House of Commons Hansard #143 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was csis.
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, the global terrorism index has recorded an almost fivefold increase in fatalities caused by terror attacks around the world. Last night, we learned that the government had failed to invest almost half of its $129 million budgeted for strengthening the security of missions abroad.
I have a simple question. Is the government balancing its books by compromising the security of our diplomats?
John Baird ConservativeMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, my worst day as foreign minister was the day a diplomat in Nairobi who was at the Westgate shopping mall was killed in a terrorist attack.
I want to say very directly and very forcefully to the member opposite that the safety and security of our diplomats abroad is our top priority. There is absolutely no plan whatsoever to balance the budget on the backs of the security and safety of our diplomats abroad. They are a top priority.
Brent Rathgeber Independent Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, the House is currently debating government legislation that would increase the mandate of Canada's spy agency, giving CSIS broader powers of surveillance over Canadians. However, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, suffering from two vacancies and without a full-time chair, is already falling behind in its investigations of complaints against the agency. Even former chair Chuck Strahl stated that it might be necessary to review the role of SIRC, its resources, or both.
Does the government not believe that national security should be properly balanced with effective oversight and respect for the privacy of law-abiding Canadians?
Steven Blaney ConservativeMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, the role of the Security Intelligence Review Committee is to report to Parliament and confirm that this agency is fulfilling its mandate in accordance with the law. That is precisely the purpose of Bill C-44, which we are currently debating and which will clarify the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in order to make judges' work easier and also to facilitate the work of the review committee, which does an excellent job.
Economic and Fiscal UpdatePrivilegeOral Questions
November 18th, 2014 / 3:05 p.m.
York—Simcoe Ontario
Conservative
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I want to provide some additional comments to those I provided in a preliminary way to the question of privilege that was raised by my former NDP counterpart, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. It has been awhile since the two of us have debated a privilege question, so I am pleased to have this opportunity.
Having reviewed, however, the hon. member's arguments and the precedents on the point, I have no hesitation in saying that there is no prima facie case of privilege here. If anything, the whole question of privilege is nothing but an attempt to deflect attention away from the excellent address that my colleague, the Minister of Finance, made last week and the news it contained, which was news about the strong state of our government's finances, the imminent elimination of the deficit and the relative success of the Canadian economy in the face of very uncertain global economic circumstances. This is news that Canadians were delighted to hear from the Minister of Finance.
However, on the question of privilege relating to that statement being delivered where it was, I would like, from the outset, to read a passage from page 444 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition. It states:
A Minister is under no obligation to make a statement in the House. The decision of a Minister to make an announcement outside the House instead of making a statement in the House during Routine Proceedings has been raised as a question of privilege, but the Chair has consistently found no grounds to support a claim that any privilege has been breached.
There are a couple of points raised by the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley which I specifically want to address.
First, the NDP finance critic argued that the economic and fiscal projections should have been presented to the House “as is custom”. Let me remind the hon. member that since the tradition of an annual economic update started a couple of decades ago, only two updates have been given here in this chamber in the House of Commons. That was back in 2000 and in 2008. No other economic fiscal updates have been delivered in this chamber.
Since the hon. member wanted to take the House down memory lane yesterday, I would like to reciprocate the gesture by reminding him of our government's effort to present the 2007 economic update in the chamber. In fact, we did try to do that. I did at the time seek to get the consent of the other parties to do so. Unfortunately though, since that required unanimous consent, it was notable that there was one party that denied consent to have the economic and fiscal update delivered on the floor of the House of Commons. If the NDP finance critic were to ask his predecessor from the time, and that is the hon. member for Outremont, ironically, he would learn that consent was actually blocked by the NDP.
There is some irony in the New Democrats' standing in the House and complaining that the economic and fiscal update was not delivered here when in the past they have been responsible for the fact that it was not delivered in this chamber when this very government sought to do exactly that.
First, I have often remarked that “do as I say, not as I do” has been the watchword of the NDP's approach to life in the House. That is indeed the case here. In fact, I mentioned that only 2 out of the 20 economic and fiscal updates have been delivered here in the chamber. However, that number would have been higher were it not for the NDP blocking more of them from happening right here in this chamber and setting in place the tradition of it now travelling around the country to communities where people can hear about the good news from our government.
