the Canadian Anti-terrorism Act in response to the attacks in the United States on September 11. The expanded powers at that time were highly controversial, due to their widely perceived incompatibility with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in particular the act's provision allowing for secret trials, lengthy detention, and expensive security and surveillance powers. The Liberal government passed that act and the sky did not fall.

This legislation is needed right now, 13 years later. The sky will not fall. We need protection. We need safety and security for Canadians and we need it right now.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, although the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness claims that no wrongdoing will result from the application of Bill C-51, unfortunately Canadian history is replete with examples of abuse, wrongdoing and lack of transparency. This leads the official opposition to effectively exercise its full role and remind members of past experiences.

First, I would like to speak of the events of October 1970, when terrorist acts were committed in Quebec. The government imposed martial law and expanded the powers of the RCMP. Probably ill-informed of the real risk of the terrorist threat in Quebec, RCMP officers performed illegal acts in carrying out their duties. They infiltrated groups, stole documents, opened mail, and carried out searches without warrants and widespread wiretaps without making a distinction between dissidence and subversion.

Over the years, the criteria for determining the existence of a security threat to a country have been expanded to include the personal characteristics of the suspects, groups and associations, which are not terrorists. For example, the separatist activities of individuals or political groups like the Parti Québécois were closely monitored by the RCMP. At the time, Quebec separatist activities were perceived as potential security threats, according to the report of the Commission of Inquiry Concerning Certain Activities of the RCMP, presented in August 1981.

Robert Samson, an RCMP officer, revealed that he had broken into the offices of the Agence de presse libre du Québec, made up of young left-wing idealists, as pointed out in the book Enquêtes sur les services secrets. These declarations led to the creation of the Keable provincial commission of inquiry in 1977, which was responsible for looking into the RCMP's illegal activities in Quebec.

Another commission was created at the federal level, chaired by Justice McDonald. Its report revealed how RCMP informants had infiltrated the upper levels. In 1978, the Ligue des droits et libertés dealt a blow with its Opération liberté, or operation freedom. In the name of national security, it warned the public about the illegal activities of the RCMP, the Sûreté du Québec and the Montreal Urban Community Police Department.

The Ligue des droits et libertés presented a report to the McDonald Commission, and in response to its recommendations, the RCMP lost its authority over national security intelligence services, and a civilian agency was created to take over those responsibilities, giving rise to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

This look at the past was necessary so that we can understand what is happening now. Like the member for Outremont, the leader of the official opposition, who has 35 years in politics, I am presenting my arguments against this anti-terrorism act, 2015, in a clear and fair manner. As I just showed, there were cases of abuse in the past. At the time, fear was used to justify illegal actions against individuals who were not terrorists but dissidents who held a different political opinion.

The government is repeating the errors of the past. It is stirring up people's fears about terrorist attacks to justify spying on them and violating their rights. This is not so much about implementing new laws as it is about ensuring that there are enough resources on the ground to be able to intervene.

Recently, there were six terrorism-related arrests. Clearly, the police can take action, but they need resources.

I would like to take the time to share a simple analogy that will help people understand what is going on here. Imagine a nurse working the emergency room alone. Obviously she will not be able to take care of all of the patients because there are too many. What does the nurse do? She focuses on the most serious cases and the highest-risk patients. She knows that in the meantime, other patients are not doing well, but she does not have the time to deal with them. She focuses on the most urgent cases and tries to keep an eye on the others. Unfortunately, she will miss some cases. Maybe while dealing with the most serious cases, she will not notice that another patient's condition is deteriorating.

When incidents like these happen, we put additional resources in place while waiting to review what happened. We review what happened, put new policies and rules in place, decide that there should be more oversight and so on. When we think we have identified the problem, we take away the resources that were added while the matter was under review.

The poor nurse is still doing the job all by herself. She may know that she has to check on all of the patients, but she does not have time to do it. She therefore deals with the most urgent cases. She would be happy if fewer sick people came to the hospital where she works and if fewer people had heart attacks. However, no one is doing anything about prevention, so just as many sick people are coming to the hospital and the nurse is still doing the job alone.

In this case, it is not the policies or regulations that are causing problems. Resources must be put in place to correct the situation. When it comes to radicalization and terrorism, which is what we are dealing with right now, the problem is not policies. We know that we can make arrests. The problem is resource-related. We need to put human resources in place to ensure that people do not slip through the cracks and that we are not just dealing with the most serious cases because we have too much on our plate and we do not have time to manage everything that needs to be managed. We need to put resources in place to prevent young people from becoming radicalized and going to fight abroad. To do that, we need people on the ground. We also need social workers who can work with the communities concerned to prevent this sort of thing from happening.

I believe that I clearly demonstrated that when we are talking about problems like this, it is not always a matter of introducing new laws; it is a matter of resources, intervention and a presence on the ground. Regardless of the number of laws we create, we will never solve the problem if the resources are not available. That is why it is important to put those resources in place.

Recently we learned that the government is not even spending all of its budget envelopes. We learned that the RCMP and National Defence have returned money to the public purse because they did not use it all. Those departments have already experienced budget cuts and yet they are not even using their whole budgets and are returning the surplus to the public purse. Could those departments not at least use all of the money at their disposal? That would be a good start.

We must not sacrifice our fundamental freedoms because of the fear of terrorism. Following the October 22 attacks, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition stood up here and said that they would not give in to fear. I was proud that they said that. However, when we pass legislation that violates our individual freedoms, I honestly believe that we are giving in to fear. The police are able to intervene. What is needed is resources. We must not violate people's rights. We must not use bills that, in a roundabout way, allow attacks on political dissidents and non-violent activist groups under the pretext of being able to intervene sooner. The government is missing the boat. There is no direct link between this bill and the kinds of acts we want to prevent.

Under the guise of wanting to protect Canada from potential terrorist acts, the bill includes many people who should not be subject to such measures. By making the bill much too broad, the government has missed the boat entirely.

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

Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting that yesterday all the newscasts reported that al Shabaab members had come out and threatened areas of our great country of Canada where a great deal of innocent people gather every day. They hate the freedoms we have in our great country every day.

I know my colleague wants to sit down with those people and talk to them about not doing that. These threats are coming through on the Internet and social media from other parts of the world.

The member talked about the need to put resources on the ground. In fact, we have increased our resources for security. We may have stopped some from the top, but we have increased the numbers. The unfortunate part is that NDP members talk about that, but they never stand and support giving them any money or adding people to our security forces.

My question is about our freedoms and at the same time protecting our security. Does the member see any way that they can run in parallel?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is entirely possible to protect people under threat, such as those in Edmonton, where a shopping centre has been targeted, not by changing existing laws but by truly increasing resources.

People in Muslim communities, for example, regularly talk to their imams to find out who currently holds extremist views. We must be able to target people who pose a risk. We will never have enough resources to spy on everyone all the time.

We have to be able to target people who are particularly at risk and that means having a presence in the community. We should not be adding new laws; we should be adding people on the ground who know exactly who poses a risk.

We will never be able to monitor everyone at the same time. It can easily take 12 police officers to keep an individual under surveillance around the clock. There will never be enough police officers in Edmonton to keep tabs on 1,000 people all at once.

That is why we need to know exactly who poses a risk. To do that we have to be in the community.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the Liberal Party has pointed out, some aspects of the legislation are beneficial for the security of Canadians. The bill would build upon the powers of preventive arrest. It would make better use of no-fly lists. It would allow for a more coordinated information approach with different departments and agencies.

However, we have also expressed great concern with regard to other issues, one of which I focused on this morning, which is the need for additional oversight. It is a major issue for the Liberal Party. We need to have parliamentary oversight, which is something other countries in the world already have.

Would the member provide some comment on the need for parliamentary oversight and whether she sees any value or positive things within the legislation?

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course we must provide parliamentary oversight. I already raised this issue with the Standing Committee on National Defence when I was a member of that committee.

However, the Liberals support this bill and are saying that they will propose amendments to correct its major flaws, even though they know full well that the government will reject all their amendments without even reading them. Since the beginning of this Parliament, the government has accepted roughly six opposition amendments to its bills. I wish the Liberals luck in getting their amendments adopted.

It is extremely hypocritical of the Liberal Party to support the bill despite its major flaws and even though the government rejects all its amendments. I do not know whether the Liberal Party is doing so because it did more than just spy on people when it was in office, especially during the October crisis and the referendum period in Quebec. Nonetheless, this is very hypocritical of the Liberals and I am sorry that they are not taking a stand on this bill.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my voice to the debate on Bill C-51, the anti-terrorism act, 2015.

The international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada. We have tabled this important legislation to stop terrorists dead in their tracks before they can harm law-abiding Canadians. The legislation before us contains a number of provisions that work toward a common goal, which is to protect Canada and Canadians. It is a broad approach to a global program that has reached our doorsteps.

I will focus my remarks today on important amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, commonly known as IRPA, and specifically to Division 9 of the act.

As members of the House know, IRPA sets out the legal framework for Canada's immigration and refugee programs. Our immigration programs serve a number of purposes, including enriching the social and cultural fabric of Canada, reuniting families, and strengthening our economy.

However, the immigration program also plays a fundamental role in maintaining the integrity of our borders and safeguarding our national security. In this respect, the government must sometimes turn to Division 9 of IRPA, which contains mechanisms that allow the government to use and protect classified information when deciding whether a non-citizen can enter or remain in Canada.

Indeed, Division 9 mechanisms and their predecessors have been used for more than three decades. These include security certificates before the Federal Court and applications for non-disclosure before the Immigration and Refugee Board and the Federal Court.

Certificates commonly known as “security certificates” are perhaps the most well-known proceeding under Division 9. They are used in exceptional circumstances when classified information is required to establish that a non-citizen is inadmissible to Canada for serious grounds of security, human or international rights violations, or serious or organized criminality.

The information involved in these cases, which we commonly refer to as “classified information”, cannot be disclosed publicly because doing so would injure national security or endanger the safety of a person. The certificate is signed by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. It is then referred to the Federal Court. If the Federal Court determines the certificate is reasonable, it becomes a removal order that is in force.

The system includes strong safeguards. There is broad judicial discretion to ensure the overall fairness of the proceedings. Furthermore, since 2008, special advocates who are non-governmental lawyers with the required security clearance to handle classified information protect the interests of non-citizens during the closed portions of the proceedings.

In 2014 the Supreme Court of Canada found that the security certificate regime provides for a fair and constitutional process. Today we see that the recent phenomenon of individuals travelling abroad to engage in terrorist-related activities reinforces the need for Division 9 proceedings. In some of these cases, Division 9 may be the only mechanism available to pursue immigration proceedings against non-citizens so that they are unable to obtain or retain an immigration status, such as a permanent residency, and pursue their removal from Canada.

Given the nature of the global threat environment, it is critical that the government be able to rely on effective and fair mechanisms to protect classified information in immigration proceedings before the courts and the Immigration and Refugee Board. Therefore, we believe that it is important to make limited and targeted changes to Division 9.

Recent Division 9 cases have shown that there are times when classified information has become part of a case, even when it was irrelevant, repetitive, or not used by the government to prove its allegations. It also did not allow the persons subject to the proceedings to be reasonably informed of the case against them. The lack of clarity in Division 9 with respect to what information needs to form part of a case has increased the length of time needed to complete these proceedings. This is inconsistent with the legislative obligation to ensure expediency in these cases.

Classified information must always be handled according to specific procedures distinct from those used to handle unclassified information. These procedures are meant to protect the classified information and reduce the risk of its being compromised. The current lack of clarity in Division 9 has also resulted in classified information becoming part of the court proceedings even though it was not used or needed. This is inconsistent with the need to reduce the risk of information being compromised.

Furthermore, as it stands now, an appeal or judicial review of an order to publicly disclose classified information can only take place at the end of the proceedings. By the time this appeal could take place, it would be too late, as the information could have already been disclosed publicly. This disclosed information then could result in injuring national security or endangering people.

To avoid releasing information, the government may elect to withdraw from the proceedings the classified information that has been ordered to be publicly disclosed, which could potentially weaken the case. The government could also withdraw the allegations against the person, but this is inconsistent with the need to ensure that we pursue all avenues to deny entry and status to individuals who are inadmissible to Canada, especially for serious reasons such as treason.

That brings me to the amendments found within Bill C-51, which are designed to address these challenges.

First, we intend to amend Division 9 to clarify what classified information forms part of a security certificate before the federal courts in cases involving classified information before the Immigration and Refugee Board.

This would include information that is relevant to the case, that forms the basis of the case—in other words, information upon which the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration rely—and that allows the person to be reasonably informed of the case against them.

Relevant information that is not relied upon would also be provided to specific advocates, but this information would not automatically be included as evidence in the case. To ensure fairness, special advocates would have discretion to review this information and determine if some of it should also be included as evidence.

This would codify a practice that has evolved over time in Division 9 cases since the Supreme Court's decision on security certificates in 2008. It would help provide more certainty as to how these cases are being conducted, thus reducing the amount of time needed for these cases and making the process more expedient and fair for the person.

The regime would also be amended to allow the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to ask a judge to be exempted from providing some relevant classified information to the special advocates that is now relied on and which does not reasonably inform the person of the ministers' case.

To be clear, a judge would make this decision and would have broad discretion to communicate with special advocates as required. Special advocates could also make submissions to the court as to whether the exemption should be granted. The judge would only grant the exemption if he or she were satisfied that the information did not enable the person to be reasonably informed of the ministers' case.

The final measure we are taking is to allow the government to appeal or to seek judicial review of orders to publicly disclose information that it considers injurious to national security or the safety of any person during Division 9 proceedings rather than at the end of those proceedings. This will provide another opportunity to argue before the court that this information should not be made public.

