House of Commons Hansard #193 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was railways.

Topics

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-51Routine Proceedings

11 a.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

I think I understand where the member is going, and he is not out of order. If he is going to moving toward the argument that was made by the government House leader, then, of course, he would be out of order since that has already been ruled on. I think I understand where he is going with it. It may be a bit of a stretch, but it is still relevant to the motion before us for debate.

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-51Routine Proceedings

11 a.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB

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

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

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

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

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-51Routine Proceedings

11 a.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, “safety is paramount” for the government, which is what the member just said, yet it has made cutbacks in food safety programs that have put the safety of Canadians at risk. We saw the appalling lack of oversight on rail safety that led to Lac-Mégantic. What an incredibly appalling and irresponsible series of actions by the government. There are 1,200 missing and murdered indigenous women and the government has said that it will not take any actions, that it does not care, that there will be no public inquiry.

Anyone on the government side of the House who says that safety is paramount to the government opens himself or herself up to the very simple series of facts that shows the government has not seemed to care at all about the safety of Canadians, and seems to prove it each and every day. That is tragic for Canadians.

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-51Routine Proceedings

11 a.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

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

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

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

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-51Routine Proceedings

11:05 a.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, of course we agree. That is why the NDP has brought forward a very comprehensive series of amendments that we would hope the government would look to adopt, if the government were being responsible. That is why we are bringing forward the motion of instruction today as well.

However, there must be some sort of reflection on the part of the Liberal members. The Liberal members have heard the same witnesses who the NDP members have heard. They have seen the same outpouring from across the country of people opposing this bad legislation. Yet, the Liberal members are saying that it is bad but they are going to vote for it. That simply belies any common sense approach to the legislation.

As the Leader of the Opposition has said a number of times, principle has to count for something. The Liberals should be voting against the legislation. Until they say that they are going to fight for changes but if those changes do not come, they are going to vote against the legislation, they will have no credibility in their discussions around the bill.

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-51Routine Proceedings

11:05 a.m.

NDP

Paulina Ayala NDP Honoré-Mercier, QC

Mr. Speaker, yes, terrorists do pose a potential threat. However, there is another, even more serious threat. How many jobs have been lost at Future Shop? How many families in Alberta and British Columbia know that they are going to suffer job losses? I think Canadian families are also terrified because they do not know whether the head of the household, the mother or father, will be able to pay the mortgage and continue supporting the family.

My question for my colleague is this: does he think the government is trying to divert Canadians' attention away from their real problems? The government has not even delivered a budget. It is using terrorism to divert attention away from the unemployment problems and the lack of jobs in Canada.

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-51Routine Proceedings

11:05 a.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, the member for Honoré-Mercier is quite right. I applaud her work in the House. She does outstanding work on behalf of her constituents and she is very active on the ground in her riding.

Even the Governor of the Bank of Canada has described Canada's economic situation as “atrocious”. We have a government that has refused to deliver a budget for weeks now, even though some of the provinces have already done so. The Minister of Finance is missing in action; he will not answer any questions in the House and he is not delivering the budget.

Canadians are judging the government on this matter. The government is introducing bills and doing everything in a partisan way, but it is not ready to govern.

We on this side of the House are ready to govern. On October 19, we will have the opportunity to form a responsible government that really puts the interests of Canadians first.

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-51Routine Proceedings

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Corneliu Chisu Conservative Pickering—Scarborough East, ON

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

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

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

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-51Routine Proceedings

11:05 a.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, 25 out of 28 witnesses who were brought forward to the public safety committee by the Conservatives said that the member was absolutely wrong. They said that enhancing oversight was of fundamental importance. They raised the issue of ensuring that the government worked with Canadian communities to counter radicalization.

I am beginning to see what a vast disconnect there is between members of Parliament from the Conservative Party and the witnesses they invited to the public safety committee. They are not even listening to their own witnesses, let alone the public. They are listening to no one, and that has to change.

That is why the Conservatives should be supporting the motion of instruction from the NDP. We have been listening to the public and we have even been listening to Conservative witnesses. We have been doing their job for them.

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-51Routine Proceedings

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Peter Kent Conservative Thornhill, ON

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That the debate be now adjourned.

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-51Routine Proceedings

11:20 a.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-51Routine Proceedings

11:20 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-51Routine Proceedings

11:20 a.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-51Routine Proceedings

11:20 a.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-51Routine Proceedings

11:20 a.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

All those opposed will please say nay.

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-51Routine Proceedings

11:20 a.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-51Routine Proceedings

11:20 a.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #369

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-51Routine Proceedings

Noon

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I declare the motion carried. The House will now resume with the remaining business under routine proceedings.

AsbestosPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

Noon

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition signed by literally tens of thousands of Canadians.

The petitioners call upon the House of Commons and Parliament here assembled to take note that asbestos is the greatest industrial killer the world has ever known and that more Canadians now die from asbestos than all other industrial and occupational causes combined.

They therefore call upon Parliament to ban asbestos in all of its forms, end all government subsidies of asbestos, and stop blocking international health and safety conventions designed to protect workers from asbestos, such as the Rotterdam Convention.

Seafood IndustryPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

Noon

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from thousands of people across the country who are concerned about overfishing and destructive fishing practices that are threatening marine life in the ocean.

The petitioners say that over 120 million people are dependent on fish as part of their income but, over the last century, fish populations have dramatically declined. They say that Canadian consumers want sustainable seafood options and that Canadian seafood industries are providing increased opportunities for consumers to make sustainable seafood purchases.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to declare March 18 as national sustainable seafood day.

AgriculturePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

Noon

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK

Mr. Speaker, I have noted that a number of members of Parliament across all party lines and from all parts of the country have been filing petitions with respect to the rights of farmers and their use, reuse, exchange and selling of seeds. I have another of those petitions, signed by various people across Saskatchewan, including a number in White City, Saskatchewan.

The petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada to enshrine in legislation the inalienable rights of farmers and other Canadians to save, reuse, select, exchange and sell seeds.

The EnvironmentPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

Noon

NDP

Matthew Kellway NDP Beaches—East York, ON

Mr. Speaker, on this day, the deadline for Canada to submit its climate action plan in advance of the Conference of the Parties in December of this year, I am pleased to present a petition with respect to the climate change accountability act.

The signatories to this petition are concerned about the inaction of the federal government to address climate change and the impacts of climate change on their day-to-day lives.

They call on the federal government to support the NDP's climate change accountability act, a law that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and hold the government accountable.

AgriculturePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

Noon

Liberal

Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents from the Margarees—East Margaree, Margaree Harbour, Margaree Centre—and Belle Cote.

The petitioners have expressed a great deal of concern with multinational seed companies that are gradually replacing the immense diversity of farm seeds by industrial varieties. There was a ratification of UPOV 91, which further advanced the concern on this.

They call for the Government of Canada to adopt international aid policies and support small family farmers, especially women, and recognize their vital role in the struggle against hunger and poverty. They want to advocate that the Canadian government present policies and programs that are developed in consultation with small family farmers to ensure there is a use and free exchange of seeds.

The EnvironmentPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

NDP

Kennedy Stewart NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition to the Government of Canada on the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to immediately act to prevent this new oil pipeline from proceeding through Burnaby. I read this on the same day that six municipalities are calling on the federal government to suspend the National Energy Board process because it is unfair, including to people from Burnaby who are signing the petition.