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.

Opposition Motion—Foreign Interference in Democratic Institutions

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my good friend, the member for Surrey—Newton, who is in fact one of the members who really tackle the issue head on.

Members will recall that Motion No. 112 received unanimous support from those who were inside the chamber voting. It also dealt with the issue of foreign interference.

I want to put things into perspective so those who are following the debate get an appreciation of what we are actually talking about and what led us to where we are today. It is important that we as parliamentarians recognize, and it does not matter what side of the House we are on, that an assault of any nature, anything direct or indirect, through international or foreign interference is an assault on all of us. We should all do what we can to dispose of international foreign interference.

As a government, we have taken a number of actions. Let me first put it in the context of the degree to which the current Prime Minister and, in good part, the government have been acting, even in 2015. Going back to when the Liberals had third party status in the chamber, there was Bill C-51. We argued that Canada needed to be able to establish a security clearance standing committee of the House that would be able to take a look at all forms of information. It was nothing new. Canada is one of the Five Eyes countries, and we were the only one that did not have such a committee in existence.

At the time, the Conservative Party, which was in government under Stephen Harper, said no to us. It did not recognize, nor was it interested at all in proceeding with what we call NSICOP today. In fact, if we look at the history of the issue itself, we see that the it was actually brought to the government's attention in 2013, knowing full well that there was foreign interference taking place in Canada.

Today's leader of the Conservative Party was in cabinet. Not only Stephen Harper completely ignored the issue, but so too did today's leader of the Conservative Party. When we brought forward the suggestion of changing the law to incorporate NSICOP, the Conservative Party opposed it. The federal election took place, and one of the first initiatives Liberals took was to establish NSICOP. We did a great deal of consultation on it, believing that it was in Canada's best interest.

When we put NSICOP in place after passing the legislation, the Conservatives boycotted it and withdrew some members. NSICOP as a standing committee has representatives from all recognized political entities in the chamber. It even has participation from the Senate. However, the Conservative Party did not support it. Fast-forward to today and listen to some of the quotes that can be provided, in terms of the degree to which the Conservative Party has actually politicized the issue. How many times have we heard the Conservatives stand up and demand that we release the names? Constantly it is “Release the names of the members of Parliament.” Then, through social media, the Conservatives created the idea that the Government of Canada was trying to hide something.

There are Conservative members who sit on NSICOP. They would have just as much right to see the names as the government does. If the Conservative Party wants the names released, why do the Conservative members who sit on NSICOP not release them? I suspect it might have something to do with the fact that they are a bit concerned about potential charges or investigations, because it would not be appropriate for them to release the names.

Earlier today, the minister responsible indicated that he had a discussion with Deputy Commissioner Flynn about releasing the names, asking whether he could do that as a minister. He was told by the deputy commissioner, who is the second in charge, that if he were to do that he would be opening himself up to criminal prosecution. The Conservatives, on the one hand, are asking us to release the names, knowing full well that we cannot release them, but that does not prevent them from going around spreading misinformation on the issue.

It does not end there. The Conservatives are saying that they do not want their leader to be informed. The government has said that a leader of a political party can get the security clearance that would allow them to request the information. The leader of the NDP has done just that, but not the leader of the Conservative Party.

It is interesting that just this past weekend, on the issue, the host of CTV's Question Period was conducting an interview. She quoted the national security adviser and the head of CSIS. Then she said, “Just because your leader is briefed on this intelligence does not mean that he can't act.” In essence, she was saying that the leader can in fact be briefed and can act on the issue.

Let us follow what happens afterward. The host then asked the Conservative panellist, “Why not get briefed? Why could [the leader of the Conservative party] now not just get that information and then act on it?” The member for Wellington—Halton Hills, who spoke earlier today, responded with, “What the Prime Minister is asking [the Leader of the Opposition] to do is essentially tie his hands behind his back”, even though the New Democratic leader had the same briefing. He goes on further to say, “That process would require [the Leader of the Opposition] to sign an undertaking and to swear an oath of secrecy not to divulge this information to anyone else, and, therefore, not be able to tell anybody else to act on this information to hold individuals accountable.”

