This bill is from the 41st Parliament, 2nd session, which ended in August 2015.
Steven Blaney Conservative
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-51s:
Steven Blaney ConservativeMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of these stories. As the member knows, I do not comment on an operational matter.
We are fully aware that high-risk travellers are travelling and willing to join terrorists. That is why we are putting on the floor of this House Bill C-51, which will give better tools to our law enforcement and police officers to prevent Canadians from committing terrorist acts abroad and coming back here to be a bigger threat to our country and our safety.
Steven Blaney ConservativeMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question.
I am indeed aware of these stories. That being said, the member knows that I do not comment on national security activities. However, I invite her to support Bill C-51, because the bill will allow us to continue to keep Canadians safe from terrorist threats, with monitoring mechanisms to protect people's rights and provide a framework for the activities of our intelligence agencies.
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak on a bill, the title of which I find quite abhorrent, the title being zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices. I do not know when this kind of language started to enter the House when we talk about legislation that is going to impact the lives of many people.
Let me first say that nobody on this side or that side of the House will tolerate any barbaric practices, but to say that barbaric practices are embedded in one culture or the other seems a little bizarre to me and, in the present context, seems to be very inflammatory in light of the comments made by backbenchers, the Prime Minister, and other people.
I want to take the tone down, because I take this issue very seriously. Gender-based violence is a serious issue, and all of us know there is enough research to show that it crosses all social, ethnic, and cultural boundaries. We always excuse it when we put the word “cultural” in front of it, that somehow it only happens in other countries and not across our communities.
I also want to say at this stage that it seems a bit strange to me that I have got up to speak on this bill without mentioning something significant that happened in my riding over the last 48 hours. There have been five shootings in my riding in recent hours. The RCMP has brought in extra police, who are very working very hard, and the community is very worried. When I look at the context, I keep thinking there are so many things we should be addressing right now in this country. My heart goes out to all those in my community who are worried, and I thank the members of the RCMP who are putting their lives at risk in order to make our communities safe right now.
There is a link with what I am talking about happening in Surrey and this bill, and it is called resources. Many times I have stood in the House and asked for additional resources for the City of Surrey so it can get the additional policing it needs, because it has incredibly low ratios. It is those kinds of resources that help with preventive work and stop the shootings that have been taking place over the last 48 to 72 hours.
I want to talk about domestic violence. First, let me assure everybody across the aisle, before anybody decides to point fingers—because I have experienced that before—that there is no one on this side of the House who supports gender-based violence, no matter which cultural group one may belong to. There is no one on this side of the House who supports child or forced marriages, and there is no one on this side of the House who supports polygamy.
Now that I have put those issues out there, I am going to tackle them one at a time. When it comes to domestic violence, we know that we have laws right now, and if passing one more law, saying all domestic violence shall end, would actually eradicate it, I think all of us would be rushing to vote for it.
We have laws already, but I would say what is lacking now are resources and enforcement. I say resources because we know that if we want victims to come forward, we have to provide them with a support system, and this bill would not do that. As a matter of fact, this bill could have the collateral damage—language my colleagues across the way sometimes use—of making victims go underground and not speak up because they know that if they speak up, either the victims or their children could be deported and criminalized.
Once again, one thing I know as a teacher and counsellor is that, if we really want to talk about domestic violence and to end gender-based violence, it starts with education, information, and with having laws that we actually enforce, but for that we need people to come forward with evidence. We need to put a support system in place so that the victims, the women and the children, have safety and security while they are going through the system and tackling the abuse that is going on at home.
Also it is also very offensive to see that word. Of course any kind of domestic violence is barbaric. However, to relate it to culture is going over the top and is the kind of politics I have been hearing a lot about, whether it is talking about brownies and whities, or brandishing all Muslims across the globe as being anti-women, or the extreme reach of Bill C-51, or not even allowing the Privacy Commissioner to give evidence because it might not agree with my colleagues across the way.
We already have laws and if they need to be tightened up, that is where the focus should be. If they need to be resourced, that is where my colleagues should be bringing forward legislation, if we really want to tackle gender-based violence. It is my understanding that we already have laws to prevent forced marriages and child marriages. There is an age of consent before the age of 16, and surely we do not have laws that put up with people forcing themselves on minors. We have legislation like that. Once again, this is another one of those window-dressing bills to appeal to a base, where they believe they can collect millions of dollars from hard-working Canadians.
The other issue I want to tackle is the issue of polygamy. Mr. Speaker, forgive me if I do not have this right and I am sure you will correct me if I do not, but it is my understanding that in Canada, we actually have laws that prevent people from being married to more than one person at a time. This legislation is not for what happens in other countries; it is about what happens within Canada, a Canadian law to apply to those living in Canada.
