Debates of Feb. 19th, 2015

Anti-terrorism Act, 2015

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

Mr. Speaker, if those members can support this legislation, perhaps Canadians will forget about their respective party's previous soft on terrorism stances.

I ask all members to join me in supporting this important legislation.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague.

There is one thing I do not understand, and I hope he will be able to clarify it for me. We have already discussed anti-terrorism measures. I gave a speech on that topic shortly after I was elected, when we were reviewing the provisions of part II.1 of the Criminal Code, which deals with preventive arrests and all of the measures concerning the Combating Terrorism Act.

At the time, if the government thought that the measures it had passed were not working, why did it not, in 2013, give the agencies the resources necessary to do their job?

There are existing laws in place, and the government is giving them more powers when it has not promised any funding. How can the organizations on the ground and the law enforcement agencies use the powers that already exist without resources? What good will it do them?

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

Mr. Speaker, that was a financial question and we clearly are dealing with this legislation.

I will tell a little story about myself. Between the 1970s and 1980s, when I lived in a different country, the Red Brigades in Italy were extremely active, probably some of my elderly colleagues would remember the Red Brigades and the Baader-Meinhof gang. They resorted to a lot of terrorist activities. They killed people. They killed the president of Italy. That was one of the elements that made me determined to come to Canada, a very peaceful and nice country in which to live.

I support this legislation wholeheartedly because we need to prevent our people from becoming victims of terrorists.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, where did the member get the information from about my time as solicitor general? I was the solicitor general who named Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist entities. I know a lot of members over there like to think otherwise. I can table a document in the House tomorrow to prove that point, if the member desires.

This is not the first time. Over a year ago, the member for Winnipeg South Centre, in a Standing Order 31, made the same comments. Two weeks ago, the member for Wetaskiwin made a personal attack against me, saying the same thing again.

The member's information is incorrect. This is an important debate. We are talking about national security in our country. Some of us are trying to balance that against civil liberties. Some of us have been in the position of some of those people in the front row on the other side.

Why do you lower your honour by using those talking points that are—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. I would remind the hon. member for Malpeque to address his questions to the Chair, not to other members.

The hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East has about a minute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the member for Malpeque. He is very active in the House.

I just wanted to express my deep concern. If we do not adopt this legislation, we will expose Canadians to terrorist attacks and we will lose lives.

This legislation is very important for the reasons I spoke about before. We must be proactive in this area. We need to confront terrorists. It is not only the terrorists from the Middle East, there are also other terrorist activities, such as the Red Brigades, Marxist-Leninists, Maoists and the Baader-Meinhof gang.

It is very important for me that the legislation passes. I invite the member to support it. There might be inaccuracies and so on. I was not in the House. I encourage the member to vote for the legislation.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also share the sentiment that my hon. friend from Malpeque is an honourable man, and I have enjoyed serving with him in the House.

Thomas Jefferson once said, “In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock”, and that is this government. Those who swim with style are across the aisle in the New Democratic Party. Although they are delightful people, they are naive, and in their naivety they risk the security of this nation, and this is something that concerns us all. This is an important debate. This is something that is critical to our country at this point in history, right now.

As my hon. friend just said in his speech a moment ago, his experience in Eastern Europe is why he came to Canada, seeing the Red Brigades, the Baader-Meinhof gang, and others at those times. Those were very poignant times and very poignant moments in the history of the world in terms of terrorism. It was a portent of things to come. We saw the terrorism of the Middle East grow and develop into what is now ISIL. This group has not just threatened Canada. This group has declared war on Canada and on the entire world. It is incredibly important that we deal with this right now.

These security threats that are facing our country and the world right now are serious. The world has changed. We have to wake up to this. This government is addressing that right now, head on, because we have a responsibility to defend each and every Canadian in this country. That is our duty and our responsibility, and that is what we are doing right here. We are not going to allow obfuscation to stand in the way, nor just a simple lack of understanding of what security actually means, not only in Canada but within our security environment in the world, because the world has become much more dangerous, whether we like it or not. The end of the Cold War provided us with a peace dividend that we thought was going to last. It did not, and now we have Vladimir Putin threatening the world, threatening NATO, and threatening his neighbours as well. These are serious challenges that we face in this country, and this is something on which we have to work hard.