The host then poses this question: “Respectfully though, am I supposed to believe you over the director of CSIS?” Get this; this is what the member for Wellington—Halton Hills said: “Yes. Yes, you are.” He said to believe him over CSIS. That is incredible. He said, “because I think the director of CSIS and the RCMP may not be as knowledgeable about the processes under the Reform Act that govern [our ] party caucuses”. Really?

It highlights how the members of the Conservative Party of Canada, the Conservative-Reform party, choose to be dumb on the issue intentionally, come up with lame excuses and then spread misinformation all over social media. Where is the sense of responsibility? The Conservatives are definitely found lacking when it comes to common sense and responsibility in dealing with an issue that Canadians are concerned about.

Why will the leader of the Conservative-Reform party today not take the government up on getting the security clearance so he would understand in more depth what is taking place?

Parliament of Canada Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I will pick up on one point the member referred to, because it is a really important aspect. When we think of all the information out there, it is incredible just how massive it is. Information nowadays, through technology and archives, is truly amazing. What we need to recognize right at the beginning is the need-to-know principle: “The need-to-know principle restricts access to sensitive information and assets to those whose duties require such access; that is, to those who need to know the information.” I think “whose duties require such access” is probably the most important thing for us to recognize. How wonderful it would be to sit in any sort of meeting and get the sense that we have an entitlement to know everything that might pique our curiosity. However, I do not think that this is in the best interest of national security, in terms of things such as foreign affairs, public safety and national security.

It is interesting to listen to the debate, and particularly what is coming from the Conservatives. I say that because when I was a member of the Liberal Party when it was the third party, Bill C-51 was brought forward. At the time, Liberals were arguing that we needed to establish a national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians. That was something that was justified, because there was a sense that parliamentarians on the committee would be able to look at anything and everything and they would have the security clearance to do so. We argued that. I argued that, 10 years ago, when I was sitting in opposition, recognizing that there is sensitive information, even back then, that not all members of Parliament should be receiving because it should be based on the need to know.

Back then, I articulated why it was so important that we establish this national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians. Hansard will clearly show that, back then, I said the committee should be apolitical, non-partisan, and should have representatives from all political parties. We took a lot of heat back then from the government of the day and lost. We could not convince the government to establish such a committee, in the form of an amendment to Bill C-51.

We should keep in mind the relationship that Canada has with its allied countries. When we think of security, we have to think of the Five Eyes countries, of which we are one. At the time, we were the only country in the Five Eyes that did not have a national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians. That was one of the primary arguments I used back then. I believed that, whether there was the RCMP, CSIS or any other public agency, this committee of parliamentarians needed to be established to ensure that there is a higher sense of accountability. We made the commitment back in 2015 to establish that committee, and we did just that. We established the committee and joined the Five Eyes countries, our allies, in having this parliamentary committee, but members will recall it was with a great deal of protest from the Conservatives, because they did not want this committee to be established. Why is that?

A lot of politics is played when it comes to issues, whether it be foreign interference or any sort of foreign affairs. We were talking about hostages yesterday. There are a great deal of professional, civil servant-type individuals who are out there protecting us and making sure that Canadians are safe and secure. There is some information that we individually do not necessarily need to know, if that is in the best interest of public safety.

As parliamentarians, we get involved in all sorts of meetings. One could argue we could be more effective if there were no redactions done to documents brought forward to the standing committees. Even within in camera meetings, whether it is intentional or unintentional, we are going to have information being leaked.

I have listened to members opposite speak to this bill, and there was nothing said that addresses that specific concern. What I hear them say is that they are members of Parliament, so they should be able to have unlimited access if they can get a particular security clearance. If someone wants to be able to get information, they just go and ask for the security clearance.

