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.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations.

I want to begin by thanking my wife, Amy Symington, my parents, and my family and friends for their love and support through this year's marathon campaign. I thank also the hundreds of volunteers who worked tirelessly to give me this opportunity and all the residents of Beaches—East York who put their trust and confidence in me.

I am especially proud of my community's recent efforts to come together in the wake of the Syrian refugee crisis. Many neighbours have pledged both their time and money to welcome refugees into our community. I commend the work of local churches, community organizations, and hard-working, caring individuals.

It is an important reminder that long-term peace is forged by a compassionate and inclusive society. I see those values as my fellow neighbours work to welcome newcomers into our community and do their part in our world. Equally, our response to the Syrian refugee crisis is a reminder that we can and should work to put politics aside. In doing so, we have the ability to accomplish great things.

I am one of 197 new MPs, and my home riding sent me here to take a new approach, one focused on honest debate, respectful disagreement, and building consensus.

Pollsters tell us that less than a quarter of Canadians have faith in our democracy. I am asking everyone in this House to help change that. I believe that politics is a noble profession and I am naive enough to want every Canadian to feel pride in the work that we will do here when they watch us in action. Canadians agree on more than we often realize. Rather than scoring points and tearing each other down, we should work as hard as we can to prioritize agreement.

In the throne speech, we were promised a government that is smart and caring. Those two themes are important: fiscal responsibility and social progress — matching a social justice perspective and an investment outlook.

There are any number of issues where we may disagree on why we support a given policy or initiative, but we do in fact agree on the end conclusion. It is our job to point these out, and many of these issues were rightfully highlighted in the throne speech. I will mention five.

First is a recommitment to science, evidence and data-driven government. In the U.S., former officials in the Obama and Bush administrations estimate that less than one out of every hundred dollars of government spending is backed by even the most basic evidence that the money is being spent wisely. We experienced similar problems here in Canada, yet good data is central to good decision-making. We need to collect better data about the policies and programs that work, to fund or increase funding for what works, and to direct funds away from those programs that fail to achieve measurable outcomes.

I am proud that 2016 will be a census year, but that must be only the beginning. Fairness requires that our social programs are effective. Reason requires that they are also efficient. Good data is essential for both.

Second, we should work across the aisle to end poverty in this country. Our Canada child benefit is one significant piece to that puzzle. It is effectively a guaranteed annual income for kids and families in need. As an aside, a basic annual income has been advocated by those in both the traditional left and the traditional right, including the hon. Hugh Segal.

Bringing kids out of poverty is obviously a matter of social justice. It is on its face the right thing to do, but we also know that kids lifted out of poverty are more likely to finish high school, go to university or college, and contribute to our economy in a serious way, not to mention the savings in future social assistance, criminal justice, and health care.

In 1989, this House unanimously committed to ending child poverty by the year 2000. It is now 2015 and over one million children still live below the poverty line, but the importance of that objective should not be forgotten.

Our benefit aims to bring over 300,000 of those kids above the poverty line. More work obviously remains to be done, but it is an important initial commitment. We will not dictate how the money should be spent. We will simply ensure that the money is targeted to those families in real need.

Third is public infrastructure investment. We talk a lot about deficits in the House, but we should be clear which deficit most concerns us. My primary concern is the infrastructure deficit. It exceeds $120 billion across the country, according to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. It costs our economy billions of dollars in productivity every year.

The Board of Trade of Toronto has estimated that congestion costs the GTA economy at least $6 billion every year. The C.D. Howe Institute estimates that this figure exceeds $11 billion in the GTHA. If we do not make investments in core infrastructure and public transit now, it will cost us more in the long run. With interest rates at historic lows, we have a unique opportunity to invest.

In the spirit of not scoring points, let me remind Canadians that investment in infrastructure rose from 2.5% of GDP a year in 2000 to 2006 to 3.3% in 2007 to 2012. In other words, our former Conservative government understood the need for public infrastructure investment, made historic investments, and we are continuing and expanding upon that work.

Fourth is our environment. The provinces have moved forward in the absence of federal leadership over the last 10 years. We need to work with them. Without question, there is a significant future cost to climate change. Reports tell us that inaction will ultimately cost us more than action.

For starters, we need to ensure effective carbon pricing across our country. In 2008, B.C. implemented an effective carbon price that is revenue neutral. I am encouraged by similar efforts to date in Alberta.

The Leader of the Opposition spoke of intrusive government yesterday, but there is a consensus among economists about the usefulness of a carbon price. It is supported by those who believe in free markets. It emphasizes the principle that polluters should pay. It is a classic economic response: internalizing the externalities imposed on our environment that are not adequately captured in the current price of fossil fuels. When Preston Manning and the cross-partisan Ecofiscal Commission are calling for carbon pricing, it is quite clearly not the job-killing tax on everything that Canadians have been repeatedly told.

Fifth is health care, including preventive health care and a focus on the social determinants of health, poverty alleviation, and better support for nutrition and physical activity programs. There are many steps we can take to improve Canadians' quality of life, all the more important when one considers that an unhealthy Canadian costs our public system $10,000 more per year than a healthy Canadian.

Similarly, we must heed the call of the Canadian Medical Association and invest in home care and long-term care facilities. Hospital stays can cost over $1,000 per day, long-term care $130, and home care as little as $55 a day. As seniors already represent 50% of health care spending, it is incumbent on us both to improve the quality of care and to create savings in our health care system.

There are many other ideas and issues to add to this list, from expanding the housing first initiative to reversing unjust tough on crime policies that put more Canadians in jail at an average annual cost of $120,000, to a public health approach to drug policy, and on and on.

