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.

The House proceeded to the consideration 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

There are 66 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for report stage of Bill C-51. Motions Nos. 1 to 66 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 66 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting the long title.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting the short title.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

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

, seconded by the member for Edmonton—St. Albert, moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-51, in Clause 2, be amended

(a) by replacing line 21 on page 5 with the following:

“information that is necessary to protect Canada against activities that undermine the security of Canada and that is disclosed under subsection”

(b) by replacing line 25 on page 5 with the following:

“restrictions and prohibitions, while respecting any caveats on, and originator control over, shared information.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 6.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 9.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 10.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 14.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 15.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 16.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 17.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 18.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 19.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 20.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 21.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 22.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 23.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 24.

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 25.

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 26.

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 27.

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 28.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 29.

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 30.

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 31.

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 32.

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 33.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 34.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 35.

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 36.

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 37.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 38.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 39.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 40.

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 41.

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 42.

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

, seconded by the member for Edmonton—St. Albert, moved:

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-51, in Clause 42, be amended by replacing line 29 on page 49 with the following:

“enforcement power, including the power to perform the duties that are the primary responsibility of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 43.

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 44.

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 45.

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 46.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 47.

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 48.

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 49.

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 50.

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 51.

Motion No. 55

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 52.

Motion No. 56

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 53.

Motion No. 57

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 54.

Motion No. 58

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 55.

Motion No. 59

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 56.

Motion No. 60

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 57.

Motion No. 61

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 58.

Motion No. 62

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 59.

Motion No. 63

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 60.

Motion No. 64

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 61.

Motion No. 65

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 62.

Motion No. 66

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting the Schedule.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for accepting the amendments that the official opposition wants to make to Bill C-51.

These amendments did not come out of nowhere, and I will comment on that in my speech. After the Conservative government introduced Bill C-51, we, the official opposition, took the time to do the work that the government should have done. We consulted the people and experts in various fields affected by this bill.

Most of the Canadians who have been following the debate on Bill C-51 realize that is has some serious flaws. We are not the only ones to have identified those flaws; many other members of our society have as well. These include important leaders in our first nations communities, eminent constitutional law professors, former Supreme Court justices, former prime ministers and community leaders. The Canadian Bar Association also testified before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security about the serious flaws in Bill C-51.

We have taken the time to study the bill, unlike the Liberals, who immediately said they would support it, even though it is a bad bill. The official opposition did its job. We read the bill carefully and realized that we unfortunately could not support it. That is why today, after examining it rather closely in committee and consulting with a number of stakeholders and citizens, we must present these amendments. That is the most sensible thing to do, given that in committee we were told to go back to the drawing board.

For my colleagues who were unable to attend, let me give a brief overview of the evidence we heard on Bill C-51 at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. There were nine committee meetings to hear evidence, including one with the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice. At the other eight meetings, the vast majority of the witnesses were there at the government's request, but there were also a few that appeared at the request of the official opposition or the third party. Forty-five of the 48 witnesses who appeared before the committee said we should amend Bill C-51, or scrap it altogether and go back to the drawing board, and, as I said, most of the witnesses were there at the government's behest.

The Minister of Public Safety and the Prime Minister must realize that Bill C-51 is perhaps not the best solution. The right thing to do would be to listen to the official opposition and the various civil society stakeholders, go back to the drawing board and come back with real anti-terrorism legislation. Such legislation should not violate our rights and freedoms, the fundamental rights of first nations, or the right of various groups in civil society to protest, as Bill C-51 does, just to give a few examples.

The opposition did its work in committee. We examined Bill C-51 and heard from witnesses who identified its shortcomings. About a hundred amendments were proposed to Bill C-51 by the various opposition parties and they were debated for several hours, but we once again witnessed the Conservative government's lack of openness in that regard. One after the other, each of the amendments was rejected, often with no explanation from the government. It was likely simply because they were not proposed by the Conservatives.

Three amendments were adopted, but they were minor amendments proposed by the Conservatives. We are therefore not surprised at the government's blatant failure to listen during the committee meetings. We heard extremely important testimony and time was limited. As a result, many witnesses appeared at the same time. We often heard from three or four witnesses in one hour, and unfortunately, we had very little time to ask them questions and continue the debate with them.

I did not want to send Bill C-51 to committee. I would have preferred it if we had scrapped that bill and all of the parties had worked together to come up with something else, a good collective response to terrorism and radicalization. Unfortunately, that did not happen.

We proposed amendments in committee in good faith. We heard from excellent witnesses from all sides. The Conservatives did not listen to them at all. They really should have listened, because I am not sure that Bill C-51 will even stand up in court, which is fundamental when a government proposes a bill.

Unfortunately, the Canadian Bar Association and eminent professors who are extremely knowledgeable about constitutional law came and explained that to us. In fact, I asked them directly whether Bill C-51 was constitutional. The answer was a categorical no. Large parts of Bill C-51 are not at all constitutional and will not stand up in court. It is a government's primary duty to get legal opinions confirming that the bills it introduces are constitutional. That is fundamental, but Bill C-51 is not even constitutional. The members opposite did not do their job properly.

There was talk of the need to provide law enforcement agencies with new tools, but a number of the RCMP and police services representatives that we talked to told us they already have the tools they need to deal with terrorism. The problem is with resources. They do not have the resources they need. The RCMP set aside almost 200 criminal cases in order to assign all its officers to tackling terrorism. There is a serious lack of resources right now, but we do have the tools we need to take action and deal with terrorism.

When the budget was presented to us this week, nearly two months late, I was hoping to at least see a decent allocation for fighting terrorism. I saw that it was included in the budget and I looked at the amounts. To my great surprise, no money was allocated at all. For the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the envelope is a little less than $300 million over five years. Before 2017, these agencies combined will get less than $20 million to deal with terrorism. This is a drop in the bucket and an insult to the work of our police services. They are being squeezed and are forced to move their staff in order to do the work being asked of them. Now, this budget is giving them peanuts for their work.

When a government claims that it is there to protect its communities, cities and the entire country, to serve its citizens and protect national security, it must turn words into action. It has to allocate the necessary money. It has to provide the money and give it to our law enforcement agencies so that they have the means to act. That is not in Bill C-51 or in the 2015 federal budget tabled by the Conservative government.

I am extremely disappointed with the government's lack of leadership and its failure to take seriously the fight against terrorism and radicalization. There are a lot of holes in the Conservatives' botched approach. For example, it would have been productive for the Conservatives to propose measures against radicalization. Various stakeholders have talked about this. Efforts are being made to counter radicalization in some of our regions and communities, and this work has even been adapted in the United States. That is the first suggestion.

The American government is currently working very hard on devising a national strategy to combat radicalization and is achieving some success. Communities are working with law enforcement agencies on a national strategy to counter radicalization. Quite frankly, we should have followed that fine example. The NDP suggested it at the outset.

Unfortunately, once again, I cannot support Bill C-51 as proposed by the Conservative government. That is why the amendments moved today by the official opposition are so important.

We have to go back to the drawing board, draft a bill together, ensure that we have a national strategy to counter radicalization and stop terrorism once and for all.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I will admit that I do enjoy working on the committee with my colleague from the NDP. I do notice she took a little side slap at the Liberal Party. That is fine, that is politics. In reality, the Liberal Party on this bill is the only party in the House of Commons that has a responsible and reasonable position. We are trying to find the balance on both sides. On the one hand, the government does not care a smidgen, it seems, about the civil liberties of Canadians. On the other hand, the NDP does not seem to care a smidgen about the public safety of Canadians. There is a place where this Parliament can find balance. Some are in the NDP amendments, as they were in the Liberal amendments.

We did have quite a number of witnesses. Although the majority of witnesses had concerns about the civil liberties side of the issue here, they also recognized that there need to be some measures and provisions to ensure the national security and public safety of Canadians.

My question to the member this. Does she not see what those witnesses who indicated that there is a need for greater public safety and national security provisions said? Does she not agree that what they said was important? Why do the New Democrats not seem to care about that side? I know they care about national security, but their position is strange.

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

Mr. Speaker, if there is one party that has a strange position on Bill C-51, it would unfortunately have to be the third party in the House, for several reasons.

When Bill C-51 was introduced, the Liberal leader claimed that he had concerns—before he had even read it—but then immediately said that he would vote in favour of the bill. The Liberals are giving the Conservatives a blank cheque.

Why? Because at the time, the majority of Canadians supported the bill. However today, two-thirds of Canadians reject Bill C-51.

Furthermore, what intrigues me the most about the Liberals' position on this, aside from the fact that they use the polls to form their opinion on Bill C-51 or to decide on any position they may take, is that as it stands right now Bill C-51 will not comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I have some questions that I would have liked to ask my Liberal colleague. I hope he will make a speech so I can ask him the following question: why do the Liberals want to vote against the charter by supporting a bill as flawed as Bill C-51?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent discourse and her hard work with respect to this difficult situation. As she mentioned, even the Conservative witnesses who were called opposed this bill, and the vast majority of the witnesses were called by the Conservatives.

It is passing strange what we have heard from the Liberals. The Liberal leader is an example and we have to make mention that the only reason he was voting for the bill is because he was worried that the Conservatives would use his opposition to the bill in a future campaign against him. That is what he said. Those are not our words, they are his, and the polling at the time was supportive of Bill C-51.

I have seen many bills pass through this House in my 11 years, but I have never seen a bill for which constituents were coming to me mentioning the number and the name of the bill and suggesting that we need to do everything we can to stop it.

My question is very direct. What exactly is it today that the NDP are trying to do in order to stop this terrible attack on our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as has clearly been demonstrated by former Supreme Court justices, former prime ministers, and virtually every security and constitutional expert that we were able to hear from?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who raised some very important points.

What we are trying to do with respect to Bill C-51 is a matter of principle. We are a party of principles, and nothing could make us vote in favour of a bill that violates our rights and civil liberties as much as Bill C-51 does. We are people of principle.

Early on, the polls did not support our position, not at all. We stood up anyway. Our leader, a very principled man, stood up and decided that, no, we would not support something that is an attack on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and an attack on our fundamental rights. Frankly, this is partisan politics.

This is putting partisanship before principles, which we will never accept. We will not get involved in the Conservatives' game or the Liberals' when our rights and civil liberties are being attacked.

I am proud to stand up today with my caucus colleagues to once again support the amendments we are proposing. The government needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with a solution that works for all Canadians, instead of introducing a botched bill like Bill C-51.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues.

Not only is Bill C-51 appalling, it is also dangerous.

I want to pause for a moment, because this is not an ordinary debate, this is not an ordinary bill, and this is not about politics anymore. This is about the soul of the country and whether we understand what Canada stands for, for ourselves and what we represent around the world.

We just bowed our heads in prayer. The Supreme Court is taking a look at bowing our heads in prayer, and we may be visiting that some day. However, we just, through the words of the Speaker, prayed that we make good laws and wise decisions. If we meant that prayer and then passed Bill C-51, our words would be blasphemy, because this is not a good law, nor is it wise.

The story the Prime Minister would like to have Canadians believe about this law is that in this place, some members of Parliament, the ones in the Conservative Party, want to protect Canadians from terrorism, and other members of Parliament—namely Greens, New Democrats, the Bloc, and Independents, and I certainly hope in future the Liberal Party will come to its senses and join us—who will vote against Bill C-51, do not care about security.

Certainly in the course of clause-by-clause, various Conservative members of that committee actually said what a shame it was that the Green Party was willing to “privilege” the rights of terrorists over the those of Canadians, I think were the words used. That is the story Conservatives want Canadians to hear, to think that we are so concerned about rights and freedoms and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and civil liberties that we would turn a blind eye to the threat of terrorism.

The bill was initially launched at a campaign style rally in Richmond Hill, Ontario, and not in this place, something we are becoming all too familiar with as sort of a routine contempt of Parliament. The Conservatives launch big initiatives and laws outside of Parliament, with cheering crowds and campaign banners. When this was first launched, the Prime Minister said, “Violent jihadism is not a human right; it is an act of war”.

It is an extraordinary thing to say, as if anyone had ever suggested that violent jihadism was a human right. It set up a frame in which those of us who oppose Bill C-51 are somehow associating ourselves with violent jihadism.

In response to that torqued campaign rhetoric, we have the words and the advice of some of the country's leading constitutional, legal, and operational security experts in relation to this notion of an act of war. We have the words of professors Craig Forcese from the University of Ottawa and Kent Roach from the University of Toronto, who said: “False analogies between crime and war can contort law”.

We need to look at this bill, which is an omnibus bill of five different sections, five different laws, thrown together and rushed through Parliament and rushed through committee, and ask this question: Does this make us safer? I ask my colleagues not to fall into the trap of saying it is civil liberties versus protecting us from terrorism. Does the bill make us safer? Does it actually confront terrorism in a fashion that makes Canadians safer? Then we can have a discussion about whether we are willing to make compromises about civil liberties because the bill will make us safer.

We see how cleverly the Conservatives' spin puts us wrong-footed before we even begin.

The assumption is that the bill makes us safer, and I want to spend most of my time this morning at report stage to persuade as many colleagues as I can that the bill is dangerous because it makes us less safe. There are the losses of civil liberties the bill represents, the violations of privacy, and indeed, the most unprecedented, anti-constitutional, anti-democratic provision in any law that has ever come before this place, a law to allow a CSIS agent, in a secret trial before a judge, where the only evidence presented would be from the government, and the existence of the hearing would never be known to the public, to get a warrant to violate our Constitution. It is astonishing. It would be a constitutional breach warrant.

However, let us look at the question of whether the bill would make us safer?

After the rush of witnesses through the House, they began the hearings in the Senate. Before we have completed our review of the bill in this place, and here we are at report stage, the other place has already begun its review.

I think some of the most powerful testimony yet on Bill C-51 came up in the Senate from a British security expert who has worked as a liaison officer within the Canadian security establishment. In other words, he is an operational spy. He has worked for MI5 in security, and he has worked in Canada as a liaison officer with Canadian security. He is an expert in what we need to do to make us safer, which is to find and stop terrorist plots. His name is Joe Fogarty. He introduced himself to the Senate, and I have his testimony before me, from which I will quote.

He said, “The question I was asked to address was why it appeared to be the case that the relationship between the police service and MI5 in the United Kingdom was so close, with such easy sharing of information and with such a consistently strong outcome in terms of arrests, prosecutions and convictions in national security cases”.

In contrast, since 2001 in Canada, there have been 30 terrorism-related arrests, whereas in the U.K., there have been some 2,000, and these figures do not include Northern Ireland. It could just be that we do not have very much terrorism activity here, but it could also be that we have set up silos, with security services and police operations, which do not work with each other and actually can trip each other up.

In that sense, Mr. Fogarty gave further testimony, which I found quite shocking. He said that this is all on the public record but is not that easy to find. These examples were put forward. These are recent:

“CSIS discovered the location of a suspected terrorist training camp inside Canada.... it decides not to tell the RCMP about it”.

Here is another example:

“CSIS realized that the RCMP was following the wrong targets. So having identified certain people who are believed, by that stage, to be threats to public safety, realizing that the RCMP was following the wrong people, CSIS decided not to say anything”.

This evidence from Mr. Fogarty, which I will come back to, is directly relevant to testimony the House of Commons committee heard.

John Major, former Supreme Court Justice, who chaired the Air India inquiry, pleaded with the committee not to pass the bill in its current form and not to pass it without oversight.

Part 4 of the bill would create for CSIS new powers of disruption, and as I mentioned earlier, would allow it to get a warrant from a judge to break domestic law and to violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, nowhere in Bill C-51 are CSIS agents required to share information with the RCMP.

Now, we will hear from Conservatives that we should not worry, because part 1 of the bill is all about information sharing. Yes, the words “information sharing” are used, but they are not about sharing information between CSIS, Canada Border Services Agency, CSEC, and the RCMP. Those are the four different agencies that are collecting information and have a role in disrupting terrorist plots, but there is no oversight. There is no pinnacle command. There is nobody watching what each entity is doing, and there is no requirement to share information. On the contrary, we have set up a system where there are disincentives to sharing information.

Mr. Fogarty testified very clearly that in the U.K., due to a law that was passed back in 1996, a situation was created under that legislation that “all national security material is afforded third-party status in criminal proceedings as a matter of statute”.

With that assurance, in the case of the U.K., the police work with MI5. In Canada, we do not do that. Our current system lacks any oversight. I cannot say that clearly enough. We have a review committee in SIRC, but that is not oversight.

Here we have a situation where a security expert came before Parliament and to the Senate committee and said:

“At the minute...with the greatest of regret, if you continue with the situation in which your security intelligence agency is reluctant, for very good reasons, to share with your law enforcement team, this is the equivalent of sitting on top of a tragedy waiting to happen”.

He went on:

“I was asked this question a number of years ago.... I was asked to have a look at which bits of the Canadian operational relationship I would incorporate into the U.K. because, as liaison officers, you were very acquisitive and looking for best practices all over the world.... with the greatest of respect, I wouldn't incorporate a single aspect of it, at the minute, because it's dangerous”.

Here we are being told by the Conservatives and the Prime Minister that we must accept a bill that would trample on the Constitution, trample on our rights and freedoms, and violate our privacy rights because it would make us safer. Here is the big lie: it would not make us safer. It is dangerous. It would make us less safe. It would create circumstances in which CSIS and the RCMP operate in silos. That led to the Air India disaster.

I plead with my colleagues to reject this bad law.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear my friend and colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands refer to my former political science professor and others, but aside from that, I take umbrage with much of what she said. The bill is designed to bring our government up to the level of other western democracies. It is modest in the changes it would make, given the threats we as Canadians confront.

I would ask two questions. First, I would ask if my friend has to be confronted personally by a knife-wielding terrorist for her to understand that the threat really is out there and that Canadians need to face it. Second, why would she oppose a bill that seeks to bring judicial overview of the kinds of measures we are looking at as opposed to the executive approval used in other democracies, which is much less cumbersome and unwieldy than judicial oversight?

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country misunderstands if he thinks that I said in my speech that I do not take terrorism seriously. I take it seriously. The Conservatives do not, because they have put forward a bill that would create a situation in which we are less safe.

As for the specific circumstances of the words “judicial oversight”, let us be clear. This bill does not contain a single element of judicial oversight. It would allow a CSIS agent to go to a judge and obtain a warrant, but would that judge have the overview and oversight to continue to monitor the way that warrant is used?

No other modern democracy, none anywhere, would allow a judge in a secret hearing to give a warrant to violate the Constitution. It is unheard of in the democratic world. It is unheard of period, and Parliament should not stand for it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her speech. She raised some very serious objections related to the dangers of Bill C-51.

When the Standing Committee on Finance was studying terrorism financing and in related conversations, I had the opportunity to talk to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Daniel Therrien. He confirmed the impression I had that some federal agencies and departments affected by the bill, such as the Canada Revenue Agency, could end up freely sharing information from individuals' tax records. Mr. Therrien said that was indeed the case.

Can the member elaborate on other examples of information sharing allowed by this bill that would be excessive or potentially inappropriate?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I myself was appalled when I found out that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada had not even been invited to appear before the committee. I know that because I was there when the NDP members tried to invite him.

What are we to make of the intentions of a government that prevented the Privacy Commissioner of Canada from testifying? It is clear that this bill is dangerous and will violate Canadians' rights.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party has indicated that one of the biggest omissions from this legislation is parliamentary oversight, something we believe is absolutely critical. However, we recognize that there is some value to the legislation. Even the New Democrats have indicated that if they were elected to government in the fall, they would not repeal the act.

Does the member see any value in the legislation? Is there any valuable aspect of the legislation she thinks would be of benefit to Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is virtually nothing.

The one thing in here that would be of value would be the ability to stop someone from boarding a plane. On the no-fly list right now, it is restricted to people who pose a danger to the flight, as opposed to someone seeking to leave Canada to join foreign fighters.

Other than that, this entire bill is so bad that neither opposition party in this House, should they ever form government, should imagine that it could be fixed with amendments. I hope that the horror of this bill will not pass in this place. I still think that if the Liberals were to vote with the rest of the opposition parties that there are enough Conservatives of conscience that this would not pass. However, if it does pass, after the next election it must be repealed, and then the small change to the no-fly list could be made.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a privilege to have the opportunity to speak with respect to Bill C-51, anti-terrorism act, 2015.

As we have seen in Canada, the new national jihadist movement has declared war, and Canadians are being targeted by those terrorists simply because they hate our society and the values it represents. It does not matter what the opposition may say and what members may say, it is a present reality. It is a fact, and we only need to look back over the past number of weeks at the terrorist attacks in Ottawa, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, as well as attacks upon Australia and Paris, to see that the threat of radical Islamic extremism is a very real threat that needs to be dealt with, that needs to confronted.

I do not need to mention that here in this House we were not only witnesses, but were directly involved with events that took place. That certainly shattered the innocence of this House and many Canadians. I think it struck a chord with Canadians that someone has to do something, has to take some immediate steps to address what is happening. We need to be sure that the law enforcement agencies and other agencies have the tools they need to deal with this new situation.

It was interesting. The first speaker misspoke by saying initially that the agencies needed “the tools”; then she said “I meant to say the funds”. They need the funds, and we have provided for those funds. More important, we need to be sure as legislators that we provide the tools to the law enforcement agencies and other agencies that have to deal with the security of Canadians.

These threats are real. They require a strong response and strong action. That is why, under the strong leadership of our Prime Minister, our government took action and brought forward the protection of Canada from terrorists act and the anti-terrorism act, 2015, which take steps to protect Canadians against jihadi terrorists who seek to destroy the very principles that make Canada the best country in the world to live.

When the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands says that the bill does not in any way enhance our security and protection, that simply is not so. I will certainly point out in the course of my discussion of the bill that indeed it does do that very thing.

Canadians understand that their freedom and security go hand in hand. Canadians expect us to protect their privacy, to protect their freedom, but also to protect them. There are protections in this legislation to do exactly that.

The fundamental fact is that our police and national security agencies are working to protect our rights and freedoms. They are not working against us; they are working against the terrorists. We have to remember that these are jihadi terrorists who endanger our security and take away our freedoms in a very fundamental and barbaric way.

Providing national security agencies with new tools will ensure that gaps in sharing information about suspected terrorists does not limit their ability to prevent attacks on or against Canadians. We, as politicians, do not enforce the law, but we do have the duty and responsibility to make sure that law enforcement agencies, security agencies, have the necessary tools to keep Canadians safe. Canadians expect no less. Canadians want to be sure that we are confronting the terrorists, confronting the danger to us in the best we can, and that those in positions of authority who have to do that have the tools and resources.

It is a coming of age for Canada to file a comprehensive anti-terrorism bill in the face of terrorism threats and activity. This is activity that has already taken place. It is my view that there is no more fundamental role for a government than to protect its country and its people.

In today's world of global travel, sophisticated communications, and the use of Internet, it is timely and appropriate for the government to get up to speed and to ensure that we have the ability to counter, disrupt, and, where possible, eliminate the threat of terrorism and the threat that may be imminent to Canadians. This is especially so when activities that undermine the security of Canada are often carried out in a clandestine, deceptive, or hostile manner, and are increasingly global, complex, and sophisticated. They often emerge and evolve rapidly, and we need to be sure that our security forces can also adapt and react rapidly and do what we need to do to counter those threats.

The proposed legislation is therefore timely, and provides the tools and flexibility to keep pace with evolving threats and better protect Canadians.

The legislation would criminalize the advocacy for promotion of terrorism in general, and would give the courts authority to order the removal of terrorist propaganda online. That is a sensible thing. Most Canadians would expect them to have the ability and power to do that.

As a member of Parliament, I find it remarkable that we have to date not had specific legislation to authorize the sharing of information between government institutions having to do with the security of Canada and ensuring that the threshold to do so is not unduly onerous. How is it that we have a government department that has to do with security that does not share that information with another department that has to do with security? For anyone to say that to allow them to do that is somehow not helping to better protect Canadians, I do not understand where they are coming from.

With respect to air travel, it is only reasonable to be able to screen and prevent individuals from boarding an aircraft if they pose an immediate threat. There are provisions to give the minister certain powers to do that. Surely that is a direct protection of Canadians.

The legislation allows the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to not only gather information, but to intervene and disrupt terror plots while they are in the planning stages. If it can gather information and know there is a plot but not disrupt it, are Canadians safer? Of course they are not. If we know there is a plot, we do what we can to disrupt it. We make sure that our security agencies have the ability to do that. That would indeed make Canadians safer. Canadians expect that much. They expect our governments to ensure that our agencies can do that. Of course, it does not give CSIS the power to enforce; that is left to the police.

The legislation would also enhance the ability of law enforcement agencies to detain suspected terrorists before they can harm Canadians. The ability to detain those who might harm me, anyone in the House, or any Canadian, is a fundamental ability. That is an obvious positive thing in the legislation.

The legislation would enhance the ability for law enforcement agencies to detain suspected terrorists before they can harm Canadians. It would ensure that a recognizance can issue, with conditions, in peace bond provisions. Judges can require persons to surrender their passport or not leave the jurisdiction.

The legislation would lower the threshold to obtain a recognizance with conditions in circumstances where a peace officer believes on reasonable grounds that a terrorism activity “may” be carried out, as opposed to “will” be carried out. It is lowering the threshold. He must have reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorism activity “may” be carried out as opposed to “will” be carried out, and actions would be taken.

For the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, I would point out that this specific legislation would indeed protect Canadians. Under one threshold that recognizance may not be issued; under this threshold, the recognizance would be issued and would prevent a dangerous event from happening that would harm an innocent Canadian.

It also replaces the requirement that a recognizance is “necessary to prevent” with the words “is likely to prevent”. Anyone who knows that something is “likely” to prevent ought to take steps to ensure that it is prevented. It is a lower threshold, but it is there for the purpose of protecting Canadians, not for the purpose of protecting terrorists.

It would also allow for an increase in the period of incarceration from three days to a possible seven days, with periodic judicial review. The need for these types of provisions is very obvious. It is a coming of age for Canada and Canadians as a whole.

I am sure most Canadians would say that it is about time we tackled terrorism head-on, not watching on the sidelines, not hoping that someone will look after us, but actually putting legislation in place that will protect us, that will enhance the security and protection of Canadians. I think all Canadians expect us to do that, and I would ask the opposition to get behind the bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain will have five minutes for a period of questions and comments when the House next returns to debate on the question.