Second, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley cited a “complaint” that was raised in March 1977 to Mr. Speaker Jerome. Let me offer instead quotations from two rulings your learned predecessor gave that same month.
Ruling on a question of privilege from the then NDP leader Ed Broadbent, arguing that the Liberal transport minister should have announced a new policy in the House, Mr. Speaker Jerome said, on page 3579 of the Debates from March 2, 1977:
The only question is whether the minister has a discretion to choose to make statements outside or inside the House.
Not only is it clear that any minister would enjoy that discretion, in fact the language of the Standing Order says particularly that, when the procedures of the Standing Order are to be taken advantage of, a minister of the Crown may make a statement inside the House. That is the language that is used. His discretion, therefore, is not only, as always, to take whatever action he wants outside the House; the discretion even is one of an option for the minister to use the House for that purpose....
The language of the precedents is very clear. Nothing in the Standing Orders in any way interferes with the minister's discretion.
Later that month, on March 31, 1977, Mr. Speaker Jerome said, at page 4515 of the Debates, “The matter seems to have been canvassed rather thoroughly, again”. He went on to say:
—the precedents have been made clear in the past and the language of the Standing Order remains clear that a minister may make a statement in the House...
Then he went on to say:
Clearly, it is optional. So long as the Standing Order remains unchanged, the precedents remain applicable. There is no possibility of the Chair finding on a question of privilege. It would run directly counter to the interpretation of the Standing Order that has been upheld several times...
With respect to my comments yesterday that the Minister of Finance's economic update was not required by any rule of this House, in that sense it is very different from a budget in the budget debate, which is not specifically contemplated in Standing Orders, the Chair may wish to note Madam Speaker Sauve's ruling, on August 4, 1982, at page 20017 of the Debates. She said:
I must remind hon. members that the members of the executive, the government, have the choice of announcing whatever they want to announce in any way they choose unless they are required under the Standing Orders to do otherwise. Of course, this particular area and this particular matter is not covered by the Standing Orders, and therefore although members might not approve of the way the minister has decided to announce...the hon. minister has the choice of his means.
Now, lest the member attempt to argue that given the economic nature of the Minister of Finance's speech, everything changes, let me be clear that it does not.
As I said yesterday, the Department of Finance routinely publishes a number of reports and statistics, year-round. The reports include the "Fiscal Monitor", the "Official International Reserves", the "Quarterly Finance Reports" and, occasionally, private sector forecasts received, to name a few. None of these is the subject of speeches delivered in the House by the Minister of Finance. I am sure, in view of the good news they would usually contain, the NDP would undoubtedly, as it did in 2007, refuse necessary consent for an address of that type.
Following a speech given outside of the House by the former finance minister, Paul Martin, a speech that talked about Canada's financial circumstances and the state of the surplus, Deputy Speaker Peter Milliken, as he then was, opened his September 20, 2000, ruling, at page 8414 of the Debates, with these words. He said:
The Chair has listened to the arguments advanced by the hon. members on this point. I have to say that when this particular chair occupant was in opposition I raised the same point. I am familiar with the argument but I am also familiar, unfortunately, with Speakers' rulings on this point, so I have some bad news for the members who raised this issue.
Mr. Milliken's comments echoed those of Mr. Speaker Jerome, at page 2792 of the Debates , on February 1, 1979. He said:
The hon. member for St. John's West, (Mr. Crosbie), raises a familiar question of privilege related to the action of ministers making statements elsewhere. I say it is familiar, because it is as old as the history of parliament.
The question of privilege from the NDP finance critic is just, as I said, an effort by the NDP to distract from the following key facts: that our government's latest tax cuts and benefits represent close to $27 billion back in the pockets of families over this year and the next five years. In fact, we had a vote in the House on a ways and means motion on just that question. Of course, the NDP and the Liberals opposed those measures.
It is also an effort to detract from the fact that every Canadian family with children under the age of 18 will have more money in their pockets because of these tax reductions and benefits and, of course, the good news that the overall federal tax burden is now at its lowest level in over half a century.
These are certainly things the NDP does not want Canadians to know. That is why they do not want the Minister of Finance talking about it anywhere outside Ottawa, anywhere out where Canadians are doing their normal business, anywhere where Canadians are trying to work hard and make ends meet and appreciate the help that our government is delivering to them.