I would like to point out that the party opposite is on the wrong side of history. Eighty-two per cent of Canadians support what this government is doing, and out of that 82%, 36% do not think we have gone far enough. This government is going to protect Canadians.

It is clear from recent events, be they attacks in Copenhagen, Paris, Sydney, or even right here in Canada, that the international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada and our allies. There is ample evidence. It is all over the media. It is all over YouTube. It is all over the Internet. If we are blind to these things, that just makes us dangerous to the security of our country. We cannot afford to turn a blind eye to this. We must be absolutely vigilant in the security of Canada.

They have done this for no other reason than that we support freedom, we support democracy, we support the rule of law. These are the concepts that they simply despise, these barbaric terrorists who make up the so-called Islamic State, or Daesh. There is no rhyme or reason to it. There is no logic to it. They just do not like our way of life and they do not like our values. It is too bad, because we are going to combat them at every turn. We are going to defend Canadian values and Canadian democracy at every turn.

On October 23, 2014, the Prime Minister said, “Canada will never yield to terrorism, and neither will this House of Commons—we carry on.”

The introduction of the anti-terrorism act, 2015, gives voice to this resolve. The anti-terrorism act, 2015, would create a new criminal offence for promoting or advocating the commission of terrorism offences in general and is punishable by a maximum of five years imprisonment.

Terrorism strikes to the very core of our democratic institutions and our traditions. It undermines our sense of security, places our critical infrastructure at risk, and seeks to intimidate us so that we change our way of living. That is never going to happen.

When people encourage others to engage in terrorism, they harm our quality of life or infringe upon the freedom of all Canadians to live in a peaceful, open, and tolerant society guided by the respect of the rule of law. In short, they have committed an offence against all Canadians, and this is deserving of serious punishment.

Protecting Canadians is absolutely paramount, but security of this nation is also integral to our economy. Without security, the economy is at risk, and we must absolutely protect all Canadians. The concepts of advocacy and promotion are familiar to criminal law. For example, they are both used in the offence of advocating genocide. The word “promotes” is found in the hate crime provision. As well, the proposed offence would include the terms of “communicating” and “statements”, which are also familiar to Canadian criminal law and currently used and defined in hate propaganda provisions.

Some have questioned why the offence is not limited to communicating statements made in public similar to the public incitement of hatred offences. The proposed new offence is more akin to the other counselling offences that presently exist in the Criminal Code. Counselling offences are made out, regardless of whether their counselling occurs publicly or privately, because people are liable for counselling others to commit crime. Section 83.21 makes it an offence to instruct others to commit an activity for the benefit of a terrorist group. Section 83.22 makes it an offence to instruct others to carry out a terrorist activity. It is also an offence under section 464 to counsel someone to commit a crime, even where the offence is counselled and not committed.

In all these contexts, “counsel”, like the actions of advocacy or promotion, means active inducement or encouragement to commit a specific offence regardless of whether the offence counselled was or was not committed. However, it is not an offence to advocate or promote the commission of terrorism offences generally. In other words, one can be held criminally responsible for actively encouraging or inducing commission of specific terrorism offences, but one could escape criminal sanction for actively encouraging terrorism offences in general because there is insufficient detail that links the advocating or promoting to a specific terrorism offence.

In practical terms, this means that our current criminal law may not address a situation where someone encourages another person to carry out attacks on Canada, without reference to some specific activity. It is worth noting here that this is exactly what occurred in the case of the barbaric terrorist who killed Corporal Cirillo and attacked this very building. As the National Post reported, prior to committing these senseless acts, he had access to Internet sites that called for attacks on Canada and to “fulfill your duty of jihad in Canada”.

Such a call for attacks on Canada could mean any number of things. It could mean urging someone to engage in acts of violence against persons or against our public infrastructure. It could mean attacks against Canadian financial or security institutions. The problem is that we do not know for sure because this is a general call to attack without sufficient detail. This makes it extremely difficult for the police to collect the evidence necessary to lay a charge under existing laws because there is no link to any specific terrorism offence. I therefore strongly support the objective of the proposed new offence, which would bring clarity to the law and address an issue that raises significant public safety concerns.