Finally, there are a number of initiatives that respect the rights and freedoms of Canadians and the openness of government without affecting the public purse. Our merit-based and practical plan for Senate reform to remove partisanship and patronage in the upper chamber is endorsed by constitutional experts.

I look forward to helping craft death-with-dignity legislation to protect the constitutional rights of the terminally ill; to demanding better customer service from our government agencies for Canadians in times of need, especially in Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada; to fixing Bill C-51 to ensure that our charter rights are respected; to bringing animal welfare laws into the 21st century; and to adopting long-overdue electoral reform, not only making every vote count but also strengthening Elections Canada and respecting the freedom to vote our conscience, as promised by the Right Hon. Prime Minister.

I want to end on this note and stress the importance of independence in the House, the importance of thoughtfulness, and the importance of respectful disagreement. I am a proud member of the Liberal caucus, but I am prouder still of standing here in the House as the voice of all residents of Beaches-East York.

I look forward to being a strong voice for my riding in the House over the next four years and to working with each and every member in the House for all Canadians, to build consensus, to prioritize those issues where there is consensus, and to be a government that gets things done.

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague for the thought-provoking comments she made in her speech. I must say that my compassionate riding of Windsor—Tecumseh is driven by the issues of social justice as well. Whether questioning the integrity of a free trade agreement versus fair trade, challenging Bill C-51, addressing seniors' ability to retire in dignity, or helping lift children out of poverty, these are the things that compel all of us.

I ask the member what meaningful things she heard that resonated with her during the campaign, which the Liberal government can commit to now.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the constituents of Saskatoon West for having put their faith in me to represent them and to ensure a strong voice for them in Parliament. It is a very high honour, and I am humbled by their support and faith in me to serve them to the best of my abilities over the coming four years.

I also wish to congratulate my colleagues in the House on their successful elections, and in particular extend a special congratulatory acknowledgement to those colleagues who, like me, are here in Parliament for the very first time. I want to thank my new colleagues from both sides of the House who have reached out to offer assistance and advice and a warm hand of friendship as we, new MPs, climb a very steep learning curve.

I also want to acknowledge and thank the House of Commons staff, the leadership in the Clerk's office, and especially those who staff the MP orientation centre. Open, generous, welcoming, and knowledgeable are the words that best describe my experience working with this dedicated group of public servants. I know I speak for all my colleagues, both new and returning, when I say we are very fortunate to work with such a dedicated and knowledgeable group of employees.

Like many in the House, I did not get elected on my own efforts. I worked hard of course, but I had the help of many people. If it were not for their efforts I would not be standing here today addressing the House.

I would like to make special note of my family; my partner Shelley, my daughters Annie and Vashti, my mom, my dad, my brother and sisters, all of whom contributed so much in so many ways so that I might have this opportunity to serve my community and my country.

The riding of Saskatoon West is a new urban riding. It is situated on Treaty 6 territory and the ancestral homelands of the Métis people. It is where I have lived, worked, and raised my family for over 30 years. It is a great community in many ways. It is vibrant, entrepreneurial, and diverse, with strong community leadership and people who care for one another and stand up against injustices, and many more attributes of what makes communities great.

Unfortunately, we also face many challenges and struggles. Many residents of Saskatoon West struggle because life is simply unaffordable. Saskatoon West has some of the poorest neighbourhoods in Saskatoon. We have health outcomes in some neighbourhoods that near those found in the third world. Many in my community did not see the benefits of the economic boom in Saskatchewan and many in my community have not recovered from the recession of 2008.

In my previous role as the CEO of the United Way, before becoming the MP for Saskatoon West, I saw first-hand the personal devastation of rising inequality in my neighbours, such as the impact of huge health disparities despite universal health care, including an increasing rate of HIV infection in stark contrast to lowering rates in other communities in Canada; unemployment rates for young people and aboriginal people three times the national average; one of the highest uses of food banks in Canada; more children living in poverty; a rising homelessness rate; and unaffordable housing for most, with working people with full-time jobs living at the Salvation Army because they cannot afford market housing.

Many of my neighbours in Saskatoon West wake up every day faced with making decisions between paying rent or buying food, between paying rent or buying medication.

My constituents did indeed vote for change. The change they wished to see was an open, transparent, and accountable government, a government that protected their rights and freedoms by repealing Bill C-51. They voted for one class of citizenship. They voted for keeping their mail home delivery and restoring it to those who have lost it. They voted for removing the barriers to entry into the middle class with affordable, accessible, high-quality child care so that they could participate in the economy and attend to their education.

My constituents voted to make life more affordable. They voted for a national pharmacare program so that they could afford to pay their rent and for their medications to stay healthy and well. My constituents voted for an opportunity to be included, and to enjoy a good quality of life, a home, an education, and an income to cover the basics of everyday life.

As the CEO of United Way, I, along with other local leaders and volunteers, have sat around community tables, co-operating with governments at all levels for many years, to make things better in our community. However, more often than not, we were thwarted in our efforts as we sat helplessly and watched all levels of government pass the buck on important issues, claiming that it was not their jurisdiction and that it was some other level of government that should take the lead and step up.

To make real change happen, we have to lead. Every level of government can play a role and has a role to play in the important issues that Canadians are facing, such as housing, poverty, and good health care. One way to lead is by example, ensuring that we do what we can in our own jurisdictional backyard, so to speak, and to set the bar high for others to follow.

One of those areas is the importance of a federal minimum wage. No efforts to lead on reducing poverty or growing the middle class will be successful without ensuring that we do all that we can within our jurisdiction. That is why an important government strategy to grow the middle class is a $15 federal minimum wage. A federal minimum wage will go a long way to ensuring that those 80,000 or more employed people working in federally regulated industries, such as transportation, telecommunications, and banking can afford the basics of life. It is the caring thing to do; it is the smart thing to do.

