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.

Removal of Imprisonment in Relation to Mandatory Surveys Act

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak to this bill, which is a Conservative smokescreen.

If the Conservatives truly wanted to remove the possibility of imprisonment for people who refused to fill out Statistics Canada's long form census, they would have supported, back in 2011 or even earlier, the bill introduced by my colleague from Windsor West, namely Bill C-346.

This bill would have restored the long form census, which has many social and economic uses for municipal governments and businesses. It enables them to help the public and to make certain improvements. Furthermore, Bill C-346 removed the possibility of imprisonment.

No one has been imprisoned since Statistics Canada created a public census form. The Conservatives are simply trying to polish their image instead of working on advancing issues and fixing problems.

It is clear that this bill does not reverse all of the cuts that the Conservatives have made to Statistics Canada, which is now underfunded and unable to produce studies and data that are in keeping with international standards.

As I said, no one has been imprisoned. The only people who have been convicted were sentenced to community service or else were pardoned.

Let us look at the fallout of the Conservatives' decision to eliminate Statistics Canada's mandatory long form census. I will give a list of the serious problems created as a result of the Conservatives' decision, which is completely ideological and is not in the best interests of the public.

Many communities in Canada had such low-quality data that Statistics Canada refused to release them. For example, 40% of communities in Saskatchewan had data held back because they were insufficient. These data are normally used by provincial and municipal governments and by non-government actors to plan services, such as transit routes and shelter coverage.

Women, aboriginal groups, and minorities were also under-represented in the 2011 national household survey. This means that the government was not able to see whether the situation for these groups could be improved. It has no idea what the situation is like in Saskatchewan.

Furthermore, the information on incomes that came out of that survey in 2011 suggested that the income inequality gap in Canada was shrinking. That was at odds with progressive economists who said that the Conservatives' message did not hold water, because the data from income tax returns from the Canada Revenue Agency, which is managed by the Conservatives, said the opposite. We need to bring the long form census back in order to have more accurate data, statistics and scientific facts.

Bill C-625 before us today raises an extremely important issue, namely the role of science in a democratic society. Under the rule of law, a government should base its public policies on facts and verified scientific evidence. In Canada, we should be able to say that we live under the rule of law. However, since 2006, the Conservatives have been standing in the way of that, and things have only gotten worse since they won a majority in 2011.

The Conservatives are developing ideologies that fly in the face of scientific, empirical evidence and knowledge acquired from experience. As I said, they are not governing for the public good. Their interests are very targeted, very partisan and very political. That is completely irresponsible, and they do not deserve the trust of the people.

Since 2006, Canada has been slipping into an ideological crusade that undermines the very foundation of our democracy. The Conservatives manipulate the facts to serve one ideology—the Conservative ideology.

This bill is merely one of many cogs in the terrible system that the Conservative government has dragged us into, against our will. The member for Elgin—Middlesex—London said that his bill is meant to strike a balance, and I want to quote from his speech at second reading:

The changes in my bill would ensure that Statistics Canada's programs reflect an appropriate balance between the collection of useful information and guaranteeing that the privacy rights of Canadians are upheld.

I support that laudable objective. Unfortunately, this private member's bill from a Conservative member conflicts with all of the measures the government has passed. Allow me to explain. If the Conservatives were truly interested in protecting Canadians' privacy and personal information, why would they have introduced Bill C-51—to name just one of the more recent ones—which would enable intelligence agencies to use people's personal information and share it with whomever they please without a warrant and without informing people that information about them has been collected and shared? There is no oversight mechanism or accountability in Bill C-51, but the Conservatives went full speed ahead with this bill to make sure that nobody would realize what was going on.

There is obviously a huge difference between what the government says and what it does. It no longer respects Canadian institutions, from the Federal Court to senior officers of parliament, let alone experts, members of the House of Commons or the people. It does not consult anyone. When it does consult people, it discredits them if they contradict Conservative ideology. This really needs to change now.

Unfortunately, this government's battle against reason continues. The Conservatives have done a lot of damage over the past few years. The cuts that they have made to many federal departments and agencies, such as Statistics Canada, are depriving us of essential socio-demographic data—data that are needed to guide our public policy. By eliminating the mandatory long form census, the government is depriving us of these crucial data. Why are they so important? I will give a few examples.