Some have said that this proposal would violate the freedom of expression. However, I do not share that view. Advocating for jihadi terrorism where Canadians are killed en masse is not a human right; it is an act of war. Canada is not alone in dealing with the scourge of terrorism promotion. We have seen this all around the world. The United Kingdom enacted a glorification of terrorism provision in 2006. France has an offence for l'apologie du terrorisme.

Je suis Charlie, Mr. Speaker.

Australia has already enacted that offence, in a way somewhat similar to the legislation before us today.

Terrorist propaganda would be defined to include material that advocates or promotes terrorism offences in general. This takedown power would not depend on a prior conviction for this offence. Terrorist propaganda is an important tool that terrorists use to brainwash individuals into joining their barbaric cause. Information operations is a potent weapon.

I call on members of the NDP and Liberal Party to put aside their previous objections to tough on terror laws, like the combatting terrorism act, and support this important legislation—like most Canadians, 82%, who are supporting it.

I close by saying that we are a society based on openness, tolerance, and respect for the rule of law. Those who advocate terrorism undermine our values and put all Canadians at risk, and this government will not stand for it.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech of my colleague across the way with great interest.

As we know, there is a brand new oil pipeline slated to be built through my riding of Burnaby—Douglas by the Kinder Morgan company. The government on that side of the House will stop at nothing to push this pipeline through, the Liberals are also supporting it, and everybody in Burnaby is dead set against it. In fact, the mayor of Burnaby, Derek Corrigan, said he would lie down in front of bulldozers to stop this pipeline.

I am wondering if the member can help me. That seems to be something that could be construed as a threat to our economic development in Canada, which would be covered by this act. Would Mayor Derek Corrigan of Burnaby be considered a terrorist under this act, and with the new powers being given to CSIS, would it then be allowed to disrupt the mayor's activity and anybody else's in the city of Burnaby? As members know, there were 126 people arrested there who were trying to stop this pipeline. Grand Chief Stewart Phillip crossed the exclusion zone in the protest area. Would this new bill have any impact on that, and would the mayor of Burnaby be a terrorist?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his example. I hesitate to use this word, but it sounds somewhat bizarre to me, because Canadians would not be targeted under this act.

For example, working with his scenario, if there were any charter implications in the surveillance of any individual for any act of terrorism, regardless of the type of example, and it did not pass muster with a judge, a warrant would never be issued. That is another level of oversight. Judges would not allow this sort of thing to happen if charter rights were violated in any way, shape, or form. However, none of that would apply to that scenario, because Canadians have the right to express themselves, and that is simply what category it would be under.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reinforce that there is a need for legislation to deal with potential terrorist threats. We know that because we have been in constant consultations and connecting with Canadians to get a sense of what type of legislation they would like.

The Liberal Party has been very clear that it supports the legislation, albeit with some very serious concerns. We are calling on the government, for example, to recognize the need for a parliamentary oversight committee. It is not that much to ask for, when we are talking about protecting the rights of individuals here in Canada. When we think of the other countries that are part of the Five Eyes, such as England, the United States, and Australia, they all have it. It is not that much to ask, in order to provide assurances.

New Democrats are saying they absolutely do not recognize any benefit to this legislation, which is unfortunate, but at least there is some value to allowing some amendments. Will the member give his personal assurance that the government will accept worthy amendments in making this legislation stronger?

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the oversight that is in place right now is sufficient, strong, and robust, because as was mentioned earlier, there is a review done, but if inconsistencies are identified, they get reported and then something is done about it.

Within this bill, the ability for government departments to speak to each other, collaborate, and harmonize information is another form of oversight in being able to manage the information, so the left hand knows exactly what the right hand is doing. As I said earlier, it is a charter issue. If CSIS, for example, were trying to watch over an individual and its request for a warrant did not pass charter muster, a warrant would never be issued. That, again, is another judicial level of oversight.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to speak today to Bill C-51, the anti-terrorism act, 2015. It is an important bill and all sides have expressed strong views about it. We saw that in the lead-off speeches yesterday and have seen it in some of the discussions here today.

The bill should not, and I underline this, become a wildly partisan debate. Let us show Canadians that in the House, the 300-plus of us who are here, we can make this a better bill. The government does not have all the answers, but collectively we can produce a better bill. I ask the government to allow amendments to improve the bill.

This is an extremely serious matter. It does indeed affect all Canadians. We have a responsibility as parliamentarians to find the proper balance between national security and civil liberties and freedom of expression.