Entry into the middle class will be challenging for many in my constituency. Their entry into the middle class means removing barriers to getting and keeping employment and pursuing their education. One of the biggest barriers for my constituents is the lack of affordable and accessible child care. It is often the single biggest barrier for parents to securing employment or finishing their education. Affordable post-secondary education is one challenge. Even with more affordable education, many will be excluded because they cannot afford child care, and even if they can afford child care, they cannot find it; it is not there to be found.

To create more opportunities for young Canadians, especially those from low and middle-income families, means removing the barriers so that the opportunities can be accessed by everyone. That means a federal government that is willing to lead on not only creating new child care spaces in the short term, but making a commitment to all parents to finally, after 30 years, commit to universally accessible, affordable, and high-quality child care.

Communities across Canada have stepped up where governments have failed to provide the services needed for their communities to thrive, but there is only so much that communities can do on their own. They need governments to partner, to invest, and to help communities meet their challenges. Canadians know how to work together. I know that my constituents are looking forward, as I am, to a government that knows how to do that and do it well.

As a community leader in the non-profit sector for over 20 years, I know what it takes to work together. I know the hard work and the tenacity needed to work toward common goals. As the labour critic for the NDP, I look forward to working with the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, and my fellow critic in the official opposition, on these important issues to ensure that no one is left behind.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the most important things I heard over and over again in my riding during the campaign was the need to repeal Bill C-51.

Quite frankly, I spoke with a number of long-time Liberals in my riding who were changing their vote this time around because of the Liberal support for at least the first version of Bill C-51. They wanted to see the bill repealed.

I know the Liberal government's position has been to change it, to amend it, but ultimately it needs to be repealed. That is the best way to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians moving forward.

I have to trust the many people I heard from, both legal scholars and people who have worked in security, who said they did not think the bill would provide much additional security to Canadians while potentially impacting our rights and freedoms. It should be repealed.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent first speech in the House. We are so happy that he is here along with a robust team from British Columbia. He spoke to our priorities overall as a caucus.

The member brought up some key points in terms of an issue we are proud to stand very clearly on, Bill C-51. There are so many Canadians from coast to coast to coast who have expressed their opposition to this bill, who have expressed their concern about what this bill means in terms of civil liberties, in terms of privacy, and in terms of respect for first nations' rights.

Despite the severity of the issues that have been made known by many across the country, the government across did not refer to the changes it is looking at making and, frankly, did not refer to any of its plans with regard to Bill C-51 in the throne speech.

How important is it for Canadians to see leadership on this front, to see that their civil rights, their right to privacy, and that indigenous rights are protected? I would like to hear from my colleague on this front.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Saskatoon West.

I will start by sincerely thanking the great people of Kootenay—Columbia for giving me the honour of representing them in Canada's 42nd Parliament. It is a responsibility that I take very seriously, as I have devoted my life to public service. I would also like to congratulate the citizens of the Kootenays, from Elkford to Revelstoke and from Kaslo to Field, for their outstanding participation in the 2015 election. Almost 74% of eligible voters in my riding took that walk to the polls, which was among the highest turnout rates in Canada.

I am particularly proud of the number of first nations people and youth who were actively involved in the election. This is very good news for the future of reconciliation with our indigenous neighbours and for the future of democracy in the southeast corner of British Columbia.

Of course, I would like to thank my wife Audrey; and my children Shawn, Kellie, and Adrian; and my granddaughter Lalita. Their love and support and their sacrifices are what made this journey possible.

The citizens of the Rocky, Purcell, and Selkirk Mountains sent me to Ottawa with some very specific expectations that I intend to deliver on.

First is to work together with all parties to deliver on a better future for Kootenay—Columbia and Canada. My constituents, quite frankly, are tired of seeing Parliament as a place where partisan politics seem to take precedence over positive progress. Their desire, and mine, is to see the House of Commons as a place where good ideas are celebrated regardless of their origins. I was heartened, Mr. Speaker, to hear that your desire is also to see a better future for Parliament.

The second expectation is for me to hold the Liberal government accountable for its election promises and to make them even better. I will do that alongside my New Democrat colleagues by supporting the government when it is doing the right things for Canada. We demonstrated our willingness to co-operate last Friday when we stood and applauded the objectives of the Speech from the Throne related to electoral reform, to making Canada a leader in dealing with climate change, to immediately launching an inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, and in welcoming Syrian refugees to Canada. These are all priorities for the citizens of Kootenay—Columbia.

However, my constituents have many other priorities they expect us to deliver on as well. I personally knocked on over a thousand doors during the 2015 election, and here are some of the things that I heard very clearly.

Families with young children want universal, affordable child care. We had a plan to give them that, and they want to know the Liberals' plan to help them get there.

Small businesses need and deserve a tax cut and a reduction in credit-card fees.

Too many seniors are living in poverty. This is unacceptable in a rich country like Canada, which these senior citizens helped to build. At minimum, they need an increase in the guaranteed income supplement.

Bill C-51 needs to be repealed, not just amended. Many of my constituents described Bill C-51 as the “anti-terrorist, fear-mongering bill”. They believe, as I do and many legal scholars, that this bill has the potential to go too far in impacting our rights and freedoms without adding any real benefits to our security.

The trans-Pacific trade partnership has the potential to hurt the dairy and cheese industry, particularly in the Creston area of my riding. We should never sign any trade deal that would negatively impact any aspect of agriculture in Canada. Food security should be a fundamental right protected by all levels of government.

