Debates of Feb. 23rd, 2015

Anti-terrorism Act, 2015

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course we must provide parliamentary oversight. I already raised this issue with the Standing Committee on National Defence when I was a member of that committee.

However, the Liberals support this bill and are saying that they will propose amendments to correct its major flaws, even though they know full well that the government will reject all their amendments without even reading them. Since the beginning of this Parliament, the government has accepted roughly six opposition amendments to its bills. I wish the Liberals luck in getting their amendments adopted.

It is extremely hypocritical of the Liberal Party to support the bill despite its major flaws and even though the government rejects all its amendments. I do not know whether the Liberal Party is doing so because it did more than just spy on people when it was in office, especially during the October crisis and the referendum period in Quebec. Nonetheless, this is very hypocritical of the Liberals and I am sorry that they are not taking a stand on this bill.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my voice to the debate on Bill C-51, the anti-terrorism act, 2015.

The international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada. We have tabled this important legislation to stop terrorists dead in their tracks before they can harm law-abiding Canadians. The legislation before us contains a number of provisions that work toward a common goal, which is to protect Canada and Canadians. It is a broad approach to a global program that has reached our doorsteps.

I will focus my remarks today on important amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, commonly known as IRPA, and specifically to Division 9 of the act.

As members of the House know, IRPA sets out the legal framework for Canada's immigration and refugee programs. Our immigration programs serve a number of purposes, including enriching the social and cultural fabric of Canada, reuniting families, and strengthening our economy.

However, the immigration program also plays a fundamental role in maintaining the integrity of our borders and safeguarding our national security. In this respect, the government must sometimes turn to Division 9 of IRPA, which contains mechanisms that allow the government to use and protect classified information when deciding whether a non-citizen can enter or remain in Canada.

Indeed, Division 9 mechanisms and their predecessors have been used for more than three decades. These include security certificates before the Federal Court and applications for non-disclosure before the Immigration and Refugee Board and the Federal Court.

Certificates commonly known as “security certificates” are perhaps the most well-known proceeding under Division 9. They are used in exceptional circumstances when classified information is required to establish that a non-citizen is inadmissible to Canada for serious grounds of security, human or international rights violations, or serious or organized criminality.

The information involved in these cases, which we commonly refer to as “classified information”, cannot be disclosed publicly because doing so would injure national security or endanger the safety of a person. The certificate is signed by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. It is then referred to the Federal Court. If the Federal Court determines the certificate is reasonable, it becomes a removal order that is in force.

The system includes strong safeguards. There is broad judicial discretion to ensure the overall fairness of the proceedings. Furthermore, since 2008, special advocates who are non-governmental lawyers with the required security clearance to handle classified information protect the interests of non-citizens during the closed portions of the proceedings.

In 2014 the Supreme Court of Canada found that the security certificate regime provides for a fair and constitutional process. Today we see that the recent phenomenon of individuals travelling abroad to engage in terrorist-related activities reinforces the need for Division 9 proceedings. In some of these cases, Division 9 may be the only mechanism available to pursue immigration proceedings against non-citizens so that they are unable to obtain or retain an immigration status, such as a permanent residency, and pursue their removal from Canada.

Given the nature of the global threat environment, it is critical that the government be able to rely on effective and fair mechanisms to protect classified information in immigration proceedings before the courts and the Immigration and Refugee Board. Therefore, we believe that it is important to make limited and targeted changes to Division 9.

Recent Division 9 cases have shown that there are times when classified information has become part of a case, even when it was irrelevant, repetitive, or not used by the government to prove its allegations. It also did not allow the persons subject to the proceedings to be reasonably informed of the case against them. The lack of clarity in Division 9 with respect to what information needs to form part of a case has increased the length of time needed to complete these proceedings. This is inconsistent with the legislative obligation to ensure expediency in these cases.

