Mr. Speaker, when we had the vote earlier today on the adjournment motion, we had a request for a clarification from the member for Ottawa—Orléans about the behaviour of the member for Winnipeg Centre during the vote. We had a ruling by the Speaker, which I think is going to prove to be very problematic without clarification that one should be in one's seat when the motion is read, throughout the voting, and right up until the count is made. One could read the Speaker's ruling as being quite different, and I do not think there was an intent to make a new precedent at that time.

Could you please clarify for everyone assembled that there is no change to the procedure for voting and that we are expected to be here from the time of the reading of the motion until the announcement of the count of the vote?

Procedure During VotesPoints of OrderGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, what the chief government whip is doing he knows he cannot do, and that is challenge a decision made by the Chair. He knows that is improper. He knows he should not be doing that. The ruling of the Chair stands, and so let us move on.

Procedure During VotesPoints of OrderGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I will undertake to take a look at the situation that occurred and come back to the House if necessary.

I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings of the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

The House resumed from February 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-51, An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders

12:55 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of my remarks, I intend to move a motion.

It is with a genuine sense of disappointment that I rise to speak against Bill C-51, the anti-terrorism act, 2015. I am particularly disappointed to be doing it under time allocation, which will have the effect of not allowing many of my colleagues to actually speak to this important bill. It will also have the effect of making it difficult for Canadians to understand the full extent of what is in this bill.

This is a very important bill. I would remind all of us that all of Canada, and indeed much of the world, was shocked at the deaths of two Canadian soldiers here at home last October. Certainly those deaths, along with the attack on Parliament Hill, were sobering for all of us.

All of us here in the House, and I believe all Canadians, were proud to see their MPs back at work the next morning, standing together in our determination not to be cowed by violence. At that time, all of us made the commitment to work together to meet the terrorist threats Canada now faces in this new world we live in.

What happened to those lofty promises to work together? Just days later, when the new CSIS bill, Bill C-44, was introduced, suddenly the government, by itself, had all the answers. The government argued that the urgency of the threat meant that there was no time for debate at second reading, no time for a full study at the public safety committee, and no time for serious consideration of amendments put forward by the official opposition.

New Democrats supported Bill C-44 at second reading, still hoping the government was serious about co-operation between the government and the opposition on this important topic, still hoping that there would be adequate time for debate and consideration of amendments to improve the bill.

We ended up voting against that bill, a bill of questionable constitutionality in its attempt to have judges authorize illegal activities abroad and a bill without an ounce of improvement in CSIS oversight, despite granting new powers to CSIS. It was also a bill lacking any direct connection to the events of October. The government said to wait for the next bill.

Here we are, four months later, with a new bill in front of us. Unfortunately, this is another bill of questionable constitutionality, this time attempting to get judges to authorize illegal and unconstitutional activities right here at home. As well, it is another bill without an ounce of improvement in oversight of our security agencies.

However, this bill goes even further. This is a bill that will wreak havoc on the privacy rights of all Canadians in the name of threats to national security. Further, it is a bill that contains definitions so broad and so far-reaching that it risks lumping together legitimate dissent with terrorism. It is at one and the same time broad, dangerously vague, and most likely ineffective in confronting the threats we face. This is a bill that still lacks any direct link to the actual events we faced in October or the ongoing threats we face today.

The government has rushed ahead with this bill and with changes to security on the Hill, again without consultation, and without even waiting for full reports on the October incidents. It is my understanding that when the Prime Minister was asked at his campaign-style event in Richmond Hill, where he unveiled this bill, instead of in the House of Commons, where it should have taken place, whether this bill would have prevented either of the October events, he had to say that he was not sure.

New Democrats have given this bill careful consideration before coming to our decision to oppose it in principle. We have consulted broadly with groups potentially most directly affected by this bill, with legal experts, and with our constituents when back in our ridings last week.

We have repeatedly asked the government to explain what some of the broad wording in this bill would cover and what specific new security actions will be authorized by this bill, all to no avail. The response more often that not has consisted of reciting general talking points about the severity of the threats we face, in a transparent attempt to use fear to marshal support for its bill, support that it obviously hopes will carry through to the ballot box.

We have not taken this decision to oppose Bill C-51 lightly. We have done our due diligence before pronouncing on a bill that would make major changes to over two dozen pieces of legislation and that would potentially have major impacts on privacy rights, rights to peaceful dissent, and fundamental freedoms, like freedom from detention without charge.