Health care is a concern for all Canadians. I am optimistic and encouraged by the government's promise to negotiate a new health accord with the provinces and territories.

However, it remains to be seen if that accord will deal with long-standing issues related to the requirement for every Canadian to have a family doctor; reducing costs for prescription drugs; helping children and youth struggling with mental illness; tabling a bill of rights for people with disabilities; ensuring that seniors have the help they need at home, in long-term care facilities, in hospitals, and through palliative care.

My constituents also want to see a vibrant and well-funded CBC, as well as mail delivered to their homes by Canada Post.

Indeed, as is the case with many things in life, the devil is in the details. For example, leadership in climate change is a good thing, but it is meaningful only if accompanied by firm, enforceable, and timely targets. Implementing recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada is the right thing to do, but in the end, which recommendations and how they are implemented will be the true measure of the government's commitment to first nations.

It was great to have the Prime Minister stop by the orientation session for new members of Parliament back in November. As part of his address to us, he said that the role of the opposition is to make government better. I could not agree more, and as part of Canada's progressive opposition, that is exactly what we will do.

One of my disappointments with the Speech from the Throne is that it failed to make any mention of Canada's national parks. When I reviewed the mandate letter from the Prime Minister to the hon. Minister of Environment and Climate Change, I was heartened to read statements related to developing Canada's national parks and their programs and services, while limiting commercial development within them.

However, during the campaign, the Liberal government also promised to invest $25 million each year to protect ecosystems and species at risk in parks and to manage and expand national wildlife areas and migratory bird sanctuaries. As well, it promised to reverse the Conservative government's cuts to Parks Canada and restore $25 million to programs and services. I will be closely monitoring the Liberal government's budget to ensure that national parks, which are important to both our environment and economy, get the enhanced funding that they rightfully deserve.

We also need to ensure that there is a solid long-term plan to twin Highway 1 through the national parks in my riding, while ensuring the safety of both travellers and wildlife, and to see a new national park established in British Columbia's south Okanagan region, which is a long-standing initiative.

I will finish my maiden speech to Parliament with a story.

When I was going door to door during the campaign in Nelson, I met a delightful senior citizen who said she wanted to tell me a story but only if I agreed to share it with others. After hearing her story, I said that I would do just that.

When this senior was a child, her father was friends with Tommy Douglas, and she often played around his feet. Apparently, Mr. Douglas was of rather small stature. One day she was in a room with several adults, one of them a very tall man who was standing by Tommy Douglas. One of the other adults looked at the two of them and said, “Mr. Douglas, you sure are short”, to which Tommy Douglas replied, “The true height of a man is measured from the neck up”.

Of course, Mr. Douglas went on to be the father of Canada's universal health care system, of which we are all so proud.

Why am I telling this story? It is because while we, as a caucus, may be short in numbers, we are long on good ideas that will make our country stand even taller. I am committed to working with all members over the next four years to build a better Kootenay—Columbia and a better Canada.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand here on behalf of more than 3.5 million Canadians who gave the New Democratic Party of Canada the mandate to serve as the progressive opposition in this Parliament. I thank each and every voter who gave us their trust and confidence. We will stand up for them and for our shared values.

I would like to congratulate the new government on its win in the last election. The Prime Minister and his cabinet have been entrusted with tremendous responsibility. They were given this mandate based on ambitious commitments, and I sincerely hope that they will fulfill them.

On behalf of New Democrats across Canada, I commit to working with the new government to bring in the change that an overwhelming majority of Canadians sought in the last election.

Today, as leader of the progressive opposition, I commit to working with the Prime Minister when our values and policies overlap.

I would also like to congratulate every member of the House on their election. We are 338 commoners representing this wonderful country of ours from coast to coast to coast. We differ on policy and outlook, but what unites us all is the conviction that this great country can be even better.

Like all members, I met thousands of Canadians during this campaign. We are an optimistic bunch and we know that we live in one of the greatest countries on earth, but many Canadians are also deeply worried. There has been a hollowing out of the middle class. Good manufacturing jobs have been lost. New jobs are temporary, part-time, and precarious.

Families have a hard time making ends meet. I met child care providers and airport workers who work full-time but live in poverty because there is no federal minimum wage.

I met women who had survived sexual violence only to be denied a shelter when they needed it most. I spoke to young people crushed by the weight of student debt, worried about their job prospects, and deeply concerned about climate change and its effects on their generation.

I met families of murdered and missing indigenous women, who lost their loved ones brutally, and they fear that we are not doing enough to prevent future violence. I spoke to seniors who built this country but who now live in poverty; seniors who cannot afford lifesaving prescription medication; seniors who have to live in hospitals because we do not have enough home care services.

Despite the tremendous wealth of our nation, too many children are still going to school with empty bellies. Too many women are giving up their careers—and it is nearly always women who make the sacrifice—because they do not have access to affordable child care. Too many homeless people are living and sleeping on the streets. Too many families are living paycheque to paycheque. Too many workers are living with a sword of Damocles hanging over their heads because they could lose their jobs if the trans-Pacific partnership goes through in its current form.

When the Prime Minister tells us that we can do better, I feel relieved because I truly agree with him. Here in Parliament, we must commit to working together to make real and positive change for Canadians.

I paid very close attention to the Speech from the Throne. Like most Canadians, I am pleased with the new tone of the government and many of the promises it has made. Now we have to roll up our sleeves and get down to business. As they say back home, it is time to walk the walk.

Canadians need the assurance that, from now on, Parliament will fight for their jobs, their families, and their communities.

