Debates of Feb. 23rd, 2015

The Environment

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to table a petition from Canadians in support of the New Democrats' climate change accountability bill.

The petitioners state concerns that the government has failed to address climate change and its impacts on the day-to-day lives of Canadians, and the fact that the Government of Canada has cancelled the eco-energy retrofit program, which saves taxpayer dollars.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have received a series of petitions from people in Thunder Bay—Superior North and northwestern Ontario. The petitioners are concerned about the NWMO's, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, plan to bury waste, quite likely in 1 of 15 northern Ontario communities

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to not allow the construction of nuclear waste depositories in northern Ontario, nor the transport of radioactive material through northern Ontario communities.

Agriculture

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition signed by a number of folks in my riding who are calling on the government to adopt international aid policies that support small family farmers, recognizing their vital role in the struggle against hunger and poverty, to ensure that Canadian policies and programs are developed in consultation with these small family farmers and that they protect the rights of small family farmers in the global south to preserve, use and freely exchange seed.

Consumer Protection

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a number of petitions on behalf of the residents of my riding.

The first pertains to abusive credit card and ATM fees. The people of my riding are also calling on the government to do away with the controversial $2 fee that people have to pay to get a paper copy of their bills delivered to their homes.

Agriculture

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on the government to adopt legislation that includes international aid policies that support small farmers, especially women, and recognize their essential role in the fight against hunger and poverty. It also calls on the government to do away with the controversial seed legislation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I bring forward today a petition signed by many of my constituents asking for the government to look at ways in which it could adopt international aid policies that support small family farmers, especially women, and recognize their vital role in the struggle against hunger and poverty.

The petitioners ask that we ensure that policies and programs are developed in consultation with small family farmers and that they protect the rights of small family farmers in the global south to preserve, use and freely exchange seeds.

Shark Finning

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today with two petitions.

The first petition is from hundreds of residents primarily from the Halifax area who call on the government to take action to stop the trade, possession and sale of shark fins in Canada.

We do not fish for shark fins within Canada, but the trade in them from other countries is a threat to millions of the species around the world.

Mining Industry

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

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by residents in my riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands, particularly Victoria.

The petitioners call upon the government to take action, as some private members' bills have attempted to do, on corporate responsibility in the mining sector, particularly for the creation of an ombudsman to investigate complaints, to make findings public and to recommend actions to improve the sustainability and respect for human rights within Canadian mining companies abroad.

The Environment

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition today in support of the climate change accountability act.

The signatories to the petition draw the attention of the House to their concern about the inaction of successive federal governments to address climate change, all the while giving billions of dollars of public money away in the form of oil and gas industry subsidies.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to support the NDP's climate change accountability act, a law that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and hold the government accountable for doing so.

Agriculture

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today from 200 of my constituents in the city of Burnaby and the city of New Westminster as well as a handful of people from Vancouver and Surrey in beautiful British Columbia.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada and the House of Commons to commit to adopting international aid policies that support small family farmers, especially women, and recognize the vital role they play in the struggle against hunger and poverty. They also call upon the Government of Canada to ensure that Canadian policies and programs are developed in consultation with small family farmers and that they protect the rights of small family farmers in the global south to preserve, use and freely exchange seeds.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Anti-terrorism Act, 2015

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join in this critical debate on Bill C-51 as we, like parliamentarians around the world, continue to seek ways of safeguarding our country's security in the face of terrorism, while securing also our rights and freedoms, as we have been grappling with for so many years.

Indeed, after the attacks of September 11, 2001, it was said then that the whole world had changed. Anti-terrorism law and policy became principle and priority not only for our government but for governments everywhere. It was, in fact, mandated by the UN Security Council Resolution 1377, adopted in the months following 9/11, which called upon states to unequivocally condemn “all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, in all their forms and manifestations, wherever and by whomever committed”.

I must state, parenthetically for reasons of time but not unimportantly, that the notion of a parliamentary debate when time allocation has been imposed on this comprehensive and crucial legislation is, to put it mildly, a misnomer.

First, Bill C-51 is not simply one act. It is omnibus anti-terrorist legislation composed of five different acts. It is not just one bill but five bills bundled together into one omnibus legislation of compelling character. Each bill, whether it deals with cross-government information sharing and coordination and enhanced powers for that purpose; or the securing of air travel, or Criminal Code amendments, including lowering thresholds for terrorism-related peace bonds; or expanded powers of detention; or a new offence of knowingly advocating or promoting terrorism or being reckless in that advocacy; or legislation to expand the powers of CSIS, what is referred as “threat disruption activities”; all impact on national security agencies and on those national security powers. There is also, which has almost not been discussed at all, amending the security certificate procedural regime for government appeals of court ordered disclosures.