Classified information must always be handled according to specific procedures distinct from those used to handle unclassified information. These procedures are meant to protect the classified information and reduce the risk of its being compromised. The current lack of clarity in Division 9 has also resulted in classified information becoming part of the court proceedings even though it was not used or needed. This is inconsistent with the need to reduce the risk of information being compromised.

Furthermore, as it stands now, an appeal or judicial review of an order to publicly disclose classified information can only take place at the end of the proceedings. By the time this appeal could take place, it would be too late, as the information could have already been disclosed publicly. This disclosed information then could result in injuring national security or endangering people.

To avoid releasing information, the government may elect to withdraw from the proceedings the classified information that has been ordered to be publicly disclosed, which could potentially weaken the case. The government could also withdraw the allegations against the person, but this is inconsistent with the need to ensure that we pursue all avenues to deny entry and status to individuals who are inadmissible to Canada, especially for serious reasons such as treason.

That brings me to the amendments found within Bill C-51, which are designed to address these challenges.

First, we intend to amend Division 9 to clarify what classified information forms part of a security certificate before the federal courts in cases involving classified information before the Immigration and Refugee Board.

This would include information that is relevant to the case, that forms the basis of the case—in other words, information upon which the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration rely—and that allows the person to be reasonably informed of the case against them.

Relevant information that is not relied upon would also be provided to specific advocates, but this information would not automatically be included as evidence in the case. To ensure fairness, special advocates would have discretion to review this information and determine if some of it should also be included as evidence.

This would codify a practice that has evolved over time in Division 9 cases since the Supreme Court's decision on security certificates in 2008. It would help provide more certainty as to how these cases are being conducted, thus reducing the amount of time needed for these cases and making the process more expedient and fair for the person.

The regime would also be amended to allow the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to ask a judge to be exempted from providing some relevant classified information to the special advocates that is now relied on and which does not reasonably inform the person of the ministers' case.

To be clear, a judge would make this decision and would have broad discretion to communicate with special advocates as required. Special advocates could also make submissions to the court as to whether the exemption should be granted. The judge would only grant the exemption if he or she were satisfied that the information did not enable the person to be reasonably informed of the ministers' case.

The final measure we are taking is to allow the government to appeal or to seek judicial review of orders to publicly disclose information that it considers injurious to national security or the safety of any person during Division 9 proceedings rather than at the end of those proceedings. This will provide another opportunity to argue before the court that this information should not be made public.

The changes we are making to protect Canadians are important. I encourage all members of the House to support Bill C-51.

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

Mr. Speaker, we need to reiterate that Canadians do not have to sacrifice security over their rights. It has to be both. I am wondering if the member is aware that there is already legislation in place under the Criminal Code, in section 46, that takes on all of the concerns the Conservatives are indicating are their reasons for bringing the bill forward.

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness says Canada will not be intimidated. Why is it, then, that today we are debating a bill that actually says, yes, we are being intimidated? I think that is atrocious.

The government says it is investing all of this money. All the Conservatives are talking about is how much they have invested. They are not talking about how much they spent, because if we look at how much they spent, we see that it certainly is not the appropriate amount of money that they have actually invested.

On that note, it is about security and about the proper tools. Those tools are currently in place and can be used. Could the member tell me how many times since 2001 the government has resorted to the recognizance with condition provisions that allow police to make preventive arrests?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her question, but obviously it has been vetted by her party, which unfortunately opposes protecting Canada and Canadians.

It is currently not a criminal offence to advocate or promote terrorism. The New Democrats want that to stay. The ability to arrest someone who is in general terms advocating and promoting the activity of terrorism does not exist. The New Democrats want that to stay.

The threshold for arrest in the Criminal Code is specific to someone who knowingly instructs, directly or indirectly, any person to carry out terrorist activities. The anti-terrorism act, 2015, would make it an offence to advocate or promote terrorism in broader terms:

Every person who, by communicating statements, knowingly advocates or promotes the commission of terrorism offences in general—other than an offence under this section—while knowing that any of those offences will be committed or being reckless as to whether any of those offences may be committed, as a result of such communication, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.

