9137 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 138 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Tuesday, November 4, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES November 4, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 138 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 138 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 138 (Version officielle) 147 138 04 11 2014 2014/11/04 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2 The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1005) [ English ] Committees of the House Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) Motion for concurrence moved that the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, presented on Friday, May 20, 2014, be concurred in. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, as in the past, I would ask my New Democratic friends, as much as possible, in order to facilitate concurrence motions, to provide some notice. Mr. Peter Julian : Mr.

Speaker, on a point of order, this motion is actually in the name of the member for Winnipeg North . I assumed he had actually read the report that is before the House, because he actually moved concurrence on this particular report. Therefore, it should not be a surprise. Since he moved concurrence on this report, he should have at least read it. Mr. Ted Hsu : Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify as I am trying to following along. Are we referring to the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development entitled, “Subject Matter of Wills and Estates”? Could I confirm that?

The Speaker : That is correct, yes. The subject is wills and estates. It is the sixth report. The hon. member for Winnipeg North is now responding to the point of order. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : Mr. Speaker, I think it is most inappropriate for the NDP House leader to seem to want to disrupt my right to address the House on a wide variety of important issues, and we have seen this over the last couple of days, I was maybe 30 seconds into my comments before he was up on his feet, eager to cause confusion among members of the House of Commons.

I would ask, with all due respect, that I be allowed to deliver my comments without interruption by the NDP House leader. The Speaker : I have not heard anything that would constitute a point of order, yet. The member for Winnipeg North was about 20 seconds into his speech. I know over the last few days, some of his colleagues have reminded him about the rules of relevance, and I have confidence that today he will do his best to speak to the subject matter of the sixth report.

As the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has pointed out, the motion to concur stands in his name as well, so I think that is something we can all point to as a sign of optimism. I will give the floor back to the hon. member for Winnipeg North . As he points out, he has the right to speak to the motion, and he has about 19 minutes and 40 seconds left to do so. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : Mr. Speaker, it is said that an image is worth 1,000 words.

Seeing the face of the New Democratic House leader when you made reference to the fact that we were— The Speaker : The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order. Mr. Charlie Angus : Mr. Speaker, I rise on an issue of relevance. He has not spoken except to throw insults. If he has something to say on the motion for concurrence in the committee report, he should speak on it rather than wasting the time of the House. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to go back to your ruling about the relevance of what he should be talking about.

The Speaker : I think members have had the opportunity to express their frustrations in the last few minutes, through points of order. I would ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North to resist the temptation to continue to do so and speak to the subject matter of the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. Then I think the House's patience will not be further tested. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : Mr. Speaker, I can assure members that I am somewhat familiar with the report. One of the things we should start off with is a letter that was provided to the committee chair.

I know there are some nervous Nellies in the New Democratic fold, so I will cite some specifics coming from a letter that was addressed to the committee. It is on an important issue dealing with wills and estates, which is the name of the report itself, and I ask that members be patient because it is a somewhat lengthy letter, but it is something that is important to share at this time. It is important to recognize that the Government of Canada would like to thank the members of the standing committee, which is a general acknowledgement, for its study on the report entitled “Wills and Estates”, tabled on May 30.

That is when it was brought forward to the minister, which was months ago. The report identifies a number of key issues and challenges that were raised by a number of witnesses. I understand there were about seven witnesses, give or take, who actually made presentations at committee. I am sorry to disappoint the member; he seems very eager to stand. The committee met to discuss the issue through to April 29, so it has been a long time of waiting before we have come to the stage of concurrence, where we are today.

I suspect if history has anything to do with what is going on, it will likely happen here after I have finished providing some comments. No doubt I will be the only speaker, in all likelihood, but I do not want to limit. In fact I would encourage others to participate, especially if they are moving that the report be concurred in. Members might really want to consider contributing to the debate.

The government states, through the chair, that it is trying to build capacity and autonomy for first nations to improve well-being and provide first nations with self-determination, such as the expansion of the First Nations Land Management Act, the Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act, and the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance Act, which have recently received royal assent.

We need to recognize that the issue of our first nations people is something that has been a challenge for the government to ensure fair representation in terms of what their interests and their will would be and how effective the government is in working with our first nation communities. We have found the government to be very lacking, to be honest.

There is a lot more that the government could be doing in terms of working with our first nations to build a consensus, as opposed to what has been a typical style of the government in dealing with our first nation issues, which is to act as opposed to work with our first nation leadership. Over many years, as a parliamentarian, I have been afforded the opportunity of visiting reserves and just having caucus discussions and meetings with many different first nation leaders and aboriginal communities. I think we are selling them short.

The government is missing a real opportunity to make a very strong, tangible difference in not working with the leadership and trying to build a consensus. That is something on which I would challenge the government to move toward.

(1010) At the end if the day, if we want to try to have more harmony, if we want to try to make a difference, it is very important that we start co-operating with our first nations leadership. When we talk about wills and estates and in particular this report, it has been pointed out, whether directly or indirectly, that there are many needs out there and there is a general feeling that consultation is something that has not been taking place. We look to the government to try, in good faith, to make a difference.

One of the ways it can make a difference is to start working with the many different strong personalities within our first nations and aboriginal communities. In the letter addressed to us, we find that the government acknowledges that the land is often the most valuable asset in an estate, and through the enactment of other recent legislation, the government has taken steps to improve conditions for individuals on reserves affected by wills and estates—for example, the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, which will be fully enforced on December 16. It is happening very quickly.

This seeks to provide basic rights and protections to individuals on reserves, including upon the death of a spouse or common-law partner, regarding the family home and other matrimonial interests or rights. It would also enable first nations to develop their own matrimonial real property law, subject to ratification by their members. Members of the House will be very much aware of the Liberal Party. I almost said “official opposition” and at times we feel as if we are the only opposition inside the House. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: The members laugh, Mr. Speaker.

If they allowed standing committees to meet, maybe we would be able to do a bit more on accountability, quite frankly. The Liberal Party has consistently advocated for progressive legislation. On the whole issue of marital rights, this is a piece of legislation with which we had a great deal of concern. I know even I had the opportunity back then to be able to voice some concerns about the legislation. I was, quite frankly, very disappointed that the government took the approach that it did in regard to the assets.

At the end of the day, the Conservatives try to take the line that they are just trying to ensure that there is equal assets distribution and so forth. They try to simplify an issue that is very complicated. It was obvious that the Conservatives were pushing this legislation through. If only they were to consult with the first nations, as we did in opposition. I can assure members of the fine work that the first nations critic from the Liberal Party did in terms of consultation and working with people and advocates to get a better understanding of the legislation that the government ultimately passed.

It was only because of the government having a majority that it was successful at being able to pass the legislation. I know where we stood as a political entity on it. Had there been a minority government, whether it would have passed would have depended on the day and if the members showed up to work. I say that because ultimately I believe that most, if not all, opposition members opposed the legislation in question. I recall first hand many of the discussions and debate that took place. Having said that, this is one of those pieces of legislation that were time allocated.

(1015) As the Liberal Party in opposition, we face a government that persists and insists on time allocation to avoid parliamentary accountability. Then we have the NDP, which, in order to avoid parliamentary accountability, opposes the holding of meetings by standing committees. At least there is one political entity in the House that is consistent on parliamentary procedures and the issue of accountability. Whether it is a matter of time allocation or of being lazy and not wanting to go into committees, we are prepared to ensure— Mr. Peter Julian : Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I think we have been very patient. The member has been ruled out of order on three consecutive days because he has this obsession of attacking the official opposition. He just loves to go into that. He was doing well. For the first time, he was actually speaking to a report. Given that it was a report on which he had moved concurrence, we would have expected that. However, for three days in a row he has been ruled out of order because he has gone off on these weird, bizarre tangents, belching all kinds of personal insults. I would ask you, Mr.

Speaker, to have him respect the rule of relevance by speaking to wills, testaments, and land tenure in first nations.

(1020) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, we have to be very careful on the issue of relevancy, because many of the words the member uses now could in fact be used in the future. On the relevancy issue, when I was being critical of the government on time allocation and parliamentary principle, the NDP House leader did not stand up and say I was being irrelevant. It is only when I point out the deficiencies within the New Democratic Party, and there are many, that he chooses to stand up on a point of order. I suggest he should not be so cherry-picking in his points of order. Mr.

Ted Hsu : Mr. Speaker, I believe the content of this report may have some relevance to the question of relevance. I was reading the report now, and the introduction says that the committee did not have the opportunity to devote as much time to the matter of wills and estates as it would have wished. To my mind, the fact that the committee has not met since June 3 of this year and does not have time to do some of its work, in particular its work on wills and estates, is actually relevant to the report.

The Deputy Speaker : I am having real difficulty seeing the relevancy, especially since, as the official opposition House leader has mentioned, the member for Winnipeg North has attempted to raise these types of points for three days in a row, and three times the Chair has indicated clearly that these points are irrelevant to the debate on the motion before the House. Until about the last 20 to 30 seconds of his speech, the member for Winnipeg North was very much addressing relevant comments to the motion before the House.

I would ask him to go back to that, but not to move off into the area that he appeared to be going into when he was last speaking. I would also advise him he has less than five minutes to complete his speech. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I seek your advice. It is an important area for us to get an opinion from the Chair. Is it appropriate, whether one is a New Democratic, Liberal, or Conservative member of Parliament, to be critical of another political party inside the chamber? I believe we can be.

I ask for an opinion from you on whether or not it is fair comment to be critical of another political party inside the House. The Deputy Speaker : I do not think there is any question to that. It is surprising to hear that question coming from a member who has been here as long as the hon. member has been. It is obvious that at times it is appropriate and relevant for members to be able to criticize other political parties, and I suppose even criticize one's own party. That is not the issue before the House right now. in terms of the speech being given by the member for Winnipeg North .

Rather, it is an issue of relevancy. He has been told three times now by the Chair that the point that he seemed to be driving at in those last 20 to 30 seconds of his speech today was clearly going to be irrelevant, based on the prior rulings. Therefore, to answer his basic question in his point of order, it is proper at times to be able to criticize political parties; however, it does have to be relevant to the context of the debate that is before the House at the time. I would again ask the member for Winnipeg North to continue his speech and complete it. He is now down to less than three minutes. Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux : Mr. Speaker, one of the procedures at the Manitoba legislature—and obviously the House of Commons has different rules—is that because points of order can be lengthy, often they are not included in the time remaining for the member's opportunity to speak. I understand that we lost two minutes or so because of the points of order, and that might be part of the strategy of the official opposition. I have been completely relevant, as you have even pointed out, throughout the debate on the concurrence report.

