Debates of April 30th, 2015

Committees of the House

[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 #387

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I declare the motion carried.

Dementia

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today from several dozen residents of Burnaby and Richmond, British Columbia. They call upon the Minister of Health and the House of Commons to pass Bill C-356, An Act respecting a National Strategy for Dementia, which was introduced by the member of Parliament for Nickel Belt.

While I am on my feet, I move, seconded by the member for Compton—Stanstead:

That the House do now adjourn.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

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

Vote #388

Petitions

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I declare the motion defeated.

The time for petitions having expired, questions on the order paper, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

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 Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Bill C-51—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to 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, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill; and

That, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted for the consideration of the report stage and on the day allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. At this point I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise, so the Chair has some sense of how many questions will be asked.

There seems to be significant interest. Consequently I ask members to keep their questions to about one minute and whoever is responding for the government to do likewise.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Really, Mr. Speaker, shame is the only word that comes to mind. This is the 94th time the government has used what it likes to call scheduling, but what is really closure, on important bills before this House of Commons.

When it comes to debating Bill C-51, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness stood in this House and said that the proper place to have a full debate—as he moved closure at second reading—was committee. Then when we went to committee, we had a severely restricted number of sessions that were allocated to hear witnesses. Not only has the government proven unwilling to hear from people, but it has proven incapable of listening on the bill.

We had a statement, which I just want to ask whether the Conservatives have really fully considered. That statement said:

Protecting human rights and protecting public safety are complementary objectives, but experience has shown that serious human rights abuses can occur in the name of maintaining national security.

Who said that? Who signed that statement? It was Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin, Joe Clark, John Turner, five former Supreme Court justices, three past members of CIRC, and two former privacy commissioners.

How are we to deal with the serious concerns expressed across the country? Of all the amendments that were presented at committee, the government rejected all of the opposition amendments.

Clearly, the Conservatives are illustrating, once again, no willingness to listen and no ability to hear Canadians' objections to this very dangerous bill.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it deeply ironic that members of the party that has twice moved to shut down the House this day—because they do not want to work anymore, do not want to have any more debate today, want the place shut down, and have moved it twice—are now complaining there is not enough opportunity for debate. There is a little bit of irony in such an approach, in such a question.

Then with regard to the question he asked and the individuals he listed who were complaining that there is insufficient political oversight of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, he listed a series of prime ministers who said that should be there, a series of prime ministers who never took that step themselves when in office and, in fact, actively resisted it themselves. That, too, is also the height of irony.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, once again what we are really debating is the issue of time allocation, and on the issue of time allocation, let us be very clear that this Reform/Conservative government, since it acquired its majority, has demonstrated a genuine lack of respect for proper procedures in the House of Commons.

Whether it is through closure or time allocation, which are the same thing, or the way the government brings in legislation as a whole—multi-hundred-page documents for budget bills, and ministers of finance who feel they have no obligation whatsoever to stand up and answer questions after tabling a budget—the government has a genuine lack of respect for proper parliamentary procedures inside the House of Commons.

My question for the government House leader is this. Why, since the Conservatives have achieved this majority government, have we seen the Prime Minister and his ministers, and particularly the government House leader, demonstrate so much disrespect for proper procedures here in the House of Commons?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank the hon. member and his party for their support of this legislation. It is very important in the national interest to protect the security of Canadians. We appreciate that support a great deal and we thank them for it.

In terms of debate in this House and the use of time allocation to schedule debates with certainty, part of the side effect of the approach used by the government that he complains of is the fact that we actually have more time for debate in this Parliament than the parallel time the British Parliament has had for debate on bills, a parliament that is often held out as a model example. In fact, on average, at every stage we have exceeded by far the amount of debate that the U.K. Parliament has on relative bills.

I think we should be very pleased that we have in this House a robust democracy, robust debate, ample opportunities for views to be heard, and in fact the record shows, more so than even in the United Kingdom.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is just unbelievable. We have seen a coalition between the Liberals and the Conservatives on Bill C-51, and that is quite problematic.

The government and, from what we can see, the Liberals are saying that Canadians should have to choose between whether they want their security or their rights. It should not be one or the other.

The government says that it is tough on crime, but it is cutting funding in areas where it should be investing. Instead of promoting discrimination, communities need more help to counter radicalization in Canada. Where is the counter-radicalization strategy to work with Canadian communities? Why is the government taking the rights away from Canadians?

The Conservatives do not know what they are doing and, obviously, the Liberals are supporting their position. That is shameful.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the question of radicalization, the government has a number of programs under way, and the RCMP is also engaged in community engagement that works toward countering radicalization.

I want to pay tribute. The scourge that we have been battling most of all, the rising tide, is Islamist extremism and jihadism, and it is the Islamic community in Canada that has been the principal source of intelligence and assistance in helping to counter occasions of radicalization. It is working hand in hand with the public security agencies, with the Government of Canada, and with law enforcement to protect against those isolated elements in the community that move in that direction.

What that community and law enforcement have told us, is that they need additional tools. That is why this legislation proposes, for example, the ability to remove from the Internet, on a judge's warrant, information or propaganda that is aimed at the radicalization of young people, encouraging them to commit terrorist acts. In fact, it would make, for the first time, the advocacy of a terrorist act a crime. This is long overdue. The advocacy of terrorism has to be a crime.

If we are going to do something to combat radicalization in a meaningful way, that is a key element to doing so.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to correct the government House leader who said that none of the past prime ministers had done anything about oversight. I would like to point out for him that in 2005, when Paul Martin was the prime minister, we had in place something to ensure oversight. In fact, at the time, the current justice minister, who was then in the opposition, was on side with it, and so was the NDP.

Unfortunately, it never came to pass, because the NDP provoked an election. However, the point is that we very clearly pushed for oversight 10 years ago.