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.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a government that never passes up a good chance to score cheap political points instead of taking on the hard work necessary to get things done.

When it comes to Bill C-51, the Conservatives are still putting their efforts into ramming this bill through the House instead of listening to Canadians. Now they are refusing to adopt common sense amendments that would address some of the worst elements of this dangerous bill.

Canadians should not be asked to trade away their freedoms because the government cannot admit to its drafting mistakes. Will the minister do the right thing and withdraw Bill C-51?

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are introducing this amendment at the request of some of our airlines. This amendment would replace the authority of the minister to direct an airline “to do anything that, in the Minister’s opinion, is reasonable and necessary to prevent a listed person from engaging in any act” listed in Bill C-51.

We feel that this is too broad a mandate. This amendment lists the actions that the minister can ask the airlines to engage in, from denying transportation to identification through things like biometrics.

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

When it comes to listing someone and the activities they're involved in, my reading of the bill would say that it is not the larger definition of national security that Bill C-51 has for information-sharing, but it is the subsections of the existing act of CSIS which define that. Am I correct?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm moving this amendment, which deals with what threshold is to be used for listing someone on a no-fly list. What I believe we've had in the past is what we're proposing as the amendment, to return to the standard of “reasonable grounds to believe will” be involved with terrorist acts.

This substitutes a lower threshold of “reasonable grounds to suspect” in the bill. The no-fly list does already expand from those who threaten air transportation directly to those who might be involved in terrorist activities.

I do have a question to the officials just for clarification.

The definition that's going to be used for the activities of someone who is involved in it, if I'm not mistaken, is not listed in Bill C-51 but is in the existing CSIS Act and is much narrower.

Am I correct in that?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also want to thank my colleague, Mr. Garrison, for his contributions to this debate and to the many amendments presented. It is no secret that the majority of the amendments were presented by opposition members from the House of Commons.

With respect to the amendments, I am a bit sad to see that the government chose not to work with the official opposition and the third party or with Mr. Patry and Ms. May, who are here at this table and who presented amendments.

All parliamentarians need to contribute if we are to improve a bill like Bill C-51. Clause 2 of the bill is rather important in the sense that it has a lot to do with what the Privacy Commissioner said. I think that everyone made a substantial effort to improve this clause. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness said a number of times that freedoms and public safety were important and that one must not be put above the other.

I therefore have a hard time understanding why the Conservative government is not trying to improve the problems associated with clause 2 of Bill C-51. I am sad to see that the Conservatives are speaking out of both sides of their mouths with respect to the issue of privacy. It is extremely important for Canadians to retain their fundamental rights and freedoms. We do not achieve that by ignoring the testimony we have heard in committee and ignoring the amendments that were presented in response to the testimony we heard over the course of the marathon sessions we have had these past two weeks.

A number of witnesses expressed concerns about privacy. I would have liked to see the government be more open. I always hope that it will prove itself to be more open. It would have been very important to make some substantive changes to clause 2, in order to improve Bill C-51 and to better protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

That's all I wanted to say about clause 2.

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

I wish to speak on clause 2.

We've gone through a large series of amendments, so for anyone who is not at this table, trying to keep track becomes very difficult. What I would like to draw to everyone's attention is that we're now dealing with the information sharing agreements.

With only two very small amendments from the government side, while welcome—taking out the word “lawful”, and a welcome change to clause 6, which would have allowed sharing with anyone—the basic, broad definition that caused concern not just for the Privacy Commissioner but also for nearly half of the witnesses who appeared before the committee remains the basis of a new information sharing arrangement.

We have a definition that includes infrastructure and includes the economic security of Canada, so there is no doubt that the passage of Bill C-51, without the amendments we presented on the recommendation of the Privacy Commissioner, does not strike a proper balance or does not accomplish both tasks, as I would prefer to put it, of protecting Canada against security threats and at the same time making sure that the privacy rights of those who have nothing to do with violence or terrorism aren't inadvertently restricted or lost as a result of this bill.

It's for that reason that we will continue to vote against this clause, and I look forward to hearing comments of my colleague Rosane Doré Lefebvre as well.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do not want to spend too much time talking about the amendment proposed by the Green Party. However, I must say that I think that a sunset provision that takes effect after three years without a review by parliamentarians misses the mark. The purpose of a sunset clause is to make sure that a bill gets reviewed.