The House resumed consideration 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, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

When the House last took up debate on the question, the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain had five minutes remaining for questions and comments.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to be able to add two cents on Bill C-51, which the Conservatives appear to be ramming through this Parliament without regard for some of Canada's well-fought-for human rights and rights and privileges. Among them is information sharing among agencies. Multiple government departments will now be allowed to share information without being subject to the Privacy Act. The Privacy Act is one of the acts Canadians depend on to keep their personal and private information from prying eyes.

There is no better example of that than Ms. Ellen Richardson, in my riding, who tried to cross the border into the United States, only to discover that her medical information had been shared with the U.S. government in such a way that the U.S. government refused to allow her access. She is a disabled individual. She was going on a March of Dimes cruise, and that cruise was lost to her, and all the money she had spent on it was lost to her because of the information that had been shared by the government with the Government of the United States.

This bill makes that so much worse. I wonder if the member would comment.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on the specific case. I am not familiar with the facts of the situation or the underpinnings of it.

However, to not have, as the member says, those departments that have to do with the security of Canadians able to share information with other departments that have to do with the security of Canadians is not warranted in light of what we are facing in terms of imminent threats by terrorists, or anyone who would be a threat to Canadians. We would expect our agencies to share that information among themselves when it has to do with security.

There are checks and balances. Of course, if the information obtained by those agencies were used inappropriately, there would be steps that could be taken to remedy that.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member implied in his remarks that terrorism has to be taken head-on. It looks to me as if the implication was that those who may not support this bill are not willing to take terrorism head-on. There is a problem with that.

There is nobody in this House, I would submit, who does not want to take terrorism head-on. The difficulty is that we have a government that believes that the only opinion that matters is its own. Even though everyone else in this place represents some 61% of the population, from the Conservatives' point of view, their opinion does not matter. Does the member not see that as a problem?

The way this bill has developed, it is all of one or none of the other. Does the member not think that this place should be able to find compromises so that we deal with both the security side and the protection of civil liberties side? This bill is out of balance.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the member that this bill is out of balance.

Steven Bucci, the Heritage Foundation representative, said:

My review of Bill C-51 leads me to conclude that this is a...balance between greater physical protection without loss of civil liberties. In the various sections, there's a judicious expansion of info-sharing and law enforcement authorities but in each there are also provisions for recourse and appeals. There is transparency and openness.... In short, this bill seems to balance security and liberty.

Indeed, we have to balance the various interests and come up with the best situation we can in the legislation. This legislation does that. We must combat terrorism head-on. We cannot stand on the sidelines. Even when we join our allies in the fight against ISIL, we expect to engage the terrorists where they are to disrupt them and to ensure that they cannot do us or Canadians any harm. We cannot be found, as some have been found in this House, standing on the sidelines watching while this situation unfolds before us.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help in this debate but start by asking what could have been. What could have been done properly with respect to this institution and the people who operate in it, regardless of political stripe, and with respect to finding the balance between national security and civil liberties?

Based on the knowledge we now have of other countries in terms of their national security legislation, and the review agencies that provide oversight on their security agencies, this Parliament could have produced a model for the world in terms of anti-terrorism legislation. However, the bottom line is that we have done anything but that.

We have a piece of legislation that deals somewhat with security concerns, and we support that part of the legislation. However, we are the odd person out in terms of providing protection under the law, through a national oversight sunset clause and other means, to ensure that the citizens of Canada have their civil liberties and freedom of expression protected.

We also want assurance that the national security agencies in total, not just CSIS, but any agency or department that is involved in national security, are properly monitored by people who should have the responsibility, the parliamentarians, on a day-to-day basis. This would ensure that on the one hand these agencies are abiding by the law and doing everything they can within the law to keep Canadians safe, and on the other hand that they are not going beyond the law to impose or infringe on Canadian's civil liberties, or for that matter a foreigner's civil liberties.

Legislation similar to Bill C-51 is required, as is evidenced in virtually every country that Canada is allied with or has shared values with. There is no question that countering the growing threat of foreign and domestic terrorism is a reality which must be confronted by the modern state. However, in combatting that threat, it is important for any government to ensure that the steps taken to combat it do not impose a different threat to its own citizens.

The Liberal Party supports the needed security provisions of Bill C-51 and has made that position clear from the outset. We are not shy about taking a leadership position in that regard. It is easy to oppose, but if we oppose the bill, then we are not dealing with those immediate needs. The policing agencies, CSIS, and even witnesses who have opposed the bill, have come before the committee and said there is a need for security provisions at this time. However, I submit that there is a real problem on the other side.

Sadly, there is a real dilemma here with the bill before us, as with many others. We get caught in what I could call a partisan vortex. We are accused by some, NDP members in particular, of supporting the government. We are not supporting the government. We are supporting certain aspects of Bill C-51. The government, on the other hand, is accusing the NDP and others of supporting terrorism. We all have national security concerns in this place. The problem is that the current Government of Canada does not allow this Parliament to work the way that it should.

We have also maintained that there are provisions in Bill C-51 that are excessive, and will in our opinion represent an intrusion by the state security agencies into the lives of Canadians. They are far too severe.

These provisions, as I have said, could have been narrowed; they could have been amended. There were decent amendments put forward by all parties, and most of them were rejected. Three of our amendments, and the NDP also had some, were indirectly accepted through the four amendments that came forward from the government.

Early in the debate on Bill C-51, my colleague, the member for Mount Royal, and I joined four former prime ministers, including three Liberal prime ministers and others, in issuing an open letter underscoring two fundamental responsibilities of government: ensuring the safety of Canadians, including protecting Canadians from terrorist attacks; and ensuring that initiatives in this regard are consistent with the rule of law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and are particularly subject to comprehensive oversight, review, and accountability measures.

In the course of the committee hearings, we proposed many amendments, as did others. As I have said, three amendments were indirectly accepted within government amendments. One of the key ones was certainly taking the word “lawful” out before “protest”, et cetera, about which civil activists groups were rightly concerned.

Three critical amendments from our slate of amendments, though, were rejected: the need for oversight of our intelligence and security agencies; building in provisions in the bill for the review and sunsetting of certain provisions of Bill C-51; and the need to ensure that any new authorities given to CSIS and others under Bill C-51 are charter compliant. There is a very strong risk, and I believe a reality, that some of those provisions in the bill are not charter compliant.

The issue of oversight of our security and intelligence agencies has long had the support of the Liberal Party. In the wake of 9/11 and the first anti-terrorist legislation, it was a Liberal government, with the support of members of the government at the time and the NDP, that brought forward Bill C-81. It created a committee of parliamentarians that would provide that oversight. As I said, that came out of a committee report that the previous minister, Anne McLellan, appointed. I happened to be a member of that committee as well as one of the co-chairs, as were the current Minister of Justice and the current Minister of State for Finance.

It was a unanimous report of the committee. That legislation was proposed, but it died on the order paper. In June 2009, in a report on the review of the findings and recommendations arising from the Iacobucci and O'Connor inquiries, the public safety committee recommended that Bill C-51 be adopted. It provided for national oversight.

It is interesting that six members of the Conservative government were on that committee. The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, the member for Oxford, the member for Brant, the member for Northumberland—Quinte West, the member for Wild Rose, and the previous member of the Conservative Party, the member for Edmonton—St. Albert were on that committee. What has happened to them that they are not now in favour of national oversight?

I recognize that my time is short, but at the very least I would encourage the government to bring forward a parallel bill, in terms of oversight, for national security agencies. There are private members' bills on the books that would do the trick and could be brought forward.

We need three things. We are saying that while we support the bill, we will put these three things in the election platform of the Liberal Party because the government has failed to do so.

First, we need a national oversight committee of parliamentarians similar to that of our Five Eyes partners. Second, we need to put in place sunset clauses to ensure that sections of the bill cease to exist in three years. Third is a statutory mandatory review so that the bill itself, the good, the bad, and the ugly, is looked at by future Parliament, in three years' time, to make the bill the best that it can be.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech. He also sits with me on the public safety committee.

Throughout his speech, he continued to refer to issues surrounding his failed private member's bill. He asked many of these questions of the witnesses during committee, even though his failed private member's bill and his ideas for oversight were not part of the actual bill itself. In fact, during clause-by-clause, he had to withdraw some of the amendments he had put forward because what he felt was the truth was actually not correct and officials had to correct him.

We have been very clear on this side of the House. We firmly believe that third party, independent, non-political oversight is the best method to ensure that our security agencies can operate without any political interference from very partisan members who are in the House. Let us be clear about that.

It is strange enough that the member likes to compare this particular issue with countries we are similar to, wanting to know why we are not doing it. I should ask him the same question. When comparing us to other countries, why did the Liberal Party vote against standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies in the global fight against jihadist terrorism and joining the air strikes and coalition against ISIL?

That is the question I would like to ask the member. Why does he not use that same philosophy on issues that actually matter to Canadians?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the security of Canadians is very important, but oversight is important too. I will quote what Ron Atkey had to say. He is a former Conservative MP and was the first chair of SIRC. He said:

...I have been both a parliamentarian and a watchdog, a professional watchdog. The answer to whether Parliament or a specialized agency should have the power to review our security agencies is easy for me. Canadians should have both. Under our system of government, Parliament is the ultimate watchdog and is directly accountable to the people. The party having the most number of seats at each general election usually is called on to form the government, but Parliament itself remains the watchdog.

That came from a former Progressive Conservative member.

The other point I would make to what the parliamentary secretary said is that in terms of being non-partisan, are Deborah Grey, as chair of the SIRC committee, and Chuck Strahl, non-partisan? Come on. We all know better than that.

Let us be in line with our Five Eyes partners and do it right.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let us start with a known element here, which is that the House collectively is concerned with the safety and security of Canadians. When allegations are made otherwise by someone, it is not becoming of them or of others.

Let us also establish the fact that it is well understood that oversight is incredibly important, particularly when handing over increased powers. The powers being imagined to be given to CSIS in this bill are extraordinary. It would be able to tap phones, hack into people's email accounts, and have almost no judicial oversight of any of those measures.

We have asked for and demanded parliamentary oversight. My question specifically for my Liberal friend is that he mentioned that there were some amendments taken. They were small and around the edges of the essential questions. We do not believe that this bill is constitutional, and many experts who study constitutional matters agree with us. There is in fact nobody who says it is, other than the Conservatives across the way.

The member said that there were three elements that the Liberals proposed that were critical to the bill's function. We have a choice in front of us. None of those changes were offered up. The government has refused. It is not moving a private member's bill, as he suggested, to make something better happen; this is the Conservative plan on Bill C-51.

I have seen many bills passed through this place. I have never seen a public reaction against a piece of legislation like I have with this legislation. If those measures were critical, why for heaven's sake are the Liberals continuing to vote for it? It is either critical or it is not. If it is that important to the Liberals, they have a choice, which is to vote against Bill C-51.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my remarks, one of the difficulties with a dysfunctional Parliament and a government that does not allow compromises to be made through expert opinion and public input by members of the House is that it is nearly impossible to come to a united position. There is no question that we have felt some heat on Bill C-51, and I understand that. I respect those people who are out there demonstrating in the streets against the bill. I understand where they are coming from.

However, because I have been a former solicitor general and have seen the security side, when CSIS and police authorities now come to me and say that the threat level is higher at the moment and that they need those extra provisions, we should not take the approach of the Prime Minister that there is a terrorist under every rock. However, there is an increased security threat and we have a responsibility as a party to err on the side of security.

I agree with my colleague who asked the question. There is no question the court will eventually turn back this legislation because it does violate certain sections of the charter. However, we will err on the side of security for the moment and hopefully fix the bill, one way or another, after the coming election in October.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in this debate.

As members know, the anti-terrorism act, 2015, contains a number of important changes that would strengthen Canada's national security. Among many proposed amendments is a well-considered approach to expanding the mandate of the passenger protection program through the creation of the secure air travel act. This will be the focus of my remarks today.

As everyone should be aware, the international jihadi movement has declared war on Canada and our allies. Canadians have been targeted because these jihadi terrorists hate our freedom and open, tolerant way of life. This is why we introduced this important legislation, which would enhance the government's capacity to identify and mitigate threats to Canada, Canadian interests abroad and our foreign partners.

In so doing, it would be an effective complement to the Combating Terrorism Act, which came into force in July 2013. Unfortunately, the NDP opposed this important measure, effectively voting to allow terrorists to travel without consequence.

The 2014 public report on the terrorist threat to Canada made it clear that our country remained a target for jihadi terrorists. That report included a focus on the government's response to violent extremism and travel abroad for terrorist-related purposes.

The threat of Canadians travelling abroad to participate in jihadi terrorist activities is a significant security challenge and a priority for our Conservative government. Since the threats Canadians face at home are typically connected to developments abroad, it stands to reason that securing Canada's air transportation links to the world must be a priority of our Conservative government. This is why we have proposed these legislative measures to expand the mandate of the passenger protect program to address both threats to transportation security and terrorist travel by air.

Currently Canada uses several mutually reinforcing screening tools to protect the safety and security of Canadian and international air travellers. Passports are a key identifier used by border officers in combination with physical screening of air travellers to reduce the chances of allowing a person with malicious intent or dangerous items to board an aircraft. In an average year, the Canadian Air Transportation Security Authority screens more than 50 million travellers at Canadian airports.

As members may recall, our Conservative government launched the passenger protect program under the Aeronautics Act in 2007. This program screens passengers to identify threats to transportation security and uses measures such as denial of boarding to mitigate those threats. Since the program's mandate is to manage risks through preventive measures, individuals who are denied boarding are not arrested simply for being on the specified persons list. However, when a denial of boarding occurs, program officials always notify the RCMP for public safety reasons.

The anti-terrorism act, 2015, would provide new authorities to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Minister of Transport and would define, in legislation, the recourse measures available to individuals affected by the program. Specifically, the legislation would authorize the government to create, maintain and share, where appropriate, a list of individuals who would pose either a threat to transportation security or a risk of travelling by air to engage in terrorism offences abroad. It would enable the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to direct an air carrier to send a listed individual for additional physical screening or refuse boarding outright, if necessary, and it would establish in law a process for affected individuals to appeal their inclusion on the list.

In essence, the provisions would allow us to make needed enhancements to improve the security of air travel and, indeed, the security of Canada, all the while respecting privacy laws and providing a fair process to those who might be affected. Effectively, we are delivering a proportional response to different types of threats.

That is why the proposed legislation defines two distinct decision-making authorities, one to place individuals on or remove them from the list and the other to issue operational response directions. This model would allow the government to confirm an individual's identity documents and travel information at check-in before making a decision that would affect that person's ability to travel. At the same time, it would enable the government to tailor the response to specific circumstances.

Would these new measures place an undue burden upon our security partners? No. Given that the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority already conducts additional physical screening on randomly selected individuals, these new measure would not impose a significant burden upon their workload. At the same time, the enhanced ability to identify and mitigate threats would add an important layer of protection for Canadians and Canadian interests abroad, as well as our foreign partners.

As I have spoken about how the program would work and its minimal impact upon the operations of security partners, let me now say just a few words about safeguards to protect the rights of individual travellers, which take two main forms in the secure travel act.

First, there are the safeguards related to the sharing of the list with foreign governments. Let me be clear. International co-operation on security helps the government to better protect Canada and Canadians. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness would carefully assess the impact of any arrangement to share the list and that sharing would happen only in strict accordance with Canadian laws. Furthermore, even with an arrangement in place, our government would continue to assess the risk of disclosure. In some cases, for example, it could decide to share only part of the list with a foreign partner.

The second safeguard with respect to rights revolves around the appeal process for those listed.

Here, again, the secure air travel act would put effective measures in place. Any individual denied boarding could apply to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to be removed from the list. The minister would provide the applicant with a reasonable opportunity to provide new information to the minister to challenge the listing decision. After reviewing the case in its entirety and taking into account any information provided by the applicant, the minister would, within 90 days, decide whether the applicant should remain on the list or be removed.

If the applicant disagreed with the minister's decision, the secure air travel act would set out procedures for appeal to the federal court. The presiding judge would review all relevant evidence, while still protecting sensitive information that could endanger national security or the safety of any person, if disclosed. Applicants would receive a summary of the sensitive information and could, again, submit new evidence to respond to the government's case.

The secure air travel act, as contained in the anti-terrorism act 2015, would then enable the government to identify and mitigate threats to transportation security and to prevent travel by air for terrorism purposes, while providing listed persons with an administrative and judicial recourse, all of this without burdening our security partners.

It is for those reasons that I therefore urge all members to join us in supporting this vital bill.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again on this bill to ask the member the same question before to which I did not get an answer.

The bill would allow information sharing between agencies, government departments, et cetera, and we have no objections to the sharing of some information. However, there is something called the Privacy Act, which is there to protect the privacy of Canadians. This information sharing under the bill would not be subject to the Privacy Act.

Miss Ellen Richardson, a constituent of mine, discovered not too long ago that her personal medical information was shared with the U.S. government through security agencies. Security agencies share everything, with everybody. She was denied a trip and ended up losing $6,000 or $7,000 as a result of this shared information with the U.S. government that prevented her from arriving in the U.S. on her way on a trip.

Would the member like to please advise why the Privacy Act is not being used to protect the privacy of Canadians in the sharing of information?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the safety and security of Canadians is of paramount importance to us. So, too, is the privacy of Canadians.

I pointed out in the bill a number of mechanisms that not only could be utilized by the minister to ensure the safety and security of Canadians, but also the protection of Canadians with respect to their ability to fly.

It should also be noted that, as the member said, it is very important to share information that could become a threat to Canadians and our partners. That is why the legislation would update that and make that information sharing more effective across departments.

I encourage the member to support those measures because, ultimately, it is a measure of public safety and it is a measure of keeping Canadians both safe at home and abroad. It is about working with our international partners to attack the scourge of this global jihadi terrorism and whatever threats may come after that.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is truly unfortunate, as I sit here today and listen to some of the questions coming from the NDP, that such misinformation about the bill is being pushed out, whether intentional or because of a complete, sheer lack of understanding. I certainly hope it is not intentional. However, during clause-by-clause in committee the very first amendment that was put forward by the NDP critic clearly showed he did not have an idea what the information sharing act was about. The fact that the NDP member stood up today and asked a question somehow connecting it to medical information about an individual case is completely outrageous.

The information sharing act has to do with information pertinent to national security and would allow one agency to relay that information on to the appropriate security agency to take action. It is absolutely crucial. We heard from many credible witnesses, unlike the NDP that brought in witnesses who said the sky was falling. Clearly that did not happen.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, what he thinks is the result of this misinformation that is being pushed out there, either intentionally or because of a lack of understanding, and the implications that could have on national security.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety. She is doing a fabulous job for her constituents in Scarborough Centre.

This is very important legislation. We have put forward a legislative process that would help protect Canadians. It would help protect Canadians at home and abroad and it would work effectively with our international partners to do that.

The member is quite correct when she talks about some of the misleading statements that have been coming from the members opposite. Perhaps they have not read the bill. I truly believe most of them have read the bill and understand it. However, when we look at what the Liberals in particular have said about this, the leader of the Liberal Party actually got on a stage in British Columbia. Also, the member for Malpeque said earlier today that the only reason the Liberals are supporting this is not because they actually believe in the legislation and how important it is to protect Canadians, but they do not want Canadians to hold it against them if they vote against the bill. That is the Liberal position on this. They do not want Canadians to hold it against them if they vote in favour of the bill.

That speaks to how important the bill is, not only to Conservative members of Parliament but how important it is to Canadians that we pass the bill and do all that we can to ensure the safety and security of Canadians at home and abroad, and that we are part of the global coalition to stop these terrorists wherever they are.

I congratulate the member again for all of her hard work.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have risen to speak to Bill C-51. After everything that has been said, my first instinct is to wonder what has happened to reason.

In this debate, it seems that we are motivated only by negative emotions. That may not be the best way to do things. This bill is obviously based on a well-meaning intention to better protect all Canadians. However, it is important to take a balanced approach in order to ensure, on the one hand, the safety of Canadians and, on the other, respect for their rights. It is vital that we not let ourselves be carried away by our emotions. We have to take a rational approach to this problem.

Since we are at report stage, now is the time to talk about what happened in committee. It is unfortunate that there was a limit on the number of witnesses who could speak during the study of a bill that is probably the most important bill of its kind since the bills that were passed in the aftermath of the tragic events of September 11, 2001. It is also unfortunate that some witnesses who could have made very important contributions to the debate were not able to participate. I am talking about the Privacy Commissioner and the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner, who are not nobodies. If the government had wanted to do a serious study, it would have invited these two people to testify in committee.

I have to wonder why a government that does not listen to all of the stakeholders and all of the experts can claim to be listening to Canadians and meeting their needs. Although the government invited a lot of witnesses, it is important to note that the vast majority of them—45 out of 48 witnesses—expressed concerns about this bill. That means that the bill is not perfect and still needs a lot of work.

Unfortunately, I get the impression that the government does not want to hear what anyone else has to say. It made its decision and does whatever it wants. However, more and more people are adopting the position that the NDP has defended since the very beginning. I could give a list of people and groups who have taken positions similar to ours. I am thinking of the Privacy Commissioner, the advisor to the UN's Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force, the former assistant director of intelligence with CSIS, and the former chief of the Ottawa Police Service, as well as others, such as journalists, columnists and editorialists. Many of them have expressed concern about the bill as it now stands.

What is more, many of my constituents have shared their concerns with me about this dangerous bill. That is also important to mention. I would also like to point out that the Stop C-51 campaign alone has collected nearly 200,000 signatures from Canadians. Are 200,000 concerned Canadians not enough to make the government think again about this bill? That is something that the government really needs to consider.

Bills, particularly bills about security, require a balanced approach. When more power is given to protect our society, more monitoring of that power is also needed. It is not complicated.

We must not allow any opportunities for serious mistakes to be made. It is as simple as that.

Everyone knows that we need concrete measures that protect Canadians. However, we must not bring in such measures at the expense of our liberties and our way of life. With these kinds of bills, we must always find a way to strike a balance.

I find it unfortunate that the Conservatives wanted to play partisan politics with this bill instead of acting in the best interests of Canada, because fundamentally, this is one of those bills that leaves a mark on society forever.

When this kind of bill is introduced, it needs to be properly drafted and flawless. As some experts said, this bill may be struck down by the Supreme Court. Just think of all the time we will have wasted. It is unacceptable.

We need to keep Canadians safe, while at the same time protecting their civil liberties. It is not so complicated. Right now, according to most of the witnesses we heard in committee, that is not what this bill does.

Many people said that Daesh wanted to attack our way of life. One of the pillars of our way of life is the protection of civil liberties. This bill is an indirect attack on that important pillar, and that is just not good.

In our opinion, an anti-terrorism approach means tighter control over security agencies and the allocation of appropriate resources so that we can be sure that we can carefully monitor how these new powers are exercised both for the agencies and for Canadians. It is just a safeguard to ensure that everything is done right and that the power is exercised in accordance with the will of Canadians and the House. It does not go any further than that.

We understand that there is a need to exchange information between the various departments, but there again, there are shortcomings with regard to how to control and define the parameters of those information exchanges in order to ensure that not too much information is being shared. It is not complicated.

Furthermore, there is nothing about prevention. What is prevention? We have heard a lot about it in the context of preventing radicalization, the spiral of violence that the world seems to be caught up in these days. We have not talked very much about integration. The government is not trying to understand how it is that new converts are quickly picking up and leaving, for example. This bill does not address those problems.

When I say that, I am obviously thinking about France, for example, which introduced a bill on March 19. I invite the government to look at what France did because it has a balanced approach. France is not only considering security but also respect for rights and freedoms. That is very important.

However, if we look at the budget on this issue, all we see are so-called repression measures. If I were to read all of the headings in Chapter 4.3 of the budget, members would see that protection, prevention and combatting radicalization are not mentioned anywhere.

In closing, the more Canadians learn about this bill, the more they are opposed to it. That is clear.

The government tried to rush this bill through but was unable to put one over on people. We need balanced legislation that will not increase violence in our society or anywhere else.

Once again, I have to wonder what happened to reason in this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have some very sad news. Police forces in Quebec intercepted and imprisoned members of the Hells Angels. Unfortunately, this government managed to let them go because it was unable to try their cases within two years. They were let go by the justice system.

Now, with this wonderful bill, we have to wonder what is the use of a law that takes away our rights and freedoms if criminals and terrorists can slip through because police officers, judges and prosecutors are in short supply?

Can my distinguished colleague explain the Conservative logic that takes away our rights but offers no guarantee whatsoever that terrorists will be sentenced by the justice system?

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I talked about the balance between rights and the protection of privacy and civil liberties. Of course, there also has to be a balance between what a law sets out to do and the means to do it.

How many times during this Parliament have we seen stricter laws against certain crimes that were not accompanied by the necessary resources? Consider prisons, where there was not enough room for more prisoners. The provinces were forced to pay for that.

As for the bill before us, unfortunately the government did not think the whole problem through. It acted on impulse without taking the time to reflect on everything that such a law entails.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech.

He talked about the lack of resources, but even having enough resources does not necessarily translate into the ability to keep everything under control.

The Conservative government uses the example of the attack in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, where a young man with mental health problems indoctrinated himself. He was not indoctrinated from the outside, by Syria or Iraq. Since he did not speak Arabic, he was unable to establish contact with the Islamic State in Iraq or Syria. He indoctrinated himself and slipped through the hands of the RCMP. He was assessed by the RCMP, which came to the conclusion that he was no longer a danger to society. The RCMP released him and gave him back his passport. In a moment of madness, he killed an innocent soldier.

I would like my colleague to explain how even when we have all the information and even when the information is in the hands of the RCMP, we cannot foresee everything because there is the matter of mental health, which we cannot control.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that very important question, which raises a specific problem that we have rarely talked about during this debate, and that is looking at the problem as a whole.

People may have bad intentions, and we must prevent them from acting on those intentions. We must provide resources to prevent them from taking action, but that is not all. We have talked at length about preventing radicalization. Other types of resources are needed in order to be able to assess and correct certain problems.

I come back to what is happening in France. Under its new legislation, France is investing an additional 60 million euros in preventing radicalization. It is aware that we cannot focus on law enforcement alone and provide resources to law enforcement. We must also address the root of the problem, and that is what my colleague brilliantly raised.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise again to voice my opposition to Bill C-51 in its current form.

Each one of us knows terrorism is a real threat and we are all committed to keeping Canadians safe. However, Bill C-51 remains a reckless, dangerously vague and likely ineffective piece of proposed legislation. It would not do things that are proven to work and it puts politics ahead of protecting Canadians.