As my colleague attempted to state in his point of order, I recognize that this committee met on four separate occasions to deal with this issue. As in all committees, there is always a need for more time on virtually every issue that comes before them, and it has been pointed out that the last time this committee met was on June 3. We have a problem with that. The report states the following: One of the primary challenges presented during the land management hearings had to do with what witnesses described to the Committee as “legacy issues”.

These issues surface when individual interests in land are not formally documented or otherwise lack formal legal recognition. Not surprisingly, these undivided interests in land and uncertain tenure of reserve land holdings can have serious implications for First Nation individuals when determining the descent of property, often resulting in difficult and protracted disputes. The point is that this is not an easy issue. It is a very complicated issue. If a report is to be concurred in, at least let us consider talking about the report. At least let us consider allowing committees to meet to discuss the report.

All of these are important points, and I look to members recognizing and respecting our first nations and aboriginal issues by allowing our committees to meet and have dialogue so that we can continue the debate on issues such as this.

(1025) Mr. Earl Dreeshen (Red Deer, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member for Winnipeg North could comment on the importance of being able to bring in some of our new members. I am thinking of the member for Macleod , who has been unable to attend the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. It is important for them to be updated on important issues, such as the concurrence motion we are discussing today. Could the member would speak to the importance of bringing some of these new members into these committees so that they can be part of the overall discussion? Mr. Kevin Lamoureux : Mr.

Speaker, that is an excellent question. It is important that we recognize, particularly with respect to the aboriginal affairs and northern development committee, that there are numerous issues like the one we have today. Many new members want to participate in committees and have that dialogue, but because of the New Democratic Party's attitude of not allowing concurrence, the committee is not meeting. I can only suggest to the member that he do what he can to encourage concurrence in the PROC committee report, which would allow those new members to participate.

The same applies to the aboriginal affairs committee and many other committees. As has been pointed out, the aboriginal affairs committee last met on June 3. Mr. Ted Hsu (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, upon reading this report and the reply of the government, it seems to me that there is a lot of work to be done. It is no surprise that there is a lot of work to be done on the issues of wills and estates. Ultimately, it is the ownership of land that is the most complicated issue and the most important issue.

The sense I get from the committee report and from the government reply to it is that there is a lot of work to be done and a lot of stakeholders to talk to. A House of Commons committee has the capability to do those things. My constituents in Kingston and the Islands do not care if it is the government's fault or the official opposition's fault that this House of Commons committee is not working. The fact is that the committee has not met since June 3. Given that the report says that the committee should meet, should we really be debating the report if it is not meeting?

I would also ask if the official opposition would like to speak to that aspect in their speeches on this motion.

(1030) The Deputy Speaker : I suppose I should have said this when the last question was asked. Both questions are obviously directed to issues that the Chair has now ruled three times to be irrelevant to the motion that is before the House. The Chair has made it quite clear what is before the House. It is quite clear in the report that the issue of wills and estates on reserves is the context in which this debate should be taking place. At this point, I will give the member for Winnipeg North time for a very quick response, but again within the relevancy test that he has now had applied to him three times. Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux : Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I answer the question, possibly indirectly, out of respect for the Chair and your thoughts on the issue. Ownership of land is a very important issue that needs to be discussed, and there is a great deal of interest across this country in regard to that issue. Let there be no doubt that if the committee was meeting on a regular basis, we would have a lot of interest from people wanting to come before committee to express their thoughts and ideas on this issue.

The best I can do for my colleague and for members who want to continue to contribute to the debate on what has been started with this report is to ask the New Democrats to co-operate. The Deputy Speaker : The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: On division. (Motion agreed to) Mr. Joe Preston : Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House way back on September 30, be concurred in.

The Deputy Speaker : Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No.

[ Translation ] Petitions Health Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be presenting a second petition about the problem of contaminated dust coming from the port of Quebec. I also presented a petition last year. Today's petition has been signed by more than 250 very concerned residents of Quebec City's lower town, who are directly affected and want the Government of Canada to ensure that the problem is resolved.

[ English ] Sex Selection Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present two petitions. The first petition highlights that girls throughout the world are being discriminated against through sex selection. The petitioners call on the House of Commons to condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex selective pregnancy termination.

Impaired Driving Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am honoured to present is signed by thousands of people in British Columbia. The petition highlights that 22-year-old Kassandra Kaulius was killed by a drunk driver. Families for Justice, a group of people who have also lost loved ones to impaired drivers, believe that the current impaired driving laws are much too lenient. The petitioners are calling for new mandatory minimum sentencing for people who have been convicted of impaired driving causing death.

Canada Post Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am proud as always to rise in the House. Today I am representing residents in the wonderful community of Matachewan in northern Ontario. The petitioners are concerned about the plan to phase out home mail delivery by Canada Post. Canada Post has played an incredible role in people being able to connect with each other across this country.

The end of home delivery across this country will have a serious impact in terms of the potential privatization of the service and the lack of access, particularly for seniors and people who will have a difficult time getting to the post office boxes in the snow. The people of Matachewan are adding their voices to thousands of others across Canada who are saying that the government needs to have a better plan for the future of postal delivery in this country.

(1035) Lending Practices Mr. Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as always, I am pleased to rise today to table this petition. The petitioners call on the House of Commons to take action to eliminate predatory lending. Predatory lending is an unfair practice that exploits a legal loophole to charge criminal interest rates, and it affects more and more Canadians every year. I would also like to recognize the work of Donna Borden, a resident of Toronto. Ms. Borden is the driving force behind this whole issue. Thousands of Canadians are concerned about this.

The Environment Mr. Kennedy Stewart (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by dozens of Burnaby--Douglas residents concerning the new Kinder Morgan pipeline that is slated to run from Edmonton to Burnaby. The residents who signed this petition are calling on the Government of Canada to immediately act to prohibit this new pipeline from proceeding. While I am not allowed to comment on whether I support this petition, I urge the government to consider this urgently, because dozens of protestors are on Burnaby Mountain protesting against this pipeline.

[ Translation ] Cap-des-Rosiers Lighthouse Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today I am honoured to present a petition that has been signed by hundreds of people in the Gaspé who want to save the Cap-des-Rosiers lighthouse, which was designated as a historic site in 1974. It sits at the entrance of Forillon Park. Today, the government is trying to sell it off to a third party, but unfortunately, there are no takers. This lighthouse should be preserved, and the people in the Gaspé are very concerned. I hope that the government is listening.

[ English ] Democratic Reform Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from numerous residents of my own riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands, Galiano, Pender, and Victoria. The petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to support the democratic local nomination act, which would amend the Canada Elections Act to remove the requirement for a leader's signature and to allow candidates to be approved by their local political party organizations.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders [ Translation ] Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) moved that Bill C-44,

An Act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-44. Second reading He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to begin debate at second reading on Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act. I hope that our government can count on the opposition parties' support to get this bill to committee.

I would like to start by thanking my colleagues from all parties who went to the National War Memorial this morning, especially my colleague here, the member for Vaughan and Minister of Veterans Affairs, to lay wreaths in tribute to the two soldiers who lost their lives in recent weeks. All of my colleagues remember what happened. On October 22, we all witnessed events that shocked us in some way.

I would like to join my voice to those of my colleagues from all parties who went to the National War Memorial this morning and extend our thoughts and our prayers to the families of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent and Corporal Nathan Cirillo. On Saturday, I had the privilege of being in Longueuil to attend the funeral for Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent. His twin sister gave us a message of hope and peace, but she also asked us to ensure that her brother's death would not be in vain.

Today, as parliamentarians, we have the opportunity to begin a debate on a bill that will ensure better protection for our country. (1040) [ English ] Before I begin the substance of my discussion today on this important legislation, I would like to address the horrific terrorist attack that happened just steps from where we stand today and make sure that we are all starting from the same point when we talk about what happened. It is important that we agree, for the sake of clarity, on what took place recently.

That is why I would like to refer members to the Criminal Code, which defines terrorism as a violent and intentional act that aims to intimidate the public for political or religious reasons. [ Translation ] The Criminal Code defines terrorism as

an act committed for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause with the intention of intimidating the public. The two acts that were committed here—the attack on Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and the attack on Corporal Nathan Cirillo—fit within the definition of terrorism. That is why President François Hollande said yesterday that these acts were terrorist-inspired. That is why the U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, said that when someone attacks an unarmed soldier guarding the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and then storms Parliament with a loaded weapon, that is also

an act of terrorism. That is also how it is defined in the Criminal Code. I hope all parties will recognize that these acts were terrorist acts. We should call a spade a spade. Then we will be able to come up with solutions together to deal with the challenges we face. Clearly, the terrorist acts committed here also have international repercussions. The Islamic State poses a threat not only to Canadians, but to populations in other countries that are being brutally suppressed and whose fundamental human rights are being violated.

That is why we are part of the coalition that is currently conducting air strikes against that terrorist group and why we are supporting the security forces in Iraq in their fight against this terrorist scourge. However, we also need to take action within our borders, in Canada, to protect Canadians from anyone who might try to attack us, our values or innocent victims. That is also why we are so determined to strengthen the tools available to police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service when it comes to surveillance, detention and arrest.

Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act, which we are starting to debate today, is a first step in that direction. [ English ] We took action a long time ago. We are moving forward strongly, because we are facing a serious terrorist threat, one that we must address with strong measures. As a government, we have already taken strong action to protect Canadians from the threat caused by terrorists. (1045) [ Translation ] Our government's response is based on Canada's counterterrorism strategy, which is a four-pillar approach. The first pillar, which is very important, is prevention.

It is important that we promote and share our Canadian values with everyone, with every Canadian. That is why we are investing in numerous prevention measures involving police services, community groups and the government itself. My predecessors and I have engaged with ethnic and cultural communities, including at the cross-cultural roundtable. That is the first pillar. Then, we need to prevent, deny and detect individuals who may pose a threat, prevent them from taking action and, finally, respond to the threat if necessary.

