Debates of Nov. 29th, 2017

Finance

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 5:30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Finance.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

Committees of the House

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The question is on the amendment.

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

Vote #411

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the amendment defeated.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

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

Vote #412

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the main motion adopted.

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(2)(d), the proceedings on the bill shall come to an end.

It being 6:19 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Prevention of Radicalization through Foreign Funding Act

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

moved that Bill C-371, An Act respecting the prevention of radicalization through foreign funding and making related amendments to the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to stand in my place this evening to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-371, the prevention of radicalization through foreign funding act.

One of the privileges of being a member of Parliament is the opportunity to craft and bring forward legislation that will make a difference for Canadians. Given the inability of ministers of the crown to bring forward legislation, this is the first time since being elected in 2006 as the member of Parliament for Parry Sound—Muskoka that I have had an opportunity to bring forward a bill for consideration by my colleagues.

It is my sincere hope that the prevention of radicalization through foreign funding bill will be seen as a non-partisan and thoughtful attempt to address a national security policy gap. This is a gap that has been identified by our security experts, and addressing this policy void will strengthen our government's ability to combat radicalization and extremism in Canada in all of its ugly manifestations.

I truly see the legislation as a powerful and practical tool to stem the flow of foreign funding that would promote radicalization and extremism in Canada. The bill would provide the government with the ability to set out a schedule of foreign states, and extend our reach to individuals and entities that suppress religious freedom, impose punishments for religious beliefs, or have engaged in or facilitated activities that promote extremism, terrorism, and radicalization.

Under this legislation, it would be “prohibited for an individual or entity in Canada and any Canadian outside Canada to accept or agree to accept money or other valuable consideration, including by gift, donation, or bequest or legacy, knowing that it is from a foreign state, entity or individual referred to in subsection (1) of the bill and intending that it be used, or knowing that it will be used, in whole or in part, to fund activities of an institution” in support of radicalization and extremism.

This legislation gives the government the power to act swiftly, with a full review and appeal process. This bill deals with the covert means by which money is paid to Canadian organizations and institutions that support radicalization.

The legislation gives the government the power to move swiftly, with a full review and appeal process, to address foreign funding trouble spots. We know that Canadians take the prevention of radicalization, the eradication of extremism, and the safety of our country seriously. It is something that Conservatives also take seriously, and our national security must be the number one priority of any government.

There are other strong voices calling for policy to close this gap. Security experts, and anti-radicalization advocates, including those in the Muslim community, have called for controls on incoming funds that support radicalization and extremism. Richard Fadden, the former national security advisor to former Prime Minister Stephen Harper and former director of CSIS, has confirmed that there are concerns about foreign financing of Canadian religious and quasi-religious institutions.

He stated the following during testimony to the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence:

I think it is a problem. I think it's one that we're becoming increasingly aware of. It's one that we share with a number of our other Western allies and, insofar as I've been able to make out, nobody has found a systemic solution. What I think has occurred on a number of cases, you can find out about a specific case and you can do something about it; the problem is finding out about the specific case.

Calgary Imam, Syed Soharwardy, as well as other witnesses, advised the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence that extremist jihadist ideology is being spread at schools and universities in this country, often under the guise of academic freedom and away from the eyes of CSIS.

The Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow, based out of Toronto, supports my bill, calling it a very important and urgent step towards stemming the tide of radicalization that has infiltrated our communities and put our youth at risk.

In her testimony to the subcommittee on national security at the U.S. Congress on July 27, on homegrown terrorism, Raheel Raza, president of the council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow, stated the importance of preventing funding of U.S. educational institutions and mosques by foreign extremists. She said this applies to Canada as well, to keep our country safe.

En 2015, the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and National Defence produced a report entitled, “Countering the Terrorist Threat in Canada”. In its recommendations, the committee urged the government to prevent foreign funds from entering Canada, where such funds, donors or recipients have been linked to radicalization.

I would also like to note that there have been questions on whether the bill could cross over to implicate our key allies. However, there is a provision set out in the legislation that would not allow any countries with which Canada has extradition agreements to be included in the schedule. This, of course, includes our key allies including the U.S., France, Germany, and Israel.

This legislation actually lines up with actions already taken by some of our allies.

