Ali Ehsassi

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 30th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for raising that critical issue.

We think it is imperative that the Canadian public has confidence in this committee. It is significant that the Prime Minister will only make appointments to this committee after consulting with members opposite, with leaders of the opposition parties, and of course with the Senate.

The member brought up the issue of Bill C-51. I can assure him that we also had misgivings about it. For that reason, we introduced 10 amendments at the time, but of course, only three were adopted. What we have sought to do in the proposed legislation is to balance the rights and civil liberties of Canadians with security interests. I think we have struck the right balance.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 30th, 2016]

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The member opposite has raised the issue of accountability. I would like to remind the member that in making appointments to this committee the Prime Minister is obliged to both consult with the leaders of the opposition as well as the Senate. In so doing, it will ensure that only four members out of nine will be constituted out of members of the government.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 30th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the member opposite for raising this significant issue. It is interesting to note that he is acknowledging that there was an absence of a framework in Canada previously.

To rectify the situation, we looked at models adopted by other allies, crucially, the Five Eyes. Of course, it would have been impossible for us to adopt a framework that would simply cut and paste provisions that have been adopted by the other Five Eyes. In this particular instance, obviously there are variations between our framework and those of the other Five Eyes.

What you were speaking of was the issue of accountability. You will note, should you scrutinize the proposed legislation closely—

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 30th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to rise today in support of Bill C-22, an act to establish the national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians.

The proposed legislation fulfills a key campaign promise of the 2015 election, and represents a thoughtful and long overdue modernization of Canada's security framework.

Allow me to begin by referring to the Prime Minister's mandate letter to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, which unambiguously referenced the overarching goal of “keeping Canadians safe”. It reads:

This goal must be pursued while protecting the rights of Canadians, and with an appreciation that threats to public security arise from many sources, including natural disasters, inadequate regulations, crime, terrorism, weather-related emergencies, and public health emergencies.

What we are discussing here today is at the intersection of defence policy, foreign policy, and national security. The rationale behind this mandate is self-evident. We live in a world of new, ever-evolving, and unprecedented security threats. Just this past March, a lone wolf attack on a Canadian Forces recruitment centre in my riding of Willowdale underscored this point. While I am grateful for the incredible bravery and professionalism the RCMP and others displayed in responding to the attack, the fact remains we are largely operating in a brave new world where groups and individuals can pose serious challenges to our safety and security.

Meeting these challenges, while maintaining our respect for the cherished rights and freedoms of Canadians, requires a robust and responsible parliamentary framework. While the previous government curiously failed to recognize this, something I can assure members I heard repeatedly on doorsteps, it is my belief that Bill C-22 rectifies the obvious gaps within our existing security framework, namely, by establishing a national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians. This committee would be provided extraordinary access to national security information and an unprecedented ability to scrutinize federal departments and operations. In doing so, Bill C-22 rejects the notion that we must choose between prioritizing security concerns on the one hand and respecting civil and charter rights on the other. Rather, it establishes a framework that balances both.

The issue of accountability boils down to this. Does Canada have the institutions it needs to protect the safety of Canadians, while at the same time safeguarding our rights and freedoms? Bill C-22 ensures that we can answer that question in the affirmative.

The concept of establishing a parliamentary security oversight committee is hardly novel. The idea can be traced as far back as the 1981 McDonald commission report, while more recent efforts include a 2003 Auditor General's report, recommendations from the 2004 Interim Committee of Parliamentarians on National Security, the 2005 national security committee of parliamentarians act, a 2009 recommendation from the House of Commons public safety committee, a 2011 Senate report, and private members' bills introduced in 2007, 2009, 2013, and 2014, most recently by my Liberal colleagues from Malpeque and Vancouver Quadra.

Over the past decade, these efforts were repeatedly obstructed and denied by the previous Conservative government, despite widespread support amongst experts, stakeholders, academics, non-governmental organizations, and the Canadian public. While there is no making up for this lost decade, I am proud to say that Bill C-22 finally provides Canadians with a modern and meaningful security oversight mechanism.

In keeping with our government's commitment to evidence-based decision-making, Bill C-22 notably aligns Canada's security regime with accepted international best practices. As colleagues before me have highlighted, Canada is currently the only member of the Five Eyes alliance lacking a security oversight committee that grants sitting legislators access to confidential national security information. In an era in which security threats are increasingly global and interdependent, Canada cannot afford to be an outlier on this issue. This absence of oversight has limited the ability of parliamentarians to examine national security issues in depth. The previous government argued that there was no need for parliamentarians to have access to confidential national security information. On this side of the House, we disagree. Giving parliamentarians access to such information will benefit Canadians who want their government to be open and transparent, including our national security agencies.