The changes we are making to protect Canadians are important. I encourage all members of the House to support Bill C-51.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we need to reiterate that Canadians do not have to sacrifice security over their rights. It has to be both. I am wondering if the member is aware that there is already legislation in place under the Criminal Code, in section 46, that takes on all of the concerns the Conservatives are indicating are their reasons for bringing the bill forward.

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness says Canada will not be intimidated. Why is it, then, that today we are debating a bill that actually says, yes, we are being intimidated? I think that is atrocious.

The government says it is investing all of this money. All the Conservatives are talking about is how much they have invested. They are not talking about how much they spent, because if we look at how much they spent, we see that it certainly is not the appropriate amount of money that they have actually invested.

On that note, it is about security and about the proper tools. Those tools are currently in place and can be used. Could the member tell me how many times since 2001 the government has resorted to the recognizance with condition provisions that allow police to make preventive arrests?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her question, but obviously it has been vetted by her party, which unfortunately opposes protecting Canada and Canadians.

It is currently not a criminal offence to advocate or promote terrorism. The New Democrats want that to stay. The ability to arrest someone who is in general terms advocating and promoting the activity of terrorism does not exist. The New Democrats want that to stay.

The threshold for arrest in the Criminal Code is specific to someone who knowingly instructs, directly or indirectly, any person to carry out terrorist activities. The anti-terrorism act, 2015, would make it an offence to advocate or promote terrorism in broader terms:

Every person who, by communicating statements, knowingly advocates or promotes the commission of terrorism offences in general—other than an offence under this section—while knowing that any of those offences will be committed or being reckless as to whether any of those offences may be committed, as a result of such communication, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.

We are trying to protect Canada and Canadians. We are at war with terrorism and need to act accordingly. To do nothing, as the New Democrats suggest, is irresponsible. It is not what Canadians want nor what Canada needs.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the security of Canadians and the protection of their rights and freedoms is important to the Liberal Party. It is something that we have been advocating for since the government brought forward this legislation. One of the ways in which the government can best address the concerns of the Liberal Party and what Canadians as a whole expect of the government is to provide clear oversight.

We are calling on the government to recognize the importance of parliamentary oversight. This is something that the U.S.A., England, and Australia have already done. The question for the member is this. Why not Canada? Why not have parliamentary oversight here in Canada to ensure the rights and freedoms of all Canadians?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do acknowledge that the Liberal member is consistent in believing that national security will work out, that everything will work out, that the economy will manage itself and everyone will live in harmony and love. However, that is not reality.

War has been declared against Canada and we are taking appropriate action. Creating a carbon tax and hiring more bureaucracy to manage this would be irresponsible. It would not protect Canadians. What we would do as a result of this this legislation, Bill C-51, needs to be supported by every member of the House.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, we heard the opposition members talking about resources. In my intervention, I mentioned that our government has already increased the resources available for national security by one-third. Of course, the New Democrats voted against that increase.

Would the member comment on this? It is not only about resources but about the fact that this legislation would also allow for tools that would enable us to do more with the resources we have so that we would not be asking our law enforcement agencies and security intelligence services to deal with this threat with one hand tied behind their backs.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right. I want to thank him for serving Canada over the years, not only as a police officer formerly but also here as a member of Parliament.

We have increased the resources available, but every time the New Democrats and the Liberals have opposed this. We want to have a strong and safe Canada, and Bill C-51 would give our police and security forces and CSIS the tools they need.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-51, An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join in this critical debate on Bill C-51 as we, like parliamentarians around the world, continue to seek ways of safeguarding our country's security in the face of terrorism, while securing also our rights and freedoms, as we have been grappling with for so many years.

Indeed, after the attacks of September 11, 2001, it was said then that the whole world had changed. Anti-terrorism law and policy became principle and priority not only for our government but for governments everywhere. It was, in fact, mandated by the UN Security Council Resolution 1377, adopted in the months following 9/11, which called upon states to unequivocally condemn “all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, in all their forms and manifestations, wherever and by whomever committed”.

I must state, parenthetically for reasons of time but not unimportantly, that the notion of a parliamentary debate when time allocation has been imposed on this comprehensive and crucial legislation is, to put it mildly, a misnomer.

First, Bill C-51 is not simply one act. It is omnibus anti-terrorist legislation composed of five different acts. It is not just one bill but five bills bundled together into one omnibus legislation of compelling character. Each bill, whether it deals with cross-government information sharing and coordination and enhanced powers for that purpose; or the securing of air travel, or Criminal Code amendments, including lowering thresholds for terrorism-related peace bonds; or expanded powers of detention; or a new offence of knowingly advocating or promoting terrorism or being reckless in that advocacy; or legislation to expand the powers of CSIS, what is referred as “threat disruption activities”; all impact on national security agencies and on those national security powers. There is also, which has almost not been discussed at all, amending the security certificate procedural regime for government appeals of court ordered disclosures.

Underpinning all of this, and tucked away in the information sharing act and provisions, but only there, is an effective reframing of a terrorist threat as a threat to national security, a selective redoing not only of our anti-terrorism law but our national security law, and where a terrorist threat is conflated with a national security threat, which can include also threats to economic and fiscal stability or a threat to the infrastructure and the like. In other words, it is a reframing that is being carried out without the necessary debate on this crucial legislation.

Admittedly, over a decade after 9/11, the world may well have changed again, and we must continue to ensure that the enhanced powers are to be found in our law and vested in our national security agency for purposes of protecting Canadians from terrorist threats with the tools needed to counter those threats. However, what has not changed are the fundamental principles that must underpin our approach to combatting terrorism.

I outlined those principles when I appeared both before the House and Senate justice and public safety committees respectively as minister of justice a decade ago, and I will recall them now in the context of this present parliamentary debate on a new bill, Bill C-51, but reflecting and representing a long-standing global challenge.

Let me summarize the foundational principles.

The first fundamental principle is that there is no inherent contradiction between the protection of our security and the protection of human rights. As I wrote in the wake of October's assault on our parliamentary precinct and of the murders of Corporal Nathan Cirillo and Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, while we often hear about the need to strike a balance between protecting Canadians from attack and protecting individual freedoms, we must remember that these are not mutually exclusive objectives or opposite ends of the spectrum, but rather an appropriate and effective strategy that must view security and rights, not as concepts in conflict, but as values that are inextricably linked.

In other words, terrorism constitutes an assault on the security of our democracy and an assault on our fundamental rights to life, liberty, and security of the person. In this sense, therefore, anti-terrorism law and policy are intended to protect the security of a democracy like Canada and to protect our fundamental rights to life, liberty, and security of the person.

However, the reverse is also true and must be read together as part of this foundational principle, namely, that anti-terrorism law and policy must always adhere to the rule of law and must always comport to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Torture must, everywhere and always, be prohibited. Minorities must never be singled out for differential or discriminatory treatment. Also, as we emphasized 10 years ago when tabling legislation to that effect and as I emphasize again, such anti-terrorism law and policy must also be subject to a comprehensive oversight review and accountability mechanisms.

This leads me to the next principle, which might be called the “contextual principle”. By this, I refer to the approach taken by the Supreme Court, according to which charter rights and any limits imposed on them must be analyzed not in the abstract but in the factual context that gives rise to them. As such, the debate we are having today must be anchored in the reality of the increasingly lethal, if not barbaric, and international nature of terrorism; the proliferation of transnational terrorist entities that invoke Islam at the same time as they subvert it for their purpose; the increasing potential for cyberterrorism; the sophistication of transnational communications, transportation, and financial networks, including the explosive use of social media, which ISIS alone is said to be using 100,000 times a day; the increasing radicalization of those exposed, for example, to these social media, including our Canadian youth; and the potential for what in our recent experiences have been characterized as “lone-wolf terrorists”.

This brings me to the third principle. The third principle is that the threat posed by terrorism, which is increasingly transnational in character, must be part of a global response. Indeed, previous Canadian anti-terrorist measures have implemented international conventions and undertakings mandated by the UN Security Council, which I referred to earlier, and we must continue, therefore, not only to mobilize our domestic legal arsenal against terrorism but also to participate in strengthening international mechanisms to confront this international threat.

Let there be no mistake about it: when we deal with such terrorists, we are dealing with Nuremberg crimes and Nuremberg criminals, with hostis humani generis, with enemies of humankind. Our domestic criminal-law, due-process model standing alone is insufficient. It must be joined with the overall international legal arsenal, and much of our anti-terrorism law and policies in fact must be anchored in the 14 anti-terrorism international treaties for that purpose.

The fourth principle flows from the third one. It is that nonetheless there still is a need for due-process safeguards in the application and implementation of our domestic criminal law. This remains of vital importance and must be included in any foundational underpinnings for this and other anti-terrorism legislation.

The fifth principle is that of proportionality. As the Supreme Court has ruled, there must be a proportionality between the effects of the measures for limiting charter or other rights under this legislation and the objective that has been identified as sufficient importance.

There can be no doubt that the threat of transnational terrorism comports with the first requirement of a proportionality test, namely, that there be a substantial and compelling objective for the limitation of charter and other rights. However, we must still ensure that the measures we enact respect this principle in other ways: they must be tailored specifically to their objective and not be over-broad or vague; they must intrude as little as possible upon our charter rights and other rights, and not undercut any of them; and their impact on civil liberties must not outweigh their remedial character.

This leads me to the sixth principle. We must consider and learn from anti-terrorism measures proposed and enacted in other jurisdictions similar to our own, and indeed from our own previous experiences in this regard. All free and democratic societies are grappling with the same issues we are grappling with today, and their efforts to remain both secure and free must be considered as part of our deliberations.

The seventh principle is the need for counterterrorism measures to focus on prevention. Admittedly, we must seek to disable and dismantle terrorist networks and disrupt terrorist plots before they result in injury and death, and that accounts for the enhanced approach to giving increased power to CSIS. However, it also means that those powers that are invested in CSIS must obey principles of proportionality. It also means intervening to prevent or undo radicalization and supporting local and community initiatives in this regard.

To conclude, we must emphasize the importance of oversight, of an accountability mechanism, and of a parliamentary review mechanism, all of which are missing in the present legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are fundamentally opposed to taking away passports from those who would travel overseas and engage in terrorist activities. In fact, the leader of the Liberal Party went as far as saying it was against Canadian values.

However, with respect to the passenger protect program, we are actually expanding the legislation so that we could issue a no-board order for someone who is suspected of travelling overseas to engage in terrorist activities. As well, there would be certain provisions with regard to terrorism, such as peace bonds. Also, judges could impose conditions, such as surrender of a passport.

My question for the member of the Liberal Party is this: does he agree with his leader that it is against Canadian values, or has he somehow come to the realization that these provisions in the bill are needed and the Liberal Party has decided to support it, or is this a section of the bill that the Liberal Party is actually against?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I set forth some foundational principles that would apply to this specific issue as well as others. When I said that we need to invest certain powers, I was referring in particular to those that relate to parts of part 3 and to part 4 of the bill. The hon. member has referred to part 2.

This brings me exactly to the point I was saying. The bill has five major pieces of legislation bundled together in omnibus anti-terrorism legislation. I would be delighted if the hon. member, since we cannot do it here in debate, would allow us in committee to address the whole issue of securing air travel, which she mentioned in particular, as well as each of the other facets of this omnibus anti-terrorism legislation, which time does not permit us to address here. I suspect, if precedent be our guide, that we will not be able to do so in committee either.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has indicated a lot of areas where there should be some oversight. On this side of the House, we believe it is extremely important to have oversight when it comes to CSIS and the RCMP. We need to have that oversight.

However, the Liberal Party is willing to pass the legislation even though that oversight is not there. That is quite problematic. It is willing to do it afterward, either during a federal election by campaigning on it or doing it only later on, when they think they are going to form the government. Well, it is no surprise that we cannot predict the future. We need to ensure that the safety of Canadians is in place, but we also have to make sure that their rights are also protected.

François Lavigne was a CSIS officer. He used to be with the RCMP as well. He spent years tracking dangerous radicals without the powers the government wants to give to CSIS. There are currently powers in place. There are mechanisms, practices, and laws necessary for dealing with terrorists in section 46 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Therefore, I wonder if my colleague could explain why this former CSIS worker is saying we should not be going down this route but Liberals are saying that we should go down this route.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the primary thrust of the hon. member's remarks had to do with the question of oversight mechanisms and the issue of our support for legislation which may not, at the end day, have such an oversight mechanism.

The point is that we are hoping that there will be not only oversight mechanisms but review and accountability mechanisms as well. That is why we are proposing them.

I was one of a number of Canadians who signed on to a statement that was published on February 19 in The Globe and Mail. This statement calls for just such an integrated series of oversight, review, and accountability mechanisms, with Parliament at its core. I would hope that the government, which looks to public opinion and finds that some 80% of Canadians are in support of this bill, will also look to the fact that two-thirds of Canadians also want a robust and integrated oversight mechanism system that has a parliamentary review mechanism and parliamentary oversight at its core as part of overall accountability.

This is something that was called for in the Arar commission, which we as a Liberal government set up. We tabled legislation in 2005 calling for such an oversight mechanism. All parliamentarians agreed to it. We lost the election, and for the last 10 years, the Conservative government has done nothing about implementing that mechanism. I hope the Conservatives will do it now.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to discuss Bill C-51, anti-terrorism act, 2015.

This is important legislation that was developed with much consultation. In the wake of the horrific terrorist attacks this past October, our Conservative government, led by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Public Safety, and the Minister of Justice, consulted with Canadians from coast to coast while they were developing the legislation before us today.

We saw the results of those consultations when statistics come out last week: four out of every five Canadians fully support this legislation. That is because they know that the international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada. Canadians are being targeted by jihadi terrorists simply because they hate our society and the values it represents.