Underpinning all of this, and tucked away in the information sharing act and provisions, but only there, is an effective reframing of a terrorist threat as a threat to national security, a selective redoing not only of our anti-terrorism law but our national security law, and where a terrorist threat is conflated with a national security threat, which can include also threats to economic and fiscal stability or a threat to the infrastructure and the like. In other words, it is a reframing that is being carried out without the necessary debate on this crucial legislation.

Admittedly, over a decade after 9/11, the world may well have changed again, and we must continue to ensure that the enhanced powers are to be found in our law and vested in our national security agency for purposes of protecting Canadians from terrorist threats with the tools needed to counter those threats. However, what has not changed are the fundamental principles that must underpin our approach to combatting terrorism.

I outlined those principles when I appeared both before the House and Senate justice and public safety committees respectively as minister of justice a decade ago, and I will recall them now in the context of this present parliamentary debate on a new bill, Bill C-51, but reflecting and representing a long-standing global challenge.

Let me summarize the foundational principles.

The first fundamental principle is that there is no inherent contradiction between the protection of our security and the protection of human rights. As I wrote in the wake of October's assault on our parliamentary precinct and of the murders of Corporal Nathan Cirillo and Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, while we often hear about the need to strike a balance between protecting Canadians from attack and protecting individual freedoms, we must remember that these are not mutually exclusive objectives or opposite ends of the spectrum, but rather an appropriate and effective strategy that must view security and rights, not as concepts in conflict, but as values that are inextricably linked.

In other words, terrorism constitutes an assault on the security of our democracy and an assault on our fundamental rights to life, liberty, and security of the person. In this sense, therefore, anti-terrorism law and policy are intended to protect the security of a democracy like Canada and to protect our fundamental rights to life, liberty, and security of the person.

However, the reverse is also true and must be read together as part of this foundational principle, namely, that anti-terrorism law and policy must always adhere to the rule of law and must always comport to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Torture must, everywhere and always, be prohibited. Minorities must never be singled out for differential or discriminatory treatment. Also, as we emphasized 10 years ago when tabling legislation to that effect and as I emphasize again, such anti-terrorism law and policy must also be subject to a comprehensive oversight review and accountability mechanisms.

This leads me to the next principle, which might be called the “contextual principle”. By this, I refer to the approach taken by the Supreme Court, according to which charter rights and any limits imposed on them must be analyzed not in the abstract but in the factual context that gives rise to them. As such, the debate we are having today must be anchored in the reality of the increasingly lethal, if not barbaric, and international nature of terrorism; the proliferation of transnational terrorist entities that invoke Islam at the same time as they subvert it for their purpose; the increasing potential for cyberterrorism; the sophistication of transnational communications, transportation, and financial networks, including the explosive use of social media, which ISIS alone is said to be using 100,000 times a day; the increasing radicalization of those exposed, for example, to these social media, including our Canadian youth; and the potential for what in our recent experiences have been characterized as “lone-wolf terrorists”.

This brings me to the third principle. The third principle is that the threat posed by terrorism, which is increasingly transnational in character, must be part of a global response. Indeed, previous Canadian anti-terrorist measures have implemented international conventions and undertakings mandated by the UN Security Council, which I referred to earlier, and we must continue, therefore, not only to mobilize our domestic legal arsenal against terrorism but also to participate in strengthening international mechanisms to confront this international threat.

Let there be no mistake about it: when we deal with such terrorists, we are dealing with Nuremberg crimes and Nuremberg criminals, with hostis humani generis, with enemies of humankind. Our domestic criminal-law, due-process model standing alone is insufficient. It must be joined with the overall international legal arsenal, and much of our anti-terrorism law and policies in fact must be anchored in the 14 anti-terrorism international treaties for that purpose.

The fourth principle flows from the third one. It is that nonetheless there still is a need for due-process safeguards in the application and implementation of our domestic criminal law. This remains of vital importance and must be included in any foundational underpinnings for this and other anti-terrorism legislation.

The fifth principle is that of proportionality. As the Supreme Court has ruled, there must be a proportionality between the effects of the measures for limiting charter or other rights under this legislation and the objective that has been identified as sufficient importance.