The members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security heard testimony from a range of experts. Many of these experts raised serious concerns about provisions in Bill C-51. The government also received amendments from the official opposition New Democrats and other parties. The government rejected the substance of these amendments. The government did make four amendments to the bill. Unfortunately, these amendments would do little to address the major concerns Canadians and experts have consistently raised about this bill.

Therefore, I stand proudly with my New Democrat colleagues as we continue to stand for privacy, national security, oversight and our civil liberties, while working to make our country safe from terrorism by advocating an evidence-based approach to anti-terrorism legislation.

In regard to privacy, 12 Canadian privacy commissioners have publicly criticized Bill C-51, but not one privacy commissioner was invited to appear before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. These are the public authorities on privacy and should have been heard. In a written submission to the committee, Daniel Therrien, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, wrote:

However, the scale of information sharing being proposed [by Bill C-51] is unprecedented, the scope of the new powers conferred by the Act is excessive, particularly as these powers affect ordinary Canadians, and the safeguards protecting against unreasonable loss of privacy are seriously deficient. While the potential to know virtually everything about everyone may well identify some new threats, the loss of privacy is clearly excessive. All Canadians would be caught in this web.

Under the proposed legislation, law-abiding citizens could find their information shared by federal departments and agencies with intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Furthermore, the Privacy Commissioner stated that Bill C-51 does not prescribe clear and reasonable standards for the sharing, collection, use and retention of personal information. Canadians have a legitimate right to privacy.

How can the government be so reckless with the personal information of Canadians? How can it allow the sharing of information without proper oversight and clear standards regarding the necessity for the sharing of this information? Furthermore, experts such as Craig Forcese have pointed out that Bill C-51 also would erode the individual's right to legal recourse. Under Bill C-51, as long as Canadian government officials share information in good faith, if people are tortured or their livelihoods lost, these individuals could not sue the Canadian government.

We were shocked and saddened by the case of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who was tortured in Syria because of the information that was shared about him. Maher Arar was able to use legal recourse to get an apology and compensation from the government. If Bill C-51 becomes law, if anything like what happened to Maher Arar happened in the future, there would be no legal recourse for Canadians. As a nation, we should be ensuring that what happened to Maher Arar never happens again to another Canadian. We need to do that by ensuring there is oversight, and that the rights of our citizens are protected. We should not be allowing information to be shared with a little oversight and then stripping away the ways in which Canadians can hold their government accountable.

As I have stated in prior remarks, I am also concerned about the potential impacts of Bill C-51 on Canadians' freedom of speech and the right to protest. One of the four amendments that the government members accepted at committee stage changed the language to say that activity that undermines the security of Canada does not include advocacy, protest, dissent or artistic expression. However, any act that blocks infrastructure could be subject to disruption and covered as part of this anti-terrorism legislation.

In 2009, before I became a member of Parliament, many members of the Tamil community and other human rights activists were out on the streets trying to raise awareness about innocent people being killed in Sri Lanka. Each day in Ottawa, Toronto, and other cities across the country, people were engaging in lawful protest asking for the Canadian government to listen and take action.

On May 10, 2009, some of the protestors blockaded the Gardiner Expressway in Toronto. According to our experts, under Bill C-51, the blockade of the Gardiner Expressway could have been considered an activity that undermines the security of Canada, classified as blocking infrastructure and covered under this anti-terrorism legislation. On May 10, 2009, people blockaded the Gardiner Expressway to bring attention to people being displaced and killed senselessly in Sri Lanka. Should these people, seniors, children and families, who blockaded the Gardiner Expressway be called terrorists and subjected to additional surveillance? Is that fair?

In January 2013, six youths and a guide left on snowshoes on a walk to Ottawa in support of the Idle No More movement. They called their trek the Journey of the Nishiyuu, which means the “journey of the people” in Cree. In the final hours of the trek, the group numbered nearly 400 people, as other children and youth from Cree and Algonquin communities joined them along the way. I remember being one of the thousands more who joined them here on Parliament Hill as their journey came to an end. As people joined the trek, perhaps streets were blocked and traffic snarled. Should these youth be called terrorists and subject to additional surveillance?

We must make sure that the voices of people can be heard. We must make sure that dissent and protest are protected in our country. We must allow for the freedom of speech to remain a charter-protected right in our country. We cannot allow non-violent acts to be called terrorism, because they are not terrorism. They are non-violent acts that can help build our civic infrastructure and can result in positive changes in policies.

This omnibus bill is 62 pages long and its scope is unprecedented. I could continue to talk for a lot longer about the many ways in which the bill threatens the civil liberties we hold dear, but I think the point has been made, and I am sure I am running out of time. This bill remains reckless, vague, and likely ineffective.

What are some proven approaches to combat terrorism that are more likely to be effective? I will name a few from what the experts have cited.

The first is to provide appropriate resources for security and intelligence agencies to track and identify threats to public security. Former Ottawa police chief and current Senator Vern White said:

My biggest concern right now is, do we have the resources to focus energy on [radicalized] people out there that are concerning us? I’m not convinced we have those resources.

RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson testified before the Senate that he has reallocated resources including hundreds of personnel from areas such as organized crime to counter terrorism. Why would the police not have adequate resources to fight terror? Organized crime also presents a public safety threat to Canada, so why is the RCMP being forced to make these reallocations? We know that between 2009 and 2014, annual RCMP spending decreased by $420 million, and between 2012 and 2014, 2,271 full-time equivalent positions were cut from the RCMP. In 2012-13, CSIS spending was cut by $44 million.

A second proven approach to combat terrorism that is more likely to be effective is oversight. Over the past five years, oversight mechanisms that are meant to hold the security and intelligence agencies accountable have faced cuts, and positions have been left vacant. Now Bill C-51 would further expand surveillance and the capacity to detain people, but does not expand oversight. Oversight could mean more diligence on the part of the security agents themselves, knowing that oversight bodies are in place.

A third measure is counter-radicalization programs. Working with at-risk communities and connecting with community and faith leaders to provide resources to defuse radicalization in integral parts of our communities is an integral part of proven anti-terror programs.

I know I am running out of time, so I just want to say that today I am proud to be standing with my New Democrat colleagues as we take our responsibility to stand up for Canada seriously. We are disappointed, though, that the third party Liberals seem to believe that supporting this bill and giving the Conservatives a blank cheque is the best way to protect Canadian freedoms. I am proud that the New Democrats are taking a principled stance and not supporting Bill C-51. We will continue to defend both our rights and our freedoms in this country.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Scarborough—Rouge River for her excellent speech.

The member pointed out that actions taken by Canadians of Tamil origin have in fact been successful in changing Canadian attitudes towards a certain government that was perhaps not as kind to its citizens as it ought to have been. Those Canadian attitudes having been changed has changed world attitudes, and it started, in part, with a protest that blocked part of a major artery through the city of Toronto. However, the current government would make that kind of protest illegal and thereby prevent such an amazing display by an amazing bunch of young and determined individuals in the city of Toronto.

I wonder if the member would like to comment further.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for York South—Weston for his passion and sincerity in knowing what happened to the Tamil people.

I remember that this was a youth-led, legal protest that happened across the country, specifically in Toronto, where young people, seniors, children, human rights activists from all parts of the world and Tamils living in Toronto were on the streets for two weeks every day. It seemed like their cries for help and support, and for the current government to do something, fell on deaf ears. Out of pure frustration, the people decided to walk up the Gardiner Expressway and blockade it. They got attention. They finally got the people and the government to listen.

However, under Bill C-51, that activity would be classified as an act of terror. We would see hundreds of thousands of children, seniors and families classified as terrorists in this country, and that just does not make any sense.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to note that the accusation level in the speech is actually completely false and untrue. Not only would the bill in and of itself not put someone who is participating in a legal and lawful protest in a position to continue to do that, but we actually clarified through amendment to the bill to give greater clarity to that exact expression in terms of the ability to protest in a lawful and peaceful way.

For the member to use an example of a protest and somehow try to twist it into something it is not is unfair and it is actually wrong. This should not be brought up in the House in a way that speaks to something that is false as if it were true. Just because one says it again and again does not actually make it true.

I would like to get the acknowledgement from the member on the protest she has indicated, whether or not she has actually checked the legal definition and whether she has actually sought to ensure it by subbing in at committee and asking that very question or making the very comment that she has. It is very clear in the legislation. There is even more clarity by the fact that an amendment was brought forward to deal with this specific issue.

I know that the leader of the Green Party accepts the clarification. I would hope the member would as well.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for giving me this opportunity to remind him, through his own words, that just repeating falsehoods does not make them true. Every member of the Conservative Party and the current government should learn from the words of the parliamentary secretary, that repeating falsehoods never makes them true.

However, I will give the member an expert opinion, because, of course, we like to consider the opinions of lawyers and those who know the law better than probably most of us in this place.

Yes, the parliamentary secretary is correct in the sense that government members only accepted four amendments, and these are amendments that came from themselves. The only change that happened on the piece that he spoke of is a change from the words “legal protest” to “protest”.

However, the piece that remained, that I mentioned in my speech, and maybe he missed it, is that any acts that block infrastructure could be subject to disruption and covered as part of this anti-terror legislation. That is the truth. It is not a falsehood, it has been clarified by many experts, and that is what I speak of.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, I will let the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage know there are about three minutes remaining in the time allocated for government orders today. We will of course have his remaining time when the House next resumes debate on the question.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a privilege to invite all members of the House to support Bill C-51, the anti-terrorism act, 2015.

The safety and security of Canada, and Canadians, is being threatened. The international jihadi movement has declared war on Canada. ISIL has named Canada as a target. We have seen its supporters urge their comrades to kill Canadians by any means and at every opportunity. Al Shabaab is urging its followers to attack targets right here in our country. We know these are not idle threats. We have seen the horrific and deadly attacks on innocent people in Paris and Sydney, and elsewhere in the world, including the cold-blooded murders in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and at our National War Memorial.

It is unfortunate and difficult to accept, but we see a concerning number of Canadians travelling to other countries to join and fight alongside terrorists from Syria to Somalia. Even more worrisome, we know that some of these radicalized Canadians have returned to this country, burning with hatred, and often with military training and combat experience.

Their values may seem medieval, and talk about an earlier time in history, but they show no reluctance to embrace technology to communicate, to terrorize, to recruit and raise funds. The threat is more complex, more insidious and more dangerous than could have been anticipated even a few years ago.

We must ensure that our security and intelligence organizations have the tools to meet this threat. To do otherwise would be to abandon our most fundamental responsibility to Canadians. That is why we must move swiftly to pass this bill. It is essential to assuring the safety and security of Canadians.

As we have heard, the anti-terrorism act, 2015 has a number of elements. I hope to get through the first one, and then re-engage on this when we return.

First, it would create the security of Canada information sharing act. Departments and agencies of the Government of Canada collect information of various kinds on a daily basis. In some instances, this information may be of considerable value to the institutions charged with identifying and responding to threats to the security of this country or its allies. Yet we have no tangible, focused or reliable way to ensure that kind of information gets to the agencies in a timely way.

I am certain many Canadians would be surprised to learn, for example, that when citizenship and immigration receives a passport application that raises security flags, it is prohibited by law from sharing that information with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

I will leave it that and return to the discussion when the time is allocated to do so.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. parliamentary secretary will have seven minutes remaining in his time for comments on the question and of course the usual five minutes for questions and comments thereafter.

It being 1:40 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from April 24 consideration 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, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Anti-terrorism Act, 2015

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I could have spoken for 20 or even 30 minutes on this bill. It is always a great honour to be able to address the House; however, I cannot say that I am pleased about the subject we are addressing here today, Bill C-51.

The bill has a very long title because, basically, it is an omnibus bill related to security issues that affect all Canadians. Of course, I am referring to 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.

The government in power is going to ram this very cumbersome piece of legislation down our throats this week, even though the bill is being criticized to a virtually unprecedented extent in the history of committees, as we will see later.

Bill C-51 would considerably expand the mandate of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. That is what people at home need to understand, aside from the fact that this bill has a ridiculously long title and that it is an omnibus bill. We are once again faced with the same problem with this government. A majority of Canadians, and even a majority of representatives from the official opposition, could support the main objective of the bill, which is to improve protections for Canadians, especially in light of some recent, troubling events associated with the threat from the Islamic State. In principle, we can understand the desire to do better.

Once again, the problem is in how the government is going about it. Once again, the government has introduced an excessively large bill, manipulated the debate, moved time allocation and presented positions that are completely out of touch with what Canada's leading experts are saying. The official opposition will therefore present 64 amendments to try to give a voice to the overwhelming number of experts who are systematically demanding that Bill C-51 either be withdrawn altogether or be significantly amended.

I am skeptical though. I doubt that the government will even look at our amendments. Unfortunately, there is no mistaking its intention to steamroll the bill through this week. Even so, I will try to bring forward some of the arguments these experts have made in the hope that the government in power will set aside its overly strong tendency to show contempt for the work of Parliament. In making an effort to present these legitimate arguments, I hope that someone on the other side will adjust even slightly his or her position on a bill that so many say is bad.

I would like to highlight the attempts that my NDP colleagues on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security have been making in recent weeks to do what I am trying to do today. I particularly want to draw attention to the work of my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. We are now at third reading, and we will soon run out of ways to try to prevent Bill C-51 from being passed. Nevertheless, my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has been proposing amendments ever since second reading. He made a number of very good points that, unfortunately, still apply after the committee's study.

Bill C-51 threatens our way of life by asking Canadians to choose between their security and their freedoms. There is something my friend, the leader of the NDP, often says. He points out, and rightly so, that in the French version of Canada's national anthem, it says that we must “protect our homes and our rights”. They are given the same priority. Even our national anthem notes the importance of applying our collective intelligence to ensure that we protect these two aspects of our lives. The remarks from across the way are veering more and more off track, suggesting that in order to protect our homes, some of our rights, including our right to privacy, may have to be negotiated or diminished. Let us not forget the wisdom of our national anthem, which emphasizes that the government has a duty to balance these two aspects and must never promote one at the expense of the other.

Another point that was made at second reading, is that Bill C-51 irresponsibly provides the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, with a sweeping new mandate without equally increasing oversight. Later we will see how dire this problem really is. The bill also contains definitions that are broad and vague and that threaten to lump together legitimate dissent with terrorism. This point comes up all the time. The bill gives CSIS tremendous powers. If the net is cast that wide, are we really responding to an imminent problem of a potential terrorist threat or are we facilitating abuses that could violate Canadians' rights? The answer to that question is quite worrisome.

The Liberals voted against these amendments—and that is typically the Liberal way—despite the fact that former Liberal prime ministers wrote a letter stating that they strongly disagree with Bill C-51. From the beginning, the current Liberal leader painted himself into a corner by saying that he would vote for the bill, probably for a very sad reason. In fact, the first poll showed that 80% of Canadians were in favour of the bill. Support for the bill has subsequently collapsed and now 60% of Canadians do not support Bill C-51. However, the Liberal leader painted himself into a corner and unfortunately will vote for the bill.

There are some worrisome observations in the amendments presented by my colleague, and they are now shared by more than 60% or 70% of Canadians. I have never seen that. This is one of those rare bills that people know by name. In federal politics, it is very rare for people to ask me to assure them that I will vote against Bill C-51. It is obvious just how much Canadians are interested in and concerned about this bill, given that they are calling it by its official name.

In our opinion, not enough leading experts on privacy and personal information were invited to appear before the standing committee. However, most of the witnesses who did appear said that this bill should be struck down or heavily amended.

The debate on Bill C-51 is so important that I want to highlight some of what the witnesses said because this is an issue that goes beyond party lines. We need to have an opportunity to raise awareness of the fact that Bill C-51 should not be passed, particularly as it now stands. I will begin by quoting Daniel Therrien, the Privacy Commissioner. He said:

...the proposed changes to information sharing authorities are not accompanied by measures to fill gaps in the national security oversight regime.

That is what he said and he is very knowledgeable about the subject. The truth of his statement is obvious given that, in the 2012 budget, the Conservatives eliminated the position of inspector general of CSIS, who was responsible for internal oversight by ensuring that all of CSIS's activities complied with the law.

When an organization is granted vast surveillance powers, we always have to ask ourselves who watches the watchers, when their powers could, for example, threaten a person's right to privacy. Who watches them? Experts agree that the minister's and the government's answers are completely inadequate.

The Minister of Public Safety rejected the need for additional oversight of CSIS, calling it needless red tape. I fell off my chair. It is unbelievable that the minister would consider the need for proper oversight of those who have surveillance powers to be red tape. I am prepared to work 60 hours a week to ensure that business owners do not lose too much time to red tape. However, referring to the need to watch the watchers as red tape floored me. That is unacceptable.

Here is one last quote from the commissioner:

This Act would...allow departments and agencies to share the personal information of all individuals, including ordinary Canadians who may not be suspected of terrorist activities.

This is what the NDP and my colleague fear. Those were the words of the Privacy Commissioner. Canada's top privacy official concluded that there were some serious concerns with Bill C-51.

To conclude, in the debate on Bill C-51, we were faced with a string of time allocation motions and we had a limited number of witnesses in committee, despite the fact that almost all the experts demanded that Bill C-51 be withdrawn or significantly amended. I fear that this is not what will happen this week.

Bill C-51 will be rammed through the House and will be a threat to Canadians' privacy.

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

Mr. Speaker, a wide array of information has been pushed out by the NDP, whether it be intentionally or through a complete lack of understanding of the bill. Even in committee, when we were going through clause by clause, the critic for the NDP actually felt that the information sharing act, not the CSIS Act, would determine the subject of CSIS's activity. The officials who were on hand at that committee had to correct him, on the record, and tell him he was wrong.

The fact that the NDP still is pushing out information that is inaccurate is very harmful to this country with respect to national security and the protection of Canadians.

I will just ask the member a very brief question. Is that member intentionally pushing out information that is inaccurate, or is it because he has a complete lack of understanding of the bill?

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when more than 80% or 90% of the competent individuals and experts associated with matters relating to protection of privacy and personal information strongly criticize the bill, the government has to start reconsidering how it sees things.

It is not people like the NDP members who are spreading false information. There is a huge amount of information from competent individuals about how Bill C-51 is troubling and inadequate and should be amended or withdrawn.

I wish I had the exact number from my colleague's last count, which was about 14 of the first 15 witnesses. They stated that Bill C-51 should not be passed as is and asked the government not to pass it.

The last ones on the list—who could in no way be described as far left—were part of an association of entrepreneurs in emerging technology and said that Bill C-51 as currently written is completely unacceptable. That is factual information.

Will I repeat that so all Canadians hear it? Yes, I will keep saying it until the election and make sure that we take power and overturn these decisions that are literally a threat to the privacy of Canadians and small and medium-sized businesses working in emerging technology.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the NDP is confused on this issue. The member just finished saying that if it forms government, the NDP is going to dismiss it, implying that it is going to get rid of it.

Let me tell him what his leader says about the bill. Tom Clark, on Global TV, asked, “If you become the government, would you scrap this piece of legislation?” That is what he asked the leader of the New Democratic Party. His response was, “We would change it for sure”.

That does not mean they are going to scrap it. In fact, members of this House have stated that when they form government, they are going to change it.

I believe that the NDP is in a very awkward position. It recognizes that this legislation would build on powers of preventive arrest and that it would make better use of the no-fly list.

There is no doubt that there is a need for serious amendments, and in about 15 minutes, I am going to talk about that. However, my question is this: Who is right here, the member of who just made his statement or the leader of his party?

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one expression that I have never used in the House is “a desperate attempt”. This looks very much like a desperate attempt.

The Liberals now totally disagree with former Liberal prime ministers. They realized in committee that this bill cannot be supported by basically anyone who has expertise in this field.

For the benefit of those at home, there is no question that we will change a law and that my friend the Leader of the Opposition will continue to say that we will change a law, because that is how Parliament operates. You have to take the existing law and turn it into something completely different, even if we want to transform it altogether.

There is no inconsistency in the NDP's position on this issue, not at all. The most—

[Alain Giguère]

Pathetic.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, pathetic.

The most pathetic inconsistency that we have seen in this House in quite some time is the Liberals' inconsistency. They plan to stand up and vote for Bill C-51 even though the greatest leaders in the history of their own party have said that we should not vote for such a thing.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-51, the anti-terrorism act, 2015. During my time today I will be addressing the elements of part 4 of the bill. These elements would broaden CSIS's mandate to include the authority to disrupt threats to Canada's national security. In particular, I would like to outline the legal parameters of this new authority as well as the robust accountability framework from which threat disruption measures would be taken by CSIS and how these would be authorized and reviewed.

I want to be clear. The international jihadi movement has declared war on Canada and its allies. Canadians are being targeted by terrorists simply because these terrorists hate our society and the values it represents. That is why our government has put forward these measures to protect Canadians against jihadi terrorists who seek to destroy the very principles that make Canada the best country in the world in which to live.

Throughout its history, CSIS has played a vital role in investigating and advising the government on national security threats, but it has also been limited to those functions of collection and advice, even as it has encountered early opportunities to disrupt threats in the course of these investigations. How frustrating that must be.

Today we must reconsider this narrowly constructed mandate and the tools required to protect Canadians. The threats from terrorism we face today demand that we do this. These threats are also the reason we are investing $292 million over the next five years in our intelligence and law enforcement agencies, as announced in this year's budget.

In the context of this bill, and specifically of the new mandate for CSIS, we must consider the rigorous framework in which CSIS's threat disruption activities would take place.

CSIS has established a 30-year history as an intelligence service. It is respected globally and is known for its rigorous framework of ministerial accountability, judicial authorization, and independent review. I want to expand on that point.

Canada is unique in that judicial, not executive, authorization is currently required for CSIS to engage in intrusive investigative techniques. That means, for example, that for the past 30 years, before CSIS has tapped a phone, it has been required to seek a warrant from the Federal Court, which is a rigorous and thorough process. The key tenets of the current warrant process are laid out in the CSIS Act. Among other things, the law requires that warrant applications to the Federal Court first be approved by the minister.

All of the activities of CSIS are also subject to ministerial direction, and the minister is kept apprised of CSIS's operations, routinely and through a detailed annual report. These reporting requirements are laid out in both the CSIS Act and through ministerial direction. In addition, as set out by the CSIS Act, all CSIS activities are subject to review by SIRC. This model of judicial authorization review is routinely cited as embodying the best practices in the area of intelligence service governance.

I would like to direct members to the 2010 report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on good practices in legal and institutional frameworks for intelligence agencies, in which CSIS received positive mention several times. It is in this context, and in today's threat environment, that we introduce this legislation to expand CSIS's mandate.

Pursuant to this bill, CSIS would have the authority to disrupt threats to our national security. This would provide the government with an invaluable and flexible new tool to combat threats to our security and safety, which we know have now increased, both in tempo and in complexity. We saw another tragic attack in the United States today.

Make no mistake, this bill would not give CSIS a blank cheque to do whatever it wishes; far from it, in fact. This legislation, in numerous provisions, would require that all threat disruption measures undertaken by the service be reasonable and proportionate. These measures would not be arbitrary, and they would be narrowly focused on disrupting a particular activity that constituted a threat to the very security of our nation. This threshold is clearly articulated in law.

Ray Boisvert, the former assistant director of CSIS, said:

...the warrant process is the most onerous warrant process of its kind, in my estimation, around the world.... The enhancements being proposed will add layers of requirements, giving direction to the judiciary and...those who are composing the warrant.... [Seizure] warrants typically go on for hundreds of pages per target, explaining the rationale and making the case to be able to obtain those powers that allowed us...to lawfully intercept some of these communications.... I am still encouraged that this will not change. My sense from reading the legislation is that those safeguards are protected and are further enhanced.

I would also like to point out the key differences between CSIS's collection mandate and the proposed disruption mandate of this legislation.

CSIS may investigate activities suspected of constituting threats to the security of Canada, an entirely appropriate threshold for its investigative mandate. The threshold for engaging any threat diminishment activity, however, would be much higher. For CSIS to disrupt a threat, the bill states that there would have to be reasonable grounds to believe that a given activity constituted a threat to the security of Canada. That is an important distinction between those two roles and those two activities.

Let me be frank. Some have raised the spectre of what are, quite frankly, disturbing scenarios or outcomes due to this legislation. I want to put those concerns to rest here and now.

The legislation would specifically prohibit certain activities. Let me emphasize that this bill would also not make CSIS a law enforcement body. Our Conservative amendments have reinforced this point for greater clarity.

Further, this new threat disruption mandate would be subject to new ministerial direction, managed within a rigorous framework and subject to an independent review by SIRC.

The bill clearly states that when a warrant was required, a judge would determine if a measure was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances in regard to the nature of a threat, the nature of the measures, and the reasonable availability of other means.

In addition, the judge could include any terms or conditions deemed advisable in the public interest: judicial authority; judicial power. Further, these warrants would be narrowly time bound, with a maximum duration of 120 days, and would only be able to be renewed twice, as they would be time limited.

To provide added assurance about the nature and implementation of the threat disruption measures, this legislation would also impose specific reporting requirements on both CSIS and SIRC. CSIS would be specifically required to report to the minister on the measures it has taken. SIRC would then be required to annually review at least one aspect of the service's performance in taking these measures and to report on the number of warrants issued for these activities.

For added assurance, as members will know our government just announced its intention to double the budget of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, providing an additional $12.5 million over five years to further strengthen SIRC's capacity to review the activities of CSIS. This is on top of announcing $300 million that we put in place to combat terrorism here at home. These elements combined, namely our rigorous system of judicial authorization, enhanced independent review by SIRC, and specific statutory prohibitions, are designed to assure Canadians that this mandate would be exercised by CSIS responsibly.

This is a regime Canadians can feel confident is in keeping with their values and is a framework in which the imperatives of national security will always be duly balanced with the rights of an individual.

This legislation would protect Canadians, enhance our national security, and keep in place what we value dearly: our rights and freedoms.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate some of the effort by my colleague to indicate some of the safeguards in the bill. Nobody is saying that safeguards were not written in, in certain ways. However, this bill lacks adequate oversight and review and equivalent powers for oversight agencies to match the beefed-up powers in this bill for CSIS and other agencies that can now exchange information more broadly than they could before. It does not beef up their powers; it just means that they have more information to use their powers with. That is a huge problem.