In my remarks today I do not want to get into all the technicalities of the bill, the unlawful versus the lawful distinction, et cetera, but to focus on two key areas: one, process; and two, oversight, which is extremely important. The last speaker said there is oversight. There is not oversight in this bill and the Conservatives should know that.

I will start with a statement by the leader of the Liberal Party yesterday:

...keeping Canadians safe in a manner that is consistent with Canadian values is our most sombre responsibility as legislators and community leaders. To ensure that we never lose sight of our Canadian values and never forget who we are, we should always aim to have both the security of Canadians and the protection of their rights and freedoms in mind when we set out to combat those threats.

The question is, how do we do that? How do we find that balance? We can do that, certainly by allowing witnesses from a strong cross-section of Canadian society to be heard, and when they speak at committee, we all have to listen.

The government must be prepared to accept amendments based on legal expertise, based on human concerns, and based on evidence-based testimony. I will in a moment outline some of those concerns, just to touch base with the concerns expressed in that area by individuals and groups and to make the point why they must be heard.

May I also say in fairness to the cabinet that I and a number of colleagues in this corner in the Liberal caucus understand the pressures that one is subject to when looking at an intelligence briefing in the morning about a terrorist threat. We understand the pressure that pushes government to give security and police agencies greater power and authority to challenge those threats.

I hope those threat assessments coming to the government are brutally honest, telling the facts as they are and are not exaggerated. I was not impressed, to be quite honest, by the Prime Minister's speech in Richmond Hill, where I do think he went over the top in terms of the threat to Canadian society. However, only those who have those assessments would really know what that threat is.

I can remember in my own caucus, as my colleagues here with me can recall, and certainly the member for Mount Royal, the strenuous debate we had and how fortunate we were to have that both there and within Canadian society and in committee when we brought in the Anti-terrorism Act of 2001 and expanded on it later.

However, because of that debate we put in sunset clauses to ensure that certain authorities granted to the police and CSIS would cease to exist at a certain point in time. We put in place a mandatory statutory review so that this chamber and the committee could review the good, the bad, and the ugly of that legislation at a certain period in time.

We do not see any of that in Bill C-51. Hopefully, amendments can be made that will draw in those points. However, in order to have amendments, the process has to change. Let us not fool anyone here. We all know what happens at committees. I talked about it earlier today. The parliamentary secretary sits fairly near to the chair of the committee on the government side. Government members are lined up in a row. Over against the back wall is the staff for the government side. Sitting among them is the staff for the whip's office. In there too is the staff for the PMO. Mike Duffy called them “The boys in short pants”. Well, they are both boys and girls because I have seen them, women and men. It is as if that guy or gal against the back wall is pulling the string of the parliamentary secretary.

[Randy Hoback]

You want to be serious, so be serious.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I am serious, Mr. Speaker, and the member knows that is what happens. It happens at my committee. Members follow that direction. They are members in their own right; they can stand on their own two feet. What I am saying is that the process has to change if we are going to make this legislation good legislation. I ask members to really look at this issue seriously and not to take direction in that fashion. There is concern about the civil liberties of Canadians and freedom of expression. We have to listen to those witnesses.

I want to give an example of what a couple of people I have talked to have to said, people whom we will put forward as witnesses. First, there is quite a series of articles in the press these days by two individuals, Craig Forcese and Kent Roach. They have a paper they sent us that is close to 40 pages long. They are doing a summary of the key concerns with the bill. This is what they say at the beginning of the summary:

If Bill C-51 passes, CSIS will be expressly authorized to “take measures, within or outside Canada, to reduce” very broadly defined “threats to the security of Canada”. Where authorized by Federal Court warrant, these “measures” may “contravene a right or freedom guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” or may be “contrary to other Canadian law”.

It does not matter whether I agree or disagree with that statement. There is a concern expressed there that we should look at seriously. These two individuals admit it themselves. They add an additional word relevant to this in a document dealing with CSIS. They say:

We are legal academics who have been researching and writing on issues of national security law (Canadian, international and comparative) for a sum total of 26 person years (between the two of us).... We are, in other words, an occasional and minor part of the national security “accountability sector”, to the extent that such a thing exists in Canada.

These people have a point of view. They have an expression of interest that we ought to listen to.