That is why our government has put forward these measures that protect Canadians against the 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, and is instead joining our allies and supporting the international coalition in the fight against ISIL. In line with measures taken by our allies, these new measures will specifically ensure that our law enforcement and national securities agencies of Canada counter those who would advocate terrorism, prevent terrorist travel and the efforts of those who seek to use Canada as a recruiting ground, and disrupt planned attacks on Canadian soil.

I reject the argument that every time we talk about security our freedoms are threatened. Canadians understand that their freedom and security go hand in hand. Canadians expect us to protect both, and there are protections in this legislation to do exactly that.

It is currently not a criminal offence to advocate or promote terrorism. The ability to arrest someone who in general terms is advocating or promoting the activity of terrorism does not exist. The threshold for arrest under the Criminal Code is specific to someone who knowingly instructs, directly or indirectly, any persons to carry out terrorist activity.

The anti-terrorism act, 2015, makes it an offence to advocate or promote terrorism in broader terms, a measure that is supported by 90% of Canadians, according to a survey done by the Angus Reid Institute. The fundamental fact is that our police and national security agencies are working to protect our rights and our freedoms, and it is jihadi terrorists who endanger our security and would take away our freedoms.

CSIS currently does not have the legal mandate to take action to disrupt threats to Canada in order to keep Canadians safe. When the CSIS Act was originally developed, Soviet espionage was the greatest threat to our national security. Today, violent jihadists are the greatest threats to Canada and Canadians, and the threat continues to evolve. It is imperative that we provide our national security agencies with the tools they require to face this evolving global threat.

Let us look at a case study. A terrorist entity puts up a terrorist-promoting propaganda video on YouTube, which concludes with the words “Attack Canada” on the screen. No description of the kind of attacks to be carried out is given. Under the current law, counselling the commission of a terrorism offence is criminal, whether the attack is carried out or not. However, the counselling must relate to committing a specific terrorist offence, for example, counselling someone to kill someone for a political, religious, or ideological purpose.

In the case study, there is insufficient detail to allow one to conclude that the person was counselling to do a specific terrorism offence in the Criminal Code to kill someone, as opposed to disrupting an essential service. Under the new anti-terrorism act, posting such a video, with its call to carry out attacks in Canada in general, which is a form of active encouragement, would now be caught by the criminal law.

With respect to oversight, I think third-party, non-partisan, independent expert oversight of our national security agencies is a better model than political intervention in the process. Furthermore, the key powers of the new legislation are subject to judicial review and authorization. In fact, any activity that infringes on a person's privacy or charter rights would require a warrant, such as entering a person's home to remove their passport, or tampering with a possible chemical weapon to render it harmless.

I would like to acknowledge the concerns raised by the Liberals and the NDP regarding resources for national security agencies.

Our Conservative government has already increased the resources available to our national security agencies by one third. The Liberals and the NDP voted against these increases each step of the way. Seven times our Conservative government brought forward proposals for more funds for these agencies, and seven times the NDP and the Liberals voted against these measures.

Despite the Liberals' and the NDP's votes against these increases, our government will continue to ensure that our national security agencies have the resources they need to keep Canadians safe.

I mentioned earlier in my comments that Canadians had expressed strong support for the legislation. I would like to take this time to discuss what some prominent Canadians think about the legislation before us today.

CSIS director, Michel Coulombe, said:

Last fall, two terrorist attacks took place in Canada, the first one in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and the second in downtown Ottawa. Since then, the threat has accelerated as extremist groups call for additional attacks on Canada.

[...] CSIS welcomes the introduction of legislation to better enable the government to safeguard the nation's security interests. The new legislation will help CSIS protect Canadian lives from a terrorist threat unprecedented in our country's history.

What is more, Bob Paulson, the Commissioner of the RCMP said, “The recent terrorist attacks on Canada and against our allies have shown us that the threat can materialize rapidly and that we cannot be complacent when it comes to terrorism. The proposed legislation would provide the RCMP with new tools to carry out its national security criminal investigations and, ultimately, to keep Canadians safe”.

Members opposite may say it is a certainty that the national security agencies whose powers would be enhanced would be supportive. They may say that they are interested in a view from the academics.

Queen's University professor, Christian Leuprecht, said:

There's a balance to be struck here between civil liberties and between protecting individual, public, and community safety [...] I think the government is trying very hard to strike a fine line and find a middle ground....

The opposition may say that none of that which I have cited speaks to oversight.

To that, I would answer with comments from Ron Atkey, the first chairman of the Security Intelligence Review Committee. He said:

Some of the instant critics [...] have missed the mark in decrying lack of oversight. [...]

But regarding new powers of terrorism disruption to be given to CSIS, oversight is alive and well.

I would also like to cite S.A. McCartan, a criminal prosecutor, in Ontario. He said:

Canada is alone amongst Western countries in not allowing its spy agencies any powers whatsoever to prevent terror. It is alone in having a spy agency still operating 30 years in the past. It's time to fix that.

Last, I would like to quote two esteemed members of Canada's Jewish community.

David Cape, chair of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, said:

We welcome this legislation which enhances the capacity of authorities to address a growing threat in our society. We are supportive of the Government of Canada's efforts to respond to the terrorist threat in as comprehensive and forceful a way as possible.

Avi Benlolo, of the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, said:

It is especially significant that this new legislation will enable the removal of websites promoting jihad and related materials on the Internet. Jewish communities are a favourite target of jihadis, and the provisions of this bill will do a great deal to help ensure the safety and security of all Canadians as we continue to fight this threat to western democracies [...]

As I said earlier, 82% of Canadians support the legislation.

I am proud to be part of a government that is standing up for the wishes of Canadians, as well as delivering important measures to keep them safe.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his remarks. I am sure that he is acting in good faith, but the problem is that history has proven him wrong.

We are experiencing a new version of October 1970. In October 1970, the government panicked as it scrambled to respond to a terrorist threat, much like the current government is doing now. Parliament voted on a law and the government acted on it. Over 300 people were imprisoned, and it was not until much later that we realized that none of those individuals had any ties to the Front de libération du Québec.

We need only look at the debates I have here in my hand. Jean Marchand said that there were 5,000 FLQ members in Quebec. David Lewis responded that if we wanted to catch them, we had to begin by making sure that our RCMP officers spoke French.

The question is quite simple. Is it not better to have police officers than useless laws that put innocent people in prison?

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising that New Democrats bring forward fearmongering tactics. They talk about an isolated incident that occurred. New Democrats automatically assume that CSIS and the RCMP would be the body to commit abuse and human rights abuses. I think that is an unfair assumption. This is simply speculation, and if, for some reason, serious human rights abuses occur, then not only is SIRC in place as an oversight body, but so too are the courts.

This is a judicial oversight at the front end of the process, and new powers are provided to our judicial authorities to tackle this at the front end. I am confident that they will be quite capable of doing that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, whether it is SIRC or our courts, it has been very clearly illustrated to the Government of Canada that it is just not good enough.

It is not just the Liberal Party or Canadians as a whole who are saying that. We have seen other jurisdictions, including the United States, England, Australia and others that have recognized the value of parliamentary oversight, which is what we have been advocating.

At some point, because of time allocation, the bill will be going to committee sooner as opposed to later. My question to the member is, to what degree does he believe that the government will respond to amendments from the opposition, given its past track record for not accepting opposition motions or amendments?

If there are solid amendments that are supported, does he believe that the government is obligated, at the very least morally, to not only entertain them, but to also allow them to be passed so that we can improve the quality of the legislation that the Liberals are in principle supporting?

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member, that is the purpose of committee work, and that is why we encourage this legislation to get to committee and not be held up in the House.

In my role as a committee member on public accounts and the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, we take the opposition's views quite seriously. We do listen and we bring forward witnesses. The whole purpose of that process is so that we ultimately bring forward good solid legislation.

Although I am not on the public safety committee, I have confidence that all members will take the questions very seriously.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech the member alluded to the fact there is no immediacy with this and that we should take a year to debate this kind of bill. I wonder how many incidents have to happen before a bill like this is necessary. How many threats does this country have to receive, how many incidents have to happen, how many times does it have to happen internationally before this House should be vigilant, take action, and make sure the legislative tools are in place for our security forces to ensure that the next incident is not one of catastrophic proportions? That is what this government is trying to do right now. Why would he want to delay that?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, to answer that I think I would go back to another generation, my father's generation, and the individuals who went to fight for our freedoms and values in the Second World War. They did not fight there to lose those values or to see them taken away by legislation in the House. Therefore, when we deal with those types of issues, when we think of the 50,000 individuals who died in the Second World War while standing up for those rights and freedoms, then we of course deal with this very carefully.

What the government has proposed does not allow us to do that. The legislation is far too broad. I have pointed out a number of areas that we need to work on. If the government does not want to work on these, if it continues in the same fashion it has had with all the other legislation it has brought before Parliament in the last four years of its majority term, this simply will go ahead.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats have been relatively clear in their position that they will vote against this bill in the House. Outside the House the leader of the New Democratic Party has now indicated that he would not scrap the bill if the NDP were elected, but that he would definitely make some changes to it.

The position of the Liberal Party has been that the legislation includes initiatives that are ultimately worth passing, but that the bill falls short. There is a real need for amendments, one of them with respect to parliamentary oversight, an issue that I have raised time and again when asking questions today.

Therefore, my question for the member is this. Can he explain to the House the actual position of the NDP? If they were to form government, is the leader of the New Democrats right when he said that they would not scrap the legislation they so adamantly oppose today?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the reality of what we will do with this bill will be clear tonight when we vote against it. That is very clear. There will not be any question about what our motives or our intentions are tonight. We will vote against it.

The Liberals are the ones who are jumping up and down and squirming in their seat trying to figure out how they can both support and not support it. We do not like this legislation. We do not think it is proper. We will vote against it tonight.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend from the Northwest Territories for his presentation, and the official opposition for standing against this legislation.

Having read and reviewed it, the more I look at the bill the more I find bizarre provisions within it. I want to highlight one of them, which is that this bill authorizes CSIS to operate outside of Canada, but only requires that it get a warrant if it plans to break a domestic law. I do not know if the official opposition has studied this to figure out if CSIS has any restrictions whatsoever, except for it not to cause bodily harm, kill anyone, or violate their sexual integrity, if it intends to go to another country and break the law there.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

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

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

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honour to rise today to speak about such important and noteworthy legislation. The anti-terrorism act, 2015 proposes changes that hold great promise in terms of enhancing Canada's capacity to confront the terrorist threat.

Let me be clear. The international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada and her allies. This is because they despise modern society. They would take away rights for women. They would go back to barbaric, theocratic laws. On this side of the House, we will not stand for any action or inaction that gives these terrorists any power in the world, though some on the other side of the House may disagree.

During my time today I could speak at length about any one of a number of meaningful changes that will help us address the threats our country faces at the hands of violent extremists and individuals who travel abroad for terrorist purposes. Specifically, they include the need for measures to counter advocating terrorism on the Internet; amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to better protect classified information for immigration proceedings; the expansion of the passenger protect program as a further step in confronting the challenge of terrorist travellers, including the creation of a robust legislative basis for the program; and an enhanced mandate for CSIS that would see it move beyond playing a passive role of intelligence gathering to a role that would include threat disruption activities, thereby bringing it closer in line with the mandates of Canada's allied agencies.

Indeed, the bill addresses all these areas and more. However, today I want to focus my remarks on another area, one that, while perhaps not immediately obvious, would have clear benefits in helping us strengthen our overall national security framework. The element I am referring to includes changes that would enhance information sharing practices across federal government departments and agencies.

It is becoming quite clear that the current legal framework governing information sharing can, in some instances, prevent or impede the sharing of information when national security interests are at stake. Therefore, we have proposed some very prudent and measured changes that would allow government departments and agencies more latitude to share information, when appropriate, for reasons of national security.

Part of living in a free and democratic society means having defined legal limits on how government institutions treat the information in their possession. Indeed, information sharing is rightly limited by important laws, such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Privacy Act. Our federal institutions take their obligations very seriously when it comes to protecting information.

In addition to the charter and the Privacy Act, to which all government institutions are bound, institutions are also subject to their own specific mandates and legal regimes governing information sharing practices. These often include explicit limits on how information can be shared. While we all understand why such measures are in place, we can no longer allow them to impede any activity that has the real potential to significantly contribute to our national security.

As one example, the Department of Public Works and Government Services is limited in how it can share information related to people and companies that deal in controlled goods, such as weapons and military equipment. At times, such information could well be germane to national security threats, yet we are not in a position to share it for those purposes. I am confident that we can all agree that this raises serious concerns, from a national security perspective.

We can, and we must, do better. Given the current environment, permeated with the real and persistent threat of terrorism, it is vital that these institutions be in a better position to work together more effectively.

It helps if we think about it as a puzzle. In the course of carrying out their responsibilities and mandates, different organizations collect information that, on its own, serves a specific purpose, but these organizations may come across specific information from time to time that they feel raises concerns from a national security perspective. If these organizations can share that information, government organizations with legal mandates related to national security can more effectively put those pieces together and create a more complete picture of a given threat so that appropriate action can be taken.

Simply put, the current framework for our federal institutions is not as conducive to information sharing for national security purposes as it needs to be, owing to particular complexities and restrictions.

Our government is convinced that taking steps to rectify these gaps and restrictions would help us better protect Canadians and Canadian interests. Security needs must be taken into consideration, and information needs to be more effectively and rapidly shared among federal government partners.

With this new legislation we have the opportunity to provide for that by explicitly authorizing information sharing within the Government of Canada for security of Canada purposes. In this way, we could provide clear authority to all federal institutions to disclose information, either proactively or in response to a request, to designated recipient institutions. To be clear, these designated recipient institutions would only be those with clear responsibilities or jurisdiction related to Canada's national security. Further, it is worth noting that the new bill would not require that information be shared. Rather, the holder of the information would retain discretion as to whether or not to share.

