Bill C-51 (Historical)

Anti-terrorism Act, 2015

An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts

Part 1 enacts the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act, which authorizes Government of Canada institutions to disclose information to Government of Canada institutions that have jurisdiction or responsibilities in respect of activities that undermine the security of Canada. It also makes related amendments to other Acts.
Part 2 enacts the Secure Air Travel Act in order to provide a new legislative framework for identifying and responding to persons who may engage in an act that poses a threat to transportation security or who may travel by air for the purpose of committing a terrorism offence. That Act authorizes the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to establish a list of such persons and to direct air carriers to take a specific action to prevent the commission of such acts. In addition, that Act establishes powers and prohibitions governing the collection, use and disclosure of information in support of its administration and enforcement. That Act includes an administrative recourse process for listed persons who have been denied transportation in accordance with a direction from the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and provides appeal procedures for persons affected by any decision or action taken under that Act. That Act also specifies punishment for contraventions of listed provisions and authorizes the Minister of Transport to conduct inspections and issue compliance orders. Finally, this Part makes consequential amendments to the Aeronautics Act and the Canada Evidence Act.
Part 3 amends the Criminal Code to, with respect to recognizances to keep the peace relating to a terrorist activity or a terrorism offence, extend their duration, provide for new thresholds, authorize a judge to impose sureties and require a judge to consider whether it is desirable to include in a recognizance conditions regarding passports and specified geographic areas. With respect to all recognizances to keep the peace, the amendments also allow hearings to be conducted by video conference and orders to be transferred to a judge in a territorial division other than the one in which the order was made and increase the maximum sentences for breach of those recognizances.
It further amends the Criminal Code to provide for an offence of knowingly advocating or promoting the commission of terrorism offences in general. It also provides a judge with the power to order the seizure of terrorist propaganda or, if the propaganda is in electronic form, to order the deletion of the propaganda from a computer system.
Finally, it amends the Criminal Code to provide for the increased protection of witnesses, in particular of persons who play a role in respect of proceedings involving security information or criminal intelligence information, and makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Part 4 amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to permit the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to take, within and outside Canada, measures to reduce threats to the security of Canada, including measures that are authorized by the Federal Court. It authorizes the Federal Court to make an assistance order to give effect to a warrant issued under that Act. It also creates new reporting requirements for the Service and requires the Security Intelligence Review Committee to review the Service’s performance in taking measures to reduce threats to the security of Canada.
Part 5 amends Divisions 8 and 9 of Part 1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) define obligations related to the provision of information in proceedings under that Division 9;
(b) authorize the judge, on the request of the Minister, to exempt the Minister from providing the special advocate with certain relevant information that has not been filed with the Federal Court, if the judge is satisfied that the information does not enable the person named in a certificate to be reasonably informed of the case made by the Minister, and authorize the judge to ask the special advocate to make submissions with respect to the exemption; and
(c) allow the Minister to appeal, or to apply for judicial review of, any decision requiring the disclosure of information or other evidence if, in the Minister’s opinion, the disclosure would be injurious to national security or endanger the safety of any person.

Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his question

There is an aspect of the bill that I forgot to mention in my speech, but I will not mention it now.

There is something very troubling about the Liberals, and there is no denying it. When we studied the anti-terrorism bill, Bill C-51, the Liberals said that they did not agree with the bill, but that they would vote for it, and once they took power—which is highly unlikely—they would change things.

What is very troubling is that they are doing the same thing with Bill S-7, despite the opinion of the majority of witnesses, who pointed out many problems with different parts of the bill. Those problems make it almost impossible to adopt the bill in its current form, or without significant amendments. In the end, we would find ourselves with a bill that is both counterproductive and unsatisfactory. Thus, the Liberal approach is really pointless. It is a dead end.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is typical of the Liberals. They will say one thing and do another. On Bill C-51, they said they were for it although they were against it, but they were actually going to vote against it. It is the same thing with this bill. They were against it although they were for some of the things in it, but they are going to vote with the government. That party cannot take a stand.

Now that they are trailing in the polls, Liberals are trying to adopt some of the very policies that the NDP has offered over the last four or five years. Canadians realize that this is too little, too late for the little party over in the corner.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

On the issue of partisanship, we need only recall the sad spectacle we witnessed last week during question period. The Conservatives and the Liberals accused each other of having the worst record when it came to immigration and being the most so-called racist party, and here I am using their words, not my own.

In view of that sad spectacle, we must not forget that we are talking about the lives of people and victims. This is not the time to be engaging in vote buying and trying to divide people. That is why we are speaking out against the title of the bill.

In addition, as my colleague said and as I said in my speech, the fact that a bill like this was announced at a campaign-style event in the greater Toronto area reveals a purely vote-seeking and partisan intent. It shows a lack of any desire to solve the problem and a lack of consideration for the victims of horrible acts.

The same thing is happening in relation to a number of issues. We need only think of Bill C-51. When it comes to security and fundamental freedoms, the government can only hurl insults, divide people and make announcements at campaign-style events. That is not the way to govern or the kind of leadership the public is looking for. Most importantly, it is not the way to deal with horrors like these.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to Bill S-7. Indeed, there are a number of problems with this bill. We can start with the easiest and most obvious point: the title. We rarely want to spend time talking about the title of a bill, but it must be said that a number of witnesses, stakeholders and elected members talked about this at committee. Criticism was voiced about the fact that the title refers to barbaric cultural practices. The reason for raising this point is that since it was elected, this government has used short titles, which simplify what are sometimes overly long titles, as political tools to pander to a particular base, and sometimes even to sow division. An example is the omnibus crime bill entitled safe streets and communities act. By using titles like these, the government is able to pursue its demagoguery, the aim being to portray the opposition as opposed to putting a halt to these practices, or opposed to safe and protected communities. I think this is a problem in the bill, but it is also a way of dividing people and playing them off against one another. This bill talks about barbaric cultural practices; it associates cultural practices with barbaric acts. That is problematic.

With this in mind, it is important to point out, as several of my colleagues have done, including the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard, our critic in this area who made an excellent speech earlier today, that no one in the House, including the NDP, is in favour of violence against women. On the contrary, we denounce these horrifying acts. We ourselves are making proposals to put an end to these acts. For example, we have proposed that there be an inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women. My colleague from Churchill moved a motion to adopt a strategy to end violence against women, one of many other measures we have proposed. All of this demonstrates that everyone in the House agrees that these horrible acts should be stopped. The problem is the approach taken, the tool used to achieve that objective. The title of the bill is a very bad start, because it is divisive. The consultation process was also problematic.

