SECU Committee Report

There Can Be No Liberty without Security: Conservative Party of Canada Dissenting Report

Terrorists, aware of the some of the shortcomings and limitations of our legal systems, often exploit these gaps to their advantage. – Canadian Coalition against Terror[1]

There is no more pressing concern for any government than the protection of the physical safety of its citizens.  Yet, rather than work from this premise, the Liberal Government – and by extension the Liberal majority on this Committee – have taken an ill-advised path of attempting to water down our national security tools.

A cursory review of the “Terms of Reference” section of this report displays such a wrongheaded focus.  The Terms of Reference are described with a focus on the perceived loss of rights, with a limited focus on serious problems like terrorist attacks, radicalization, lack of resources for security agencies, or legislative roadblocks.

One does not need to go far beyond the daily headlines to see the horrific effect that jihadi terrorism continues to have on the West.  Solely during the period that the Committee was reviewing the text of this Report, we saw major terrorist attacks in London[2], Kabul[3], and Damascus[4].  There were also disruptions of planned attacks in Italy[5], Germany[6], and an arrest of a terrorist traveler right here in Canada[7].

Instead, the report has missed these issues in favour of addressing issues like false positives in the Passenger Protect Program.  As Queens University Professor Christian Leuprecht said “I think we need a (Passenger Protect Program) that meets Canadians' expectations. On the whole, I think this program does that because the problems are isolated cases… There are not dozens of people who are barred from taking flights every day”[8]

While Parliamentarians obviously must be concerned about correcting problematic elements in our laws, Conservatives do not believe that these kinds of issues should have been the priority of this Committee.  The Committee should have been focused on how to best keep Canadians safe from those who wish to do us harm.  The Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, more commonly known as Bill C-51 was an appropriate response to the terrorist threat environment.  The tools it created have been used responsibly by national security officials.  Conservatives believe that this legislation ought to be maintained.

The CSIS Public Report, 2014-2016 lays it out very clearly - “The principal terrorist threat to Canada remains that posed by violent extremists who could be inspired to carry out an attack in Canada. Violent extremist ideologies espoused by terrorist groups like (ISIS) and Al Qaeda continue to appeal to certain individuals in Canada.”[9]  What’s more, the Director of CSIS said that the new threat disruption powers had been used approximately 20 times.[10]  Previously, CSIS had their hands tied behind their backs in terms of combating terrorist threats.  As Professor Leuprecht said “In the case of the threat mitigation mandate, people didn't understand that CSIS couldn't technically talk to parents if they thought their kid was up to nothing good. There's good evidence that the mandate is working.”[11] Given the continued successful use of these powers by CSIS, the Conservative Party recommends that the threat disruption mandate must be maintained.

In order to tackle radicalization via the internet, promotion and advocacy of terrorism “in general” needs to remain an offence under the Criminal Code.  This was an important recommendation made by representatives of the Jewish community.[12]  Concerns that this provision needlessly targets free speech are unfounded and have not been borne out in the time since the law passed.  Conservatives recommend that the government maintain the criminal prohibition on advocacy and promotion of terrorism in general.

Additionally, during this study the Liberal Government used their majority to pass the flawed Bill C-22, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act.  Review of our security agencies was the focus of much testimony before this Committee.  Former Parliamentarian and former Chair of the Security and Intelligence Review Committee Ron Atkey summarized the problem well when he said “The language of Bill C-22 reflects a reluctance to have the committee of parliamentarians act as a true watchdog.”[13]  That is why Conservatives recommend that the Government seek to amend Bill C-22 to reflect that review of national security activities should be done by a committee of Parliament, with access to all classified information required to review actions of all national security agencies and the ability to follow information between agencies.  We further recommend that this committee should be supported by a Secretariat staffed with national security experts, including retired practitioners. 

There are also elements of our national security framework that were not touched on by the majority report. 

We have a serious gap in converting intelligence collected by our security services into evidence that can be used in a court case to put criminals behind bars.  There is a problem here that is not well understood, even by the legal experts[14].  That is why Conservatives recommend that the Government study the intelligence to evidence problem and develop a method to ensure that terrorists are not able to walk free because intelligence sources cannot be disclosed to law enforcement.  Paramount in this enquiry must be the preservation of relationships with key allies – particularly in the Five Eyes community of nations – from whom Canada receives the vast majority of its intelligence and with whom Canada has enjoyed decades of indispensable cooperation in the safeguarding of our national interests.

We also have a serious cyber security issue that has not been fully examined. The Government of Canada has several disparate departments coordinating the variety of facets that make up Canada’s cyber posture.  In the wake of allegations of Russian hacking in the US election, as well as allegations that they may have also been involved in the Canadian election, there are pressing reasons to be concerned.  In fact, multiple Ministers even have reference to cyber security in their mandate letters.  Professor Leuprecht recommended[15] adopting the approach that the United Kingdom has taken in having one agency charged with all cyber security matters.  Conservatives agree.  That is why we recommend that the Government adopt a Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) approach to cyber security, rather than having disparate organizations with different mandates responsible for its different aspects.

In closing, Conservatives are concerned that some of the recommendations adopted by the Liberal majority on this Committee will foreshadow dangerous changes to national security legislation.  We will strenuously oppose any measures that weaken the ability of our national security agencies to counter the ongoing and dangerous activities of jihadi terrorists and keep Canadians safe.