It will clearly have impacts on Muslim Canadians in particular because of the unfortunate tendency of the government to stray into Islamophobic rhetoric and bizarre claims by the Minister of Justice that terrorism is somehow culturally based.

It will clearly have an impact on those concerned with climate change and other environmental issues, especially when read in concert with the RCMP's 44-page memo on so-called anti-petroleum activists, a memo that, just as this bill does, tends to lump together both dissent and extremist and violent activities.

Neither the Muslim community nor environmental activists or first nations activists will be surprised to find themselves targets of the new measures in this bill. What I hope Canadians will come to understand is that it is not just the Conservative government's tendency to divide Canadians that makes some of us targets of this bill; it is the tendency of the government to overreach that makes all of us potential casualties of this bill.

Let us look at the changes the government is proposing that would have the biggest impact. Here I would start with part 1 of the bill, entitled “Security of Canada Information Sharing Act”. I believe that this part of the bill would have the broadest potential impacts for all Canadians.

This bill would allow all federal departments and agencies to share information that may be relevant to national security with Canadian intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The NDP agrees that government departments and agencies should be able to share information about real threats to public safety, but it must be done with appropriate safeguards that do not catch innocent Canadians in the net.

The Privacy Commissioner has expressed concerns that this bill would allow the information of many law-abiding Canadians to be collected and shared with a long list of other government agencies and used for purposes other than those for which it was collected. This would clearly undermine a fundamental principle of our privacy rights when it comes to the government's use of our personal information. Many of the departments and agencies that would now be allowed to share information do not have adequate privacy protections in place, nor do they have any oversight mechanisms governing their information sharing activities.

A second aspect of this bill with very broad implications is the section granting new powers to CSIS. They are powers that would change the nature of CSIS as an organization, moving it from being an intelligence gathering agency to an active arm of the government in opposing threats to security and to the economy, infrastructure, and a wide list of activities, which potentially raises the question of whether the government would be able to use CSIS for political purposes.

This rolls back the clock more than 30 years and ignores the lessons of the McDonald Commission, which resulted in the creation of CSIS. It abandons the important lesson that combining intelligence gathering activities with disruption activities not only is mostly ineffective but almost inevitably leads to the kind of sordid activities the RCMP engaged in in the 1970s in Quebec. These kinds of activities undermine public confidence in police and security agencies, and when we undermine public confidence in these agencies, we undermine the very co-operation with the public that is necessary for their success.

Bill C-51 would now give CSIS the ability to conduct threat disruption. These provisions would allow CSIS to take measures at home and abroad to disrupt threats when CSIS decides that it has “reasonable grounds to believe” that there is a threat to the security of Canada. Activities to disrupt threats that would contravene a right or freedom guaranteed under the charter would require CSIS to seek authorization from a judge. However, here is the important point on this question. The government likes to say that this amounts to oversight of CSIS activities. The point I would raise is that CSIS would not require a warrant for any and all disruption activities, only those that CSIS itself judged might involve illegal or unconstitutional activities. Once a judge issued a warrant, the judge would have no further oversight role over what CSIS did with that warrant.

If we look carefully at the Mosley decision, we see that the judge said that not only was CSIS not fully forthright in the material it presented to the court to get a warrant but that once it had the warrant, it did not carry the warrant out in the manner it had prescribed to the judge. In other words, it did not do what it said it would do with the warrant.

For me, the important point is that it would still be left for CSIS to decide if the warrant application was necessary, and it would be left to CSIS to decide on its own and without oversight what activities that warrant authorized and how it would carry them out. As I mentioned, CSIS's record before the courts leaves much to be desired on this point.

When asked in question period, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has been unable or unwilling to provide examples of the kinds of activities that would be allowed under threat disruption. We have asked him repeatedly to give us a single example of what those kinds of thing are.

The presumption always is that disruption activities would always be illegal or unconstitutional, but we know quite well that this bill would authorize CSIS to do things like shut down someone's Internet service, maybe shut off someone's phone service, or conduct surveillance on private conversations carried out in public places.