The census is one of the tools that enabled Canada to become one of the most developed countries in the world. It is one way for the government to develop targeted, effective public policies. For instance, it tells us what the average age is in a given area, which helps in the creation of appropriate health care programs. It guides entrepreneurs who are looking for opportunities, by mapping out the average income in a given region. It also helps community organizations that want to reach out to a specific clientele. It helps us assess how francophone communities in Canada are doing and to determine the appropriate measures to defend linguistic minorities. It also helps us determine the employment rate for Canadian immigrants and set up hiring programs for visible minorities. It also shows the social and economic reality of women living in rural and urban areas and guides policy to improve gender equality.

Before I became a member of Parliament, I was a teacher. In my riding, Beauharnois—Salaberry, the schools are immersed in a rather underprivileged area. How could we know that? It is thanks, in fact, to Statistics Canada's long form census. From that census, we could develop tools and, as teachers, we were given extra resources to better teach our students, give them more tools to increase their chances of success in life, and truly provide them with a wide range of services.

By getting rid of this census, the government eliminated the possibility of giving our youngest citizens an equal chance, and that is very serious. Not everyone is getting the same quality of education now because we do not have all the information we need, thanks to the Conservatives.

My Conservative colleague's bill is truly a smokescreen, as I was saying. If the Conservatives really wanted to remove the possibility of imprisonment, then why did they not do that in 2011, when my colleague from Windsor West introduced his Bill C-346?

This shows a lack of political will and a lack of vision. This is pure partisan ideology that does nothing to serve the public's interests. Again, this is very serious. To not rely on scientific data from our experts, is to disrespect democracy. We are truly no longer living under the rule of law and that is unfortunate.

Digital Privacy Act

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nipissing—Timiskaming for his speech on Bill S-4.

I worked on Bill C-51, which thousands of Canadians opposed. They were worried that the bill would invade their privacy and violate their rights and freedoms. In the answer he just gave, my colleague said that this bill was not necessarily perfect but that we need to take action. I have a question for him.

Bill S-4, and also Bill C-13, would allow greater access to personal information without a warrant and without provisions for a proper oversight mechanism. This is reminiscent of the extremely distressing Bill C-51, which we studied not too long ago.

Why is the government working so hard to allow snooping without a warrant by creating bigger holes with Bill C-13 and Bill S-4?

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my Liberal colleague's speech.

He said he is extremely concerned about protecting Canadians' personal information. However, his party voted in favour of Bill C-13, which represents a major threat to protecting Canadians' personal information. He himself voted in favour of Bill C-51, which truly poses serious risks to personal information protection, since it allows our personal information to be shared among a number of government agencies without any parliamentary or judicial oversight. It is very disconcerting.

I am confused. Does the hon. member want to protect personal information or is it not as important as all that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to the very important Bill S-4. It concerns the sharing of personal information in the digital age. It deals mainly with the way in which we legislate against companies responsible for the loss or sharing of information. We know this is a very sensitive issue because we are in the digital age where more and more personal information is found online. We think first of banking information, and also of information that sometimes seems not that important, but that is nevertheless part of peoples' private lives. It is information that we share on social networks, such as photos.

This covers all kinds of of complex issues, such as copyright, that we have addressed in the House since the last election, and the dissemination of information pertaining to national security. We had an important debate on this issue during the debate on Bill C-51. We learned that information technology companies, or startups, had concerns about some of the bill's provisions.

Of course, we are all familiar with the infamous story of Bill C-30, where the minister of public safety and emergency preparedness at the time told us that we stood either with the government or with child pornographers. This example shows just how big an issue we are dealing with and the Conservatives' poor record in this regard.

First, I would like to mention something very important and very simple: the obligation to review the privacy legislation every five years. Obviously, this is very important given how quickly technology changes. Unfortunately, such a review has not been implemented. A number of bills were introduced in this regard, but they died on the order paper when the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament. There was, of course, Bill C-30, which is a whole other story, and there was also the bill introduced by my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville. That bill, which the government refused to support, sought to implement a robust privacy review process, give more power to the Privacy Commissioner and have clearer legislative provisions.

Bill S-4 includes similar provisions. However, they do not go far enough and there are still worrisome loopholes. One of the grey areas that I am particularly concerned about has to do with organizations, such as banks, that could share private information. These organizations are required to report a loss of personal information to the Privacy Commissioner only “if it is reasonable in the circumstances to believe that the breach creates a real risk of significant harm to an individual”. That may seem clear, but when it comes to legislative measures, we can see that there is a lot of leeway in how this provision of the bill is worded. The company could decide that no one's privacy was really violated and that there was no risk of harm to the individual and simply not report the privacy breach.