These are obviously very complex issues. Why? I have listened to several members talk about stories they have heard from people in other countries. The various things we hear about polygamy and forced marriages sometimes sound strange to people in Quebec and Canada. They are things we are less familiar with. As a result, it is difficult for us, as legislators, to enact good legislation on this subject when we have no experience with it. It is therefore important that we listen to the testimony in committee. With that in mind, and given the complexity and the unfamiliarity to some members in the House, we really need to stress the importance of consultation.

From the outset, even before the bill was introduced, there were flaws in the consultation carried out both before and during the drafting of the bill. Of course we are talking about consultations held behind closed doors, only by invitation of the minister. As a result, some people who would have wanted to participate and voice an opinion may not have been invited. That would have meant that all the different voices and views on this issue could have been heard. When a consultation is by invitation of the minister, it may fall into the trap of partisanship, of wanting to pander to a particular clientele and engaging in vote buying, and even of playing politics.

I believe that is not the only problem with the process. Not only did the committee not adopt any amendments, but the minister rejected the idea of the committee making any amendments, right from the start, before we even had a chance to debate this bill. That is a serious problem, because we all agree that we must find ways to end violence against women, especially since we want all cultural communities and people we have accepted into Canada to feel safe and welcome here and know that we will protect their rights.

From that perspective, it is a serious problem to see such closed-mindedness on the part of the minister and the Conservative government, because we simply want to try to find constructive solutions.

We should agree to work on all the issues on which we can all agree. There are always certain issues, however, that stand out in the crowd. Those would be, for example, matters of security such as Bill C-51, and the issue of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

One would think that we could reach unanimous agreement on these issues, just once. We want to see certain concerns rise above partisanship, and I think those include the issue of violence against women. The fact that the minister had such a closed mind even before we had a chance to debate this issue is very disturbing. It should also worry the Canadians we are trying to protect.

The government is always saying it wants to protect victims. However, it does not want to listen to them. That is a problem and we wonder how good the protective measures can be when it will not listen to the people it is trying to protect.

While we are talking about closed minds, let us also mention time allocation motions, sometimes known as closure. Right now we are trying to debate a bill but are subject to time allocation.

Last week the government set a regrettable record, when it imposed time allocation for the one-hundredth time, reaching 100 motions of closure. This record shows that the government, unfortunately, seeks neither consensus nor productive and constructive ways to serve the community, Canadians, or our constituents who sent us here to Ottawa. The government is only interested in playing politics and this bill is yet another example.

Another point is that this bill originated in the Senate. Even though the minister is the bill's sponsor here in the House, he did not have the courage to introduce it here himself. He made an announcement a very long way from Ottawa, rather than coming into the House and announcing his intention to introduce such a bill. It was done at an event that resembled an election campaign, in the greater Toronto area.

That is another indication that this bill was introduced with partisan and political motives, rather than with a constructive desire to protect the victims of these horrible acts of violence, primarily women and children, of course.

Therefore, we say that the process has a number of shortcomings, which is sufficient reason to oppose the bill, even though we support its intent, as both the hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard and I have said.

Let us consider the bill's substance. The government is trying to frighten us by talking about the violence that is committed, including murders and so-called “honour crimes”. We should note, however, that the courts have already determined that cultural practices do not constitute an adequate or sufficient defence under the Criminal Code.

In other words, if someone appears in court charged with murder, he will not have an adequate defence if his only defence is that he committed a crime of honour because of cultural practices. Such a person must face the existing laws, which already protect people from such crimes.

We also want to end polygamy and forced marriage. The government is right to urge action on these matters. The problem is that it is making the wrong moves.

The government stubbornly insists that it simply wants to deport all these people. However, forced marriages take place in secrecy. We are taking a risk that they will become an even deeper secret. If people are afraid to expose such marriages, it is because we are not providing them with the tools to do so, especially since in exposing such situations they might cause their whole family to be deported.

As my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard put it so well, polygamy is not just a case of a man imposing his will on several women. The women are victims, and deporting the women is not a solution to polygamy. Clearly, we are going to punish them further and put them in an even more vulnerable situation.

Although we are opposed to violence against women and want to do everything possible to end this scourge, this bill is not the answer. It does not provide the right tools to do so. We therefore must oppose it.

Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is really something to hear what the Conservatives are saying.

It will come as no surprise when Canadians reject this government's platform and policies, since the economy has been very weak for nearly 10 years now, and the government has done nothing to fight climate change and poverty here in Canada.

This is another omnibus bill that is over 150 pages long and has over 270 clauses. Not only is the Conservatives' lack of leadership affecting their popularity in the polls, but it also represents a wasted opportunity to stimulate our economy and help families. Families need a government that understands the economy and the current reality.

There are two ironies that exist within this one bill, and in a sense, they are going to be the Conservatives' legacy when Canadians finally throw them from office. The first part is their shutting down debate. Just last week, we saw the Conservatives more than triple the previous record of any government in any Parliament in Canadian history for shutting down the democratic process in here by shutting down debate on something like the budget bill, as they have done with so many other bills, like Bill C-51 and all the other controversial bills they have brought in.

That is the first part of the government's legacy, and that is what it will be remembered for.

The second part will be its horrible economic management. More than 1.3 million Canadians are out of work today. The government has added more than $150 billion in debt to the national debt. That is more than $4,000 for every man, woman, and child. We can ask what we got for it. According to the Governor of the Bank of Canada, who, like most bankers, is hardly one to use such strong language, called this Canadian economy and the circumstances we are in right now “atrocious”.

We would have thought that on the eve of an election, with an economy that continues to shed jobs, the government would have brought forward some sort of, dare I say, action plan. I am not talking about the action plan the Conservatives refer to in the $750 million in self-promoting ads they constantly shower Canadians with. I am talking about an actual action plan. I know that it is hard to imagine that the spin could actually match some reality, but that is what we were hoping for. Canadians, from all the polling the government has done, have grown increasingly cynical about its advertising scheme, because it has met so little with the reality.

Canadians are waiting for action, hoping for action, and demanding action. Let us see what they actually got from the government in the most recent omnibus bill. Again, the government has moved thousands of pages of omnibus legislation through the House. In all of that omnibus legislation, there was virtually not a single amendment or change.