There are all kinds of things here that will not require a warrant, and there are all kinds of things, as I said, that we would leave to CSIS to decide if a warrant were even required. Remember, the power to disrupt includes giving CSIS the right to enter any place, open or obtain access to anything, as well as obtain or copy any document, install or remove anything, and to do any other thing that is reasonably necessary to take those measures. I submit that this is a pretty broad mandate when it comes to these activities.

In other words, in taking measures to reduce a threat, Bill C-51 would give CSIS a free rein. It would only prohibit CSIS from killing or causing bodily harm, violating the sexual integrity of an individual, or obstructing justice.

I know that those provisions were put in to reassure us, but I do not find it very reassuring that those are the only limitations on CSIS' disruption activities. These are not very robust limits for an organization carrying out secret activities, and not very reassuring for an agency with such weak oversight and review.

The government always likes to say that there is active, robust oversight of CSIS, pointing to the activities of SIRC. However, it is not just a technical point to say that when the government eliminated the position of inspector general in CSIS, it actually eliminated the one independent officer who provided oversight in real time of the activities of CSIS. It was the mandate of the inspector general of CSIS to make sure that CSIS' activities conformed to the law. Those responsibilities have in theory been transferred to SIRC, which has no capacity and no access to the information it would need to provide that kind of active oversight, and to make sure that CSIS were always acting legally.

I will refrain from talking about whether those appointed to SIRC have always been the best appointees, because of the limited amount of time I have. However, I only need to mention Arthur Porter. Also, I would question whether part-time appointees and non-specialists can be expected to successfully carry out the kind of oversight we need for a body like this.

If we look at the last annual report of SIRC, SIRC itself said similar things to Justice Mosley. It said that CSIS did not always provide full and timely information when SIRC was trying to investigate CSIS activities. It said that in some cases, CSIS had not been fully forthright in providing information to its review body. Therefore, we do not have robust oversight and review; we have problematic oversight and review, and now we would expect that same body to take on oversight of this much broader mandate we would give CSIS.

A third aspect of the bill that has broad implications is the provision that criminalizes the promotion of terrorism and the related provision that authorizes the removal of online terror propaganda. Bill C-51 would make it a criminal offence to knowingly advocate and promote “...the commission of terrorist offences in general”. This provision is designed to make the general promotion of terrorism an offence, in addition to the existing legislation that outlaws advocacy of specific terrorist acts. The new offence would be punishable by a prison term of up to five years.

Again, when the leader of the opposition asked the government to give us an example of what would now be illegal but is not already illegal under existing legislation, a question that I think he asked five times, he did not get an answer from the government. However, such a provision would certainly place a chill on free speech by its very enactment. It would also lower the threshold for what is considered promotion of terrorism.

The existing hate propaganda section of the Criminal Code criminalizes communication that advocates violence, where such incitement is likely to lead to breach of the peace. Why is that not adequate? Certainly we have seen RCMP able to lay terrorism charges frequently, and very recently here in Ottawa. Again, we ask, why is this new much broader provision needed?

Under the new provision, a person may be convicted if their statements are simply “being reckless” as to whether or not any of these offences may be committed. Again, this new offence would expand the existing Criminal Code offence, which makes promoting a specific terrorist act a crime, without explaining how this would help reduce threats to our security.

There is always a danger when we have limited resources—and certainly, the current government has severely limited the resources available to both the RCMP and CSIS—and when we spread the net too wide that we will miss the real terrorists, that we will miss the real threats to society, because we will not have enough resources to actually take on the hard work necessary to identify them. As one person said, “Searching for terrorists is like looking for a needle in a haystack and the last thing we need people doing is adding extra hay”. To me, when we spread this broad net, we start adding extra hay that makes it much more difficult to identify the real and urgent threats to our security.

Under the new law, a judge would be able to order Internet service providers, website administrators, and so on to remove any material when he or she has grounds to believe that the material might be terrorist propaganda. The judge could also order the custodian of a computer network to provide the court with information about who posted it. Moreover, the court would be able to order the seizure of physical materials. In both cases the authors or owners of the materials could appeal the decision before the material is destroyed.

This brings back shades of the old government bill that sparked the creation of the “tell Vic everything” campaign, by its expansion of government access to information about the online activity of perhaps any of us.

The inclusion of amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act also raise the question about how the government is proposing to spend the limited resources police and security agencies have. Again, in Richmond Hill, I understand that the Prime Minister was asked whether the bill would apply to teenagers in their parents' basement. He said yes. My question is, do we really want to waste time chasing kids in basements at the possible cost of letting the real terrorists slip through an overfull net?