As Professors Craig Forcese of the University of Ottawa and Kent Roach of the University of Toronto recently noted in their working paper to modernize Canada's inadequate review of national security, a robust national review framework rests on three pillars.

First is a properly resourced and empowered committee of parliamentarians with robust access to secret information, charged primarily with strategic issues, including an emphasis on efficacy review. Second is a consolidated and enhanced expert review body, a security and intelligence community reviewer or super SIRC with all-of-government jurisdiction, capable of raising efficacy issues but charged primarily with proprietary review. Third is an independent monitor of national security law, built on the U.K. and Australian models, with robust access to secret information and charged with expert analysis of Canada's anti-terrorism and national security legislation and able to work in concert with the other bodies on specific issues.

It is my belief that the bill meets these criteria. Professor Forcese would appear to agree, writing as he did that Bill C-22 represents a good bill. He goes on to say that it creates a stronger body than the U.K. and Australian equivalents and that it constitutes “a dramatic change for Canadian national security accountability”.

I believe the legislation is well intentioned, well considered, and well rounded. In particular, I would like to highlight five notable elements of the bill.

First, Bill C-22 allows the committee to analyze and study laws, policies, and operations in real time, increasing the discipline, responsiveness, and accountability of our security framework.

Second, the legislation before us tasks the committee with the invaluable capacity to monitor classified security and intelligence activities and report findings to the Prime Minister. Rather than reviewing security activities on an ad hoc and siloed department-by-department basis, Bill C-22 provides the opportunity for comprehensive security oversight.

Third, the provisions regarding ministerial discretion on limits to access to information contained within the bill are clearly delineated and follow the best practice models established by the United States, Australia, and others.

Fourth, Bill C-22 guarantees that the government will constitute a minority within the national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians, thus ensuring increased accountability.

Finally, and perhaps most significant, Bill C-22 represents an important counterbalance to the sweeping powers introduced through Bill C-51. Indeed, as I mentioned earlier, the bill represents the fulfillment of a key campaign pledge on the part of the government to rein in the excesses of Bill C-51, while ensuring the collective security of all Canadians. The introduction of a committee of parliamentarians tasked with overseeing Canadian security and intelligence represents a much-needed return to accountability.

The bill, however, merely represents one part of the puzzle. Our government has also committed to amending Bill C-51 to better protect the rights of assembly and protest, and to better define rules regarding terrorist propaganda, mandating statutory review of national security legislation, creating an office of community outreach and counter-radicalization, and increased consultations with Canadians from coast to coast on how best to balance security concerns and civil liberties.

This process, both within and outside Parliament, will allow us to strengthen the security and intelligence system of Canada. It will also provide Canadians with confidence that in protecting their safety and security, the government stands firmly behind their rights and freedoms.

I urge all hon. members of the House to join me in supporting the bill.

[Business of Supply, June 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise to speak regarding the opposition motion before us today. I stand before this House to voice my strong opposition to this ill-considered and premature motion on the topic of genocide.

Allow me to begin by reminding members of this House that the march of human rights and dignity across the globe has been one of the great, albeit unfinished, success stories in the past seven decades. Central to the progress has been the entrenchment of genocide as a key principle within international humanitarian law.

Indeed, the Canadian government has always proudly advanced the cause of global human rights and human security. From sanctions against the South African apartheid regime, to the courageous actions of Lieutenant-General Roméo Dallaire in Rwanda, to international leadership on issues such as anti-personnel land mines, our great country has always championed the protection of vulnerable populations across the globe.

Canada and the Liberal Party have always been at the vanguard of the rights revolution, whether protecting and enshrining individual rights here at home or promoting and safeguarding human rights and security abroad.

Apart from actions of successive Canadian governments, great Canadians in modern times have made championing human rights synonymous with Canadian values. The first draft of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights bears the imprint of Professor John Humphrey. Former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour, to cite another example, is universally recognized as one of the international community's foremost experts on human rights. Of course, one need also mention other individuals, such as Mr. Philippe Kirsch, who was the first president of the International Criminal Court, and, even today, one of Canada's foremost legal scholars, Ms. Jennifer Welsh, serves as the UN Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on issues of genocide and human rights.

