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.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you.

I would submit that Bill C-51 still does present us that opportunity, if government backbench members—there's not a member of the executive here—stand up in their own right stand at this committee and allow amendments, because that can happen. Bills can be improved. It's only in recent Parliaments that we have seen bills go through, with witnesses not being listened to, and the resulting bill being the same as the one that came to committee. That's unacceptable in a democracy like Canada's.

In any event, related to the CSE, I have here the report of the U.K.'s Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. This is one of the possibilities that was looked at for proper oversight of all their intelligence agencies. In the report, the chair says, “The Committee sets its own agenda and work programme” and “takes evidence from Government Ministers, the heads of the intelligence Agencies” and security agencies, etc.

Would that concept at least be helpful in bringing some satisfaction that there is proper parliamentary oversight of all our security agencies and give Canadians some confidence that, on the one hand, security agencies are doing their job using the authorities they have under the law, but also, on the other hand, not overreaching and using the law for things that might impact on civil liberties and freedom of expression?

[Grand Chief Stewart Phillip]

Yes, absolutely.

In British Columbia, the Supreme Court decision in the Tsilhqot’in case repudiates forever the notion of terra nullius, the doctrine of discovery, and indicates very clearly that our aboriginal title, rights, and interests are territorially wide in scope, as opposed to the tired arguments that have been brought forward by Canada and British Columbia in terms of small spots.

Our jurisdictional interest is territorially wide, which puts us on a collision course with major resource development projects, which are the heart and soul of the Harper government. Bill C-51 talks about threats to the financial and economic stability of the country, which puts that under the shadow of this very abstract and broad notion of what represents terrorism. Again, we're gravely concerned about this.

[Grand Chief Stewart Phillip]

Again I think the short answer is yes. The work I do is political advocacy, and Bill C-51 talks about criminalizing public expression of political advocacy work itself. Obviously our leadership is going to have concerns about what this bill represents to our rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom to publicly express our world view as it relates to the environment and our traditional territories.

We're gravely concerned and, again, we're absolutely convinced this is less about jihadi terrorism in this country and more about facilitating and promoting the tripling of the output of the tar sands.

[Grand Chief Stewart Phillip]

Thank you for the question. The short answer is yes. The longer answer is absolutely yes.

I don't think there's any doubt in our minds that the real intent of Bill C-51 is to coerce and intimidate indigenous peoples away from defending and protecting their hard-fought international rights expressed in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, our section 35 rights in the constitution of this country, and the hard-fought battles through the Supreme Court of Canada.

This bill will criminalize pretty much everything that has brought us to this point in our history, in terms of being able to assert our rights and ensure that our interests are fully protected. As I know you have heard in previous presentations, much of our history would have been lost if this legislation had been introduced 40 years ago.

I have been involved in these issues for more than 40 years. I served as chief of our community for 14 years, and for 10 years before that I was a member of our council. This is my 16th year as president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, and I'm the chair of our tribal council. I'm 65 and I have 14 incredibly beautiful grandchildren whose future I am gravely concerned about, given the direction in which this country is moving.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Thank you very much, and thank you to our witnesses.

Thank you, Grand Chief Phillip, for joining us today. It's an honour for our committee to hear from you. Thank you for making the trek from the the west coast to share your testimony.

Grand Chief Phillip, as you alluded to in your presentation, you have been on the front lines of first nations' fight to defend their territory and inherent rights. I feel that today is a bit of a snapshot in which we get lost in the weeds around the focus on the international, rather than looking at the very negative impact this piece of legislation will have on our domestic reality—particularly on indigenous leaders, members of indigenous communities, and others as well who are opposing this government's agenda. Do you believe that the goal of Bill C-51 is to instill fear in you and other indigenous leaders, and even to criminalize the kinds of positions you have been taking on behalf of your people?

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you.

There was a recent article about a fisherman opposed to oil tankers, film makers documenting civil disobedience, and journalists advocating an independent Quebec. It asks, what do these groups have in common? It states that each would have been charged with terrorism under the Conservatives' draconian Bill C-51—this is what has been reported—which would criminalize any action deemed to be a threat to the economic and financial security of Canada or Canada's diplomatic relations.