A fourth element of the bill that should raise general concerns is the changes to preventative arrests and peace bonds, which threaten one of our most fundamental rights, the right to freedom from detention without charge.

I have heard many people comment that this is something that has been in place for something like 800 years in our legal system. Again, there is a serious question of what value this new provision has, especially when weighed against its negative aspects.

We should remember that legislation allowing for preventative arrests was first adopted under the Liberals after the events of September 11, 2001. This allowed police to detain someone for up to three days without laying charges. However, between 2001 and 2007, that clause was never used, before sun-setting in that latter year. Nonetheless, it was reinstated by the Conservatives in 2013.

Now, Bill C-51 proposes to lower the threshold required for a judge to authorize preventative detention from reasonable grounds that a terrorist activity “will” be carried out to “may” be carried out. The RCMP would now need to establish only that a terrorist activity might happen, instead of the previous grounds that there was some certainty that the person would commit a terrorist act. One lawyer described to me that what we had in the previous preventative detention was the lowest possible evidentiary standard, and now we are lowering that.

While keeping in mind that law enforcement agencies never found the preventative arrest provisions useful, we also need to remember the historical record of Canada on detention in times of crisis. Japanese Canadians were interned on the west coast despite the lack of any evidence at the time, or thereafter, of a single Japanese Canadian aiding the enemy in World War II. Ukrainian Canadians were similarly interned. At the time of the FLQ crisis in Quebec, hundreds of Quebeckers were arrested and detained without charge, and no one so detained was ever charged with, let alone convicted of, a criminal offence.

Certainly fears of political injustices resulting from the interaction of this bill with the apparent ongoing practices of racial profiling in Canada will need to be addressed.

Therefore, I am voting against the bill and hope that we can have a full airing of the issues. However, we have not had a very good indication of that today with the introduction of time allocation. I remain disappointed that the Liberals have given the government a blank cheque on Bill C-51, offering their support for the bill even if it is unamended.

Do I have confidence that the government will listen to evidence, experts, or the communities affected by this bill? Frankly, I do not. Therefore, I move:

That, the motion be amended by deleting all the words after “That” and substituting the following:

this House declines to give second reading to 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, because it: (a) threatens our way of life by asking Canadians to choose between their security and their freedoms; (b) was not developed in consultation with other parties, all of whom recognize the real threat of terrorism and support effective, concrete measures to keep Canadians safe; (c) irresponsibly provide CSIS with a sweeping new mandate without equally increasing oversight; (d) contains definitions that are broad, vague and threaten to lump together legitimate dissent with terrorism; and (e) does not include the type of concrete, effective measures that have been proven to work, such as working with communities on measures to counter radicalization of youth.

Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON

Mr. Speaker, that party opposite voted to keep travel for a terrorist purpose legal. Those members voted to allow convicted terrorists to keep their citizenship. They voted to stop our security agencies from co-operating with our allies, and now they have expressed concerns about this important and timely legislation.

Could the member tell me what, if any, national security legislation he and his party would support?

Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders

1:15 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Mr. Speaker, as I tried to make clear in my speech, we already have adequate provisions to combat terrorism, and the government has failed to show us where those gaps are and how the measures it is proposing would address those gaps.

At the risk of the other side accusing me of naivety on terrorism, I have a considerable amount of experience working internationally. I was present in East Timor at the referendum for independence, when the Indonesian military-sponsored militias killed more than 1,500 people and destroyed virtually the entire infrastructure of a nation. I worked on a peace-building project in Ambon, Indonesia, when the market was bombed, the very market that my partner had just set out for, but luckily to which he was a few minutes late. I worked in Afghanistan for four months in 2002 when hundreds were killed or maimed by roadside bombs laid by the Taliban. In 2010, I was an election observer in Muslim Mindanao where there were three casualties at the polling station where I worked.

What I learned from these experiences is that preventing the use of violence and terrorism is a difficult and complex task. There is never a silver bullet, nor are any two situations exactly alike. What was most effective most often was old-fashioned front-line police investigation, which is human resource intensive, demanding high skills and dedication from the police and security forces involved.

Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders

1:20 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the member outlined a number of concerns in his remarks that do need to be addressed, but I really am surprised by the amendment to the motion. I do believe that the threat level is heightened, and at a time of threats to our country, we should be coming together in this place and bringing in a bit of sanity. The government should allow democracy to work and allow amendments. I am surprised that the NDP would put an amendment forward that basically attempts to throw the bill out and that would, therefore, put our national security at risk.

The NDP also calls fairly strongly for proper oversight. In 2004, the current Minister of Justice and the Minister of State for Finance were on an all-party committee that called for that oversight. In 2009, there was another committee, which the member for Yorkton—Melville chaired, and which the member for Northumberland—Quinte West was on, as was the member for Oxford. There were actually six Conservative MPs on that committee, which also called for oversight similar to what we called for in 2004. It was with respect to Bill C-81.

Does the member have any idea why the Conservative members now seem to take for granted what the Prime Minister says, that SIRC is enough? Why do they not not want to fight for proper oversight of all of our national security agencies? That is what Canadians are demanding.

Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders

1:20 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Mr. Speaker, I first want to say that I have the utmost respect for the hon. member for Malpeque as a colleague here in the House. However, the Liberals keep trying this diversionary tactic of talking about oversight when they have already promised to support the bill even if oversight is not added to the bill. Therefore, I want to go back to the first part of his remarks with respect to why I would move such a motion.

I would like to know why the Liberals would support such a bill without reservation and why they have given a blank cheque to the government. This is a bill that would be ineffective in addressing the threats we face on a daily basis yet puts our personal privacy rights and many of our freedoms at risk. It also creates a whole new category of activities for CSIS, which the Liberals will now be voting for despite the fact that there would be no oversight for these kinds of disruptive activities.

Therefore, I throw it back to the member. I do not understand why we do not hold the government to its word and ask it to work together with the opposition parties to come up with measures that would be effective against terrorism and do what needs to be done, not this broad, sweeping bill, which to me seems to be designed for political purposes. The government actually tipped its hand by announcing it at a campaign-style rally in Richmond Hill instead of here in the House where it belonged.

Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders

1:20 p.m.

NDP

Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for his excellent speech. I thank him not just for his excellent speech, but also because we have the opportunity to work together on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

I am very proud to second his motion today and to see the incredible work we do as the official opposition when it comes to a bill like Bill C-51.

In his speech, he mentioned that we are very aware that terrorism is a real threat to everyone. We agree that public safety is, or should be, one of the top priorities of any government in the world. However, Bill C-51 does not directly tackle the problem. My colleague pointed out that the bill is too broad, does not necessarily address the real problems, does not provide the right tools and does not really deal with what we should be targeting.

As we mentioned during the questions and comments in the debate on the time allocation motion, we have realized that the more people learn about the content of Bill C-51 and the more they understand the consequences of this bill, the less they agree with the government's position.

What does my colleague think about the fact that the Conservatives have decided to shut down such an important debate and refuse to let MPs talk about this extremely important issue? Why are they muzzling us when they do not have as much support as they thought? People are realizing that Bill C-51 is not such a good bill.

Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan for her remarks and her support for my motion.

We on this side of the House took some time to study the bill and to consult with our constituents and talk to experts in the field. Many of us learned a lot about the bill that we would like to share in this House. One of the important functions of the House of Commons is that when we have debate on measures like this, which are so important both to national security and to civil liberties, it allows the public to understand the bill and what is going on here. Therefore, as I said at the beginning of my speech, I am disappointed to see time allocation, which will prevent many of my colleagues from participating in this debate.

I also wonder whether another purpose of time allocation is to ensure that the Conservative members on the other side do not have to stand up and speak to this and do not have to answer questions about the bill. That is the other side of what happens when we have this near closure of debate, with only really two more days in this House, on such an important law.

Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have served on the committee the hon. member referred to for some nine years now, and I can say that we have had a lot of debates on a lot of issues.

I have looked at this. The member said that they have had time to consult on it. The New Democrats were saying no to it almost from the minute the bill entered this House, so it is somewhat inaccurate to say something otherwise.

I will provide a scenario for my constituents. Let us say there are two people with Canadian citizenship in a foreign country where there is some unrest and we know terrorism exists. They want to leave the country, so they go to the airport and see a CBSA official and state that, according to international law, as citizens they have the right to re-enter their country. That official must immediately agree, which is a good thing. However, the official then sees something that causes him or her to believe there is a possibility that these two individuals may have been engaged in a terrorist activity in that country and may be coming back to Canada.