There can be no doubt that the threat of transnational terrorism comports with the first requirement of a proportionality test, namely, that there be a substantial and compelling objective for the limitation of charter and other rights. However, we must still ensure that the measures we enact respect this principle in other ways: they must be tailored specifically to their objective and not be over-broad or vague; they must intrude as little as possible upon our charter rights and other rights, and not undercut any of them; and their impact on civil liberties must not outweigh their remedial character.

This leads me to the sixth principle. We must consider and learn from anti-terrorism measures proposed and enacted in other jurisdictions similar to our own, and indeed from our own previous experiences in this regard. All free and democratic societies are grappling with the same issues we are grappling with today, and their efforts to remain both secure and free must be considered as part of our deliberations.

The seventh principle is the need for counterterrorism measures to focus on prevention. Admittedly, we must seek to disable and dismantle terrorist networks and disrupt terrorist plots before they result in injury and death, and that accounts for the enhanced approach to giving increased power to CSIS. However, it also means that those powers that are invested in CSIS must obey principles of proportionality. It also means intervening to prevent or undo radicalization and supporting local and community initiatives in this regard.

To conclude, we must emphasize the importance of oversight, of an accountability mechanism, and of a parliamentary review mechanism, all of which are missing in the present legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are fundamentally opposed to taking away passports from those who would travel overseas and engage in terrorist activities. In fact, the leader of the Liberal Party went as far as saying it was against Canadian values.

However, with respect to the passenger protect program, we are actually expanding the legislation so that we could issue a no-board order for someone who is suspected of travelling overseas to engage in terrorist activities. As well, there would be certain provisions with regard to terrorism, such as peace bonds. Also, judges could impose conditions, such as surrender of a passport.

My question for the member of the Liberal Party is this: does he agree with his leader that it is against Canadian values, or has he somehow come to the realization that these provisions in the bill are needed and the Liberal Party has decided to support it, or is this a section of the bill that the Liberal Party is actually against?

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I set forth some foundational principles that would apply to this specific issue as well as others. When I said that we need to invest certain powers, I was referring in particular to those that relate to parts of part 3 and to part 4 of the bill. The hon. member has referred to part 2.

This brings me exactly to the point I was saying. The bill has five major pieces of legislation bundled together in omnibus anti-terrorism legislation. I would be delighted if the hon. member, since we cannot do it here in debate, would allow us in committee to address the whole issue of securing air travel, which she mentioned in particular, as well as each of the other facets of this omnibus anti-terrorism legislation, which time does not permit us to address here. I suspect, if precedent be our guide, that we will not be able to do so in committee either.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member has indicated a lot of areas where there should be some oversight. On this side of the House, we believe it is extremely important to have oversight when it comes to CSIS and the RCMP. We need to have that oversight.

However, the Liberal Party is willing to pass the legislation even though that oversight is not there. That is quite problematic. It is willing to do it afterward, either during a federal election by campaigning on it or doing it only later on, when they think they are going to form the government. Well, it is no surprise that we cannot predict the future. We need to ensure that the safety of Canadians is in place, but we also have to make sure that their rights are also protected.

François Lavigne was a CSIS officer. He used to be with the RCMP as well. He spent years tracking dangerous radicals without the powers the government wants to give to CSIS. There are currently powers in place. There are mechanisms, practices, and laws necessary for dealing with terrorists in section 46 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Therefore, I wonder if my colleague could explain why this former CSIS worker is saying we should not be going down this route but Liberals are saying that we should go down this route.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the primary thrust of the hon. member's remarks had to do with the question of oversight mechanisms and the issue of our support for legislation which may not, at the end day, have such an oversight mechanism.

The point is that we are hoping that there will be not only oversight mechanisms but review and accountability mechanisms as well. That is why we are proposing them.

I was one of a number of Canadians who signed on to a statement that was published on February 19 in The Globe and Mail. This statement calls for just such an integrated series of oversight, review, and accountability mechanisms, with Parliament at its core. I would hope that the government, which looks to public opinion and finds that some 80% of Canadians are in support of this bill, will also look to the fact that two-thirds of Canadians also want a robust and integrated oversight mechanism system that has a parliamentary review mechanism and parliamentary oversight at its core as part of overall accountability.

This is something that was called for in the Arar commission, which we as a Liberal government set up. We tabled legislation in 2005 calling for such an oversight mechanism. All parliamentarians agreed to it. We lost the election, and for the last 10 years, the Conservative government has done nothing about implementing that mechanism. I hope the Conservatives will do it now.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to discuss Bill C-51, anti-terrorism act, 2015.