There were, at the same time, some troubling omissions in the Speech from the Throne. There was no mention of bringing the age of retirement back to 65. There was no mention whatsoever of better oversight for Bill C-51. There was no mention of restoring door-to-door mail delivery, despite an absolutely crystal clear promise to restore door-to-door mail delivery. There was no word about child care. On health care, there was no engagement from the government to cancel the planned cuts to federal transfers. We have an obligation to help the five million Canadians who do not have a family doctor. We have to fund a prescription drug plan. We must expand long-term care and palliative care for seniors. The government has the legal obligation to uphold and enforce the principles of the Canada Health Act against creeping privatization. Real change must mean real help for people. It is time to make quality child care affordable and ensure universality, so it is not just the rich who are entitled to high-quality child care.

When it comes to the government's proposed tax cut, let us get it done right. As it stands, the government's proposed middle-class tax cut would not give a penny to nearly 70% of Canadian taxpayers. Ironically, most of the benefit from the proposed Liberal tax cut would go to wealthy Canadians and give the average family absolutely nothing. Someone making the median income in Canada, which is $31,320 a year, would get nothing. A family that is middle class, earning $45,000 a year, would see zero benefit from these so-called tax cuts, whereas as my colleague from Beauce said a few minutes ago, a member of Parliament who earns $167,400 a year would get the maximum tax cut, and that is just not fair.

The plan proposed by the government does not include a tax hike for wealthy Canadians. In fact, the rich will get a tax cut, while a middle-class family earning $45,000 a year will get nothing. We can and we must do better.

Although we are an opposition party, we also believe we must bring forward proposals. The NDP did in fact propose an adjustment to improve the policy brought forward by the Liberals in order to include all middle-class families. That is what was promised.

Instead of introducing a tax cut for the second tax bracket, we propose applying it to the first tax bracket while enhancing the working income tax benefit. That change alone would give a worker who earns the median income an extra $200 in tax cuts.

With the NDP plan, workers who earn between $11,000 and $45,000 a year would save an average of $172, while under the Liberal government's plan, those workers will get nothing. This one small change to the government's policy would have a real impact on middle-class families. By including our suggestion in its proposal, the Liberal government could respect the spirit of its election promise.

Parliament must protect the most vulnerable. We agree that it is time to build a nation-to-nation, respectful relationship with indigenous peoples in our country. We have to close the funding gap for first nations education. That is an obligation. We must call a public inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women, immediately boost funding for child and family services, and provide clean drinking water on all reserves in Canada.

Resettling Syrian refugees is also a national project that we should all be proud of. Let us be clear with Canadians on the numbers and let us not disqualify a whole group of refugees based on the politics of fear. Let us instead show the generosity of our great country in living up to our international obligations and give these Syrian refugees the peace and opportunities they need.

It is time to fight against poverty. Let us close stock option tax loopholes for the richest CEOs in the country and invest the money in helping eliminate child poverty, a goal set by Ed Broadbent and supported by the House a full generation ago. Also, let us make Canada's largest corporations start paying their fair share of taxes. Let us give tens of thousands of Canadian families a raise by bringing in a federal minimum wage, a living wage of $15 an hour. Let us increase the guaranteed income supplement to lift 200,000 seniors out of poverty. We can all agree on that. Let us also return the retirement age from 67 to 65.

I hope we can also agree that it is time to start reversing the damage the previous government caused to our employment insurance system.

The new government's change in tone on climate change is welcome, but actions speak louder than words. The time for talking the talk is over. It is now time to walk the walk. In concrete terms, we need firm targets for reducing greenhouse gases in Canada. Nothing else will do if we are to meet our obligations. There needs to be a coherent plan and a binding deadline for achieving those targets. The government must also review the environmental assessment process and add climate impact to project assessment criteria.

Also, it is time to fix Ottawa. It is time to strengthen our democracy. In his last full year in the House, the outgoing prime minister only attended one-third of question periods. The best way to show respect for this institution is to show up in Parliament regularly and be answerable to Canadians.

The Prime Minister has made a bold commitment that 2015 would be the last election wherein an archaic first-past-the-post system produces phony majorities and a Parliament that does not reflect the true democratic will of Canadians. Every vote must count. We are ready to work with the government in ensuring that this fundamental value in our democracy, proportional representation, is truly honoured in Canada's new electoral system.

It is time to clean house here in Ottawa, and it is time to put an end to the old patronage ways. Politics should be noble and should inspire people to become involved and make others' lives better. It is time for Canadians to start trusting politics again. Politics should not be synonymous with scandals and partisan appointments. Politics should not sacrifice the public interest to serve the interests of those at the top. Again, the progressive NDP opposition is ready to work with the government to advance the public interest. However, we are also here to hold the government to account. If the government does not make the real change that Canadians are longing for, then we will be here to remind the government that it was elected with a mandate for real change. Canadians deserve nothing less.

In ending, I move, seconded by the member for North Island—Powell River:

That the amendment be amended by deleting everything after the word “by” and replacing it with the following:

“working in collaboration with opposition parties to present realistic, structured and concrete changes that benefit some of Canada's most vulnerable citizens including: seniors through an increase to the Guaranteed Income Supplement; middle class families through reducing taxes on the first income tax bracket; low-income workers with leadership by introducing a $15 per hour federal minimum wage; and supports to those struggling to enter the workforce with a robust and reliable employment insurance program.”

Let us carry on.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the new interim leader for the Conservative Party. I was enjoying the image of small town Conservative values being presented here, and thinking that it does not remind me in one degree of the last ten years of a big, intrusive, nasty, mean government.

We will set aside the record deficits for a moment, and the profligate spending on cronies and patronage, but with regard to this word, “intrusive” that I heard again and again, what about the tracking of people on the Internet without warrants? Remember Vic Toews? What about Bill C-51 and its outright attack on basic Canadian civil liberties?