Under the current legislation the CBSA official cannot go next door to where there is an RCMP officer to voice his or her concern so that something can be done about it, because the current legislation does not allow for that. All this bill would do is allow, under the Privacy Act, that official to talk to that RCMP officer to ensure that something is done about it to remove that fear. That is one of the simple things this legislation would do, and I do not know why the opposition is so fundamentally and ideologically against this bill.

Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Northumberland—Quinte West for his comments. I have worked with him on the public safety committee, and I know him to be a member of great integrity. I value his experience and his views.

However, he is incorrect to say that we were opposed to the bill all along. We said we had concerns about the bill and we were exploring them. We did so and reached a very considered decision about our support for the bill.

I have to say something about the scenarios that government members keep bringing up, these imaginary examples. It reminds me of what my grandmother used to say, “If wishes were horses, we'd all take a ride”. It is very difficult to deal with these theoretical examples, which is too strong a word. It is not an example, but a very cloudy view of the existing legislation.

I would submit that, with most of these scenarios, we actually do have the power to address them. The RCMP and CSIS have been doing a very good job of addressing those threats under the existing legislation.

Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

Richmond Hill Ontario

Conservative

Costas Menegakis ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech today, I will inform you that I will be splitting my time with my friend and colleague, the hard-working, esteemed member representing the great riding of Medicine Hat.

Today I rise to speak to the anti-terrorism act, 2015, which I am proud to say was announced in my home town, the great town of Richmond Hill. I will be speaking specifically to those provisions regarding the passenger protect program and how we are working to guard our aviation industry from terrorist attacks.

From its beginnings in the 1900s, flight has always been connected to risk. In the early days, poor navigational devices meant that pilots had to fly close enough to the earth to navigate, using roads and railways during the day and relying on bonfires lit in fields on poorly lit days when visibility was bad or, indeed, at night. It is not surprising that fatal accidents were common.

Today, thanks to advances in navigation, aerodynamics, aircraft design, and digital technology, our aviation system is one of the safest ways to travel, and it is a method of travel that Canadians have embraced, particularly given our vast geographic size. However, we face a rapidly changing threat landscape that can and has had an impact on aviation security.

As we know, terrorists have made a point of targeting airplanes because these attacks offer a large number of potential victims, have a high economic impact, and lead to widespread publicity to feed their propaganda machines. From hijackings to bombings, we have seen terrorist groups target the aviation system throughout the past many decades. The incidents and dates are clearly imprinted on our minds. I remind the House of the bombing of Air India flight 182 in 1985, the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988, the attacks that destroyed four planes and killed thousands of people on September 11, 2001; and of course, there were the failed attempts, such as the shoe bomber on a flight headed to Miami in December 2001, the underwear bomber on a flight headed to Detroit in December 2009, and the printer cartridges rigged with explosives originating in Yemen in 2010.

Each of these attacks and near misses has meant another shift in airline security. Many of these are physical security measures: restrictions on the amount of liquids brought onboard, the scanning of all baggage, removing shoes to go through security, requirements to undergo physical searches or body scans as requested by airport security agents. Other measures include the scanning of passports and other travel documents to confirm citizenship and identification and the provision of basic information to transportation security agencies when booking flights that travel through United States airspace

Like many of its allies, Canada has a program in place to protect air travellers by, for instance, denying boarding to specified individuals who pose a threat to aviation security. That is the passenger protect program, to which I will return in a moment.

These measures were put in place with one clear purpose: to keep our aviation system safe. That means guarding against immediate threats to airplanes and protecting the lives of airline crew and passengers, not to mention citizens who may find themselves in the pathway of a compromised airplane, such as we saw on that fateful day, 9/11. Today, however, terrorist incidents around the world are forcing us to once again re-evaluate our aviation security and look beyond the immediate threat to an airplane.

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

One of the gravest threats to global security is the phenomenon of terrorist travel: individuals who travel by air to regions of unrest and violence to engage in terrorist activities. These individuals do not pose an immediate threat to an airplane. Indeed, they want their flight to be safe and uneventful so that they can reach their destinations.