Now we are dealing with another phenomenon: extremists who travel abroad and those who come back to Canada. That is a source of concern for us, which is why we intend to propose other measures in addition to the bill being introduced today. [ English ] Whether it is through legislation, policy, or investment, our government has taken strong action to give law enforcement and national security agencies the tools they need to keep us safe. We have given law enforcement new tools by making it a crime to go overseas to engage in terrorist activities.

We have given authorities tools to strip Canadian citizenship from those engaged in terrorist activities. We have increased funding for our national security agencies, such as the RCMP and CSIS, each by a third. [ Translation ] We brought in the Combating Terrorism Act. We are prepared to revoke the citizenship of individuals who have dual citizenship and are convicted of acts of terrorism. We are also prepared to revoke the passports of individuals who want to incite violence outside our borders.

Since 2006, we have increased the budgets of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service by more than one-third. [ English ] In practical terms, that means an additional $191 million for CSIS over the level that existed under the previous Liberal government. [ Translation ] Canada's counterterrorism legislation has been tried, tested and embraced by the highest courts. [ English ] Not only is law enforcement responding to the law we have put in force but the tribunal is as well by giving harsh sentences to those who are convicted of terrorist activities. [ Translation ] For example, Canada successfully prosecuted terrorism-related offences in the cases of Mohammad Momin Khawaja, alias Namouh, and 11 members of the so-called Toronto 18.

In July, Mohamed Hersi became the first Canadian convicted of attempting to travel abroad to join a terrorist group. [ English ] We tabled and implemented the Combating Terrorism Act. This act brought in important new criminal offences, including making it illegal to leave or attempt to leave Canada in order to commit certain terrorism offences outside Canada. This past July, the RCMP laid its first charges under the new act against an individual for leaving Canada to take

part in terrorist activities. The bill is working. We need to take action to keep Canadians safe from terrorists. Shockingly and unfortunately, we did not get support from the official opposition at that time for that common sense legislation. Hopefully this time we can count on their support and we can move the bill forward. [ Translation ] The government's terrorist listing also plays a key role in combatting terrorist financing, and under the Criminal Code, being listed has serious consequences, allowing for the seizure, restraint or forfeiture of a listed entity's property.

Again yesterday, we saw that another group was declared a terrorist entity. In other words, it is absolutely illegal in Canada, under the Criminal Code, to support or want to finance or associate with this entity. All the activities of this entity are prohibited in our country. In April, we added IRFAN-Canada to the list of terrorist entities. IRFAN-Canada is a not-for-profit organization that transferred roughly $14.6 million in resources to Hamas, a terrorist entity that is on the Canadian list. These measures help interrupt the flow of resources such as funds, weapons and new recruits to these entities.

We also employ various mechanisms in order to deprive terrorists of the means and opportunities to carry out their activities. These mechanisms include the High Risk Travel Case Management Group, led by the RCMP, which is especially busy these days, and the revocation and suspension of passports of travellers who want to engage in terrorist activities abroad. The prevention of violent extremism is a key element of our approach. I would like to share with you the important work accomplished in that regard. Preventing violent extremism is a key component of our strategy.

At this time, I would like to commend the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which has identified radicalism and radicalization as an area of concern, and which plans to examine this issue at its upcoming meetings and next year. Our approach, “Responding to Violent Extremism”, is outlined in a document entitled 2014 Public Report On The Terrorist Threat To Canada .

It is based on three interrelated strategies: building community capacity, which equates to prevention; building law enforcement capacity, which this bill will do by clarifying the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service; and developing programs to stop radicalization resulting in violence through proactive early intervention. We must remember that preventing terrorism is our national security priority. The counter terrorism information officer initiative, which is an RCMP responsibility, provides frontline police officers and other first responders with essential terrorism awareness training.

Therefore, there are already resources, budgets and measures in place to deal with this threat of terrorism, but we have to adapt to this evolving threat. (1050) [ English ] Here we come back to the legislation at hand. The protection of Canada from terrorists act contains distinct elements that work toward a common goal, which is to protect the safety and security of Canadians. The bill also has some provisions regarding the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, which received royal assent in June.

There is really nothing new in this part, but let me just say the act made important changes at that time to the Citizenship Act, enabling the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to revoke Canadian citizenship from dual citizens who are convicted of terrorism, treason or spying offences. Such individuals would be permanently barred from acquiring citizenship again. While that act has already received royal assent, as members know, provisions in new legislation can come into force at different times. Recent events around the world have brought to the forefront the need to address the threats of terrorism now.

We are, therefore, proposing amendments to the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act that would allow provisions related to the revocation of Canadian citizenship to come into force earlier than anticipated. It is nothing new but it would ensure that those provisions could be used by law enforcement more rapidly. The provisions that would come into force include new expanded grounds for revocation of Canadian citizenship and the establishment of a streamlined decision-making process. We are clear that Canadian citizenship is sacred. Our Canadian passport, wherever we go around the world, is of high value.

It has to mean something. We do not want to share our Canadian passport with anyone who wants to cut off our heads because we disagree. (1055) [ Translation ] The Canadian passport is respected around the world. As parliamentarians, we will not accept that individuals with criminal intentions use Canadian passports to commit acts of terrorism. Let us now examine the main part of the bill, which will make the necessary amendments to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.

Ever since the CSIS Act was introduced more than 30 years ago, threats to Canada's security have become increasingly complex, as evidenced by the global nature of terrorism and the mobility of terrorist travellers. [ English ] We are aware of Canadians who have joined terrorist groups abroad. CSIS director Michel Coulombe has stated that more than 140 individuals with Canadian connections are suspected of engaging in terrorism-related activities abroad.

It is more critical than ever that CSIS has the proper tools to investigate threats to the security of Canada and that its role and function is clear in terms of our Canadian laws.

The bill before us proposes several targeted amendments to support CSIS in its mandate to investigate threats to the security of Canada. [ Translation ] First, the bill would confirm, clarify and strengthen the power of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to conduct investigations abroad, by confirming that CSIS has clear, legislated authority to conduct investigations abroad related to Canada's security and security assessments.

Second, the bill will give the Federal Court the power to consider only the relevant Canadian law when issuing a warrant to authorize CSIS to investigate threats to the security of Canada. Essentially, this bill clarifies the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and protects witnesses, because information can only be exchanged if there is trust between the human source and the information service. It is important to protect these sources and provide criteria for this legal protection, in order to make it possible to increase protection in certain situations.

I am pleased to introduce this important bill in Parliament. I look forward to following the debate, because this is an important and balanced bill. I hope that we will be able to move forward and send this bill to committee, and that we develop a law that will protect Canadian citizens against the threat of terrorism. This threat is evolving and is unfortunately a reality. [ English ] Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I listened with interest to the minister's speech on the bill, but we on this side have been very clear that we think Canadians want protection both of public safety and of civil liberties, and I did not hear anything about civil liberties protection in the minister's speech. I want to come back to what is becoming a canard from the minister, and that is his statement that he has increased the funding for Public Safety. He refers back to 2007, I think, in an attempt to mislead the House.

Will he admit that in the 2012 action plan the government laid out a plan to cut $688 million from Public Safety, including $24.5 million from CSIS, $143 million from the Canada Border Services Agency, and $195 million from the RCMP; and that he has carried out those plans so that in fact all three of those agencies have significantly less funding to deal with our national security problems than they had in 2012?

(1100) Hon. Steven Blaney : Mr. Speaker, I invite the member to look at clause 7, proposed paragraph 18.1(4), which clearly stipulates the authority of the court with an amicus curiae , a friend of the court, that will allow a tribunal to determine if it is necessary to remove the protection. It is embedded in this bill, the right of the accused of the human source within the scope of our Canadian law. Regarding the funding, let us look at numbers. I have here the funding for CSIS prior to our government coming into power. It was less than $350 million. We are now up to $540 million.

It is $190 million more and we are considering options. What is at stake here is the safety of Canadians. We are not only there to support their financial needs. We were there to support the Combating Terrorism Act, which is now putting terrorists behind bars. We are intending to move in the same direction and hope we can get the support of the member and his party in doing so. Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that was quite an answer for my colleague from the NDP. We might as well go back to 1992 to try to compare figures.

The fact of the matter is that in the public accounts, the Department of Public Safety and National Security has cut over $600 million in a number of agencies that are all related to security in one fashion or another. Those are the facts and the minister might as well admit it. I have two questions. First, the minister talked quite a bit about revoking the citizenship of dual citizens. Although the Conservatives have been promoting that for some time, we find it strange that it is in this bill. However, if it is in the bill to invoke it earlier then that is the position the government is taking.

Making a law is important but making a law that they are sure is going to stand up to court scrutiny is critical. Could the minister table in this House, or would he be prepared to table at committee, the legal opinion that would suggest that this part of the law is charter sound and that it would stand up to the courts if it is challenged. If it would not, then we are really wasting our time with that particular clause in the law. Second, the minister talked a fair bit about confirming that Canada has a clear authority to undertake certain activities beyond Canada's borders. There is a specific

section in Bill C-44 for that, and I understand that. However, why are we going with a warrant and very narrowly focused legal words in the bill when in our research none of our Five Eyes partners are doing that? None of them have a similar clause in their legislation. The deputy director of CSIS has said before a Senate committee that all this bill would do is to put in law what CSIS is already doing. Why is that clause necessary when none of our other Five Eyes counterparts have that particular piece and they are able to do their jobs? Hon. Steven Blaney : Mr. Speaker, why is the bill necessary?

Because we live in a state of law. We have rights and we believe the fundamental rights of Canadians are sacred. We are tabling the bill to clarify the law so CSIS can fully operate and protect Canadians under Canadian law. There is no liberty without security. While I am on my feet, let me tell the House what the budget increase for the RCMP, our national law enforcement agency, has been since the last Liberal government. In the 2005-06 budget, it was $2.1 billion. We are now up to $2.8 billion. That is more than $700 million. It is a little more than the indexation rate. Why the increase?

Because we are ready to provide the tools and resources necessary to keep Canadians safe. The question in front of my hon. colleague today is whether those members are ready to provide the tools to our law enforcement agency and our national security agencies to keep Canadians safe.

(1105) Hon. Julian Fantino (Minister of Veterans Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in the context of the provisions of the proposed bill, would the hon. minister comment on the views expressed by Ann Cavoukian, the Ontario information and privacy commissioner. She stated that we may have to rethink the balance between human rights and civil liberties, including privacy and the intrusion on these rights in the name of public safety. Further, she said that the balance between security and privacy had never been static, shifting in favour of security whenever we were faced with significant threats to public safety.