We are trying to protect Canada and Canadians. We are at war with terrorism and need to act accordingly. To do nothing, as the New Democrats suggest, is irresponsible. It is not what Canadians want nor what Canada needs.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the security of Canadians and the protection of their rights and freedoms is important to the Liberal Party. It is something that we have been advocating for since the government brought forward this legislation. One of the ways in which the government can best address the concerns of the Liberal Party and what Canadians as a whole expect of the government is to provide clear oversight.

We are calling on the government to recognize the importance of parliamentary oversight. This is something that the U.S.A., England, and Australia have already done. The question for the member is this. Why not Canada? Why not have parliamentary oversight here in Canada to ensure the rights and freedoms of all Canadians?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do acknowledge that the Liberal member is consistent in believing that national security will work out, that everything will work out, that the economy will manage itself and everyone will live in harmony and love. However, that is not reality.

War has been declared against Canada and we are taking appropriate action. Creating a carbon tax and hiring more bureaucracy to manage this would be irresponsible. It would not protect Canadians. What we would do as a result of this this legislation, Bill C-51, needs to be supported by every member of the House.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, we heard the opposition members talking about resources. In my intervention, I mentioned that our government has already increased the resources available for national security by one-third. Of course, the New Democrats voted against that increase.

Would the member comment on this? It is not only about resources but about the fact that this legislation would also allow for tools that would enable us to do more with the resources we have so that we would not be asking our law enforcement agencies and security intelligence services to deal with this threat with one hand tied behind their backs.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right. I want to thank him for serving Canada over the years, not only as a police officer formerly but also here as a member of Parliament.

We have increased the resources available, but every time the New Democrats and the Liberals have opposed this. We want to have a strong and safe Canada, and Bill C-51 would give our police and security forces and CSIS the tools they need.

Thalidomide Victims

[Manon Perreault, Independent, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thalidomide victims are grateful to all members of Parliament for unanimously adopting a motion to give the victims financial compensation for the injustices against them and their years of pain and suffering.

However, the government has to make arrangements to ensure that the compensation promised is paid out as soon as possible. The victims cannot wait any longer. A woman in Montcalm called to thank us for the motion adopted in December, but now she is asking if we are going to keep our promise and how long that will take.

I am calling on the government to do everything it can to compensate the thalidomide victims without further delay. Madam Minister of Health, it is your responsibility to get the ball rolling so that the thalidomide victims do not have to wait any longer.

It is high time to put words into action.

Business Excellence Awards

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my riding is well-known for its innovative and entrepreneurial culture. One of the key drivers of our success is the Greater Kitchener Waterloo Chamber of Commerce. Its annual Business Excellence Awards celebrate outstanding companies, individuals, and organizations.

I am pleased to recognize this year's recipients and their awards, as announced at last week's gala: Maureen Cowan, community leader; Al Hayes, volunteer of the year; Lesley Warren, young entrepreneur; Wilfrid Laurier University, environment and sustainability; Economical Insurance, employee engagement; Drayton Entertainment, tourism; St. Mary's General Hospital, innovation; Chicopee Ski & Summer Resort, non-profit; Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro, workplace health and wellness; and in the three business of the year categories: Zoup!, Caudle's Catch Seafood, and Ontario Drive & Gear.

I congratulate all winners and I thank the chamber for promoting business excellence in our community.

The Environment

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while considering the Kinder Morgan proposal that would drastically increase tanker traffic off the coast of my riding of Victoria, Conservatives stood by as the National Energy Board limited public input and cross-examination by intervenors, including the NDP. They gutted long-standing environmental protections and continue to ignore climate change. Now, they are again standing by as Kinder Morgan is allowed to keep its plans for oil-spill recovery secret from the people of Victoria and all British Columbians—the very kind of plans that are routinely available across the border in Washington state.