While these violent extremists are not an immediate threat to an airplane or to passengers when they travel, they do pose a significant danger to those people living in the countries where they undergo their training and terrorist activities and in the countries in which they want to perpetrate their crimes. Moreover, there is a great risk that they will return to their home country to test out their newly acquired skills by plotting and carrying out attacks on innocent civilians.

In order to meet this shifting threat, Canada's passenger protect program itself must evolve. The legislation before us includes measures that would expand and strengthen this program, allowing us to address the threat of terrorist travel.

First and foremost, we would expand the program's mandate so it would focus on two key areas: stopping threats to aviation security and preventing individuals from travelling by air for certain terrorist purposes. These include training, recruiting or conducting terrorist attacks in another location. The full scope of these activities would be aligned with the new Criminal Code offences on terrorist travel that were brought in under the Combating Terrorism Act.

We also propose to strengthen the program's legislative framework. This means clearly defining the authorities of both the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Minister of Transport.

We will make it clear in law that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has the authority to identify and list individuals who pose a threat to aviation security as well as those suspected to be travelling for terrorist purposes; determine the appropriate measures in each case, an authority currently held by the Minister of Transport; provide administrative recourse to individuals who are denied boarding under the program; and share the specified persons list, in whole or in part, as needed with foreign states in support of the program's mandate.

The Minister of Transport will have the authority to communicate with air carriers, including sharing information about individuals listed under the program to air carriers flying to, within and from Canada; monitor industry compliance with the program; and regulate civil aviation in general, including overall security of the aviation system.

To support its expanded mandate, the passenger protect program will also include an expanded range of response measures that can be used other than denial of boarding. These could include additional physical screening of specified individuals and coordination with the RCMP in-flight security officers. All actions would be undertaken proportionate to the perceived risk posed by the individual.

We will also put in place a streamlined appeal process. In effect, we will establish clearly defined procedures for appeal of decisions and actions related to the passenger protect program. This means that one Federal Court judge could protect and rely upon classified information in making his or her decision. This is similar to procedures already in place for judicial review of ministerial decisions about listing terrorist entities and denying charitable status to organizations that support terrorists.

As members can see, an enhanced passenger protect program would allow Canada to better address terrorist travel by air. We firmly believe that not only do we have an obligation to our citizens but also to our global allies to do everything we can to prevent individuals from leaving and returning to Canada for terrorist purposes. This is what this legislation is intended to do: to stop terrorists before they can perpetrate terror on innocent civilians in Canada and abroad.

The changes I have itemized would provide firm backing for our approach, and we must act now to put these changes in place. I hope the New Democrats will put aside their opposition to criminalizing this kind of terrorist activity, including terrorist travel, and that the Liberals will put aside their opposition to revoking citizenship from terrorists. I hope all members can come together to support this important legislation. At the end of the day, we all want a safer Canada and we all want to keep Canadians safe.

Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders

1:35 p.m.

NDP

Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-51 is broad in scope—too broad. If the Conservatives want to deal with radicalization and the serious and complex problem of terrorism in the world, then they need carefully targeted tools, rather than broad measures like the ones they are introducing.

I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary a question. I doubt he will be able to answer me since, unfortunately, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety could not, but I will try anyway.

Bill C-51 indicates that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service will be able to disrupt or intercept any threat to the Canadian economy or infrastructure, among other things. I would like the parliamentary secretary to tell us exactly what is being targeted.

Can he explain to us what exactly constitutes a threat to Canada's security when it comes to its infrastructure and economy? I am asking for just one example.

Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders

1:40 p.m.

Conservative

Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is perplexing to hear NDP members so ideologically stuck in this partisan view all the time when we bring forward legislation that is meaningful legislation for Canadians. I know the member is a member for Parliament from Quebec. Quebeckers overwhelmingly support this legislation.

The international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada. Canadians are being targeted by jihadist terrorists simply because these terrorists hate our society. I need not remind the member of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent who was run over simply because he was wearing the uniform in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu.

With respect to the specific question on threat disruption, an example of threat disruption could be as simple as speaking to the family of a radicalized individual to dissuade him or her from a dangerous path or by impersonating and discrediting a terror traveller facilitator online.

A number of things can be done that we as Canadians have a responsibility to bring to the attention of authorities, including CSIS. Let us break down these silos, these barriers between departments so we can stop these threats from threatening Canadians from coast to coast to coast.