I will go back to the need-to-know principle: “The need-to-know principle restricts access to sensitive information and assets to those whose duties require such access; that is, to those who need to know the information.” For the people who are concerned that something is awry or something is happening that they should know about, there are other mechanisms currently in place. We have the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. We have representatives from all political parties who sit there, and there are no restrictions there. We also have mechanisms that have been agreed upon for when certain issues come to the attention of the House of Commons.

We can talk about the Afghan detainees issue and the great uproar that took place there. People wanted classified information. They wanted to see the words and the information. That was actually done through negotiations with the then prime minister and opposition parties. There was a consensus as to how that information could be revealed to all political parties.

We have seen other issues come up in the interim. It is interesting that when the opposition talks about, for example, the Winnipeg labs issue, this government offered the very same formula that Stephen Harper offered when he was prime minister. We offered the very same formula in trying to deal with the issue, and the opposition said no to that initially.

Why did the opposition say no to that? Why did they say no to joining what the Five Eyes and other countries around the world were doing? I suspect that it has more to do with politics than good practice. That is why, when we take a look at the legislation that is before us today, I have not heard an argument as to why we should be looking over and above the need-to-know principle. However, we are not done. There is still going to be some more debate. I will continue to have a bit of an open mind on it. I will say, to this point, I have not heard anything.

Food and Drugs Act

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

Madam Speaker, I said earlier, in thanking the member of Parliament for Red Deer—Lacombe, that we support this legislation. We support Bill C-368 for a number of reasons.

I want to start by saying that, as are over 70% of Canadians, I am a consumer of natural health products. I use those products, as 70% of the population does. This includes vitamins and minerals, herbal remedies, homeopathic medicines and probiotics. Many Canadians use traditional medicines, such as traditional Chinese medicines or indigenous medicines, as well. There are a wide variety of products on the market.

As has already been stated, the reality is that we have a very robust natural health product sector that is carefully regulated in a way that ensures that the products are of good quality. That is why, when we look at the natural health product sector, we see so many Canadians consuming them and, at the same time, we see no side effects or downsides to the consumption of those products.

It is because the products are effective. If they are not, we stop using them. I have tried a number of products over the years. Some work really well; others, not so much. As consumers, we have that ability to distinguish and make sure we are choosing products that are appropriate for us.

This is not the pharmaceutical sector. These are not prescriptions that are given out. I have a family doctor who is very good at sometimes suggesting products that are not part of a prescription, but simply a suggestion. He has turned out to be right every single time about the kind of products we can take.

As an example, there is magnesium, which is a vitamin product. My friend from Red Deer—Lacombe mentioned it earlier as well. Some of us are on flights back and forth across the country, travelling 5,000 kilometres twice a week, every month. My colleague from North Island—Powell River is in the same situation. We are going around this planet every month in terms of the amount of time we spend on airplanes, getting back to our constituency to ensure that we are serving our constituents and then coming to Ottawa to do the important work we do here.

The reality is that, when we are doing this, we are in a cramped space. We need to ensure we take magnesium if we want to avoid leg cramps. My doctor was the one who suggested it, and ever since then, I have made sure that I take the appropriate product. It makes sense. I know you agree, Madam Speaker, even though you do not have as far to go when you go back to your constituents.

There is a wide range of products that are available and that make a difference. For consumers who find that their products just are not up to speed, they can change, try another product or simply decide they are not going to use something anymore.

What is already a flourishing and effective sector was diminished by the government incorporating into Bill C-47, an omnibus legislation, these clauses that simply put natural health products in a completely different situation. They are heavily regulated with costs, which a number of speakers have already indicated were absolutely inappropriate. Ever since I have been here, and certainly for years before that, the NDP caucus has decried omnibus legislation.

We saw this under the former Harper Conservative government. We see this under the current Liberal government. There are massive budget implementation acts that are 700 or 800 pages. Incorporated within them are really what I call poison pills. Certain clauses are put in there that ultimately serve as changes in legislation. However, then we can see they have regulations that are not part of Parliament's purview or the government's purview, and they can actually have detrimental impacts.