What typically happens, and it is true with this bill, is that an omnibus bill goes in to fix the mistakes of the last omnibus bill, which was fixing the mistakes of the omnibus bill before that. If we look up “incompetence” in the dictionary, we will now see a picture of the Prime Minister, and under a subheading, all of his legislation.

Let us look at the Canadian economy right now. It is shedding jobs in retail, manufacturing, and the energy sector. As I said, more than 1.3 million Canadians today are out of work.

There was the fiasco of the temporary foreign worker program. The Conservative government created a loophole so big someone could drive a truck through it. It put more than 300,000 Canadians out of work and brought in temporary foreign workers, with absolutely no provisions to protect Canadian jobs or even the temporary foreign workers in the job conditions under which they were going to work.

The Canadian economy has lost more than 400,000 manufacturing jobs since the government took over. That is more than half a million manufacturing jobs since 2000. What is the reaction? What is the response? These are the jobs we built up over generations. We built the Canadian middle class on this. We built the strength of the Canadian economy on this. Meanwhile, these guys are fiddling while Rome burns. We have lost more than 400,000 manufacturing jobs, and the Conservatives pretend that there is no problem and that there is nothing to address.

We have also seen, according to the CIBC, that job quality in Canada is at its lowest level in a generation. It has never been this bad. The work has become more precarious, jobs are becoming more part-time, and there are fewer and fewer benefits, like pensions and true protections through the employment insurance program. That has been under the Conservative and previous Liberal governments' watch, with no addressing of it. Canadians know this experience. Their jobs have become more precarious and less certain.

This is a strange contradiction for the Conservatives. They continually stand in this place, as my friend just did, and talk about families and family-supporting jobs, yet in their policies, they go about destroying the very jobs that support Canadians and Canadian families. That is the great contradiction of Conservative policy. On the one hand, we get the talking points that say how important it is to build Canada and Canadian communities and Canadian families and all that Leave It to Beaver talk. They would like to go back in time it seems sometimes. On the other hand, the very jobs that support our homes, our communities, and our families are the very jobs the Conservatives have watched disappear, without any hint of concern whatsoever.

Child care one would think would support Canadian families. Does it not seem like something logical to take a step toward? It is so important that this Conservative Prime Minister promised Canadians in the last election that he would create 125,000 child care spaces in Canada, somewhat recognizing that there is an actual need out there. How many have they created? They have created zero spaces. When we have asked them about it, they seem to have no shame and in fact now call child care spaces institutionalizing children. Is that not a fascinating turn of phrase? Somehow the public contributing to a system like a national child care program would be institutionalizing our kids. Do they refer to our medical system that way or our public school system? When I send my children to public school, are they being institutionalized? This is rhetoric that is unfitting for any government, yet here we have it.

On pensions, this is going from bad to the bizarre. We saw the Conservatives unilaterally raise the retirement age for Canadians from 65 to 67, with no consultation. In fact, the Prime Minister stood in a roomful of billionaires in Europe to make the announcement. He decided that it was the best place to tell Canadians that the entire pension regime was changing.

It will cost seniors as much as $24,000 per senior in lost pensions across the board. Low income or high income, it does not matter. For Conservatives, going after pensions was their primary goal. We said this was a concern, because we thought the provinces would then follow suit and raise the age, thereby costing seniors even more. We found out just this past week that the Government of Quebec has made such an announcement to raise its retirement age in Quebec as well.

The consequences of the Prime Minister unilaterally making this policy decision have hurt seniors. The Conservatives know this, but they do not seem to care much for poor folks or the general population at large if they do not happen to vote for them. However, this is a moment when the Conservatives are now suddenly concerned, because seniors do in fact vote in our country, and lo and behold, there is an election coming soon.

What do the Conservatives do? Realizing they are losing support among Canadian seniors, they roll out a scheme, they float a balloon, saying, “Maybe we will have a voluntary system to contribute to the CPP”. This is something the Conservatives themselves looked at not that many years ago and that Jim Flaherty pronounced upon. He said that they had consulted with the experts and the provinces and that such a scheme would not work. Now the Conservatives are saying they know better than the pension experts and better than their dearly departed friend Jim Flaherty. Now they are going to go to a voluntary system, undermining the basic foundation of what the Canada pension plan is.

When we ask Canadians if they would like the ability to contribute more to the CPP, along with their employers, because that is how it works, upwards of 82% of Canadians are in favour of it. Conservatives are not in favour of that. They call contributing to one's pension a tax. When Canadians take some of their salary, and that contribution is matched by an employer, they call that a tax on Canadians. My goodness. People paying into their own pensions so they can live with some dignity when they retire the Conservatives have somehow morphed into a tax.

When the only attack they have is to call everything a tax, then I guess everything starts to look like a tax, whether it is or not. I wonder if the Conservatives are walking around their ridings asking Canadians if they are contributing to their RRSPs and telling them that they should not do that, because they are self-imposing a tax, and that they should fight to get rid of their CPP contributions at work with their employers, because that must be a job-killing tax as well.

That is such stupidity. That is ludicrous. It comes from a government that is desperate, obviously. The Conservatives are getting to the point now where they are starting to cling and grasp. They will bring up any debate they can to stir up a little more in donations and perhaps a couple of more votes. However, the plan is not working, obviously.

We also see a government that is in the midst of global concerns and a lack of job growth in Canada. In fact, in the last 16 months, job growth was at its lowest level in Canada, outside of a recession, in four decades.

One would think that if the Conservative plan were working, it would be working, but it is not. One would think that the Conservative strategy of giving billions away in corporate tax cuts to the largest, most profitable corporations, without any strings attached, would be creating those jobs, but it is not. The lowest job growth, outside of a recession, in 40 years is the Conservative legacy. The Conservatives are busy pulling muscles patting themselves on the back. They think this has been a job well done, that it is mission accomplished.

Let us look at the new programs the Conservatives are now going to launch. They actually ran a debt on them. Many Canadians do not know that the Conservatives ran a debt of $2 billion is year. The cost of their income-splitting scheme is, lo and behold, about $2 billion. They are going to borrow money to retroactively apply an income-splitting scheme that benefits only 15% of Canadian families. There is nothing for single parent families. That might not sit in the Conservative world view. I was raised by a single mom. Many Canadians are being raised by single parents. The Conservatives' income-splitting plan does nothing for them or for couples who happen to earn similar amounts of money or for individuals who sit in the middle- or lower-income bracket.