It is disappointing to see the NDP members disguising that effort to distract behind this bogus question of privilege, which is steeped in the irony of the fact that it is only the NDP that has ever refused the consent necessary to have these kinds of statements delivered in the House and now complain that they are not always delivered in the House.
It is quite clear to me, Mr. Speaker, that no prima facie case of privilege can be found in this case. The facts do not support it, history does not support it and certainly any consistency of behaviour from the NDP does not support it.
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when the government House leader made his intervention, I was tempted to stand and impart to you the rule of relevancy. What he said yesterday was not relevant at all to the very eloquent question of privilege that was raised by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.
Today, there is a little more relevance. Much of his talking points seem to be conceived in the Prime Minister's Office, but nowhere in his statement is there any justification in the Standing Orders for hard-working Canadians having to fork over $800 a pop to go listen to the Minister of Finance deliver the fall economic update. Certainly, there is nothing in the Standing Orders that actually allows for that.
Therefore, we have a number of comments from the government House leader, more relevant today than they were yesterday. I would like to come back at some point in today's session, which I know will be a prolonged session, to respond, if we choose to, on a number of the points that were raised today.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
I note the interventions by both members and I look forward to any future ones that may be presented, and will rule in due course.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Protection of Canada from Terrorists ActGovernment Orders
Etobicoke—Lakeshore Ontario
Conservative
Bernard Trottier ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act. Countering terrorism is a key priority of our Conservative government. Events in the Middle East, including the ongoing conflict in Syria and Iraq, as well as the recent tragic events on Canadian soil, have raised the spectre of violent extremism.
These events have only strengthened our resolve as we have heard our law enforcement and intelligence officials speak about the threat posed by extremist travellers and indeed as we have witnessed some very disturbing attacks on our soldiers and on the House.
Our government will do anything we can to prevent Canadians from becoming either victims or perpetrators of terrorism-related activities. Make no mistake, the horrific events that happened in Canada on October 20 and 22 were most certainly terrorism. While the leader of the NDP is entitled to his own opinions, he is not entitled to his own facts.
The Criminal Code clearly states that a terrorist act is one of violence, seeking to create fear for political, religious or ideological ends. The RCMP confirms that both of these events had those elements, and our allies agree. Just yesterday, the President of France confirmed his country's position, as recently did the U.S. Secretary of State that these were terrorist acts.
We continue to be guided by the four-pronged approach laid out in our counterterrorism strategy, namely measures to prevent, detect, deny and respond to the threat of terrorism. I will take my time today to speak about some of the important work being done in support of our strategy, namely in the area of prevention and detection.
In terms of the prevent element, I would note that Public Safety Canada is the lead federal department for addressing the issue of violent extremism and it does so in close collaboration with a number of departments and agencies, in particular, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. An important way to address violent extremism is by preventing it from happening in the first place. Our work to counter violent extremism is predicated on three complementary elements: building community capacity; building law enforcement awareness through training; and developing programs to stop radicalization to violence through early intervention.
There are a number of specific initiatives I could point to here, including in-depth dialogue with communities on radicalization to violence, but I want to emphasize the importance of the work being done under the Kanishka project contribution program.
Named in memory of the victims of Air India Flight 182, our government committed $10 million over five years in support of valuable academic research to help inform our understanding of what we could do to stop terrorism.
Research supported by the project will increase our knowledge of the recruitment methods and tactics of terrorists, which will help produce more effective policies, tools and resources for law enforcement and people on the front lines.
In terms of the detect element, I first want to note that we have had some noteworthy successes in disrupting terrorist plots in our country. Successful arrests, prosecutions and convictions in Canada are a testament to the fact that our national security agencies work effectively with partners and communities. Yet, to be clear, more needs to be done in the areas of surveillance, detention and arrest.
The events of late October this year offered a stark reminder that the status quo simply is unacceptable. Sadly, we had to lose two brave members of the Canadian Armed Forces to have the point hit home that while we must not overreact to the terrorist threat, we certainly must stop under reacting
That is why work to improve our capabilities in support of detection is an area in which the Government of Canada is active. That is, in fact, why we are here today to debate the first step forward.