I know that the amendment is well-intentioned, but I think it is missing something and that is a review of Bill C-51 and an assessment of its impact. I am therefore going to vote against the amendment.

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-51

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to this important issue and to stand in opposition to the motion before us. Let us be very clear. Jihadi terrorists have declared war on us. They have specifically targeted Canada. They have urged supporters to attack what they call disbelieving Canadians in any manner, and they have vowed that we should not feel secure, even in our homes.

As the government, we know that our ultimate responsibility is to protect Canadians from those who would do harm to us and do harm to our families. That is why Canada is not sitting on the sidelines, as the Liberals and the NDP would have us do, and is instead a proud member of the international coalition fighting ISIL.

The first duty of any government is to protect the safety of its citizens. That is why we introduced the anti-terrorism act, 2015, to ensure that our national security agencies have the tools they need to protect Canadians against the evolving threat presented by jihadi terrorists.

The NDP member for Burnaby—New Westminster has raised concerns regarding oversight and review of our national security agencies. We believe that independent, non-partisan oversight of our national security agencies is a better model than political intervention in this process.

Further, the key powers of the new legislation are subject to judicial review and judicial authorization. This is the role of judges. There is no better authority to review these matters. Judges in Canada already approve or reject applications from police and national security authorities to conduct certain activities to keep Canadians safe. This has been a long-standing practice in Canada.

CSIS will only be able to undertake this activity if a judge from the Federal Court believes it is necessary to keep Canadians safe and specifically approves it. This provides sufficient oversight and robust review.

We must not lose sight of the fact that it is the jihadi terrorists who seek to take away our rights, and it is our national security agencies that are standing up to protect us. There has been much discussion about the legislation at the public safety committee. Many prominent Canadians have appeared to express their support for this legislation.

Louise Vincent, for example, the sister of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, who was the victim of a horrific terrorist attack last October, said: “If C-51 had been in place on October 19...Martin Couture-Rouleau would...have been in prison and my brother would not be dead” today.

Marc-André O'Rourke of the National Airlines Council of Canada said, “The NACC and our member airlines understand the need to update Canada's passenger protect program in light of the evolving nature of security threats, and we continue to support the program under” Bill C-51.

Professor Elliot Tepper of Carleton University said: “Bill C-51 is the most important national security legislation since the 9/11 era.” He continued:

[It] is designed for the post-9/11 era. It's a new legislation for a new era in terms of security threats. While it's understandable that various provisions of the legislation attract attention, we need to keep our focus on the fundamental purpose and the fundamental challenge of combatting emerging types of terrorism.

Barry Cooper, another witness, a research fellow at the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute said:

Bill C-51 is aimed at violent Islamic jihadi terrorists, and those are the persons against whom its provisions are to be enforced. The reasons are clear enough provided one makes reference to facts and events of the real world, today. [...] Unlike their critics, the authors of Bill C-51 are sensible enough to have recognized the danger.

Finally, another witness I will refer to, Professor Salim Mansur of the University of Western Ontario, said:

Bill C-51 is directed against Islamist jihadists and to prevent or pre-empt them from their stated goal to carry out terrorist threats against the West, including Canada....

...the measures proposed in Bill C-51 to deal with the nature of threats that Canada faces, I believe, are quite rightly and urgently needed to protect and keep secure the freedom of our citizens.

Therefore, it is clear that there is widespread support among Canadians to give tools to our national security agencies to combat the rapidly evolving threat of terrorism. That is why we will be opposing the motion introduced by the NDP.

As members know, on February 23, the House voted to refer the anti-terrorism act 2015 to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. This vote is an approval in principle of the legislation. There is a process in place for the committee to study the legislation, hearing from expert witnesses, of course. However, there is not an opportunity to expand or change the scope of the legislation.

Had the NDP members expressed a desire to do that, they could have moved a motion to refer the legislation to committee before second reading. They did not do so. Therefore, I think the motion before us is a purely procedural tactic to continue their opposition to a bill that will keep Canadians safe.

We reject the argument that, every time we talk about security, our freedoms are threatened. Canadians understand that their freedom and security go hand in hand. Canadians expect us to protect both, and there are safeguards in this legislation to do exactly that.

There have been many misconceptions surrounding this legislation, primarily put forward by members of the NDP. Some have alleged that the Conservative government is not correct in stating that the other allies allow their national security agencies to disrupt threats. Well, that is patently not true.