I would ask my colleague this. Would he accept that one of the strongest critiques of the sharing of information act is that these new provisions do not come with the corresponding power for review bodies to share information for a more integrated form of review? That is one of the central concerns of the commissioners who have spoken out against the bill.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in my discussion I talked about the supervision, the authorization and how we had increased the resources for review agencies like SIRC to ensure CSIS followed its mandate appropriately. With every step of the way, there is ministerial and judicial review, and we have an enhanced SIRC to provide enhanced authorization to enhance CSIS.

The nature of the bill is solely to protect Canadians from an international terrorist threat that we have all seen both in Ottawa and in Quebec, but also in the nightly news around the world. This government must protect the citizens of this nation. It is one of the primary things a government is expected to do. Canadians would expect that different departments in this government would share information with the ability to stop a potential threat.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, why did the government not recognize the value of having parliamentary oversight on this issue? It has surprised a great number of Canadians. For example, our Five Eyes partners, New Zealand, England, Australia and the United States, all recognize the importance of parliamentary oversight, yet the Conservative government does not seem to understand or appreciate the importance of parliamentary oversight.

Why has the member's government changed its opinions on parliamentary oversight and is not prepared to incorporate that into the legislation we have today?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the government has been clear that there is oversight for the bill; it is judicial oversight. Canadians from coast to coast to coast and in my riding would put their trust in the judiciary to oversee CSIS's activities before they would put it in the hands of a bunch of elected politicians. We believe the judicial oversight is in place. It is robust and it will ensure that CSIS operates well within its mandate to ensure that the rights and freedoms of Canadians are protected.

At the same time, we have to give our security agencies the tools they need to keep us safe. That is what we are doing. We have judicial oversight. We believe the mandate of CSIS will have proper oversight both for CSIS and the minister.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad parliamentary oversight was brought up and the fact that my colleague spoke about the importance of having judiciary oversight for review of warrants for the activities of CSIS. I cannot imagine for a moment that CSIS would have to come to partisan politicians to determine whether it could carry out an activity. Through this bill, we would give that to a non-partisan body, the courts, the judge, to make those decisions. When Canadians think about that for a moment, they will recognize the importance of that and the reason for it.

I also want to clarify this for the record. When it comes to the information sharing act, that there will be review of that. The Privacy Commissioner as well as the Auditor General have the ability to review any aspects of that as well as internal processes. Therefore, that is certainly not an issue.

Again, this is misinformation being pushed out by the opposition parties. Could my colleague comment on what that really means to national security if we actually start to listen to the opposition?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to have criticism of legislation based on fact. It is another thing to twist the facts to try to put someone in disrepute. This legislation has been put forward by the government in response to an international threat of terrorism. Jihadi terrorists have declared war on our country. They have declared war on our allies. They are encouraging people to take violent action against our military and our police. In response to that, we need to put the measures in place so our security agencies have the powers to deal with this threat.

This effort by the NDP to try to say that somehow we are trying to beef up CSIS so it can spy on the average everyday citizen in our country is totally false. In fact, I believe it is totally irresponsible. The target of this legislation is terrorists. The target is terrorism and the target is to ensure that we keep Canadians safe.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe a majority of Canadians were shocked to find out the number of young Canadians being radicalized and leaving Canada to work with ISIL. It is important for our country to recognize that we need to deal with a very real, tangible issue.

We now have before us legislation that attempts to deal with the issue of security and, at the same time, impacts the freedoms of Canadians. The Liberal Party's approach in dealing with this issue has been very straightforward, transparent and, most important, consistent. We are a party of the Charter of Rights. We recognize the importance of individual rights. At the same time, we are very much concerned about the safety of Canadians.

The legislation before us is a step in the right direction. There are things incorporated in the legislation that would make our society safer. However, there are major flaws and shortcomings in it that the government has failed to act upon, which means the legislation will not be as robust as it could have been if the government had been more sensitive to the need to make more amendments to the legislation. Had it chosen to do that, we would have far better legislation.

I will not try to rationalize the NDP's approach to dealing with Bill C-51. It appears to be more political in trying to position itself with the Liberal Party, quite honestly, than it is about the safety of Canadians. However, I will let the New Democrats reconcile their inconsistencies on it. What I am concerned about is the lost opportunity by the government, but it is still not too late. The government can still make a difference.

Let me provide a specific example, which I posed in the form of a question for the previous speaker. Why did the government not choose to bring in parliamentary oversight? It is a legitimate question. It is a concern that Canadians have. It would deal with a lot of the issues that have been raised with regard to Bill C-51. If the bill included parliamentary oversight, it would be better legislation, and the government knows that.

In fact, the member for Mount Royal, when he was the minister a number of years ago, brought in legislation and the Minister of Justice supported the idea of parliamentary oversight. When the Conservatives were in opposition and the Prime Minister was the leader of the official opposition, he supported parliamentary oversight, and for good reason. Canada is not asking to go it alone on the issue of parliamentary oversight. It is not an issue of politicians versus judicial oversight. Canada has very strong allies in fighting terrorism. The United States, Australia, New Zealand and England are all part of the Five Eyes, of which Canada is one. There is a great deal of coordination among those countries, yet Canada is the only one that does not have parliamentary oversight.

A few years ago, today's Minister of Justice argued that we should have parliamentary oversight. Therefore, I do not understand the government's change of attitude. I do not believe it is the answer that the member across the way provided. I do not quite understand it. I would have appreciated a better explanation from the government on its flip-flop on this very important issue. To be honest with Canadians on this issue, the government should bring in parliamentary oversight. It is not too late to do that.

If the Conservatives are a little confused in what mechanism to use or how to put it in place, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada has provided great detail as to how parliamentary oversight would look and work. I would suggest the government give serious consideration to that. It is not too late.

When we talk about the opportunity to bring in robust legislation, the Conservatives would be doing a disfavour by not acting on that amendment. We have argued for it since second reading of the legislation.

Back at second reading, we were fairly clear on the issue. We indicated that we would support the legislation because it would build on the powers of preventive arrest. It would improve and make better use of the no-fly list. It would allow for more immediate and coordinated information sharing by government departments and agencies. Those are all positive things that would assist us. We should not be fearful of that.

However, I have had concerns. I have had the opportunity in Winnipeg North to meet with many constituents regarding this issue. They are very much aware of these concerns. I have had the opportunity to meet with Cindy Woodhouse and others regarding the issue of how the definition of protests would be deemed and dealt with by our security agencies. We brought forward a series of amendments that would have dealt with some of those concerns.

I have indicated very clearly that if the government fails, and continues to fail, to make those important changes and amendments, the Liberal Party is prepared to make the issue a part of an election platform. In other words, on the big issue of parliamentary oversight, if the Conservatives continue to resist it, as it would appear they will, it will become a part of the Liberal Party's election platform for the following reasons.

First, we recognize that it is very important to have robust laws that will have an impact on the issue of terrorism in our country and abroad. Quite frankly, Canada has a leadership role to play on this issue, but it has failed to meet that leadership role.

Second, where the government has failed to recognize the importance of bringing in some of those amendments to provide those assurances, whether perceived or real, the Liberal Party will make those necessary changes. However, it would be a mistake to prevent the legislation from passing in order to make some of those changes.

We realize we live in a world that has changed. Over the last numbers years, we have seen legislation brought forward to try to deal with the issue of terrorism across the world. The events of 9/11 had a profound impact in a very real way in the minds of Canadians. Their expectation is that good government will provide sound laws that will give Canadians the confidence that it knows what it is doing and that is moving in the right direction.

As I indicated, many Canadians were shocked when they found out the degree to which we have young people who are becoming radicalized. Even that aspect, in part, has some dealings in the legislation.

In closing, I have appreciated the opportunity to share those few words with members.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Winnipeg North if he could firmly go on the record one way or the other about what the position of the Liberal Party is, considering the general position is in favour of the bill. A huge part of this bill has to do with the pre-authorization by judges of violations of Canadian law or of infringements of the charter, with no limits in the act other than that they could not engage in bodily harm, affect the sexual integrity of a person, or obstruct justice.

There are all kinds of problems. There would be secret judicial proceedings. CSIS itself would decide whether or not to go to a judge. There would be no oversight after a judge's pre-authorization of interference in the form of disruption. All commentators with a legal background have completely panned this provision as completely incompatible with the role of judges.

As the party of the charter, as the member likes to say, I would like to know whether or not my colleague is in support of this new system.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I for one believe in Canada's institutions, our judicial institutions and our many different law agencies, that are out there. It does not necessarily mean that checks cannot be put in place. I believe that checks need to be in place. Some of those checks range from a simple regulation to our Constitution in the frame of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

There is no doubt there are aspects to the legislation we currently have that could have been amended to narrow some of those definitions, maybe even exclude some. The Liberal Party critic had the opportunity extensively through the committee stage to make suggestions on ideas for potential amendments to the legislation, to bringing forward amendments in itself.

I would not argue that this is perfect legislation, but I do believe it is in Canadians' best interests that the legislation pass. However, it needs to be changed and a Liberal government—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, it grieves me to hear my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North take a partisan jab at the official opposition for what is a principled position opposing dangerous legislation. The Green Party opposes this legislation and does not believe it would make us safer.

I have learned a lot about security since this bill was first brought forward. I have heard a lot of experts from our Five Eyes partners who talk about how Canada has a system with the least oversight of any of the Five Eyes partners and actually has adopted a system that would make us less safe, more vulnerable to terrorist attack as a result of Bill C-51, and the creation of disruption activities from CSIS agents without any requirement to report them to RCMP or have any pinnacle level of oversight.

I still hold out the hope that the Liberals will change their minds and vote with the official opposition, and that some Conservatives of conscience will vote with us so we can stop this monstrosity before it becomes law.

On the subject of radicalization, we have not done what the U.K. did in creating anti-terrorism law that actually creates anti-radicalization programs in institutions like prisons and schools. As well, we have done something unprecedented in Canadian law. We have not exempted personal conversations. We have created thought chill around radicalization and will make our youth less vulnerable to being able to hear from those who would talk them out of it.

Does my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North not think this legislation, once it has passed, should be repealed if an election takes place?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we will have to agree to disagree. The Green Party would be on its own in regard to the member's last statement that the legislation should be repealed. There is somewhat of a need for aspects of the legislation, and even the New Democrats, with all their failings, recognize that they would not repeal the legislation. The leader of the New Democratic Party has said that.

The leader of the Green Party made reference to radicalization. Maybe she can honestly say that she might actually believe it, but I do believe that there are aspects of the legislation that would in part deal with the radicalization of our young people through websites and so forth. There is reason for us to appreciate that there is value to the current legislation, even though there are a number of issues on which the government could have improved the legislation and there are a number of things that it could have been introduced.

There is the need for amendments to change some of the wording and for bringing in something else, such as parliamentary oversight. Had the government done that, the bill would have been far more robust in dealing with terrorism. That is what Canadians would have wanted.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise and speak to Bill C-51, the anti-terrorism act, 2015. I will most certainly be supporting it.

First, I would like to digress and congratulate the Minister of Finance on economic action plan 2015. This is a balanced budget, but it also invests in one of the key priorities of my constituents, namely, national security. The budget set aside almost $300 million to counter terrorism in Canada, funds which our security and law enforcement agencies will use to keep all Canadians safe.

During my time today, I would like to speak about the threat environment in Canada and globally, how it has changed since the inception of CSIS and why we must respond accordingly, particularly by allowing CSIS to disrupt and prevent terrorist threats from developing further.

Let me be perfectly clear. The international jihadi movement has declared war on Canada and her allies. Jihadi terrorists have stated their intent to target Canadians because they hate our values, our freedom, and our prosperity.

In 1984, when the CSIS Act entered into force, the primary national security concerns were cold war era espionage. The actors were well known. The threat environment today is much more complex. Enhanced by technology, the threats are global and can develop very quickly. While this applies to the full range of threats, espionage, foreign interference and proliferation concerns, we know all too well that the twin spectres of violent extremism and international jihadi terrorism in particular require a robust, and very importantly, flexible response.

Our Conservative government is tackling this important issue. That is why we have tabled the legislation which is before us. It is why we have made significant investments in the budget to protect national security.

The legislation contains a critical new tool for the government to improve our capacity to act, to deter and to diminish threats at an early stage. It is a threat disruption mandate for CSIS.

Creating a new threat disruption mandate for the service to take authorized and focused action against threats would increase the range of response options that may be brought to bear against those who would do us harm. However, let us be clear. In no way does threat disruption amount to police powers. This is a complete falsehood spread by the opposition. Policing would rightly remain with the RCMP and local law enforcement. The amendment adopted by the public safety and national security committee provides even greater clarity on this point, which I strongly support.

For 30 years, CSIS has been singularly charged with investigating, assessing and advising on threats to Canada's national security. In doing so, it has proven itself to be a respected and highly professional Canadian institution. In fulfilling the new mandate to disrupt threats to the security of Canada, CSIS would build upon its existing capabilities and expertise. CSIS develops and maintains unique and unparalleled access to intelligence on threats to Canada, which provides it with unique insights and operational leads.

The director of CSIS has been quite clear in his appearances before parliamentary committees, stating that the jihadi terrorist threat to Canada has never been as direct and immediate as it is today. Unfortunately, this is no longer simply a threat. In recent months and years, Canada and most of our close allies have been directly impacted by the scourge of terrorism. Our citizens have been both perpetrators and victims of terrorist attacks here at home as well as in allied countries and in conflict zones.

Canada has a responsibility to the international community to prevent and deter our citizens from engaging in such activities both at home and abroad, and the anti-terrorism act, 2015 would accomplish these tasks. As we have seen, such activities can destabilize countries and whole regions and cause significant harm.

We must also be concerned about individuals who return to Canada after having spent time abroad engaging in terrorist activities. While their terrorist experience abroad may vary greatly, we must consider their radicalizing influence on others, their ability to facilitate other people's terrorist activities, or the potential for such individuals to engage in attacks here.

We should not be so naive to think that Canada is immune to such threats in this age of global travel and ubiquitous communications technologies. It is incumbent upon us in such an environment to reassess our approach and ensure appropriate authorities are in place so that we may take reasonable and necessary steps to protect the safety of Canadians.

Many of our closest allies already exercise similar authorities and view them as vital to their own investigations. We must ensure that the tools at our agencies' disposal keep pace so that Canada can work effectively to address threats and contribute to global efforts to combat terrorism. To do so, we are harnessing all relevant capacity and expertise to build a robust and agile system that allows us to bring the right tools to bear at the right time.

I think all members can agree that preventing terrorist acts proactively is certainly preferable to a reactive posture, and this bill would ensure that.

While I have focused my remarks on terrorism, I would remind members that authorizing CSIS to diminish threats would allow it to take measures to address all threats to national security identified in the CSIS Act. These threats include not just terrorism, but also proliferation, espionage, sabotage and foreign interference. This new mandate would allow CSIS to take authorized measures to disrupt the threat posed by sophisticated and determined cyberspies whose activities are contrary to the security of Canada.

These measures could also be used against proliferation networks active in Canada which seek to covertly and illicitly export our technologies and expertise to weapons programs.

When CSIS was created, the threats we faced as a country and as a global community were markedly different from those we must combat today, threats that are agile, diffuse and evolving rapidly. The terrorists' ability to use modern social media is becoming very well known, as we see on almost a daily basis around the world.

I think all my colleagues must agree that we cannot expect CSIS to fulfill its duties and functions with dated legislation crafted for another era, another environment, and indeed, a more innocent time.

I would also remind members opposite that CSIS is not the enemy. ISIS is the enemy. It is important that we focus on who the real enemies are in these threats to our country.

We must take the necessary steps now to ensure that we as a government and as a nation can protect the safety and security of our citizens at home and abroad. This new legislation creates a clear mandate for CSIS within a well-established and rigorous system of accountability and review by the Security Intelligence Review Committee, or SIRC, whose budget our government doubled through economic action plan 2015. Yet again, this is another measure from one of the finest budgets that a government in Canada has ever brought in, as is evidenced by the widespread support for economic action plan 2015. Such an increase in funding for SIRC will provide it with greater capacity in order to assure both Parliament and Canadians that CSIS will appropriately exercise its threat disruption mandate.

It never ceases to amaze me that members in the opposition view this as a zero-sum game. They automatically assume any measures that we take to protect Canadian security come at the expense of personal liberties. Clearly, this is nonsense. The measures we are taking under Bill C-51 would not only improve security, but they would also increase the freedom of Canadians.

Most important, the bill would provide the necessary tools for CSIS to play its part in protecting Canadians and in being a responsible international partner in the fight against global terrorism.

I am very proud to be part of a party that labels terrorism and terrorists for what they actually are, and we are not afraid to use those words.

In conclusion, I hope all members will rise in this House to support the bill.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the Conservative member's speech. I am really concerned because Bill C-51 is an omnibus bill.

Neither the government nor the member's speech has shown why this bill, which is very broad in scope, is necessary. When this bill was examined in committee, almost all of the witnesses expressed serious reservations about it. What is more, the international community is watching Canada very closely when it comes to this bill.

Did the Conservatives look carefully at what was being done elsewhere when they drafted this bill? We need to keep Canadians safe, but this bill does not take Canadians's safety into account and especially not their fundamental freedoms.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me. The NDP opposite claims to want to protect the security of Canadians, but each and every time that this and any other government moves actively against terrorism, it is automatically against it.

I would remind the member opposite of the history of her party. One of the founding fathers of the party, J.S. Woodsworth, actually voted against Canada's participation in the Second World War. Can members imagine that? Had Canada followed that advice, who knows what the consequences for the world would have been. The NDP's sorry track record on protecting Canada's security is there for all to see.

In terms of the opponents of our particular bill, I would quote Justice John Major regarding the letters from the lawyers on the bill. He said the criticism goes “way over the top. You’ve got to come back to what we’re dealing with – a serious problem of terrorism in Canada. You can’t have a halfhearted war against that”.

I agree.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to say that the fact that the committee accepted the Liberals' request for removal of the word “lawful” from Bill C-51 is a good step forward when it comes to allowing people to protest. I want to acknowledge that.

However, my concerns continue to be on the issue of parliamentary oversight.

The government knows that there is huge opposition to Bill C-51. Why is that it continues to be so resistant about putting some dollars into the budget to provide that and to committing to parliamentary oversight? Every other country has it. It is a common thing that should be there to ensure people's rights are protected.

I would like to hear from my hon. colleague as to why he and his government continue to refuse to do that.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first, we want to dispense with the point that there is massive opposition to Bill C-51 because there is simply not. My constituents in Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette are strongly supportive of the security measures.

Again, as a member of the governing party, and thankfully so, I see no lack of criticism, or commentary and demonstrations and opinions, on what this and any other government does. Therefore, to suggest that Canada is less free or would become less free is complete nonsense.

In terms of the oversight for the CSIS, I would again quote Justice John Major, who said, “I don't think Parliament is equipped as a body to act as an oversight...which is what is being proposed”.

Clare Lopez, from the Center for Security Policy, said, “the use of an intermediary review committee rather than direct parliamentary oversight has advantages..”.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let us look at what is really happening.

Just because the NDP does not blindly follow the dictates of the Conservative Party does not mean that we are in favour of insecurity and letting the terrorist movement do whatever it wants. We want to combat the terrorist threat and do so in an effective manner, not make terrorists our allies.

I had an internationally recognized strategy teacher, Professor Garant. He said that terrorism has an incestuous relationship with the media. Terrorism scares people, and the media and politicians avidly repeat the message that it sends and make the threat seem bigger than it really is. This is the same problem that arose in the debate between Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Tommy Douglas on the invocation of the War Measures Act in October 1970.

Bill C-51 seeks to make permanent the measures that that legislation sought to impose in October 1970. Under the War Measures Act, 400 Canadians were imprisoned for absolutely no reason. No charges were laid against them. Tens of thousands of Canadians had their rights restricted. For what? For nothing.

The FLQ, which was a real threat, was dismantled by a classic police operation. The police did not use any special laws or illegal means; they simply did their police surveillance work to look for and find the suspects. The FLQ was dismantled. I want to stress that the special laws served absolutely no purpose.

Why was the War Measures Act invoked? A minister said it was outrageous that thousands of FLQ members were preparing to overthrow the government, as though here in Canada the Islamic State were preparing to invade with tens of thousands of big bad Muslims. Well, no. It is not true.

Two unfortunate events unfolded. The first involved a young man whose father begged the authorities to commit his son for psychiatric reasons. The young man did not have a gun. He used a motor vehicle and a knife. Everyone around him knew how he was and therefore removed any chance for him to use a firearm. The second event involved a young addict who wanted to go to prison for detoxification treatment.

Now, the government wants to deprive us of our rights because of those two incidents. However, everyone is saying that the new laws in Bill C-51 never would have prevented those two unfortunate incidents from happening. That speaks volumes.

The famous sentence uttered by the then Liberal prime minister was “Just watch me”. Well, we are watching the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, and we see that he has an image, but not much more than that. There is no substance to his message, and when we try to listen to what he says we are dismayed that there is nothing there.

Later on there was the debate on the charter, which was a protection. In the debate between Ed Broadbent and Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Ed Broadbent said that economic rights needed to be replaced by human rights. Thank goodness that debate took place. We would be at a disadvantage today if it had not occurred.

Claude Ryan, a man of common sense, said that the charter was there to protect citizens from the worst and most dangerous abuses, those of the state, and he was right.

I remind members that 1,000 aboriginal women—not two—are currently missing in Canada. That is a big number, yet there is still no special legislation. However, we are not asking for special legislation. We are asking for an inquiry into why the police have failed to prevent these crimes and whether there are any social programs in which we could invest to combat this problem. Unfortunately, there is absolutely nothing. We are so used to seeing first nations people being systematically dismissed that it has almost become routine. It is hardly newsworthy.

However, when two Canadians die, it is a whole other story. It is unfortunate, but at some point it needs to be said. How can this government make a big issue out of two sad events that need to be addressed, yet it does absolutely nothing to find 1,000 missing women? It does not care. It is just looking for media coverage. It has an incestuous relationship with the media.

Furthermore, organized crime is still a problem. Attempts to settle scores among criminals—and sometimes their victims—account for about 100 murders in Canada every year. About 5,000 people fall victim to illicit drugs every year. For example, there are people who sell low-quality heroin in Montreal. It is hard to get accurate data, since there are always a number of suicides, but thousands of Canadians still die.

What does this government do? It withdraws police personnel tasked with combatting organized crime and assigns them to combatting terrorist activities, which have so far been far less effective than organized crime. In fact, organized crime causes much more harm in Canada.

A majority of experts—even those from the government—agree with us and believe that this is not good legislation, that it will not combat terrorism and that it will not pass the charter test. That will make this law illegal. The government is currently batting zero at the Supreme Court. All of its laws have been deemed ultra vires. Unbelievable.

Even though 48 witnesses, including jurists and former prime ministers, told them that they would get in trouble again with this, they say the Supreme Court will side with them this time. When it comes to credibility, I am more inclined to trust all of the experts, prime ministers and eminent jurists who say that the government will get in trouble than I am to trust the government's legal opinion, which is not worth much.

Don Quixote tilted at windmills believing they were giants. Well, my distinguished Conservative Party colleagues have the mental age of Don Quixote. Once again, they are inventing giants and trying to fight them.

Clearly you do not like what I am telling you, but here is something even better: the vast majority of Canadians agree with me and reject your position.

Polls indicated that you had 85% support, but now that Canadians realize you are attacking their rights, they are withdrawing their support.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I would remind hon. members to address their comments to the Chair rather than to other members.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, the NDP has proven that it has sympathy for the perpetrators of these terrorist acts. Throughout the member's entire speech, he talked about them being, more or less, victims, including the two jihadi terrorists who came to Montreal and Ottawa and took two lives. He referred to those two lives as simply “unfortunate incidents”.

I absolutely cannot believe what I just heard.

A lot of what he said in his speech was absolutely untrue. He also mentioned that none of the measures in this bill would have stopped those incidents, but I would read a quote from testimony that we heard before committee:

If C-51 had been in place on October 19, Martin Couture Rouleau would have been in prison and my brother would not be dead today.

Who said that? Louise Vincent, sister of slain Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent.

My question for the member is would you like to explain to Louise Vincent why the person who killed her brother is a victim, and why her brother is just an unfortunate incident?

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Just another reminder for hon. members to direct their questions and comments to the Chair. That takes the personal aspects out of it.

The hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.

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

Mr. Speaker, the same arguments apply to what happened in October 1970 when Pierre Laporte was killed during a terrorist attack.

Should all Canadians have been punished because the FLQ murdered a man? No, only the FLQ should have been punished. That is what we are saying. We want to protect all Canadians, not just those who think they share the government's view.

I will provide a very specific answer because I like answering questions, unlike the Conservatives. My colleague indicated that the only person who spoke in favour of Bill C-51 said that she wished that her brother were still alive. I understand and accept that. Her brother would not have been killed if that man had been committed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this member and other members have made reference to the FLQ crisis and painted it in such a way that they say, with hindsight, that it was a terrible thing that occurred in terms of the War Measures Act that was put into place.

Given that the member likes to answer questions directly, does he believe that Prime Minister Trudeau, back then, made a mistake by listening to the premier of Quebec and the mayor of Montreal when they asked for the federal government to do just what he did? Is there an obligation for the Prime Minister of Canada to actually listen to the premier of Quebec and to the mayor of Montreal?

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

Mr. Speaker, Jean Marchand told the House that he had information indicating that 4,000 terrorists were threatening the government.

Then, the people of Quebec, the Premier of Quebec, and the Mayor of Montreal were asked what they thought about that. They said that the government needed to respond. However, the 4,000 terrorists was something the Prime Minister made up at the time. He lied to the House.

This is evident because none of the 400 people arrested were prosecuted. The FLQ was completely dismantled. It had less than 30 members. Where are the 4,000 terrorists? They exist only in the active imagination of the Liberal Party representative.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today I am happy to rise in support of the anti-terrorism act, 2015 and our Conservative government's ongoing efforts to protect Canadians. In my remarks today I would like to discuss the value of information sharing between federal government departments and why this is a necessary and important tool for CSIS in particular.

However, before I address the substance of the bill before us today, I would like to take a moment to applaud our hard-working Minister of Finance for our government's investments to enhance national security through this year's budget by almost $300 million. Such funding will give the tools to our police and our national security agencies to keep our families and our communities safe.

