House of Commons Hansard #204 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was businesses.

Topics

Bill C-51—Time Allocation MotionAnti-terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON

Mr. Speaker, this brings to mind the national child care plan that the Liberal Party promised some four times and just could not get done. It brings to mind its policy on greenhouse gases, when it committed Canada to reducing them, yet increased them by over 30%. It just could not get it done.

Once again, on this, the Liberals fought it for over two decades. They just could not get it done. They finally changed their mind on an 11th hour deathbed repentance, facing the loss of government. The fact is that they just were not serious about it, and there is good reason for it.

We have robust oversight in the form of the Security Intelligence Review Committee. In terms of the additional powers in this bill, we have more significant oversight. That is before the oversight of judges with regard to the extended powers that the bill contemplates for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, which are the disruption powers. Those would only be exercised with the approval of a judge in advance under a warrant.

That is real, valuable oversight and the protection of our rights.

Bill C-51—Time Allocation MotionAnti-terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders

12:45 p.m.

Essex Ontario

Conservative

Jeff Watson ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, a critical economic infrastructure exists between the cities of Windsor and Detroit in the form of both a rail tunnel and the Ambassador Bridge. The government is intent on building a new international crossing between the two. Therefore, our community is very much interested in what a bill like this might mean for averting potential terrorist attacks that involve our economic infrastructure.

Could the government House leader give those in our community a sense of how much debate has already been invested in this and when we can look forward to legislation that would start to protect us even further?

Bill C-51—Time Allocation MotionAnti-terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON

Mr. Speaker, our borders are some of the most sensitive areas in terms of combatting terrorist threats. In my time as public safety minister working with the Obama administration, this was a matter of great concern to it. It wanted to work hand in hand with us and we did, in fact, a great deal in seeking to provide it the assurances it needed. There are elements of this legislation and previous legislation that move us down that path of providing the assurances that are actually important for our economy.

Unfortunately, one of the things we occasionally see is an overreaction on the national security side in the United States, which has the side effect, unintended, I believe, but a genuine side effect, of slowing commerce at the borders. That is why we have been working, in our partnership with the United States, to get, for example, approval for advanced inspections for border clearance for trucks, similar to what we have, for instance, for air passengers right now. These are things that help facilitate movement and the economy, but, at the same time, provide greater assurances of national security. It is those kinds of win-win opportunities for which we have been looking.

I thank the hon. member for Essex, who is very sensitive to these issues and has been a very strong advocate for them, particularly for the manufacturing industry in Canada, as it is so dependent on those linkages.

Bill C-51—Time Allocation MotionAnti-terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders

12:45 p.m.

NDP

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, this debate is about the decision of the government to reduce the debate on this important bill. I listened to the House leader talk about the great consultation that the government conducted with Canadians.

I took the time to meet with members of one of the mosques in my riding last week and asked them if they had been approached by or met with any of the Conservative members to discuss their concerns with Bill C-51, and they said not once. The members had actually done a survey in their mosque on the deep concerns about the ramifications of this bill. They are also concerned that no one has reached out to them to work with their members to try to prevent anybody from being lured by terrorists.

I take severe objection to the suggestion that there has been adequate consultation with Canadians about this bill and that the bill would not impact the rights and opportunities of Canadians. There are many in my riding who are deeply afraid of the implications of the bill on their rights and privileges in our country.

Bill C-51—Time Allocation MotionAnti-terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, my experience is very different. I actually commend the Islamic community for its effective efforts to work together with law enforcement and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. My experience is that the community has been overwhelmingly exemplary in its conduct, overwhelmingly exemplary in communicating when it is aware of threats or have concerns about radicalization in the community, and that is good.

That is a good example to all of us and a good reassurance to many Canadians that, indeed, the kind of country we have, one that involves the diversity of people, is not one that is broken into camps, but is overwhelmingly composed of people with all kinds of backgrounds who share in common a belief in our country, the values that it holds, our democracy, keeping it safe and secure, combatting terrorist threats and preventing them from arising within their communities. This is something in which we can call take comfort.