In the United States, the Central Intelligence Agency can, pursuant to the National Security Act, conduct domestic threat disruption with an executive order. In the United Kingdom, MI5 can, pursuant to section 1 of the Security Service Act, conduct any activity to protect national security. The Norwegian Police Security Service has a mandate to prevent and investigate any crime against the state, including terrorism. The Finnish Security Intelligence Service is mandated to prevent crimes that may endanger the government or political system and internal or external security, pursuant to section 10 of the act on police administration.

We must ensure that CSIS has the same tools to keep Canadians safe. Some have said that this will transform CSIS into a secret police force with no accountability, while also violating our basic freedoms and Charter rights. Everything about this statement is wrong.

Bill C-51 would give no law enforcement powers to CSIS. CSIS cannot arrest any individual. It cannot charge any individual. What is proposed in Bill C-51 is efforts to stop terrorist attacks while they are still in the planning stages.

The NDP has said many times that choosing between liberty and security is a false choice, and we could not agree more. However, at every turn, the NDP chooses to vote against measures that increase our security.

As we have said many times, without security there can be no liberty. That is why we will vote against this motion and continue the good work of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to pass this important legislation.

I now move, seconded by the member for Selkirk—Interlake:

That the debate be now adjourned.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will not repeat what Mr. Easter said, but I will try to convince my government colleague, Mr. Payne, because he mentioned that it was just a sunset clause and that, after three years, we would be back at square one.

In reality, that is not at all the case with the amendment that is being proposed today. We are talking about a review by parliamentarians to ensure that we still need the provisions of Bill C-51. That would not take us back to square one.

However, I believe it is appropriate to have a sunset clause and for parliamentarians to review this bill. Things can change at any time, particularly when it comes to what is covered by Bill C-51. I believe that it is our duty as parliamentarians to review bills that are passed. It would therefore be reasonable for parliamentarians to review this legislation after three years.

I hope that I can convince my colleagues across the table to vote in favour of our amendment, since it involves reviewing Bill C-51, not simply putting an end to it.

Thank you.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the debate and I have a question for the hon. member. Bill C-51 is the most important national security legislation since the 9/11 era. It is designated for the post-9/11 era.

We are seeing a resurgence of terrorist activities and radicalization similar to those seen in the mid-1970s by the Red Brigades in Italy and the Baader-Meinhof army faction in Germany.

What does the hon. member fear about better protecting Canadians against insurgent terrorist activities? How is the motion in any way relevant to the immediate security and safety of Canadians?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the issue of Bill C-51, no one should be surprised by the types of issues being raised at the committee level. In fact, when the leader of the Liberal Party addressed the House on Bill C-51, he raised a number of concerns. What we are witnessing in committee is that time and again those concerns, along with others, continue to surface. We want the government to recognize the need to amend the legislation. That is why we support the motion put forward by the NDP. We do not want the Conservatives to use the issue of scope for not making the legislation better.

I know the member has already made reference to some of these. First, there has to be parliamentary oversight. Second, we have to institute mandatory legislative review. Third, the narrow, overly broad definitions must be addressed. We hear that from stakeholders from all sides.

Would the member not agree that the three items I listed are absolute musts in terms of the amendments? I believe there are literally dozens of others that in fact would make the legislation that much better and more acceptable to Canadians as a whole.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not challenging the ruling at all. That would be inappropriate.

I am pointing out for everybody that the motion we are debating right now is trying to change the normal process at committee. Just so everybody understands, when a standing committee is studying a bill, it has to follow a process, which is called principle of scope. An amendment to a bill that is referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill at committee. The NDP essentially is trying to go to a further process and provide the instruction from the House to committee, which the NDP was ineffective and unable to do at committee. It is trying to change the process.

We have brought forward Bill C-51 that is about protecting Canadians at home. I know the New Democrats are struggling with that. They do not want to put the safety and security of Canadians first and foremost.

I would again tell my colleagues across the way that we have a duty and responsibility to ensure that Canadians' safety is paramount to everything that we do in our country. We need the ability to share information among departments to ensure we can enhance the no-fly list. There are so many good things in Bill C-51 that those members refuse to support, as most other members in the House are.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the official opposition House leader, as well as the debate on whether the motion was in order.