In 2007 the Australian government became one of the first to act on this issue when it intervened to reject a Saudi request to transfer funds to the Islamic Society of South Australia. This move was specifically taken amidst concerns about foreign-funded lslamist extremism.

Norway and Austria have taken similar actions. Germany and the U.S. have also studied the situation intensely, and in 2016 a similar bill was brought to the floor of the U.S. Congress.

In January 2016, then U.K. prime minister David Cameron did acknowledge that there is a problem of Saudi-funded education programs in the U.K. that may be responsible for promoting lslamist extremism.

Canada and her allies must be ever vigilant when it comes to monitoring radicalization extremism in our country. The recent news of returning ISIS fighters to Canada brings the point home again, that government must have adequate and efficient tools at its disposal to prevent radicalization in the first place. I propose that my legislation would provide another tool in the arsenal to achieve exactly this goal.

Again, I encourage my colleagues to give thoughtful consideration to this legislation and feel free to discuss any of its details with me.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for putting forward this motion, which is very well intentioned. It is an area on which we all share a great deal of concern.

I am wondering if the member could articulate—and I am going to talk about this in my comments—on the differences Bill C-371 has from the existing mechanisms and legislation that is in place. In other words, what would the bill do that is not already in place? How does it differ from FINTRAC and some of the other mechanisms that are in place, so that I can understand what gaps he is looking to fill?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, indeed, the purpose of the legislation is to fill gaps.

For instance, the legislation that is currently in place that is available for CRA targets charitable organizations, but there are many other organizations—educational organizations, not-for-profit organizations—that cannot be tracked in the same way and exist as gaps in our legislation.

This was identified in the Senate committee report and is an area of vulnerability that we have, because not-for-profit organizations, other educational organizations, or individuals may not be covered under the Revenue Canada organization, FINTRAC, or these kinds of things.

What I have identified is a gap that can be filled with this legislation. It is consistent with current legislation that is in place but does not extend to these organizations.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the previous question, and I wonder if the member could cite an example or two of the types of organizations that he might be referring to. Does he have any examples?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would refer the hon. member to the Senate report. I am afraid I do not have a copy with me for the purpose of this debate, but there was testimony before the Senate, when it was looking at our terror legislation, that indicated some examples in Canada and some concerns that were raised. I already mentioned Richard Fadden, whom we all know and whose views we take very seriously. There are indeed cases that have been brought to light.

The hon. member should know that I am not here to cast aspersions on any particular organization. I am merely citing them as examples that have been brought to light, sometimes generally, not specifically. I will grant the hon. member that. However, the idea is that, through expert testimony in the Canadian Senate, this gap has been identified, and I think it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to fill that gap.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the reason I asked the question is that I am sure Canadians would share with me that we want to be careful we are not trying to create something that is maybe not there. That is why I thought there would be a benefit in hearing an example that the member across the way might have.

I understand in listening to him that what he is referring to is that there are some examples and we just need to look at the report and comments that were made at a particular Senate hearing. Is that correct?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is correct.

I will read a couple more quotes in more detail. The president of the council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow, Raheel Raza said:

This bill is a very important and urgent step towards stemming the tide of radicalization that has infiltrated into our communities and put our youth at risk.

I quote Arman Raster, director of the East Turkistan Government-in-Exile Diplomatic and Human Rights Office, which he says:

supports this important Bill which would protect Canada’s multicultural society from any forms of extremism, radicalization or terrorism that harms such society.

Those are a couple more quotes I can put on the record, and I would be happy to pass over to the hon. members who have asked, in particular, the specific Senate report when I get my hands on it again.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, I reiterate my appreciation to the hon. member across for his work on the bill. This is an area the government is very concerned with, and we appreciate his attention to the issue.

Most of my comments today will centre on the question I asked concerning redundancy, namely the mechanisms that are already in place and whether this bill is filling a gap or overlapping the existing mechanisms, and what the consequences would be. I will run through these, if I could.

The proposals to create a mechanism to stem funding from foreign bodies known to promote radicalization and extremism in Canada are at the centre of this bill. It would also authorize the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in consultation with the Minister of Public Safety, to recommend the listing of states that have engaged in religious persecution, torture, and the promotion of radicalization. Canadian religious, cultural, or educational institutions would then be prohibited from accepting money or other valuables from sources affiliated with those listed states. As I have stated, these measures are totally in line with the objectives of the government.