This sort of information, I believe, is being spread by the opposition and media. Do you believe it to be a true statement? Do you believe that CSIS and the RCMP would have the time or desire to have government agencies provide them information about protesters or that they would act upon it if there were no reasonable grounds to investigate?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee. It's dangerous to ask an academic to speak for only 10 minutes. I'm going to read from a prepared text.

I thank you for this opportunity to address the committee on the important matter of Bill C-51. This is the second occasion in which I have testified in this House on omnibus anti-terrorism legislation. The first occasion took place nearly 14 years ago during the debate over Canada's first anti-terrorism legislation, Bill C-36.

Times have changed. We now live in a post-al Qaeda age, but the fundamental issue that we struggled with as a society in 2001 remains the same in 2015, that being how to meet security threats in such a way as to maintain a necessary balance between the powers given to security and intelligence agencies and the protection of democratic rights, including privacy rights. The 2004 national security strategy was aptly entitled to reflect this challenge of securing an open society.

Let me begin by saying that we are hobbled in our analysis of this bill by three things. One is the absence of any update by the government of its counterterrorism strategy, which was last produced in August 2014 before the recent cycle of terror attacks, including those in Canada in October 2014; in Sydney, Australia in December 2014; and in Paris in January 2015.

A second is the absence of any inquiry report into the tragic events of October 2014 that would help us understand any legal, operational, or analytical deficiencies that might have contributed to the failure to prevent those attacks.

The third deficiency is the lack of any substantial explanation for the need for the individual parts of the bill, either in the language of the bill itself, in the brief backgrounders prepared by the Department of Justice, or in statements made by the government that have referred in boilerplate language to the evolving terrorism threat and the need for new capabilities to meet it.

The evolving terrorism threat can be considered to have three dimensions, namely, the threat posed by jihadist terrorist groups engaged in insurgency campaigns abroad to seize territory and build state-like capabilities; the campaign of individual homegrown jihadists to inflict violence in the domestic sphere; and the connecting tissues between these threats, which are the foreign fighter problem and the broader issue of cyber incitement. Bill C-51 addresses two of these three strands and does so in a tactical, as opposed to a strategic, way.

I would divide the bill into three baskets. First, those elements that can genuinely advance security capacities in a reasonable and proportional way. Second, those that do not advance our security capabilities or fail to maintain the vital security rights balance. Thirdly, those parts of the bill that deserve to be put on hold for deeper reflection and not be rushed into law before the summer recess.

In the first basket of appropriate security enhancements I would place the proposed information sharing act, part 1 of the bill; the proposed changes to Canada's no fly list, part 2 of the bill; and selected components of part 3 of the bill concerning amendments to the Criminal Code with respect to peace bonds, preventative detention, and the dismantling of websites conveying terrorist propaganda.

To be sure, parts 1, 2, and 3 of the bill would greatly benefit from some detailed amendments, in particular to bring greater clarity, heighten their efficacy, reduce their over-breadth, and bolster the security rights' balance. I have respectfully suggested some key changes that could be made to the bill in the detailed brief I submitted to the committee.

The provision that I would argue should be abandoned in its present form concerns the criminalization of the promotion and advocation of terrorism. While such a criminal sanction might be emotionally satisfying, as currently presented in the bill it operates at a remove from the commission of a terrorist act and is in effect a speech crime. In addition I would argue that the operational burden on our national security agencies tasked with investigating such speech crimes is not commensurate with the likely payoff. We must understand that security and intelligence capabilities are finite and must be carefully deployed to maximum benefit.

Provisions I would put on hold for further study include parts 4 and 5 of the bill. We need to have a proper conversation about security certificates, which are the subject of part 5. In the time I have remaining, Mr. Chair, I will focus only on part 4.

Part 4 of Bill C-51 gives CSIS explicit and broad lawful authority to engage in disruption or threat diminishment operations. I think many Canadians do not understand that CSIS already conducts forms of disruption operations associated with their intelligence collection mandate and that such operations were reviewed some years ago by the Security Intelligence Review Committee.

The SIRC study summarized in its 2009-10 annual report noted that the CSIS director had testified in Parliament in May 2010 that disruption operations should principally be left to the RCMP. Whether or not the current CSIS director would disagree with his predecessor and why is not known. SIRC recommended two things: the creation of appropriate internal policy controls for CSIS disruption operations and the provision of strong ministerial directives. Whether these recommendations were accepted and acted upon is not known, but I think it would be important for this committee to satisfy itself about this matter.