In this new sunny Parliament, let us shine a light on the issue of the Conservatives' track record on intrusive government. Will they work with New Democrats to restore basic notions of civil liberty and the right to privacy in this country, which was taken away under her government?

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect Parliament to get results on issues that matter. A bill by an NDP member to ensure that transgender people have the same rights as everyone else and a bill to give more autonomy to members of Parliament have both passed in the House. Yet the undemocratic Senate is killing them, just like it did with Jack Layton's climate change bill. The government ordered its senatorial troops to pass Bill C-51 without amendment. Why the double standard?

Social Programs

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am Gabrielle and Maisy Odjick, women victims of violence. I am Carole Parent, who will have to make some tough choices because the Conservatives are refusing to save social housing. I am the one in six unemployed workers who do not have access to employment insurance.

Our social safety net is disintegrating. The gap between the rich and the poor is growing. Our children are the first generation to be less prosperous than the generation before them.

Bill C-51 attacks our rights and freedoms. Advocacy groups are up in arms. Environmental protection is falling victim to financial gain. The Conservatives are making decisions on paper while turning a blind eye to the actual consequences.

We need a government that reflects who we are and that supports us. I am the average Canadian. I am the proud NDP member for Hochelaga, and I am going to continue to stand up for Canadians' rights.

Life Means Life Act

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Trois-Rivières.

Today I rise in the House to speak to Bill C-53, which we will oppose. First though, since this is probably my last speech in the House for this 41st Parliament, I would like to thank all of the staff who have supported us over the past four years: House of Commons staff and the people working in my riding office and my parliamentary office, the interpreters, who do amazing work, the pages, and the people who work for my caucus.

A special thanks goes to my constituents in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles for placing their trust in me over the past four years. It was a tremendous privilege and an honour for me to meet them and talk to them about their concerns. I hope that they will support me again during the next Parliament.

Today we are talking about Bill C-53, a justice bill that was introduced by the government in power. This bill represents yet another step backward. I will digress for a moment to talk about this government's record on justice over the past few years.

First, let us talk about the issue of the missing and murdered aboriginal women. The current government is refusing to conduct an inquiry into this phenomenon, even though aboriginal groups across the country have been calling for such an inquiry. We know that an inquiry is necessary to put a stop to this terrible phenomenon in Canada. The NDP has already committed to conducting a national inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women. That is a priority for us, and it is one of the first things that we are going to do if we take office.

The Conservative government also introduced Bill C-51, which undermines our fundamental freedoms and violates our right to privacy. I received a number of letters on this subject from my constituents, who spoke out against the approach the government took with Bill C-51.

The NDP took a stand based on conviction and principles. Of the three main parties in the House, we are the only one that opposed this bill, which seriously infringes on the freedom of Canadians.

We can say that the Conservatives have fallen short when it comes to street gangs, whether it be in Montreal or Surrey, British Columbia. I talked with my colleagues from British Columbia about how a big a problem street gangs are. This is a serious and urgent problem that the government continues to ignore.

Bill C-53 is broadly based on misinformation and electioneering. What is more, we know that the Conservatives used this bill to stir up fear in order to raise more funds for their party. Right after this bill was introduced, the Conservative member for Scarborough Centre sent a fundraising email on behalf of the Conservative Party. The subject line was “Murderers in your neighbourhood”. That is obviously a campaign to spread fear and then capitalize on that fear to generate more support for the Conservative Party. That is the desperate act of a tired and ineffective government that is jeopardizing Canadians' safety.

The Conservatives should tell Canadians the truth. In the current system, the most dangerous criminals who pose a threat to public safety never get out of prison.

That is the current reality. We in the NDP want to protect victims and create an approach that puts victims first. We also believe in evidence-based policy. Any reforms made to the sentencing regime should focus on improving public safety, not playing political games. That is what the Conservatives are doing right now.

Decisions regarding people being released from custody must be based on an assessment of the risk each individual poses to the community and to public safety. The Conservatives introduced this bill, which, in fact, gives the minister control over these decisions. The Conservatives want to politicize the release process. We believe that this is a step backward for Canada.

The Attorney General has a duty to ensure that all of the bills put forward by the government are constitutional. As we know, since the Conservative Party has been in power, it has introduced a number of bills that could be considered unconstitutional. Once again, Bill C-53 will probably wind up being challenged in the courts. In other words, the Conservatives have introduced yet another problematic bill that is really much more about playing politics, instead of working to find solutions to the real problems.

Currently, if an offender gets parole, he will live the rest of his life under the conditions of his parole and the supervision of a CSC parole officer. Offenders who are sentenced to life never enjoy total freedom, since they have committed an offence resulting in a life sentence. Not all offenders who are given a life sentence get parole and some never will because of the high risk of recidivism they continue to present. We know that in the current system, there is legislation already in place to protect public safety and keep our neighbourhoods safe.

We know that the Conservatives are playing politics with this bill. The fact that they have been talking about this bill since 2013 further proves that point. They waited until just a few months before the election was called to introduce a real bill in the House. We know that this is an election bill. It has been criticized by eminent lawyers and experts because it is a complete botch-up.

In the past few days, we have had to discuss other bills that the Conservatives introduced in the House at the last minute. That is very undemocratic because we do not have enough time to debate these bills before the House rises at the end of the parliamentary session.

We also know that this same government invoked closure for the 100th time a few weeks ago in order to limit debate in the House. That move was strongly condemned by this side of the House, because Canadians want their MPs to do their homework, do their job and carefully study these bills. However, the Conservatives want to ram their platform down Canadians' throats without discussion and clear debate.