I suppose we could all bring ourselves to understand more fully the predicament that we are in. The bill attempts to address these issues. However, I would also ask the minister if he could comment further on the comments of the privacy commissioner when she said, “I recognize that there may be a legitimate need for increased surveillance and greater investigative powers to address new threats to public safety”. Could the minister speak to that issue in the context of the proposed bill? Hon. Steven Blaney : Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, is doing a remarkable job of protecting our veterans and providing them with the tools and support they need after they have served our country. They deserve all our gratitude for that. As we know, the member has also accomplished a remarkable career in law enforcement. He was at the forefront of those important questions. That is why we are tabling the bill, which has embedded in it consideration of all those basic civil rights. That is why the bill has what we call an amicus curiae , which means “a friend of the court”.

This friend of the court would be able, in some cases, to declare that a human source would not be information from which the identity of a human source could be inferred. Therefore, it would be able to remove the protection in some cases, especially when it would be essential to establish the accused's innocence that could be disclosed in the proceedings. The bill would ensure that a tribunal would be monitoring the process, but also clarifying it. We are responding to an invitation from the court to make its job simpler because the law would be clear. This clarity would increase safety for Canadians. Mr.

Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as this may be my last opportunity to speak to the House before Remembrance Day, I really look forward to these Remembrance Day services. I know all members of Parliament are. We expect to be joined by record crowds of Canadians this year. Unfortunately, this year, we have two new names to add to the Canadian heroes who have given their life in service to Canada. They are Corporal Nathan Cirillo and Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent. Once again, I would like to express my sympathies to their families.

I know Canada will do them proud this Remembrance Day by showing how much we respect the sacrifices their families have made. I rise today to speak to Bill C-44 ,

an act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other acts. In the aftermath of the two attacks at St-Jean-sur-Richelieu and in Ottawa just two weeks ago, concern about national security is certainly front and centre in the public mind and, indeed, in all of our minds. There is no doubt that concern already existed about the spread of extremist views and the radicalization of Canadians, whether on the basis of ideological or religious grounds. As New Democrats, we have taken a strong stand, but we must not rush to judgment on any of the recent events until the full story is known.

We have also argued that we cannot let fear warp who we are as a nation and distort our values. We should beware of falling into the trap of looking for solutions in some kind of trade-off, giving up some of our freedom for greater security. Instead, the New Democrats know that it is the responsibility of the government to protect both our civil liberties and public safety. There is no contradiction between the two. We believe Canadians expect the government to do no less. We know that Bill C-44 was in preparation months before the events of October 22.

In fact, if we look at its content, it is easy to see that there is no apparent connection with the events in Ottawa or St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, judging on the information we have before us so far. In fact, Bill C-44 seems to be a legislative response to difficulties created for CSIS as a result of two court decisions. One is from the Supreme Court of Canada in 2007, called Regina v. Hape, and the other is from the Federal Court in the following year, known as Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act (Re), 2008.

In short, what seems to have happened is that these two decisions made it difficult for CSIS to co-operate and share information with allied spy services, the so-called “five eyes group”, made up of the United States, the U.K., Australia, New Zealand and Canada. At the heart of these two cases was the question of whether CSIS could use warrants obtained in Canada to conduct surveillance abroad, using methods that would have required the authorization of a judge if they were to take place in Canada.

By providing a clear framework for overseas surveillance work and express authority for the courts to issue warrants authorizing these activities in Bill C-44 , the government is arguing that CSIS would be better able to protect national security. Indeed, this may be the case. We are certainly prepared to look carefully at this measure in committee. This is what lies at the heart of Bill C-44 , and it may indeed be the case that CSIS needs these new expanded or clarified powers, however we wish to describe them.

The New Democrats are therefore prepared to support this legislation to go to committee, recognizing their potential importance for national security. However, details matter very much in bills like this, so we will be asking tough questions about what the government proposes to accomplish in this bill and about whether and how this expansion of CSIS' powers will actually help keep Canadians safe. Again, as we have said, just as it is important to protect public safety and national security, it is also necessary to protect civil liberties.

What we see missing in this bill are any improved accountability measures to accompany the proposed expansion of the powers of CSIS. I will return to this question of accountability in just a moment. Let me stop here to consider what else is in Bill C-44 , in addition to clarifying the international mandate of CSIS and its ability to carry out surveillance abroad. The third element in Bill C-44 is the provision of a blanket protection on the identity of the human sources of CSIS. Again, we will have some serious questions to ask in committee about this provision.

Right now, judges can grant protection for the identity of CSIS sources on a case by case basis. The onus is on the government to show why this protection is actually needed. Bill C-44 would reverse that onus. The presumption would be that the identity of CSIS sources would always be protected. Even the bill itself acknowledges that this could be a problem when it comes to using CSIS information as the basis for criminal charges. Our criminal justice system, quite rightly, does not look favourably on anonymous testimony or evidence whose validity cannot be challenged in court.

(1110) Bill C-44 would create an exception for criminal law, allowing the disclosure if the defence could establish that doing so would be necessary to establish the innocence of the accused. This would add a large potential complication to any such criminal cases, as it would require a separate process to be carried out in Federal Court. On this side of the House, we remain concerned that this provision may perversely make it more difficult to secure criminal convictions of those who threaten national security.

There is in the bill, however, no such exemption to the blanket provision for protection of identity of CSIS sources for immigration and refugee cases. In fact, Bill C-44 makes reference to the use of special advocates in cases where the identity of CSIS sources seems likely to affect the outcome of the case. The fourth provision of Bill C-44 has nothing at all to do with CSIS and which we could say, in a way, makes Bill C-44 a mini omnibus bill.

This is the provision that would advance the coming into force date for the provisions in the Citizenship Act, passed last year, that allow the revocation of Canadian citizenship for dual citizens convicted of terrorism or other serious offences. This is something the New Democrats opposed at the time, and continue to oppose, as creating two different classes of Canadian citizen. When we look at the provisions of Bill C-44 in the current context, there are some other questions we need to ask ourselves, which may not fall neatly into the confines of a debate on legislation alone.

We must ask ourselves if legislation is always the answer to every problem or, as the government sometimes seems to believe, the only answer to every problem. We must ask ourselves if there are other things we can do when it comes to the question of how we respond to the use of violence at home by Canadians. Perhaps most important among these questions is how we respond to homegrown radicalization of youth, whether it is a young Canadian who murders three Mounties in New Brunswick or another who seeks to go abroad to join an armed religious or ideological movement.

A lot of good work has been done on this question at the community level, and we need to reach out to those communities concerned and work with them on prevention and early intervention strategies. Another serious question we must ask ourselves about national security is whether the the federal government assigned sufficient resources to the task of protecting national security. Testimony at the Senate Standing Committee on National Defence on two successive October Mondays cast doubt on whether the government had done this.

On October 20, the deputy director of Operations of CSIS told the Senate that CSIS was forced to prioritize its resources when it came to monitoring radicals returned from abroad or prevented from going abroad. The deputy director said that CSIS did not have the resources to monitor all 80 or 90 names on that shifting list and that this must be seen as a public safety concern.

Just a week later, RCMP Commissioner Paulson told the same Senate committee that in the wake of the October attacks, he was forced to expand the 170 personnel assigned to the integrated national security enforcement team, the front-line teams on national security, by seconding 300 personnel from organized crime and financial crime units, reassigning them to national security. This means weakening one important area of crime fighting in order to strengthen the fight against threats to national security, and is surely an indication of inadequate resources for the RCMP at this time.

Is this a choice the government really should be asking the Commissioner of the RCMP to make, protecting national security or continuing to fight organized crime? The record of the Conservatives on this issue is clear, despite the attempts of the minister again this morning to make historical references to funding going back, sometimes it seems, to the beginning of time. In 2012, on page 277 of the economic action plan, the Conservatives clearly laid out their intention to cut $688 million from the public safety budget over the three fiscal years ending this year, 2014-15, and they have done this.

We have seen cuts beginning in 2012 now amounting to $24.5 million annually for CSIS, something like a 5% cut in 2012. Never mind what the level was in 2006 or 2007, it is a cut from 2012. There were $143 million cut from the Canadian Border Services Agency, a cut of nearly 10%, including cutting more than 100 intelligence staff from the CBSA, those who are charged with finding out who is trying to violate our borders and might potentially be a threat to national security. It includes a cut of $195 million from 2012 to the budget of the RCMP.

It also appears, from the tabling of the 2014 Public Accounts, that each of these agencies has also been subject to the same pressures from the Conservatives to underspend even those reduced budgets in the quest for an ever larger surplus on paper.

(1115) I want to return now to the question of the importance of oversight for our national security agencies. We all in this House know good models for accountability when we see them, and we have many good examples, like the independent officers of Parliament who have special expertise and report directly to Parliament and not just the minister of the day. These are officers of Parliament like the Auditor General or the Privacy Commissioner, whose reports can be debated in Parliament, shining light on what the government has or has not done, and holding the government to account.

It is strange to think that the CBSA has no such oversight body. This is despite four specific recommendations for the establishment of an oversight body that I can think of: from the 2003 recommendation of the Auditor General to the 2006 O'Connor commission report, to the 2008 Canadian Council of Refugees recommendation, to the most recent 2014 calls for better accountability by both the Canadian Council of Refugees and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association in the wake of the death in custody in Vancouver of Lucia Vega Jimenez.

Now the government will be quick to respond that CSIS already has sufficient oversight in the form of the 30-year-old Security Intelligence Review Committee, but keep in mind that this is the same government that significantly reduced accountability in CSIS by eliminating the position of inspector general, the CSIS internal watch dog who reported directly to the minister each year on CSIS' record of complying with the law.

Instead, this important function was transferred to SIRC, a part-time body of non-specialists, and that responsibility was transferred short of roughly $1 million of resources, which the Conservatives promptly booked as “savings”.

SIRC already has very important responsibilities, including investigating public complaints about the way CSIS deals with things like security clearances, their approval or revocation, which affects people's employment; dealing with public complaints about CSIS' exchange of information with foreign governments, and we know we have had problems where that exchange of information has led to mistreatment of Canadians abroad; and CSIS' functions in providing information in immigration and refugee cases.