This is important legislation that was developed with much consultation. In the wake of the horrific terrorist attacks this past October, our Conservative government, led by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Public Safety, and the Minister of Justice, consulted with Canadians from coast to coast while they were developing the legislation before us today.

We saw the results of those consultations when statistics come out last week: four out of every five Canadians fully support this legislation. That is because they know that the international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada. Canadians are being targeted by jihadi terrorists simply because they hate our society and the values it represents.

That is why our government has put forward these measures that protect Canadians against the jihadi terrorists, who seek to destroy the very principles that make Canada the best country in the world in which to live. That is also why Canada is not sitting on the sidelines, as some would have us do, and is instead joining our allies and supporting the international coalition in the fight against ISIL. In line with measures taken by our allies, these new measures will specifically ensure that our law enforcement and national securities agencies of Canada counter those who would advocate terrorism, prevent terrorist travel and the efforts of those who seek to use Canada as a recruiting ground, and disrupt planned attacks on Canadian soil.

I 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 protections in this legislation to do exactly that.

It is currently not a criminal offence to advocate or promote terrorism. The ability to arrest someone who in general terms is advocating or promoting the activity of terrorism does not exist. The threshold for arrest under the Criminal Code is specific to someone who knowingly instructs, directly or indirectly, any persons to carry out terrorist activity.

The anti-terrorism act, 2015, makes it an offence to advocate or promote terrorism in broader terms, a measure that is supported by 90% of Canadians, according to a survey done by the Angus Reid Institute. The fundamental fact is that our police and national security agencies are working to protect our rights and our freedoms, and it is jihadi terrorists who endanger our security and would take away our freedoms.

CSIS currently does not have the legal mandate to take action to disrupt threats to Canada in order to keep Canadians safe. When the CSIS Act was originally developed, Soviet espionage was the greatest threat to our national security. Today, violent jihadists are the greatest threats to Canada and Canadians, and the threat continues to evolve. It is imperative that we provide our national security agencies with the tools they require to face this evolving global threat.

Let us look at a case study. A terrorist entity puts up a terrorist-promoting propaganda video on YouTube, which concludes with the words “Attack Canada” on the screen. No description of the kind of attacks to be carried out is given. Under the current law, counselling the commission of a terrorism offence is criminal, whether the attack is carried out or not. However, the counselling must relate to committing a specific terrorist offence, for example, counselling someone to kill someone for a political, religious, or ideological purpose.

In the case study, there is insufficient detail to allow one to conclude that the person was counselling to do a specific terrorism offence in the Criminal Code to kill someone, as opposed to disrupting an essential service. Under the new anti-terrorism act, posting such a video, with its call to carry out attacks in Canada in general, which is a form of active encouragement, would now be caught by the criminal law.

With respect to oversight, I think third-party, non-partisan, independent expert oversight of our national security agencies is a better model than political intervention in the process. Furthermore, the key powers of the new legislation are subject to judicial review and authorization. In fact, any activity that infringes on a person's privacy or charter rights would require a warrant, such as entering a person's home to remove their passport, or tampering with a possible chemical weapon to render it harmless.

I would like to acknowledge the concerns raised by the Liberals and the NDP regarding resources for national security agencies.

Our Conservative government has already increased the resources available to our national security agencies by one third. The Liberals and the NDP voted against these increases each step of the way. Seven times our Conservative government brought forward proposals for more funds for these agencies, and seven times the NDP and the Liberals voted against these measures.

Despite the Liberals' and the NDP's votes against these increases, our government will continue to ensure that our national security agencies have the resources they need to keep Canadians safe.

I mentioned earlier in my comments that Canadians had expressed strong support for the legislation. I would like to take this time to discuss what some prominent Canadians think about the legislation before us today.

CSIS director, Michel Coulombe, said:

Last fall, two terrorist attacks took place in Canada, the first one in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and the second in downtown Ottawa. Since then, the threat has accelerated as extremist groups call for additional attacks on Canada.

[...] CSIS welcomes the introduction of legislation to better enable the government to safeguard the nation's security interests. The new legislation will help CSIS protect Canadian lives from a terrorist threat unprecedented in our country's history.

What is more, Bob Paulson, the Commissioner of the RCMP said, “The recent terrorist attacks on Canada and against our allies have shown us that the threat can materialize rapidly and that we cannot be complacent when it comes to terrorism. The proposed legislation would provide the RCMP with new tools to carry out its national security criminal investigations and, ultimately, to keep Canadians safe”.