I would also urge that CSIS disruption powers be focused on operations abroad against Canadians, under appropriate controls. A domestic lead on disruption or threat diminishment should be left to the RCMP where it currently resides, and where I think it belongs. The RCMP has developed important capacities in this area through its inset teams, through front-line policing, and through community engagement or outreach programs.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, it should surprise none of us that first drafts of complex legislation may not be perfect. It is vital that parliamentary consideration be aimed not only at improving the bill and ensuring that it balances security imperatives and rights protections, but also at ensuring to the greatest degree possible a Canadian social consensus. If these are not difficult enough goals, it is important as well to be very clear about what is missing in the bill and will need to be addressed another day if not provided for in amended legislation.

The missing pieces include the need for greater measures for intelligence and security accountability; greater mandated government transparency in regard to national security; and acknowledgement of the secret elephant in the room, which is the counterterrorism mission and capabilities of the Communications Security Establishment, whose enabling legislation passed with the Anti-terrorism Act in 2001, and which desperately requires fixing, from my perspective. It is also important to understand that Bill C-51 does not address a critical need, which is improvements to Canada's threat assessment capability. It is no good sharing a great deal of information, no good having new powers to collect new kinds of information, if you can't make sense of it through a robust threat assessment capability. Finally, of course, there's the issue of new resources to match new powers about which the government has been so far silent.

Thank you.

[Robert Morrison, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.

I've come here not only as an individual but also in terms of the prior role that I had with the government before I retired. A few years ago it was determined that there really wasn't any overarching coordination to ensure intelligence collaboration within the federal government. As a result, I was seconded to the Treasury Board Secretariat from the RCMP to be the director general of the information sharing environment in 2012.

As a result of that, I was there to establish a program for intelligence sharing across Canada. The program, which we called the ISE Canada, was to collaborate with agencies like CRA, CIC, DND, RCMP, CSIS and others. After eight months, due to the priorities of the Treasury Board Secretariat with the Shared Services Canada initiative, the funding was withdrawn, but I could just give you an example of one project I worked on while I was there.

It was a pilot project. I worked with two different agencies on a 400-kilometre stretch of the border between Canada and the United States. What we wanted to do was share intelligence files between the two agencies in a controlled environment, the control being that one group was in one room, the other in another room. What we wanted to do was to demonstrate whether both parties knew what investigations each was working on, as they said they did, or were there some missing links between the two agencies.

This was a very small, controlled environment, and what we found was that there were over 40 files that both of these organizations had no idea the other organization was working on. There were things like organized crime, gang involvement, importation of drugs, guns, and weapons importation. What it demonstrated was that although we thought we were sharing information, we really weren't doing a very good job of it.

The proposed anti-terrorism Bill C-51 will enable the creation of a Canadian information sharing environment. This program will increase security for Canadians by supporting intelligence and information sharing within government and supporting provincial, territorial, and municipal agencies.

Sharing information in a manner that is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and with the protection of privacy will enable intelligence partners to support information sharing initiatives nationally and internationally with the right information to the right person at the right time.

It will enable effective and responsible intelligence sharing by driving collaborative intelligence initiatives, so it will be accurate, timely, reliable, proactive. What I'm talking about here is suspicious activity reporting. For example, we have an oil refinery where the company reports a hole in a fence. The municipality next door has a laundry and dry cleaning facility that had a break-in the night before and 40 uniforms are stolen that all belong to that oil refinery. The next municipality over had a large theft of fertilizer. We start putting these pieces together, and then add onto that an intelligence agency has a report from an informant that Mr. A was talking about causing some damages to an oil refinery. If we look at each one of those independently it really doesn't mean much. But when you start putting the pieces together, it means a lot.

It will enable efficient sharing through standards and shared technology to address common intelligence sharing needs. What I'm talking about here is accuracy. I'm talking about ensuring that the databases are accurate. It will improve nationwide decision-making through secure and trusted sharing between partners, being proactive, accurate, timely, and reliable.

It will protect the privacy rights of Canadians by developing a strategy for information sharing and protection. When I talk about protection, I'm talking about accountability, to have an independent third-party, non-partisan expert group of individuals to be the oversight group that monitors the information sharing.