The responsibility of the inspector general was added to the work SIRC was already doing, again, without the transfer of the full resources, and again, under the responsibility of a part-time, non-specialist committee. In addition to the structural weaknesses of SIRC—as I mentioned, a part-time body of non-specialists—there are concerns about whether the Conservatives have taken SIRC seriously. It currently has only a temporary chair, and two of the five positions on the committee have been vacant for months.

What was previously a serious consultation process, involving the opposition in appointments to SIRC, seems to have deteriorated to the point where we found SIRC was chaired by a patronage appointee, Arthur Porter, a former fundraiser for the Conservatives who is now facing fraud charges from a Panama prison. Even with its current limitations, SIRC itself has tried to draw Parliament's attention and the attention of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to the question of CSIS' accountability.

In its recently tabled 2012-13 annual report, SIRC points to serious problems with CSIS in terms of accountability. SIRC reported serious delays in receiving information from CSIS, which impeded its investigations. SIRC even noted that CSIS had been less than forthright in its responses to questions from the accountability body. The most serious concern raised in the 2012-13 annual report has to do with arming CSIS personnel in high-risk and dangerous operating environments abroad. We know that CSIS did first have armed agents abroad in Afghanistan.

From 2002 to 2007, they were trained by Canadian Forces, and special forces close protection units provided protection to CSIS agents in the most dangerous operations. As well, DFAIT provided diplomatic accreditation to protect those armed CSIS agents against local accountability After 2007, CSIS launched its own firearms program with its own policies, training, and armed operational support teams.

SIRC, in 2010, expressed concern about the expansion of the use of armed CSIS agents beyond Afghanistan and said that this should be done: “...only after...consultation with, and approval of, the Minister of Public Safety”.

(1120) SIRC raised significant concerns about the liability of CSIS staff who might be armed abroad under the criminal and civil law of a foreign jurisdiction. It also raised concerns about how a CSIS staff member, if found negligent in the use of firearms, could be dealt with under our domestic legal regime. Of course, it raised concerns about the possibilities of violations of international law and the sovereignty and laws of foreign governments.

I am not arguing that perhaps CSIS agents do not sometimes need to be armed, but what SIRC asked for was that a written justification be supplied to the minister explaining the legal authority permitting CSIS staff outside Afghanistan to be armed. In 2012-13, SIRC found it unacceptable that there was no record of any meetings or discussions between the CSIS director and the minister on this topic. As Bill C-44 attempts to clarify CSIS' authority to operate abroad, the question of CSIS officers carrying weapons abroad becomes a critical policy question as well as a critical accountability question.

The SIRC report clearly states that CSIS needs to: ...provide a full explanation of how the arming of some of its employees is consistent with CSIS’s policy framework, which is rooted in the premise that activities are lawful and authorized, necessary and proportionate, and represent an effective and efficient use of public resources. This demonstrates the point I am trying to make about the clear necessity of strengthening accountability along with any expansion of CSIS powers.

Bill C-44 presents the House of Commons with its first test of whether any new legislation on national security in the current climate will conform to Canadian values. This would require that the legislation aim to protect both public safety and civil liberties at the same time. The question should not be whether there will be some new balance where we give up some portion of our liberties for security, which unfortunately seems to be the position of both the Conservatives and the Liberals on this important question.

Instead, Canadians expect us to take on the tougher task of protecting both freedom and security in a climate where extremists of all kinds are attacking the essence of our free and open society. Equally unfortunate is the tendency to act as if legislation is the government's only tool. As the old saying goes, “If you only have a hammer, then everything looks like a nail”. The New Democrats will continue to urge the Conservative government to take a broader view. We will urge the government to examine whether the tools it already has are being used effectively.

We will urge the government to skip its clever rhetoric about a mythical 30% increase in public safety budgets and ask serious questions about the impacts of three consecutive years of cuts on national security. We will ask the government to engage in a dialogue with Canadians from all communities on how else, other than legislation, we can respond to these new national security threats. Above all, we are asking the government to consider what we can do together as a nation to respond to the need to protect both public safety and civil liberties.

I look forward to the debate we will have when we get to committee, but as I said, we have many serious questions to ask the government and we hope we will be given time to bring forward the expert witnesses we need at committee to have a full debate, as these are important questions to national security in Canada. We have seen an unfortunate tendency in the public safety committee to limit the number of witnesses who appear, to limit the debate, and to limit the discussion of any necessary amendments.

We will be asking tough questions about accountability because, as has been the theme of my remarks today, we believe that if there is a need for an expansion of powers for agencies like CSIS, then we must ensure that we have adequate accountability measures in place to protect civil liberties. As I see my time is drawing to a close, I want to thank the minister for providing a briefing on this legislation for the opposition. It was quite a useful briefing, although I have to say it seems it is the first time we received such a briefing.

I hope it indicates a new spirit of co-operation on any legislation coming forward in the future, because we have to make sure we get this right. Things that affect national security and civil liberties go to the very heart of who we are as Canadians.

(1125) Once again, New Democrats ask the government to consider very seriously not asking Canadians to give up some civil liberties for security, but consider how we can protect both civil liberties and public safety and keep this the nation that we all treasure so much. Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague across the way, and I believe that the minister has reached that balance of protecting the security of Canadians but also the civil liberties that Canada is well known for.

Members of our law enforcement agencies put their lives on the line in order to thoroughly investigate threats to our national security. Presently, CSIS agents travelling to work abroad have to travel under their given names. They are provided little protection of their identities, a risk that puts them and their families in danger. This bill would provide protections for CSIS employees to protect their identities when working abroad. Would the member and the NDP support such common-sense measures? He spoke about using a broader tool on this specific part of Bill C-44 . Would he support that?

(1130) Mr. Randall Garrison : Mr. Speaker, as I have stated very clearly, New Democrats are going to support this bill going to committee so we can ask very serious questions about these things. On the question of protecting the identities of CSIS sources, many people have said there may be an unintended consequence. CSIS sources and CSIS identities get wrapped up together and we have to make sure that when CSIS comes up with information that shows that someone has been a threat to national security, we are able to take legal action against those people.

If we end up expanding these protections too broadly so that it interferes with prosecution, then in essence, we have defeated the purpose. New Democrats want to look very carefully at those questions about the expansion of protection of sources and the identities of CSIS employees, to make sure they do not have unintended consequences for being able to enforce important law for national security. Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with my colleague from the NDP on this particular committee.

He kind of hinted that the government seems to think that legislation in and of itself is always the ultimate answer. As I look at this bill, I see that there are really not a lot of additional authorizations in it. Even CSIS itself would admit that the bill would authorize it to do what it already does. Also, there is the protection of sources, which is new. In his remarks, the member talked a bit about the Canada Border Services Agency and the cutbacks to the RCMP, CSIS, and CBSA. From my perspective, the whole of the department of public safety and national security can do a lot beyond this legislation.

I think the member alluded to that. I wonder what the member is suggesting beyond the legislation that should be done on the part of the government to deal with both terrorism from abroad and homegrown terrorism here. Mr. Randall Garrison : Mr. Speaker, I too enjoy working with the member for Malpeque on the public safety committee.

The question New Democrats are asking is the broad, general question about whether there are things that already exist in terms of the government's powers, things it already could be doing and should be doing beyond simply asking for new legislation each time we confront one of these problems. One of the most important of those, of course, is consulting with communities about the creation of homegrown radicals in Canada, whatever their motivation. Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we have had two serious cases, Abdullah Almalki and Maher Arar.

Justice Iacobucci and Justice O'Connor made significant recommendations around the protection of Canadians' rights vis-à-vis CSIS and the RCMP. We do not see those recommendations in the bill. In committee, were there discussions around that and did New Democrats push to have that included in this legislation? Mr. Randall Garrison : Mr. Speaker, we have not been to committee yet to have these discussions.

New Democrats are being optimistic that we will have full discussions at that level, but it is very clear that, since 2003, there have been repeated recommendations that we need to strengthen the accountability measures that go along with the powers to enforce legislation to guarantee national security. We are arguing on this side that those two things go hand in hand. They are not a contradiction. We have to have better accountability. When we look at the SIRC report for 2012-13 on CSIS, we see it has some shocking material in it.

When the accountability group says the minister was not consulted on a major change in policy, and there is no record of any meeting or memo that establishes any legal authority for what CSIS is doing, then we have a serious problem. (1135) [ Translation ] Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service has my full confidence, and I am pleased to hear that the New Democrats support this measure.

However, are they prepared to move this bill quickly to committee, where parliamentarians are better prepared to delve deeper into this debate? I would point out that nearly $190 million was given to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, in addition to the $700 million. Unfortunately, we did not get the support of the two political parties in either of these cases. Are they prepared to move this to committee quickly? [ English ] My second question is this. In the bill, in clause 7, proposed subsection 18.1(4) clearly introduces the concept of the right to a fair trial that is protected in all cases.

Does the member find some comfort, as he has expressed concerns about civil rights, that this is in the bill? What does he find in this provision that would protect and bring the balance he has suggested? Mr. Randall Garrison : Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister's question contains about seven questions, and I am not sure I have time to answer all of them. When it comes to his reference to us not supporting the budget, this is one case when it is the opposite of the Conservative rhetoric. We did not support the Conservative budget that cut funding for the RCMP, CSIS, and the CBSA.

The minister makes reference to this mythical golden time before he began his cuts in 2012, and we are very clearly on record as not supporting that budget. The Conservatives like to use our opposition to the action plans in one way. I will use it the other way today. On the question of how quickly we will get to committee, the government has a habit of using time allocation. I hope we do not see it do that on this bill.

It is important that members of the House of Commons, who represent all kinds of different ridings and different people, the full diversity of Canada, get a chance to participate in this debate, if they wish to, and raise the issues that are important to them so that when we go to committee, we know what is on the minds of Canadians, as presented to the House by their representatives. [ Translation ] Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I represent the riding of Alfred-Pellan, which is named after a gifted painter who lived in Laval for a time.

I am honoured to represent a riding with his name. I would like to thank my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for his comments today on Bill C-44, which is important under the circumstances. This is not a response to the unfortunate events of October 20 and 22, but it is still a first step in enhancing public safety. As my colleague mentioned, it is very important to define the line between public safety and civil liberties. This has been much discussed here in the House.

I would like my other colleagues in the House to understand how things work on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, where we do not always have the opportunity to have in-depth discussions because the government often imposes time limits on us. Would my colleague give us an idea of the atmosphere that currently exists in the committee and that we hope will not prevail as we examine Bill C-44? [ English ] Mr. Randall Garrison : Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan for her remarks and for the work she does as the NDP deputy public safety critic.