One of the flaws in this bill is the requirement for a court warrant, which my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville brought up earlier and which she included in her bill. The Supreme Court recently ruled that any invasion of privacy by the government and any request that the government makes to a private company that is in possession of our information require a mandate. There is no such requirement in this bill, which is extremely worrisome. That is why I made the link earlier to Bill C-51 and the debate on Bill C-30, which did not end up taking place because we managed to get the government to back down. The government seems to be on the wrong track and does not seem to take privacy seriously.

Its record is a great example of that. How many times does the House need to hear criticisms about mismanagement at the Canada Revenue Agency, for example, during question period or at every possible opportunity, whether it is when bills are introduced and petitions are presented or at press conferences?

This department is in possession of the most sensitive information on Canadians, such as their social insurance numbers and their tax information. The department has been the victim of data breaches, and the government does not seem to be taking any responsibility. That makes it hard for us to trust that the government will require private companies to comply with high privacy standards when it is not capable of doing so itself. This situation is extremely worrisome.

We know that this is a complex issue because more and more things are done online. As far as matters of national security are concerned, we know that as legislators we have work to do. We wanted to propose amendments to ensure that this bill went further and complied with the Supreme Court decision. Like a number of witnesses in committee, we question the constitutionality of this bill in its current form.

If I am not mistaken, the 18 amendments the NDP proposed were all rejected. True to form, the Conservatives did not listen to any of the testimony or pay any regard to the amendments proposed by all the parties. The amendments proposed by the NDP were all based on what the public had to say and on the very hard work of my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville, who was trying to get suitable provisions for 2015, not 2000. Technology changes and so does our reality, and we have to adjust accordingly.

In this context, there are a number of troubling aspects. First, this bill was introduced in the Senate, which, naturally, we criticize every chance we get. The Minister of Industry made an announcement about how he wants to proceed in the digital age, but instead of introducing this bill in the House himself, he introduced it in the Senate. That is one problem.

The second problem is that the Conservatives wanted to skip second reading and send the bill straight to committee. That is not a bad idea in and of itself. The NDP has asked for the same in order to study certain extremely complex files.

For example, we asked to take this approach for Bill C-23, which we called the “electoral deform” bill. Since the government wanted to go straight to committee, we thought it was willing to accept amendments and listen to witnesses, but that did not happen.

The third problem concerns another of the government's bad habits: the honour of the 97th time allocation motion was bestowed on Bill S-4 in order to limit debate. Unfortunately, at this rate, the Conservatives will have moved 100 such motions by the time the election is held. To be blunt, that is pretty shabby.

Although it is important to protect Canadians' privacy and to do what it takes, in 2015, to implement an approach appropriate for the digital age, recent Supreme Court decisions have cast doubt on the constitutionality of this bill.

This bill does not go far enough, and since the government wants to limit debate and does not accept the amendments and the work done in committee, we cannot and will not support this bill. I am very pleased to rise in the House to say that.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I did want to make sure we had time to say a few words for those who are not coming back. As for rest of us, we're trying to come back and we'll see how we do with that.

This is the only committee I have served on, apart from substituting at others once in a while. I would have to say that we've had tough opponents on the other side, but we have never seen our political differences become personal differences away from the table. I thank everyone on this committee for that. I think democracy won't work if we get into the situation where those political differences become personal.

I had the chance when we did a tour with the committee to get to know LaVar and Rick better. I now count them as friends, and I will miss them. I think Parliament will miss their voices.

Diane and I have a peculiar relationship, in that because of the long flights we do, we both do crossword puzzles. That's where the conspiracy between Diane and me comes in, sharing clues on crosswords for that last one you can't get on the flight to Calgary. I will miss the advice on crosswords. I will not always miss Diane's sharp attacks, but I do appreciate that they were always political. I do agree that the one thing we have in common on this committee is that everybody has been here to deal with very important issues and do what we all think is best for the country. I'm sorry that Wayne couldn't be here because I've learned a lot from Wayne, with his previous experience being on the committee, and also with his ability to manoeuvre, I'll say, through committee.