This was the case with Bill C-47. This was tried before with Bill C-51 under the Harper Conservative government.

The government tried to, very heavily and inappropriately, apply additional regulations to natural health products. That was pushed back on, but with Bill C-47, as omnibus legislation that led to the regulatory changes, we are in the situation that we find ourselves in now, and that has to change. That is why we are supportive of Bill C-368.

What it would do is provide for the kinds of hearings at the committee stage that would allow us to really determine the full extent of how the existing sector is regulated effectively and how detrimental these changes are, both those suggested in Bill C-51 a few years ago and those currently in Bill C-47, to the industry itself, which is a Canadian success story, as well as the impact on consumers who are using these vitamins, probiotics and homeopathic medicines effectively and potentially finding it more difficult to access these natural health products because of the actions of Health Canada and the actions of the government.

As such, it makes good sense to take Bill C-368, to put it in place, to have those hearings, and then to determine what is appropriate. It is very clear that those regulatory changes were absolutely excessive and have had a profound negative impact.

What we are saying is that the government, through Bill C‑47, is taking action with Health Canada without holding consultations and without conducting an impact study or a management fee study. As my colleague mentioned, this means that small businesses that market natural health products are now subject to a regulatory framework that is far better suited to the pharmaceutical industry.

The pharmaceutical industry is the most profitable industry in North America. It makes huge profits, which is why the NDP is pushing for pharmacare. In countries with pharmacare, pharmaceutical companies have been forced to lower their prices. The case of New Zealand, where the price of some pharmaceuticals has dropped by 90%, is often cited.

These pharmaceutical companies are extremely powerful. It makes no sense to establish a regulatory framework that puts small businesses, which are safely selling a whole line of products to smaller markets, on the same footing as big transnational pharmaceutical companies that are raking in huge profits. That is why the government's approach was inappropriate. It was inappropriate to include this small provision in omnibus legislation that is several hundred pages long. The consequences of this regulatory change are unclear, which has led to the outcome before us today.

It is clear to the NDP that this bill is important, because it was unacceptable for that provision to be included in an omnibus bill. It was unacceptable for the former Harper government to do that, and it is unacceptable for today's Liberal government to do the same.

Thanks to the bill introduced by my colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe, we have the opportunity to correct the mistake that was made and to really look at this provision's impact on the natural health product industry. We have the opportunity to determine the financial impact and the impact on consumers. We have the opportunity to see the full impact of the decision that was made last year to include this provision in an omnibus bill. The NDP has been very clear in this regard: We support the bill and we look forward to the important discussions that will take place in committee.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would say the member is exactly right. If there are any problems, and I actually do not think there are any, the negotiations that came out of Bill C-51, the consultation with the industry back at that time in 2014, left our industry in a very good sweet spot, where we have just the right amount of regulation and enough freedom and opportunity so that our industry is actually growing.

I simply cannot understand why the current Liberal government wants to kill another industry in this country.

Telecommunications Act

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to think about in what the member for Kildonan—St. Paul had to say, and I agree with many things she said, including her concern about the oversharing of Canadians' personal information between government departments. I know that was a significant issue in the 41st Parliament with Bill C-51, when the government of the day introduced security legislation at that time.

I wonder if the Conservative Party today is in a mood to actually protect Canadians against the oversharing of information between government departments and if we might try to find an opportunity in the course of this bill's passage through the House to correct, as we go, some of the defects in that legislation from many years ago.

Emergencies Act

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed to see the stand that the leader of the NDP and the party have taken on an issue that deals with the fundamental civil liberties of Canadians. What has happened to the party of Tommy Douglas? What has happened to the party of Jack Layton that fought against Bill C-51 and the War Measures Act? What has changed?

The NDP is trying to split hairs. Why has it abandoned one of its fundamental principles?

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, while I can appreciate where the hon. parliamentary secretary is trying to go on this, it is not lost on me that this is a government that allowed our military to spy on Black Lives Matter movement protests while simultaneously being out and actually participating in them.