We have proposed amendments to certain existing acts, as well, to resolve barriers. For example, an amendment we have proposed to the Customs Act would mean that CBSA would be legally permitted to share customs information with Citizenship and Immigration Canada for the purpose of administering or enforcing a Canadian passport order when national security was involved.

Members of the House will know that the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act was passed in July 2014 to provide authority to revoke the citizenship of dual nationals involved in activities that jeopardize the security of Canada. It is essential for officials of Citizenship and Immigration Canada to have the right information to enforce this new authority, and this amendment would help to allow for that.

Before I conclude, I want to note that our government is confident that our federal government institutions will take up and use this new information sharing authority responsibly and with due regard for the charter and legal requirements. They will respect the fine balance between privacy and security, just as Canadians expect.

It is important to note that independent review bodies, such as SIRC, the Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner, and the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP, as well as the Privacy Commissioner and the Auditor General, will provide an important counterbalance to the new authorities provided in Bill C-51.

As always, our government stands ready to take appropriate action to protect the safety and security of Canadians at home and abroad. This legislation is further proof of that commitment.

I urge all hon. members to support us as we take this important step forward to strengthen Canada's national security.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the more I go through the bill, the more I have to wonder if this omnibus legislation should not be called the national information sharing and intervention against ordinary Canadians act.

What is most concerning to Canadians and experts, particularly legal experts, privacy experts, and anti-terrorism experts, as they go through the bill is the fact that the government has put together a lot of measures that go far beyond the measures to be expected in responding to terrorism threats. One such person is the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, who has warned that the act may allow departments and agencies to share the personal information of all individuals, including ordinary Canadians, who may be suspected of terrorist activities. He is deeply concerned. He says that the bill is not clear about whose information would be shared with national security agencies, for what specific purpose, and under what conditions, including applicable safeguards.

I need only point out to the hon. member that the first part of the bill, the security of Canada information sharing act, lists nine instances when activities arise when information can be shared between agencies. Only one of those nine is terrorism. The other eight situations have nothing to do with terrorism. The government is going to allow all of these agencies to share information, and there are no clear criteria, as pointed out by the Privacy Commissioner.

Could the member advise if the Privacy Commissioner was questioned, was met with, was consulted in drafting this legislation? If so, what was his advice?

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question was about the nine agencies listed.

I gave the example, in my speech, of Canada Border Services Agency. If a Canadian was suspected of being a terrorist, this legislation would allow CBSA, at its discretion, to share that information with the relevant authorities. It would give law enforcement agencies the tools they need.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, people outside of this chamber, even beyond our borders, have recognized that there are issues related to the protection of rights and individual freedoms. People have legitimate concerns. As a political party, we have been pushing having parliamentary oversight as one of the mechanisms that would ensure that the rights and freedoms of individuals were protected.

Why does the government appear to be so adamantly opposed to what other countries, such as the United States, England, and Australia, have already done and put in parliamentary oversight? Why does the current government want to prevent Canadians from having the same sort of oversight other nations already have? I do not understand the Conservatives' logic.

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I spoke I mentioned the independent review agencies that are responsible for the robust oversight of the anti-terrorism measures CSIS would take. The obvious one is SIRC, the Security Intelligence Review Committee. There are the Office of Communications Security Establishment Commissioner, the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, the Privacy Commissioner, and the Auditor General. It was decided years ago, when there was a Liberal government in Canada, that the oversight should be independent and third party, as opposed to being done by parliamentarians.

What we need to remember is that Canada is being targeted because these terrorists hate our society and what we stand for. This legislation would give our law-enforcement and security agencies the tools they need to deal with this very real threat.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the serious threat posed by terrorism. It poses a very real threat that we need to address in a thoughtful, effective manner.

Unfortunately, not only does Bill C-51 leave out measures that have proven effective against radicalization and terrorism, but it also contains provisions that pose a threat to our freedoms and our democracy.

It goes without saying that Canada needs to identify and stop potential terrorist acts. However, we already have the mechanisms needed to do so. Our institutions have powers allowing for surveillance, intelligence gathering, immigration checks, preventive detention, arrest and imprisonment. What they do not have are the resources needed to enforce the existing laws.

Jeff Yaworski, the assistant director of operations at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, told the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence that, because of limited resources, CSIS is incapable of properly monitoring the 80 Canadians suspected of being terrorist sympathizers who went abroad and then returned to Canada. CSIS therefore does not have the resources it needs.

The Commissioner of the RCMP, Bob Paulson, also testified at the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, and he said that resources were also an issue for the RCMP-led integrated national security enforcement teams. He said:

...over 300 additional resources were transferred in to enhance the capacity of INSETS from other federal policing priority areas such as organized crime and financial crime.

Despite our legislation and our systems, we are lacking resources. We are being forced to give up on things such as fighting organized crime—another security issue—rail safety, food safety and public safety. The Conservative government is doing a poor job of dealing with these issues.

Instead of allocating resources where they are needed, this government has introduced a bill with such vague terms that it would allow the government to legally spy on its political enemies or civil society groups that are opposed to the government's political plans.

Under this bill, anything that interferes with Canada's economic or financial stability or infrastructure or undermines Canada's territorial integrity may be considered an activity that undermines national security.

A Federal Court judge, at an in camera meeting where only the government is represented, could authorize the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to take any appropriate action warranted by the circumstances in order to reduce threats to Canada's security. We want to reduce threats to Canada's security. However, the definition in this bill is so broad that it no longer has anything to do with terrorism. Furthermore, the judge could authorize these measures even if they breached the law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Does this mean that a protest against an oil pipeline, for example, could be considered as interfering with infrastructure and thus a threat to our security? Could this be considered terrorism?

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is always telling us that the act does not apply to lawful protests or artistic expression. However, in Montreal, major protests are sometimes declared unlawful when in progress because the participants did not want to provide the route. Does that make them terrorists? These protests often take place in the riding that I am pleased to represent.

When an environmental group climbs a tower to put up a banner, that does not represent a threat to Canada, but it does not fall within the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness's definition. We have to wonder whether this leaves the door wide open to spying on these individuals and taking what the government calls preventive measures.

We can see how this government treats people who oppose it. The Canada Revenue Agency is practically harassing people, the government is cutting funding and there are all kinds of other measures. A lot of people, from environmentalists to aboriginal groups to various civil society groups, are very concerned, and rightly so.

Meanwhile, the whole bill is very vague. It proposes that we make it illegal to promote terrorism in general. Of course no one wants to promote terrorism, but why add “in general”? For example, will this affect journalists who might give very neutral and objective reports on what groups considered terrorist groups are demanding? Will that fall under this category? The bill is not clear. That is why people are worried.

What is worse, the bill gives the Canadian Security Intelligence Service police powers, without any explanation for why this is necessary. In the 1970s, after a number of cases of abuse, in particular in response to the events of the October crisis, the government rightly separated intelligence services and police services for good reason, after detailed analyses. Now, all of a sudden, this government wants to give police powers back to the intelligence services, which have an essentially secret mandate and much less public accountability. That is why a respectable newspaper like The Globe and Mail, which no one can accuse of anarchism or leftism, talks about the Prime Minister's secret police.

Lastly, to top it all off, although the bill grants additional powers to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, it does not contain any measures to enhance oversight, although that is definitely necessary. This could put us in line with many of our partners and allies who also have mechanisms of oversight by elected representatives, to ensure that all mechanisms are working. We know that the existing oversight body is working with limited resources. It has not always been able to obtain the relevant information from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. We also know that the Prime Minister appointed Arthur Porter to lead that body, a man who is now facing numerous charges himself.

I only have a minute left but I want to point out that, while President Obama invited representatives from around the world to Washington last week to discuss community-based initiatives to prevent radicalization, this bill is completely silent on that topic. It is an extremely important issue, however. We must work on prevention.

As a final point, since I do not have time to talk about everything here, I want to say that it is important to have a debate in the House. It is extremely important for Canadians to really understand this major issue that we are dealing with. However, it is clear that the government is constantly muzzling us with its many gag orders.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to continue on a point that I think is important. The member from St. John's East said earlier today that the NDP is “clearly not going to support” this legislation, “nor would we keep [it] in place if it is passed.”

That is what the NDP is saying inside the House of the Commons.

Outside of the House of Commons, the leader of the New Democratic Party says something different. He does not say that the NDP is going to scrap the legislation; he said in a interview with Tom Clark of Global News that the NDP would change it.

Does the member not see the inconsistency in what the NDP is saying inside the House versus what it is saying outside the House? Perhaps she could provide some clarification on that point, not on how the NDP is going to vote on this legislation but what it would do if it passes. Would the NDP scrap it or would it amend it? One member says inside the House that the NDP will scrap it, but the leader says they would change it.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have been very clear. We do not like the legislation. When we form government, we are going to change it, because we do not like it. We are going to vote against the legislation.

I think it is a bit rich for the member to talk about something like incoherence when his party says that it does not like the legislation but is going to vote for it anyway.

As they say, “we see the mote in our neighbour's eye, but not the beam in our own”.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I noted that at the outset of her remarks on the bill, my colleague raised concerns that have been raised by a number of people, including the Commissioner of the RCMP. They are concerned about the shortage of resources and the RCMP's having to second additional people in just to deal with the mandate they have currently.

It would be of interest to the House that I had a constituent come to me deeply disturbed because the RCMP, which was about to file charges with the prosecutors in a serious securities fraud case, suddenly wrote to my constituent to say it was not undertaking that case because it was not going to be continuing its commercial crime sections. There is now this new division called “federal serious and organized crime”. That raises the concern that the RCMP, our main national investigation authority, is already facing serious problems.

Is the current government now turning to CSIS to fill some of that vacuum, or are we going to have a problem that the main body that we have appointed and have appropriate controls on is now no longer able to deliver its mandate because it is under-resourced?

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the lack of resources is a critical point, and that is very typical of the Conservative government. They have a lot to say, and they want to make sure everyone hears them, but they do not follow up with resources or action. The first thing they need to do is provide resources. The case that my colleague talked about is very interesting.

As to the fight against online pornography and child pornography, the people across the way talk an awful lot, but they are not coming up with the resources needed to do the work, even though that is critical.

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

Mr. Speaker, the first part of Bill C-51 provides definitions of terrorist activities. The definitions are so vague they could potentially cause problems. For example, a Canadian journalist interviews a terrorist leader abroad, then runs the interview in Canada: that is a terrorist activity. A group of fishers who think the environment in their region is in jeopardy decide to use their small boat to stop an industrial activity in local waters: that is a terrorist activity. A Canadian public servant deems the clandestine operations of security forces to be undemocratic and he blows the whistle to opposition politicians: that is terrorism. Canadian academics, researchers, travel abroad, discuss global warming and share Canadian information: that is terrorism.

Is that acceptable in a free and democratic society?

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. As there is not very much time left, I will not repeat all the examples he provided.

Indeed, this is the concern. The bill is so vague that it can give rise to just about anything. Just yesterday, people in my riding told me that they did not trust the Conservative government at all, knowing what it is capable of.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Status of Women.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-51, the anti-terrorism act, 2015.

This is not the first legislation that the Government of Canada has introduced to keep Canadians safe from terrorist acts. Following the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001, Parliament passed the Anti-Terrorism Act, which provided a good response to the terrorist threat as it was then. However, if we fast-forward 14 years, we can see that a lot has changed in the threat environment

Today we know that groups, like the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, are actively encouraging their followers to carry out acts of violence against western nations, including Canada. We know that individuals in Canada are radicalizing to violence, advocating for others to join them, and attempting to leave Canada to train, recruit and participate in terrorist activities abroad. The recent arrests and terrorism-related charges laid by the RCMP of individuals in Ottawa and Montreal are a testament to that reality.

It is clear that the international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada. Canadians are being targeted by jihadi terrorists simply because the terrorists hate our society and the value it represents.

Jihadi terrorism is not a human right; it is an act of war. That is why our Conservative 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 to live.

In order to effectively deal with these rapidly changing threats, our anti-terrorism laws must change as well. That is why we have made it a key priority to introduce measures in recent months to give our national security agencies the tools and resources they need to keep Canadians safe from terrorist threats.

This includes passing the Combating Terrorism Act to make it a criminal offence to travel for the purpose of terrorism. It includes passing the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act to establish a new authority to revoke Canadian citizenship from dual nationals who are convicted of an act of terrorism. It also includes introducing the protection of Canada from terrorist act to confirm that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service can conduct its intelligence gathering on threats to Canada outside of our borders.

We continue to take proactive measures to counter violent extremism, working closely with leaders in communities to help them identify early warning signs of radicalization to violence and build resiliency against the terrorist narrative being broadcast from extremist groups around the world. The legislation before us is one more way that we are addressing the terrorist threat.

The elements within the bill fall under the purview of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Minister of Justice. However, for my time today, I will look in more detail at the elements that fall under the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. Those elements will strengthen Canada's national security in a number of ways.

First, the bill would create the security of Canada information sharing act, which would improve how information related to national security would be shared across federal departments and agencies. As it stands today, some information that could be critical to a national security investigation, such as immigration records or passport information, cannot be shared by the agencies involved due to legal restrictions in place. This new act would remedy this by removing specific prohibitions and giving federal institutions the authority to share information as it relates to national security in a responsible manner that respects both the need to keep Canadians safe and to safeguard their privacy rights.