Now I will turn to the bill. The security of Canada information sharing act is an important new tool. This would ensure a coherent framework is in place for our intelligence and security agencies to reliably gain access to important information they need to investigate threats against Canadians. It will also be done in accordance with the mandate and lawful authorities of our intelligence and security agencies. Having such information sharing capabilities will allow and help CSIS to fully investigate and provide advice on terrorist plots and related activities before they develop, helping to ensure our national security.

Over the last several years, the national security landscape has changed considerably. The threats we face today are more complex, more widespread and can materialize more quickly than ever before. Accordingly, efficient and responsible information sharing across federal institutions is crucial. In today's complex and connected world, timely and effective information sharing is essential to the identification and investigation of these threats. Co-operation between a range of institutions, including those not traditionally part of the national security community, is required for investigative bodies such as CSIS to fulfill their mandate.

The CSIS Act sets out legal authorities for the service to investigate and advise on threats to the security of Canada. CSIS collects information to the extent that it is strictly necessary from a wide variety of sources, including in some cases other government agencies. Many government departments collect information of direct relevance to active CSIS investigations. This information can be vital and yet, while CSIS has a clear authority to collect information to fulfill its national mandate, many other government departments face uncertainty when deciding whether or not they have the authority to disclose information relevant to national security. This is an issue we need to address. The legislation we are talking about today will address this shortcoming in our current security framework.

To date, agencies and departments have operated in an ambiguous environment, having relied on a patchwork of authorities not designed to facilitate information sharing for such purposes. This lack of certainty surrounding disclosure can cause delays and it can even prevent access to information directly relevant to protecting Canadians. With this current legal landscape in mind, with its delays and hurdles and uncertainties, I am happy to say I am speaking in favour and support of this legislation designed to ensure effective and responsible information sharing.

The security of Canada information sharing act, which is included as part of Bill C-51, is the latest effort of our government's ongoing efforts to protect Canadians and our national security. In recognition of the impediments to the sharing of vital national and security-related information between government departments, our government is taking clear action to protect Canadians. The security of Canada information sharing act would provide a clear authorization to Government of Canada institutions to disclose information related to national security purposes.

I really want to stress this next point, especially after what the opposition has been saying today. This act has been specifically tailored to incorporate safeguards in order to ensure the privacy and rights of Canadians are protected and respected. One such vital safeguard is that institutions can only disclose information to other Government of Canada institutions that have jurisdiction or responsibilities relating to activities that are relevant to the security of Canada. In effect, the act would encourage and facilitate domestic information sharing in order to aid in lawful and authorized investigations.

As I have said, CSIS has the legal mandate and authority to collect information from a variety of sources. The collecting of information must be done to the extent that is strictly necessary to the investigation of threats to the security of Canada. This would ensure that federal departments have a clear and unambiguous authority to share information relative to our national security. To be clear, it does not alter nor does it expand the mandate of designated recipients.

Over the past several weeks, I have had the opportunity to speak with many residents in my riding of Macleod. I can say that they are overwhelmingly in support of Bill C-51. However, some of the feedback I did receive was on ensuring that the right of lawful protest was protected. With that in mind, I am pleased the public safety and national security committee passed an amendment to make it clear that protest, dissent and civil disobedience are not activities targeted by this legislation.

I am in support of this amendment as it would provide greater assurance for Canadians' civil rights. Their civil rights will be protected and respected. That is essential, and I know the residents in my riding of Macleod are going to be pleased that we have listened to their feedback.

The anti-terrorism act, 2015 would ensure a reliable and effective framework is in place for CSIS to request access to the information it needs to investigate threats against the security of Canadians. In addition to those safeguards, this legislation would not affect or override any existing statutory prohibitions that govern domestic information sharing. Therefore, safeguards against the disclosure of particularly sensitive information remain in place. CSIS will continue to collect only the information strictly necessary to carry out its mandate. That is the law.

In addition to the safeguards contained within the legislation, there is also an important existing safeguard in the form of SIRC, the Security Intelligence Review Committee. SIRC has a robust and wide-ranging mandate with access to all of CSIS' holdings with the exception of cabinet confidences. Canadians can be sure that SIRC plays an important review role in the activities of CSIS, including in relation to the new measures proposed in Bill C-51.

Again, it is important that we provide SIRC with the resources it needs to take on this important task. Through the recently announced budget, SIRC's funding will be doubled, providing it additional resources to ensure that CSIS uses information sharing appropriately, effectively and within the bounds of the legislation before us today.

In addition, it should also be noted that CSIS' activities can be and are regularly reviewed by the Privacy Commissioner, and those recommendations can be, and are, made public.

As members can see, the security of Canada information sharing act provisions included in the anti-terrorism act, 2015, encourage responsible and efficient information sharing between Government of Canada institutions for the purpose of protecting national security. Simply put, this legislation would protect the rights of Canadians while also allowing CSIS to protect our security. The anti-terrorism act, 2015, is another clear example of our government's ongoing efforts to strengthen national security and to ensure Canadians are protected from an emerging and multi-faceted threat.

I think it is clear that times have changed. This is not 1970 any more. We are talking about new, high-tech, global threats facing Canadians such that we have never faced before. These threats are not only around the world, but unfortunately, here at home.

The security of Canada information sharing act along with other measures in Bill C-51 complement a number of existing and recently introduced tools. These important tools will help protect Canadians from the considerable and complex threats we are now facing today to our national security. Those also include the RCMP's engagement with local communities to counter radicalization, which is also an important component of Bill C-51.

I urge all members to support Bill C-51 and the budget, which will provide much-needed resources to enhance the capacity of our security and our law enforcement agencies, and also of SIRC.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would sincerely like to thank my colleague for his speech, because I think it was very honest. He talked about how this legislation is about national security in a very broad way, and the legislation is.

The legislation is called, falsely, the “anti-terrorism act, 2015”, but with so much in it, it goes much beyond that. I wonder if my colleague thinks that part of the problem we have had in this debate is that the government has been presenting the bill as being almost entirely about combatting terrorism when, for example, in the new information sharing act, when the Conservatives define “undermining security of Canada”, seven of the eight headings are not about terrorism. One is about terrorism.

Would the member agree that we would all be further ahead if the government had not been spinning the bill constantly as being only about terrorism?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's question.

A main impetus of this bill is what happened here in Canada this fall. What we are facing as Canadians is much different than anything we have faced before, whether it was what happened on this property in October, or what is going on around the world.

I found it interesting that my colleague from the official opposition was saying that there have only been two victims. He should ask people in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen what they feel about these two victims and about what ISIL has done.

This is a piece of legislation that is going to protect Canadians here at home. On a broader perspective, this is something that is going to protect Canadians and people around the world, not just here in Canada but in other places.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member in regard to—

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

Mr. Speaker, on a brief point of order, I want to put on the record that when my colleague referred to “my colleague”, he did not refer to me, as might be interpreted in the context.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I appreciate the hon. member's clarification. Questions and comments.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we have had all sorts of opportunity, in second reading and at the committee stage, to identify where the legislation could have been improved.

I want to go a little off track and bring this closer to the budget issue. It is one thing to bring in legislation; it is another thing to properly resource our different agencies, whether it is the Canada Border Services, RCMP, special forces and so forth.

Can the member explain why the government has not allocated those resources? It is more of a shuffling of current resources that we see taking place.

Would the member agree that both of them should have been brought forward and that the government should have been more proactive on the budget level?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is very misleading and disingenuous.

As I said in my speech, in economic action plan 2014, we allocated $300 million to augment the RCMP, and doubled the budget for SIRC, the Security Intelligence Review Committee. These are resources that are going to ensure that the legislation, and the changes that are going to be part of Bill C-51, is going to be enacted and protected.

We have allocated the resources that are going to be needed by our police, as well as our intelligence agencies, including SIRC.

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

Mr. Speaker, again the NDP members are either intentionally pushing out information that is incorrect, or simply showing that they do not completely understand the bill. I think it may be that they do not completely understand the bill.

The previous member asked a question with regard to the information sharing act. He indicated that there were seven points and none of them had to do with security. We heard from witnesses who spoke about how critical the information sharing aspects of this bill are. When they get pieces from different areas, they can put it together to solve a puzzle and are able to hone in on the issue of terrorist activity.

Once again, I would like to ask that member what he thinks of the NDP misleading Canadians and what a serious impact that would have if Canadians actually believed the opposition.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is disappointing, the misinformation the official opposition is putting out there that this is going to somehow take away from Canadians' civil liberties and that people are going to be arrested off the street for no reason whatsoever. It is very clear that we have judicial oversight as part of this document, as well as oversight and review from SIRC.

Can the official opposition show me anywhere in this act, specifically in Bill C-51, where it says that Canadians are going to be surrendering their civil rights? It is absolutely not true. This bill is going to ensure that CSIS and other security and intelligence agencies are allowed to share critical information to prevent terrorism and acts of violence before they happen.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, you will probably notice that I rarely get to my feet these days in this 41st Parliament. There are very few occasions that I feel are important enough that I should contribute. Usually the points that I need to have on the record I hear very capably put on the record by others.

However, in this case, on behalf of the constituents that I represent in the riding of Winnipeg Centre, I feel it is important that I rise today to express how profoundly disappointed I am in the government, how profoundly I disagree with the tone, the content, and the process we are dealing with in this important piece of legislation, the subject matter of which deals with the very rights and freedoms by which we define ourselves as Canadians.

One does not deal with that kind of potential infringement on our rights and freedoms in a day-and-a-half debate, with closure imposed at every stage of this bill. It is fundamentally wrong, and I condemn the Conservative government for tampering and tinkering with these rights and freedoms in such a frivolous manner. It offends the very sensibilities of Canadians who profess to value our democratic principles.

Let me begin with the process. For the 95th time in the 41st Parliament, the Conservatives have moved closure on a bill. One may ask how many times or on how many bills the Conservatives have moved closure; the answer would be all of them. Every single time, they have decided to run roughshod over everything that is good and decent about our parliamentary democracy. Every chance they get, they abuse the powers. They do away with all the checks and balances that were put in place so that our Westminster parliamentary democracy is the best in the world. They do away with the checks and balances that protect us against the abuse of power, which is indeed possible under this system.

Why do they have to deny the other elements of our democratic process, which is the legitimate right of the opposition to bring forward the concerns of the constituencies that we represent? I can tell members that the people in the riding of Winnipeg Centre are horrified by Bill C-51. I know that because I stood with them in front of city hall, in front of a crowd of 1,500 people, who gathered to object to the potential infringements on their rights and freedoms to privacy, the right to assemble, and the various other elements that could be affected by this bill.

I know this because right across the country, Canadians have had to take to the streets. That is because their elected representatives, those of us in the chamber, are denied the opportunity to bring forward their valid points of view through the conventional method, which is reasoned debate and amendments. What the Conservatives do not understand is that what makes our parliamentary democracy work in this Westminster style is that there is a duty to accommodate the legitimate concerns, at least some of them, of the majority of Canadians who did not vote for their members.

One of my mentors was Gary Doer, the former premier of Manitoba. When he was first elected, he explained that we have an obligation to represent all of the people, not just those who voted for us. If the majority of Canadians have legitimate concerns on this bill, they deserve the right to be heard. They should not be shut down by closure at ever stage of this bill, just like every stage of every other bill.

At the committee stage, which used to be the last vestige of some semblance of non-partisan co-operation, for this broad-sweeping bill that impacts our rights and freedoms, they contemplated three meetings of two hours each per meeting, allowing for a few witnesses. Then, of course, they used their majority on the committee to stack the witnesses so that more witnesses who were in favour of the bill than opposed it were heard.

It was only through Herculean efforts that we managed to get a lousy eight or nine meetings. Again, these were not all-day meetings; these were two-hour meetings. These matters are of such substance and weight that they deserve the full consideration of the chamber, until every member is satisfied that his or her voice has been heard, and, let me say, some accommodation has been made to the legitimate concerns brought forward by those of us representing constituencies that are not governed by the ruling party.

Let me say in the limited amount of time I have, and I mean limited, that we are facing the biggest bait and switch in Canadian history. Until a few months ago, the current Conservative government wanted to go into the next federal election with the ballot box question being the economy. What happened then was that the price of oil tanked.

When they have no industrial strategy and they put all of their eggs in one basket, and that basket drops and all the eggs break, they have nothing left but to switch to that old neo-conservative hobby horse, the politics of fear. Now the Conservatives want the ballot box question to be on who is going to protect Canadians from this jihadist that is going to sneak into their bedrooms and murder them when they are asleep. That is the ballot box question they want now. It is the cheapest, most cynical style of politics in the world, and they specialize in it.

I can give example after example of the Conservatives' criminal justice bills. They bombarded my riding with leaflets, which were illegal mailings I would argue. They sent parliamentary privilege mailings into my riding. The leaflets are of a guy sneaking into a bedroom with a knife held up, showing that this junkie is going to murder Canadians in their sleep unless they vote for the Conservatives who are going to protect them. That is the kind of cheap debate and politics that we are subjected to here, instead of the real and legitimate concerns of global terrorism, on which we are perfectly happy to have a debate.

In the final minutes that I have, let me say that I do not understand the strategy of the third party. All of the opposition parties have condemned this bill as being a potential infringement of the rights and freedoms by which we define ourselves as Canadians. However, the members of the third party, in a gutless, spineless, and feckless approach, have said said that they oppose it, they are against it, but they are going to vote for it. Is there any reasoning? That is the most convoluted pretzel logic I have ever heard in my life.

My only message for Canadians is to use their vote, that most valuable thing they as citizens have in a democracy, and to say to whomever is on their doorstep in the federal election, “Is your party voting for Bill C-51? Because if it is, I am not voting for you”.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have never heard so much rhetoric about nothing. The member made a point of saying that it was so important to speak to the bilI, but I did not hear anything about the bill in his entire speech.

What is interesting is that the member said that we stacked the witnesses so we would have them all coming to committee in favour of the bill. The previous NDP member who stood up in this House said that there was only one witness at committee who actually favoured the bill.

Clearly the New Democrats have not read the bill. They did not watch committee. They did not see our credible witnesses who came, some with more than three decades of experience in law enforcement, intelligence gathering. Even with those who have been studying terrorism, every single one of them talked about the threat being real, that it has evolved and it is growing. The witnesses also talked about the need for this legislation to fill the gaps that have been identified by our security agencies.

I do not know whether I can ask the member a question about the bill because he clearly has not read it. It is not a laughing matter, but surely there are Canadians right across this country who are laughing now.

Could the member please stand in this House and indicate for Canadians, first, whether he read the bill. Second, why is the NDP intentionally pushing misinformation about the bill, or is it simply a lack of understanding?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have done their best to sanitize their language in dealing with this bill. They have done their best to try to downplay the potential impact, but the impact is not lost on Canadians.

I have met with first nations groups who are increasingly concerned that this bill is not about trying to make Canadians safer. This bill is more about having the Conservative administration snooping on its enemies. There is a Nixonian quality to this bill.

As we get closer to the election and the Conservatives lose their major premise for the ballot box question, they get tighter and smaller in their world view. They are paranoid to the point where they think they are surrounded by nothing but their enemies. It is embarrassing to watch, as we see the death rattle of a political administration infringing on rights and freedoms in a last desperate effort to hang on to power.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg Centre does have a way with words. I will give him that much.

He made reference to the Liberal Party's position on this. It is safe to say that the Liberal Party has been consistent through the debates on Bill C-51.

I wonder if the member could provide some clarification. I will provide him with a direct quote I noted this morning. It is from Tom Clark of Global TV. He asked the question of the member's leader, “If you become the government, would you scrap this piece of legislation?” The leader of the New Democratic Party stated, “We would change it for sure”.

I see that he is consulting right now as to what is to be said, but we have had New Democratic members inside the Chamber say that they would want to change it. Therefore, they have recognized there is some value to the legislation. Otherwise they would scrap it, like the Green Party.

There seem to be only three political entities in the House that are consistent: the Greens, the Liberals and to a certain degree, the Conservatives. What is the NDP position if the bill passes? Would it scrap it, or would it just make changes, as the leader of the New Democratic Party has stated?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, he asked for some clarification on the language that I used. The language that I used was “gutless”, “spineless”, “feckless” and “political cowardice”, all to describe the Liberal Party's position.

In answer to his question, the leader of my party and the critic for this area have both said clearly it would be repealed in an NDP administration. The member for Winnipeg North is selectively misquoting or paraphrasing a comment that was quite dated.

Repeal, repeal, repeal instead of the gutless, cowardly, feckless performance by the Liberals who say they cannot stand the bill on principle but they are going to vote for it because they are afraid someone might use it against them if they vote against it. That does not show a political backbone. That is classic Liberal policy. It is like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall, trying to figure out how to deal with Liberals.

When one stands for everything, one stands for nothing and trying to be all things to all people makes one useless in the political sphere, in my view.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, many of us in this House can start calling each other names, such as spineless and gutless. There are over 10 police officers in the Conservative caucus, and I would say hundreds of years of police experience. We are anything but gutless and spineless and all those other words.

It says something in this House, with a person's God-given ability to put together a speech, that they person cannot put something together that does not have to result in calling other people names and casting disparaging remarks against them and everything they stand for. What people in this country need to realize is that the member talked ad infinitum, and never talked about one thing of total consequence, except being able to read that secret Conservative conspiracy out there because of the price of oil.

Nobody believes what that member has to say because he uses too much emphasis on calling people names. He has a good use of the English language. It is too bad he could not put it to some more positive use.

I am pleased today to speak to the antiterrorism act, Bill C-51. This important bill provides additional tools and greater flexibility where required to meet threats to our national security which, as we know, have never been more direct.

I am also pleased to highlight that our government will invest almost $300 million to significantly enhance the investigative capacity to counter terrorism.

During my time today, I would like to speak about the proposal to create a new threat disruption mandate for CSIS. These important changes, found in part 4 of the bill, are another key element of our strategy to help prevent terrorist attacks and keep Canadians safe.

In particular, I would like to elaborate on how this mandate for CSIS fits into broader efforts by the government, and how it complements and enhances existing tools in place to combat terrorism. I will also address the governance and authorization framework within which CSIS will exercise this new mandate.

It goes without saying that the international jihadi movement has declared war on this country. Canadians have been highlighted in jihadist propaganda as a target simply because of our freedoms, our values and our prosperity.

In fact, several months ago Canadians were victims of horrific jihadi attacks. These victims were targeted solely because they were wearing the uniform of the Canadian Armed Forces. We will never acquiesce to the Liberal desires that we sit on the sidelines in fright. We are all participating in the military mission to degrade and destroy ISIS abroad and we must also take strong action here at home. That is why the bill before us today is all about anti-terrorism.

CSIS has a strong record of responsibly exercising its authority and has matured as an organization over its 30-year history. The Security Intelligence Review Committee, CIRC, consistently found that CSIS has carried out its duties in accordance with the CSIS Act and ministerial directives. That is an exemplary record I must say.

I have full confidence that CSIS will continue to comply with its statutory mandate as it relates to the proposed threat diminishment mandate. Given its well-established, investigative and analytical capacity and singular focus on national security, CSIS is well-positioned to act directly to disrupt threats to the security of Canada, which are clearly defined in the CSIS Act.

I must emphasize that this definition has anchored CSIS' national security mandate for over 30 years, and will continue to do so. Nothing in the current bill before us will change that. Taking reasonable and proportionate measures to disrupt threats to the security of Canada is a natural extension of CSIS' existing investigation. By giving CSIS the authority to disrupt threats, we will leverage existing expertise within the national security community to create a significant new capacity to meet today's complex threat environment.

We will also harness the unique insight and expertise CSIS has developed through its investigation and analysis of a full range of national security threats.

CSIS would now be able to take the logical next step of disrupting “threats to the security of Canada” as clearly defined in the CSIS Act. It is important to note that, in this regard, the definition has been in place for more than 30 years and would not change with Bill C-51.

This does not, however, mean that CSIS would go at it alone or act in a vacuum. CSIS has well-established relationships with its federal and provincial partners, and would continue to work closely with these partners in support of its mandated activities. Just as CSIS co-operates with partners as it investigates threats to the security of Canada, it would likewise co-operate with partners as it takes reasonable and proportionate measures to disrupt such threats.

As an example, CSIS and the RCMP have a strong working relationship guided by an overarching framework and protocols for working effectively together in accordance with their respective mandates. Ultimately, this framework for co-operation recognizes the primacy of public safety and would serve as a foundation for co-operation and de-confliction between CSIS and the RCMP as the service exercises this new authority. CSIS' relationships with all relevant partners would be similarly reinforced to reflect requirements associated with this new mandate.

Moving to the authorization framework for this mandate, the bill is clear in describing what conditions must be met. Any measures that CSIS takes must be reasonable, proportionate and necessary to address the threat at hand. Additionally, the bill contains a number of express prohibitions, including a prohibition against any measure that would cause death or serious bodily harm. Moreover, in no circumstances may such measures be used to wilfully attempt to obstruct the course of justice. These prohibitions are consistent with and modelled after those found in the Criminal Code, establishing a firm foundation in Canadian law.

The bill also clearly identifies when CSIS would have to seek a warrant and what conditions would have to be satisfied for the Federal Court to authorize certain measures. As with the current warrant regime, CSIS would require ministerial approval before seeking such a warrant. Much like the existing warrant regime, the requirement to seek judicial authorization would allow a Federal Court judge to determine whether a proposed measure contravenes the charter and, if so, to determine whether the measure represents a reasonable limit on the right or freedom and is, therefore, in accordance with the charter as a whole.

In addition to ministerial accountability and the warrant regime, the exercise of this new mandate would be subject to review by the Security Intelligence Review Committee, or SIRC, which is required by law to review at least one aspect each year. As an added measure of assurance, our government would double the budget of the Security Intelligence Review Committee by providing $12.5 million. This would increase SIRC's capacity to review CSIS activities.

The new mandate for CSIS would not be introduced into a vacuum. Building on existing expertise and leveraging existing capacity makes sense, and it would enhance the government's ability to protect Canadians. I therefore urge all members of the House to support the bill.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the Conservative member's speech.

I note that several Conservative members are police officers. What concerns us on this side of the House is ensuring the security and safety of people while protecting their rights and freedoms. That is part of the foundation of our democracy.

My colleague mentioned the wide range of activities and the broad scope of the bill, which provides little protection. I would like to hear what he has to say about that. Does he believe that this bill goes too far when it come to the surveillance of ordinary Canadians?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with a broad spectrum of government officials, such as CSIS, RCMP, Canadian Border Services members, all of whom have taken an oath to uphold the laws of Canada, of which the Charter of Rights and Freedoms forms a basic part. I do not believe any of those individuals would act in any other way than in good faith, knowing their rights and responsibilities.

The member asked if the legislation went too far. It absolutely does not go too far, and there are several reasons why. Any part of this comprehensive legislation that would begin to infringe on any right or freedom of Canadians would have to be scrutinized by a judge before a warrant would be issued. Therefore, Canadians have the right to know, and should know, that these individuals have sworn to keep the laws of Canada and that a judge will oversee any warrants that may be obtained for actions to be taken. Canadians can rest assured that this act is in compliance with and respects the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. There will be two and a half minutes remaining in the period for questions and comments for the hon. member when we next return to debate on the question.

The House resumed consideration 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, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have another opportunity to offer my views on Bill C-51 on behalf of the constituency of Parkdale—High Park.

Bill C-51 is a 62-page omnibus, so-called anti-terrorism bill that people are concerned is overly vague and too far-reaching, that beefs up the powers of CSIS, but sadly, does not provide adequate oversight.

There is nothing in the bill to counter radicalism in communities, to engage with communities, as has been recommended by the police and by several community organizations. At the same time the federal government is pushing forward on the bill, supposedly to confront terrorism, it continues to cut the budgets of agencies on the front line of terrorist threats, agencies like the RCMP, CSIS and CBSA. Each and every one has had its budget cut since 2012.

I do have to note that here we are again under time allocation. We are at the report stage. In other words, we are getting a report back from the public safety committee on the bill, on this very important, far-reaching legislation, and we have one day of debate.

Let me say, this is the 95th time that the government has put time limits on debate in this House of Commons, more than three times what any other government has ever attempted in terms of stifling debate and shutting down dissent. Frankly, I have to begin my remarks by saying how offensive it is and how fundamentally undermining to our democracy that we do not have a fuller debate on such an important bill, because it is very far-reaching.

Let me also clarify. Let there be no doubt that New Democrats understand that we are in a rapidly changing world. There are some very serious threats in the world that we should be extremely concerned about. I think social media has brought concerns about terrorism to our doorsteps and has shown us very graphically the kinds of horrible events that have taken place around the world and one very close to home right here in the House of Commons.

We understand that this threat is real. We do not minimize it, but we believe fundamentally, and our leader, I think, has expressed this eloquently and brilliantly that we should not be sacrificing our rights and freedoms in order to protect public safety. That is simply unacceptable, and New Democrats will not accept it.

Of course, we need concrete measures to keep us safe, but they should not erode our freedoms and they should not undermine our way of life. Once again, the Prime Minister has gone too far. Everything is about putting politics before people.

It really rang a note of truth when my colleague from Winnipeg Centre said this morning that perhaps it was the crash of the price of oil that has pushed the government to not wanting to talk about the economy. The Conservatives do not want us to look at that subject on which they have been saying they were so great for the last few years, because now Canada is not doing very well on the economy. The Conservatives put all their eggs in the oil and gas resources basket. Suddenly, we are facing serious economic headwinds and they do not want to talk about that, so now they are putting their eggs in the anti-terrorism and public safety basket.

We are concerned about the far-reaching nature of the bill, how sweeping it is, and we are really disappointed that the Conservatives chose to disregard the testimony at the public safety committee, because most of the witnesses, including the Conservative witnesses, in fact said there needs to be significant changes to the bill.

The leader of the official opposition has been very clear that he will not be intimidated. We will not be intimidated into giving a blank cheque to the current government and the Prime Minister. We will stand up to any Conservative law that erodes our way of life in Canada, unlike the third party and the leader of the third party. We are not going to be intimidated and will be voting against Bill C-51 and against the very dangerous measures that it would bring in.

I did mention that we are at the report stage of the bill. Therefore, the bill went to the committee and, shockingly, the Conservatives wanted to have just three two-hour meetings on this far-reaching bill. It was a very short period time. However, thanks to New Democrats, we were able to push the number of meetings to nine, but it was still a very limited process.