I first want to point out for Canadians that what the NDP is trying to do, essentially, is change the Westminster processes for studying bills at committee. What the NDP is trying to suggest on Bill C-51 right now is beyond what we call the principle and scope of the bill.

I would refer all members to chapter 16 of O'Brien and Bosc, page 766.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we just had a 40-minute debate for a government that wants to prevent us from having these discussions in the House of Commons. Canadians will judge this government on its bid to prevent the debate we are now undertaking. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your patience considering all of the points of order that the government has raised over the past 40 minutes in an effort to prevent this debate from happening.

I think it would be a good idea to reread the motion before us.

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security that, during its consideration of 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, the committee be granted the power to expand the scope of the bill in order to: (a) ensure that the government works with Canadian communities to counter radicalization; and (b) enhance oversight of Canadian security and intelligence agencies.

As we all know, once a bill has been referred to the committee, the House of Commons has the right to instruct the committee by way of a motion authorizing what would otherwise be beyond its powers, such as, for example, examining a portion of a bill and reporting it separately, examining certain items in particular, dividing a bill into more than one bill, consolidating two or more bills into a single bill, or expanding or narrowing the scope or application of a bill.

It is very clear that what we are talking about is indeed a proper motion, and it is in order. However, most importantly, it is about something that we absolutely have to talk about in the House of Commons.

I am going to start off by talking about why expanding the scope of Bill C-51 considerations is important. As members know, last October, we lived through a couple of tragedies in Canada, which resulted in the deaths of Corporal Nathan Cirillo and Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent. All Canadians should be concerned about public safety. There is no doubt about that.

Bill C-51 is purportedly a response from the government to issues of public safety. I will start off by saying that I am very skeptical about the Conservative government's aims and objectives. When we look at its actual safety record, we see cause for some real concern about whether or not the government actually takes the safety of Canadians seriously. We just have to look at the cutbacks in food safety, the tragedy of Lac-Mégantic because of lax rail safety standards, and the ongoing tragedy of 1,200 missing and murdered indigenous women in this country, about which the government has refused to do anything. That underscores for so many Canadians across the country some real skepticism about the government's concern about the safety of Canadians.

Second, Bill C-51, in many people's eyes, is seen as a highly partisan reaction. In a sense, Bill C-51 is being brought forward by the government, but not because it is really concerned about the safety issues and the number of times it has fallen far short of guaranteeing the safety of Canadians in the areas I have just mentioned, namely the missing and murdered indigenous women, food safety, and rail safety. This makes people skeptical about the real aims of Bill C-51. Many people believe it is a highly partisan reaction from a highly partisan Prime Minister, and what the Conservatives are trying to do is change the channel from what has been, according to the chief of the Bank of Canada, an atrocious economic performance on the part of the government.

That is not for consideration today, but it is something that, to many Canadians' minds, underscores why Bill C-51 is so problematic.

It is well documented. It has not just been the NDP that has opposed this, even though the Liberal Party is, tragically, supporting Bill C-51. It is also the fact that, across the country, we have seen an unprecedented outpouring of concern.

Over 100 of Canada's leading law professors, 100 of the most skilled law professors in the country, those legal minds that in a very real sense train the future generations of legal scholars, have all come out in opposition to Bill C-51. The Canadian Bar Association, tens of thousands of Canadian lawyers, has come out in opposition. Many human rights groups have come out in opposition. They have all raised similar concerns.

It is important to note that the bill was rammed through the House of Commons. We can recall that the government introduced closure after only a couple of hours of debate. The Conservatives wanted to ram it through as quickly as possible. Then it was brought to the public safety committee, where the committee used what can only be considered completely unparliamentary tactics to throw out the rule book, to throw out House of Commons Procedure and Practice, under which we are governed, the bible under which we are supposed to govern our actions. They threw that out and basically imposed a very shortened witness list that did not even include people such as the Privacy Commissioner, who obviously has a real stake in bringing forward recommendations around how a bill might be treated.

After all of that, the government only permitted a short list of 48 witnesses. That was perhaps a quarter of the number of witnesses who wanted to come before the committee. Of those 48 witnesses, 45 actually stated that oversight was a major problem with this bill. The lack of oversight was a fundamental flaw.