I was in an airport on the weekend when the weather came in. I was in the interior and was stuck there for eight hours. It was a very small airport and had a small coffee shop. I was sitting there and there were only two plugs in the wall, and a fellow beside me used one for his computer and I used the other one. I started talking to him. He is a retired school teacher from a very small community, and he brought up Bill C-51 and said that he certainly didn't agree that they're going to share every piece of information with every single person in Canada.

I happened to mention I was coming here today, and I said “Well, that's not quite true. Some people have looked at the act and dissected small pieces of it, but when you look at the whole information sharing act, you'll see that there is accountability built in, that everyone wants to make sure that the information is shared in a manner that is accountable and responsible.”

The creation of the Canadian ISE program will achieve the following outcomes: it will support the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to ensure effective coordination of Canadian intelligence information in the security or intelligence communities; establish an ISE senior level inter-agency advisory group to enable governance related to information sharing standards and initiatives; establish a cross-government ISE privacy accountability committee to ensure information or intelligence sharing privacy compliance with the legislation; promote information sharing culture across all partners through training and support initiatives; support Canadian participation in Beyond the Border and other information sharing initiatives; develop a national strategy for information sharing and protection; encourage the use of data standards among all agencies; support and encourage provincial, territorial, and municipal involvement; demonstrate successes by involving agencies in projects to identify information and intelligence gaps and inefficiencies; and identify leaders in business process, operations, standards, architecture, security, access control, privacy protection, and accountability.

Bill C-51 will ensure accurate, timely, and reliable information sharing while protecting the privacy of our citizens.

Thank you.

[Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, President, Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs]

Good morning, everyone.

Wai xast skelhalt ipsi nuxsil. Echa es quist Ascasiwt.

In our nsyilxcen language, that simply means: Good day, my friends and relatives. My traditional name is Ascasiwt.

I want to begin by acknowledging the fact that we're on unceded Algonquin territory,

I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to be here this morning.

I want to commend Pam Palmater for her outstanding presentation here this morning. I want the committee to know that I certainly support pretty much everything she presented to the committee.

I don't have a detailed brief. I'm not a lawyer. I will start by reading a press release that we issued under our organization, the Union of BC Indian Chiefs. I may make a few comments about the bill itself, but I will rely on the exchange of questions to give further expression to our concerns.

With that, this press release is dated February 20, 2015, and it states as follows:

Anti-Terrorism Act Bill C-51 Will Infringe on Indigenous Title and Rights

(Coast Salish Territory/Vancouver, BC – February 20, 2015) This week, the Harper Government introduced Bill C-51, Anti-terrorism Act, 2015. Bill C-51 will radically and dangerously expand the powers of Canada’s national security agencies and greatly infringe upon the rights of all citizens without making us any safer or secure.

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, President of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs stated “The Union of BC Indian Chiefs believes the sweeping scope of Bill C-51 directly violates the ability of all Indigenous Peoples to exercise, assert and defend their constitutionally-protected and judicially-recognized Indigenous Title and Rights to their respective territories.”

“It is absolutely appalling that as Indigenous Peoples protecting our territories we may be faced with the many insidious, provocative and heavy-handed powers that are granted by this omnibus Bill C-51. The Harper Government has dramatically changed internal government practices, policymaking structures and decision-making processes to serve an explicit natural resources development agenda. We have witnessed the gutting of environmental legislation, clamp-down of scientific analysis and comprehensive surveillance programs of Indigenous and environmental opposition,” said Grand Chief Phillip.

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip concluded “As an act of civil disobedience, I was arrested at Burnaby Mountain because I believe mega-projects, like Kinder Morgan and Enbridge pipelines, do not respect the Indigenous laws and inherent authority of Indigenous Peoples to protect their territories, land and waters from the very real potential and increased risk of oil spills and increased coast tanker traffic along our coast. I believe under the draconian measures of Bill C-51, I would be identified as a terrorist. Regardless, I will continue to do what is necessary to defend the collective birthright of our grandchildren.”

That public statement pretty much captures the essence of our grave concerns about Bill C-51, and I know that we stand in good company, in that at least four former prime ministers, several former Supreme Court justices, hundreds of academics and luminaries, the Canadian Bar Association, and other groups across this country—other human rights groups, civil rights groups, civil liberties groups—have all spoken out in opposition to this bill. The criticism is pretty much to the effect that this bill was cobbled together in the heat of political expediency, and it reflects many fundamental flaws and gaps.