Two billion dollars has been rushed out the door by the Conservatives, who say that this will provide great help for Canadian families, yet the bottom 20% of income earners, families who might actually qualify, will get nothing, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

They reject the NDP proposal for up to $15-a-day affordable, quality child care across the country. We know, from TD Bank and other economists who have studied this, that for every $1 we put in, $1.50 to $1.75 goes back into the economy. This has worked in Quebec, which is largely where our child care model is based.

We understand that there is value in helping women, if they choose, to get back into the workforce. Every industrialized country in the world looking to improve its productivity needs to help women in particular get back into the workforce. We need to do that here in Canada. We have the lowest female participation rate in the Canadian economy since 2002.

The Conservatives might think they want to do a little social engineering and turn the clock back to 1950 and that all will be well. However, this is the reality for Canadian women working today: they want access to affordable child care. They want to make the choice. When the average cost in the GTA is $1,600 per child, there are Canadian families going to work today who are spending more on child care than they are on their mortgages. That is a reality, and that reality often keeps incredibly qualified, talented people out of the workforce, because they simply cannot afford child care.

It is no wonder the private sector economists have said that this is an investment, but not in the way the Conservatives use the term when they talk about income splitting being an investment. It is not an investment. It is a scheme. Child care is an investment that would pay back into the economy.

The Conservatives also have no evidence that the TFSA shows an increase in investments and retirement security for Canadians. There has been no increase in contributions toward retirement vehicles. It has mostly been an exercise in people taking their retirement money and moving it from one vehicle to another. That is fine, but the Conservatives should not pretend that this is suddenly going to make retirement security better in Canada, because it will not.

The Conservatives now want to double this program. Who has $10,000 burning a hole in his or her pocket at the end of every year? Is it the middle-class families and individuals the Conservatives are talking about? Maybe they are in their world, but they are not the people I deal with. They are not looking through their books at the end of the year and finding an extra $10,000 sitting around and wondering what they are going to do with it, until they see an ad, which they paid for, on TV to help them figure out what to do with all that extra money. Canadians are having a hard time making ends meet.

The current personal debt rate in Canada is at an all-time historic high. Canadians owe more personal debt right now than they ever have before, and there is a reason for that. Job quality and job security have gone down, yet the cost of living has continued to rise.

Every once in a while, the Conservatives have stumbled across, almost by accident, a program that could work and help Canadians and help create jobs. Does anyone remember the home retrofit program? This was an interesting program. The Conservatives announced it once, killed it, announced it again, and killed it again. What did this program do? It helped Canadians deal with the rising cost of heating and cooling their homes. It also created jobs in the small business sector, in the localized sector. It also helped us deal with climate change. Earlier my friend talked about the drought conditions and the concerns about the weather and the increase in the intensity of storms.

It did these three things, the Holy Trinity. There it is. The program helped Canadians reduce costs. It helped small businesses get some work and provide jobs. It helped us deal with our climate change commitments. Conservative and Liberal governments made these promises but had no plan to follow through on them. They killed the program not once but twice.

We are going to bring it back and actually run the program and let Canadians enjoy the benefits of dealing with climate change, because the Conservatives constantly try to pit the economy versus the environment. However, we know that not to be true. The most productive, most efficient, most prosperous countries on earth right now are doing both. They do not trade one off for the other, because anyone foolish enough and ignorant enough to think that he or she can simply drive an economy through the environment, through the ecological footprint that we bear, that there is some other virtual reality that he or she can create that is not constrained by our environment is a dinosaur and should do what dinosaurs do and have always done, which is to just go away and move along so that we can actually evolve the Canadian economy into something much more fair and much more prosperous.

We on the NDP side believe in clean technology. We saw last year globally for the first time that contributions into the clean tech sector exceeded all of the investments into the oil and gas and carbon economies. We have seen the globe moving this way, not just the so-called advanced countries, but also China, India and Brazil. Where is Canada? We have a Prime Minister who can barely utter the words “climate change”, who stands up and the only promise he is willing to commit to is something that would happen at the end of this century. When we ask him how we would get there, he says that is not for him to worry about because he will not be around.

That is similar to the Conservatives' commitments on the tax-free savings accounts. When the finance minister was asked how he was going to pay for these things, because it gets expensive really quick, he said that it was not really a problem for him to worry about, that it was a problem for the Prime Minister's hypothetical granddaughter to worry about. That was a moment of insight, almost a bit of a Freudian slip, when he said he was not concerned with it, that the Conservatives are not concerned with the huge cost of a program they hope would just maybe get them enough votes in the next election because the real costs would be paid down the line by our grandkids. “So be it and so what,” say the Conservatives, which is so similar to their approach on climate change.

Since the Conservative government's coming to office, how many years have we been promised regulations in the oil and gas sector, which by the way, is the most expensive way to deal with climate change according to the oil and gas sector. It would much rather have a price on carbon that actually meets the reality. That is why the major oil companies in this country are calling for such a thing. Do members think that the Conservatives are running into the offices of Suncor and Syncrude and yelling at them about their carbon tax policy and how they want to kill the economy? Of course they are not. We understand that businesses need certainty. They also understand that pollution costs and that the polluter pay principle should be based in law and based in science. What do the Conservatives do with science? They muzzle it.

We have also seen $14 billion in cuts to government programs, austerity programs in the midst of this fragile economy. What the IMF, the World Bank and the EU all are suggesting right now is that we need to move our economies forward, not try to cut them to some prosperity. However, we have seen time and again where the Conservatives, and before them the Liberals, try this ideology, which is not new; it is as old as Reaganomics. The ideology is that if they simply cut $650 billion in corporate taxes, which the Conservatives did, as did the Liberals before them, companies would just magically reinvest in hiring more people, in manufacturing, and all of the rest of that. Mark Carney said for years that there was $650 billion of dead money sitting in corporate bank accounts in Canada right now not being invested. Therefore, the philosophy of the Conservatives has failed.

With the Conservatives' recent infrastructure announcements and the announcements for transit, we have seen time and again that all of it is to come years down the road. What the Conservatives most care about is themselves and trying to get themselves somehow re-elected despite all to the contrary. It seems to me that the Canadian people and the Canadian economy have called for real action, not ads, not another scam, not a bit more spin. They want something that will actually help the Canadian economy.