She is a vigilant and hard-working member of our committee and of the NDP team. She makes an important point. Right now, in the public safety committee, we are dealing with Bill C-2 , the safe injection sites bill, which of course really belongs in the health committee, but it is in our committee. We were presented with a very tight timeframe, including a limit, which the Conservatives passed in committee, of five minutes for the discussion of each clause.

One of those clauses we are dealing with puts 27 different conditions on the opening of a safe injection site, and we are supposed to have five minutes of debate on that clause. When it comes to getting this bill to committee, I am urging the government that we not be presented with such narrow and unreasonable time limits so that we can have a full discussion of what is a very important bill. Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-44 ,

an act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other acts. It is a bill the government really had to introduce following two adverse court rulings on the activities of CSIS. In beginning, I want to just spin off a little of that last question and answer. I would speak directly to the minister.

I would hope, in this instance, given the concern about the balance between national security and civil liberties, that the minister would push the committee to allow a full list of witnesses, not the kind of stacked list we get sometimes from the Conservatives, and a full hearing, an in-depth hearing, so the committee can do its proper job and come back with the best legislation possible. I support the point raised a moment ago by my colleagues.

There are some serious questions related to the provisions in Bill C-44 that need to be raised when the bill is before committee, and we intend to raise those questions and those concerns at that time. The Liberal Party will be supporting this bill going to committee. However, I hope that the committee is really allowed to do its job and get in the proper expert witnesses and have the proper balance so that we can come back with the best legislation possible. We have to look not just at this bill but at CSIS and its connections to the RCMP, CSEC, Canada Border Services Agency, and our allies we work with abroad.

There are three points I would like to raise specifically on this issue and this bill. One is tools. The minister is suggesting that this bill provides more tools, but there are really not many. The second area is resources, the financial, human, and technological resources, for CSIS to do its job. The third area is oversight and the need for proper oversight, and not of just CSIS. We have after-the-fact oversight, but there really needs to be parliamentary oversight of all our national security agencies. I will talk about that in a moment.

Before looking at the specific provisions in Bill C-44 , it is necessary to place on the record our concern about the government's response to the terrorist threat to Canada and from within Canada. I would begin by asking the government a direct question. Why is it that the legislation currently in place, the provisions in the Criminal Code, some of which were put forward by the government in the Combating Terrorism Act, have not been utilized?

On October 27, in the House, the Minister of Public Safety admitted that the response of his office and his government to the threat represented by homegrown terrorists was not quite what it should be. According to the minister at that time, it is “time we stop under-reacting to the great threats against us.” Yet the government still fails to act. I submit that it possesses the necessary tools to react. In fact, under

section 83.181 of the Criminal Code, there is all kinds of authority for anyone who “leaves or attempts to leave Canada” for the purpose of participating in any activity of a terrorist group outside Canada. There are four different sections there. The penalties are maximum terms in prison of 10 to 14 years, depending on the severity of the act.

(1140) The Minister of Justice stated publicly last week that the laws currently in place to combat a terrorist threat are “robust measures” that provide the police with the tools necessary to take action in response to a terrorist threat. The minister specifically referred to sections 83.3 and 810 of the Criminal Code, either of which would enable authorities to detain individuals under the provisions of a peace bond and could impose specific recognizance on individuals. In other words, action to limit certain individuals from taking action could be imposed.

I ask the minister why those provisions have not been utilized. The Minister of Public Safety has to this day failed to clarify a statement made before the public safety committee on October 8 with respect to the 80 individuals who returned to Canada after travelling abroad to take

part in terrorist-related activities. He stated: Let me be clear that these individuals posing a threat to our security at home have violated Canadian law....These dangerous individuals, some skilled and desiring to commit terrorist activity, pose a serious threat to law-abiding Canadians. The minister also reconfirmed the following at committee: ...leaving or attempting to leave Canada to participate in terrorist activities is now a criminal offence. The minister is quite correct on those points. There is authority under the Criminal Code to act.

I have to again ask the question: Why has the government not acted with those authorities that are already there? Those authorities would not be changed in this particular legislation, other than confirming in law what CSIS already does. I ask why

section 83.181, which states that “Everyone who leaves or attempts to leave Canada” for terrorist acts abroad, is not being applied. It certainly was not in the case of the individual involved in the murder of the Canadian Forces member in Quebec earlier this month. According to public information, that individual had his passport revoked on the grounds of attempting to travel to Syria or Iraq to join known listed terrorist entities.

According to testimony by the Commissioner of the RCMP to the Senate national security committee on October 27, this individual was known to authorities to have intended to use his passport to leave Canada for Syria or Iraq to participate in “jihad”, yet the commissioner confirmed that the evidence the authorities had of this intent, while enough to have his passport revoked, was not enough to lay a charge. I ask the minister, and maybe he can answer this at committee, whether this bill will correct that shortcoming.

I personally do not see it in the legislation, but I would ask the minister and his staff to come prepared to answer that question. Would this legislation correct that shortcoming the RCMP Commissioner seems to have outlined? We really do not know as yet, because the minister has not been specific on that point. A great deal has been said by members of the government with respect to the provisions of the Combating Terrorism Act, which came into force in 2013.

According to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety , one individual has been charged under the provisions of the Combating Terrorism Act. The minister confirmed, as well, when he testified before the public safety committee on October 8, that only a single individual has been charged under the Combating Terrorism Act.

(1145) However, what neither the minister nor the parliamentary secretary bothered to tell Canadians was that the single individual charged had left Canada six months prior to the charges being laid, and that individual's whereabouts are still unknown. Could one of the reasons these provisions in the Criminal Code have not been acted upon be the limited resources available to our security and intelligence services? That was mentioned in a previous speech. What good are legal sanctions if our security agencies cannot utilize them?

If the reason is that the current government has been starving those agencies' critical resources, who is responsible for the security failure? I would submit that in many things that the current government has been doing in the last two years, it has been blindly focused. Good government requires it to provide services, security, and financial resources, and yes, it has to establish priorities. However, part of the problem with the current government is it is blindly focused on getting as huge a surplus as possible so it can throw out election goodies.

Is part of the cost of doing that starving CSIS and the RCMP of the funds necessary to do their job? I really do not know, but it looks that way. Good government cannot be blindly focused just on achieving a surplus to provide goodies at the next election; it has to be focused on the needs and the services of Canadians. I see that as a problem. There is another issue beyond this bill that the government must respond to, something that does not require legislation but requires the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness simply to do the job assigned to him.

The most recent annual report of the Security and Intelligence Review Committee, the only oversight body for CSIS, raised a number of troubling concerns. The Commissioner of the RCMP told the Senate national security committee on October 27 that there were now 93 individuals identified as high-risk travellers. The director of CSIS informed the public safety committee on October 8 that there were 80 individuals who have returned to Canada after having engaged in terrorist activities abroad, and CSIS knows where they are.

The problem there is that in terms of the RCMP doing its job, Commissioner Paulson said before a committee: ...we are reallocating the necessary funds and personnel from other priority areas to combat this threat. In recent months, and over the past week, over 300 additional resources were transferred in to enhance the capacity of INSET [Integrated National Security Enforcement Teams] from other federal policing priority areas such as organized crime and financial crime. That tells me that the RCMP is indeed short of resources.

The deputy director of CSIS told the same committee on October 20: ...we work within the budget that is assigned to us. We do have to prioritize. I would be foolhardy to say we have all the bases covered. We do what we can with the budget we have, sir. There are clearly some concerns over financing. There is another problem that the minister can deal with as well, and that is the operational mandate within CSIS.

The most recent SIRC report, entitled “Lifting the Shroud of Secrecy: Thirty Years of Security Intelligence Accountability”, the annual report for 2013-14, said the following on page 16: With surveillance teams spread across Canada all sharing identical job functions, SIRC expected to see solid communication among surveillance practitioners. Instead, SIRC found that, for the most part, regional surveillance teams operate in total isolation from one another and communicate only sporadically with their HQ counterparts.

(1150) That is worrisome, because if CSIS is not communicating properly within regions and between regions and headquarters, there is a serious problem. That is something that the minister can deal with. The other point in the report that I just mentioned—and I am pretty sure that the minister knows this—is that at page 19, SIRC also found that with respect to the activities of CSIS: ...the Minister of Public Safety is not always systematically advised of such activities, nor is he informed of them in a consistent manner. Those are two areas the minister can deal with without needing a bill.

The minister just needs to ensure that the job is getting done within his own department. The government has placed within Bill C-44 the enactment provisions of Bill C-24 , which the minister talked about earlier. Bill C-24 would revoke the citizenship of dual nationals. We are concerned about that. The minister said in his remarks that it is included so as to enact that

section faster. In an earlier question for the minister I said, and I will say again, that it is not enough to have something in legislation; it has to stand up to the courts. Some of us are concerned that this

section just may not do that. If the government, RCMP, CSIS, and other authorities are spending a lot of time on that particular area of taking away dual citizens' citizenship, it needs to be time well spent. I asked the minister to provide legal opinion to the committee to show that it is, in fact, charter-proof. In an earlier question to the minister, I also raised the point that there is fairly strong wording in this particular bill.

Subclause 8(2) reads: Without regard to any other law, including that of any foreign state, a judge may, in a warrant...authorize activities outside Canada to enable the Service to investigate a threat to the security of Canada. This would basically allow for a warrant to be issued to allow agents to break the law in a foreign country. We have checked the wording extensively, and similar wording is not found in the relevant legislation of our Five Eyes counterparts.

I ask the minister why we need that specific wording when other countries do not, and I hope he could report the answer to committee, An important part of the legislation deals with protecting our sources and informants abroad. At committee we would want to have more specific information on that aspect and know how it would be accomplished. I look forward to the government providing that information to the committee. I will move on to the last point that I would like to make. I said first of all that I would deal with tools, resources, and oversight.

One of the major shortcomings of this bill is the fact that the government did not bring accompanying legislation to provide proper parliamentary oversight to all of our national security agencies in Canada, as is done by all of our Five Eyes counterparts. My colleague, the member for Vancouver Quadra , has a private member's bill, Bill C-622 , as one option that the government could consider. I have a private member's bill, Bill C-551 , which could be considered.