The bill would also enact the secure air travel act, which contains measures to address terrorist travel. As I mentioned at the outset, we know that individuals are leaving or attempting to leave the country to take part in terrorist-related activities. With a stronger passenger protect program in place, authorities would have more tools to help them address these threats, including the ability to deny boarding or ensure the individual would be subject to additional physical screening at the airport.

Under the secure air travel act, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Minister of Transport would work together to ensure individuals who caused a security risk would be identified and that air carriers would be taking appropriate actions, as directed, to manage these risks.

The legislation also contains measures that would enhance the mandate of CSIS.

As we have heard during debates on the protection of Canada from terrorist acts, CSIS is a key security agency that works abroad to collect and report intelligence on threats to the security of Canada outside of our borders. We believe it must be given an expanded mandate to move beyond being Canada's note takers. As such, this bill proposes to provide CSIS with the authority to actively disrupt threats to the security of Canada, within Canada or outside Canada. The new authorities of CSIS will be subject to robust safeguards to ensure that they are used responsibly, proportionately and, most important, in a manner that is consistent with the CSIS Act, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the fundamental principles of democratic accountability that Canadians expect.

Finally, I will speak to the changes proposed to Division 9 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, IRPA. As we have heard, Division 9 of IRPA, although not used frequently, can help the Government of Canada ensure that non-citizens who pose a threat to our national security are denied entry or status. To this end, the legislation before us includes limited changes that would ensure Division 9 would continue to be used in a fair and effective manner, while better protecting classified information used in immigration proceedings.

The bill accomplishes this by proposing two changes.

First, it would authorize the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to appeal or seek judicial review of orders to publicly disclose classified information while a proceeding is under way. This is critical because, today, the ministers have to wait until the proceeding is finished before being able to appeal. This new authority would halt the public disclosure of classified information until a determination of a potential harm of disclosure could be made.

Second, the bill proposes changes to the law in order to clarify the information that forms part of Division 9 cases before the Federal Court and the Immigration and Refugee Board. With this change, only specific information can be included as part of the proceedings. This means information that is relevant to the case, information that the government relies on to make its case and information that allows the non-citizen to be reasonably informed about the case.

The bill before us is another important initiative to strengthen our country's national security. It will complement our existing counterterrorism measures and demonstrate Canada's leadership in taking a proactive stand against acts of terror.

I urge all members to support the anti-terrorism act, 2015.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the anti-terrorism bill was introduced last Wednesday and the government introduced time allocation after only three speakers. We had less than one full day of debate and the government introduced time allocation.

Personally, I will not have an opportunity to speak to the bill. I have heard concerns about this bill in my riding, concerns about the lack of oversight and how the line between security and freedom has been blurred, and that is dangerous.

Again, the government has now introduced time allocation or closure on a bill 88 times, the most in history.

My question for the member is pretty straightforward. Why will the government not allow me to speak to the bill? Why is it limiting debate? If the hon. member could direct his answer to the people of St. John's South—Mount Pearl, they would love to hear the answer.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the first thing the member should do is speak to his whip as to why he is unable to speak to this. It is not my role to play as to his whip's choice of who will speak to a particular bill.

We so often hear this discussion about limited time. I have sat in the House over the last number of days listening to the members opposite speaking to this, spending half their time crying about the lack of time. If they would actually use their time wisely, maybe they could make the points they claim they are unable to make on the legislation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the importance of the committee stage.

During the minority governments, the Conservatives were much more sympathetic to amendments. In previous majority governments, whether it was the Paul Martin or Jean Chrétien government, there was a great deal of respect for opposition members bringing forward amendments, and many amendments were passed. Since we have had a majority Conservative government, the Prime Minister's Office seems to say no to amendments, unless they are Conservative amendments.

Canadians as a whole support the need to improve this legislation. One of the most significant ways we can improve it is to have a parliamentary oversight committee established. I made reference to this earlier. It would protect the individual rights and freedoms.

Does the member believe, given the importance of the legislation, that the government will, at the very least, not only entertain but allow for some of these opposition amendments to see the light of day and, ultimately, be incorporated into the legislation, thereby giving Canadians stronger anti-terrorism legislation?

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things they keep coming back to is the whole aspect of oversight, making it sound like there is absolutely no oversight whatsoever over CSIS. That is a complete fallacy. In fact, I have a quote here from Ron Atkey, the first chair of SIRC. He said:

Some of the instant critics...have missed the mark in decrying lack of oversight...regarding new powers of terrorism disruption to be given to CSIS, oversight is alive and well.

We believe that very strongly.

It is very interesting. We hear members from both parties across the way talking about the lack of funding and opportunities. As a government, we have increased funding to national security agencies in our country by a third, yet seven times the Liberals and NDP have voted against that increased funding. Then they stand in the House and decry the fact that there is not enough funding for these agencies.

They have to decide one way or the other whether they want the funding or do not want the funding, but please be consistent.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to stand in the House today to speak on Bill C-51, our government's anti-terrorism act, 2015.

I am pleased to be here today to discuss this legislation that would protect Canadians from the evolving threat of terrorism and keep our communities safe. The world is a dangerous place. This was brutally demonstrated this past October when Canada was the target of two vicious separate terrorist attacks. The anti-terrorism act, 2015, would provide Canadian law enforcement and national security agencies with additional tools and flexibility to keep pace with evolving threats and better protect Canadians here at home.

In line with measures taken by our allies, this legislation shows that our Conservative government is taking additional action to ensure that law enforcement and national security agencies can counter those who advocate terrorism, prevent terrorist travel and the efforts of those who seek to use Canada as a recruiting ground, and disrupt planned attacks on Canadian soil.

The legislation before us today also includes checks and balances to ensure that it respects the rights of Canadians and complements other legislation passed by our government in order to better protect Canadians and secure institutions, including the Combating Terrorism Act and the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act. In brief, Bill C-51 includes a comprehensive package of measures that would criminalize the advocacy or promotion of terrorism offences in general, counter terrorist recruitment by giving our courts the authority to order the removal of terrorist propaganda online, enhance the Canadian Security Intelligence Service's powers to address threats to the security of Canada while ensuring that courts maintain oversight, and would provide law enforcement agencies with an enhanced ability to disrupt terrorism offences and terrorist activity.

It would also enhance the passenger protect program by further mitigating threats to transportation security and preventing travel by air for the purpose of engaging in terrorism. As well, it would make it easier for law enforcement agencies to detain suspected terrorists before they can harm Canadians and toughen penalties for violating court-ordered conditions on terrorist suspects. In addition, it would enable the effective and responsible sharing of relevant national security information across federal departments and agencies to better identify and address threats. It would ensure that national security agencies are better able to protect and use classified information when denying entry and status to non-citizens who pose threats to Canada. Finally, it would provide additional protections to witnesses and other participants in national security proceedings and prosecutions.

Our Conservative government is serious about taking action to keep Canadians safe. Recent attacks in Canada, which led to the deaths of Corporal Nathan Cirillo and Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, as well as attacks in France, Australia,and Denmark, are reminders that the world is a dangerous place and that Canada is not immune from the threat of terrorism.

Recent terrorist actions in Canada are not only an attack on our country but also on our values and society as a whole. Unlike the NDP and Liberals, our Conservative government understands that extreme jihadists have declared war on all free people, and on Canada specifically. That is why we will continue to protect the rights and safety of all Canadians. We will not, however, privilege the so-called rights of terrorists and others who would harm Canadians over the rights of law-abiding citizens. The proposed legislation would provide our security and law enforcement agencies with the required tools and flexibility they need to effectively detect and disrupt national security threats before they happen, thus keeping Canadians safe.

I would like to address some of the misconceptions surrounding the legislation. There is continued coverage of calls for parliamentary oversight of Canada's national security agencies. Recently, several Canadians, including former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and former Prime Minister Joe Clark, called for greater oversight of Canada's national security agencies. I believe that third party, non-partisan, independent, expert oversight of our national security agencies is a better model than political intervention in this process. What is more, the key powers of the anti-terrorism act, 2015, are subject to judicial review and judicial authorization.

Let us look at the facts. The international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada. Canadians are being targeted by jihadi terrorists simply because these terrorists hate our society and hate the values it represents.

The bill targets terrorism. Jihadi terrorism is not a human right, as some on the other side would have us believe. It is an act of war. That is why our government has put forward measures that would protect Canadians against jihadi terrorists, who seek to destroy the very principles that make Canada the best country in the world 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 ISIL.

In addition to misconceptions regarding the accountability framework, there are many misconceptions about who is targeted by this legislation. The NDP leader has alleged that the new anti-terrorism bill changes the definition of a threat to the security of Canada to include matters that interfere with the economic stability and infrastructure of the country. The NDP leader alleges that these changes mean that legitimate dissent and protest would now be considered threats to Canadian security.

These allegations are completely false. Section 2 of the CSIS Act, which outlines exactly what is considered a threat to the security of Canada, is not being amended in any way by the anti-terrorism act, 2015. Section 2 of the CSIS Act states that “A threat to the security of Canada does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent”. The measures in the bill that are pointed to fall under a list of activities that undermine the security of Canada, and are there for the purposes of information sharing between government departments. Even though he has mixed up two very different pieces of legislation, it is important to note that Bill C-51 qualifies that list by stating that “Activity that undermines the security of Canada does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression”.

It is unfortunate to have to say that the claims made by the leader of the NDP are completely false. There is absolutely no change being made to what constitutes the threat to the security of Canada. The measures that the leader of the NDP is pointing to deal with information sharing between government departments. Further, the CSIS Act specifically states that threats to the security of Canada does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent. The new legislation states, “Activity that undermines the security of Canada does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression”.

We reject the argument that every time we talk about security, our freedoms are threatened. Canadians understand that their freedom and security go hand in hand. Canadians expect us to protect both, and there are protections in this legislation that do exactly that.

The fundamental fact is that our police and national security agencies are working to protect our rights and our freedoms, and it is jihadi terrorists who endanger our security and who would take away our freedom.

Given that the leader of the NDP has so wilfully misunderstood the legislation before us today, I hope he heeds my remarks and undertakes further efforts to understand this legislation. Once he does, I am quite convinced that he will be compelled to support these important measures.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, many of my NDP colleagues have raised serious and grave concerns, but I think that Canadians who are watching the debate do have to understand that SIRC has not been devoid of partisan influence. I would like the hon. member to speak to that.

The head of SIRC was a Conservative bagman who is now in jail in Panama. How does the member stand up in the House and talk about these oversight agencies as being non-partisan when they in fact have been?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all members of SIRC have some kind of political affiliation of one sort or another. To suggest anything other would be somewhat naive, but SIRC is an independent, non-partisan body that provides oversight of CSIS.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the issue of the need for amendments to the legislation.

Both the New Democrats and the Liberals have now clearly indicated that they would not scrap the legislation if they were provided the privilege of forming government in this country. The issue is that both parties, if they were in that position, would bring forward amendments to what we currently have.

I wonder if the member would not recognize the value of having those amendments passed today, as opposed to having to wait. Why not improve the legislation, because not only do both opposition parties in the House want parliamentary oversight, for example, but also a majority of Canadians for their rights, freedoms, and so forth to be protected.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, oversight is an important question that I think we have addressed, in that any measures in the new act would certainly be subject to oversight from a judicial perspective and would require judicial approval before any warrants were issued.

With regard to amendments, this debate is for the purpose of a vote at second reading and the bill would go to committee, which will do a very robust review of it. I am sure that we will have very lively debate there and hear all kinds of opinions. If there is something that comes forward during that debate, we will gladly consider it.

I am delighted to hear that we have the support of both opposition parties, and perhaps they will ensure that the bill finds a speedy way through the process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of members to the distinction between lawful protests and those many forms of respectable, non-violent civil disobedience, often heralded after unfair laws are removed, such as when Rosa Parks sat down in the whites only section of a bus. This law would restrict the protections of lawful protests against these things

According to Professors Roach and Forcese, who analyzed the bill, even the violation of a municipal bylaw could put someone outside the scope of lawful protest. So we need amendments for clarity.

I have now asked the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Public Safety, and the Prime Minister to clarify whether non-violent civil disobedience will be exempt from the act, and every time I get a response that is non-responsive, that ignores the reality that on occasion non-violent civil disobedience is an appropriate form of protest.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when drafting the bill, our legislators and ministers anticipated exactly that question. That is why I will again refer to the bill and read it verbatim: “For greater certainty, it does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression”.

The question was anticipated. It has been dealt with. I do not know how much clearer it can be.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-51 today.

Canadians are well aware of the harm that terrorism can cause and the fear that it can bring. The overarching aim of terrorist activity is to instill fear and to divide us from one another and weaken our society. An important duty of Canadians, therefore, is to be vigilant against this divisiveness, as we will always be stronger when we are working together and united against acts of intimidation.

In recent decades, particularly since the 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, the global security landscape has undergone massive changes, in part due to the evolution of the Internet and electronic technologies. An important responsibility that falls on the government and parliamentarians is to improve our security system and framework so as to meet the challenges of our times in a manner that upholds our most cherished democratic values and principles. The Liberal Party and most Canadians recognize that our laws must adapt to reflect the changing global security landscape, and Bill C-51, the government's anti-terrorism act, takes some productive steps to meet our collective security needs.

One measure that this bill would put in place is to lower the evidentiary threshold for detaining a suspected terrorist. In fact, had it been in place six months ago, this measure might have prevented the tragic death of Quebec CAF member Patrice Vincent. His murderer was under surveillance and that person's passport had been revoked in June of last year, but due to the lack of concrete evidence, he remained free.

The bill also would serve to put certain important programs, such as Canada's no-fly list, on a firmer legal foundation. Better coordination of information sharing among Canada's many security departments and agencies is also a positive aspect.

However, there are deficiencies in this bill, many of which have been pointed out to me by constituents of Vancouver Quadra, and the Liberals have written amendments to address those weaknesses.