Of those I mentioned a little bit earlier, 25 of the 28 Conservative witnesses said the same thing. These were witnesses brought forward by the Conservatives. The Conservative side of the House recommended these witnesses. We know how narrow the scope is for Conservative witnesses at committee. The Conservatives only hear witnesses they believe are going to enhance their particular ideological world view.

We had 90% of Conservative witnesses, 95% of witnesses overall, all saying the same thing, which was that oversight needed to be enhanced. Many of those witnesses raised as well the concern around having the Canadian government actively working to counter radicalization.

Even with that smaller group of witnesses permitted by the government, one-quarter of the witnesses that should have been brought forward to committee, they virtually all said the same thing, which was that we needed to enhance oversight and ensure that the government works with Canadian communities to counter radicalization.

That is why the NDP, as the official opposition, is bringing forward this motion of instruction today. What we are saying is that the committee, which has had a Conservative majority up until now, is almost certainly a rogue committee. It has thrown out the rule book. I have come before you before, Mr. Speaker, to raise concerns about how the rule book has not been followed. They threw out the rule book, and I believe, and the NDP official opposition believes, that we, as a House, have to give very clear direction that permits the committee to look at expanding the scope of the bill to bring forward those two components: ensuring that the government works with Canadian communities to counter radicalization and enhancing oversight of Canadian security and intelligence agencies.

These are straightforward, common sense recommendations. I would expect that members of the Conservative government would actually vote in favour of this motion of instruction, because it would actually say to the 25 of 28 Conservative witnesses who came forward that we listened to them, that Conservative government members brought them forward to committee, where they talked about enhancing oversight, and they actually listened.

The real test will be, when we vote on this motion of instruction, whether the government actually listens and walks the talk and votes to ensure that the committee takes into consideration, or can take into consideration, enhancing oversight.

There is a reason, as I mentioned earlier, there has been such a fall in public support. In fact, this has probably been, certainly since you and I have been in Parliament, Mr. Speaker, one of the most dramatic falls in public opinion I have ever seen on any bill, whether for a government or a private member's bill.

I think it is fair to say, in light of October 22 and how all Canadians were feeling at that time about wanting to enhance public safety, that the government has not moved in all those areas I mentioned. It has not moved on food safety, rail safety, or dealing with the tragic loss of 1,200 missing and murdered indigenous women. However, we thought there was some consensus about working on public safety. Instead, what we saw was what the government actually brought forward: a highly partisan reaction.

Initially, I think, Canadians, being very sincere and honest, right across the country, in how we interact every day, took the government at its word and said that the government must be sincerely looking at enhancing public safety. Therefore, initially, the level of public support was very high.

Then the debate started in this House. As I mentioned earlier, within two hours, all of a sudden, the government said, “No, we are going to shut this down”, because we had very impassioned and learned members of the official opposition, the NDP, speaking against this bill. Even though the Liberal Party is in favour and supports the Conservatives in this regard, the NDP spoke out on what we actually saw in the bill, what measures were there, what measures were not there, and what concerns we had, and we were joined by a growing number of Canadians from coast to coast to coast: 100 leading law professors, the Canadian Bar Association, human rights organizations, aboriginal organizations, and environmental organizations. They were all speaking about the same concerns.

Subsequent to that, we started to see support for the bill erode in a rapid manner. From 80% it went to 70%, from 70% to 60%, 60% to 50%, 50% to 40%, and the level of support is now below 40%. Most Canadians, and I am not saying that all of them are necessarily even Conservative, Liberal, or NDP supporters, have been following the debate over the past month or so and have said, “Hold on here. These are major concerns that are being raised by people who have a lot of credibility”.

What we saw subsequently was the fall in public support, and perhaps that is why we saw such opposition by the government House leader, who was trying to pull every procedural tool out of the toolbox and trying to accuse us of unconstitutional actions. I am surprised he did not accuse us of violating international law. Government members just seem to have a level of exaggeration and hyperbole that I have never seen brought for a simple motion of instruction that obviously was in order, but for 40 minutes they waged this procedural battle to try to shut down this debate.

We can understand why. It is because the Conservatives understand that not only is the public not with them any more but that they have lost that initial level of public support, when people accepted them at their word and initially said that this legislation must be necessary. Public opinion plummeted, because the government's own words and own actions raised real concerns in the minds of the public. Very learned, respected people stepped forward and said that this is absolutely not the approach the government should take.

in the public mind and in the minds of those who have been raising these legitimate concerns, repeatedly two areas have been brought forward that are the subject of this motion of instruction today: ensuring that the government works with Canadian communities to counter radicalization and enhancing oversight of Canadian security and intelligence agencies.

