House of Commons Hansard #194 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was segregation.

Topics

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

Vote #374

Parliament of Canada ActPrivate Members' Business

7:05 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

I declare the motion defeated.

Order, I wish to inform the House that because of the delay, there will be no private members' business hour today.

Accordingly, the orders are postponed to later sittings.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Public SafetyAdjournment Proceedings

7:05 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on adjournment proceedings to pursue a question I asked the Prime Minister on February 18. The response came from the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. The response was not responsive.

On February 18, having been opposing Bill C-51 in this place since February 2, I welcomed with open arms the decision of the official opposition to join me in opposing this quite terrible piece of legislation. I also rose to defend the official opposition, as I discovered through question period that every question was premised on the notion that if a member opposed Bill C-51, he or she was one of two things, either someone who had not read the bill or someone who was ideologically opposed to everything the Conservative Party stood for.

I asked the Prime Minister

Public SafetyAdjournment Proceedings

7:05 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

There are a whole bunch of conversations going on here that do not need to be in the House. Please take them outside. I am having some great difficulty hearing the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Public SafetyAdjournment Proceedings

7:05 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the order in the House.

My point on February 18 was how the Conservative Party would reconcile the notion that people who opposed Bill C-51 had not read it or were ideologically opposed to the Conservative Party, when at that point, the editorial position of The Globe and Mail, based on having read the bill, based on the detail that was found in their editorials, and also as a newspaper that generally has endorsed the current leader of the Conservative Party, the Prime Minister, time and time again, did not seem to fit the talking points.

Since that time, the National Post editorial board has also come out against Bill C-51 as rushed and dangerous. Voices, hardly of the left, such as Conrad Black, on the pages of the National Post, said that if Bill C-51 was passed, this country would become, in his words, “an unrecognizable despotism”.

There have also been voices of caution from people such as Rex Murphy. Then, in a more non-partisan sense, we have had the warnings of four former prime ministers, five former Supreme Court justices, and over 100 legal scholars.

In the face of all that opposition, and more, such as the Canadian Bar Association and others, we had the travesty of what was considered a hearings process for Bill C-51. Witness after witness was pushed through quickly.

I would remind the House that back in 2001, when the first anti-terrorism legislation was passed, we certainly did not take a long time to do it after 9/11, but there were witnesses, and they were not insulted. There were witnesses, and they were heard. There were questions from parliamentarians, who were actually interested in the information, not in just shutting down debate, as the parliamentary secretary did over and over again, talking through the time when she might have asked a question to instead attack the people in the room or to presume that she could explain the bill away, explain the problems away.

Having been through this process, I have to say that it is the least respectful, most appalling, anti-democratic treatment of any bill in the history of this country. I have never seen such a travesty of a fake review of legislation, such a bulldozer to push something atrocious through this House.

As a member of Parliament, I am entitled to sit in committees. I then had to sit through clause by clause, where I was coerced into appearing because of a motion passed by that committee that insisted that members like me show up in committee to speak to each motion we make, each amendment, for 60 seconds, but then we were attacked and insulted and treated as though anyone who sees the flaws in this legislation must favour terrorists over Canadians.

This kind of insulting, offensive rhetoric in a parliamentary committee reviewing legislation that offends our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is completely unacceptable.

When will the Conservatives learn that it is not just voices of opposition parties but a wide consensus of Canadians, from the left, from the right, from legal professionals, and from former prime ministers, who say, “Do not pass this bill”?

Public SafetyAdjournment Proceedings

7:10 p.m.

Scarborough Centre Ontario

Conservative

Roxanne James ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to rise in the House this evening to discuss Bill C-51, the anti-terrorism act, 2015. As we heard from credible witnesses at committee, this is an important bill to ensure the safety and security of Canadians, which remains this government's top priority. The threat of terrorism is all too apparent in the wake of events in Canada and around the world. The committee that studied the bill repeatedly heard that the threat was real, that it had grown and that it was evolving.

Our government needs to evolve with that threat, which is exactly what Bill C-51 proposes to do. The proposed measures in Bill C-51 will ensure that the government is better able to protect Canadians and Canadian values, such as freedom, democracy and tolerance. This is a comprehensive package of measures that will provide our security and law enforcement agencies with the tools and flexibility they need to more effectively detect and disrupt national security threats before they can harm Canadians.

First, it would ensure that information relevant to national security would be shared and actioned in an effective and responsible manner. Second, the bill would enhance the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in order to better address the threats to the security of our country. The bill would also bolster the protection of information in immigration proceedings when disclosing the information would be injurious to national security or endanger the safety of any person. Fourth, Bill C-51 would further mitigate threats to transportation security and prevent air travel for the purpose of engaging in terrorism.