We live in a country where people get married, the marriages do not work out, and they end up getting divorced. We are not saying they do not get married again, but under Canadian law we can have only one wife at a time. I have a very vivid memory of this because, in the case in B.C. over Bountiful, I was one of the witnesses. It shocked me when I was reading the bill that we have a government that believes polygamy is okay in Canada. That is why Conservatives are bringing the bill forward. This is absolute nonsense. We do not have polygamy in our country. If people want to get married again because a marriage does not work out, that is okay, but it is one marriage at a time.
We already have laws against polygamy, so really what is the bill all about? Once again, what the Conservatives want to achieve in the bill could have been done in other ways, but it would not have given them the sound bites they needed to go to the media and say, “We are against barbaric cultural practices”. We on this side are against barbaric practices, period, without any modifiers and without any excuses.
Second ReadingZero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices ActGovernment Orders
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, there is a judgement call that has to be made when we are looking at legislation.
In the past, New Democrat members of Parliament have voted in favour of legislation at second reading going into the committee stage, believing that they will be moving amendments at the committee stage. Even if those amendments do not pass at the committee stage, those members will still vote for a particular piece of legislation.
It happens far too often, but at the end of the day we have to make an overall assessment of the legislation and then base our vote on whether or not we feel it is in society's or Canada's best interest to see it pass. I suspect that in many ways we will find that the legislation will be amended.
I know the New Democratic Party members have moved numerous amendments on numerous pieces of legislation at the committee stage and had every one of their amendments rejected. Then at third reading, they will come back and ultimately vote for the bill.
I know it is very difficult at times, especially if the government does not accept good, sound amendments or if it refuses to acknowledge that the legislation could in fact be improved. Both Liberals and New Democrats have witnessed that first-hand.
Unfortunately, that means we will have to buy our time, allowing a bill to pass and supporting it, with the idea that we will make changes. Bill C-51 is a good example of a commitment to make changes if the government refuses to do that.
Bill S-7—Time Allocation MotionZero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices ActGovernment Orders
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is actually with a great deal of sadness that I rise in this House today to once again have to speak against another time allocation where the government is using its majority to shut down debate. It gets rather tiring when we hear, “Let us get it through this House; we will get it to committee because that is when we will have the in-depth study”.
I saw how that worked for Bill C-51. Once we got to committee, the government's proposal was no more than three meetings. On top of that, the Conservatives kept the Privacy Commissioner from testifying there.
What I am finding confusing is that the minister said it is absolutely imperative that they take action on this right now. We already have legislation prohibiting marriage before the age of 16. We already have laws saying that one can only be married to one person at a time. All of this rhetoric is so divisive and meant to create a milieu that the Conservative government is doing something, when all it is doing is feeding fear and suspicion and trying to pretend it is fixing something that is not broken in Canada.
Bill S-7—Time Allocation MotionZero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices ActGovernment Orders
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day again for Canadian Parliament. This is the 91st time the government has used closure, or time allocation, in this Parliament. It goes beyond any previous government in Canadian history. It is twice as bad as what was the previous worst government in terms of open intolerance of democratic debate in this House. The only solace for the Canadian population is that Canadians know that in 200 days, they will be able to vote the current government out of office and bring in a government that actually respects parliamentary traditions.
With the last three closure motions and time allocation, we have seen a real intolerance of debate. We have seen with Bill C-51 that the government is systematically refusing witnesses who could bring a lot to bear on the bill, which is a controversial piece of legislation. Yesterday in the House, the minister might as well have told Yukoners that the government will not accept any amendments to Bill S-6. The Conservatives want to make a show of going up to Whitehorse but have absolutely no intention of actually listening to witnesses and bringing amendments to Bill S-6.
My questions to the minister with respect to Bill S-7 are simple. Will the government hear from witnesses who want to come forward on this bill? Will it actually entertain amendments, or will it show the same disdain it has shown with so many other pieces of legislation by refusing amendments put forth by parliamentarians?
Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC
Mr. Speaker, even those who work in our intelligence agencies are concerned that Bill C-51 is too broad in scope.
The former director of CSIS and chair of the Security Intelligence Review Committee is criticizing the lack of oversight and lack of resources to keep these agencies in check.
Will the Conservatives listen to this call for caution and agree to amend Bill C-51 in order to ensure that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service respects our rights and our laws?
Steven Blaney ConservativeMinister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Mr. Speaker, we do agree that more power requires more oversight, and that is why in Bill C-51 there is embedded not only more judicial oversight, but also more review bodies. I really wonder why New Democrats, if they are so keen on keeping an eye on our intelligence community, are not supporting Bill C-51.