The Prime Minister has been clear about the need to ensure our security and intelligence community have the tools they need to confront the terrorist threat.
As members may be aware, the legislation before us today contains provisions to update the governing legislation of CSIS, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. There is no question the threats to Canada's security have changed dramatically since the passage of the CSIS Act in 1984. For context, this legislation has not been updated since the first Apple Macintosh was sold.
Given that the threat from terrorism is now more complex and diffuse, this legislation would go a long way toward giving CSIS the clarity it would need to investigate threats to the security of Canada wherever they may occur.
To that end, the proposed legislation contains amendments that would confirm CSIS' authority to investigate threats outside of Canada.
CSIS has always had authority to conduct investigations outside of Canada, because threats to the security of Canada do not stop at our border. However the CSIS Act needs to be clearer in stating this fact. Confirming CSIS' authority would ensure that CSIS has the ability to fully investigate the threat posed by Canadians who travel abroad to engage in terrorist activities. This would help ensure that those individuals would be tracked, investigated, and ultimately prosecuted.
Bill C-44 also contains amendments to help CSIS protect the identity of its human sources in court proceedings, as well as its employees who are likely to engage in covert operational activities in the future.
While we debate Bill C-44, I would like to draw to members' attention a few other important pieces of legislation that only further demonstrate our government's resolve to combatting terrorism.
The Combating Terrorism Act, which came into force in May 2013, makes leaving or attempting to leave Canada for terrorist purposes a criminal offence. Unfortunately, the NDP voted against this common-sense legislation.
Another important tool that we continue to use is the listing of terrorist entities under the Criminal Code. Once a terrorist group is listed as an entity, it becomes a criminal offence for any Canadian to provide financial assistance to the group or to enhance its ability to carry out terrorist activity.
In light of ongoing events in Iraq, the Government of Canada listed ISIL, for example, as a terrorist entity. The listing of terrorist entities facilitates prosecution of both the perpetrators and supporters of terrorism. Given the fact that these groups require money to function, listing is also advantageous in countering terrorist financing.
It is also important to note that Canada works closely with its international allies to confront the terrorist threat. Clearly, the challenges Canada continues to face with respect to terrorism are ones our allies also face, so collaboration with our partners will be key to our counter-terrorism efforts.
In conclusion, I want to assure all Canadians that our government is, as ever, committed to ensuring the safety and security of Canadians at home and abroad. That is what Bill C-44 is all about. I call on all members to support it.
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Mr. Speaker, for my friend across the way, when the government was considering Bill C-44, did it take into consideration the recommendations of Justice O'Connor from the Maher Arar commission and Justice Iacobucci from the investigation into the torture of Abdullah Almalki?
Both of those reports were very significant and very important to Canadians, especially in the area of oversight of Canadian civil rights.
Bernard Trottier Conservative Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Speaker, of course that report was considered. All of the intelligence we have gained over the years and the developments in terrorist activities we have seen in Canada and around the world have led to the formation of this bill.
One of the important conclusions that came from that report and others is the need for clarity, in terms of the role of CSIS and the role of the Federal Court in providing oversight. It is that lack of clarity that can lead to problems; hence the need for Bill C-44. It would give CSIS and other intelligence services a clearer mandate in exactly what their roles and responsibilities are, clearer protection for witnesses and informants, and also a clearer definition of the role of the Federal Court, as well as the oversight bodies, to make sure that these kinds of injustices do not occur in the future.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, the member said that part of the bill would confirm the authority of CSIS as it has been operating, and that is true. We support that.
However in response to the last question, he talked a little about oversight. There are two issues here. One is the proper financial resources for CSIS and others it is connected to under the responsibility of the government to do its job.
We now know that CSIS has lapsed $18.2 million last year. The RCMP has lapsed $158.6 million. Canada Border Services Agency has lapsed $194.2 million. These are monies that were allocated to them and not used. That is a problem, and we had better put our finger on it.
On the oversight the member mentioned, why did the government not seize this opportunity to provide proper parliamentary oversight to all our national security agencies when it brought in this bill? All our Five Eyes partners have parliamentary oversight, and that is something Justice O'Connor looked at as well. Why did the government miss that opportunity to give this House the ability to take its responsibility to provide oversight to those national security agencies?