Two suggestions which we made, and the Conservatives voted against, would have helped the manufacturing sector and the small business community. The Conservatives voted against them one month and then put them in the budget. Let us give them a bit of credit at this moment of hypocrisy where they vote against something and then drive it into the budget the next week and suddenly think it is a good idea because it is painted blue.

Canadians need and deserve a lot more than what they are getting, but the good news is this. There are only a few months to go until this tired and worn-out government will be tossed from office. To that effort, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following:

“this House decline to give third reading to Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures, because it:

a) introduces income splitting and super-sized Tax-Free Savings Account measures that will primarily benefit the wealthy few while wasting billions of dollars;

b) does not introduce a $15 per hour minimum wage or create a universal, affordable childcare program, both of which would support the working and middle class families who actually need help;

c) leaves Canadian interns without protections against excessive work hours, sexual harassment, and an unending cycle of unpaid work;

d) sets a dangerous precedent for Canadians' right to know by making retroactive changes to absolve the government of its role in potential violations of access-to-information laws; and

e) attacks the right of free and fair collective bargaining for hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers.

Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, sincerity in politics is sometimes considerably abused.

In the case of Bill C-51, the Liberals were concerned that by not supporting the bill, they might somehow be tainted in the view of some important constituencies out there, so they decided to support it. I think that is what is going on in this case as well. If the Liberals say they do not like what is in the bill, if they say they think the bill is inadequate and they do not see that it is going to provide the proper results, then, by golly, they should stand up and vote against it.

We are not here to make bad legislation. We are not here to put laws on the books simply to have laws on the books. We are here to do things for society that work. That is very important. That is why the New Democratic Party is trusted by Canadian families. It is because they know we want to do things that actually work for them.

Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law)

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, over the past four years, I have had an opportunity to debate a wide range of topics.

Although the matter before us today might seem like a strange blip on the list of government priorities, I do not wish to denigrate it, because it is indeed important. However, it does seem like a strange fixation, to go to the wall defending dogs. Nevertheless, Bill C-35 was even mentioned in the throne speech, which, in my view, is going a little too far.

I would remind everyone that last night, Canadians were treated to the 100th gag order to expedite the debate, because we are supposedly in such a hurry and so many bills need to be rammed through as soon as possible. At the end of the day, we are using our time in the House for time allocation motions and to debate Bill C-35. There is not enough time for the budget or for Bill C-51, but let us talk about animals.

Today we are discussing one aspect of animal rights, more specifically, one very precise category: animals that have been trained to work with law enforcement or military personnel, or those that assist people with a disability.

Under Bill C-35, anyone who physically harms such an animal with the clear intent to act in bad faith will be sentenced to a minimum of six months in prison. If a law enforcement animal is injured or killed in service, the sentence for that offence would be served consecutively to any other sentence imposed on the offender.

I am very pleased to say that I intend to vote in favour of this bill, despite the reservations I have about its scope. Bill C-35 is a very kind initiative that no one can oppose, except maybe to say that this issue does not necessarily need to be debated by the entire federal legislative apparatus.

Out of respect for voters, I would therefore suggest that my colleagues quickly express their kindness and their love for animals, which is somewhat boring, so that Bill C-35 can be sent to the Senate as quickly as possible and we do not have to talk about it any more.

In case there is any doubt, I really love animals. I have never felt inclined to crush baby chicks or skin cats. I completely understand that police horses and guide dogs benefit society and that these animals represent a significant financial and emotional investment.

It should also be said that many of these animals often carry out heroic acts under some extraordinary circumstances. After all, there is a tradition of recognizing the courageous war-time efforts of these animals. A commemorative bas-relief adorns the Memorial Chamber located in the Peace Tower in the Centre Block. Dogs often show admirable courage and save lives.

In committee, all the witnesses supported this initiative, but they must have been a little surprised to be testifying in such a formal setting about a topic outside of the usual parliamentary discussions. Animal cruelty is quite frankly deplorable and shameful, and we must combat it.

Bill C-35 amends the Criminal Code and will not so much combat as punish, or avenge, these crimes, which is in keeping with the Conservatives' obsession with the illusory absolute justice that they seek everywhere but do not find. It is not easy to reinvent oneself.

Conservatives believe that judges are always too accommodating and too often forget their discretionary powers. They want to decide for the judges; justice is an election issue. Punishment must always be meted out in an absolute and grandiose manner.

Although I support this bill, I always have a hard time with minimum sentencing. I agree with creating an offence to ensure that offenders who abuse or murder a service animal are punished. However, I think that our judges are capable of determining the most appropriate sentence for those who commit these crimes.

If the judge feels that the criminal should be sent to prison, he can do so. However, once again, setting minimum sentences takes away the courts' discretion.

Bill C-35 also opens the door to a grim topic no one really wants to touch, which is legislating animal rights. Since the dawn of humanity, we have had a hard time accepting that the death of an animal—of any kind—can have an impact on our lives and our future as human beings.

Bill C-35 promotes a specific category of animal to a superior status protected by law. To be legally valid, this new category can only make sense if these animals are considered property with monetary value.

After all, they had to be trained by humans who were paid for their work and their expertise. Otherwise, we will fall into an endless debate on whether animals have souls, which would be extremely difficult, if not completely absurd.

We are legislators and esoteric considerations have no place in our debates.

Bill C-35 presents an interesting solution to the lack of a special category for abusing or murdering animals. Supporting this bill is a good thing, and that is why I will encourage all of my colleagues to support it so that it can move to the next stage.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member makes a point about how we are spending our time in this House. For me, the issue of animal cruelty is an important one, and I am happy to participate in this debate, but I do understand his point.

Yesterday we voted on time allocation for the 100th time in this House. Frankly, it is an affront to democracy. It is more than three times the number of times any other government in the history of Canada has brought in time allocation or closure motions, whether it is on the budget and throwing everything into an omnibus budget bill and really trying to hide from Canadians what it is the government is doing, which is fundamentally an affront to democracy, or whether it is ramming Bill C-51 through this House, sadly, with the support of our Liberal colleagues.

It has been an affront every step of the way. I can only say that I think that a lot of Canadians are really hopeful that this fall there will be a wind of change in this country, because they feel that their democracy has been undermined by these time allocation motions and the refusal to engage in true democratic debate on a broad range of subjects that are of great importance to Canadians.