This deplorable secrecy does no favour to the resource industry, which depends on social licence from first nations and from communities small and large, who are being trampled by a government that allows our resources to be sold at any price.

Canadians deserve laws that protect us from toxic spills, make polluters pay, and rise to the challenge of climate change, and they deserve a government with a plan to invest resource revenue in the public interest and to build an advanced low-carbon economy powered by renewable energy.

Charity Hockey Game

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, February 15 was an exciting day in Newmarket—Aurora. Not only was it the 50th birthday of Canada's national flag, it was also the Battle of York charity hockey game between the Newmarket Hurricanes and the Aurora Tigers.

The annual matchup between the junior A hockey club rivals, hosted by the Newmarket Hurricanes, has raised an impressive $111,000 to date. Dozens of individuals donated their time and resources to make the Battle of York 2015 one of the most successful yet. This year's proceeds will go toward the cancer centre at Southlake Regional Health Centre.

It was a thrilling game, played during this Year of Sport in Canada. With hundreds of fans cheering players on both sides, it was more than just a game; it was sport at its finest, bringing hockey lovers and community together together for a tremendous cause.

I congratulate all the players involved and to the Newmarket Hurricanes and the Aurora Tigers junior A hockey clubs on a job well done.

Acts of Bravery

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize three young men from Marystown, in my riding of Random—Burin—St. George's.

The heroic actions of 18-year-old TJ Fitzpatrick and Justin Saunders and 17-year-old James Stapleton saved the lives of three people from almost certain death in a blaze that destroyed a hotel in the early morning of February 16.

When TJ noticed smoke coming from the hotel, he alerted the local fire department. While waiting for the fire department to arrive, he and his two friends forced their way into the building. Once inside the smoke-filled hotel, the trio made their way into rooms, looking for sleeping guests.

It was because of their efforts that two guests staying at the hotel and the receptionist were safely led from the building. Just 20 minutes after TJ came upon the scene, the hotel was completely engulfed in flames.

When asked about their actions, they said they just did what anyone else would do in the same situation: “You don't think about yourself. You just think about who might be inside.”

I ask all members to join me in recognizing the bravery shown by TJ Fitzpatrick, Justin Saunders, and James Stapleton.

Trinity Western University

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are shocked to find out that an organization is attempting to deny Canada's brightest students the right to work in Canada because of their religious views.

The Bank of Montreal has been discriminating against Trinity Western University students. BMO has aggressively opposed TWU law school graduates from practising law in Canada. This is one of Canada's largest banks. Why is it attacking religious freedoms?

Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms confirms and protects our religious freedoms. Both the Supreme Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia have upheld these democratic rights. The Supreme Court has said that our religious freedoms should be permitted to exist and should be encouraged to thrive.

Canadians want their rights and freedoms to be taken seriously. They do not want a big national bank to bully a small private university. Canadians want their banks to focus on what they are there for, to focus on the economy and to provide financial assistance to Canadians.

We call on the Bank of Montreal to reverse its discriminatory position and respect the religious freedoms of all Canadians.

Health

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Welland Hospital, in my riding, is under threat of closure. Last month, about 70 people gathered at the Welland Civic Square for a meeting organized by the Niagara Health Coalition and launched a petition to save Welland Hospital.

I fully support the efforts being made to save Welland Hospital and the services people rely on. I would like to thank the many people who have taken the initiative and been involved in the campaign.

Welland Hospital serves 51,000 city residents, as well as the communities of Port Colborne, Fort Erie, Pelham, and Wainfleet, meaning that almost 100,000 people rely on Welland Hospital.

The Niagara Health System says it is too expensive to maintain the number of existing hospitals in the Niagara region. Having two hospitals or maybe just one will save millions of dollars in operating costs, it says. It might be true, but it shows that we are not making health care the priority it really deserves to be.