The bill does not include the critical accountability that is provided by review and oversight mechanisms to ensure proper checks and balances on information sharing. This is in fact one of the overarching areas for improvement to this legislation that should be articulated through debate and expert testimony at committee, and there should be fair consideration of amendments. A bill of this importance deserves a proper, thorough, and non-partisan process.

Bill C-51 is inadequate in other areas, particularly with regard to the far-reaching and vaguely articulated definition of “national security” in terms of the lack of a sunset clause to provide Parliament with an opportunity to quickly review and correct any negative consequences of the bill.

Finally, there should be a much more robust commitment to preventing the radicalization of Canadian young people in the first place by funding and working with their families and communities to that end and by strengthening our social safety net regarding mental illness.

I would like to talk more about the need for greater oversight and review.

As many members know, last year I put forward my private member's bill, Bill C-622, the CSEC accountability and transparency act. This bill proposed to modernize the framework for accountability and transparency for Canada's signals intelligence agency, the Communications Security Establishment Canada. It would have brought the 14-year-old laws governing this agency up to date to account for advances in Internet and communications technologies and it would have strengthened the mandate of the CSE commissioner. Furthermore, Bill C-622 would have assigned a committee of parliamentarians with security clearance the responsibility to review and report on all of the intelligence and national security activities of our government, the very oversight that is being called for right across Canada by experts and non-experts alike.

Despite widespread support from security, defence, and privacy experts and from opposition MPs, my bill unfortunately did not receive support from the government and was therefore defeated.

To put a need for this kind of parliamentary oversight and review mechanism into perspective, Ottawa-based journalist John Ivison has correctly pointed out that “Canada is the only country among our close allies that lacks a dedicated parliamentary committee with substantial powers of review over matters of national security and intelligence.”

He is right, and we should have one. Just as our security laws must be improved to meet the challenges of today, so too must Canada's framework for transparency and privacy protection evolve in order to cope with fast-paced, changing technology.

As journalist Glenn Greenwald noted in the Oscar-winning—as of last night—documentary, “When the decisions that rule us are taken in secret, we lose the power to control and govern ourselves.”

That is not what Canadians want. The federal Privacy Commissioner and all our provincial privacy commissioners stated in a recent communique:

Canadians both expect and are entitled to equal protection for their privacy and access rights and for their security. We must uphold these fundamental rights that lie at the heart of Canada's democracy.

What do our partners south of the border think about these things? One example is the United States Department of Homeland Security, in which this understanding of that balance is explicit. The department “embeds and enforces privacy protections and transparency” in all of its systems, programs, and activities, according to its privacy commissioner, who oversees a staff of 40 people in that department alone. In a recent speech, Homeland Security's deputy secretary Mayorkas confirmed that not only is this integral to the DHS mission and crucial to maintaining public trust, but it has also resulted in Homeland Security becoming a stronger and more effective department.

If the government adopts the Liberal Party's reasonable amendments to create this balance, we can move beyond the dichotomized debate that pits security against Canadians' freedom and liberty.

As it stands, Bill C-51 would give CSIS broad powers to disrupt not only real or perceived terrorist threats but also threats that might undermine the economic or financial stability of Canada. This is too broad. It is just not necessary for guarding against any legitimate risks and threats from terrorists. It could also be very harmful in further chilling important rights for citizens to have a voice and for the rights for civil society groups that disagree with government policies in a peaceful way. The Liberal Party will be proposing amendments to rein in and better define the vague and far-reaching new powers that would be granted to CSIS in the bill.

To assess Bill C-51's effectiveness in keeping Canadians safe and ensuring our freedoms and values are respected, a future Liberal government will require a review of the entire bill in three years to ensure any aspects that are unaccountable or harmful are quickly identified and fixed.

In addition to granting CSIS greater powers, let us acknowledge that preventing individuals from becoming radicalized and falling into violent extremism in the first place is important and is an effective second track toward reducing these incidences and the terrible harm they create. Let us not forget that several of the recent actual and planned terrorist attacks involved young men who were suffering from mental illness and addiction and turned to violence. Canadians experienced a deep sorrow on behalf of the victims and their families.

This situation is the reason the government must allocate more resources and be a partner. The government must consult with a variety of stakeholders from police to social agencies and from families to religious leaders and collaborate in developing community-based strategies to prevent radicalization at the outset and to improve support for those suffering from mental illness and addiction. That is a commitment that the Liberal Party has made and will bring into our platform.

Currently, through the work of local and provincial governments, community and religious leaders, and friends and family members of the disaffected youth, there are a number of innovative models for supporting youth at risk and lending them support and guidance. However, more funding and more focus on this aspect are needed. A Liberal government would provide them.

As an aside, I want to mention that supporting mental illness would have a great deal of benefit to society, aside from reducing terrorist risks. Let us not forget that over 3,000 men commit suicide every year. Many of them are in their 20s, and most of them are under the age of 45. The grief and sorrow caused to their families and to our society could be significantly reduced with a greater emphasis on the second track, the track of prevention and support for those with mental illness challenges.

In 2001, in response to the September 11 attacks, the Liberal government introduced a number of anti-terrorism measures. We understood then, as we do today, that sometimes quick action is needed. We did, however, make sure there were full hearings. Amendments were made. We heard from the public. We heard from Parliament in committees. We also built in a sunset clause so that the bill could be corrected and be great legislation.

We believe that is possible. The Conservative government has the choice to take that path rather than the path of unilaterally charging ahead. We invite the Conservatives to take our amendments seriously. If not, we will be campaigning on them. If elected, we will be sure that they are put into effect in order to respect our most deeply prized democratic values.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned in her speech the need for oversight. I am wondering if the member would comment on clause 42 of the bill, which clearly spells out that CSIS shall not undertake any measures to reduce the threat to the security of Canada that can contravene the rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

If CSIS is going to take any action, a warrant is required. When a warrant application is made, eight conditions have to be put forward to satisfy a justice. The judge then needs to agree that those conditions exist. The judge then needs to authorize that warrant and authorize a number of conditions around that warrant to intervene in any activity that could jeopardize the security of Canada.

Furthermore, the bill expressly states that even after a warrant is authorized, the Security Intelligence Service would have to deem the conditions to still exist before the warrant could be executed. Regardless of whether the warrant is issued by a judge, before the warrant could be executed, the security service would still have to assess whether or not those conditions still prevail. If they do not, CSIS is accountable under this legislation.

Does the member not see that stringent condition as reasonable oversight, and that judges can properly determine the validity of an application made by CSIS?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague across the way is mistaking intention for oversight. That may be in the law, but who knows if that would actually play out? That is what oversight is all about. Do we simply provide the criteria and the conditions and let the security agency go forth and conduct operations? Do we never need to know or understand whether all of the conditions were satisfied? That is the point of oversight.

The report of the Maher Arar commission made it clear that even though there were rules, they were not being properly applied.

Oversight does not look at just one particular piece of evidentiary decision-making. It also looks at how intelligence and security are being managed across all of the agencies. Are there gaps that could be filled to be more effective? Are there duplications? Are there ways in which privacy is not being respected, regardless of the law? That is the point of oversight, and that is why all of our allies have such a structure.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very powerful presentation. I wonder if she shares our concern about the new power to disrupt that this legislation would bring in, which would transform an intelligence service into a law enforcement agency, contrary to the McDonald commission of inquiry after which CSIS itself was created.

Does she share our concern that the warrant that would be given to allow disruptive activities could override the charter and other Canadian laws in many circumstances? It seems to me an extraordinary change in our rule of law system. I would be interested in knowing if my colleague shares those concerns.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party believes that it is important to update the law to increase Canadians' security, because times have changed. We are concerned about overly broad powers, and that is why we are going to bring forward a number of amendments. We invite the Conservative Party and the minister to understand how our amendments would make this a much more effective bill. It would bring in protections against overuse of security measures. Right now, there are some unclearly undefined edges that need to be fixed.

Why would the government want to go forward with a poor bill when, with some reasonable and focused amendments, it could go forward with a good bill?

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to join the debate on Bill C-51, anti-terrorism act, 2015.

Today's world is a dark and dangerous place. We find existential threats to western civilization all around us. We saw the manifestation of these threats in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and in Ottawa this past October.

However, Canada is not in isolation. Terrorists have struck the hearts of Paris, Sydney, Copenhagen, and Brussels. This past weekend, jihadi terrorists called for attacks on shopping centres around the world, including the iconic West Edmonton Mall.

It is clear that jihadi terrorists have declared war on Canada and her allies. This war is not only against our physical existence and our people, but also our values. These terrorists hate us for the very reason that Canada is the greatest country in which to live, work, and raise a family. They dislike our equality; they dislike our modernity; and they dislike our prosperity.

However, Canada will not be intimidated by threats from any terrorist organization, which is why we are not sitting on the sidelines. Instead, we are joining our allies in supporting the international coalition in a fight against ISIL.

Our national security and law enforcement agencies are continually monitoring for threats against Canada and its citizens and will take the appropriate actions to ensure the safety of all Canadians. Terrorist threats such as these demonstrate why our Conservative government is committed to passing the anti-terrorist act, 2015, to further protect Canadians against jihadi terrorists who seek to destroy Canada.

In line with measures taken by our allies, we are taking additional action to ensure that our law enforcement and national security agencies can counter those who advocate terrorism, prevent terrorist travel and the efforts of those who seek to use Canada as a recruiting ground, and disrupt planned attacks on Canadian soil. The bill would also make it easier for law enforcement agencies to detain suspected terrorists before they can harm Canadians, and toughen penalties for violating court-ordered conditions on terrorist suspects.

Recent events in Canada and around the world remind us that we live in a dangerous world where terrorists target anyone who does not think like them. That is why our Conservative government is intent on giving law enforcement agencies the tools they need in order to counter these threats.

Much has been said by the NDP about the new Criminal Code offence in the legislation of promoting terrorism. It has suggested simultaneously that this power would be overly broad and would not accomplish anything. How it performs these verbal gymnastics is a matter for another day.

However, allow me to say that on this side of the House we believe that jihadi terrorism is an act of war and not a human right.

Allow me to give an example of how this power would work in practice.

Let us say that a terrorist entity puts on YouTube a terrorist propaganda video that concludes with the words “Attack Canada” on the screen, and, through investigation, an individual in Toronto has been identified as the person posting the video. There is no description of the kinds of attacks to be carried out.

Under the current law, counselling the commission of a terrorist offence is criminal, whether the attack is carried out or not. However, the counselling must relate to committing a specific terrorism offence, for example, counselling someone to kill someone for a political, religious, or ideological purpose. That would be the terrorist offence of committing an indictable offence that constitutes a terrorist activity.

In this scenario, there is insufficient detail in the video to allow one to conclude that the person is counselling a specific terrorist offence under the Criminal Code to kill someone, as opposed to disrupting an essential service. Under the new powers in the anti-terrorism act, 2015, posting such a video with its call to carry out attacks in Canada in general, which is a form of active encouragement, would now be caught by the criminal law.

Further, the NDP has also alleged that there are insufficient grounds to justify broadening the powers of law enforcement agencies to lower the threshold for terrorism peace bonds.

Allow me to give another example of why this power is urgently needed.

Let us say that the RCMP is conducting an ongoing investigation of an individual, after being alerted by a family member that he is planning to travel to Syria to participate in terrorist training. After an initial investigation, he explains that his wish is only to visit a dying relative. The RCMP discovers social media web postings to the effect that he is planning to leave very soon for Syria, but no other information is available. He has not made any travel plans. There is not enough evidence to support a criminal charge. However, the RCMP wishes to obtain a terrorist peace bond to stop him from travelling.

Under the current law, the RCMP can seek a peace bond if there are reasonable grounds to fear that an individual will commit a terrorism offence. While the act of leaving Canada for the purpose of receiving terrorism training is a terrorism offence, he has not yet attempted to leave for Syria. The current requirement of “will” may be too high of a threshold to meet with the available evidence in this case.

With the proposed changes, the RCMP would need to satisfy the court that it has reasonable grounds to fear that the individual in question may commit a terrorism offence. Under this new lower threshold, the court would more likely find that the oral testimony of the family member and the public social media posting to be sufficient to order the terrorism peace bond. In this case, if the peace bond were granted, it is likely that the court would consider imposing conditions that the individual report to the police and not leave the jurisdiction without permission, surrender his passport, and, if available in the jurisdiction, provide for electronic monitoring and/or counselling.

These are concrete examples of what the legislation would do. It is absolutely necessary that these measures be put in place to keep Canadians safe.

While the Liberals have a checkered history, full of opposition to common-sense national security policies, like voting against combatting the so-called Islamic State, I am pleased to see that they have indicated their support for this legislation. Conversely, I would note that the NDP has stayed consistent with its soft-on-terror approach and will vote against this legislation. This is similar to its previous votes to allow convicted terrorists to keep their citizenship, and to stop travelling abroad for terrorist purposes from becoming a criminal offence.

I certainly hope that my remarks, as well as those of my colleague, will have changed a few minds on the other side of the House. All Canadians are watching in anticipation to see whether members on the other side of the House will join our Conservative government in taking responsible action to protect our national security.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask if the member shares a concern that the opposition party has with respect to the Security Intelligence Review Committee and the way the government is currently appointing members to that body.

Members will recall the compromise in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, which is the reason we do not have what our friends in the United Kingdom or the United States have. They have security-cleared parliamentarians who provide real oversight vis-à-vis the security service in their respective countries. The reason we had the compromise here was because we were going to have people whom the Prime Minister, in consultation with the other parties, would appoint to this agency to provide that review function.

Now, of course, there is nobody on the Security Intelligence Review Committee in whom the official opposition would have any particular confidence, whereas in the past, it was very different.