The bill also attempts to respond to recommendation 15 of the 2015 interim report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence. That reference proposes that the government develop measures to prevent foreign funds from entering Canada, where such funds, donors, or recipients have been linked to radicalization.

My concern is that the stated aim of the bill seems, in some instances, to be inconsistent with its provisions. Only one of the three reasons to list a state has to do with promotion of radicalization. The other two do not. They have to do with subjecting individuals to human rights violations, either through religious persecution or torture and cruel punishments. Those violations are already covered under the new Magnitsky act, which allows Canada to impose broad asset freezes and financial prohibitions on individuals responsible for, or complicit in, gross violations of international human rights.

With respect to preventing funds from being used to support terrorist activities, we can say that the Government of Canada is committed to a strong and comprehensive regime. The Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act,, or the PCMLTFA, is a primary piece of legislation that establishes this framework. The act requires approximately 31,000 financial institutions and intermediaries to identify their clients, keep records, and have internal compliance programs in place. It creates a mandatory reporting system for suspicious financial transactions, large cross-border currency transfers, and certain proscribed transactions.

The legislation also established the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, or FINTRAC, which I was referring to earlier, Canada's main agency for monitoring money laundering and terrorist financing. FINTRAC is authorized by the existing legislation to collect and analyze financial transaction reports and disclose pertinent information to law enforcement and intelligence agencies. With the millions of financial transaction reports received every year, FINTRAC helps to establish links between individuals and groups in Canada and abroad suspected of financing and supporting terrorist activities. This intelligence assists police and national security agencies in their investigations of terrorist financing and threats to the security of Canada. It is also information that is used in assessing the level of risk posed by organizations that apply to be registered as charities.

There are a number of rules that govern how charities should operate, whether in Canada or abroad. The Canada Revenue Agency, as the federal regulator of charities, protects the charitable organization registration system from being abused by individuals or groups with links to terrorists. The charities directorate formally established the review and analysis division in 2003 to audit registered charities based on the potential risk of terrorist financing abuse. It works to prevent organizations with links to terrorism from being registered and to revoke the registration of those that are.

The Criminal Code's terrorist listing regime is another important tool in the fight against terrorism. The listing of entities counters terrorist financing and criminalizes certain support for listed entities. It is based on a principle similar to what we see in the bill before us today. When an entity is placed on the list, banks and financial institutions freeze its assets. The code makes it a criminal offence for Canadians at home and abroad to knowingly deal with the assets of a listed entity. Listings aim to help obstruct financial support for terrorist groups and supporters of terrorism. For example, Canadian charitable organizations that are maintaining connections to organizations already listed under the Criminal Code can be and are listed.

Furthermore, the list of entities helps to prevent registered charities in Canada from serving as a support network for terrorist organizations operating abroad. An organization can be denied charitable status or have its registration revoked when its resources provide any means of support for, or benefit to, an organization listed under the Criminal Code.

A further result of listing may be to deny its members, recruiters and facilitators entry to Canada.

The assessment process to identify potential entities to consider for listing is continuous and action can be taken when and if necessary. Under the code, Canada has the ability to apply appropriate criminal measures to deter terrorist activity in Canada. Once listed, an entity becomes defined as a terrorist group under the Criminal Code, which means various terrorism-related offences could potentially then be applied to the entity's supporters in Canada. These include offences related to terrorist financing, terrorist related-travel, recruitment and training.

When it comes to the prosecution of terrorism-related offences, however, it should be noted that the Criminal Code's definition of a "terrorist group" is not restricted to listed entities. Charges and prosecutions can even proceed if the group involved is not on the list. That is only one of several mechanisms we already use effectively.

When it comes to countering terrorism, the government understands that stemming the flow of dubious funding is only one part of the equation. That is why we have taken a recent major step further, through the effort to prevent radicalization to violence rather than only deal with it after the fact. That involves getting at the root causes and factors that contribute to terrorism by actively engaging with individuals and communities.