We are beginning to see in Welland and Niagara the impact of the continuing neglect of health care by successive governments, both Liberal and Conservative, here in Ottawa. The Conservative government's $36 billion cut to health care transfer payments is affecting real lives in my community.

We need better health care. We need to give it the attention it deserves. A healthy, productive community relies on easily—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. The hon. member for Oakville.

Telecommunications

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the world is waking up to the potential health risks of electromagnetic radiation from cellular phones, Wi-Fi, baby monitors, iPads, and other tablets.

France banned Wi-Fi in daycare centres and elementary schools and, for older children, teachers must turn off Wi-Fi when it is not being used for teaching. The Israeli Knesset has ordered radiation testing in all Israeli schools, banned Wi-Fi from preschools and kindergartens, and restricted its use to one hour a day for students up to Grade 3. Taiwanese lawmakers have banned the use of electronic devices for children under two altogether, and parents who allow older children to use iPads and smart phones face fines.

Oakville-based Canadians 4 Safe Technology is on the Hill today with cancer expert Dr. Anthony Miller to address the potential harms from wireless radiation.

Manufacturers' safety warnings are hidden in fine print in tiny booklets that most users never see. My private members' bill, Bill C-648, would make sure that Canadians can see the safety warnings they deserve to see so that they can use wireless devices safely.

Rideau Canal

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in ongoing efforts to attract more boaters to the Rideau Canal, much of which runs through my riding of Leeds—Grenville, Parks Canada is operating a two-for-one deal at the beginning of the upcoming season.

From May 15 to June 30 this year, boaters who purchase a single lock and return permit or a one-day permit will receive a second one free. Boaters can purchase the permits and receive their second at any lock station along the canal. This applies to both motorized and non-motorized boats.

This promotion builds upon our government's continuing efforts and commitments to this historic waterway. Last year, we concluded an extensive visitors' experience study, which is leading to further investment in the canal and extended operating hours.

I encourage everyone to visit Burritts Rapids, Merrickville, Rideau Ferry, Portland, Westport, Newboro, Chaffey's Lock, Jones Falls, Seeleys Bay, and many other places along the canal, and get to see what the canal has to offer families and visitors alike.

Friends of Sébastien Métivier Foundation

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the name of a young boy from the Hochelaga-Maisonneuve area will be forever etched in our minds. Sébastien Métivier disappeared 30 years ago at the age of eight. The body of his friend, Wilton Lubin, who was 12, was found, as was the body of Maurice Viens, a four-year-old boy, but Sébastien was never found.

His mother and sister never gave up. They continued looking for him and they created Les amis de Sébastien Métivier, a foundation to provide support and assistance to the families of other missing or murdered children.

Thanks to the commitment and generosity of these two women and the directors of the Repos Saint-François d'Assise cemetery, these parents will now have a place, a monument, where they can gather and where those who sadly do not have the means can bury their children.

Congratulations and thank you, Christiane Sirois and Mélanie Métivier. You are extraordinary women.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, the civilian review and complaints commissioner for the RCMP finally released his report into the RCMP's handling of the June 2013 flood in High River, Alberta.

Members will recall that both the Canadian military and the RCMP were called upon to undertake a search and rescue operation in response to the devastating flood situation there. However, long after the town was secured those efforts by the RCMP changed into forcibly entering homes and seizing legally owned firearms and ammunition. The report confirms that hundreds of those firearms were taken without the legal authority to do so.

Back in June of 2013, our government raised the alarm after hearing reports that firearms were being seized by the RCMP. Law-abiding Canadians should never face unlawful search and seizure of their personal property. The RCMP clearly has a long road ahead of it in restoring the reputation with law-abiding gun owners. Some accountability in light of the report's finding would be a good start.

Bank Fees

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, we organized a day of action on affordability in Joliette. The day was a huge success, and lots of people joined me to say that we expect more from a responsible government.