I don't want to go on and on, but I do also want to echo the thanks to the committee staff. I said to the analyst this morning that they're like firefighters. We don't call them very often, but when we do they're there with the proper hose to put out the fire at that time. I appreciate the work they've done for this committee, and of course, to all the other support staff who make this work.

I want to conclude with my thanks to the chair, especially through Bill C-51, which was very difficult politically for all of us. I think the chair did his best to remain a neutral and fair chair. I've always had a good relationship with him, and I thank him for the work he has done in steering this committee.

Thank you.

The Environment

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that you have ever heard an adjournment proceedings that constituted so much of a mismatch of the question that I asked and the response from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

Let me just point out that the current government is the one that has cut emergency preparedness for the environment on all of our coasts and cut preparedness for earthquakes. It has not prepared for the climate crisis, and it has cut back in natural disaster preparedness. I do not think that the government can make the claim that it keeps us safe.

I am surprised to find the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness raising the attack against me, saying that I am not aware of jihadi terrorism. In the context of the debate on Bill C-51, I made it very clear that the Green Party is concerned. That is why we opposed the bill and continue it to oppose it. Experts in security have been clear that Bill C-51 will make us less safe by creating CSIS without any oversight, giving it disruptive powers and, very likely, as many security experts said, making us more vulnerable to a terrorist attack.

Again, the Conservatives are ignoring the climate crisis.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to support my colleague's motion to increase the funding for those three commissioners. When they testified last week, they told us they were making as many cuts as possible, but that they have run up against a wall. Their current funding no longer enables them to fulfill their mandate.

The Office of the Information Commissioner even went through a crisis. At the end of last fiscal year, the commissioner made an urgent request for a funding increase. She had only 0.2% of her budget left. She was worried, not about her office, but about Canadians' right of access to information. I repeat that the right is quasi-constitutional. By failing to allocate our commissioners the funding that enables them to continue to operate and do everything their mandate requires, we are letting Canadians down. That is the key issue.

The Privacy Commissioner, who has been assigned new responsibilities, told us that he was managing for now, but that he could not get through another fiscal year after the implementation of Bills S-4 and C-51. Many bills directly affect his activities. He will be asked to carry out more and more tasks with less and less funding, and that's unreasonable. He said that he could not go on much longer with the current funding. The Lobbying Commissioner also said that it was becoming increasingly difficult for him to deliver on his mandate with the funding he receives.

In closing, I would like to say that the commissioners are there to implement an accountability system, so that someone oversees our actions as parliamentarians, and those of lobbyists, and to ensure that regulations and acts are being complied with. Their actions are being limited when they are not given an opportunity to carry out their activities properly. It's as if we were saying to those tasked with overseeing us that we no longer want their oversight. It is really disgraceful.

I would really like us to give serious consideration to this motion and not to cast it aside as we have others. As my colleague said, I think it would be good for the future Parliament to provide the commissioners with the funding they need to deliver on their mandate properly.

Thank you.

Elimination of Partisan Government Advertising Act

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

Mr. Speaker. I thank you for your intervention. I note my colleagues are very uncomfortable with the fact that we talk about the misrepresentation of facts under them. It strikes close to home. They think this is a matter of privilege. It does speak to the Potemkin democracy. I understand it is very unparliamentary to accuse someone of lying, and I never would do that, but it is perfectly parliamentary to lie within this tradition. This is a fact. We see the misrepresentation of fact again and again.

As I was saying, the people who can speak out about that misrepresentation are being silenced: the silencing of our scientists; the shutting down of independent organizations; the use of Canada Revenue Agency to go after everything from birdwatchers to environmental groups because they threaten the government's agenda; and, then, of course, the misuse of advertising. Between $750 million and $780 million of taxpayer money has been used to promote the same misrepresentation of facts.

I do not know what my colleague over there thinks is possibly true about telling people they can get a job through a job training grant when the job training grant does not exist, and taxpayer money is being used on that.

We need to rein in this corrosive, abusive power.

We see so many examples. The Prime Minister has created his own TV network like he is the great leader from North Korea or something, with these 24 Seven videos. The Conservatives go to Iraq and do not allow the media to film, but they have their own imbedded propagandists. What comes out of that is that the lives of soldiers are actually put at stake.

The member for Nepean—Carleton has acted as Mini-Me, deciding he would run his own propaganda videos, using taxpayer money and civil servants.