There is a long and storied history of the way in which government actively surveils citizens in the country, including the ways in which Bill C-51 allowed for the targeting and criminalization of indigenous land defenders, environmentalists, social justice folks and basic people out there trying to advocate for their own civil rights.

Public Safety

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the member who asked the question was a part of Stephen Harper's Conservative government, which regularly refused to allow any oversight whatsoever on issues of national security. Many Canadians will remember the excesses of Bill C-51 that the Harper government put forward, which is why we made changes to Bill C-51 when we got into office, which is also why we created the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, to provide a forum for parliamentarians to oversee national security work. That is an improvement we made that Conservatives voted against.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, there are many questions that need to be pursued, and that is exactly why we created the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians.

The fact that the Conservative leader just referred to it as “the Prime Minister's secret committee” goes to part of the problem of why the Conservative government, under Stephen Harper, for 10 years refused to bring in any oversight by parliamentarians of our national security apparatuses. We all remember the real concerns about Stephen Harper and Bill C-51 and labelling terrorists in Canada.

We brought forward a committee of parliamentarians who have the security clearances necessary to do this work.

Opposition Motion—Official Apology from the Prime Minister

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was here during the debate on Bill C-51. In fact, I was sitting not too far from where the member would have been sitting back in Centre Block.

There were many aspects of Bill C-51 that deserved our support as the third party at the time, for example, the establishment of a security committee. If we look at the Five Eyes countries of the world, Canada was the only one that did not have a parliamentary committee to deal with security-related issues. We have one today as a result of this government. That was one of the things we talked about during the debate of Bill C-51.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we heard the history of the October crisis in its historical context and heard members from the government's side talk about how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was implemented since then. This is also a government that supported the draconian Bill C-51, which of course defined economic disruption as a form of domestic terrorism. This extended government overreach to indigenous communities seeking their inherent sovereign treaty rights, and to environmentalists and trade unionists.

What does the party that in fact named the person responsible for G20 as the Minister of Public Safety have to say for its continued support on Bill C-51, which has resulted in situations such as lethal over-watch on the Wet'suwet'en territory and rubber bullets being fired at Haudenosaunee peaceful land defenders today?

Public Safety

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals propped up the Conservatives' draconian Bill C-51, which essentially included economic disruption as a form of domestic terrorism. The Prime Minister ran and was elected to amend Bill C-51 and protect Canada's civil liberties, but he broke that promise. Indigenous communities, environmentalists, workers and anybody standing up for social justice are still the target of anti-terrorism protocols.

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that people peacefully protesting in Canada are not in fact terrorists?

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is essential that Canadians have confidence in the agencies that have extraordinary powers over them.

It was in the debate during the 41st Parliament on Bill C-51, legislation which made a major overhaul of national security law under the Harper administration, and it was very clear from legal analysts like Craig Forcese that we need to have oversight agencies, like the security intelligence review committee, but we also need to have agencies that can do on the spot, in real-time response.

What we have at this point in Canada is an improvement but the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency is at the level of oversight. We do not have that quick response that we get when we have what we have now in the complaints commission. We have a bit of this and a bit of that. We do not have a full and comprehensive system to ensure both oversight and review.

Motion in relation to Senate amendments

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to give a little ad at the beginning of my speech. Tomorrow is an important day. June 12 is Philippines Independence Day. I want to invite all members from all sides of the House to come out after their caucus meetings and walk across the street from West Block to SJAM to participate in the Filipino heritage event.

I want to add my thoughts in regard to Bill C-59 and I will approach it in two ways. First I will speak to the process that has brought us to the bill before us today and then I will provide thoughts in regard to some of the content of the bill itself.

To say that the issue of security and freedom is a new debate in the House of Commons would be a bit of a stretch. I can recall the debates surrounding Bill C-51 several years ago when Stephen Harper was the prime minister. He brought in that piece of legislation. At the time, the Liberal Party, as the third party, actually supported that legislation.