(1155) To find the balance between national security, civil liberties, and individual rights and freedoms in Canada, the government should be bringing in accompanying legislation that provides that parliamentary oversight. On the one hand, it would ensure that the agencies are doing their jobs, and on the other, it would ensure they are not going too far and violating the civil liberties of Canadians. (1200) [ Translation ] Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I am glad to hear that my colleague and his party are going to support the bill at second reading so that it can go to committee. My colleague raised some interesting points. Obviously, the answers to his many questions could be even better defined in the forum of the House of Commons. That being said, it is clear that this bill was introduced to bring about greater legislative clarity, to clarify the mandate of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, particularly when it comes to its activities outside the country. Also, Canadian laws apply regardless of where CSIS is conducting its operations.

In addition, when it comes to witness protection, everyone has the right to a fair judgment. That being said, my question is very simple. Given that the House reached a consensus on an agreement in principle, does the hon. member agree that we should quickly pass this bill and send it to committee so that it can become a tool that Canadian intelligence agencies can use to protect Canadians? [ English ] Hon. Wayne Easter : Mr. Speaker, one of the difficulties with the question in the way he raises it is that in all honesty, committees have not been working effectively under the current regime.

Witnesses are stacked in a certain way so that we do not hear a full range of witnesses. I personally, and I think even my party, would agree to send this legislation to committee quickly if we had the government's assurance that all the expert witnesses from across the country that we need to hear would be heard and that it would not be the kind of stacked hearing process that we get so often from the government side.

If committees were allowed to work the way they should—that is, effectively—and the government was willing to accept amendments if necessary amendments were to be made, then of course I would more than welcome the minister's offer. However, things need to change at committee. This is a serious bill. It requires serious work. The best place to do it is at committee, but we need some assurance from the government side that it would allow the committee to take on its full responsibility. Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like the minister to respond to the member's invitation, but I am not holding my breath for that to happen. It appears that the minister wishes to have it both ways by getting it out of the House quickly and then having a superficial hearing at committee. I want to pick up on the first point that he raised, which was that the bill is in fact a response to certain judicial issues or court cases. I ask him to expand on that point. I assume there is some sort of problem with protection of witnesses and with CSIS operating abroad. In both these instances, the courts have intervened.

A secondary question is that if the member for Vancouver Quadra 's bill had been accepted, or if yours had been, we would not be dealing with this issue, as that balance would have been achieved. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Before I go to the member for Malpeque, I would remind all hon. members, including veterans with many years in the House, to address their comments to the Chair rather than directly to their colleague. Hon. Wayne Easter : Mr. Speaker, the bill is not in response to current activities, to what happened in the last three weeks within Canada.

It is a bill that has been in process for some time, and to a certain extent, as I understand it, responding to Justices Blanchard and Mosley. Justice Blanchard concluded in a Federal Court decision made public in 2008 that

section 12 did not possess an extraterritorial aspect. He also concluded that the Federal Court had no authority to issue a warrant authorizing surveillance on Canadians located overseas. The bill is in part a response to that. The other aspect that comes, not so much from a court case but CSIS itself, is the need to protect informants abroad. As I raised with the minister, while we agree with the principle that those informants have to be protected, there has to be justice under the law as well so that somebody is not falsely accused.

We want to see from the Conservatives the details on how they intend to do that, protecting informants who are assisting Canada but may reside in foreign countries. (1205) [ Translation ] Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Malpeque for his speech. I unfortunately did not retain everything that he said. Nevertheless, I have a question about Bill C-44. It is a short bill, only five or six pages long. However, I am sad to say that it is an omnibus bill.

While the majority of the bill focuses on CSIS reforms, that is not the only thing included in this bill. In fact, there is one part that has nothing to do with the rest of the bill. It proposes moving up the effective date for Bill C-24 , which is about revoking dual citizenship. I have already heard the hon. member talk about this, so I know he is somewhat upset by it. What would he think of splitting this bill in two or removing that part of the bill? In his opinion, what is the best way to deal with this part of the bill? [ English ] Hon. Wayne Easter : Mr.

Speaker, we were somewhat surprised and shocked to see this section. It is identical to the

section in the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act that was passed, Bill C-24 , so we were surprised to see that in here. We opposed that particular aspect earlier in Bill C-24 . We are seeing it appended to this particular bill. The minister explained that it is in here to enact it earlier. I said to the minister, and I said it to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration as well, that we would like to see a legal opinion from the government that shows that this particular

section would stand up to the charter, because we certainly do not believe that it will. We are asking for that. I have no problem at all with the idea of the member splitting that out of the bill. It seems misplaced in a bill that is dealing with CSIS and the authority of CSIS, so we would certainly be open to that option. Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to discuss this very important piece of legislation, legislation that is timely, that is consequential, that will help the House and this government uphold its principle duty to Canadians, which is to ensure their safety and to protect them from threats that we know to be all too real. The protection of Canada from terrorists act gives our security agencies the vital tools they need to keep Canadians safe.

So far in the debate, we are pleased to see the emerging recognition from parties opposite that these tools are needed, that they are part of our national response to the threat of terrorism and that it is time we took action to make sure that the agencies on which we rely to carry out that duty on behalf of government, on behalf of our democratic institutions, have these tools available to undertake the reasonable activity required to, once again, keep Canada and Canadians safe.

Before I begin my remarks on the substance of the legislation, let me remind us all once again why these measures, which were contemplated long before the attacks of last month, are doubly warranted and doubly relevant given the events that occurred at the National War Memorial and in our Hall of Honour just steps from where we are today. Those events are a reminder that ISIL and other terrorist groups are a very real threat to Canadians. That is why we are taking

part in air strikes against ISIL this week. That is why we are supporting the security forces of Iraq in their fight against the scourge of terrorism. All of these measures go together to ensure that Canada and Canadians are kept safe, that we work in concert with allies and partners in NATO and in the region to ensure that this threat that is principally victimizing the people of Iraq and Syria does not become an even greater threat to them or to our population further afield.

It is also the reason why we are working with great determination to strengthen the tools, to strengthen the effectiveness of the tools already available to police, to the intelligence community in the areas of surveillance, detention and arrest. The legislation before us today is just the first step in our efforts to do that and as the Prime Minister has been clear, so are we all clear on this side of the House that we will not overreact to these events. We will not be intimidated by ISIL or any other group, but at the same time, Canadians want us to stop under-reacting to a threat that is indeed very real.

Section 83 of the Criminal Code of Canada defines terrorist activity as

an act committed for a political, religious or ideological purpose with the intention of intimidating the public and that intentionally causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence or disrupts an essential service, facility or system. Given that definition, I think we can all agree that last week in late October, Canada was a victim of terrorist attacks. This was the view confirmed in the immediate aftermath of those attacks by Bob Paulson, Commissioner of the RCMP. It was shared by the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry during his visit shortly after the attacks.

He said, “...anybody who walks up in a premeditated way with a loaded rifle and attacks someone in uniform then purposely goes to a parliament, is committing, by common sense standards, a terrorist act”. Unfortunately, we still have the leader of the NDP on record disagreeing with this assessment, despite the fact that it was reinforced yesterday by another important visitor to Canada. (1210) [ Translation ] The President of the French Republic had no doubt about the nature of the terrorist attacks two weeks ago.

We agree with him and are grateful for the show of solidarity from France, other European allies, the U.S., and dozens of other countries that recognize that the acts committed here in Ottawa two weeks ago were related to terrorism. [ English ] I would like to quote a recent Toronto Star editorial on the leader of the NDP's position. It states: Most people grasp it instinctively—what occurred last week and the ongoing risks in our midst.

That NDP Leader Tom Mulcair cannot admit this, even now, drawing an irrational, pedantic distinction between the deadly attack in Ottawa and a terrorist assault, reflects abysmally on his judgment and aspirations of political statesmanship. That is a strong statement coming from a newspaper that I, for one, do not often quote in this place. I think it speaks for itself. Ambiguities in the CSIS Act have been impeding the ability of our national security agencies to investigate threats to the security of Canada.

The bill would address these problems by confirming that CSIS has the authority to conduct investigations outside of Canada, confirming that the Federal Court can issue warrants for CSIS to investigate targets outside of this country, giving the Federal Court the authority to consider only relevant Canadian laws when issuing warrants for CSIS, and creating automatic protections of the identities of CSIS employees who may engage in clandestine operations.

The bill would also make technical amendments that would allow our government to seek quicker implementation of the new citizenship revocation provisions under the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, the former Bill C-24 , which received royal assent earlier this year on June 19. While it is important to ensure that citizenship revocation provisions come into force as soon as possible, the pith and substance, the main motive for the legislation, relates to our national security agencies. Let me remind the House that there are three challenges being met.

The first is to clarify that for greater certainty CSIS may perform its duties and functions within or outside of Canada. It has been doing this since its foundation, but as we all know, there has been an inability, particularly in recent months, for it to fully execute those functions outside of Canada to the degree required by its mandate to counter threats to Canada, above all, the threat of terrorism. It would also clarify that the courts may issue warrants for certain investigative activities within or outside Canada and for that purpose, warrants may be issued without regard to the law of a foreign state.

In other words, these warrants would be in full conformity to Canadian law, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, all aspects of our legal system, but not necessarily with regard to the law of a foreign state. Second, the legislation would create a statutory prohibition on disclosure of identities or information from which identities could be inferred of individuals who provide CSIS with information in return for a promise of confidentiality.

In other words, we need to ensure in this day and age that those in a position to provide the most sensitive information, the most time-sensitive information, information of the highest delicacy, can do so safely and have their identities protected under our legal system. Third, the CSIS Act makes it an offence to disclose the identities of CSIS employees who are or were engaged in covert operational activities.

The legislation would expand this protection to also cover CSIS employees who are likely to become engaged in such activities, making it possible for those recruited to do these jobs, being trained to do these jobs, being retasked to do these jobs, to have their identities protected as well. All of these changes, as I think the House now understands, are vital to the protection of our national security. They would help stop individuals from travelling for terrorist purposes, especially given recent global events.

Our government remains seized, like dozens of other governments around the world, with the issue of foreign fighters, individuals from Canada, from our European partners, from the United States, from the Middle East itself, travelling to places such as Iraq, Syria, Somalia or Pakistan, which is still well known, unfortunately, as a training ground for Sunni extremist terrorist groups, to engage in terrorist activities. These individuals often pose a direct danger to the countries where they are operating.

