Mr. Speaker, ironically, I am rising to pursue a question on a bill that has now passed the House but is still before the Senate, so I think it is relevant to take up the issues relating to Bill C-51.
It is ironic to revisit this question. Let me share with the House what transpired on February 6 in question period. I asked the hon. Minister of Justice about two aspects of Bill C-51. One aspect related to the use of the word “lawful” to qualify protests in describing those exclusions from activities that might be seen to threaten the security of Canada. The second dealt with the new powers given to CSIS agents.
I used the word “ironic” in referring to the first part, and it will become evident when I repeat my question of February 6 for the Minister of Justice relating to the use of the word “lawful”. I asked:
Will [the Minister of Justice] amend the act to ensure that non-violent civil disobedience is precluded from the ambit of the act?
To that part of my question, the Minister of Justice responded by saying:
...protections against lawful protest [are already] covered by the act. This would not pose a threat to individuals who engage in lawful assembly.
Of course, my question was very specifically about the question of non-violent civil disobedience and protest that was, by definition, not lawful.
Time has passed, and we are all aware that in the clause-by-clause study, it was the Conservative members of the committee who, anticipating that this was a simply untenable piece of legislation and that the language used in the section would not work, actually made the change that I was requesting. In a rare instance in this place, I can say that although the Minister of Justice on February 6 denied that there was any problem with the word “lawful”, in the end that word was removed to ensure, or at least to increase the likelihood, that people engaged in non-violent civil disobedience would not be caught up in the ambit of the act.
The second point remains quite relevant. The second question that I asked the Minister of Justice was:
...please explain to the House the purpose of part 4, clause 42, that in taking measures to reduce the threat to the security of Canada, CSIS shall not “violate the sexual integrity of an individual...”
I was cut off at the end of the question, but I was trying to ask him why such a section would be included. His response was to say that:
...the mandate of CSIS [is] not extending beyond its lawful authority and, of course, being subject to judicial oversight.
Let me pause for a moment on the Minister of Justice's claim that Bill C-51 includes judicial oversight. It clearly does not. Many witnesses testified to this extent and to this point.
Judges are involved in the section that I related to the minister. Clearly, a judge is involved. A judge is allowed to grant a warrant to a CSIS agent to break domestic law or to violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but that is not judicial oversight. It means there would be secret hearings at which only government would be represented. There would be no special advocates to ensure that the public interest is protected. Moreover, there would be no opportunity for the judge to ensure that the warrant that he or she would issue would be executed properly or appropriately. As well, there would be no ongoing oversight of any kind over CSIS' activities, now that they have been empowered by the House but not yet by the Senate to engage in disruption activities, nor would there be any oversight over security operations, in particular between the RCMP, CSIS, CSEC, and Canada Border Services Agency.
This is where the risk lies. These different security agencies would operate without knowledge of what the others are doing, thereby making us less safe.