Again, most of the witnesses were very critical of the bill, and in a highly unusual move, four former prime ministers, including Conservative prime ministers, have come out with serious concerns about the bill. One hundred law professors in Canada, senior legal minds, have been highly critical of the bill and detailed their deep concern about the undermining of our charter rights and our basic legal rights in this country. Privacy commissioners have expressed their concerns about the far-reaching extent of the information sharing of the bill. However, I notice that the federal Privacy Commissioner was not able to appear before the committee because the Conservatives did not allow that.

I have to say that with the bill before us, I have never seen such a reaction as with Bill C-51. It is rare when I talk to someone in the community that they know the number of a bill. They might say, “that budget bill” or “the bill on public safety”, but it is rare that they know the number of the bill and are really informed about it. I have to say that the level of awareness has been extremely high.

Early on in the process when the government was saying that most Canadians still supported the bill, I have to say that in Toronto at City Hall, the public square was absolutely full, chock-a-block, in an anti-Bill C-51 protest. I was very proud that I and my NDP colleagues were able to speak at the protest and stand strong along with the leader of the Green Party in opposition to the bill. We were very well received at that time. I have had dozens of people come to me asking what they could do to stop the bill. People have said that they want to talk to their neighbours, knock on doors and explain to other Canadians exactly what is happening here. We have seen incredible community engagement on the bill.

In the time that remains for me today, I would like to bring some of the voices of my community of Parkdale—High Park to the House. On the government side, they may not think people are paying attention. Conservatives may not think people read and really know what is going on, but they do. People do know what is going on and I would like to share some of their comments.

Here is an email that was written to the Prime Minister and shared with me. It is from a constituent on Wright Avenue, who says:

Dear Mr. Harper;

Please advise all of your ministers to follow the advice of the many Canadians who opposed bill C-51. The broad language contained in it that will give sweeping powers to CSIS are particularly disturbing.

Rather than making Canadians safer, C-51 seems more likely to make Canadians more afraid: afraid to appear to be different, afraid of authority, afraid to speak out, afraid to be free.

It will also undermine one of our great strengths: our multi-culturalism, our acceptance of the many cultures that have made Canada strong and free.

Please advise everyone to vote against C-51, to drastically amend it, or better yet to kill it outright.

I look forward to your reply, assuring that bill C-51, in its present state, will be voted down.

I will read another one—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. We are out of time. It is the end of the time allocated for the hon. member and we are going to go to questions and comments.

Before we do that, just a reminder to hon. members. Of course, the usual thing is to avoid using proper names of other hon. members and that remains so, even if they happen to appear in a citation that the member is using at the time of their remarks. That is just another reminder along those lines.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it quite interesting coming from a party across the way that actually has never supported a measure that we have done for the military, for our veterans or for the safety of the country, whether judicial or enforcement.

The constituents in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex wonder if it has actually gone far enough. Let me read something.

This is a message to Canada and all the American tyrants: We are coming and we will destroy you...

Then:

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

This was ISIS spokesman Abu Muhammad al-Adnani. This is the concern that Canadians have and that my residents in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex have. I wonder why they are so concerned about the freedoms and peace that would come if we do not give protection to Canadians. Then, actually, we do not have freedoms. I wonder if the member has a comment.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I did not notice you giving me a signal earlier that my time was almost up. I apologize.

I appreciate the member opposite is citing one of his constituents. Let me respond with an appropriate response from my community. This is from a constituent.

While I agree that terrorism and radicalization are a real and legitimate concern, I do not belief that passing a bill that could be twisted to potentially encroach on the very freedoms we are trying to protect is the answer. Canada has shown again and again that we are adept at dealing with terrorism with the tools we currently have. This bill is a step in a direction that seems counter to the Canadian values that I hold dear. A step towards a society that values security over freedom, while in reality providing neither.

I have been extremely disappointed by the CPC and LPC the last several years.

And also:

I have not been a supporter of the NDP in the past, but please know that you have won a voter in the next election.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I look to the member for some clarification with respect to the New Democratic Party's position. I would like to provide a specific quote from her leader during an interview. He was being interviewed by Tom Clark from Global TV who asked the question, “If you become the government, would you scrap this piece of legislation?” The leader responded, “We would change it for sure”. He did not say in fact that he would scrap it.

Then a member in the House asked a question regarding scrapping it. The response from the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie was, “I think we have been very clear. We do not like the legislation. When we form government, we are going to change it”.

We get different answers from different members of the caucus as to whether or not they believe there is any merit to the legislation itself. Therefore, let me pose the question to her. Does she believe if the legislation passes and the NDP were to form government—heaven forbid—would it in fact scrap the legislation or, like some members, like the member for Winnipeg Centre has said, like the leader of the New Democratic Party has said, make some changes to it?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have said very clearly we oppose the bill. We want to scrap the bill. We can do it today if we can win enough support from Liberals and Conservatives, or we would do it when we form government.

However, I plead with the member for Winnipeg North for him, his leader, and his other caucus members to find backbone. They are very critical of the bill. I plead with them to find a backbone, stand up in their place and vote against Bill C-51.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the anti-terrorism act, 2015.

First, I am proud to note that our government's economic action plan 2015 included vital funding for national security measures, such as those found in the legislation. In particular, we have committed to doubling the budget of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, SIRC, which plays a critical role in reviewing the operations of CSIS. Beginning with this fiscal financial year, we will invest $12.5 million over five years and $2.5 million thereafter in ongoing funding.

Further, we have announced nearly $300 million in investments to combat terrorism. This is above and beyond the fact that we have increased national security budgets by one-third since coming to office.

We have done this because the international jihadi movement has declared war on Canada and her allies. Jihadi terrorists hate the fact that Canada is the best place in the world to work, live and raise a family. They would rather return to the seventh century. Contrary to what the Liberals and the NDP would have us do, we will not sit on the sidelines while we fight this terrorist scourge.

Turning to my remarks on the bill itself, I will focus on the provisions relating to the element that would create the security of Canada information sharing act.

Effective and responsible sharing of information between institutions is increasingly essential to the Government of Canada's ability to protect Canada's national security. This includes detecting, preventing and responding to phenomena such as terrorism, espionage, foreign-influenced activity, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and threats to Canada's cybersecurity and critical infrastructure.

In today's interconnected world, national security threats emerge, evolve rapidly and unpredictably, and often go beyond the mandate and capability of any single institution. In addition, information on threats can and often is found in different forms and locations across government. Therefore, in order to take the appropriate action to protect Canada and Canadians, this information must be gathered, analyzed and pieced together in order to form a coherent picture of the scope and nature of the threat. This means government institutions must work together and share information in a seamless and timely manner.

The ineffective sharing of information can lead to significant risks, such as failing to detect and prevent attacks. Of particular concern is the phenomenon of individuals travelling abroad to engage in terrorism-related activities. The threats posed by these individuals has reinforced the need to enhance the government's tools to identify them. While government departments and agencies already share a significant amount of information with each other every day, and more so during urgent circumstances, there are a number of legal requirements and limits that can delay or inhibit optimal information sharing for security of Canada purposes.

For example, some institutions lack clear lawful authority to share. Certain statutes contain explicit limits on how information can be shared and experience has shown that in some cases these limits are too restrictive. The complexity of the legal landscape can make it challenging for operators to determine the circumstances under which information can be shared, and rules are frequently misunderstood and interpreted on a case-by-case basis.

Allow me to provide a couple of real-life examples of how this works.

The Canada Border Services Agency and Citizenship and Immigration Canada rely on a “consistent use” provision under the Privacy Act to share information that is collected pursuant to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act with other institutions. However, this exception allows sharing only for a narrow purpose. In this case, it only allows information sharing for the administration and enforcement of immigration legislation and does not allow sharing for broader national security purposes.

Another example relates to the Canadian passport order, which does not currently contain an explicit information-sharing authority. As a result, CSIS relies on the investigative body exemption of the Privacy Act to access passport-related information to fulfill its own mandate. Not only can this create delays in accessing relevant information, but this exemption also does not allow for Citizenship and Immigration Canada to proactively disclose information to CSIS that could be useful in investigating and advising on threats to the security of Canada, for example, Canadians travelling abroad to engage in terrorism.

Information sharing can also be impeded by the ad hoc and complex nature of the legal regimes that govern it. In addition to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Privacy Act, institutions are also subject to their own specific legal regimes which govern their information-sharing practices. There may be, for example, explicit limits in departmental legislation on how information can be shared.

The overall result is a legislative patchwork that creates a difficult operating environment wherein the rules are difficult to interpret. Over time, this can make information sharing less effective and efficient than is required to prevent and address threats to Canada's national security.

This brings me to how the anti-terrorism act, 2015 will address the issues. First and foremost, it will provide clear authority to all Government of Canada institutions to disclose information in a responsible manner to designated recipient institutions. Only institutions with jurisdiction or responsibilities related to the security of Canada will be designated to receive information relevant to their responsibilities.

It is important to note that this authority will be carefully circumscribed to ensure that the sharing is both effective and responsible and that the new act respects the privacy of individuals.

We are introducing amendments to certain acts to resolve existing barriers. For example, we will amend the Customs Act to allow CBSA to share customs information. We will amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act to allow the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development to share information collected under the act using the new authority. We will amend the Income Tax Act and the Excise Act to allow for the disclosure of taxpayer information when it would be relevant to threats to national security, to a terrorism offence, or to a money-laundering offence related to a terrorism offence.

I want to stress, however, that if other acts that are not amended by the bill prohibit the sharing of information, those prohibitions will be respected. In other words, the new security of Canada information sharing act will not override prohibitions in law.

The proposed legislation will go a long way in helping to keep Canada more secure. It will allow information to be shared more easily in some circumstances where there is a gap in the lawful authority to do so. It will help resolve the confusion and risk aversion resulting from current and ad hoc complex policy and legal framework, and it will provide a solid foundation for future information-sharing practices.

I want to be clear here, however, that these changes are being done with the full consideration of Canada's privacy laws. Indeed, this is not about collecting new information; this is simply about improving how information already being collected by organizations is shared.

There will be a number of checks and balances in place. For example, each organization will share information at its own discretion, not as a requirement. Institutions can also be excluded from the application of the act through the Governor in Council process. This is important as we recognize there are instances where sharing between some institutions is not appropriate. Institutions that receive information must continue to respect any caveats attached to the information or originator controls. Independent review bodies as well as the Privacy Commissioner and Auditor General will continue to scrutinize information-sharing activities.

Those are some of the robust controls that are in place to ensure Canadians that we are safeguarding their right to privacy. For greater certainty and clarity, our government moved amendments at committee related to these measures. Among these, we are ensured that the security of Canada information sharing act will explicitly exclude information sharing related to all forms of advocacy, protest and dissent. It will only authorize sharing of information that is relevant to national security.

In this day and age of complex and sophisticated security threats, federal departments and agencies must have the ability to seamlessly share information with each other. This is paramount to keeping Canada safe. With that in mind, we must move forward with this legislation without further delay.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. He praised the measures in the bill that he liked.

However, I did not find anything about deradicalization in the bill even though, when it comes to terrorism, that is critical in order to prevent rather than to cure. Communities need more help to fight radicalization here in Canada.

Where is the strategy to counter radicalization that will let us work on prevention with Canadian communities?

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, legislation is important to combat terrorism, and our security agencies need these tools.

I sit on the public safety committee and we have already heard from the commissioner that the RCMP is working with other organizations throughout the country to ensure that they stop the radicalization of individuals which creates terrorists throughout the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Medicine Hat has focused on part 1 of the proposed act. As he will know from the evidence from experts before the public safety committee, many legal experts were very concerned that the definition of “activity that undermines the security of Canada” was so overbroad as to include absolutely anything. The definition includes “interference with the capability of the Government of Canada in relation to intelligence, defence, border operations, public safety, the administration of justice, diplomatic or consular relations, or the economic or financial stability of Canada”. Its overbroad language has been the target of enormous concern from experts, particularly proposed section 6, which would allow the sharing of further information being disclosed to any person for any purpose.

How can the member possibly justify the overbroad, loose language that has come under scrutiny from privacy and information experts within and outside the Government of Canada?

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands knows, in fact there was an amendment to the bill that specifically changed that particular avenue in terms of providing information to anyone.

It is well known, and certainly it has been said time and time again and it is in the bill, that in fact there is nothing that will stop people from having peaceful demonstrations. These will continue as long as they are not creating terrorist activities on our government and our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my great colleague from Medicine Hat for his intervention on today's topic.

If members go back to the blues, I will not repeat it all, but certainly the threat that comes from ISIS itself to Canada to kill Canadians is not something that we take lightly, nor should we.

The opposition parties across the way have not supported anything for our veterans, for our military, for any of the judicial legislation that we have. Therefore, their speaking today not about the victims, which would be Canadians, is understandable I guess.

How in Canada or any country can one actually have freedom if one does not have security? That is actually what the opposition is saying about this. The opposition members are so concerned about it that they are saying not to worry about security because it would take away some of our freedoms. I would ask my colleague if he thinks as I do, that that is backwards.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely correct. One cannot have freedom without security. One has to go along with the other.

We have heard that terrorists want to create havoc and they want to kill people here. In fact, in Alberta, they actually suggested that people go to the West Edmonton Mall in Alberta. I am a resident of Alberta and I go there on occasion, as do a lot of my family members. Terrorists wanted to attack people there, attack that mall, and certainly to injure and kill individuals.

We need to make sure that we have the right rules and the ability for all of our national security agencies, the RCMP, CBSA and CSIS, to protect Canadian citizens.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Surrey North, Public Safety; the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, Health; and the hon. member for Quebec, Quebec Bridge.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Mount Royal.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address Bill C-51 and will begin by setting forth the credo that has underpinned my approach to anti-terrorism law and policy for many years. In brief, an appropriate and effective strategy must view security and rights not as concepts in conflict, but as values that are inextricably linked. Simply put, terrorism constitutes an assault on the security of democracy like Canada, and on our individual and collective rights to life, liberty, and security of the person.

Accordingly, we must take the threat of terrorism seriously and address it with effective legislation. As well, there are other measures, such as anti-radicalization efforts and the allocation of adequate resources to law enforcement and security services. A culture of prevention is crucial here. At the same time, we must ensure that legislative initiatives that are taken are consistent with the rule of law, comport with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that they are always subject to robust oversight and review.

With these principles in mind, I will turn to the bill before us, which is not simply one bill, but omnibus legislation, a series of major enactments. I will discuss several specific aspects of the bill, particularly those that are cause for concern.

I must begin with a general critique and preface my remarks with respect to the process, or what I would call the abuse of process, by which this legislation has been considered. At the same time, I will make reference to some of the rhetoric surrounding this legislation under the government's approach. It has frankly inhibited the necessary, thorough, and constructive legislative process, while at the same time and in so doing has undermined our responsibility as parliamentarians, whether we are on the government side of the House or in opposition, for the oversight of such major legislation.

With regard to rhetoric, let us be clear that every parliamentarian, every witness who appeared before committee, and Canadians themselves, both proponents and opponents of this bill, share the desire to keep Canadians safe from terrorism. Yet there have been accusations made to the contrary, particularly directed by some government members at critics of Bill C-51 at committees. References have been made to it in the House.

Such accusations are frankly not worthy of the serious role and responsibilities that our constituents have entrusted to us with respect to this and other pieces of legislation. In particular, the threat posed by terrorism to the safety of Canadians must be taken seriously, but so must concerns about the impact of anti-terror legislation on our civil liberties. Those who raise such concerns should be appreciated for their contributions, not denigrated and diminished.

With regard to process, we may note that time allocation was invoked during second reading on Bill C-51. It was invoked during committee, and now that the bill has returned from committee, time allocation has been imposed by the government once again at report stage. Indeed, at committee, the Conservatives limited the time allotted to study the bill such that important witnesses were prevented from testifying. I note as but one example the extraordinary, I would even say incomprehensible, fact that the Privacy Commissioner himself was not given the opportunity to testify about a bill that would impact directly and significantly on the privacy of Canadians.

As University of Ottawa law professor professor Craig Forcese has written, "this process is night and day compared to the more important role Parliament played in both the enactment of the original CSIS Act in 1983/84 and that of the first Anti-terrorism Act in 2001”. I might add that during the discussion of that anti-terrorism bill in 2001 and following, there was robust and public debate within the government caucus at the time, as well as from the opposition, and an acceptance of recommendations made by the opposition in the course of such debate to the bill.

The problem with overheated government rhetoric and a rushed and inadequate process is that problems with the bill cannot be fully and constructively aired and addressed in an environment that proceeds at such a pace, let alone, as I said, the diminution of the responsibility for parliamentary oversight.

Nevertheless, I will do my best to highlight some of these problems in the limited time available to me, and to explain how some of these problems with the bill can and should be resolved.

To begin with, many of my concerns, and those that have been expressed by the experts who have been referenced in this debate, about provisions that broaden the powers of Canadian Security and Intelligence Service and the legislative language that provides or authorizes those powers, could be addressed and alleviated if they were accompanied by effective oversight, parliamentary and otherwise.

It is astonishing that the government has rejected all proposals, despite the overriding consensus by experts within the opposition in this House, and I suspect among members of the government caucus themselves, for the overriding need for robust oversight.

First, with respect to information sharing, the bill allows for the sharing of information about Canadians in order to protect Canada against activities that “undermine the security of Canada”, to quote the legislative language. Valid concerns have been raised about the overbreadth of that language and about how such powers to share information may be used or misused, and, again, the lack of corresponding oversight.

I recognize that the government effectively accepted two Liberal amendments, in accordance with recommendations also from the Canadian Bar Association and many others. First was to remove the qualifier “lawful” from the previously proposed exception for “lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression”; and second was to narrow the provision that originally allowed for the disclosure of information “to any person for any purpose”. Yet there remains significant room for improvement to ensure that such information is reliable, that it is used and shared appropriately, and that it does not abuse privacy or liberty.

We know from the experience of Maher Arar, for instance—and I was particularly involved in that case, serving at that time as pro bono counsel—that a lack of safeguards with respect to information sharing can have and did have tragic consequences. These information sharing provisions should therefore be accompanied by effective parliamentary oversight of CSIS, in addition to mandated parliamentary review of the security of Canada information sharing act.

With respect to the Criminal Code, Bill C-51 would make several significant amendments, notably expanding and lowering the threshold for preventive arrest and peace bonds. I note that the Canadian Bar Association has expressed its support for the reduced standard for peace bonds, from the reasonable fear that a person “will” commit a terrorism offence, to the reasonable fear that they “may” commit a terrorism offence, and that police were reportedly unable to meet the existing evidentiary standard to secure a peace bond for Martin Couture-Rouleau before he murdered Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent.

Therefore, a case can be made that the refinement of powers in this area for prevention purposes is worthwhile. Again, however, such powers should be met with effective parliamentary oversight and mandatory review. Indeed, in the past, provisions allowing for preventive arrest were understood to be exceptional measures, accompanied by sunset clauses that are absent in this legislation.

Bill C-51 also contains several measures that raise questions of constitutionality. Again, we have no reports regarding any consistency with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as required. However, leaving that aside, the legislation effectively provides for measures that “contravene a right of freedom guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”, if a judge issues a warrant to that effect in ex parte or in camera proceedings.

As we know, this turns on its head the role of judges as protectors of our rights. Despite the government's protestations to the contrary, the need to obtain a warrant is by no means equivalent to a suitable replacement for robust parliamentary oversight. That remains the crux of the problem with the government's approach.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what might turn out to be one of the last speeches of our hon. colleague in the House because he will not be standing again for his riding. I thank him for the kind of speech we have come to know him for: thoughtful, scholarly, fair, and ultimately non-partisan.

I want to ask him, with respect to the last 30 seconds or so of his remarks, about this question of basically enlisting judges to pre-authorize charter infringements that can be saved through some kind of analogous reasoning to a section 1 process that judges go through when they are adjudicating, which is a different context. He has expressed extreme concern that this gets what judges do with respect to charter rights backwards.

I am wondering if he could comment a bit further about whether he does not see this as such a fundamental flaw of the bill that standing with the bill in the hope that it can be fixed in the future is not justified and we should be voting against it.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question that was put by my hon. colleague.

As I stated in my speech, and would even reiterate, if I have not stated it sufficiently and as expressly as it must be stated, judges should not be put in the position where they become enablers of violations of the charter. It is the responsibility of judges to protect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and to protect Canadians through the interpretation and application of the charter.

Therefore, I expressed my concern with regard to this particular aspect, and, as we have said as a party, we have proposed a series of amendments on this and other issues. They will be part of our platform, and we will leave it to the Canadian people.

Let me be clear: this is not legislation that we would have enacted in this form. We have sought to reconcile the responsibility that a government has and that we as parliamentarians have on behalf of our constituents, to protect the security and safety of Canadians. That is mandated also, I might add, by UN Security Council resolutions, in a spate of resolutions that we should undertake and enact to enhance anti-terrorism legislation, given the nature of the terrorist threat.

Having said that, we need to ensure that they do comport, as I said, with the charter, with the rule of law, with the protection of the rights of Canadians, including privacy. That is why we have put forth the amendments that we have.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Mount Royal will know that I believe this bill to be dangerous in nearly every aspect of all five parts and that it should never have been brought to the House in this form.

If it were not for the over-politicization of the justice department in its advice, the contamination through partisanship of the operations of justice department lawyers so that they no longer block legislation, which is unconstitutional, this would never have arrived at first reading.

I will ask my hon. colleague if he agrees that this bill does not contain anything that could be described as oversight, that there is a difference between review, which we have weakly, through SIRC, and oversight, which we used to have. There was a CSIS director general. That position was eliminated through Bill C-38, in 2012. We have no oversight in Canada, no judicial oversight and no parliamentary oversight. From what I have learned, that means we are the only one of the Five Eyes partners, which are the U.S., U.K., Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, with such weak and non-existent oversight of the operations of intelligence and police.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I share the concern that this bill does not have the necessary and robust oversight that it needs, not on a parliamentary level, a judicial level, and not for the purposes of having public engagement.

Therefore, I was proud to be one of many Canadians, including four former prime ministers, as well as the member for Malpeque, to issue an open letter underscoring the need for anti-terrorism law and policy to protect both security and civil liberties, and the need for express and parallel robust oversight, mandated review, sunset clauses and the like. We need that.

We will continue to work for that. Even after the passage of this bill, I will continue to work with Canadians of all political perspectives to ensure that the objectives of both security and the rights of Canadians are secure.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for La Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak in favour of the anti-terrorism act, 2015. There has been a lot of discussion in the House and in the media about this bill, and it is long overdue.

It must be noted 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 that it represents. Contrary to what some groups and even opposition members of Parliament have suggested, jihadi terrorism is not a human right; it is an act of war. That is why our Conservative government has put forward the measures contained in this bill, which would protect Canadians against jihadi terrorists who seek to destroy the very principles that make Canada the best country in the world in which to live. That is also why Canada is not sitting on the sidelines, as some members would have it do, and is instead joining its allies in supporting the international coalition in the fight against ISIS.

I would like to begin by touching on the issue of financial resources in the fight against terror. Our Conservative government has already increased the resources available to our police forces by one third. The Liberals and NDP voted against those increases each step of the way. Now, budget 2015 would further increase resources to CSIS, the RCMP and CBSA by almost $300 million to bolster our front-line efforts to counter terrorism. Our government will continue to ensure that our police forces have the resources that they need to keep Canadians safe.

There is broad support for this legislation from people from all walks of life in Canada. I would like to quote Danny Eisen, the co-founder of the Canadian Coalition Against Terror:

Put plainly by Osama Bin Laden, “The enemy can be defeated by attacking its economic centre.” This tenet was evidenced just recently by threats from Somali terrorists — not against synagogues, churches or MPs — but against malls in England, the U.S. and Canada.

The consequences of terrorism therefore are not restricted to rubble and funerals. Terrorism and its related enterprises cost Canada tens of billions of dollars yearly while the global economy has expended and lost trillions...

The tools in C-51 therefore deserve more tempered consideration by critics given the risk and perhaps the probability that Canada will not escape the attacks seen in other countries. For while legislation can always be revisited at a later date, no act of parliament can reconstitute lives shattered by a terrorist attack. Too many Canadians are already living examples of just how true that is.

These are powerful words from a man who lost family in the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001.

We must remember what this debate is about. We have to stop jihadi terrorists from attacking us. We must remember that it was not long ago that this very building was besieged by a jihadi terrorist bent on destruction.

While the Liberals and the NDP have refused to call the terrorist attack what it is, and have sought to make excuses for the horrific attacks, our Conservative government has taken firm actions, and we have strong support for these actions. Ray Boisvert, former assistant director of CSIS, said:

[C-51] will be a very effective tool to get [jihadist propaganda] material off the Internet.

David Cape, of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, said:

[The seizure of terrorist propaganda] would empower the courts to order the removal or seizure of vicious material often encouraging the murder of Jews. Removing this heinous propaganda, particularly from the Internet, would limit its capacity to radicalize Canadians and inspire attacks.

Tahir Gora, of the Canadian Thinkers' Forum, said:

The government's proposed Bill C-51, when passed by Parliament, shall help Canadian Muslims to curb extremist elements...

Over and over again, credible Canadians have come forward to say that this legislation would help to combat the jihadi terrorist threat. Contrast these civil society groups, academics and former intelligence operatives with the so-called experts who have maligned the bill. They have demonstrated a lack of knowledge, which leads me to believe that they are terribly misinformed or that there is some other type of agenda at play to try to mislead Canadians.

It is certainly unfortunate that debate in this place has often stooped quite low over this issue, so I would like to raise the tone of debate by reminding the House of Commons of some of the comments of eminent security thinkers.

Professor Elliot Tepper, of Carleton University, said:

Bill C-51 is the most important national security legislation since the 9/11 era...

Bill C-51 is designed for the post-9/11 era. It's a new legislation for a new era in terms of security threats. While it's understandable that various provisions of the legislation attract attention, we need to keep our focus on the fundamental purpose and the fundamental challenge of combatting emerging types of terrorism.

Professor Salim Mansur of the University of Western Ontario said:

Bill C-51 is directed against Islamist jihadists and to prevent or pre-empt them from their stated goal to carry out terrorist threats against the West, including Canada...the measures proposed in Bill C-51 to deal with the nature of threats Canada faces are quite rightly and urgently needed to protect and keep secure the freedom of her citizens.

Scott Tod, the Deputy Commissioner for Organized Crime Investigations with the Ontario Provincial Police said:

Bill C-51 offers improvements for the federal police to share information among our justice sector partners, security partners, but more importantly and hopefully, with the community partners and government situational tables designed to reduce the terrorist threat and improve community safety and well-being.