Does the member have any concerns about the way that the Security Intelligence Review Committee currently operates?

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this anti-terrorism legislation sort of falls into a well-known English expression, which says that “An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of care”.

If there is suspicion of a terrorist act, we need to address and curtail or stop that before it happens. Therefore, the oversight of the judicial body that we have, which includes the specialists in law enforcement and security, would already be addressed before this sort of thing happens.

The purpose of this is to address those cases, to prevent them from happening and harming Canadians and our democracy.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is safe to say that both the leader of the Liberal Party and the leader of the New Democratic Party are now saying that if they were provided the opportunity to govern, they would not ditch the legislation, but they would want to make amendments to it. We have gone further. The Liberal Party indicates that there is a series of amendments we would like to see implemented today. They would make a difference and provide us with better legislation, possibly to the point where there might not need to be changes after the next election, if in fact it were adopted.

Given the government's past record of not accepting opposition member amendments at the committee stage, and given the importance of the legislation, can the member provide any assurance to the House, and, more specifically, to Canadians, that the government would be receptive to allowing, debating, and accepting amendments brought forward, whether they are from the Liberal Party or the New Democratic Party, once the legislation gets to committee stage?

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our parliamentary system, our democratic process, is precisely that.

We are only at second reading. From this, we go to a committee where the bill will be vigorously debated. Any proposal or amendment that is reasonable and reflects the will of Canadians will certainly be considered. Not only is there parliamentary debate on this issue, but even before it passes into law it will still have to go to a Senate review.

Our parliamentary process, our democracy, is vigorous enough to review all of the provisions of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed relieved to find an opportunity for a speaking slot when time allocation is imposed on such legislation. It is rare for any one of us who sits on this side of the House representing one of the smaller parties to have an opportunity.

Bill C-51, the anti-terrorism act, is such a dangerous piece of legislation that I am very relieved to have a chance to explain my concerns before it goes to committee.

First of all, let us set some context. We keep hearing here today in the context of this debate, and in fact when the Prime Minister launched this bill, not on the floor of the House of Commons, but in a campaign-style event, that we are in a dangerous world and that we must be terrified, that we must be afraid all the time of a monstrous terrorist threat. We are told we are at war.

The reality is that we are not at war. We are a country at peace. There is definitely a threat from a terrorist group, and terrorist groups around the world. They are particularly a threat in the regions in which they operate. ISIL and ISIS are despicable. There are not enough words in a thesaurus to sum up the brutality and the sadism of their acts.

However, the reality is that if Canada were at war, I do not think our Minister of Foreign Affairs would just have resigned his position, announcing to this House that things were in good shape as he left.

We are a country, thank God, that is at peace. I hate to remind colleagues, but there have been terrorist threats around world for a long time, and they have not always stayed far from Canada's shores. I think all of us remember the troubles with Great Britain and what they called “the Irish troubles”, the troubles of Northern Ireland, in which members of the royal family were blown up by IRA bombs. Terrorism operated in the Commonwealth then.

We have seen the threat of Tamil Tigers. We have seen the threat of FARC. There are, and continue to be, dreadful assaults by Boko Haram throughout Nigeria. We also know that these terrorist activities have come to Canada, the most extreme of these events being in 1985, when, in a Canadian airport, a plane was loaded with a bomb. As we all know, in the Air India disaster, 329 people died, most of them Canadians.

These things have taken place before, and I think it is a disservice to the people of Canada to ramp up the fear factor. Where there is a threat, we need to be clear-eyed, sober, sensible, and, above all, not fearful. People do not make good decisions when they are too afraid to think straight. This is a time when leadership requires that we think clearly and calmly, and that we do not exaggerate or torque the nature of the threat for partisan gain, which I think is what is happening here.

Let us all agree that where there are threats of terrorism, we take them seriously, that we do everything possible to reduce the risk of terrorism. In the context of Canada, that means reducing the threat of radicalizing Canadian citizens and Canadian residents to take up—inspired through all sorts of misguided, alienated, disenfranchised, and misinformed views—the cause of ISIS or other extremist groups. We must avoid the radicalization of Canadians by these monstrous organizations.

However, are we hopeless? Are we helpless right now? Have we not passed laws? In fact, we have. Since 9/11, there have been no fewer than eight laws passed which have expanded powers to fight terrorists. The RCMP has new powers, and has had them for more than a decade. Let us remember that the RCMP has been successful in locating, disrupting, and arresting people who had in mind a terrorist plot: the Toronto 18, and the VIA Rail plot.

Full credit is to be given to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for using the tools they have already been given by this place to monitor those who are extreme, to watch what they are planning, to move in to intercept them, and to arrest them and subject them to trial.

We already have security certificates, which it can be argued violate fundamental principles, like habeas corpus, that violate the right to know exactly the charges against a person and one's right to having a lawyer. These have been accepted in Canada.

The RCMP and CSIS have not yet used all the powers that existing laws have already given them to confront the terrorist threat, yet we are here today confronted with an omnibus bill that goes further than anything ever brought forward in a Parliament of Canada to trample on our rights and liberties, unlike in the U.K.

In the U.K., they just passed the Counter-terrorism and Security Act 2015, which proactively puts programs in schools, mental health institutions, and prisons to address the threat of radicalization. We now have good information that at least one of the factors in the terrible events recently in Paris and Copenhagen was radicalization in prison. Surely we should be following the lead of those countries that are using approaches to engage to preempt and avoid radicalization in those institutions. The bill before us does not do that.

We need mental health and addiction counselling. I do not subscribe to the view that I have heard repeated in this place over and over again that the events of the shooting of October 22 here in Parliament and earlier that week in Quebec were terrorist attacks. They were horrific. They were murders, like the attacks on RCMP officers in Moncton or in Alberta, where RCMP officers were shot by people who were either criminals or mentally ill and disturbed. We absolutely condemn such actions, but to describe them as terrorism is both to expand the reach and branding rights of despicable groups like ISIS and to misunderstand what took place.

We know that the man who broke into this place, having just murdered Corporal Nathan Cirillo, had just two years earlier gotten himself arrested by sharpening a stick and trying to rob a McDonald's. He then waited for the police to show up so he could beg a judge to send him to jail so that he could get addiction counselling, so that he could get help, because he knew he was a threat to himself and to others.

It is a failure of our system not because we did not have enough laws to put him in jail at that time or have surveillance on him as a potential terrorist; it is a condemnation of the system that he fell through the cracks for mental health counselling and addiction counselling. We could have saved two lives, Corporal Nathan Cirillo's and the shooter's, had we had a program in place. That is where we should be putting our attention.

To turn my attention to the bill before us and what is wrong with it, and there is so very much wrong with it, I will start with the fact that in its information sharing provisions, it is so over-broad and overreaching that it could require information collected about every Canadian. There is almost no one who could not be seen to be snagged at some point by this definition and the way in which information would be shared.

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Daniel Therrien, has expressed his concerns. Virtually every privacy expert in Canada thinks the information sharing contemplated by part 1 of the bill is extreme. It would essentially apply to every agency of Canada and could provide a complete profile of every citizen and everything they do. This must be tightened up. If we are going to have this kind of information provision in the interest of terrorism, then the definition should be about terrorism, not about things that could include dissent of all kinds.

Again, I have heard many Conservative members of Parliament say that there should be no concern about non-violent civil disobedience, but then they parrot back to me a definition that clearly excludes non-violent civil disobedience. It says:

For greater certainty, it does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression.

Well, the use of the word “lawful” at the beginning of that phrase has been interpreted by other legal analysts, not just me, but by numerous scholars who have been looking at this proposed law since it was brought forward, to apply to all aspects. If people violated a municipal bylaw, they would no longer be engaged in a lawful activity.

This needs to be clarified, and despite my efforts in asking the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Minister of Justice, and the Prime Minister, no one has yet said that it is not their intention to cover and criminalize non-violent civil disobedience, beyond a level that is already criminal, because people take an active conscience to break a law they find unjust.

There is more here than I can get to. However, moving ahead, in part 4 we have been told that there is judicial oversight. There is no such thing. It is only in instances where CSIS agents believe that what they are about to do will violate the charter that they would go to a judge to get a warrant. This is not judicial oversight. Are these CSIS agents going to be trained in the law? The Minister of Justice and the Supreme Court of Canada frequently disagree about what is a charter violation.

We have lost the inspector general for CSIS. That position of oversight was removed in an omnibus bill in 2012. This bill cannot be simply fixed with more oversight. It would be better to scrap it and start over, starting with an evidence-based question: What do law enforcement agencies tell us they need that they do not already have?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I do agree with. The member mentioned that we should be clear-eyed and sensible, and I agree with that completely. However, earlier today in debate, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands questioned the ability to apply the Canadian charter to our intelligence services in operating overseas. I question this, because what she is implying is that CSIS should somehow use the laws in other countries.

When we talk about some of the countries where we are tracking threats, we are talking about countries like Somalia and Iran. I do not think there is a single person in Canada who would think the laws that govern those countries and their human rights violations would somehow trump what we have here in Canada with the Canadian charter.

I would like to ask the member this. Does the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands actually believe that the laws of countries like Somalia or Iran are far better than what we have here under the Canadian charter?

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her thoughtful speech on the very serious issue of fighting terrorism.

First, let me say that nobody in the House supports terrorist activities. However, what I see happening in the House today is an absolute travesty and an attack on parliamentary democracy. I was elected by my constituents and was sent here to represent them, but there will only be two hours of debate on Bill C-51, which is major legislation. It needs to be examined very seriously. I heard the parliamentary secretary say just a few minutes ago that it is going to go through the parliamentary rigour of Parliament, yet many MPs' voices are not going to be heard because they cannot debate.

I would ask my colleague to comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did not think I would see the level of concern about this bill coming from the Canadian public as quickly as it did. Commentators, whether The Globe and Mail editorial board, National Post writers, or Rex Murphy, and I think it has been at least several decades since I have agreed with anything Rex Murphy has said, have all said that this bill requires study. This is fundamentally different from any bill we have ever seen before the House of Commons. We need to have a proper study.

We had closure of debate at second reading. There are rumours of moving it quickly through committee. I hope those rumours are not true, but we will find out when the committee announces its list of witnesses.

We need a proper review, and the government needs to show a willingness to take on amendments. Otherwise, this will not protect Canadian rights and liberties; this will be an assault on Canadian rights and liberties.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I share several of the concerns and issues that have been raised, but I want to ask about the issue of civilian and parliamentary oversight, which is fundamental to good policing, a good judicial system, and confidence in the judicial, policing, and security systems. In the hon. member's perspective, what would constitute appropriate parliamentary oversight and appropriate civilian oversight?

The idea that we are shortening debate on this scares me. The notion that amendments will not be received on this frightens me. However, the lack of civilian oversight to me is a fundamental flaw in this legislation.

What would constitute good civilian oversight and appropriate parliamentary oversight, in the member's view?

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

Mr. Speaker, let us go back and say what it is that the Conservative administration thinks is adequate oversight.

We are told that the Security Intelligence Review Committee is enough. It is instructive to remember that this is a part-time board that looks at complaints about CSIS.

We used to have an inspector general for CSIS who acted as eyes and ears for the Minister of Public Safety to spot when things were going off the rails. It is not that we do not love the RCMP and trust them and all that, but let us face it, we have a history of barnburning. It was a mistake, but it happened. We have seen oil installations blown up.

We need to have at least an inspector general to watch what the spies are doing and make sure the minister knows about it to keep things from going off the rails. SIRC cannot do it, and we need more, not less.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today and lend my voice in support of Bill C-51, the anti-terrorism act, 2015.

Working to secure the safety and security of Canadians is a sacred duty that our government takes very seriously. That is why our counterterrorism efforts, guided by a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy, have been front and centre in our legislative agenda.

We continue to make real progress in measured and decisive ways to improve our country's ability to address the terrorist threat. Notably, we brought in the Combating Terrorism Act, which made it a crime to travel or attempt to travel to engage in terrorist activity abroad. I am compelled to note that the NDP opposed making it a crime to travel abroad to engage in terrorism. In fact, the member for Surrey North said that the Combating Terrorism Act:

...is not about preventing terrorism. We already have a comprehensive justice system and enough legislation to protect Canadians from acts of terrorism, as well as a variety of capable institutions to facilitate these laws. Rather, this bill fundamentally attacks our rights and freedoms.

To this claim I would say two things. First, jihadi terrorism is not a human right; it is an act of war. Second, and tragically, we saw very clearly in late October that more tools need to be made available to law enforcement to stop terrorism.

More recently, we introduced the protection of Canada from terrorists act to ensure CSIS has the firm legal footing it needs to investigate threats to the security of Canada from wherever they originate. Yet again, the NDP stood against these common sense measures, measures that are moving us in the right direction.

As I have said, recent events demonstrate we have more work to do to ensure Canada is as well equipped as possible to confront the multi-faceted and evolving national security threats we face, not only those direct threats posed by international terrorists like al Qaeda and the Islamic State but also those from within our very borders, including terrorist travellers and lone-wolf actors whose actions can be difficult to detect and disrupt.

It is difficult to overstate just how considerable and pressing these threats really are. The attacks we have seen recently against our country and our allies are grim and painful reminders of the threats we face to our security, to our freedom, and to our liberties.

The threat remains real. In recent months the RCMP has made arrests and laid terrorism-related charges on several individuals, including individuals in our nation's capita, but these attacks have also strengthened our resolve. As parliamentarians, it is incumbent upon us to take action with decisive measures to protect Canada and Canadians from rapidly evolving national security threats, just as we have proposed in the legislation before us.

