Debates of Feb. 19th, 2015

Anti-terrorism Act, 2015

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are a country that holds a strong belief in equality, human rights, and the rule of law. Therefore, I would like to begin my comments today by making a statement that may seem obvious but that some in this House would deem to be controversial. The international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada. Canadians are being targeted by jihadi terrorists simply because these terrorists hate our society and the values we represent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

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

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

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

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. The member has exceeded his time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Churchill.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

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

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

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

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

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

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

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

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

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

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

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

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

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is the end of the quote by Professor Forcese.

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

Professor Forcese continues:

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

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

That is the end of the quote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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

The hon. member for Halifax.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

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

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

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

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

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

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

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

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

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

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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

The hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East.