I also met with the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association, which also has concerns. That association was founded in 1998 by a small group of Toronto based Canadian Muslim lawyers. It has over 300 members across Canada and active chapters in Ontario and Quebec. The association states:

Bill C-51 is deeply flawed legislation that should not become law. Before we begin to integrate and concentrate power in government agencies on national security matters, we should first implement the remedial findings of many commissions of inquiry into the matter, most notably the Arar Inquiry.

As national security functions become more integrated it makes sense that there is a concomitant and effective counterbalance in terms of independent review and oversight. Such a body would have jurisdiction over all national security agencies and functions, including CSIS, CSEC, the RCMP and a host of other agencies (some of them currently have no oversight).

That is their opinion. They are suggesting that there needs to be much broader oversight.

These are just two examples of witnesses that we need to listen to. However, in order to make the proper amendments, accept them, and bring in those ideas, the government has to be willing to make some amendments.

To turn specifically to the issue of oversight itself, sadly, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Public Safety, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and, today, the Minister of Justice have been misinforming Canadians. Let me repeat that. Some of the highest officers and political ministers in this land have been misinforming Canadians on what exists, and what is and is not in this bill. It really is troublesome that the top political office in the land either does not know the limits of the Security Intelligence Review Committee or has not been totally forthright. I do not know which it is.

Let me turn to what the Security Intelligence Review Committee itself has said. It said that it is not an oversight body. Let me turn to its annual report for 2013-14. On page 12 of that report, in section 2, it says:

An oversight body looks on a continual basis at what is taking place inside an intelligence service and has the mandate to evaluate and guide current actions in “real time.” SIRC is a review body, so unlike an oversight agency....

SIRC itself admits that it is not an oversight agency, but even if it were an oversight agency, which it is not, it is not broad enough to really review national security. If we look at schedule 3 of Bill C-51, another seven agencies have been included there. I think some of them were here before. We are adding the likes of the departments of health, national defence, and transport to SIRC, CSIS, CSEC, the RCMP, and police forces of local jurisdictions, all of which are involved in these security matters, and transferring information across departments. There needs to be a much broader oversight that even a slightly improved SIRC could handle.

I mentioned earlier the protections that we as a Liberal government put in place on the extended powers in the anti-terrorism act of 2001. There were sunset clauses in which laws would cease to exist. There was a mandatory review. In 2004, we recognized that there was still a greater need, which was for the oversight of all security agencies. As a result, an all-party committee was proposed and put in place. It held hearings and made some recommendations, and Bill C-81 was introduced. However, it died on the order paper. I will come back to that in a moment.

Simply put, a previous Liberal government introduced legislation to provide for oversight by parliamentarians similar to that of our Five Eyes partners, the U.K., the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. Today, in The Globe and Mail, four former prime ministers put an article in the paper, signed by a number of justices and former attorneys general, et cetera, entitled: “A close eye on security makes Canadians safer”.

It starts by saying:

The four of us most certainly know the enormity of the responsibility of keeping Canada safe, something always front of mind for a prime minister.

They went on to say:

Yet we all also share the view that the lack of a robust and integrated accountability regime for Canada's national security agencies makes it difficult to meaningfully assess the efficacy and legality of Canada's national security activities. This poses serious problems for public safety and for human rights.

They went to say said:

Canada needs independent oversight and effective review mechanisms more than ever, as national security agencies continue to become increasingly integrated, international information sharing remains commonplace and as the powers of law enforcement and intelligence agencies continue to expand with this new legislation.

People who have been in the same position as the Prime Minister are calling on the need for oversight. Such a security oversight agency was called for by a former public safety committee while the current Prime Minister was in office. In a report dated June 2009, tabled in the House of Commons, it called for that, in recommendation 5:

The Committee recommends, once again, that Bill C-81, introduced in the 38th Parliament [by a Liberal government], An Act to Establish the National Security Committee of Parliamentarians, or a variation of it, be introduced in Parliament at the earliest opportunity.

That recommendation was supported by six members who currently sit in the House: the member for Yorkton—Melville, who chaired that committee; the member for Oxford; the member for Brant; the member for Northumberland—Quinte West; the member for Edmonton—St. Albert; and the member for Wild Rose.