The NDP wants to limit credit card interest rates and reduce ATM fees. The banking sector is not very strictly regulated, and at a time when we are all being asked to tighten our belts, there is no reason to let this economic sector get ever richer at the expense of small depositors. Instead of 19% interest rates and $3 transaction fees, we think the maximum interest rate should be prime plus 5%, and transaction fees should be no more than 50¢.

Those are the kinds of solid ideas that bring the people of Joliette together. Our day of action on Saturday was amazing. I am happy to see that our community is willing to take action to make change, one step at a time.

Taxation

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, our government's responsible resource development plan is creating jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for all Canadians. That is why I am proud to be part of a government that recognizes the importance of creating the best fiscal conditions for energy investment and development.

The natural resource sector supports 1.8 million jobs, contributes toward nearly 20% of our economy and provides government revenue for important programs like health care, education and infrastructure, in contrast with the high tax and spend agenda of the Liberals and the NDP, who would both implement a carbon tax that would raise the price of everything.

Our low-tax plan is delivering results for Canadians by creating jobs and economic growth from coast to coast to coast. Residents in my riding expect our government to ensure that our natural resources are developed for the benefit of future generations of Canadians. I am proud to say we are doing just that.

Premier of Prince Edward Island

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, about four hours ago, the 32nd premier of Prince Edward Island was sworn in. We now have the distinction of not only having the first ever female premier in Canada, but the first ever premier who got his Order of Canada before becoming premier.

Wade MacLauchlan transformed the University of Prince Edward Island as the president of UPEI from 1999 to 2011. Prior to that, he was the dean of the UNB law school and prior to that he taught law at Dal, where one of his more under-accomplished students was me, although that should not be held against him.

He grew up in rural Prince Edward Island, where he began and developed his entrepreneurial spirit selling newspapers. Now he will be selling Canada's smallest and nicest province in his self-described role as optimist in chief.

The theme of his leadership campaign was “People, Prosperity and Engagement”. He urged all to raise the level of debate and to call on people's better nature, which is something we could certainly learn from here.

I invite the House to join me in welcoming the 32nd premier of the Province of Prince Edward Island as he leads Canada's smallest and nicest province. As his dad, Harry, would say “It's a great day”.

Taxation

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, New Brunswickers are deeply concerned about an apparent new Liberal plan that would allow provincial Liberals to raise taxes and tolls without getting the consent of New Brunswickers with a referendum. This is exactly what Liberals do. They raise taxes and take money from average Canadians.

At the federal level, in addition to the Liberal carbon tax to raise the cost of everything, it has been exposed that the federal Liberal leader will reverse our tax cuts that help Canadians. Perhaps only someone with a trust fund could understand how middle-class Canadians could afford these higher taxes and higher costs on everything.

We reject the high tax and high debt Liberal plan. Our government stands with hard-working New Brunswickers and Canadians who want to keep taxes low. We will continue to work to put money back into the pockets of hard-working Canadians and New Brunswickers, where it belongs.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, as the great Bill Blaikie once said, “It's not about where you sit, it's about where you stand”, and tonight we will see where MPs stand on this overarching, vague and dangerous bill, Bill C-51, a bill that has been condemned by experts, editorial boards and average Canadians. It would provide the Canadian Security Intelligence Service with a sweeping new mandate to disrupt—and that is the key word, “disrupt”—the actions of Canadian citizens.

In question period, the minister has refused to explain what kinds of actions this new mandate would allow. The Conservatives have also been unable to explain why these and other new measures in the bill are necessary or how they would have prevented past attacks.

We cannot save our freedoms by sacrificing them. We cannot do as the Liberals are and pledge a vote for draconian legislation before even reading it.

The New Democrats have a different vision. We will stick to our principles and oppose this bill. We will not allow anyone to bully us away from standing by our principles and defending the freedoms and liberties that define our Canadian way of life.