Bernard Trottier Conservative Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Speaker, there were two questions there. I will talk about the second question first, and then I will try to address the first question.
To the second question on oversight, there actually is very good oversight right now, and multiple levels of oversight. Very independent judges provide that oversight. I would also note that the Liberal Party did nothing to change the oversight of CSIS during its tenure of 13 years in a majority government. Having said that, it actually works quite well. The federal judge who oversees the oversight board has commented that Canadian laws are respected in all of the activities of CSIS.
With respect to the funding of CSIS and making sure Canadians are protected from acts of terrorism, we are getting into the business of appropriations and supply, and lapses of project-based spending. The Government of Canada is committed to investing in our security capabilities. This House should rest assured that we will spend the money necessary to protect Canadians from terrorist activities.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, I would hate for there to be wrong information on the record. The Liberals did, in fact, introduce a bill in 2005 for oversight.
Andrew Cash NDP Davenport, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place on behalf of the good people of Davenport in the great city of Toronto.
The people in my community are watching this debate very carefully. I think it is fair to say that Canadians from coast to coast to coast are watching this debate carefully because we are in an era where we have a government that believes we can treat our civil liberties as a secondary thought to security. The position of New Democrats has always been that we must treat both in equal measure and be as vigilant in protecting civil liberties as we are in protecting security. It is not a question of balance; it is a question of what our values are as Canadians and who we believe we are. These values, which are the foundation of a liberal democracy, are what we are trying to protect and secure. We cannot trade them away in that pursuit.
The NDP's questions around some of the issues in this bill are around oversight, and the questions on oversight exist because we believe there is not a trade-off. This is not an either/or situation. It is not that we have to find a balance, that in order get security right, we may have to clamp down a bit on civil liberties. We do not believe that is the case, and Canadians share those concerns.
I want to focus on a couple of elements of the bill, which are concerns for the community I represent. This flows from other decisions that the government has made around the creation, in a way, of two-tiered citizenship in Canada, where people in Canada could be stripped of their citizenship. The government often says that the NDP is soft on these issues, but in fact, when people break laws in this country, they should go to jail. If they are citizens of Canada, they should go to jail.
I am proud to represent a riding in the west end of Toronto that has huge communities of immigrants. More than half of those who live in Toronto were born elsewhere. They take their belonging to Canada very seriously and are very proud of it. The notion is of grave concern that down the road their status in Canada, through no fault of their own, could be somehow diminished or lessened by legislation and the direction of the government. I hear it in my office; I hear it out on the street; I talk to people all the time who are really very concerned about the government. I am talking about immigrants in Toronto who are very concerned about the government's fixation on picking off certain communities and creating a climate of concern and fear. Quite frankly, it is our role as parliamentarians to elevate the debate, bring out the best in who we are, and bring people together.
The changes to the Canadian Citizenship Act in Bill C-44 would not really provide any major changes, other than accelerating the timelines for citizenship revocation for dual citizens involved in terrorist activities, the process for citizenship revocation that we debated in the House and I am proud that my party opposed. They remain unchanged; it is just the speed with which this can be achieved.
Our citizenship is a precious thing. We have laws in our country to deal with those in our society who break them. Our position has always been that our tinkering with citizenship is a slippery slope, and it is not what we should be doing, especially given the history of our country, the history of immigration in this country, and the successful history of our immigrant communities in Canada. We have a phenomenal story to tell. Our immigrant communities have a phenomenal story to tell.
In light of recent events, the Muslim community in particular in my riding is concerned about being targeted. It is a disturbing reflex of the Conservative government to try to place responsibility for individuals on a whole community. The concern in the Muslim community I represent is real. These are hard-working, honest, proud Canadians, and they abhor violence, just like anyone else in Canadian society. What we are talking about today connects to that concern. It is spoken about in a number of supporting documents, which I would like to underline.
I want to particularly point out comments made by former Justices O'Connor, Major, and Iacobucci at the October 29, 2014 conference called “Arar +10: National Security and Human Rights a Decade Later”:
Retired Supreme Court justice Frank Iacobucci, who investigated the overseas detentions and torture of three Muslim Canadians...warned that history has much to teach legislators....