This is such a cynical abuse of the public trust. It has to stop.

I agree with my Liberal colleague that we need to bring in some kind of rule if we do not want to see this kind of abuse of taxpayer dollars year after year, staggering amounts of money, putting up billboards, shrink-wrapping trains, promoting job creation schemes that do not exist. This is not in the public interest.

My concern with my Liberal colleague's bill is that the model we have for putting in some kind of protection for the taxpayer is in the province of Ontario, which was brought in under the premiership of Dalton McGuinty, and that bill is being gutted right now. It is being gutted by the present Liberal premier, who was stopped by the auditor general for Ontario from using Liberal red all over government ads. The auditor general for Ontario has raised concerns about the Liberal government being able to strip the acts so it can run government ads, such as taxpayers paying for ads promoting the government during elections. It is a cynical abuse by saying that we will not do it as opposition, but if we get into government, we will do the same thing.

Canadians are tired of this. They need to see something better. They need to see Parliament rise and say that it will not only be about the party interest, that is not only the party in opposition squawking when it is convenient to squawk at government abuse, but then abusing the same system once it gets in power.

We saw this when the new leader of the Liberal Party promised he would be the defender of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and then folded like a cheap suit on Bill C-51. He said that the Liberals would have open nominations, that he would do politics differently. How long did that promise last? I do not even think it was week before the Liberal Party was into its first lawsuit with candidates.

The Liberal leader recently wrote to the leaders of all Canada's unions, saying that he supported union rights, while his own members were attacking collective bargaining on Parliament Hill.

These are the corrosive cynicisms that make people believe they should not trust politicians when they see naked self-interests being put ahead of fundamental principles.

The House needs to restore an accountable system that wins the trust of Canadian people. One of those steps would be my colleague's Bill C-544 to limit the ability of government to take taxpayer money and abuse the public trust with misrepresentations, propaganda and, in some cases, outright lies. We need to restore the powers of the independent officers of Parliament to hold parliamentarians to account. The Conservative government uses incredible powers of government to hold its enemies to account, to investigate its enemies, while promoting national secrecy for itself. The Privacy Commissioner now says that her office has been completely undermined, as well as her ability to ensure we have open access to information.

Why is this important? It is important because the ability of the Canadian public to hold politicians to account is a fundamental principle in restoring accountability and trust.

We will be going into what will probably be the nastiest, dirtiest election campaign in Canadian history. Already millions and millions of dollars are being used by the government in a massive airwaves war, supposedly to promote government programs when in fact it is promoting the narrow interests of the Conservative Party, with the same narrow tag lines and the same kind of coloured advertising. Canadians see through this. They see this is an abuse of the public.

We need to find a better system to ensure accountability. The partisanship and the airwaves war can continue, but it should not be done through the use and abuse of taxpayer dollars.

We will support the bill. I encourage my Liberal colleagues to call on their provincial colleagues in Ontario to stop the Wynne government from stripping the basic bills in place right now that prevents her from doing such blatant, naked, partisan advertising. While they are at it, they should also call on the premier to stop the privatizing of Ontario hydro. Did the premier not run on a plan to be a progressive premier? She is doing stuff that would make Mike Harris blush. I ask my Liberal colleagues to do the right thing and at least call her out on that.

Motions in Amendment

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what the government has been doing is putting in legislation that promotes discrimination and racism.

What happens when it is a Canadian-born person from a different culture that may be practising some of these? This is the discrimination piece. The government is saying to an immigrant that he can go back home, but someone born in Canada who does this will face the Criminal Code of Canada. We have legislation to deal with these issues, so why do we not use it?

It is the same with the terrorism bill. Conservatives were saying that Bill C-51 was the be-all and end-all, yet before it was even passed, they actually arrested people they felt were going abroad to be part of terrorism.

All in all, why is the government putting in place legislation that continues to discriminate and promote racism? Why is it not investing in services that would actually assist women?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find the comments from the parliamentary secretary very disturbing on this particular issue.

We have to look at the title. I think it has been brought to light by the speaker so far that one of the words that is very problematic is the word “cultural”. From what we have seen with Conservatives' bills, which find themselves before the courts and they lose, for the most part, it is actually inciting racism and discrimination. Maybe my colleague could speak on that. When something like that is put forward, whether it is Bill C-51 or a national inquiry for missing and murdered indigenous women put forward by the NDP, the government keeps pointing the finger at the culture as opposed to looking at the systemic problem.