The Senate

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have had a good look at the depths of Conservative and Liberal entitlement thanks to the Auditor General, and they are not impressed with what they see.

In the wake of the report on senators' expenses, instead of calling for the transformational change that is needed in the Senate, the old-school parties are defending the status quo. Just like the Liberals and Conservatives joined together to pass Bill C-51 in the House, they have teamed up in the Senate to block independent oversight and to rig the expense arbitration process. Why? It is so senators can keep policing themselves.

It is unacceptable. Canadians want real change. New Democrats know that change is not only possible, it is necessary. Canadians can trust the NDP to fix the damage done by the Conservatives, to end the culture of entitlement of the old-school parties, and to bring real change to Ottawa. On October 19, that is exactly what we will do.

Report Stage

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I did not get the opportunity to ask my colleague from Brandon—Souris a question. I wanted to ask him about the budget that was tabled by the Minister of Finance a few weeks ago. I wanted to show him chart 2.16, which compares Canada's unemployment rate to that of the United States. I wanted to help him escape from his fantasy world. He thinks that balancing the budget will solve all our problems. Unfortunately, that is not necessarily true, unless there is some sort of secret I am not in on.

The unemployment rate in the United States dropped from 10% in 2009, at the height of the economic crisis, to just 5.5% in January 2015. Meanwhile, in Canada, the unemployment rate went from about 8.7% to 6.8%. We all know that for years, the Unites States has been dealing with recurring deficits that it is quite unable to get out of and that it has a higher accumulated public debt than Canada. The government needs to back up its claim that a balanced budget will solve all our problems. We know what happens when a government gets bogged down in ideology. It is very difficult to reason, see clearly and put things in perspective.

That said, the government has imposed the 100th gag order, the 100th time allocation motion. When I was elected on May 2, 2011, I never could have imagined that I would see 100 gag orders, 100 refusals to give a voice to millions of Canadians across the country. A gag order is one thing, and it has been used for a number of different bills, real bills that addressed specific problems or specific topics. However, ironically, the 100th one is being used for an omnibus bill, yet one more hodgepodge of legislative measures that amend a huge variety of laws, including the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Patent Act and even the act pertaining to the federal public service. This is the same kind of nonsense we have been seeing all along, and it unfortunately prevents us from seriously studying the legislative measures that are being imposed, not proposed, by the government. That is the reality.

This is the sign of a worn-out government: it is still imposing its will despite its growing list of failures and the opposition of a huge majority of the people on issues as significant as the anti-terrorism bill, Bill C-51. Unfortunately, the bill was passed by the Conservative majority, which, just like the government, is running away and trying to escape its own corruption under the vigilant eye of the Auditor General. The real pity is that the government is missing yet another opportunity to work with the opposition parties and the other parties represented in the House.

At least there is one good thing about the Minister of Finance's budget: it includes some NDP measures. We see it as “friendly theft”. We are not going to complain about them stealing our good ideas. The really funny thing, though, is that the Conservatives do not want to give the NDP any credit. Everyone knows what I am talking about. I am talking about the measures for small businesses: lowering the tax rate from 11% to 9% and the accelerated capital cost allowance.

Those are obvious ways to help small businesses, which often operate on very tight budgets. Sometimes their budgets are so tight that the owners cannot even pay themselves a salary.

It is a great privilege for me, as a member of Parliament, to meet so many business owners in my riding. Furthermore, Beauport—Limoilou is a riding that is home to many small businesses made up of just a few employees who are valiantly supported by the business owners. Those individuals have so much faith that they often work very long hours in conditions that are much worse than those of their employees. Every bit of help is important.

It is too bad, because those are the kinds of measures we could have supported wholeheartedly. However, instead of playing fair and having the courage to debate and discuss only the budget by introducing a coherent budget implementation bill that allows for a full debate, the Conservatives buried everything in this unpalatable jumble of an omnibus bill, which includes things that have nothing to do with the budget.

My colleagues have talked about that. Unfortunately, too few of my colleagues from all political parties will be able to speak to this omnibus bill. It is important to do so, because this bill will drastically change many aspects of our society, including good faith negotiations, which have been completely scrapped at the stroke of a pen, or respect for foreign visitors, who will be subjected to biometric screening. That last measure should have been the subject of a full debate to determine what limits should have been applied. Instead, the government prefers to short-circuit the debate. It is going to rush this through and we will have to live with the consequences. Judges are going to have to do the work of parliamentarians, once again, by perhaps striking down some of the abusive provisions that do not comply with our basic laws.

I think it is very important to go over the sorry record of nine very long years. It has been nine and a half years, actually, since the Conservative Party came to power. It was my first campaign, in 2006, one January 23. In 2006, as I said, the employment rate was 62.8% in the Canadian workforce. Last year, that rate fell to 61.4%, and I can assure the House that it has continued to drop given the turmoil caused by the drop in the price of oil. Given that the government increased development of our natural resources, especially oil and gas, we have reached a level of dependence that is forcing us to deal with a much harsher reality than we would have liked.

TD Bank's former chief economist, Craig Alexander, testified at the Standing Committee on Finance a few times and talked about this. His contribution is highly valued. He said that in the long term we need to build a knowledge economy that is globally competitive, productive and innovative and does not depend on speculation or fluctuating commodity prices.

For a government that ignored knowledge, innovation and the vibrancy of a talented pool of young people in favour of the massive export of raw, unprocessed resources, the judgment is particularly harsh. As Mr. Alexander said, the priority should have been the other way around, but the Conservatives forced us down a road that seems to be a dead end, and we do not know the way out yet.

Public Safety

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not only about abusing public money for fishing trips and wedding anniversaries. The Senate is also an undemocratic institution that has blocked important legislation passed by elected members of the House.

The Senate killed Jack Layton's climate change accountability act. It is quietly doing away with a bill to bring equality to transgendered people.

Last night it passed Bill C-51 with no sober second thought whatsoever, despite overwhelming public opposition. Not a single amendment was proposed.

Why are Conservatives defending this illegitimate institution that rejects the democratic will of Canadians?

Motions in amendment

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his excellent speech about the Conservative budget. I think he described with great clarity how the economy is doing remarkably poorly right now, how we have the slowest growth in about 40 years, and how young people are on track to do worse than their parents did in this economy.