At present, it is the Parole Board of Canada, the PBC, an independent administrative tribunal free from political interference, that decides whether to grant or not grant parole. Taking this power away from independent experts and putting it in the hands of government is tantamount to turning back the clock 50 years. With this Conservative government we are going backwards.

The Parole Board of Canada was established in 1959, and Canadians rejected the politicization of the administration of justice a long time ago.

Canadians deserve better. They deserve a government that will take public safety seriously rather than using it for political purposes.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate Chamber, His Excellency was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-247, An Act to expand the mandate of Service Canada in respect of the death of a Canadian citizen or Canadian resident—Chapter 15.

Bill C-452, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (exploitation and trafficking in persons)—Chapter 16.

Bill C-591, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act (pension and benefits)—Chapter 17.

Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act—Chapter 18.

Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act—Chapter 19.

Bill C-51, 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—Chapter 20.

Bill C-46, An Act to amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act—Chapter 21.

Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act,—Chapter 22.

Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 23.

Bill C-63, An Act to give effect to the Déline Final Self-Government Agreement and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts—Chapter 24.

Bill C-66, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2016—Chapter 25.

Bill C-67, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2016—Chapter 26.

Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code and to make a related amendment and a consequential amendment to other Acts—Chapter 27.

Bill C-555, An Act respecting the Marine Mammal Regulations (seal fishery observation licence)—Chapter 28.

Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 29.

Bill C-12, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act—Chapter 30.

Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act—Chapter 31.

Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act—Chapter 32.

Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act and to make consequential amendments to the Statutory Instruments Regulations—Chapter 33.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased yet again to say to the member that we have accepted the request of 100 new RCMP officers. The deployment of the first 20 members committed to Surrey is under way and boots are already on the ground.

However, let me talk about some of the things that the member and the member for Surrey North have actually voted against. We have passed legislation to get tough on the crime of drive-by shootings, measures to protect children from sexual offences, measures that we have implemented for crime prevention. That member and the New Democratic Party have voted against absolutely everything, including against terrorism in Bill C-51. Shame on the New Democratic Party.

Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this place to add some thoughts on a particular issue. After reading the title of Bill S-2, many might think it is a somewhat dull bill, maybe a little boring to read, but as I asked in my question for the parliamentary secretary, the details are in fact very important.

My view of the structure under which our system operates is that we do not give enough attention to regulations. Canadians would be surprised at the degree to which our society is regulated. It does not happen just here in Ottawa; it also happens internationally, and it affects Canadians' lives. It happens at the national level, which is what we are primarily talking about this morning, and it also happens at the provincial and municipal levels. Regulations are a part of everyday life for all of us.

They are important and they have a very profound impact. Some forms of legislation that come to the House of Commons are pretty straightforward and very easy to comment on; on others, such as this one, we have to be somewhat more diligent as we examine them.

The Liberal Party has a great deal of concern with regard to Bill S-2. Overall, we are not in a position to support the bill, because we have a number of concerns.

It is important at the get-go to recognize that incorporation by reference enables the federal government or agencies to give legal effect to material that has been published elsewhere. We should all be concerned about that.

We have talked a great deal within the Liberal caucus and we have shared some different ideas and thoughts in two-way communications with Canadians. Time and time again, and in fact earlier this week, we talked about how Ottawa is broken and how we do not see the type of progress that is important.

This is one of the pieces of legislation that I would use to cite that. We have standing committees of the House. We have a standing committee that deals strictly with the issue of regulations. Its primary function is to get a better understanding of regulations. It is there to provide diligence. We in the House might spend relatively little time dealing with the regulations, but there are other ways in which members of the House of Commons deal with regulations, from their creation to their being passed in the House to their appearance in the Canada Gazette. We need to have a decent understanding of what happens today and what the bill is proposing to do.

A department I choose to follow quite closely with regard to regulation is the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. A number of pieces of law, many of them very targeted and not very positive, have been passed in this administration, but when the law is passed after hours and hours of debate at committee, let alone what takes place outside of committee, that law does not actually deal with the regulations per se, and it is the regulations that will provide the details to either complement or, in some cases, detract from a piece of legislation that has been passed.

Let me give a specific example. We pass legislation dealing with the issue of citizenship; then we pass regulation to support some of those decisions that were made. As an example, the government passes legislation with an objective of creating additional resources or properly resourcing citizenship in order to speed up the process of acquiring citizenship. Then a regulation that follows stipulates what it would now cost to have that citizenship. We have seen some pretty bizarre things occur in that area, such as the quadrupling of citizenship fees. That has upset not only a good number of my constituents but also a good number of Canadians across the board.

How does that actually happen? The legislation passes here, and then the regulation comes up. Typically, the minister who develops the regulation brings it forward to the full cabinet. The full cabinet ultimately passes it. Then it ends up in the Canada Gazette. All Canadians could then be familiar with what has actually taken place.

Through that process, even though all members of Parliament are not necessarily privy to the dialogue in cabinet, there are some eyes on it from parliamentarians. That is a very important aspect when we deal with regulation. That is because, at the end of the day, if something appears in the Canada Gazette, we should have a sense that there was a Canadian member of Parliament who had eyes on it. Perhaps it was a cabinet member, because the cabinet ultimately approves it prior to its appearance in the Canada Gazette. There is that direct link of accountability. The government is ultimately responsible.

Through this particular piece of legislation, we would change that somewhat. One could argue that incorporation by reference already exists. It does occur. However, this particular piece of legislation would enhance that. It would enable more of it to take place. Concerns have been raised in regard to the impact it would have on the Canada Gazette. Concerns have also been raised in regard to the impact it would have on the House of Commons and on the ability of members of Parliament to hold the government accountable for regulations that would increasingly be changing without any sort of real diligence from the House of Commons.