These measures will allow for more effective information sharing between federal government departments when it comes to legitimate matters of national security. They will allow us to capitalize on the significant and unique expertise of CSIS by providing the organization with a mandate to engage in activities that will help disrupt threats to our great country. They will allow us to take action to stem the tide of terrorism material on the Internet.

The bill before us will allow us to do all these things, but during my time today I would like to outline the measures we have proposed to improve an existing national security tool, the passenger protect program. This program, introduced in 2007, serves as an important component of Canada's multi-layered approach to aviation security. It complements other aviation security measures such as the screening of people and goods, the physical protection of facilities and aircraft, and airport policing.

As members may be aware, the Government of Canada maintains a specified persons list under the program and provides it to air carriers in a secure manner. Air carriers must screen all passengers booked on flights to, from or within Canada against the list and report any potential matches to Transport Canada officials, who decide if it is necessary to issue an emergency direction to deny boarding. As it stands, the goal of the program is quite simple: to keep individuals who may pose an immediate security threat from boarding commercial flights. Its entire focus is to target threats to transportation security such as terrorist or other criminal acts that pose a danger to passengers, crew, aircraft or aviation facilities.

While this remains a concern, we also have to contend with another disturbing threat reality.

I would remind all members that our nation's top security officials have voiced their concern about a growing number of individuals with Canadian connections travelling by air to places like Syria, Somalia and Iraq to participate in terrorist activities. They engage in attacks. They engage in recruitment. They receive training. As of early 2015, the government is aware of a number of individuals who have left Canada for these types of activities in conflict zones. We can only imagine the sleep that officials lose over the fact that some of these individuals return quite possibly with the determination and know-how to plan and, worse, to carry out attacks on Canadian soil. While such individuals do not pose a direct threat to aviation security at the time of their departure, nonetheless they are a menace to Canada, to our allies and certainly to their destination country.

The program is currently not designed to address this very real and present threat, and must be updated to remain a relevant and effective national security tool. In order to deny boarding, the current requirement to demonstrate an immediate threat to aviation security precludes the program from mitigating lower levels of risk.

Authorities are limited in their ability to prevent individuals from travelling by air for terrorism purposes when a case does not meet the threshold for criminal prosecution or other law enforcement tools. Therefore, through this legislation, our government is taking to strengthen and expand the program to better address this type of threat.

As we have heard, this proposed legislation will usher in important changes that will see the program evolve into a more effective tool in our counterterrorism arsenal. To that end, we are proposing a new stand-alone act to provide a firm legislative basis for the program. This is significant since the program is currently defined under administrative policies, rather than enshrined in law. Putting it on a firm legislative foundation will go a long way toward improving its administration and operation.

The responsibilities for the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Minister of Transport will be clearly defined to reflect the most important change we have proposed to the program, which is a new mandate. With this legislation, we would expand its mandate so it would serve not only as a tool to mitigate threats to aviation security but one that would further support our commitment and our duty to prevent individuals from travelling by air for terrorism purposes.

The bill would authorize the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to establish a list of persons when there would be reasonable grounds to suspect that the individual would pose a threat to transportation security or would travel by air to engage is terrorist-related activities. As well, the minister would be authorized to issue directions to air carriers in order to respond to the threat posed by a listed person. These operational directions could include denial of boarding or additional physical screening prior to boarding. By establishing the passenger protect program as a tool with a dual mandate to prevent threats to aircraft and help prevent terrorist travel, we would ensure it would be much more reflective of today's threat environment.

Finally, whether it is changes to the program or it is other measures outlined by my colleagues today, this comprehensive legislation contains precisely the kinds of adaptations we need to make to address the ever-changing threat environment. I therefore call on all members of the House for their support of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, all of us in the House are concerned with the threats to the security of Canadians and I would assume that all of us take the protection of the security of Canadians as our priority.

However, I am stunned and confounded that the government would do voluntarily to our country what those who oppose freedom and democracy would have done to it. We send young men and women around the world to protect what the government is denying to Canadians through this bill.

What this bill has defined as “terrorism”, with its broad and sweeping definition, has significant overlap with what Canadians understand to be reasonable expression of opinion and the normal practice of dissent in a free and democratic society. I have heard nothing from the Conservatives nor from the Liberal Party, which is supporting this bill, that would justify that.

I would like to give the member another opportunity to justify denying Canadians their freedoms voluntarily by the Government of Canada through this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have been following the growing threat of terrorism across the globe for the last number of years. We heard from a speaker earlier that clearly terrorism was something that we had witnessed for decades. However, the pace, the barbarity and the culture of this terrorism is growing at a rate that is alarming at least.

When we look back to October 22, we look to the threats to our country, we look at trials that are already under way in the country for threats that were made against rail lines recently and for the recent Boston bombing. We have to take action. We simply cannot stand back and say that what we have is good enough. We simply must react.

For my colleague opposite, I encourage him to join us in acting today.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of quotes I would like to read to the House and get a response from the government opposite.

The first quote states:

—the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

Those words come from a Conservative statesman who should be listened to and understood in the context of the question I am about to ask.

The second quote is, “AGITATION is the marshalling of the conscience of a nation, to mold its laws”.

The concern we have, and the concern many in the House have, is that the language about what constitutes terrorism is overly vague and overly broad, while at the same time civilian oversight is missing. The words I just spoke were delivered to Parliament in England by Sir Robert Peel, a Conservative of great note.

Civilian oversight is the cornerstone of democratic and good strong policing. Why does the government not strengthen civilian oversight as it seeks to challenge people's charter rights?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit perplexed. We are not talking about agitation today. We are talking about the real threat of terrorism on our shores, the threat that took the lives of two Canadian servicemen, the first time in our history.

Let me just express a quote from an individual who was originally a member of the third party. The speaker is the current mayor of Montreal, who was formerly a cabinet minister in that party when it was in government. He said that he expected Parliament to rapidly pass the anti-terrorism act of 2015.

Could the member opposite please tell this party what he intends to do in obstructing that? This situation is at a place of crisis where yesterday in Toronto we witnessed a memorial service for 21 Coptic Christians who were recently brutally beheaded. We saw a video yesterday that has been reported to have threatened a mall in our country.

It is time to stand and take action, and I encourage the member opposite to join us in that.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-51. I have been getting many email messages from constituents in my riding. I have been collecting them. They are unanimously critical and opposed to the bill. I think as more Canadians find out what is in it and they understand the implications of it, that opposition will increase.

I want to be very clear in criticizing the process with which the Conservatives are rushing the bill through the House. It is of course another omnibus bill that changes many existing pieces of legislation. After two hours of debate in the House, they brought in a closure motion, which will mean that after a grand total of 10 hours of debate, they want the bill hustled off to a committee, which, hopefully, they will not rush through in order to have a very full study. However, that has not been their practice so far.

I want to be clear that the Conservatives could have continued the very collegial atmosphere last October when we were all shocked by a shooting on Parliament Hill. Two young men lost their lives. It was frightening, it was shocking, and we all agreed at that time that we would work together and that we should not sacrifice our democracy and our principles in a rush, in a stampede to act out of fear and insecurity.

I now feel the Conservatives are in fact rushing to bring this bill in and get it passed out of political expediency, because they think it will help them get re-elected. They also do not want to give Canadians the time to actually find out what is in the bill. They know that once they do, they will be more opposed to it.

The New Democratic Party, and I believe our leader has articulated this very clearly, believes we should have legislation that provides security, that will keep Canadians safe, but that also protects our civil liberties. Security and civil liberties and public safety are all Canadian values, and they are not a trade-off, they are not a balancing act. We need to have both security and our civil liberties. We need to protect our freedom as much as we protect our security.

We could have, and there is still time for the government and the third party to agree to this, a more serious, evidence-based approach to anti-terrorism legislation. We could stop playing politics with this and we could hear from experts in Canada and around the world. We could look at what other countries are doing. We could, in fact, choose the best. After a thorough review, engaging all parties, all of our ideas, coming to the table and after a full debate, we could come to what I believe would be an effective bill for public safety, one that would include strong oversight of our security and intelligence agencies, one that would devote appropriate resources to security and intelligence agencies rather than make cuts to these agencies, which the government has done, and one that, rather than fanning the flames of Islamophobia, would work with at-risk communities on counter-radicalization programs. That is what is needed in our country and that is where the government has failed.

The criticisms of the bill are of course many, but let me highlight just a few of them. There has been a lot of concern about how sweeping this law is, how vague it is and probably how ineffective it is. In the short time allotted to me today, I do not have time to get into a detailed analysis of this.

I would just say that after repeated tough questioning in the House of Commons by the Leader of the Opposition, neither the Prime Minister, nor the Minister of Public Safety, nor the Minister of Defence could offer a single example of a crime that could have been stopped or a danger thwarted by this legislation that is not already covered by existing legislation. They could not offer even one example to the House, which is pretty shocking. Surely, if they are going to fix the problem, they had better understand what the problem is and better know that what they are proposing will fix the problem. They could not give one single example. That is pretty shocking.

There is serious concern that because of the vagueness and overreach of the legislation, those who are engaged in legitimate lawful dissent, or in some cases perhaps pushing the limits a bit, might also be swooped up under the bill.

Coming from the city of Toronto in particular, I think of the people who were detained and kettled in downtown Toronto during the G8 and G20 talks. Not one charge was laid, but these people were detained in very difficult conditions and their rights were not respected. To me, Bill C-51 is continuing down that very slippery slope.

When constitutional lawyers across the country, former prime ministers, and former premiers are all sounding the alarm bells about the constitutionality and the dangers of the bill, perhaps we should pay attention. Again, it is not necessary that we violate our civil liberties in order to provide for public safety.

I live in a neighbourhood in our country where people are worried sick about highly flammable toxic substances transiting our riding in tank cars. These are the same kind of tank cars that exploded and incinerated people in Lac-Mégantic. I would like the government to invest more in public safety for rail safety and food safety. I want to see investment in all aspects of our public safety, not just in a knee-jerk response like we are seeing with Bill C-51.

Lack of oversight is also a serious concern that has been raised. As the former vice-chair of the finance committee, I was on the finance committee in 2012 when an omnibus bill was brought before that committee. We had as a witness, Paul Kennedy, who was one of the people involved in setting up our spy agency, CSIS. He, at that time, was sounding alarm bells about a proposal in the budget bill to get rid of the oversight of CSIS. I want to quote him, because I think his comments are very important:

For anyone to sit here and possibly think that because CSIS doesn't like this, CSIS should be accommodated and it should be removed is sheer insanity.

It really is. CSIS does not get to make that call. The minister's job is to give the public assurances and to make sure the tools are there. If someone came up with a better model, fine, but he was critical that existing oversight model of CSIS was being removed. When that model was set up, the spy agency was separated from policing. There was CSIS and the RCMP. What Bill C-51 does is to blur those two. Yet, having taken away the oversight, not replaced it, and in fact having cut resources to CSIS and the RCMP, somehow the government wants the public to believe that it is treating security and public safety seriously. I do not buy it and, increasingly, neither do Canadians.

Thank goodness there is one principled leader in this country, the leader of the official opposition, who is standing up and challenging the government and poking holes in the error of this legislation. All Canadians will be thankful for it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague five questions about five necessary measures in the bill.

Does she agree with preventing potential high-risk terrorists from boarding a plane in order to stop them from committing terrorist acts?

Does she agree that our intelligence officers should meet with parents in order to prevent a young person from being radicalized?

Does she agree that a Foreign Affairs official should be able to speak to an RCMP officer in order to identify an individual who represents a threat to national security?

What does she think of blocking a website that contains hate and jihadist propaganda?

Finally, does she agree that we should give our police officers the ability to prevent an imminent terrorist attack against Canadian citizens by an individual?

These five measures are found in Bill C-51.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in response I would ask the minister whether there are not already laws that deal with these activities. Can he give us an example of an aspect of terrorism that is not covered by existing laws?

Could he also tell us why the RCMP's annual expenditures have been cut by $420 million over the past five years and those of CSIS have been reduced by $44 million?

That is not going to enhance terrorism legislation.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised the issue of the G20 and the G8, and I would remind members of two things. First, all of those offences and violations of civil rights happened with the existing legislation in place and a lack of oversight over existing provincial and federal police forces. That is why the issue of civilian oversight is so critically important here.

I would also remind the House that the Associate Minister of National Defence, the former minister of veterans affairs, was in charge of the OPP at the time. It is precisely the fact that it was his position and his behaviour on that file that were not questioned that gives many of us concern. Many of us understand that as being the chief argument why civilian oversight is so important.

I would also remind the member that the mayor of Toronto at the time, a New Democrat, praised police activities in the days following the G20 summit. Again, a lack of civilian oversight was critically important there.

Could the member please enunciate exactly what parliamentary and civilian oversight her party would support?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at a minimum, obviously we want to have the kind of oversight that the inspector general provided under CSIS, but even that was not enough. I cite the Campbell Clark article from the Globe and Mail today, where Mr. Clark talks about getting warrants. He said that when CSIS applies for warrants, a judge only hears one side of the argument; the judge does not hear a counter-argument to that. It is up to CSIS if it wants to get a warrant. Judges just routinely give these warrants.

We need better oversight of the existing powers of CSIS. These extended powers are not warranted—at least the government has not made a case for them.

I would urge my colleague from Trinity—Spadina and all of his colleagues in the Liberal Party to please not just rubberstamp the bill. I would urge them not be stampeded by the Conservative government and fear of public opinion. I would urge them, please, to take a principled stand and to stand up for Canadians' rights and oppose Bill C-51.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to resuming debate and the hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans, I will let him know that there only remains about one and a half minutes for the hon. member before the end of the period allocated for government orders this afternoon. We will recognize him just the same for a minute and a half. The hon. member for Ottawa--Orléans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 6:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Thursday, February 19, 2015, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #337

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #338

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)