However, the risk is very real. We have seen the occasions most recently where radicalization has occurred. A lot of it has been individual self-radicalization, a lot of it prompted by material on the Internet. That is why this bill seeks to address exactly that kind of radicalization, one that is not necessarily easy for others in the community to detect. The good news is, as we know, in both of these cases they were on the radar screen. Unfortunately, we did not have all the tools in place to prevent the terrorist attacks from occurring at the time.

Bill C-51—Time Allocation MotionAnti-terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders

12:50 p.m.

NDP

Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of opposition to this bill.

We have seen demonstrators in the streets of Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and across the country. Our online petition has been signed by 200,000 Canadians who oppose this bill because they think it goes too far and violates our rights and freedoms.

The government seems very pleased to be able to pass this bill very quickly, without allowing us to really study it or even hold a real debate. To date there has been only one day of debate at this stage, and that was a Friday. We know that Friday is usually the day when bills are expedited. Therefore, the fact that we are debating a time allocation motion is really problematic for me.

I want to know what this government has to say to the 200,000 Canadians who have signed the online petition and to the thousands of demonstrators who took to the streets to protest against this ill-conceived bill.

Bill C-51—Time Allocation MotionAnti-terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON

Mr. Speaker, first, it is ironic that the member has twice voted today to shut down the House, twice voted to ensure there is no debate in the House of Commons today, twice voted to ensure we all go home early, and then she complains that there is not enough opportunity for debate. I see a bit of irony in that.

However, in terms of those who have concerns, we recognize their concerns. However, I have found that with those who are concerned and with my constituents when I speak with them, those concerns are largely driven by a misunderstanding or lack of information, perhaps from members of the opposition, perhaps from others. For example, many are concerned that all their information will be shared across all departments of government, notwithstanding privacy laws.

That would not be the case. What the bill says is that if, for example, a passport officer is looking at an application of somebody who has as their sponsor a person who is a known recruiter of people to participate in jihad abroad and we know the individual wants a passport to go to Syria for that purpose, should the passport officer be able to share that information with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service? This is a person who is linked to someone known to be radicalizing, who has the intention of travelling and maybe he or she should be watched.

According to the NDP, that information should not be allowed to be shared. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service should not be allowed to be informed of that. It objects to the information-sharing provisions of the proposed legislation that would allow, in a case like that, information of a person who is identified as a threat to national security to be shared. The information to be shared is only for that person, not for everybody, identified as a threat to national security. Canadians understand that. They realize they are not a threat to national security, that it will not affect them.

That is why I say there are many people who demonstrate with legitimate concerns because they think the bill will do something that it will not. However, the bill is quite narrow, quite focused and focused on national security in the way it should be.

Bill C-51—Time Allocation MotionAnti-terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

Before I go to questions and comments, I want to remind all members that when the question is being answered, popping up before the answer is delivered will not get them to the top of the list. If that behaviour were rewarded, we would have 50 members on their feet all the time. Therefore, if members stand earlier, they in fact will not be recognized, as opposed to be recognized.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands

Bill C-51—Time Allocation MotionAnti-terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders

12:50 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that the bill was rushed through the committee process, the witnesses were piled on and pushed through in a week in which there was not adequate time to even learn what the witnesses before committee had to say, much less to hear from people who were not called, like the Privacy commissioner, or a very important witness who then appeared at the Senate. I refer to Joe Fogarty who was a U.K. espionage security expert. He had worked with MI5 and the British Police, and also as a liaison officer to Canada.

This is the key point on why we must not shut down debate on the bill in the House. The bill would not protect us from terrorism. The bill, due to the recklessness of the Conservatives, would put us at greater risk of terrorist attack. That is the advice from experts. The bill, according to Joe Fogarty, would lead us down a disaster waiting to happen with no oversight, none, because the Conservative administration eliminated the inspector general for CSIS, has put in no judicial oversight or parliamentary oversight. This bill must be stopped.

Bill C-51—Time Allocation MotionAnti-terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON

Mr. Speaker, the legislation was introduced January 30. It is now April 30. The bill has been before Parliament and a parliamentary committee and debated for some quarter year right now, a quarter of a year and we do not even have report stage approval yet. In that context, one can see this has been out in the public realm.