Iacobucci cautioned about “the spillover effects” that any rush to expand police powers could have on freedom of religion, association and expression; the possible “tainting” of Canada's Muslim community, and the risk of “overreaching” by security intelligence agencies when sharing information in a global fight against terrorism.
It is important for us to bring the issue of what Justice Iacobucci refers to as tainting Canada's Muslim community close to home.
A couple of days after the shooting that took place here, I visited the mosque in my riding. As members may remember, Torontonians were in the middle of a municipal election in Toronto, and Muslim candidates in that election had signs vandalized that day. Muslim candidates were facing threats at public meetings.
It is incumbent upon us as legislators here in the Parliament of Canada to ensure that all Canadians, all people living in Canada, feel safe and feel that their civil liberties are protected and are as important as every other consideration in security.
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that this is my second time rising. In regard to my question to the government a few minutes ago about Justice O'Connor and the recommendations from the Maher Arar inquiry and the recommendations by Justice Iacobucci relative to the Abdullah Almalki case, I would like to ask my friend if, when he reviewed Bill C-44, he saw in the information we have before us any indication that the government followed any of those recommendations. I do not see it.
Andrew Cash NDP Davenport, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very important work on issues of human rights and civil liberties.
Indeed, I have not heard the government speak once about the importance, if we expand the scope of CSIS, of expanding its oversight. This is a very clear gap in this legislation. It is one we will need to close. I believe that we will be advocating quite strongly for that if this bill goes to committee.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any question that this bill should go to committee. In fact, I am on that committee.
The member said he would like to see some amendments. We are not very successful in this Parliament, with government legislation, in having the government actually listen to sensible positions from opposition parties of any stripe. I would give the member the opportunity to talk a little bit about what needs to done and to maybe explain why it is necessary that the government see this as an opportunity to accept an amendment or two and actually improve the legislation.
Andrew Cash NDP Davenport, ON
Mr. Speaker, the issue of civilian oversight of CSIS and our security apparatus is crucial here. Again, it is fundamental to the protection of civil liberties and to the foundation of a liberal democracy to have that civilian oversight. This is not just the opposition speaking. Privacy commissioners across Canada and senior members of the Canadian legal establishment have said the same thing.
We have seen this government steamroll through legislation and in a very determined way not listen to any advice from the opposition. I really hope, especially in light of the tragic events of the last month, that the government does not use those events and the feelings and concern they have created among Canadians to make some serious mistakes with this bill. We will all be working very hard in committee to ensure that this does not happen.
I hope the government proceeds in the spirit of doing what we need to do to preserve, nurture, and enrich civil liberties while maintaining a rigorous security understanding of what we need here in Canada.
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is pleasure to rise today to speak to this important legislation. Bill C-44 is a bill I am proud to support, because it introduces much-needed amendments that will help keep Canadians safe and secure from terrorists. Before highlighting the proposed changes, I would like to have a few moments to situate the bill in a larger context.
Earlier this year, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness released the “2014 Public Report on the Terrorist Threat to Canada”. The report updates Canadians on the terrorist threat in, unfortunately, a sobering way.
In 2013, Canada listed six groups as terrorist entities. There have been four more added so far in 2014, which means that there are currently 53 groups on Canada's terrorist entity list. If I may, I would like to give members one example of a group that was listed in December 2013 and explain why it is a dangerous group.
The Nigerian-based Boko Haram is a group that believes that western education is sinful. Six months ago, it kidnapped some 200 girls from a remote school. Earlier this month, in what can only be described as a toxic and hate-filled video, the leader of Boko Haram put the release of these girls in serious doubt. Horrifically, the leadership of this despicable terrorist organization has talked openly about how these kidnapped girls have been sold off as chattel and given away as sexual objects.
Whether terrorist acts are carried out by entities or individuals, the number of incidents is staggering. In 2013, more than 9,700 terrorist incidents were reported in 93 countries. Some 33,000 people were injured, and nearly 3,000 were abducted or held hostage.
Canadians are at risk. When al Shabaab attacked the Westgate mall in Nairobi last year, they killed 68 people. Among the dead were a Canadian businessman and an employee of the Government of Canada. Through no fault of their own, those two Canadians were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Unfortunately, in our globalized world, where Canadians travel frequently for pleasure and business, it is easier than ever for this to occur.