Additionally, the legislation would better enable police to detain suspected terrorists and to prevent threats. This is a measure that every police representative and person in national security intelligence who appeared before the committee stressed was an important tool to all of them. Although the opposition and the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands have refused to listen to the police testimony regarding the importance of these tools, our government has, and we will provide them to our law enforcement and national security agencies to ensure they can prevent terrorist attacks from taking place in this country.

Finally, the bill would provide witnesses and national security proceedings with additional protection.

These legislative enhancements mirror many of the same authorities already available to our closest allies, including the United Kingdom and Australia.

Bill C-51 will serve as an important step forward in our country's counterterrorism capabilities and reinforce our commitment to protecting Canadians at home and abroad. In doing so, it would also ensure that adequate safeguards would be in place to protect the rights of Canadians. Most important, the measures would be implemented under Canada's already existing robust security review mechanisms and institutions.

Freedom and security go hand in hand. The provisions within Bill C-51 are designed to protect both. The highest responsibility of our government is to keep Canadians safe and keep our country secure. Although the opposition is unable to come to grips with the need to stop the terrorist plague known as the Islamic State, we will not stand on the sidelines as Canadians are threatened, either at home or from abroad.

Canada's national security institutions require modern tools to counter modern threats. I urge all members to support Bill C-51 and stand behind the work of our law enforcement and national security agencies.

Public SafetyAdjournment Proceedings

7:15 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. parliamentary secretary that I listened to the witnesses, although I was not allowed to ask them a single question. Even when the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca gave up a point in his minutes to allow me to ask a question, the hon. parliamentary secretary denied me the opportunity. I do not know why the Conservatives were so afraid of my questions.

I have read the bill and I have studied it. I agree with the Canadian Bar Association and with security experts.

Let me stress this one point in the seconds I have left. The bill would not make Canadians safer. It would make us less safe. It would unleash CSIS as a secret agency to disrupt affairs without any obligation to report its activities to the RCMP, and with no pinnacle of security operations to ensure that Canadian border security, the RCMP, CSEC and CSIS know what each other are doing.

As the hon. former Justice John Major of the Supreme Court said, when we have agencies such as this operating in isolation and in silos, mistakes will happen. That is how Air India happened. This bill would make us less safe.

Public SafetyAdjournment Proceedings

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, all members of this House believe strongly in Canadian values. Freedom, democracy, and the rule of law are bedrocks of Canadian society and so, too, is security.

The important functions of the Privacy Commissioner and Auditor General continue to be respected in ensuring accountability for government activities related to this bill. These are effective institutions, which have served Canadians well. Although, yesterday, the member dismissed as nonsense departmental officials' clarifications regarding the misinformation being spread, we respect our hard-working officials and their expertise, along with the dozens of witnesses who appeared before the committee to explain why the legislation is absolutely critical.

While the opposition continues to work to handcuff our police and blindfold our national security agencies, and fails to support measures to protect Canadians, our government will continue to do the complete opposite to ensure that law enforcement and national security agencies have the tools necessary to protect national security and every single Canadian in this country.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:15 p.m.

Green

Bruce Hyer Green Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party, Liberal Party, and NDP have a chance to improve their environmental policies and likely their election chances.

Prominent economists and policy advisors from across North America and the political spectrum have recommended carbon fee and dividend as a good way to slow the progress of climate change and the best way to price carbon. Even Preston Manning, one of Canada's most respected Conservatives, has called for a price on carbon.

Canadian C02 emissions have been rising for decades under both the Conservatives and the Liberals. Stalling this issue into the future will only worsen our problem. Canada is one of the highest C02 polluters per person in the world. We have an obligation to our children and grandchildren to deal with this problem now.

Environmental issues have often taken a back burner in Liberal and Conservative governments. For example, Bill C-311, my climate change bill, is the only bill in Canadian history to be killed in our unelected Senate, without any debate, after passing in the elected House of Commons.

The current government has made Canada the climate pariah of the world. Conservatives have completely ignored international agreements on climate change. Our Prime Minister even boycotted the 2014 United Nations Climate Summit in New York City.

The Liberals, on the other hand, claim they are ready to put a price on carbon, but do not say what kind, when, or how. Now, the Liberal leader has shown incredible lack of initiative or leadership by announcing that any kind of carbon pricing system should be left up to the provinces. Basically, it is somebody else's problem.