However, I would argue that Canadians are keen on keeping an eye on those who are threatening us, and that is why I urge New Democrats to support Bill C-51.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, the minister's appearance at committee yesterday confirmed what Canadians already suspected: Bill C-51 is a dangerous piece of legislation that lacks proper safeguards. The Privacy Commissioner has sounded the alarm, saying that the bill is unprecedented and excessive, with seriously deficient privacy safeguards, his words.
Instead of reassuring Canadians by agreeing to a full parliamentary review of this bill and to stronger oversight, the minister yesterday offered nothing more than overheated and inappropriate rhetoric.
Why is the minister refusing to acknowledge the simple truth that more powers need more oversight?
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to pursue an answer to a question I have asked repeatedly. The first time I asked it was February 2. I will review the question and the response I received from the hon. Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
The question relates to Bill C-51, and it was this. I rose and stated:
...I want to make it very clear that I completely agree with every word in today's Globe and Mail editorial. I think every MP should read it.
This Parliament must not allow the Conservatives to turn CSIS into a secret police force. The words that are found in the definition of activities that affect the security of Canadians are so overly broad that I believe they could apply to almost anything.
Despite the inclusion of saying that it does not apply to lawful protest, would the minister tell us if this will apply to non-violent civil disobedience, such as that against pipelines?
The response from the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, we live in a society of right. Any violence is going against the Criminal Code. Terrorism is a criminal act and those who go against the Criminal Code will meet the full force of the law. That is the country I live in and I love.
Perhaps I can go back to review what The Globe and Mail had actually said that day, since that was the premise of the question and I thought everyone would have it fresh in their minds. The editorial in The Globe and Mail of February 2, 2015, was headlined thus: “Parliament must reject [the Prime minister's] secret policeman bill”. I will excerpt one line from the first paragraph, which states:
Under the cloud of fear produced by his repeated hyperbole about the scope and nature of the threat, he now wants to turn our domestic spy agency into something that looks disturbingly like a secret police force.
Just to focus on the point of the question that day, there is a great deal to discuss about Bill C-51. It is in five different acts and is therefore an omnibus bill. It focuses loosely on the concept of terrorism but is far broader and has implications, I believe, for all forms of all privacy for all Canadians, and those views are echoed by those of our Privacy Commissioner, Mr. Therrien.
It also extends the powers of CSIS to act not just as an intelligence-gathering operation but as an active operation. Law professors are referring to these actions as the “kinetic activities” of CSIS. Bill C-51 also has implications for the use of torture and obtaining security certificates, which is in part 5.
However, I was asking about the carve-out, so to speak, under part 1 of the act, which deals with the exchange of information throughout the Government of Canada. It has a definition of “security threats” that is extremely over-broad and could amount to almost anything, but says it does not apply to lawful protests, et cetera.
Earlier today in committee, the Minister of Justice was asked by the parliamentary secretary if there was any reason to be worried about the use of the word “lawful”, and he feigned complete ambivalence toward it. It was a complete surprise. Why would anyone be concerned?
I direct members of the House to the debates that took place in 2001 on changes to the Criminal Code when the anti-terrorism bill was first brought forward. In that instance, there was a specific debate around the use of the word “lawful” for the very reasons I raise: that it could catch non-violent civil disobedience and protest, particularly in a case like this, in a political climate in which opposition to pipelines has been conflated with opposition to Canada and has been treated as a potential security threat. We have RCMP reports on this sort of thing.
Back in 2001, the Minister of Justice, Anne McLellan, took out the word “lawful” so that it would cover all protests, but now nonviolent civil disobedience is clearly included in this bill, and the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness have refused an amendment to take it out.
Standing Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityPoints of OrderGovernment Orders
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Speaker, I had informed the clerks that I would be making a brief presentation on a point of order, so I would like to do so now, although we are seeing the clock as 5:30 p.m.
I want to revisit the remarks made yesterday by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. He raised a few points about the point of order I had raised regarding the study by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and decisions made by the committee with respect to the witnesses and Bill C-51.
The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said two things in his intervention earlier this week. First of all, he said that the minutes of the meeting showed that the member for Northumberland—Quinte West had not requested that the question be put on the subamendment. He quoted from the actual minutes of the proceedings. The minutes clearly state, however, that the member for Northumberland—Quinte West requested that the Chair decide “to put the question on the subamendment, the amendment, and the main motion”.
It is therefore very clear that the question was raised. There can be no doubt about it. The chair then stated that the question would not be put until they had gone through the entire list of speakers. Indeed, the number of interventions and the length of speeches are unlimited in a standing committee meeting. That is when the member for Northumberland—Quinte West asked the chair to decide.