That is a concern that we should all have. It is something that has caused the Liberal caucus and the Liberal Party to express our concern, and it is the reason we will not be supporting Bill S-2.

Bill S-2 would reduce the oversight of federal regulations by allowing sub-delegation of regulation-making power that is already delegated by Parliament to the Governor in Council and other persons. The current government, as I cited, cannot be trusted to use this power responsibly. We have seen that time and time again. Its willingness to abuse oversight mechanisms through its omnibus legislation and its disregard for the Department of Justice's constitutional review procedure are but a couple of examples.

I have had the opportunity to talk about some of those specifics. We have talked about those massive budget bills into which the government incorporates numerous pieces of other legislation, attempting to pass legislation through the back door of the budget, attempting to avoid accountability, attempting to avoid the eyes of MPs, attempting to avoid scrutiny beyond that by many different stakeholders. It tries to sneak legislation through in these large budget bills.

In fact, when the Prime Minister was in opposition, I can recall him stating very clearly how wrong it was to be use budget bills as a back door to bring through legislative agendas. No government has done it more than the Conservative government.

I could check with my colleague, the member for Charlottetown, about the issue of oversight and the importance of that. The Liberal Party has advocated for parliamentary oversight with respect to CSIS and security related issues. We went through a fairly significant debate on Bill C-51. The Conservatives try to give the public the impression that there is a terrorist under every rock. Then the NDP in essence believes that there is no problem, that there is no need to be fearful. Those are two really different approaches.

The Liberals understand the importance of safety. We understand the importance of security. However, we also understand the importance of individual rights. We are the party that brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We talk about diligence and we look at the importance of our parliamentary committees in providing that kind of oversight. Through Bill S-2, there will be less parliamentary oversight on regulations. I believe the parliamentary secretary would recognize, or at the very least should recognize, that.

It would have been more encouraging to hear the parliamentary secretary talk about the importance of parliamentary oversight. He and the government are very enthusiastic about this legislation, but we do not hear whether the Government of Canada is prepared to give away a very important part of making regulations through the incorporation by reference. That will have a very important impact not only today but especially into the future, as Canada is becoming a bigger player in the global market. Therefore, parliamentary oversight is of critical importance.

Unfortunately, we lost that debate on Bill C-51, but we will correct that come fall if we are afforded the opportunity to do so.

What about parliamentary oversight on these issues, because these issues are important also? Once again, the government feels we do not need to worry about oversight. The government is wrong. Canadians have a higher expectation of what they want parliamentarians to do. Let me give members an example that is quite tangible.

We are all aware of the hundreds of thousands of tax dollars that the Prime Minister has used for the European trade deal photo ops. There are no lack of resources when it comes to taxpayer dollars to support photo ops on the EU agreement, which is not finalized. I believe Canada is the only signing officer to that agreement. We will have to wait until the next administration comes in to finalize it.

What about the details of the agreement? The parliamentary secretary acknowledged that a lot of work needed to be done on regulations once the EU agreement was finalized. We should all be concerned with that very important aspect. In part, those regulations play an important role in whether Canada will be on a level playing field.

Whether it is the leader of the Liberal Party or any other member of my caucus, we are very proud of our businesses in every region of our country. We know that if we put them on a level playing field, we will excel. We saw trade surpluses during Liberal administrations. We have confidence in our business community and we are there to support it in getting those new markets. Therefore, we should be concerned. When we talk about these agreements, the regulations will follow them.

To what degree does this legislation, for example, say that regulations related to certain aspects of trade agreements through incorporation by reference will not be determined by the House of Commons or that there will be no role for the House? We know that will occur. That is why I asked the member how things were going with respect to that as well as with Ukraine.

If I can just sidetrack for a bit, I have a personal favourite. I would love to see the Prime Minister forgo some of the photo ops, get down to work and get that agreement with Ukraine. The European Union already has done that. Why has Canada not dealt with Ukraine? The regulations would have followed. The Prime Minister needs to focus on how we can help the people of Ukraine in a more real and tangible way. At the same time, it also helps Canada.

With respect to those regulations, people need to recognize that the government has again been found wanting in explaining why it does not feel there is an enhanced role for members of Parliament to play. We are moving more and more into a global situation. MPs need to play a stronger role of monitoring and providing that oversight. We have a standing committee of the House that is responsible for regulations. As we move toward a stronger role for incorporation by reference, given the international laws and more trade, and the importance of Canada to be engaged in that trade, why not include a stronger role for our standing committee for oversight in legislation?

The Liberals have a website called realchange.ca. I would encourage members to go to visit it. They will see opportunities that would allow for additional oversight. When it comes to regulations such as—

Digital Privacy Act

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île for her observation and her very pointed question. It helps put in context what we are talking about today.

The member referenced Bill C-30. That was the infamous bill where the former minister of public safety and emergency preparedness told us that we either stood with the government or we stood with child pornographers. Members will remember that. I know that I will never forget it. I was standing up for the privacy rights of Canadians. To be told we were in that box may have been the low point of this House, but there may have been others. It was shocking.

Bill C-51 is another example. There have been articles written as recently as today. I saw one entitled “Stumbling toward Total Information Awareness: The Security of Canada Information Sharing Act”. It is an article about the bill that is part of Bill C-51. Total information awareness: anyone who has studied the United States legislation in this regard will know what the reference is to.

The shameful protection of our civil liberties, of which privacy is just one, is emblematic of the current Conservative government. We can hardly wait for Canadians to be given the choice on October 19 to change all of that.