More disturbing still, the impact of terror on Canadians is not always a matter of coincidence. As the report makes clear, Canadians are not only the victims of terrorism. Unfortunately, in some cases, there are those in Canada who are also the perpetrators.
Members may recall that in the spring of 2013, two men living in Toronto and Montreal were charged with plotting to attack a VIA Rail passenger train. Through the diligence of our security agencies, the attack was thwarted before any damage was done. However, the incident could easily have been a tragedy. A few months later, in Victoria, two other individuals were arrested in connection with a separate plot to bomb the provincial legislature on Canada Day. Thanks to collaboration between intelligence and law enforcement officers, the attack was foiled. Again, this incident could easily have turned out much worse.
I hope these two incidents were a wake-up call to the sceptics. They reaffirmed that the threat of terrorism is not limited to far-flung lands across the ocean. No, these despicable acts could also take place right here on our own soil.
I spoke a moment ago about globalization and how the terrorist threat to Canada continues to evolve, but as the report makes clear, there is also a group of Canadians who travel for the sole purpose of engaging in terrorist activities. They are known by various names: extremist travellers, foreign fighters, or terror tourists. It is a complex phenomenon, but there is one thing that is clear: these extremists pose a threat to innocent people, both here at home and abroad.
Let us look more closely at this emerging trend, because it is closely related to the proposed amendments contained in Bill C-44.
The government knows of approximately 145 individuals with Canadian connections who were abroad and who were suspected of supporting terrorism-related activities of various groups. These activities range from serving in combat to learning how to support terrorism through fundraising, propaganda, and training. Some of these recruits may return home with new skills to spread hatred and, unfortunately, with the resolve to plan and carry out terrorist attacks here in Canada.
What sends a person down the dark road to terrorism? What happens to make someone adopt such extremist views? How can we manage the risks of radicalization more effectively?
These are difficult questions, and they have no simple answers. Nevertheless, our government is taking action to answer these and other difficult questions. In this way, we continue to build resilience to the threat of terrorism in our country, and I will give members several examples.
At the community level, we work through the Cross-Cultural Roundtable on Security to better understand how to combat the appeal of extremist ideologies.
On the policy level, the government released its counterterrorism strategy in 2012. This is a comprehensive road map to help us better prevent, detect, deny, and respond to terrorist threats. On the legislative side, Parliament enacted legislation in 2013 that created four new offences to deter so-called extremist travellers. These are all necessary and positive steps, but we must do more.
This brings me, of course, to Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act.
There are two components of the proposed legislation.
First, the bill before us would amend the CSIS Act to address court decisions that are having an impact on CSIS's mandate and operations. In light of these decisions, our government is acting to ensure that CSIS has the tools it needs to investigate threats to the security of Canada. It is doing this by confirming the authorities granted to CSIS outside of Canada and creating stronger protection for the identities of CSIS's human sources. The amendments proposed in Bill C-44 would ensure that CSIS is able to fully investigate threats in a manner that is consistent with the rule of law and with Canadian law and Canadian values.
The second element of the bill would amend the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, which received royal assent this past summer. Specifically, it would expand grounds for revocation of Canadian citizenship and streamline the process for making these difficult decisions. These provisions are aimed at dual citizens who have served as members of an armed force or an organized armed group engaged in armed conflict with Canada. They also target dual citizens who have been convicted of terrorism, high treason, treason, or spying offences, depending, of course, on the sentence imposed.
The events of recent weeks have certainly brought into sharp focus the fact that Canada is not immune to acts of violence. In fact, we have learned it is far from that. Canadians have been victims of terrorism, and a small but unfortunately notable number are also suspected of supporting terrorism-related activities. We must ensure that our security and intelligence agencies can take reasonable measures at home and abroad to protect the safety and security of Canadians.
The bill before the House today would move us closer toward these goals, and I urge all hon. members to join me in supporting it.
Tyrone Benskin NDP Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way talked about the need to deflect radicalization. As my colleague, the member for Davenport, mentioned earlier, one of the biggest issues for all immigrants is a sense of inclusion in their adopted land. These individuals are vulnerable because they feel a lack of inclusion.