The record is very clear and there is no difference: what was requested is prohibited by the Standing Orders, House procedure and the traditions we have had here for the past 150 years. There is no doubt that the member for Northumberland—Quinte West requested that the Chair decide to put the question on the subamendment. There is no doubt that that is what happened.
The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons also tried to use a point of order that I myself raised in the spring of 2010 regarding a decision of the Standing Committee on International Trade. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons was pleased to remind members that in his ruling, the Speaker said that:
All members who have intervened in this matter have acknowledged that the Speaker does not sit as a court of appeal to adjudicate procedural issues that arise in the course of committee proceedings.
However, had he read the sentence that came just before that, he would have realized that he missed a key point that he did not bring up yesterday during his point of order. That sentence reads:
The member for Calgary Centre, the chair of the standing committee...stated that the committee had conducted its meeting fairly and in keeping with the rules of procedure.
The Speaker later said something in his decision that I, too, said, namely that “the chair had the support of the majority of the members of the committee”.
It is very clear: the rules were broken. Obviously the concern is that a majority committee can now make any decision, even if the chair follows the rules that have existed for 150 years. That is the point of order that we raised and that we asked the Speaker of the House to rule on. It is very clear that democratic rights have been violated by the Conservative majority. Of course, none of the three interventions by the government denied the fact that the rules and procedures by which we are governed and that we are required to observe were violated.
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill, MB
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek for his comprehensive speech, his analysis of what exactly is happening to our country under the leadership of the current Conservative government, as well as the foundations that were weakened or even taken away by the previous Liberal government.
I am very proud to stand in this House to speak to our opposition day motion. I want to make sure that it is clearly known what we are putting on the table. We propose, as the motion says:
That, in light of sustained high unemployment since the 2008 recession and the long term downward trend in job quality since 1989 under successive Liberal and Conservative governments, as documented by CIBC, the House call on the government to make the first priority of Budget 2015 investment in measures that stimulate the economy by creating and protecting sustainable, full-time, middle-class jobs in high-paying industries in all regions of Canada and abandoning its costly and unfair $2 billion income-splitting proposal.
This is all about priorities. We know that we are entering a time that is crucial when it comes to acting on priorities: budget time.
We have been very clear from the beginning that our priority in the NDP is one where we seek to invest in the economy. We seek to stimulate the economy through investment and through the protection of sustainable, full-time jobs in high-paying regions across the country, and investing in initiatives in housing, transit, broader infrastructure, education, and health care.
Then we look at what the Conservatives are proposing. Despite the rhetoric about a strong economy and supporting job creation, they are choosing to spend $2 billion on an income splitting proposal. This is at a time when Canadians have been told to keep their purse strings tight and not to expect to see any spending. In fact, those who are working for the federal government have seen record job losses. Canadians across the country may have seen their jobs leave the country. Some continue to be in poverty, and chronic poverty continues to go unaddressed by the current federal government. On the other hand, we see a commitment to income splitting.
I had the opportunity to speak across my constituency on what is happening to our country, and I feel that is very much what we are talking about today. We are talking about the vision of Canada that we have seen the current government hold steadfastly to, and the kind of direction the Conservatives have taken us in.
I come from a part of the country that is very diverse, particularly in terms of indigenous communities. There are also people who have settled there from across the country and from around the world. However, we need look no further than northern Manitoba and a lot of our northern regions in terms of the kinds of inequality that people across our country face.
Many of us were horrified just a few weeks ago by a report indicating that first nations in Manitoba face some of the greatest challenges in terms of quality of life. We know that across the country, first nations children face the highest rates of poverty, at about 25%, and if we look at Manitoba, that number jumps as high as 62%.
In this case, we are not talking about job creation only, or a strong economy as the government talks about. We are talking about chronic, sustained, deep-rooted poverty.
I wish that the federal government would spend some time talking about a vision when it comes to poverty on first nations. However, sadly, any time we hear Conservatives talk about indigenous issues, it is often to disparage indigenous leaders or peoples, or in the case of legislation like Bill C-51, to create barriers and threaten indigenous communities that are pushing for their rights to be recognized and for better opportunities in their communities and across the country.
Instead of spending $2 billion on income splitting, we would like to see the government place a priority on eliminating poverty, understanding that it has a different face in parts of the country, understanding that there needs to be investment in first nations education, that there needs to be investment in health care on reserve and that there needs to be investment in housing.