Climate change is happening now and is having a very real consequence on people's lives. Climate change is disrupting national economies and ecologies. It is costing us dearly here in Canada today and even more tomorrow.

Canada must implement a carbon fee and dividend policy. It is a simple, transparent, revenue-neutral carbon pricing system that would be easy and inexpensive to administer.

Here is how it works.

Coal mines and oil and gas wells would pay for their C02 emissions at the source or at the border, and not a penny would go to the government. The dividends generated from those payments would be paid directly back to Canadians on an equal per capita basis, thus reducing poverty and C02 at the same time.

This is not a tax. Carbon fee and dividend would use the marketplace to reduce C02 emissions, guide Canada toward a transition to sustainable energy, and put money into the pockets of Canadian consumers who make sustainable choices.

The Conservatives and Liberals have no plan to reduce C02. The NDP has a bad plan.

The Green Party is committed to a carbon fee and dividend, as proposed by the Citizens Climate Lobby under the dynamic leadership of Sudbury's Cathy Orlando.

If the Conservative government wants to protect our economy and increase its election chances, it should waste no time in implementing carbon fee and dividend.

Will the government seriously consider carbon fee and dividend?

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:20 p.m.

Scarborough Centre Ontario

Conservative

Roxanne James ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, under our Conservative government, the tax burden on Canadians is at the lowest level in more than 50 years. On average, Canadian families are paying $3,400 less in taxes each year than they were under the previous Liberals. In addition, every family with children in Canada will stand to benefit from our latest tax breaks, including the increase and expansion of the universal child care benefit to nearly $2,000 per year for every child under six and $720 per year for every child between six and 17, and of course there is the family tax cut as well. The vast majority of these benefits will flow to low- and middle-income families. The Liberals and the NDP would take these benefits away and would increase taxes on Canadian families through a carbon tax.

Our government has been very clear on this issue. It does not intend to address greenhouse gas emissions through a job-killing carbon tax, as supported by the opposition parties. Instead, we will continue to take decisive action on the environment while protecting our economy. In fact, our Conservative government is the first government in Canadian history to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and we will continue to use our sector-by-sector regulatory approach to achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

I would also like to take the time to highlight that our government has already taken action on two of Canada's largest sources of GHG emissions, the transportation and electricity sectors. The transportation sector generates nearly one-quarter of greenhouse gas emissions and has been the key area of focus for our government. We have moved in line with the United States with new regulations for both light- and heavy-duty vehicles. With these regulations, 2025 model year passenger vehicles and light trucks will emit about half as many greenhouse gas emissions as 2008 models.

The 2025 vehicles are also expected to consume up to 50% less fuel than 2008 vehicles. That will lead to significant savings at the pump for Canadians. Greenhouse gas emissions from 2018 model year heavy-duty vehicles will be reduced by up to 23%, which will also cut down on fuel costs.

Furthermore, we have one of the cleanest electricity systems in the world, with 79% of our electricity supply emitting no greenhouse gas emissions at all. With our government's coal-fired electricity regulations, Canada became the first major coal user to ban the construction of traditional coal-fired electricity generation units.

The regulations also require the phase-out of existing coal fired units without carbon capture. In the first 21 years, the regulations are expected to result in a cumulative reduction equivalent to removing 2.6 million personal vehicles per year from the roads over this timeframe.

On this side of the House, we will continue to stand up for hard-working Canadians. Unlike the Liberals, the NDP, and the other parties, we are focused on what matters to Canadians: supporting economic growth and protecting the environment, not raising taxes.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

Green

Bruce Hyer Green Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON

Mr. Speaker, the lack of a Canadian energy strategy should be a top priority for Conservatives and all of us. It is costing the Canadian economy billions every year and continues our dependence in Thunder Bay—Superior North and all of eastern Canada on unsustainable, expensive, and dangerous foreign oil.

Most Canadians support pricing carbon. The Conservatives have so far chosen ideology over evidence and over the desire of most Canadians. The member does not even seem to know what carbon fee and dividend is, and that it is not a tax. Carbon fee and dividend would reduce our CO2 emissions, support Canadian economic growth, and put money into Canadians' pockets. As well, it could get the Conservatives re-elected. When will the Conservatives understand what carbon fee and dividend is and finally address climate change?

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

Conservative

Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, our government will continue to move forward with its sector-by-sector approach. We are reducing emissions without a carbon tax, which would raise the price of everything.

Given the chance, both the NDP and the Liberals have said they would introduce a carbon tax. This would kill jobs and raise the cost of gas, groceries, home heating, and just about everything else. Canadians can count on our government to do exactly the opposite.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

Order. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:28 p.m.)