Members opposite may say it is a certainty that the national security agencies whose powers would be enhanced would be supportive. They may say that they are interested in a view from the academics.

Queen's University professor, Christian Leuprecht, said:

There's a balance to be struck here between civil liberties and between protecting individual, public, and community safety [...] I think the government is trying very hard to strike a fine line and find a middle ground....

The opposition may say that none of that which I have cited speaks to oversight.

To that, I would answer with comments from Ron Atkey, the first chairman of the Security Intelligence Review Committee. He said:

Some of the instant critics [...] have missed the mark in decrying lack of oversight. [...]

But regarding new powers of terrorism disruption to be given to CSIS, oversight is alive and well.

I would also like to cite S.A. McCartan, a criminal prosecutor, in Ontario. He said:

Canada is alone amongst Western countries in not allowing its spy agencies any powers whatsoever to prevent terror. It is alone in having a spy agency still operating 30 years in the past. It's time to fix that.

Last, I would like to quote two esteemed members of Canada's Jewish community.

David Cape, chair of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, said:

We welcome this legislation which enhances the capacity of authorities to address a growing threat in our society. We are supportive of the Government of Canada's efforts to respond to the terrorist threat in as comprehensive and forceful a way as possible.

Avi Benlolo, of the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, said:

It is especially significant that this new legislation will enable the removal of websites promoting jihad and related materials on the Internet. Jewish communities are a favourite target of jihadis, and the provisions of this bill will do a great deal to help ensure the safety and security of all Canadians as we continue to fight this threat to western democracies [...]

As I said earlier, 82% of Canadians support the legislation.

I am proud to be part of a government that is standing up for the wishes of Canadians, as well as delivering important measures to keep them safe.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his remarks. I am sure that he is acting in good faith, but the problem is that history has proven him wrong.

We are experiencing a new version of October 1970. In October 1970, the government panicked as it scrambled to respond to a terrorist threat, much like the current government is doing now. Parliament voted on a law and the government acted on it. Over 300 people were imprisoned, and it was not until much later that we realized that none of those individuals had any ties to the Front de libération du Québec.

We need only look at the debates I have here in my hand. Jean Marchand said that there were 5,000 FLQ members in Quebec. David Lewis responded that if we wanted to catch them, we had to begin by making sure that our RCMP officers spoke French.

The question is quite simple. Is it not better to have police officers than useless laws that put innocent people in prison?

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising that New Democrats bring forward fearmongering tactics. They talk about an isolated incident that occurred. New Democrats automatically assume that CSIS and the RCMP would be the body to commit abuse and human rights abuses. I think that is an unfair assumption. This is simply speculation, and if, for some reason, serious human rights abuses occur, then not only is SIRC in place as an oversight body, but so too are the courts.

This is a judicial oversight at the front end of the process, and new powers are provided to our judicial authorities to tackle this at the front end. I am confident that they will be quite capable of doing that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, whether it is SIRC or our courts, it has been very clearly illustrated to the Government of Canada that it is just not good enough.

It is not just the Liberal Party or Canadians as a whole who are saying that. We have seen other jurisdictions, including the United States, England, Australia and others that have recognized the value of parliamentary oversight, which is what we have been advocating.

At some point, because of time allocation, the bill will be going to committee sooner as opposed to later. My question to the member is, to what degree does he believe that the government will respond to amendments from the opposition, given its past track record for not accepting opposition motions or amendments?

If there are solid amendments that are supported, does he believe that the government is obligated, at the very least morally, to not only entertain them, but to also allow them to be passed so that we can improve the quality of the legislation that the Liberals are in principle supporting?

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member, that is the purpose of committee work, and that is why we encourage this legislation to get to committee and not be held up in the House.

In my role as a committee member on public accounts and the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, we take the opposition's views quite seriously. We do listen and we bring forward witnesses. The whole purpose of that process is so that we ultimately bring forward good solid legislation.

Although I am not on the public safety committee, I have confidence that all members will take the questions very seriously.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to this bill, though many of my colleagues in the House who would also like an opportunity to speak to such an important bill that mixes security and freedom will not have one because we are under time allocation.

Bill C-51 makes it very clear that the Prime Minister meant what he said when he remarked that we would not recognize Canada when he got through with the bill. The party of one will make sure that this country is not the same after his reign is finished. We will not recognize Canada after Bill C-51 is made law and used for many years. We will not recognize what this bill can do to Canada, including today when we stand to speak about a couple of jihadist threats that have potentially occurred in Canada and speak about the bill in that regard. We will not recognize what the bill would do to Canada because it will come in the actions of CSIS over many years, as CSIS uses its new powers to work in Canadian society and, through Bill C-44, in various ways abroad to change the very nature of Canadian society.