Any country that has experienced terrorist violence on a large scale, as is the case, obviously, for Iraq and Syria, but also for Pakistan, Somalia, Libya, many countries of the Maghreb and even sub-Saharan Africa, fall into this category. They, too, have the threat of terrorist training, recruiting, financing of terrorist activities in their territory and of foreign fighters flowing into their borders to join those training efforts and that fight.

(1215) This bill would update the CSIS Act to allow our intelligence community to operate and investigate threats to Canadian national security much better. It would clarify the investigative functions under sections 12 and 15 of the CSIS Act within or outside of Canada. Keep in mind that

section 12 already authorizes CSIS to investigate threats to Canada's security, and terrorism is very high if not continuously at the top of the list in terms of those threats.

Section 15 relates to the security assessments that CSIS performs for departments like mine to allow us to take responsible decisions about visa issuance and to prevent foreign fighters, terrorist kingpins, those who have been involved in terrorist violence or committed atrocities abroad from coming to Canada either as visitors or permanent residents. The bill would also clarify that the courts may issue warrants for investigative activities, once again, within or outside Canada but without regard to the law of a foreign state.

Indeed, if there is one central advantage to this proposed legislation, strength in this legislation, it is that it will help our government meet its security priority of securing convictions for those who engage in terrorist activity. This is the solution to the global phenomenon of terrorism. These people and groups need to be fought, as we are fighting them in Iraq, but they also need to be brought to justice not only in Canada but in all the states where these crimes are committed.

As members know, in May 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutionality of the security certificate process in a decision on the case of Mohamed Harkat. This helped to show that we could gather evidence in a way that would allow it to be used in court proceedings without compromising operations. However, as part of this decision, the Supreme Court also found that, unlike police informers, the identity of CSIS sources were not automatically protected from disclosure. CSIS obviously relies heavily on such information from human sources.

Without such assurances, human sources may simply stop co-operating with CSIS, stop-co-operating with Canada, and we would operate blind and open ourselves to threats that we would have a duty to combat. To address this issue, the bill would create a statutory prohibition on disclosure of the identities or information from which the identities could be inferred of individuals who provided CSIS with information in return for a promise of confidentiality. As with all of our legislation, this act would continue to respect the Canadian values of individual rights and the rule of law.

All of the investigative activities of CSIS must take place in accordance with its mandated authorities under the CSIS Act, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ministerial direction and internal policy. When threats demand more intrusive investigative measures, the service requires judicial authorization for each and every one of those activities. CSIS is also subject to a full review by the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which has access to all information held by the service. We have heard the Liberals and others call for more oversight or review by parliamentary committees.

However, the issue at hand today is not whether CSIS is carrying out its mandate in accordance with the law. There is no evidence of CSIS not having done that. Our supervisory process is working well in our view and in the view of independent third parties that assess that performance. The issue is whether CSIS has the mandate, the authority under the law to perform its mandate, which is to keep us safe from threats to our national security, including terrorism.

The bill would also speed up the process of implementing legislation to revoke citizenship of dual nationals engaged in terrorist activities or who would engage in combat against the Canadian Armed Forces. I am struck, as the Minister of Immigration, by the contrast between the approach of the opposition parties to this issue in April/May of this year, when we debated Bill C-24 , and their approach today, which seems to be much more accommodating of the idea that Canadian citizenship be allegiance to our institutions, the willingness to uphold our laws and fulfill one's duties as a Canadian citizen.

This is incompatible with taking violent action to murder people or commit bodily harm in the name of an ideology or political agenda that seeks to intimidate the whole population. That is why we brought forward these measures to revoke citizenship in cases of gross acts of disloyalty. We are pleased to see support for this idea growing on the opposition benches.

(1220) These proposed provisions will also provide the Federal Court with the authority to revoke Canadian citizenship from dual citizens for membership in an armed force or organized armed group engaged in armed conflict with Canada. Today, that would include ISIS. It is both a terrorist group and an armed group engaged in conflict with our forces now in combat in Iraq.

These provisions would bring Canada in line with peer countries, such as Australia, the United States, United Kingdom, New Zealand and the vast majority or our allies in NATO and beyond, by providing that citizenship could be revoked under very strict conditions from dual nationals convicted of terrorism, high treason, spying offences or who take up arms against Canada. This underscores our commitment to protecting the safety and security of Canadians, but also to promoting Canadian interests and values. They also reinforce the value of Canadian citizenship.

The amendments on the revocation of citizenship are merely technical. There is no cost to pursuing these amendments as a revocation decision-making model is more efficient and less costly to the government. While we are adding grounds to revoke citizenship upon conviction of dual nations for terrorism, treason or espionage, we have long had the power, and the House has supported it, to prevent terrorists, criminals, those who would do harm to our country and those who embrace violent ideologies from becoming citizens.

Indeed, if they acquire citizenship without disclosing a terrorist affiliation and that comes to light, we have had the power to revoke that citizenship on the basis of misrepresentation Now we are simply adding a power to revoke on the basis of a terrorist conviction, a much more serious and much higher threshold of proof of terrorist activities, all of which hangs together very coherently. All of these provisions will work together to keep Canada safer. Last, I would like to emphasis the oversight of our national security agencies.

The security intelligence review committee provides a robust and comprehensive review of CSIS. The recent annual report shows, once again, the level of access it has to all aspects of CSIS operations. It plays a key role in ensuring our national security agencies are held fully and publicly to account. CSIS is reviewing the latest recommendations and will implement those that will keep Canada safe, while protecting the rights and privacy of Canadians. I see my time is drawing close, and I would like to leave all members of the House with key points to consider before voting on this important legislation.

First, Canada is a beacon of freedom and opportunity in a turbulent and uncertain world, a world that in recent years has become more violent, especially in the Middle East and especially because of the escalating conflict in Iraq. For that very reason, those who despise freedom and democracy, those who reject modernity, who reject our way of life, who reject the very idea of the prosperity we have so painstakingly built in our country, want to cause harm and wreak havoc on Canada and Canadians.

I can say this first hand, as 40,000 of our fellow Canadians who served in Afghanistan can tell the House and all Canadians, that these threats are real. They were in control of Afghanistan before the fall of the Taliban. They remain all too present and dangerous a reality in Iraq and Syria today. The threat of domestic terrorism is heightened to a point that we have not seen in many years. The bullet holes in the Hall of Honour stand as a sober reminder of this threat. In light of this reality, it is important we take the steps provided for in this bill as quickly as possible.

Second, it is important to remember that in doing so we will respect the Canadian values of individual rights under the rule of law, while ending the practice of under-reacting to the terrorist threat. Our freedom and our commitment to the rule of law are not an either or choice and are not choices that are mutually exclusive. We choose to be free as Canadians and to work for freedom in the world by having a standard of the rule of law in our country that is second to none. These measures will help to keep it that way.

(1225) Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am interested in following up with my colleague, particularly on the values that Canadians place on the rule of law in dealing with the kinds of threats we face. With the Spencer decision, we found that the issues of warrantless access were struck down in the Supreme Court. There were a million requests to various telecoms last year from various government agencies. A million requests, which works out to one every 72 seconds, raises the question of whether these provisions, which are not legal, were being properly applied.

This then would suggest that if we do not have proper oversight on warrantless access, then the ability to use these tools when they are needed would be drowned out by all manner of what could be the most bizarre requests. A government agency could simply get one's information without any oversight. Therefore, I would like to ask my colleague a question about oversight. The Privacy Commissioner's report on the RCMP and warrantless access raises many questions, such as the RCMP has not been able to show whether it has followed procedure or cannot explain under what terms this information has been gathered.

On the issue of the rule of law, how do we ensure that we are using these tools to go after legitimate threats and not going on fishing expeditions?

(1230) Hon. Chris Alexander : Mr. Speaker, we are talking about CSIS, not the RCMP. It is the CSIS Act that is being amended by these measures. We need these tools because we know perfectly well that some Canadians have chosen to join terrorist groups to conduct terrorist activities and have not been charged and convicted of the acts we all know they have committed. Therefore, the question is not whether warrants are required, because to conduct its investigations, CSIS requires judicial authorization in each and every case.

The question is whether that judicial authorization, that fully supervised activity by CSIS, is getting us the result we need it to achieve. In recent months and years, as we have heard in testimony from the CSIS leadership itself and all kinds of third-party observers of our situation in Canada, CSIS has not had the ability to obtain judicial authority to conduct activities abroad to the extent required to keep Canada safe. Why?

Because to go after this information in Syria, for example, it has to ask permission of Syria's Assad to ensure that any judicial authorization is in conformity with the laws of that country. Under these measures, that would no longer be required. CSIS would have authorization under Canadian law to obtain information about terrorist suspects in Syria and elsewhere. That is in conformity with the best practices among our— The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Order, please. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Malpeque. Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, the minister went on at some length about some decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. He talked about how important it was for CSIS and the other authorities to have the mandate and authority under the law to keep us safe. He then led from the fact that the opposition parties had said that they would send this to committee, with a

section in the bill that we had concerns about, which is the removal of Canadian citizenship from dual citizens. Both opposition parties have opposed that. Because we are letting this go to committee, it should not be alleged that we support that, because do not. Would the minister provide assurance that the law will stand up to a charter challenge? He said that it was important that security organizations had a mandate and an authority under the law.

Will the minister provide us in the House or at committee with the legal opinion that states that the removal of Canadian citizenship from those dual citizens, which cannot be done with Canadians, will stand up to a Supreme Court challenge and is charter safe? Is he willing to provide that information? Hon. Chris Alexander : Mr. Speaker, we are talking here about measures to prevent terrorists from coming to Canada and from becoming Canadians.

I hope that there is not anyone in the House who thinks that any terrorist, from whatever background, belonging to a listed terrorist group under our Criminal Code has the right to become a Canadian citizen. Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which was brought in by a Conservative government and sustained by Liberal governments over many years, we have long had inadmissibility for terrorists. That means they cannot come here as visitors, they cannot come here as permanent residents, and they certainly cannot become citizens.

If they acquired citizenship because they misrepresented themselves and did not say that they were a trainer for ISIL in Syria for 10 years before coming here, and we find that out, we have been able to revoke that citizenship for years. We were able to do it under Liberal governments. Now, all we are saying is that there is an additional right. Yes, the legal opinion of the Government of Canada across the board is that this is in conformity wit