The previous recommendation for Bill C-81 was supported by the current Minister of Justice and the current Minister of State for Finance. What has happened to those members since the leadership changed and we have the current Prime Minister? How come they are not still calling for oversight? They know that SIRC is not oversight. SIRC has claimed that it is not oversight. Did they lose their voice? Do they not stand by what they previously believed in, what they held hearings on? Oversight is important, and that is what we must implement in this bill, as well as a number of other amendments we will be putting forward.

As a final point, I will report on what the British Intelligence and Security Committee does. The members of the committee are subject to the Official Secrets Act. In their annual report, they say this:

The Committee sets its own agenda and work programme. It takes evidence from Government Ministers, the Heads of the intelligence and security Agencies, officials from the intelligence community, and other witnesses as required.

They monitor on a day-to-day basis. They keep intelligence agencies honest. They protect on two sides, as Bill C-81 would have done. It would have ensured that security agencies are doing what they are supposed to do and second, that they are not going too far in terms of infringing on civil rights and freedoms.

Let me close with a quote from my leader in yesterday's speech:

We are hopeful that the government is serious about reaching across the aisle to keep Canadians safe, while protecting our rights and our values.

It can be done. We need sunset clauses. We need a mandatory statutory review, and we definitely need oversight. I am sure both the NDP and Liberal Party will have many amendments to improve the bill in other ways, but the government has to reach across the aisle and allow Parliament to work.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his presentation. It was a good presentation, and I want to compliment him on that.

The problem I have with his presentation, and a problem I have with a lot of the Liberal members' presentations, is the credibility they present them with.

When we see the NDP members present something, we know where they are. We know, for example, that on the long gun registry, they are in favour of putting our farmers and hunters in jail. They are consistent on that. When it comes to dealing with victims of crime or criminals, we know that they will defend the criminal time after time. They are consistent on that.

When I go to Liberal Party, we do not know what its members believe in. They have no policy for us to read. What they do is actively look at the polls and then decide what they are going to say and do.

It is really interesting in this situation. The member says that he wants to be taken seriously. He says that he wants to make a serious presentation. Yet when I look at the history of this member and how he has treated this Parliament, how he has treated the government, how can we look at him seriously when he makes snide remarks like “kids in short pants”, when he has partisan overtones in everything he says in regard to this bill?

There is a book by Dale Carnegie called How to Win Friends and Influence People. If the member was truly serious and the Liberal Party was truly serious about dealing with this issue, would they not take the partisanship away and actually talk about what is in the bill? No, they cannot help themselves. They are so partisan. It is just the way they are.

When will the Liberal Party quit being so partisan and actually do what is right for Canadians and get behind this legislation?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

My, my, Mr. Speaker, that was quite a line.

We have tried to be, and we have to be, non-partisan to a great extent, but we all have our partisan side. This place is a place of active debate and discussion, and so partisanship is going to show through. However, we are talking about national security. We are talking about doing things right.

The member and I fought over the Wheat Board. That is fine. We will put that behind us for the moment. However, I would ask the member to talk to his current House leader. When I was chair of the fisheries committee and the parliamentary secretary, the current House leader and I actually worked together. I think there were 32 motions, 20-some from government members, opposing government policy. They were all debated in public. All but one carried. Most of them were tough on the government, and when we wrote the report, with the member of the opposition, who was the critic at time, we actually sat down together and wrote the report.

This place could come back to that kind of time if the government would allow it. That is what we need to do on the bill. We need to improve it in many aspects, and we definitely need oversight. It is not there.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the hon. member, and I listened to what he was saying here today about oversight and the things that are needed to fix this bill. I have some sympathy for the member's position in a sense, because his leader has said that no matter what the member says, no matter what amendments are made or refused, he is going to vote for the bill.

I wonder why the members of the Liberal Party have abdicated their responsibility as parliamentarians such that when a measure is coming forward that they say they do not agree with, they have committed in advance to voting for it. How is that doing one's parliamentary job?

I just do not understand it. A party that seeks to be in government says, “Well, we are not in government, but we will support the government, even though we are opposed to what it is putting forth”.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the member immensely. I actually quite enjoy being on a number of panels with him.

I think all we really have to do in response to that question is go to the article with the extensive number of signatures in today's Globe and Mail, entitled: “A close eye on security makes Canadians safer”.

Four former prime ministers signed that paper. I did myself, as well as a number of others who have been justice ministers and solicitors general. It is actually calling for more oversight.