Along with other indigenous leaders, including the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Perry Bellegarde, we also call for the scrapping of Bill C-51 and call upon the Harper government to entertain a process that is more inclusive, that takes the time necessary to ensure that the constitutional and human rights, the civil rights, of all Canadians are taken into serious consideration in putting together a bill of this nature.

We believe that Bill C-51 is less about jihadist terrorists being under every bed or in every closet in every bedroom across this country and more about increasing the output of the tar sands and facilitating the heavy-oil pipeline proposals across this country and the megaproject agenda of the Harper government. It will serve to severely undermine the constitutional and human rights of indigenous peoples, rights that are certainly reflected in the declaration of indigenous rights that was embraced by the vast majority of countries in the United Nations. It certainly flies in the face of our constitutionally enshrined rights, and it most certainly flies in the face of our judicially upheld rights by the highest legal authority in this country, namely the Supreme Court of Canada.

Most recently the Tsilhqot'in decision, the Chief Roger William decision, stated very clearly that as indigenous peoples we have an inherent responsibility to our future generations to ensure that the environment and resources of our territories are kept intact for future generations. You can see that the Government of Canada has other notions vis-à-vis energy development in this country with respect to pipeline proposals from sea to sea to sea.

Those essentially encompass the concerns we have. I agree wholeheartedly with Pam Palmater and her recitation of the oppressive and repressive legislation over the last several hundred years that has attempted to sever our cultural and spiritual connection to our lands and territories, to our culture and language.

I believe there is sufficient and adequate provision under the Criminal Code and the current national security apparatus to accomplish the same goals that are reflected in Bill C-51. Like the national chief, I too have brought the most recent report. It's a 44-page report from the RCMP security service critical infrastructure intelligence team, which I believe is a broad association of national security organizations.

This shows you how diligent the government is at suppressing indigenous rights in this country.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

I realize you can only speak on behalf of FINTRAC, but you did agree that enhanced communication and investigatory powers are better and would lead to a better end result, which Bill C-51 would provide.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Going back to what you said before, Bill C-51, although it may not enhance your powers specifically, would enhance the overall objective of targeting terrorist activity and terrorist financing here in Canada.

[Dr. Pamela Palmater]

My recommendations were about how to address the problem right now. We have a crisis right now, because first nations are being targeted by police officers and the government at large. If this bill were to pass and they added this provision for a special first nations advocate for all of these core processes, that wouldn't stop first nations from being targeted to begin with. That's like trying to provide compensation to murdered indigenous women after they've already been murdered. It's too little too late. So I don't think it would be effective to counter all of the rights violations currently existing under Bill C-51.

[Gérald Cossette]

No, not at all.

In fact, FINTRAC has all the tools it needs to receive the information and to disclose the information it has to disclose. Bill C-51 has no bearing on our organization. We keep the authorities we have exactly.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Do you expect the provisions in Bill C-51 to have an impact on the tracking of terrorist financing in your work?

[Dr. Pamela Palmater]

Bill C-51 as currently written would capture everything under Idle No More. Imagine that. Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come of the Grand Council of the Crees offered a quote for my submission as well, to the effect that had their activities been done today as opposed to back then, the James Bay agreement would not have been negotiated. They would all be in jail. The Idle No More movement, which was a historical coming together of first nations and Canadians peacefully dancing, singing, and drumming, would now all be monitored—if not already, as the media has indicated—and maybe with arbitrary detentions.

All of these things are very frightening for this country. Keep in mind that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples protects us, grants us and recognizes international customary law that we can act autonomously, that we can occupy our lands. Under the Department of National Defence's manual, occupying our lands, advocating for our autonomy, and advocating for political rights are described as insurgency, alongside jihadists. It is no comfort that there is a proviso saying that lawful activity, lawful dissent, lawful protest, lawful art—whatever that is—won't be captured by this bill, because the second we do a round dance in the street without a permit, it very quickly becomes unlawful.

We have to remember—I already went over this—all of the very validly enacted laws that Canada has had that have ended up in the killing, murder, rape, violence, sterilization, and scalping of our people. Those were valid laws. The only way to protect ourselves was to act with unlawful resistance.

What we're saying now is that the clear and present danger to first nations and Canadians is environmental destruction and the contamination of our water. We have a right to defend our life, liberty, and security to protect our future generations. Under this bill, that will all be captured as a threat to national security and/or to be terrorism.