Our government's commitment is to ensure that this becomes law before we rise in June. Remember, it still has to go through a whole parallel series of steps in the other chamber. Therefore, if we want to do that, it is important that we ensure members get a chance to vote and decide on this matter.

However, the hon. member is quite mistaken. She said that there was no judicial oversight. I really would encourage her to read the bill. Expanded powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service require judicial oversight, a warrant from a judge, in order to exercise its expanded powers of disruption. That is significant oversight. It is judicial oversight. It is exactly that kind of ill-informed and incorrect statement that causes alarm among the public.

We want to have a debate, but there is no point having years of debate if people will not take the time to read the legislation and learn the facts on which we are debating. Judicial oversight is there, it is significant and it is powerful to protect human rights.

Bill C-51—Time Allocation MotionAnti-terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, just to correct the government House leader, there is not judicial oversight. There is judicial authorization for CSIS folks to do certain things. That is a different thing entirely from oversight as our Five Eyes partners have. I cannot understand why the government is so reluctant to have proper parliamentary oversight, as does our Five Eyes partners. That is what is really required with this bill and what is missing.

The government House leader went on at great length to talk about how long this bill has been debated. I would in fact agree with his arguments where he was arguing the point about the sharing of information. That is the kind of information he gave in that response that Canadians need to have. We agree with the sharing of information with limitations. However, his argument there shows that there needs to be more time given for the debate of this bill, a bill which a lot of Canadians have concerns about. It needs to be explained in a way that Canadians understand all the aspects of the bill.

This closure motion is another affront that is in fact undermining democracy and debate in this place. The government continues to resist accepting amendments from this side of the House. We are all MPs. We all represent people. Our amendments make sense, too. Why will the government not accept them?

Bill C-51—Time Allocation MotionAnti-terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a very significant person to speak to this, because he was actually solicitor general of Canada. As solicitor general of Canada, he was responsible for this legislation. If he believed that parliamentary oversight above and beyond the public safety committee was necessary, he would have introduced that when he was minister, but as minister, he did not see fit to do that. I think that speaks well to the fact that he thought, as does this government, that the after-the-fact review that is provided by the Security Intelligence Review Committee is a significant form of review. In fact, we are seeking to make it even more effective, and not by politicizing it. The opposition would like to have politicians doing the review. We actually believe it is better to have independent experts do the review.

That is the direction in which we are taking the Security Intelligence Review Committee. When I talk to my constituents and ask them who they would prefer to have providing oversight, judges beforehand and experts after the fact or a bunch of politicians, they say that politicians have their role, and it is important, they can pass the legislation, they have a committee, but that their real confidence in objective oversight is in that expert committee and in the judicial warrants.

Bill C-51—Time Allocation MotionAnti-terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders

1 p.m.

NDP

Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House what we are debating right now. It is actually a move by the Conservative government to shut down debate on Bill C-51.

I remember being in this House and being told that time allocation had to be moved at second reading so that we could go to committee where in-depth discussions would be had. Lo and behold when we got to the committee stage, there were very restrictive time allocations. We as the opposition had to fight for more time, and only a little bit more was granted.

Now here we are, when we, as parliamentarians, have an opportunity to stand up and present our constituents' perspectives, to take part in that debate, and once again I am being denied that opportunity because the government is using the bullying tactics of the power of the majority to tyrannize and silence the voices of those who oppose this legislation.

What does the government have to hide?

Bill C-51—Time Allocation MotionAnti-terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders

1 p.m.

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted the hon. member had an opportunity to get up to speak to Bill C-51 today. She just got a chance to participate in the debate on Bill C-51. The reason I like that is that twice today she voted to keep us from debating. Twice today she voted to shut down this House. Twice today already she has voted to go home, turn on the TV, kick up her feet and relax, to shut down the House of Commons. Instead, because the government wanted to proceed, we are here debating Bill C-51 right now. I am glad she has that opportunity to do that.

Of course, I will point the member once again to the statistics. Our government's approach has been one of using time allocation as a scheduling device. The result, compared with other parliaments, compared with the United Kingdom, for example, is held out time and time again as the best example of robust debate. We debate at every stage on bills, on average, much longer than they do in the United Kingdom Parliament. That is because our approach is one that facilitates debate, but also one that prevents the gridlock we see south of the border where decisions never get made because of overly partisan filibusters.