Despite the seminal contributions of our country and many great Canadians on the development of international law, I fear that the motion proposed by the Conservative Party today is utterly bereft of a principled approach towards international law and strays from the approach of our closest allies.

The basis for which I oppose the Conservative motion is fourfold. One, genocide is a precise legal definition, and that precision is lacking in today's motion. Two, Canada cannot simply go it alone in regard to pronouncing acts of genocide and must instead act in concert with its allies and international institutions. Three, the gravity of the situation at hand behooves us to act in a sophisticated, deliberate, and meaningful manner. Four, it would greatly undermine our new-found credibility to act as effective and responsible players on the international scene should we adopt the Conservative motion.

Allow me to begin with my first objection, which is the definition of genocide.

While the term genocide conjures up chilling images, we must not forget that the term carries a precise legal definition. Precision is required because of the term's incorporation by reference in various statutes, whether it is the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda or, of course, the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

However, any reference to international laws and precedents surrounding genocide are curiously absent from the motion put forward today by the Conservatives. The motion operates irrespective of well-established legal structures, and therefore does little to bring justice to the victims of Daesh's brutality. This is a matter best handled by independent and international jurists, not partisan politicians.

Other legal requirements that the Conservative motion glosses over are, for example, that the 1948 convention is arguably predicated on the notion that only states may commit the crime of genocide. Of course, that is something that the motion does not address.

Another legal requirement that is glossed over by the Conservative motion is that the genocide convention clearly states that collective action is required in response to genocide. The 1948 treaty, after all, was signed by 148 nations and expressly behooved the signatories to work collectively for greater certainty, as the preamble stated, “in order to liberate mankind from such an odious scourge, international co-operation is required”.

On the second, the basis for my objection is that we must act in concert with our allies in international institutions. Genocide is by definition a matter of international law, and our government has rightly decided that such determinations regarding the nature of Daesh's abuses are best achieved acting in lockstep with our allies and co-operating through international organizations and mechanisms.

We know that the previous government proudly flouted its desire to not just go along in order to get along, and that it diminished the United Nations as spending too much time on itself. This aversion to multilateralism led Canada to lose its bid to win a seat at the UN Security Council for nearly a decade.

Finally, the gravity of the situation behooves us to act in a sophisticated and deliberate manner, which is precisely what our Minister of Foreign Affairs outlined in his letter to the United Nations.

[Foreign Affairs, May 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, this morning the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced that Canada has been asked to join the International Syria Support Group and that he would be partaking in crucial diplomatic discussions currently under way in Vienna.

This is the first time Canada has been invited to join this select group as it focuses on reinvigorating peace efforts concerning Syria and expediting the delivery of critical humanitarian aid to besieged areas of that country.

Allow me to congratulate the government, and ask that this House be informed what having Canada at the table for such important discussions will mean.

[Asian Heritage Month, May 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise before the House today to celebrate Asian Heritage Month.

I am fortunate enough to represent one of the most diverse ridings in Canada. In my riding of Willowdale, generations of Asian-Canadians have profoundly contributed to our culture, our economy, and the richness of our day-to-day lives.

Asian-Canadians have not only made important contributions in Willowdale, of course, but throughout Canada. Asian Heritage Month provides Canadians from coast to coast to coast the opportunity to celebrate the transformative contributions Asian-Canadians have made to our great country over the course of many decades.

In that spirit, I would like to say in Mandarin:

[Member spoke in Mandarin and provided the following translation:]

Let us build our collective future together.

In Korean let me add:

[Member spoke in Korean and provided the following translation:]

Let us continue moving forward together.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely this was an issue that came before the Supreme Court. In deciding on the proposed legislation, there was a thorough examination of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court. In addition to that, to ensure that the members of the RCMP were well served, there were extensive consultations with an assortment of other groups, and most significantly with members of the RCMP.

Having said that, we appreciate full well that the Supreme Court had provided us with a window, a very tight time frame, within which we had to respond and come up with a balanced piece of legislation.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I want to reiterate the reality that there were very extensive consultations. There were consultations with various levels of government, there were consultations with members of the RCMP, and from all of the information that I have been provided and had an opportunity to review, the majority actually voted in favour of the provisions that the member will find in the proposed bill.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, that is obviously a very valid concern. As we know, this particular legislation was adopted after very extensive consultations. There were consultations with labour groups. There were consultations with members, and what was produced is something that reflects all of the priorities and elements that were suggested to us.