I just wanted to raise, on both the oversight and the radicalization sides, some quotes that are very germane to the debate we are having this morning, despite the government's attempt to stop the debate. First, I would like to quote the current Minister of Justice, who, in 2005, obviously agreed with the NDP today. His 2005 comment was:

...when you talk about a credible oversight body, I would suggest...that a parliamentary body is going to have more credibility because of its independence and because of the fact that there is also parliamentary accountability that will be brought to bear. To that end, I suggest that it would also cause a little bit more diligence on the part of the security agents themselves, just knowing that this oversight body was in place.

That is the current Minister of Justice back in 2005, I guess when he could think outside the board and actually raise the kinds of concerns the NDP is raising today in 2015. In 2005, the Minister of Justice would have been agreeing with the NDP.

Second, we have the Privacy Commissioner, who was denied the ability to go before the public safety committee to testify on Bill C-51, which is absolutely shameful. He said:

...the proposed changes to information sharing authorities are not accompanied by measures to fill gaps in the national security oversight regime.... This Act would seemingly allow departments and agencies to share the personal information of all individuals, including ordinary Canadians who may not be suspected of terrorist activities....

On radicalization, I know intimately what the lack of any real attempt to work with Canadian communities to counteract radicalization has meant. The mosque that is in my riding in Burnaby—New Westminster was the mosque the man who murdered Cpl. Nathan Cirillo attended. I travelled to that mosque within a couple of days of what happened on October 22 here on the Hill. What the mosque members told me was quite stark. They said that they knew he had profound mental illness. They knew that he had a drug addiction. They tried to seek help, and there was nothing available. This is something we have heard from communities right across the country.

It is just a common sense measure that the committee should be taking into consideration, and can take into consideration if we pass this motion, that would allow some ability to counter radicalization. The committee should be working to ensure that.

There are two quotes I would like to cite. The first is from a national security law expert from the University of Ottawa, Craig Forcese. He said:

The literature suggests that when it comes to...radicalization, the best tool might actually be what are known as...programs designed to steer persons away from taking that one last step from radicalized worldviews to actual violence.

That is something the committee should, of course, be taking into consideration.

We have also heard from the White House. President Obama has stepped forward to look to counter radicalization. He said:

We have seen attacks over the last several years in which consumption of propaganda over, and communication through, the Internet played a role in the radicalization of the attacker. The Federal Government will work to make communities more resilient to these messages of hate by raising awareness and providing tools. Informed and resilient communities are our Nation's first and best line of defence....

That is what the NDP has brought forward today. We have said that we should be enlarging the scope and that we should grant the power to the committee to expand the scope of the bill to ensure that the government works with Canadian communities to counter radicalization and to enhance oversight of Canadian security and intelligence agencies.

The polls tell us that about 60% of Canadians support those measures and do not believe that Bill C-51 passes those tests at all.

I would ask our Conservative members opposite, and the Liberal members that are supporting Bill C-51 as well, to take into consideration what the witnesses said before committee. Ninety per cent of Conservative witnesses and 95% of all witnesses said that we need to enhance oversight. Many of them also said that we need to have the government working with communities to counter radicalization.

These are common sense measures. I hope all members of the House will support this motion of instruction.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is very clearly a delaying tactic on the part of the government. Why are the Conservatives so concerned about having a debate around oversight in this House of Commons and having a motion of instruction? Why are they so concerned about that? Canadians who are watching on television right now should be asking the question as to why they are so concerned with oversight when so many of their own witnesses before the Bill C-51 public safety committee actually said we need more oversight.

I just wanted to counter what is the paper tiger that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has created. He has created this massive paper tiger that has nothing to do with the motion of instruction. He talks about programs. He talks about agencies. This is all a figment of his own imagination.

The royal recommendation argument, for a number of reasons including the argument that the member for Ottawa—Vanier has just raised, is absolutely irrelevant. The idea that there are agencies and programs in this motion of instruction simply does not hold water. It is easy to refute the government House leader because he has created a motion of instruction that does not exist.

What is before us now is perfectly in order, and I hope the government will stop its delaying tactics and allow us to have the debate on oversight on Bill C-51.