The Conservative Prime Minister has demonstrated time and again that disagreement is not something he tolerates or understands. In fact, we heard the former Public Safety minister Vic Toews call environmentalists eco-terrorists in 2012. The current finance minister, in his time as natural resources minister, basically made the same kinds of remarks.

We live in a world where we know that we have to balance the environment and the economy and where those questions require debate, disagreement and, many times, civil confrontation. Now there would be a new set of rules. It is hard to think that that type of interaction could in any way be a threat to national security when we talk about how we are balancing what we do in this country between the environment and the economy, but that is quite clearly laid out in this bill. It underlies this bill.

This bill would likely create even greater divisions and alienation in our society than exist now. That is generally what happens when there is more authoritarian and secretive behaviour in society, with more opportunities for collusion under the law to take out the people who are not liked or the people who are somehow thought to be threats to Canada.

When one views the government's actions and words of concern about environmentalists, it is understandable that many Canadians are starting to speak up about Bill C-51. Yes, the initial poll showed that a lot of Canadians liked the idea of security against terrorism; but did they understand what was in the bill, and are the Conservatives allowing them to understand that by continuing this debate in the House of Commons? No, they are not. They are closing the debate down because they know darn well that as this debate continues and things come out, others will ask for a better bill and a better understanding of the nature of what the Conservatives are proposing.

To be specific, Bill C-51 threatens our way of life by asking Canadians to choose between their security and their freedoms. It asks Canadians to choose, but the Conservatives do not actually ask Canadians; they simply put this bill forward, apply closure, and send it through committee in very little time. That is what will happen.

A bill like this should take time. We should be at it for months, maybe a year, getting the bill right. We do not have any rush. After Air India, we did not change anything for many years. We did not have significant problems. We are not having significant problems today.

Bill C-51 was not developed in consultation with other parties. That is very much the case. This thing was brought up in a very big rush after October 2014, as we heard commentators from the Conservatives Party say here today.

The bill irresponsibly provides CSIS with a sweeping new mandate without equally increasing oversight. Actually, there is no oversight; there is review, and we need to keep those separate. There is the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which is not an oversight committee but a review committee that looks at things the agency has done long after it is finished. Oversight says more immediacy. The Conservatives say that a judge will do that, but only if CSIS takes it to a judge. In many cases, they may not.

I want to talk about threat disruption, which is an interesting subject. When we think of groups that may be formed to do something the government opposes, like environmental action, CSIS might say, “Then if they might do something unlawful in the future, perhaps we should get involved right now to deal with threat disruption. Maybe we should put a CSIS member into that organization. Maybe we should undermine the organization first before it becomes a problem”. That would fit under the law. That is called threat disruption. If we disrupt something before the unlawful action is taken, how can anyone prove there was unlawful action? This works both ways. We can disrupt people now because we think in the future they may do something wrong.

The bill does not provide anything to make our society work better. The bill does not do anything to build communities, to build understanding—absolutely nothing. It is all secretive. It is all behind the scenes. There is nothing here that says we have a job to do in our society to bring people together.

When we look at the promotion of terrorism, how can we judge that? How can we judge the promotion of terrorism? What is incitement to terrorism? Is it someone saying that their son or daughter has been injured, that they are angry about it and that they do not like what the government has done. Is that incitement to terrorism? What is being suggested in this?

Quite obviously the government has made the bill so large that it simply cannot answer those questions today. How will we answer them in the future? It will only be through the actions of what happens here. If we have oversight by parliamentarians, we may have a chance to control some of the bill going forward. If we do not, then we will rely on non-elected individuals to determine what the bill does, and that is simply wrong.

Why do we not deal with this in a better fashion than what the government has proposed to do? Why did we go in this direction? The party of one is responsible for this. The Prime Minister would not come into Parliament and stand to speak to the bill. He chose to do it somewhere where he did not have anyone to criticize him, to ask him questions. Why would someone make such a large effort to promote the bill without that type of commentary in the House? I really find that wrong-headed, but it is more the style of this Prime Minister, the party of one.

Clearly, we oppose the bill. We will continue to oppose the bill because it is not done right. It will not protect Canadians. It will affect their rights in the future. We do not understand exactly how it will affect their rights, but it will do that without the proper oversight of parliamentarians.