It is not surprising that the Conservatives do not want people to be looking at the economy, so they trotted out their anti-terrorism bill, that very dangerous Bill C-51, which sadly, was supported by the Liberals and passed in this House by the Conservatives as a kind of distraction so that people would not be focused on this poor economy.

I want to ask a question that directly impacts the city of Toronto, where my constituency is. On Monday, all of our subway systems were shut down in the middle of rush hour for more than an hour. What we are hearing from the Toronto Transit Commission is that we are not even keeping up with the kind of maintenance we need for our existing subway system, not to mention the huge growth in our population and the dramatic need for greater investment in transit in our city.

The Conservatives talk a lot about investing in infrastructure, but I am not seeing any result from this in the city of Toronto. I am wondering if my colleague could comment on the need for infrastructure and what exactly is covered in this budget in terms of infrastructure.

Motion in Amendment

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

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill S-2 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to have this opportunity to speak to the House today about Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act and to make consequential amendments to the Statutory Instruments Regulations, because I think it is very important.

This bill might seem very technical. However, as my colleague from Gatineau often says, the devil is in the details, and that is exactly what we are seeing with this particularly disturbing bill. In my speech, I will explain why we want to remove clause 2.

First of all, clause 2 reads as follows:

In the case of a document produced by the regulation-making authority, either alone or jointly with a person or body in the federal public administration, the document or part may be incorporated only if it

There are a number of criteria, such as “contains...elements that are incidental to...the rules...” and this one:

...reproduced or translated from a document, or part of a document, produced by a person or body other than the regulation-making authority, with any adaptations of form or reference that will facilitate its incorporation in the regulation...

Already, this poses a problem. What is “a person or body other than the regulation-making authority”? We are talking about regulations that can be passed by the government, that do not necessarily have to be debated in the House.

We are wondering who exactly is a person or body other than the regulation-making authority. There is nothing to define that. The problem is really about knowing what we can expect from this government. That is what the issue is. Why do the Conservatives want to pass a bill that is essentially enabling legislation for any authority to pass regulations?

This issue of regulations is quite problematic. For instance, when the Conservatives wanted to make changes to employment insurance, it was all done through regulations. The same thing happened with Bill C-51 on safety standards. All of this, then, will be passed through regulations. Regulations are the basis of legislation.

As proof, there are hundreds of pages of regulations. For example, at the federal level, there are 3,000 regulations and 30,000 pages. However, legislation accounts for only 450 laws and 13,000 pages. Thus, there are twice as many pages of regulations, which will be exempted from parliamentary scrutiny, and I will explain why.

When we were conducting our study at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I asked a question about incorporating by reference a regulation from another country, for example a country with which we signed a free trade agreement or concluded any agreement, regardless of the criteria of the agreement.

International foreign parliaments adopt regulations, but the Parliament of Canada is not necessarily aware of the changes made in those other parliaments. We take care of Canada's business here in this Parliament. We do not know what will happen in the United States, France, or Brazil.

If we incorporate by reference legislation that falls under the jurisdiction of another parliament and it is agreed that these subsequent changes will be part of Canadian law, then we are also saying that regulations subject to review by Canadian Parliament could be changed by another parliament without MPs' knowledge. This will become part of the law without Canadians knowing it. It is ridiculous.

The last clause of the bill, clause 18.7, reads as follows:

The validity of an incorporation by reference that conforms with section 18.1 and that was made before the day on which that section comes into force is confirmed.

Does this not remind hon. members of something? The government is currently trying to pass legislation to ensure that the RCMP cannot be found guilty of violating the Access to Information Act. The government is trying to pass a law that will make anything that has been incorporated by reference valid without having to be examined by parliamentarians. That is ridiculous. We are beginning to see a trend: the Conservatives are trying to go back and legalize things that they did in the past without respecting the regulations in place at the time. That is shameful. That is why we cannot support this bill in its current form.

The bill refers to a body other than the regulation-making authority. However, that body is not defined. The bill refers to another authority, another body or another person, as I already mentioned. This term comes up several times in the bill. Anyone who reads the bill will wonder what is meant by a person or body other than the regulation-making authority. What is comes down to is that, because this is enabling legislation, this bill allows regulations to be passed through incorporation by reference without having to be examined by the government.

The bill also addresses the issue of accessibility:

18.3 (1) The regulation-making authority shall ensure that a document, index, rate or number that is incorporated by reference is accessible.

However, there is no definition of the term “accessible”. I suggested amendments in Parliament but, unfortunately, the Conservatives voted against them. They seem to think that “accessible” is a clear term that does not require a definition. If this term is as clear as they claim, why not put a definition in the law? The witnesses agree that the term should be defined. We cannot use a legal term in a bill without including a definition. That is ridiculous.

I asked the executive director of the Standards Council of Canada a question about accessibility. A criterion of accessibility is imposed on all legislative and departmental authorities, except that there is no definition for this term. Even if a department or regulatory authority is required to issue a regulation whether or not it is subject to ambulatory incorporation by reference, is it possible that a fee would be charged? We do not know. A Canadian might have to pay to access a regulation. How can fees be charged to access what is part of our legislation? That is ridiculous. If you have to plead a case in court, for example, you must have access to the regulations.

The bill has other problems, especially with respect to translation. Will all of the regulations incorporated by reference be translated into French and English? The United States is not required to translate all of its regulations by incorporation. The U.S. does not have the constitutional obligation to translate its regulations. How can we ensure that everything that is incorporated by reference is subject to our bilingualism requirements, especially if Parliament cannot examine these regulations? That is another problem.

I simply want to say that this is a very serious problem. We are passing a bill that validates all of the incorporations that have been made in the past 30 years—before this bill was passed—even if they did not meet the criteria. That is the first reason why we will not support this bill. The second reason is that the regulations would no longer be subject to parliamentary review because they would be adopted by reference. That is a big problem. The government will be adopting regulations, rates or indices, and members of Parliament and Canadians will not be aware of them and will never have an opportunity to oppose them.

In short, it is very important for all members of this House to reject this bill and to review it so we can pass something that makes sense and that will not exempt our regulations from review by Canadian parliamentarians.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Ahuntsic for allowing me to rise to discuss our Conservative government's strong record of keeping Canadians safe.

It is important to note, and I would like to remind the member opposite, that the international jihadi movement has declared war on Canada and its allies. Jihadist leaders have singled out Canada by name to carry out attacks here on Canadian soil against Canadians simply because they hate our values. These are the very same values that make Canada the very best country in the world in which to live, work, and raise a family.