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, President of American Islamic Forum for Democracy said:

Disrupting doesn't mean arresting these individuals or violating their personal property rights or taking them out of commission. You're actually just disrupting a plot.

It's amazing to me that disrupting is currently prohibited, I could go on all day about the support for this important bill. However, I see that I have limited time and so I will close my remarks by saying that I would like to remind members of exactly what the bill would do.

The bill would allow Passport Canada, for example, to share information on potential terrorist travellers with the RCMP. It would stop known radicalized individuals from boarding a plane bound for a terrorist conflict zone. It would criminalize the promotion of terrorism in general. For example, statements like “kill all the infidels wherever they are” would become illegal. It would allow CSIS agents to speak with the parents of radicalized youth in order to disrupt terrorist travel plans. It would also will give the government an appeal mechanism to stop information from being released in security certificate proceedings if it could harm a source. The bill would not turn CSIS into a secret police force, or somehow systemically violate the rights of peaceful protestors.

When this bill comes to a vote shortly, I hope that all members will be able to base their vote on facts and not fear, and will support this legislation.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech that we just heard.

I listened carefully to the testimony given before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, particularly that of the Assembly of First Nations, the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs and Pamela Palmater. They expressed the same views as those held by most aboriginal peoples across the country.

Everyone here knows that aboriginal peoples have constitutional rights in this country. The Supreme Court has recognized those rights time and time again, against the will of the members opposite, incidentally.

This bill deals with public infrastructure and the threat to economic stability. I know what I am talking about in that regard because I have been very involved in the area of aboriginal rights over the past 30 years. Whether it was here or elsewhere in the world, I have always been seen as a threat to my country's economic stability. I was even accused of being anti-Quebec in the context of a hydroelectric project in the province. Therefore, I know what I am talking about when it comes to this issue.

Many experts have said that this bill threatens to lump together legitimate dissent and terrorism. The Conservatives are telling us that we do not need to worry, but can they give us even one example of an aboriginal protest in Canada that the federal government considered to be legitimate?

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill explicitly states that peaceful protests that are of no threat to anyone are legitimate and that they are not covered by this bill. It is also clear that Canadians' right to participate in public protests will be respected. That has nothing to do with this bill.

The purpose of this bill is to target people who represent a threat to Canada's security and economy and who want to kill Canadians. That is the purpose of this bill. It in no way affects peaceful protests.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I met with a number of police organizations over the last week, including some from the City of Toronto, where we both represent constituents. Their complaint was that there is no new money for de-radicalization, there is no new money to do a lot of the work which is side-loaded onto local police forces as CSIS does not have the personnel, in terms of capacity, to fulfill some of these new responsibilities. They wonder how they can do this work and carry out these duties if the current federal government, which talks tough on crime but never supports police departments in the local level when it side-loads these responsibilities, is not going to support them.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in our most recent budget there is increased monies for police forces and certain initiatives.

However, I think the important thing to remember is that this initiative of de-radicalization is not really the entire responsibility of our police forces. It really has to be the community and society as a whole. There needs to be a complete societal effort for de-radicalization. There are imams I have met with in Toronto who have talked about their need to get involved in this initiative. They know they need to root out extremist elements within some of their congregations, and there could be other organizations that get involved in terrorist activities.

The point is that the police forces will work in conjunction with communities. A lot of these people are actually volunteers. People get involved; they identify; they come forward.

The bill is about giving police certain tools. We think about the ability now, that we do not have, to take down terrorist recruitment websites that call for people to commit acts of terror against Canadian society. Finally, with the legislation we would have that ability. Currently, it is not illegal in this country to do that, to actually advertise and recruit terrorists.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to concentrate my remarks on the theme that has emerged today from the government side, which is that somehow or other the NDP is being misleading and there is a bunch of inexpert critics across Canada commenting on Bill C-51. I will not go the next step and say that there has been misleading coming from the ranks of the government, but that will be apparent as well in my remarks.

I would like to start with three groups of actors who were excluded from testifying before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on Bill C-51. The Conservatives did not want these people revealing their knowledge and the information that comes with it.

The special advocates who are in charge of providing representation in national security certificate proceedings wanted to appear. They were not allowed to appear, so they instead sent a written submission where they pointed out two problems with Bill C-51. One was that in the existing national security certificate proceedings, a whole set of new restrictions were being put on the access of special advocates to government information relating to the person whose interests they were supposed to be protecting in the name of fair process within the legal system.

Under the amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act proposed and that are now going forward in Bill C-51, the government will now be allowed to decide what information is relevant for the case made by the minister and then give only that to the special advocates. They are demanding rightly that this be amended, no although there is no chance it will be now, so that special advocates can receive all information and other evidence in order for them to decide what is relevant and what is not. Quite obviously, the second possibility would be for the judge to determine, but not for the government on its own to be able to do that.

The second thing they wanted heard was about this new disruption power that was being placed in the hands of CSIS, with a role being given in certain circumstances, far fewer circumstances than the government would lead people to suggest, for judges to preauthorize the issuing of warrants for disruption, some of which could preauthorize charter infringements, infringements meaning a violation of a right, that they would determine somehow was still not a violation of the charter, if we were to understand how the justice lawyers represented it finally, with more clarity than the minister was capable of, at committee.

Basically, they have made the excellent case that this needs a system of special advocates. These are going to be secret proceedings, ex parte proceedings. Judges will have no power to follow-up and see whether or not the warrant they issued had any bearing on or relationship to what was actually carried out. There are all kinds of problems with the procedural aspects of the process to suggest that people's interests, those who are going to be subject to these broad-ranging warrants that have nothing to do with the two normal things that judges are involved with, which is issuing warrants for arrest and for reasonable search and seizure, that those people would have their interests adequately protected.

This is a group of special advocates, all of whom are eminent lawyers, in the Canadian legal community, including Paul Cavalluzzo, Paul Copeland, John Norris and Lorne Waldman. Those are just four of the signatories of their submission.

The second person who was excluded from testifying before the committee was an officer of Parliament, the Privacy Commissioner, who I would like to remind everybody, is also not just there to protect privacy interests in the realm of being the Privacy Commissioner, but who comes from a background of national security law when he was with the government before being appointed. I have to be honest. I was worried about that when he was appointed, but he has turned out to be the good lawyer that everybody said he was and he has interpreted his role as being to actually comment on legislation when it is going to create serious impact on privacy rights.

Let me talk about the information sharing act. We have been on about this in the House a couple of times today. We discusses it in his written submission, because of course he again was not allowed to testify before the Bill C-51 House of Commons committee. I do not know what kind of democracy people think we are operating here, but it is not a full-fledged parliamentary democracy in any way, shape or form when an officer of Parliament cannot appear before a committee on a bill that strikes at the heart of privacy concerns.

He says:

In sum, the 17 federal departments in question would be in a position to receive information about any or all Canadians’ interactions with government.... We are moving very quickly into the world of Big Data... As a result of [the new act, Bill C-51], 17 government institutions involved in national security would have virtually limitless powers to monitor and, with the assistance of Big Data analytics, to profile ordinary Canadians, with a view to identifying security threats among them.

He is saying that is obviously a huge incursion into privacy. What we do about it is what so much of the rest of his brief is about. Of the five or six recommendations he had that would have been helpful to have testimony on in the full light of day, with media and others paying attention as well, here is one. He said:

Another obstacle to effective review is that existing review bodies are currently unable to share information amongst themselves. As we and others have stated previously, there is at present no explicit legislative authority to conduct joint reviews of national security operations, nor is there a mechanism whereby information of relevance that may be discovered by one review body could be passed to another.

He goes on to say, “A system which proposes removal of silos between government departments”, these are the 17 government departments that would be able to share information more freely under this new system, for information-sharing purposes must provide for the same removal of silos for the bodies which ensure their activities are compliant with the law”.

Finally, he is echoed by the third actor I want to mention, Commissioner Plouffe, who is the Communications Security Establishment Canada. He also did not want to appear before the committee. That included special advocates, the Privacy Commissioner and the CSEC commissioner. One of the only three review bodies that exist in our entire system was not even allowed to testify. Basically, he had the same concern as Privacy Commissioner Therrien. Despite the fact that all this information-sharing power is given to all the government departments, no parallel power is even given to the 3 agencies that oversee 3 of those 17. He said:

However, an explicit authority to co-operate and share information would strengthen review capacity and effectiveness. This authority becomes that much more important in the evolving context of ever greater co-operation between the intelligence and security agencies

Sharing of information among the existing review bodies would allow one to alert another as to what information was being shared, to follow the trail of that information and to ensure that the sharing of information complied with the law and that the privacy of Canadians was protected

No testimony at all appeared along these lines because, again, he did not appear.

He ended by saying, in what has to be a masterpiece of diplomatic speak:

I regret that an opportunity has not been seized to introduce amendments to the National Defence Act to eliminate ambiguities that were long ago identified by my predecessors.

None of this is new. We all know of these concerns and that is why four prime ministers, with a number of former justices of the Supreme Court of Canada, also wrote specifically on this point. They reminded us all that proper oversight and review is there, especially with radically expanded powers to security agencies, not just CSIS, as the information-sharing powers would go well beyond CSIS in this act, not just to protect human rights, constitutional rights, civil liberties, whatever one wants to refer to them as, but also to protect public safety. Oversight and review go to the effectiveness of the agencies. They catch problems. They ensure that agencies are not actually doing either ineffective or counterproductive or, frankly, stupid things.

I would like to draw attention as well to a document produced by Professor Forcese, who did yeoman's service, along with Professor Roach, drawing the country's attention to the multiple problems in this bill. I will simply cite an article online, published on April 16, called “Bill C-51: Catching Up On The 'Catching Up With Our Allies' Justification For New CSIS Powers”.

He basically goes through all of the countries that the government is claiming already have the disruption powers that it says it is putting into Bill C-51 in order that we can catch up, and he takes apart every one of the references. There is not a single country that can be used in support of the power that is going into Bill C-51. It is a longish document and has to be read to be understood, but it shows that the government is actively engaging in either sloppiness of the most serious sort or an active deception on this point. This document is another one that needs to be taken into account.

I would finally like to point out that one thing that came out of the hearings was that the government confirmed it was interested in including the within the disruption power the power to detain and to render people from Canadian hands to other hands. When amendments were put forward to ensure that was expressly excluded from disruption powers, the Conservatives voted it down and said that they wanted to leave it open. This is something we all have to know, that there is an agenda here on some fronts about which we should be very concerned.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to get the member's insights. Does he feel there is anything within the current legislation that he would see as a positive or a step forward, something he believes would ease the minds of some Canadians? I can appreciate the party's overall position on the legislation, but are there some aspects of the legislation where the member believes there might be some value?

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

Mr. Speaker, the best and possibly only example would be the principle in the bill with respect to the new information sharing act. Better sharing of information among relevant agencies for the limited use that would enhance Canadian security is a good idea.

Therefore, say there is a principle, and who could have problems with that, being called upon by the Justice Major commission on Air India, by the Arar commission, et cetera. The point is how it is done, in a way that is extreme in how far it goes without safeguards, multiple safeguards, having to do with privacy rights, and how it has no corresponding inclusion of the right of oversight agencies to share information so they can step outside their silos to properly ensure that at least three of those seventeen departments are properly overseen.

If I were fair, anybody would want to build up the right kind of information-sharing regime, but this is certainly not the one.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, for his presentation, and especially for reminding Canadians that our study of this bill is fundamentally flawed because we were not able to hear from the key players in committee and because we were not able to properly debate the bill.

I recently heard a media report that said that a bill like Bill C-51, in which the government collects data on all Canadians, is not an effective way to enhance security. In fact, we end up getting lost in useless data and the whole process puts incredible demands on our time and resources. This means that we cannot allocate that time and resources to finding a more effective way to enhance security. Could the member speak to this issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, in fact, that is a criticism directed at the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of having a ton of information and data. I have also heard that criticism, but I am not really an expert, and I cannot say whether or not we have the ability to collect the data and discern what is pertinent, important and urgent. However, according to some people, it is a problem to think that just having more information and data is itself a solution.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I noted that in the member's speech he referred to some witnesses whom he asserted were somehow blocked by the government. Putting it nicely, I do not think the facts would bear that out.

Having been a member of the public safety committee previously, I know that generally the committee chooses its witnesses by having the parties prioritize their potential witnesses. Obviously, the fact that these witnesses would not have appeared would indicate to me that the opposition members would not have chosen to prioritize them on their lists. I would like to give the member the chance to correct the record. I certainly hope he will choose to do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing like leading with one's jaw.

We all know that the opposition NDP asked for 25 hearings and got eight. The government started with three. Lists and the priority on lists are completely irrelevant when these witnesses should have been there, especially when one is an officer of Parliament and especially when one is one of the only three bodies overseeing one of our national security agencies.

The fact is that they were not heard. The government did not want them heard. That is the fact.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in the House and underline how important it is that the anti-terrorism act, 2015 be adopted and that it be adopted as quickly as possible.

Ensuring the safety of a country's citizens is, in fact, the first and foremost responsibility of any country and of any government. Certainly this bill is both the sword and the shield that will ensure that Canada has the tools to face the international jihadist movement, whose members plot, scheme, and work tirelessly to organize attacks against Canadians to further their agenda of hatred.

Let us remember that for jihadists, there is no room for infidels. There is no tolerance for those who disagree with their barbaric practices. Their answer is to simply behead those who oppose them.

Canadian values of freedom and liberty are a threat to their totalitarian ideology. There can be no appeasement of jihadists. They do not respect the rule of law. They do not recognize human rights. They deny and are hostile to anything that could be construed as an obstacle to their goal of imposing a caliphate over all.

Who do we mean when we speak of the international jihadist movement? We speak of the so-called Islamic State, Boko Haram, and al Qaeda, all groups that have in common a thirst for violence and the perversion of their religion that serves as the basis of their ideology. They are groups that have no qualms about trading girls like livestock to serve as concubines and rewards for jihadist fighters.

This is the enemy. These are the people who have declared war on Canada and our allies. Some of their sympathizers are quite content to remain in the shadows as armchair propagandists. They never actually detonate a bomb or commit an act of terrorism but instead take an active role in its glorification and broadcast. They lurk on social media, propping up support and radicalizing our youth by relaying propaganda, luring them away to be conscripted to serve as foot soldiers in the international jihadists' crusade against western democracies.

Radicalized Canadians are leaving our country for Syria and Iraq, having adopted the radical ideology that fuels the Islamic State. They long for martyrdom.

The anti-terrorism act, 2015 will go a long way in giving our law enforcement tools to take down hateful propaganda from the Internet and to help contain this recruiting drive by our enemies. As the Canadian Coalition Against Terror put it:

Terrorists, aware of some of the shortcomings and limitations of our legal systems, often exploit these gaps to their advantage.

We have to remain flexible and adapt to the fact that jihadi terrorists are knowledgeable of the inner workings of our legal system and are behaving accordingly to further their agenda on Canadian soil, while limiting our options against them. The opposition has tried, unsuccessfully, to claim that the provisions in the anti-terrorism act go too far.

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.

Who said that? That was Sharon McCartan, criminal prosecutor for the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General.

This is not a wish on our part. It is a necessity, on par with what is done elsewhere among western democracies. I believe that most Canadians would expect that should an intelligence agency be aware of a terrorist plot, it would seek to prevent it. We simply disagree with the opposition's claim that they should be forbidden from doing so.

We can also listen to Christian Leuprecht, a professor at Queen's University, who said, “Just to visualize why it's important, many of our allies have these types of powers. In Europe, they're used to effect. We know they have not destroyed the free and democratic state. And the checks that are in place in Europe seem to work reasonably well. For example, I think we owe it to Canadian parents who grieve because their children have gone abroad and gotten killed or gotten injured to do something that can prevent them from doing harm to themselves”.

Baseless claims have been made that the anti-terrorism act, 2015 somehow sacrifices our liberty to ensure our security. That is completely false. Canadians understand that liberty and security go hand in hand. We, as parliamentarians, understand this fundamental fact also. Without security, we cannot enjoy the liberty of partaking in the democratic process. When we cannot ensure the security of our families, there is no freedom. The fact is, those who threaten our liberty are not the police officers who patrol our neighbourhoods. They are not our intelligence officers. Those are the people who have the mandate to protect our country and who are on the front lines and every day do what is necessary to keep those who seek to profit from harming Canadians at bay.

When we talk about the international jihadist movement, either the self-radicalized lone wolf from a Canadian suburb plotting ominous terrorist attacks on Canadian soil or the Islamic State fighter lured abroad in Syria, these are all jihadists ready to commit any and all atrocities. They are determined, they are resourceful, and they are driven by hatred.

Some in this chamber deny to this day that the attacks that took place in Canada were terrorism. They claim that mental illness is the only possible explanation. They would rather dabble in semantics and pedal spin than discuss how to protect Canadian families from the threat of jihadists. They deny that the threat is real.

In 2012, the member for Brome—Missisquoi had this to say:

I am confused about what motivated the government to introduce Bill S-7...because, since 2007, nothing has happened in Canada. The country has not even been subject to terrorist attacks.

I would certainly hope that the NDP today understands the necessity of giving our country the tools needed to protect Canadians. I hope that party realizes and acknowledges that this comment was certainly made out of ignorance.

It is interesting to note that the member for Pontiac used to be affiliated with the Communist Party of Canada, which had in its 2011 platform a plan to, and I quote, “Repeal state security legislation like the no-fly list”. That the member has sympathized with the idea that we should be repealing the no-fly list and give jihadi terrorists open access to board planes is a worrying thought but one that is unfortunately reflective of the NDP's position on security it seems.

The NDP would rather try to shut down the House of Commons in an attempt to derail parliamentary democracy than contribute to making Canadians safe from the threat of jihadi terrorists. They are not interested in finding solutions. That much is clear. They do not want to get on board with fighting terrorism, and they would rather adopt the way of appeasement. I guess that is their right, but to try to derail the legislative process is another matter.

This legislation is certainly needed. Its provisions would no doubt make Canadians safer. We will continue to work to get it through, despite the NDP's attempts to impose their appeasement ideology on this House. Canada will prevail, and history will show that we did the right thing.

I urge all members of this House to support this important bill.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are 60 leading Canadian business people, entrepreneurs and investors, including Flickr co-founder Mr. Butterfield, who have signed an open letter to the Prime Minister. This is just one example of what we can read in that letter:

We believe [the entrepreneurs] that this legislation threatens to undermine Canada's reputation and change our business climate for the worse.

...we fear that this proposed legislation will undermine international trust in Canada's technology sector....

These people are very busy. They are in the type of business that is changing all the time with new technologies. They have more to do than wonder if a bill would actually threaten their business. Some of the best are saying that it would threaten Canada's technology sector.

What can my colleague tell those people? Are they doing this because they are all NDP members and suddenly they want to stand against the government for no good reason? No. We should be worried, as they are.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have, and I am sure many members in the House would have had much the same experience, had many conversations with constituents in my riding over the last number of weeks. Particularly over the last couple of weekends, I had the opportunity to speak to probably thousands of people in my riding at some of the major community events I attended. They are very concerned about the threats that are posed to Canadians by the international jihadist movement and they expect our government to do everything we can to ensure we protect Canadians and provide the tools that are necessary for our security agencies to do so.

As I mentioned in my remarks, one of the things that is a very important principle is that they would expect that if our security agencies were aware of a potential terrorist plot, they would do everything they possibly could to try to prevent such a plot.

I have a quote I would like to share as well, along the same lines from Professor Elliot Tepper at Carleton University. He says:

Bill C-51 is the most important national security legislation since the 9/11 era...Bill C-51 is designed for the post-9/11 era. It's a new legislation for a new era in terms of security threats....we need to keep our focus on the fundamental purpose and the fundamental challenge of combatting emerging types of terrorism.

There are certainly many people out there speaking for this, including our constituents and experts as well.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to what the member for Wild Rose had to say. It seems to me that his main argument with respect to Bill C-51 is that we are doing the same thing that all our allies, our partners, and all those who want to protect against the risk of terrorism are doing.

Therefore, I would like to ask him the following question. We are the very close ally of four other countries—the United States, Great Britain, new Zealand and Australia. This group of five countries is called the Five Eyes. It is remarkable that the four other countries in this group have put in place an extremely robust oversight process to ensure that there is no risk, due to an excess of enthusiasm, that their security services go too far and that people's rights, privileges and privacy are violated.

Why does Canada not adopt this group's approach by having a robust oversight process? This does currently not exist in Canada. We having been asking for this for 10 years. What does the member have to say about that?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick two-part response.

He mentioned that one of the arguments I had made was that we were taking measures that were similar to what our allies did. I was attempting to refute some of the criticisms of the bill.

However, the most important thing to note is that we are trying to do what Canadians expect of us. Canadians expect that we will do everything we can to protect them from the threats out there, the threats that are very real threats to Canadians and to our allies. We are undertaking to do that with this legislation.

I will also point out to him that we have a very robust oversight process. What I hear from Canadians, and I think what our government hears from Canadians as well, is that they do not want to see the process of oversight politicized by having politicians involved. I think they want to see it as it currently stands, so there can be proper oversight, but not something that will be politicized.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the great patriot Benjamin Franklin, father of American independence, taught us the following:

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

This is the slippery slope that the Conservatives would have us descend. This is the terrible abyss into which they would cast Canadians with their questionable laws and divisive rhetoric.

Today I rise to express my opposition in principle to Bill C-51. I do so solemnly. The terrorist attacks of recent months scarred us all. The October attacks in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and Ottawa reminded us that terrorism is a very real threat. In October, a deranged man broke in here, endangering us all. We all banded together to confirm our steadfast commitment to our values of freedom. It is therefore absurd to insinuate that anyone in this place is complacent about this issue.

Those tragic incidents also helped reunite Canadians around our values of love, tolerance and openness. However, the Conservative government once again took advantage of an issue we all agree on to put forward its ideological view through a pro-war discourse that has no place in Canada. Under the pretext of an internal threat, the Conservatives wanted us to stop thinking critically. We were supposed to hand our civil liberties over to a government that tramples them on a daily basis.

Despite their rhetoric, the Conservatives' approach to this legislation is not serious. The Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly challenged the Prime Minister to give us a single example of a case that would fall under the scope of Bill C-51 that is not already a crime here in Canada. The Prime Minister has never been able to give an example. This bill's only purpose is to serve as an opportunity for the Conservatives to exploit the fears of Canadians, and that is shameful.

Many bills have already been introduced in the House in recent years. Just as we did with Bill C-51, we always carry out a thoughtful analysis based on our principles: defending Canadians' safety and freedoms. The anti-terrorism legislation that has been on the books since 2001 is working just fine. In just the past few weeks, police have laid charges against six individuals here in Ottawa for activities related to a terrorist group.

The current laws are working, and police officers and intelligence officers have the legislative arsenal to take action, but are lacking the financial and material resources that the Conservatives keep refusing to give them. The government has a fundamental duty to protect Canadians' safety, but as usual, it is all a sham with the Conservatives: tough talk, no action. At every turn, they claim to be toughening the law, again and again, reducing spending, again and again, reducing the role of government, again and again.

I want Canadians to know what a sham this government is. It claims to be protecting us with laws that take away our freedoms and then at the same time it cuts the means for catching terrorists. First, it cuts the human means. Fighting terrorism requires extraordinary skills at infiltrating networks, tracking financial support, and so on. These are irreplaceable skills. The government's solution for developing them: 2,271 full-time jobs cut at the RCMP in two years.

Next are the financial means. Conducting anti-terrorist activities is extremely expensive. What does this government do? It cuts $44 million from CSIS's budget and $420 million from the RCMP. These are staggering figures that prove that the Conservatives have a security policy vacuum.

I therefore have a question for this government. Are our lives, our rights, our homes and our freedoms worth less than the only balanced budget in its history?

This government is leading us into disaster. It is cutting the resources needed to guarantee our safety while at the same time reducing oversight of CSIS's activities. In its most recent report, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which is underfunded, indicated that it had been seriously misled by CSIS in many investigations.

The report mentioned, and I quote, “difficulties” and “significant delays” in getting information about the spy agency's activities.

CSIS can therefore withhold information from the body responsible for oversight of its activities because that body is underfunded and understaffed. Despite the flaws in the existing structure, the Conservatives are still proposing that new responsibilities be given to CSIS. That is very worrisome.

Bill C-51 is so vague that it would allow CSIS to investigate anyone who opposes the government's economic, social or environmental policies. Under Bill C-51, the government could lump legal dissent together with terrorism and lump strikers together with violent anarchists, even though they have nothing in common. Bill C-51 proposes making it a criminal offence to advocate or promote the commission of terrorism offences “in general”. Can the minister explain what the words “in general” are doing in a legal text?

The wording of the new provision is so vague and leaves so much room for interpretation that it considerably broadens the scope of the circumstances under which a Canadian can be arrested.

It goes without saying that anyone who actually incites another person to commit violence should be arrested. However, we need measures that protect Canadians but do not undermine any of our freedoms. The rule of law is the fundamental principle of the Constitution Act, 1867. Where is that in this bill?

We have called on the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to explain the scope of his bill, but he is unable to do so. Instead, his leader would rather fan the flames of divisiveness by attacking Canada's Muslim community. That is shameful.

Instead of succumbing to the temptation to divide people, the NDP stands by its principles and believes that it is possible to adopt measures that protect Canadians without undermining our freedoms.

First, if we want to enhance the powers of CSIS, we must enhance the powers and means of oversight. That is simple and essential. Then, we must ensure that the RCMP and CSIS have the material, human and financial resources they need to do their job properly. As a result of the Conservatives' budget cuts, these agencies must now choose between monitoring suspected terrorists and funding other law enforcement activities. They should not have to choose. The government should give them the resources to do both.

Canada must adopt a strategy to counter radicalization. We are asking for a plan to support Canadian communities that are combatting radicalization on the ground. That approach works. It has been adopted by most of our allies.

The United States has taken a proactive approach to combatting radicalization. It supports communities and faith leaders by connecting them with counter-radicalization experts. It strives to provide communities with information on how to recognize the warning signs of radicalization and the means to prevent it. Canada has no such approach. The Conservatives reject that, and that is absurd.

We must have a real debate on how to tackle the threats of radicalization, terrorism and attacks committed by disturbed lone wolves. A free society is a safe society. These four measures are the way to balance freedom and public safety. As always, Canadians can count on the NDP to stand up for the values of Canadian society.