By making those investments we create economic opportunities. For example, in Manitoba, with the growing indigenous population, if more and more young people leave the north or in the inner city have a better chance at an education in terms of primary education, but also secondary and post-secondary, that they will be better able to contribute to their local economies, to our national economy, whether it is by accessing existing jobs or creating and innovating new jobs.
I also have the honour of representing people who depend on the resource extractive industry. I have no doubt that every single one of them would say that $2 billion can be better spent on the priorities many of them see as imminent, rather than spending it on income splitting.
Many of the folks I represent have seen their jobs exported outside the country because the government has not stood up for them, whether it is because of the softwood lumber deal or whether it is because of the way in which the agreements for foreign companies to buy out Canadian companies have become largely rubber stamps under the leadership of the government.
In the case of Thompson, my home community, a Brazilian multinational bought out a Canadian company, Inco, and soon after threatened to export all of our value-added jobs, jobs that we know are fundamental in our community and fundamental to our province.
Thankfully, as a result of public pressure and regional engagement, the company came to the table to try to find a solution. It was little thanks to a federal government that continues to allow foreign companies to buy out Canadian corporations, and either quickly or over a range of years, export value-added jobs, jobs that sustain our communities and our entire country in many cases.
I would also say that when we are talking about where we could spend $2 billion, it is pretty clear that when we look at the needs of newcomers to Canada, we need to see investments in education and training, in credential recognition, which arguably does not have a monetary cost but would allow people who come with tremendous expertise from around the world to contribute to our communities and our economy in a much greater way. Instead of that, the federal government chooses once again to spend $2 billion on income splitting.
I want to spend just one moment on what income splitting is really all about. Not only is it a ghastly waste of money in terms of $2 billion, but it is a proposal that has everything to do with reinforcing inequality in our country, and particularly marginalizing women in our country, because income splitting encourages women, who often earn less than their male partners, to stay at home and focus on what I am sure many in the government would consider the more “traditional” caring duties that women are supposed to do.
I want to say that I was taken aback with the Prime Minister's reference today to others being anti-women in their agenda when in fact many have argued, and I have certainly argued in this House, that income splitting is anti-women's equality. When it comes to things that we can really do to improve the equality of women, improve the equality of all Canadians, in means taking away that $2 billion, that waste of money on income splitting and moving it to the real priorities that we in the NDP are putting forward, and we know that many Canadians are putting forward as well.
Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I look forward to our study of the new anti-terrorism bill.
We must prevent threats to the safety of Canadians, while respecting the privacy of ordinary citizens. Naturally, we will hear a range of opinions about the proper balance. The goal is critical: to protect our country's freedoms and values. That is why the courts and the Security Intelligence Review Committee will carefully monitor the new tools under Bill C-51.
We will cautiously weigh the measures needed for Canada to remain a safe country, while also ensuring that innocent citizens are able to go about their lives without unwarranted intrusion.
Canada, like other democracies, is the target of jihadi terrorists. That is why our government will continue to take prudent measures to safeguard the nation's peace and security.
Jean-François Fortin Forces et Démocratie Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Mr. Speaker, the study of Bill C-51 is being derailed.
The Conservatives have turned a legitimate study into a toxic debate. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is fearmongering rather than fulfilling his duties. He even referred to the Holocaust to justify the bill. This shocking comparison is worrisome because it indicates that the Conservatives are prepared to twist all the facts to achieve their ends.
It is not surprising that they are refusing to listen to experts such as the Privacy Commissioner, who is worried about the impact Bill C-51 will have on freedom of expression, surveillance of civil society groups and the integrity of personal information that will be shared by the agencies and departments.
Every day, it becomes clearer that the Conservatives do not intend to let the truth and the adverse consequences of Bill C-51 extinguish the flame of terror that they are fanning. They are hanging on to Bill C-51 like a lifeline in order get re-elected, even if it means sacrificing some of the rights and freedoms of millions of Canadians.
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for his speech. In as gracious a form as I can, I would say that I am a little disappointed in the tone. I do not think that is the kind of negativity I am accustomed to hearing from him.
This is a bill that is fairly important, and I understand the NDP will be supporting it. It is not perfect. It is as imperfect as any bill I have seen here in ten and a half years. It is capable of being improved, strengthened, and amended. For a moment, I thought maybe the member was debating Bill C-51.
I know the NDP is raising some important concerns about the liability limit of $1 billion. Lac-Mégantic has hurtled to a cost of $600 million, the Gulf of Mexico spill has pushed $40 billion, and Exxon Valdez is in the tens of billions and still has not been completely cleaned up. There are some important points there. However, perhaps the member could cut to the chase and instead of being overtly political or partisan, he could tell us what two points he would specifically like to see improved in the bill.