Tragically, as we all know, we have seen that Canada has been the target of these types of terrorist attacks. On two terrible days this past October, two members of the Canadian Armed Forces were killed simply for wearing their uniforms.

That is why our Conservative government has put forward the anti-terrorism act, 2015. It will create new tools for our police to protect us from jihadi terrorists. It is also why we have increased resources to our police forces by one-third since we formed government. It is also why in our economic action plan we have allocated nearly $300 million more to those very same police forces.

The member opposite mentioned radicalization in her question, and she went on to say that there is nothing in the budget or that we have done with regard to Internet recruitment. I absolutely disagree with that statement. I would also like to point out and remind her that the anti-terrorism act, 2015 actually includes tools that will allow authorities to take action to prevent radicalization, including taking down material that is promoting terrorism and being used to radicalize individuals.

We heard from witness after witness when we studied Bill C-51. They talked about the need to deal with that very situation. That material that is put on the Internet is actually what is radicalizing our youth. We heard from some very credible witnesses at committee.

Ray Boisvert, former assistant director of CSIS, said C-51 will be an “effective tool to get that [jihadist propaganda] material off the Internet”.

David Cape, of The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, said,

seizure of terrorist propaganda...would empower the courts to order the removal or seizure of vicious material often encouraging the murder of Jews. Removing this heinous propaganda, particularly from the Internet, would limit its capacity to radicalize Canadians and inspire attacks.

Tahir Gora, of the Canadian Thinkers Forum, said, “The government's proposed Bill C-51, when passed by Parliament, shall help Canadian Muslims to curb extremist elements”.

The experts agree and Canadians recognize that it is our Conservative government that is on the right path to tackle terrorism and also on the right track to put the tools in place to tackle radicalization as well.

Concurrence in Vote 1 — Senate

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise and speak to the motion that is before the House.

Let me make it very clear that the motion we are debating is with respect to the government's giving $57 million to the Senate. The average hard-working Canadians, the taxpayers who keep our institutions going, must be really wondering why, in light of the media frenzy, we have a government that is saying that we should give that House $57 million more. I am opposed to that for a number of reasons.

To put it into perspective, we have a Prime Minister who absolutely believed in the abolition of the Senate and failing that, wanted to make it more accountable and all of those things. Yet, the Prime Minister has carried on the Liberal tradition of appointing senators. The Prime Minister has appointed 59 senators.

As we read reports in the media, the reports we get and the information that is before us right now, those appointments are very partisan. Not only that, once they are appointed, the senators are doing partisan party work.

My colleagues at that end of the aisle, the third party, their leader decided that the Liberal senators would no longer be members of their caucus. They can call a thorn any name they want or they can change the name, but unless they change the substance, a thorn is still a thorn. I will argue that the Senate has become a thorn in the side of Canadians.

It was interesting that when the senators met, they named themselves the Liberal senators. They still have a caucus that is very Liberal, and carries the name Liberal. My understanding is they still attend some of the partisan events. They are still running around collecting money. They have learned well from the Conservatives. They have learned well from each other.

They are going around doing all of these things. I hear from the party at the end how committed they are to reform and how we should make the Senate more accountable. When it comes to that party, however, I have always looked at their actions rather than the promises they make. They always make these grandiose promises, but once they are in government, and now in opposition, they suddenly do not reflect what they want to reflect when they are outside of the House.

With the media, the televised debates and social media, it is getting more and more difficult for members of that party to hide from the positions they take in this House.

There is a motion that was moved by my colleague, the hard-working member for Toronto—Danforth, on October 22, 2013. This will show that we are not dealing with a new problem. This has been going on and on. I am not going to expand on everything that has happened with Mr. Duffy, because all of that is out there. I just want to focus on what we needed to do.

The NDP is a pragmatic party that knows how to compromise when it has to, and then sticks to something that is good for Canadians and does not compromise on that. Our position on Bill C-51 is one example. Canadians' freedoms and privacy, and the invasion into their privacy, cannot be compromised away just because it is convenient for electoral purposes.

Let me get back to the motion that was voted on in this House on October 22. This is what the motion that was brought forward by the NDP said:

That, in the opinion of this House, urgent steps must be taken to improve accountability in the Senate, and, therefore, this House call for the introduction of immediate measures to end Senators' partisan activities, including participation in Caucus meetings, and to limit Senators' travel allowances to those activities clearly and directly related to parliamentary business.

It can hardly be argued that this was a revolutionary motion. This was a very well thought out motion that was put forward to address some very specific concerns. This is the kind of motion that would pass the nod test. Quite honestly, I think this would even pass the kindergarten or grade one test. If we were to explain to the children that these are the senators, this is what we do not want them to do and this is what we want them to do, kids are smart and they would say, “That's good, isn't it”, but not my colleagues across the way.

What really shocked me after all the public grandstanding was that the third party—and I want to be very clear on this—would not support a motion that would limit senators' partisan activities. The Liberal senators were kicked out of caucus, so to speak, but that is just window dressing. The Liberals were not willing to end senators' partisan activities, so they formed a coalition with the Conservatives to vote this down, just as with Bill C-51, the Liberals formed a coalition with the Conservatives in order for that bill to pass through the House. This makes me wonder what the difference really is between the third party and the party in government. I see very little difference these days.

The New Democrats wanted to limit senators' travel allowances to those activities clearly and directly related to parliamentary business. Surely, nobody in the House would have voted against that. However, the Conservatives did and, guess what, they were supported by the third party, their new-found friends across the way, the new Liberal-Con coalition.

When I look at all of this, nobody can say that the NDP, with the long-standing position of getting rid of the Senate, has not attempted to bring about accountability. I know the government across the way is allergic to accountability, transparency and answering serious questions, but it opposed the pragmatic solutions we put forward. If that motion had carried and the government and the Liberal Party of Canada had supported it, we might not be in this grandiose—I do not know what word to use, but I will say it is a crisis that we are in right now. It is an absolute embarrassment to be in my riding and try to explain to people all that is going on.

The leader of the NDP has been very clear. He is a lawyer. He knows how constitutions are changed. He also knows agreement is required from all the parties. I have not seen Mr. Harper meet with all the premiers that often, never mind consult them. We are prepared to consult them and move forward, but in the meantime, pragmatic solutions are required to fix the grandiose mess that exists in the Senate.