Our critics proposed 28 amendments to protect our families and our rights. With its usual arrogance, this inept government simply dismissed them. That is why I invite all true patriots in this chamber to follow my example, support the NDP amendments and reject the main motion.

In closing, I would like to personally address every Conservative and Liberal member who is preparing to vote for Bill C-51. They must not forget that Canada is a land of hope for the entire world because our society is based on the values of love, tolerance and openness, which we cherish. They must not forget that giving in to the shift in security policy being proposed by this government means giving in to fear. They must not forget that voting for this bill means renouncing everything that makes us a people of love, tolerance and openness, everything that makes us Canadian.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague because Bill C-51 is really dangerous. It does nothing to make our society safer and also violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and federal legislation.

I would like to ask her if they are also troubled in the official opposition by the numerous security experts who have testified that not only will the bill trample on our rights, but it fails to put in place measures that would actually make us safer. In fact, many security experts have testified that the bill would make us less safe in confronting a terrorist threat.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Of course we are extremely worried because this bill is silent on the subject of protecting our rights. The current government has introduced a bill that will not only make it harder to protect our rights but will completely fail to achieve its objective, which is to fight terrorism in meaningful ways.

Let us not forget that, once again, we are debating Bill C-51 under time allocation. That means our rights as MPs and parliamentarians are being set aside.

Once again, this bill is indefensible. The experts have told us that over and over. It is time to listen to them.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, given her background, I am sure that my colleague knows people living in places where governments have taken a hard line against radicalization. I was touched by some of her comments, such as when she said that we must absolutely not let security measures get out of control.

I would like to hear more from my colleague about that aspect of the problem. I think that allowing security measures to get out of control, agreeing to go that way, is kind of like letting the radicals win the fight in the medium and long terms. I think that my colleague is in a good position to talk to us about this element, which is extremely important in this case.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I truly believe that fearmongering does not make us stronger and certainly does not make us come out on top. There is no question that when we live in a democratic society like ours, we must preserve our rights and freedoms and make them our hallmark. As my colleague pointed out, letting security measures get out of control is dangerous, and that is what Bill C-51 does. The Conservatives do not care. They do not listen. They do not accept any amendments, not from the opposition or any other party.

This is the Conservative government's trademark. Like so many of my colleagues, I have risen to debate Bill C-51 to reiterate that rights and freedoms can truly go hand in hand with security.

I will close by saying that the fight against radicalization is critically important. It begins with work on the ground. It begins in the communities and with the communities. Bringing civil society together around this issue is the best defence against radicalization.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to add some words to this debate on the anti-terrorism bill.

We know that the world is becoming an increasingly dangerous place, and that is unfortunate. We now see in other liberal democracies such as France, Australia, Denmark, and of course, here in Canada and right here in Parliament that nowhere can we be sure that there will not be attacks on our citizens by those who have a different philosophy and ideology of life, and who are committed to the destruction of the privacy rights, human rights, democratic rights, security and safety of our country.

I read a very interesting article by Graeme Wood in the March issue of The Atlantic. It is called “What ISIS Really Wants”. Graeme Wood points out that ISIS already rules an area larger than the United Kingdom. He points out that the Islamic State, which rules this fairly large area, is committed to purifying the world by killing vast numbers of people and that those who support the Islamic State believe that they have an obligation to conduct what is called offensive jihad, which is to expand their territory as an essential duty. This is not only done through active warfare and acts of terrorism, but by subversive acts, as well.

There is another very good article from the March 3 issue of The New York Times, called “The Education of ‘Jihadi John’”. The writer knew Jihadi John, who graduated in computer science from the University of Westminster. He said, “academic institutions in Britain have been infiltrated for years by dangerous theocratic fantasists. I should know: I was one of them.” He said that his recruiter came straight out of a London medical college, and that while such institutions must guard free speech, as we cherish here in Canada, “they should also be vigilant to ensure that speakers are not given unchallenged platforms to promote their toxic message to a vulnerable audience.”

The government realizes that these dangers and threats to Canadians and Canadian security are real, and that they are growing. We count ourselves fortunate that we have not had worse incidents than those we experienced last fall, but we also know that they are very possible.

Governments have a positive duty to protect the lives and property of citizens. That is why we organize ourselves in society. That is why we have authorities in society. Our Conservative government takes this duty very seriously. We passed over 30 measures to further protect society against dangerous criminals who are committed to fighting as part of jihadi terrorism.

Jihadi terrorists have declared war specifically on Canada. They are absolutely opposed to our way of life. They are opposed to our freedoms. They are opposed to our tolerance. They are opposed to our diversity. They are opposed to the privacy and human rights that the opposition and others are concerned about. We have to protect those rights and freedoms, but we cannot do that unless we push back, and unless we find ways to halt and to interfere with the spread of this kind of terrorist activity.

It troubles me very much to see a group, such as the jihadists, actually targeting our country. We know that the Islamic State's whole philosophy is absolutely opposed and toxic to our way of life, especially to women.

As we fight to degrade and destroy ISIS, we also have to put into place a few new measures to modernize and to give appropriate tools to our security forces to better be able to identify, interfere with and stop the activities of jihadi terrorists.

There are a number of myths that have risen against this legislation. People have been told certain things about it, certain things that are not true, but nevertheless it causes them to be concerned, and in some cases to come out and march in the streets. I can assure Canadians that in no way does any member of the House, whether on the government side or on the opposition benches, want to do anything but strengthen, protect and preserve the rights and freedoms that we enjoy in this wonderful country.

The bill is not in any way intended to, nor I believe does it, in any way take away the civil rights of law-abiding citizens, regular citizens of this country. I will give some tangible examples of what the bill would do. They are common sense measures, in spite of the overheated rhetoric from some on the opposite side.

For example, if Passport Canada, in dealing with an applicant for a passport, has reason to believe or hears from a sponsor of the passport applicant that the person is intending to travel to join Islamist jihadists, Passport Canada would be allowed to share that information with the RCMP. The legislation would allow known radicalized individuals to be prevented from boarding a plane bound for a terrorist conflict zone. It would criminalize the promotion of terrorism in general.

Right now we have to be very specific about what we tell other people to do. If we just say to someone “kill all the infidels wherever you can in Canada”, that is not illegal. That needs to be illegal. That kind of promotion of terrorism should be illegal. I think most Canadians would be surprised to know that right now it is not.

It would allow CSIS agents to speak with the parents of radicalized youth to disrupt their travel plans to go to terrorist places in the world. Many parents have been heartbroken because authorities have known that their children were involved in being radicalized and planned to join ISIL, but no one told them because of privacy laws. That is not right.

It would provide government with an appeal mechanism to stop information from being released in security certificate proceedings if it could harm a source. If we do not have sources, if we do not have intelligence coming in, then we are not going to be able to stop some of these plots.

I have heard the other side say that other liberal democracies do not allow their national security agents to disrupt threats, but that is not true. The U.S. can engage a disruption with an executive order. The U.K. can conduct any activity to protect national security. The Norwegian police security service can prevent and investigate. The Finnish security intelligence service is mandated to prevent crime.

Bill C-51 does not give any law enforcement power to CSIS. It cannot arrest anybody or charge anybody, but it can attempt to stop terrorist attacks while they are still in the planning stages. This is far more in-depth than our allies' provisions. At all times, all rights under the Constitution are protected.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this good legislation.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague said that we do not really have to be worried about protecting the rights and freedoms of our citizens, that it is all under control, despite the fact that our very strong security alliance with the Five Eyes are just as concerned about civil liberties and rights, yet they have put in robust oversight to ensure that through excessive zeal, these kinds of abuses of civil liberties are not caused.

Her colleague from Wild Rose said that the reason they do not want more oversight, according to him, is they do not want it to be politicized. The other partners in the Five Eyes have robust oversight, and yes, politicians were involved. In those countries they are just as concerned as we are with civil liberties.

I am curious about why the government does not feel it would be necessary. There is a big tradition of libertarianism in the Conservative government. People do care about their freedoms and rights. Why is it that my hon. colleague sees a problem with having robust oversight to ensure that we do not abuse the rights of citizens?

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

First, Mr. Speaker, I did not say we should not worry about protection of our rights. In fact, that is the very thing that motivates the bill, because we do want to protect our rights from those who would destroy the framework we have built in our own country. We take that duty seriously.

As far as oversight is concerned, the bill strengthens the oversight. If security forces want to take action that would in any way interfere with the rights and the privacy of a Canadian citizen, they must go to court and they must convince a judge that they have very good reason to do this. If they cannot convince an objective member of the court that they should go ahead, then they will not be allowed to do that. We have also put more resources in review of everything that CSIS does.

I hope that the member will vote for these measures, because they are important to our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have talked a lot about the fact that Bill C-51 restricts our rights, and we are told that this bill is meant to combat terrorism. However, Bill C-51 is pointless if there are not enough resources to enforce it.

That is the problem: our police forces are no longer able to combat organized crime and terrorist organizations at the same time. Furthermore, the Conservatives are promising to increase law enforcement budgets in the future, not now. It is as though they are telling ISIL to just wait a year or two, because the RCMP is not quite ready to take them on, since their budget increases are being postponed.

What is the point of such a restrictive bill, when the resources needed to enforce it will not be available until several years from now?

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to tell my hon. colleague that since coming to office, our government has increased funding for police and national security agencies by over one-third. We brought forward new funding for these agencies on seven separate occasions, and what happened on those seven occasions? New Democrats, who claim we need more resources, voted against them every single time.

In budget 2015 we invested nearly 300 million new dollars in the fight against terrorism. I hope my hon. colleague will support that investment, but I am willing to bet he will not put his money where his mouth is.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join this important debate. We are blessed to live in a great country. In fact, it is the greatest country in the world. Canada is free, prosperous, open and tolerant. Canadians can succeed or fail based on their own merit, believe what they wish, travel as they wish and worship as they wish. However, some wish to take all that away from us.

The international jihadist movement has declared war on our country, on Canada and on our allies. Its members hate us for our freedom, for our prosperity and for our tolerance. They hate us for the values that we all hold dear here at home.

The so-called Islamic State commits unspeakable atrocities and commits them to video in an effort to recruit deviant individuals to join its Islamic extremist cause. These are atrocities that I must say particularly impact women and children and are appalling, quite frankly. It is important to note that these beheadings and incidents where military members are buried alive, these absolutely horrific acts of terrorism are not only a problem in a far-away land. They impact us right here at home.

On two fateful days in October of 2014, Canada was struck by these terrorists. I would hope everyone in this House remembers those days and, in particular, Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent and Corporal Nathan Cirillo, who were killed in cold blood during these terrorist attacks. They were targeted simply because they wore the uniform of the Canadian Armed Forces.

As heartbreaking as it is, Canada has also been a source of jihadist terrorists. Many individuals, and some reports are as high as 150 individuals, have left Canada to go overseas to engage in these actions. This is absolutely unacceptable and we must not allow it to continue. That is why I am pleased and proud to be here in support of the anti-terrorism act.

Let me quote from the words of Louise Vincent, who is probably the most powerful individual who has spoken with respect to this, the sister of Warrant Officer Vincent, who said, “Had Bill C-51 been in force on October 19...Martin Couture-Rouleau...would have been in prison, and my brother would not be dead.”

Those are her words. That is her passion with respect to her sibling. This is an extremely compelling statement. I do not think any Canadian can deny what she said. It is as it has been stated. Rather than heeding the concerns of victims of terrorism, many have sought to try to portray this bill as something that scales back the rights of Canadians. I have to say that nothing could be further from the truth. Some individuals are fundamentally opposed to any measures that may be taken to combat terrorism, measures that would actually protect Canadian children, moms and dads, and Canadians on Canadian soil. Why they may feel this way is quite simply beyond me. Perhaps they have other motives. Perhaps they have other ideas. However, I can tell members that what we should do is listen to the experts, so I will quote a few here.

Steven Bucci of the Heritage Foundation said:

My review of Bill C-51 leads me to conclude that this is...a balance between greater physical protection without loss of civil liberties. In the various sections, there's a judicious expansion of info-sharing and law enforcement authorities but in each there are also provisions for recourse and appeals. There is transparency and openness.... In short, this bill seems to balance security and liberty.

Salim Mansur, a professor at the University of Western Ontario, said, “Bill C-51 in my reading is not designed to turn Canada into some version of Hobbes’ Leviathan or Orwell’s 1984, despite at times the fevered imagination of its critics.”

Dr. Jasser, the President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, said, “By beginning to focus on those who “may” commit you will begin to hold accountable not just the jihadists on the field of armed jihad but the jihadists in the stands who are cheering on the field warriors about to plant an explosive. You will begin to finally hold accountable the neo-jihadists at the pulpits and in the social media who glorify militant Islamism and demonize Canada, Canadians, your protection forces and your government.”

It is clear that there is a consensus among credible experts that action must be taken and that the measures contained in this bill before us today strike the right balance. There is no liberty without security; there is no prosperity without security; there are no Canadian values without this security.

While the Liberals and the NDP dither on how to best deal with the terrorist threat, our Conservative government is taking action. While the NDP leader refuses to call what happened here on October 22 a terrorist attack, our Conservative government is investing in fighting terrorism. While the Liberal leader believes that terrorists like the Boston bombers are caused by “feelings of exclusion”, our government is creating new tools for our police and national security agencies to protect Canadians. The contrast could not be more clear.

In closing, I would like to read a simple quote:

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

That was said by ISIS spokesman Abu Muhammad al-Adnani. Comments like these, disgusting propaganda and videos, and events that make appearances on the news more frequently than all of us would like, strengthen my resolve to focus further on legislation like this that is absolutely necessary to protect Canadians, and to protect Canadians here at home.

This bill gives our security agencies the tools that they need, tools to keep us safe at home, tools to keep the individuals in my riding, the people we all represent in this place safe here on Canadian soil. It ensures that our rights are protected at the same time.

For that reason, I am proud to support this bill, and I hope that the Liberals and NDP will put aside their past soft focus stances on terrorism and join us in supporting this bill. It is extremely important to make sure that Canadians are protected here at home and that they know that this place, in addition to the Government of Canada, is making sure that they and their families are protected.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been here since this morning and since we began talking about this bill. I have listened to the Conservatives' rhetoric, and the demagoguery has reached new highs. As for myself and all my colleagues in the House of Commons, all 308 members, we all agree that the attacks of last October are unacceptable. Using the memory of the victims to score political points is very low.

I will get right to my question for the minister. In practical terms, is there anything at all in this bill that could have helped prevent, and I insist on the word “prevent”, the two tragic attacks that took place last October? I want concrete examples of how this bill could have prevented at least one of those two attacks.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think Ms. Vincent said it very clearly, because she feels very passionately about what is in the bill.

Let me outline some of the key details that are in the bill, all of which would have helped to make sure that these Canadian Forces members were still with us.

It makes a crime to advocate and promote terrorist attacks on Canadian soil illegal. It allows, with the approval of a judge, our police officers to detain terrorist suspects more quickly and for longer periods of time. That is a key item. It authorizes our security agencies to intervene against those plotting terrorist attacks, and to share security information, something they currently are not able to do.

It strengthens the passenger protection act, which is another component part of it, and it also allows our authorities to remove terrorist propaganda.

I would encourage the member opposite to read the bill. These are component parts that are extremely valuable to make sure Canadians are safe. That is why we are moving forward with this legislation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully as the minister was attempting to explain why the government is all good. At the end of the day, I suspect that Canadians are not going to be fooled. The government has lost a wonderful opportunity to bring in sound, robust legislation to deal with the issue of terrorism in Canada and, at the same time, ensure the rights and freedoms of individual Canadians are being protected.

The biggest shortcoming, I believe, in this legislation is the issue of parliamentary oversight. The question I have for the member is related to that. It was not that long ago when the Conservatives were in opposition and the member for Mount Royal was the minister of justice. At that time, the member's colleague, the current Minister of Justice, supported parliamentary oversight. The Conservatives argued in favour of parliamentary oversight.

Canada is in an alliance known as the Five Eyes with the United States, England, Australia and New Zealand, all of which have parliamentary oversight. Can the member clearly indicate why the Prime Minister does not support parliamentary oversight when everyone else but the Conservatives seem to?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear for the member opposite. Independent, expert, non-partisan oversight is the very best oversight for any of these organizations. That is actually what the parents in my riding talk about. They want independent, non-partisan oversight because they believe that is the fairest thing to do for Canadians and that is what they expect the Canadian government to move forward on.

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

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the questions being asked by New Democrats, it is pretty clear that the only way they would support legislation is if we handcuffed our police and blindfolded CSIS. It is truly unfortunate that such misinformation has been pushed out from the opposition party on this particular bill. We are dealing with the very heart of our national security and the protection of Canadians.

The committee heard from credible witnesses on our side, some with more than three decades of experience in law enforcement intelligence gathering. The NDP side brought in people who basically said the sky was going to fall. In fact, some of the groups had appeared way back in the 1980s with regard to the first CSIS Act and, in 2001, on the first Anti-terrorism Act, all saying the same thing.

I am going to ask the minister if she could comment on whether she thinks the sky will fall, as it did not fall in the 1980s and certainly did not fall in 2001.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

As I said in my speech, Mr. Speaker, there is no liberty without security. Therefore, no, the sky is not falling over this. We are making sure that Canadians are safe and secure at home. That is what we are focused on. We are hopeful the opposition will actually step up and make sure that Canadians are safe here on Canadian soil, because that is exactly what this legislation would do.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak in the House today on Bill C-51. It is very important legislation that this House and the committee have been working on.

Canadians are worried about the threat the international jihadist movement poses to their communities and to Canada as a whole. The horrors committed by jihadi terrorists are well documented. We have all seen the pictures. We have heard the stories. We have read the articles. We know of the savage beheadings, of people being burned alive and being buried alive. We know that women are being raped, tortured, and enslaved. The list could go on.

These jihadi terrorists recognize no border, and if frustrated in their attempts to travel overseas to join the caliphate, they will seek to commit acts of terrorism right here in Canada. We do not believe in exporting terrorism, and that is why we need Bill C-51.

As Barry Cooper, from the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, put it:

So let us state the obvious: Bill C-51 is aimed at violent Islamic jihadi terrorists, and those are the persons against whom its provisions are to be enforced. The reasons are clear enough provided one makes reference to facts and events of the real world today.

Unlike their critics, the authors of Bill C-51 are sensible enough to have recognized the danger. However, the opposition members are insisting that politicians be handed control of oversight of our national security agencies.

As a sitting member of the committee for public safety and national security, I sat through the vigorous study of this act. Witnesses testified that we needed to enhance oversight of our CSIS review body. I am pleased that our government listened and heard those concerns and has responded.

Economic action plan 2015 proposes to provide up to $12.5 million over five years, starting in the 2015-16 fiscal year, and then $2.5 million ongoing thereafter in additional funding to the Security Intelligence Review Committee to enhance its review of CSIS.

While we would ensure that our national security agencies have the tools they need to protect Canadians from the threat of terrorism, we would also ensure that these practices are governed by an effective and transparent framework that protects the rights of individual Canadians. The fact is, budget 2015 will almost double the resources of the Security Intelligence Review Committee. Unlike the opposition, we believe that third-party, non-partisan, independent expert oversight of our national security agencies is a better model than political intervention in the process.

Justice John Major had this to say about the plan to inject politics into national security oversight: “I don't think Parliament is equipped as a body to act as an oversight...which is what is being proposed” by the opposition.

Clare Lopez, of the Center for Security Policy, said, “the use of an intermediary review committee rather than direct parliamentary oversight, has advantages”.

The truth is that the opposition members have been trying to force their way into politicizing national security oversight. The opposition is on record as saying that it is concerned that its social policies might attract the attention of our security intelligence establishment. As Ray Boisvert, former assistant director of CSIS, put it, “anybody who had an issue they'd like to protest [who thinks they] will now become a target of the security establishment.... I think you should not...flatter yourself to that degree”.

Justice John Major also confirmed this reasoning, saying, “citizens who are not validly under suspicion will not have some manufactured reason for their private lives to be interfered with”.

Professor Salim Mansur of Western University also added, “Bill C-51 in my reading is not designed to turn Canada into some version of Hobbes' Leviathan or Orwell's 1984, despite at times the fevered imagination of its critics”.

Canadians understand that freedom and security go hand in hand. They understand that our police and our national security agencies are working to protect our rights and freedoms, and that it is the jihadi terrorists who endanger our security. I could go on, but I believe I have made my point clear.

I would like to read a very descriptive quote from Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, because I believe it is a good reminder in this debate that those who threaten our freedom and our liberties are not the police officers and the intelligence community tasked with protecting Canadians. Those who threaten our freedoms are the jihadi terrorists.

Mr. Stamatakis stated:

I would take issue with calls for oversight bodies to take a more active role in the operational nature of the jobs we entrust to highly trained and very accountable professional law enforcement, whether a police officer employed by a federal, provincial, or municipal agency or an intelligence officer employed by the federal government. Those who have criticized the Security Intelligence Review Committee for only providing “after the fact” oversight often underestimate how difficult real-time operational oversight can be to achieve, particularly in the context of a fast-moving investigation with very real public safety consequences.

He went on to further say:

Those criticisms also undervalue the often positive effect that ex post facto oversight can have on our industry. Identifying where inappropriate actions may have been taken or where different and more positive decisions could have been made is the very foundation of our services and the training and education that comes from those service reviews.

Mr. Stamatakis clearly makes the point that we have strong oversight that allows them to draw lessons from their experience and continually improve themselves.

As to why we need Bill C-51, I would like to quote Ms. Raheel Raza, president of Muslims Facing Tomorrow. She said that legislation is important to combat radicalization and that we need better tools to track jihadists who travel overseas. She went on to say that “unfortunately we are living in a post-9/11 world and times are such that personal information needs to be shared. That's the reality and I don't have a problem with it.” She said that the “larger picture is that of the security and safety of Canada.”

I believe this quote is very interesting because it mentions the larger picture here and why the anti-terrorism act is needed.

When we talk about the security and safety of Canada as parliamentarians, we should understand that this means ensuring the safety and security of our families.

We intend to continue to work to keep Canadians safe by ensuring our law enforcement agencies have the tools to do the job they need to do to combat the threat of the international jihadi terrorist movement.

As Tahir Gora of the Canadian Thinkers' Forum said:

The government's proposed Bill C-51, when passed by Parliament, shall help Canadian Muslims to curb extremist elements....

The world is a dangerous place, as was most brutally demonstrated by last October's attacks in Ottawa and Quebec, and Canada is not immune to the threat of terrorism. The proposed legislation would provide Canadian law enforcement and national security agencies with additional tools and flexibility to keep pace with evolving threats and to better protect Canadians here at home.

We are ensuring 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. We are also making sure that our law enforcement agencies can prevent and disrupt planned attacks on Canadian soil.

We will continue to support this legislation because we believe the anti-terrorist act as being the appropriate response to the growing threat of jihadi terrorists that seek to further their radical ideology and their idea of totalitarian caliphate by murdering those who oppose them.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the Conservative member's speech.

Trust is an issue when matters as important as security and rights protection are in the hands of a government. There must be a relationship of trust. However, in this Parliament and in this House, that trust has unfortunately been broken because the rights of parliamentarians have been violated time and time again by time allocation motions and by a lack of respect for the laws that govern this country and parliamentary traditions. Canadians are having a hard time trusting this government right now. That is why many Canadians have stood up to protest Bill C-51.

Why does this member think that Canadians should trust this government to protect our rights and freedoms?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, trust, like respect, is something that is earned. I think Canadians can see from the track record of our Prime Minister and our government that we have delivered time and time again, whether it is on balancing the budget or providing victims of crime with rights. Our government has delivered on many initiatives.

I think the that the NDP is proposing questions here: Can we trust CSIS with the powers that the bill would give them to fight the jihadi terrorists? Can we trust our law enforcement agencies with the powers in the bill to enable them to share information so they can properly fight the jihadi terrorists?

The question is not so much on whether we can trust the government, but can we trust the law enforcement agencies that work so diligently in keeping us safe? I find that question offensive.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what we have witnessed over the last number of years, as the world grows more concerned about terrorism, is that there is a need to make changes to laws.

Jean Chrétien first brought in Canada's anti-terrorism act in 2001. If we compare the efforts put into that legislation, we find there was a great deal of consultation, a lot more building of bridges and trying to ensure that Canadians were being protected, while at the same time being able to fight terrorism. As things have evolved, other countries around the world, in particular the Five Eyes countries, have recognized the importance of parliamentary oversight. This is very different than judicial oversight, which is what the proposed legislation would bring forward.

My question to the member is: Why does the government, from his perspective, not recognize the importance of parliamentary oversight when our peers are putting in parliamentary oversight? Would he not agree that is a shortcoming of the legislation?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Winnipeg North. It gives me the opportunity to speak to that exact question.

At committee when we reviewed this bill, we heard from many of the witnesses that they would like additional oversight. Our government has responded in economic action plan 2015 by almost doubling the funds for oversight.

As members have said previously, this bill would also continue to provide for judicial oversight. This means that before CSIS agents can carry out their activities, they need to present their case and get a judge to agree that what they want to do is proper and good. Then we have the oversight to confirm that the permissions that were granted by the courts to CSIS were carried through with, and that is done by SIRC.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech as well as for his work on the public safety and security committee.

Throughout the testimony, and the member was there along with me, we heard from very credible witnesses, some with extensive experience in law enforcement and security intelligence gathering, as well as those who have actually studied terrorism for more than 10 years.

I wonder if the member could speak directly to the credible witness testimony that we heard and why those witnesses thought this legislation was important.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety for her leadership on this bill, and also for her leadership at committee. She does amazing work. Her constituents should be very proud of her.

We listened to over 48 expert witnesses, who brought years and years of experience and credibility to the discussions and deliberations at committee. They provided expert testimony to confirm that the bill would provide our law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to identify and also reduce and minimize the risk of jihadi terrorists in Canada. They spoke favourably of being able to accomplish the work we have asked them to do if they had the tools provided in Bill C-51.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

It being 6:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Thursday, April 30 it is my duty to interrupt and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5 to 44 and 46 to 66. A negative vote on Motion No. 1 requires the questions being put on Motions Nos. 4 and 45. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1 which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #391

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the Motion No. 1 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5 to 44 and 46 to 66 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

I declare Motion No. 4 defeated.

(Motion No. 4 negatived)

The next question is on Motion No. 45. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

I declare Motion No. 45 defeated.

(Motion No. 45 negatived)

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

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, 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 #392

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.