How can the changes to passports or citizenship make individuals feel as if they belong when there will be this perpetual cloud hanging over them because they are “not from here”? I wonder how that would help create a sense of inclusion and how that would help with the non-radicalization of new arrivals in Canada.
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question, but I think he should have taken more note of the remarks I made.
There are two aspects, I believe, to trying to prevent these kinds of acts. Our government has undertaken initiatives to prevent these kinds of instances by trying to ensure that people have the resources necessary. There are programs out there to try to discourage people from becoming radicalized. There certainly have been many efforts in that regard, and I think that issue is what he speaks to.
However, if and when people do involve themselves in these kinds of activities, we have to ensure that we do everything we can to protect Canadians from those kinds of individuals and groups that seek to do them harm.
Unfortunately, I think this is where the NDP really lacks and fails in terms of its ideology. It does not seem to share our thought as a government that it is important to ensure that Canadians are protected from those kinds of individuals.
We even heard it from his leader. His leader denied that these attacks on Canada were acts of terror. Frankly, we all know that they were, in fact, acts of terror. We must do everything we can to protect Canadians and we certainly hope that the NDP will finally get on board and join us in those attempts to protect Canadians.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Wild Rose's remarks. I believe he exaggerates a bit on what the bill would do, because even CSIS itself admits that the bill would really just confirm in law what CSIS is already doing and, hopefully, satisfy the court on it.
However, I have a concern over what the government and CSIS are not doing. They already have the authority, under the Criminal Code, to arrest. In fact, the minister himself said before a committee that these Canadians who have been involved in terrorist acts abroad have broken Canadian law, and the director of CSIS said, that very same day, that CSIS knows where they are.
The government has the authority under the Criminal Code to arrest them, under, I believe, section 83, but it has not used it. I have to ask why not. That is one thing that could be done that it is not doing.
The other point I want to make is that I am pleased the member has shown an interest in finding the root causes of homegrown terrorism. We need to look at that.
I put a bill before the public safety committee to ask the committee to do a study on finding out the cause of these individuals getting into homegrown terrorism in Canada. The bill went into committee and never came out, so I guess the member can figure out what happened.
Does he not think that this Parliament has the responsibility, through its committee system, to do that kind of work, to do that kind of study, and look at the root causes of homegrown terrorism in this country?
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member ask a question of the previous government member who spoke, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, about funding. I want to be very clear that our government has in fact increased funding to CSIS and the RCMP by over one-third. In fact, our government has provided $700 million more than what was provided in the last year the Liberals were in power, so there was certainly a failing on their part.
The bill is another step in the right direction. Is there more we can do? Certainly. I know that the government has committed to doing what needs to be done to ensure we protect Canadians and keep them safe.
I hope the member will join us in those efforts.
Jasbir Sandhu NDP Surrey North, BC
Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to represent the citizens of Surrey North and to speak on their behalf on this particular bill, Bill C-44, which makes some amendments to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.
Basically, this bill would broaden the powers of our intelligence agencies, CSIS and others, so that they have additional powers to carry out their work.
Defending public safety and civil liberties are key responsibilities of any government. I hope the Conservative government will take these responsibilities seriously when it comes to Canadians' safety and, equally, will carefully examine the civil liberties we have as Canadians.
Moving forward, we must do the hard work of ensuring Canadians' safety while guarding our values of freedom, tolerance, and inclusive democracy. As parliamentarians, as elected officials from our communities, we also have an equal responsibility to carefully review laws, security procedures, and legislation to make sure that we get them right the first time.
However, we have seen the government rush things through a number of times. This particular bill is under time allocation, and I will talk about that in a second.
The government tries to rush these things through, but as representatives of Canadian citizens, we have a responsibility to ensure that we go through any legislation that passes through this House with a fine-toothed comb. We are going to make sure the work is done responsibly and that there is careful study and evidence-based decision-making.
My friends across the aisle do not like to make evidence-based policy. We have seen that over and over. It is not only that a number of court cases and legislation have been thrown out by the Supreme Court, but sometimes the government picks numbers out of the air. We have seen the census eliminated by the government because it does not believe in actual numbers that will show Canadians what is happening.
The Minister of Employment and Social Development and his department have used numbers from Kijiji. For those who may not be familiar with Kijiji, it is—