We have seen in the U.K. that there is an opportunity to actually invest in services. It is the same thing in Demark. People there say they need more services. This is the way to go.

I am wondering if my colleague can talk about how this legislation is inciting more racism and discrimination as opposed to dealing with it, as well as how important it is to invest in services that actually help victims.

Bill S-4--Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct some of the false information the minister has spread. First, he said that we had enough time to debate Bill S-4 on Canadians' privacy. Unfortunately, we had just one day to debate this very complex bill that Canadians consider controversial. We have unfortunately not had enough time to study this bill thoroughly in the House.

In his speech he showed contempt for the official opposition. He is wrong: all of the recommendations were proposed by the official opposition. This is not how our Parliament should work. He also mentioned the Information Commissioner. There has been a flagrant lack of respect for the Information Commissioner during this Parliament.

Not only did the government not accept any of the recommendations that the Information Commissioner made during the study of Bill S-4, it also prevented the Information Commissioner from testifying before the committee during the study of Bill C-51, a bill that, as we all know, is even more controversial than Bill S-4.

This is the 97th time they have invoked closure in the House of Commons. That is not something to be proud of. The government keeps breaking records when it comes to gag orders in the House.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to stress the word “debate”, since the minister always talks about debate, but that implies some sort of exchange. In this case there is no debate, which unfortunately is nothing new from this government.

I would like the minister to tell us how many times the government accepted amendments and listened, analyzed and took action, instead of just exchanging words. On occasion, the opposition has admitted that some bills were good and that they could be improved. Bill C-51 was a prime example of a failure. Even the government's witnesses said that it was not a good bill. However, the government systematically issues gag orders and shuts down debate. It shuts down the opposition, it shuts down disagreement and it shuts down any possibility for amendment.

Why does the minister use the word “debate” when this government systematically shuns debate?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I am concerned. The minister has stated that we need to move forward with the bill because the government has great respect for the Privacy Commissioner. It did not have much respect for the Privacy Commissioner when he wanted to testify on Bill C-51, which would deal with many similar issues. All of a sudden, the government has this newfound high regard for the Privacy Commissioner, and that troubles me.

It also troubles me that the government continues to bring forward important bills through the Senate, the unelected Senate, and then bill comes to the House, this elected House, and it cuts off debate. This is a pattern the government follows over and over again.

Yes, it is an important bill, so why did the government wait until almost the close of this session to bring forward the bill, with the excuse that we were running out of time, that we needed to move forward with this important bill?

Frankly, I know my constituents will find this deeply offensive, as they found the process on Bill C-51 offensive

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for appearing today.

It's necessary to come back to the question at hand. I appreciate Mr. Leuprecht's last remarks because I think it helps us do that.

We do have, of course, a mobility right in Canada, and it is subject to reasonable limits. The court decisions have been quite clear about that, so I don't think you'll find anybody around the table here arguing that people ought to be able to go abroad to join terrorist groups. That's not the question before us, really.

With respect to Mr. Quiggin's testimony, he was here for Bill C-51 and has repeated some of the same things he said then, including his attack on the National Council of Canadian Muslims, which he always does under the protection of parliamentary privilege. I'm disappointed to see he's done the same thing again today.

I'd also raise some interesting questions with Bill C-51, which is about to pass Parliament, as to whether repeating the arguments of those who are the extremist radicals is in fact reckless promotion of terrorism. It would be very interesting to see what happens with that later on, in terms of Bill C-51. I think we have to be careful not to glorify and give too much credibility to what is a very small group of extremists, obviously.

I want to turn to what Mr. Leuprecht said, because I think there's something very important in making the distinction between those who are being radicalized and those who seek to use violence. You talked about having a nuanced tool kit and referred to what some of our allies are doing. You say this provision will make us a bit more in line with our allies. Can you say a bit more about that?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you.

Mr. Quiggin, when we discussed Bill C-51 at the committee here, we heard from many witnesses, including from the Muslim community. A lot of those witnesses talked about taking preventative measures before their youth become radicalized, and they expressed some concern that Bill C-51 didn't really address the preventative aspect of becoming radicalized.

Do you think that this measure is a good measure in terms of perhaps preventing radicalization? Is it a preventative tool to revoke someone's passport? How do you see that?