The difference between the Liberals and the NDP is that we have been in government. We have made the hard decisions on public safety. We know that there are hard decisions, when the terrorist threat is higher, on public safety issues.

However, when we were in government, we also balanced that legislation. We believe this legislation can be balanced yet again. It can be amended to improve it. It can be balanced with sunset clauses, mandatory reviews, and oversight to make it better legislation to ensure that the security agencies really do what they ought to do.

If that does not happen, if the government does not accept our amendments, then we will put those three key amendments in our election platform, and Canadians will have the opportunity to decide on the balance of national security and civil liberties.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I realize that this issue is a critically important issue, not only for all of us in Parliament but for all Canadians. Sometimes we have to put water in our wine, as the saying goes. We are saying that the most important thing is to make sure that we are reinforcing the security of Canadians.

If we can get some amendments that will protect people's privacy and allow people to have open discussion and debate without having to be fearful of being put in jail and so on and we can get those amendments through, I think we are doing a good thing on behalf of all Canadians.

Would the hon. member like to elaborate a little more on the lawfulness issue and what that would mean to people who would like to be able to go out on a Sunday to join a protest in their neighbourhood? What could actually end up happening if we cannot get our amendments through?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of areas of concern in the legislation that we think go too far.

The member for York West mentioned the fact that it says in the bill:

For greater certainty, it does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression.

The word “lawful” really changes the ability of certain activist groups to show their dissent in many ways. We are going to ask the experts. We may put forward an amendment to remove that word.

In fairness to the House, I think we have between 26 and 30 amendments at the moment on technicalities in the bill. Therein lies the reason we need sound, robust parliamentary hearings with legal experts and people who work in the security field. It is to make sure that we get the bill right in all areas.

I would again emphasize the three key areas we are asking for: sunset clauses to allow certain laws to cease to exist; a statutory mandatory review, so we can look at the good, the bad, and the ugly in the bill down the road; and parliamentary oversight, as our Five Eyes partners have in their democracies around the world.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a certain definition of a word that I am not going to repeat in the House, but it says that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is not the best thing to do.

We adopted an anti-terrorism act in 2001 that lapsed in 2007, which was reconstructed by the Conservatives in 2013, that included most of these measures, but we never used them once, from 2001 to 2007.

What more does this bill bring than what we already have under the Combating Terrorism Act? We have not used it, not even once.

Natural Resources

[John Duncan, Conservative, Minister of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to table documents that highlight our government's ongoing commitment to provide the right conditions in Canada for industries and businesses to succeed and create new, well-paying jobs and economic growth that benefit all Canadians.

As I speak, the Prime Minister is in British Columbia announcing substantial new measures that will allow investors and facilities that liquify natural gas anywhere in Canada to recover their startup capital costs more quickly. These measures will ensure that Canadian natural gas can reach new and growing markets and make it accessible for new domestic uses.

For the benefit of parliamentarians, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, copies of the Prime Minister's announcement, the associated backgrounder, and the text of the regulations that will be enacted to implement these important job and economic growth measures.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I really do not know whether that was a legitimate point of order on the part of the whip for the Conservative Party. That seemed to me to be a ministerial statement.

If the Prime Minister is going to make that announcement, he should be making in the House of Commons. This is where the issue is debated. On the very bill that we are debating today, Bill C-51, the Prime Minister had a grand show in Richmond Hill and went over the top in terms of pointing out that there was terrorism under every rock. That announcement should have been made here, too.

There is a problem with the way the government is operating, and that is that these kinds of announcements should be made in the chamber. which is called the House of Commons, so the official critics in the opposition parties can respond to that right away. This is just getting to be propaganda and messaging on the part of the Prime Minister rather than doing our job in Parliament as we should.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not repeat what my colleague from Malpeque just said, but it would have been in better taste had the government simply tabled the documents without getting into all that propaganda.

It is quite unusual to interrupt a debate that is already subject to a time allocation motion to make this type of announcement.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that we had a point of order. The government whip stood on a point of order and then others tried to interrupt, calling a point of order on a point of order. Procedurally, my understanding is that a member has to ask to speak on a point of order after the person makes the point of order. I am kind of perplexed as to why members would disrespect the rules of the House and why they hate British Columbia.