However, we qualified that support in a very clear way. We indicated throughout the debate that there were some fundamental flaws in Bill C-51, and that if we were to ultimately win in the election of 2015, we intended to bring forward some changes that would rectify some of those fundamental flaws.

I can recall the hours of debate that took place inside the chamber by members of all political parties. I can remember some of the discussions flowing out of the committees at the time. There was a great deal of debate and a great deal of controversy with the legislation. Even while campaigning during the last federal election, it was a topical issue for many people. It dealt with issues of an individual's rights versus having that sense of security. I always made reference to the fact that Liberals understand how important individual rights are. That is one of the reasons I often highlight that we are the party that brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

If we take a look at the original Bill C-51, even though the principles were very admirable and we supported it and voted for it, even though at the time we received some criticism, we made it very clear that we would make changes.

This is the second piece of legislation that has attempted to make good on commitments we made to Canadians in the last election. I really enjoy is being able to stand up in this place and provide comment, especially on legislation that fulfills election commitments, starting with our very first bill, Bill C-2. That is a bill I am very proud of, and I know my caucus colleagues are very proud of that bill. It concerns the tax break for Canada's middle class. There is the bill we are debating today, Bill C-59, the second part of a commitment we made to Canadians in the last federal election, which talks about the issue of public safety and privacy rights. Yet again, we have before us another piece of legislation that ultimately fulfills another commitment we made to Canadians in the last federal election.

I mentioned that I wanted to talk a bit about the process. In bringing forward Bill C-59, I do not think we could come up with a better example of a minister who has really understood the importance of the issue, or who has gone far beyond what any other minister in the Stephen Harper era ever did, in terms of consultation.

Even before the bill was introduced, we received input from thousands of Canadians, whether in person or through the Internet. We also received input from members of Parliament, particularly from many of my Liberal caucus colleagues. We were afforded the opportunity to share with the minister and the caucus some of the issues and concerns that came out of the last election. A great deal of consultation was done. The minister on several occasions indicated that the comprehensive dialogue that took place allowed for a substantial piece of legislation at the first reading stage.

Shortly after that, the bill was sent to committee prior to second reading, which allowed for a more thorough discussion on a wider scope of issues. The bill was debated at report stage and then at third reading. It was sent to the Senate, which has sent back amendments, which is where we are today. That process indicates that we have a government, as the Prime Minister has often indicated, that thinks the roles of our standing committees and the Senate can improve legislation. We have seen many changes throughout this process. This bill is a stronger and healthier piece of legislation than it originally was at its first reading stage.

I wanted to give that bit of background and then do a comparison regarding why the government had to move closure just an hour ago. I want to make it very clear to those individuals who might be following the debate, whether it is on Bill C-59 or other pieces of legislation.

We have an official opposition party that is determined to work with the NDP, and I often refer to it as the unholy alliance of the Conservatives and the New Democrats. They work together to try to prevent any legislation from passing. They will do whatever they can to prevent legislation from passing. It does not take much to do that. At the end of the day, a few members can cause a great deal of issues to prevent legislation from passing. There is no sense of responsibility coming from the opposition side in regard to working hard for Canadians and recognizing the valuable pieces of legislation that would be for the betterment of our society. In fact, those parties will put up speaker after speaker even on non-controversial legislation, because they have no real interest in passing legislation. If it were up to the Conservative opposition, we would still be debating Bill C-2. The opposition members have many different tools, and they have no qualms about using them. Then—

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the minister and the House that, when Bill C-51 was introduced in the previous Parliament, the Liberals who were in opposition at the time voted in favour of Bill C-51, regardless of all the freedom of expression and privacy issues it might cause, not to mention other measures that endangered Canadians more than they protected them. In contrast, the official opposition New Democrats voted against Bill C-51.

Bill C-59 makes some improvements, but as civil liberties groups have said repeatedly, it fails to resolve a number of major problems related to use of data and privacy protection.

I would like to know why the government was in such a hurry to move forward without properly addressing the major issues with Bill C-51 that are still present in Bill C-59.