We want to give members of Parliament a chance to actually vote on the questions that are important to Canadians, to pass judgment on them. That is particularly important on a question as central as combatting terrorism and keeping Canadians safe, something which Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work on and make decisions on.

Bill C-51—Time Allocation MotionAnti-terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders

1 p.m.

NDP

Denis Blanchette NDP Louis-Hébert, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to what the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons just said.

Perhaps we debate for so long because the government ignores all the amendments we propose. Obviously, the role of the government in the House of Commons is to propose legislation. However, the role of the opposition is to critique it and propose ways to improve it. That is part of the opposition's duty, but this government almost never takes our proposals into account.

It is no wonder that debates drag on, because the government does not want to listen to reason. Our goal is not necessarily to prevent a bill from passing, but rather to improve it. In this case, as the Leader of the Opposition clearly stated, our goal is to have a safer environment while still protecting our rights.

Does the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons recognize that if his government accepted more of the opposition's amendments, debates would be more harmonious and our work here would be more effective?

Bill C-51—Time Allocation MotionAnti-terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders

1 p.m.

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON

Mr. Speaker, the legislation has been improved through amendments that were made at committee. If we can ever get to the report stage debate, all members of the House will have an opportunity to debate them and vote on them. That is what we would like to see on the legislation improved, as he said, by the amendments that were made. However, make no mistake. We are not going to allow opposition to be manifested in a form that is simply lengthy filibustering debate and by keeping the bill from passing, because we know the NDP opposes the bill.

We think it is important because we need to have measures that, for example, criminalize for the first time the advocacy of terrorism. That is incredibly important. Right now people can go out, declare jihad and encourage people to go out and kill non-believers. That should be a criminal offence. We will, for the first time, allow with judicial warrant removal of terrorist propaganda online that has been a factor in radicalization time and time again of people who have committed acts in this country and people who have travelled abroad to participate in jihad.

We are going to, for the first time, give the Canadian Security Intelligence Service the opportunity to disrupt plots while they are under way in such a fashion that will allow them to unfold while keeping the public safe and thereby enhancing the prospects of prosecution, which I think all of us agree is a preferable approach to dealing with terrorism.

Of course, we are improving the passenger protect program, the so-called no-fly list. Right now, we cannot prevent someone who we know is planning to participate in a terrorist act abroad from boarding a plane as long as the person is not a risk to the plane or aviation itself. That is unduly limited. We need to expand the passenger protect program to allow a refusal of boarding for anyone who plans to participate in a terrorist act or to join a terrorist organization anywhere.

Bill C-51—Time Allocation MotionAnti-terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, in the aftermath of 9/11, many things were determined. One of them was that the agencies were not speaking to each other and there was a very real opportunity beforehand to have stopped 9/11 in its tracks if only they had been sharing information.

I would like to ask the hon. government House leader, what would it be like in Canada if we looked back on an incident like 9/11 and realized if only we had talked to each other we could have stopped it?

Bill C-51—Time Allocation MotionAnti-terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON

Mr. Speaker, this has been one of the most frustrating things. One would have thought after the 9/11 commission identified the many intelligence failures by the siloed approach, by the inability of departments to communicate with each other and provide intelligence to each other, we would recognize here in Canada the importance of that. Our government has. It is long overdue. That is why this legislation will permit information sharing between departments of individuals who represent a threat to national security. I used the very good and very real example of an individual who applies for a passport and has as a reference someone who is a radicalist recruiter. Should the passport office be allowed to share that information with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service so the person is watched? The NDP oppose that. We support that.

Bill C-51—Time Allocation MotionAnti-terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

The 30 minutes having expired, the question is on the motion.

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

Bill C-51—Time Allocation MotionAnti-terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders

1:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Bill C-51—Time Allocation MotionAnti-terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

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

Bill C-51—Time Allocation MotionAnti-terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders

1:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Bill C-51—Time Allocation MotionAnti-terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

All those opposed will please say nay.

Bill C-51—Time Allocation MotionAnti-terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders

1:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Bill C-51—Time Allocation MotionAnti-terrorism Act, 2015Government Orders

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.