We know that our success in doing so relies on the support and participation from all levels of government and society, especially local communities and individual Canadians. The newly created Canada Centre for Community Engagement and Prevention of Violence, or the Canada Centre, is a source of advice, research and funding in that respect.

Thanks in no small part to $35 million in funding over five years provided through budget 2016, the centre is already making a real difference. It is working with youth, communities, academia, and stakeholders to help prevent radicalization to violence in Canada. It is based on the understanding that there is no single ideology or cause of radicalization to violence and that prevention must be an essential component of Canada's efforts to counter terrorism.

All of this goes hand in hand with new security legislation, or Bill C-59, which is heading to committee now. It is designed to update our national security framework to reflect current realities, while putting the rights and freedoms of Canadians at the core.

The Canadian government already takes all appropriate action to counter terrorist threats to our country, to our people, to our way of life, and to our global interests. The Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, the efforts of FINTRAC and our security agencies, the Criminal Code listings, and the new Canada Centre, in concert with our proposed overhaul of Canada's national security framework, are all parts of a well-functioning system. Every day, they are informing our work to combat terrorism and to keep Canadians safe.

As I mentioned at the top of my speech, Bill C-371 is a well-intentioned legislation. The concern I would have, and I raised it in my question for the member, is where it will fill in any gaps that might have been missed in the various mechanisms I have just articulated.

One of the things I would ask members to do is to consider the implications of that duplication and ensure the legislation is moving that forward.

I look forward to further conversations with the member. I very much appreciate him bringing forward the legislation and for his ongoing work and concern, which I very much share.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Parry Sound—Muskoka for introducing this bill. I also liked his anecdote. Indeed, cabinet members do not get to introduce private member's bills. That is something we tend to forget.

Unfortunately, I am opposed to this bill for a number of reasons. The first was aptly explained by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety . The objectives sought by the member in this bill are already enshrined in legislation. They were even improved on by the Magnitsky act, which was passed unanimously by the House. In Canada, it is already illegal to receive funds from a criminal or terrorist organization.

Another one of my concerns stems from the Senate report that my colleague was talking about, one of whose recommendations led to the creation of this bill. The Senate's study, if I am not mistaken, focused entirely on the Muslim community. I find that deeply concerning because I fear that these measures target specific groups and countries. With all due respect, if we look at the stakeholders my colleague mentioned as supporters of this bill, a dangerous theme emerges.

My colleague quoted Mr. Richard Fadden, the former head of CSIS and a national security adviser to former Prime Minister Harper. I want to read what came after that quote in the same testimony before the Senate.

Mr. Richard Fadden said, “In fact, in my previous job, I actually raised with representatives from some of the countries who might be involved in this and suggested to them this was not helpful.” He is of course talking about funding of terrorist activities. He continued with “The difficulty in most cases is that the monies are not coming from governments. They're coming from fairly wealthy institutions or individuals within some of these countries.” That is fair enough. The member has included those measures in his bill to deal with people who are associated with the government of the country that would be on this black list. However, he went on to say, ”It makes it doubly difficult to track. It doesn't mean you're not right in raising it. I just don't have an easy solution.”

When I read that, it caused me great concern that the head of CSIS and a national security adviser to a prime minister felt there was no easy solution and that it was difficult to get to the root of the cause. I have a difficult time imagining a list such as this, which could potentially become arbitrary, being managed by the Minister of Public Safety in consultation with the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

That brings me to my other concern, and that is Canada's track record on public safety related lists. Take, for example, the no-fly list, the list of terrorist entities, or even the list of criminal organizations proposed by my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord. He proposed a bill in that regard in this Parliament. We know the risks associated with those sorts of lists.

First, there is a risk for the court system, since these lists could result in countless charter challenges. Second, there is a risk that these lists may be arbitrary, since they are established by the government of the day. Of course, the member sponsoring the bill may say that there are oversight mechanisms and criteria to prevent that from happening, but the problem is that depending on how we view certain acts, trying to interpret the definition of torture or cruel treatment of citizens is a slippery slope.

The United States prison in Guantanamo is a good example, since cruel and inhuman acts have been committed there that should be considered torture. Are we going to put the United States on the list?

We cannot, because the United States is excluded under the provisions of that same bill. That example may seem a bit extreme, but I am using it to illustrate one of the shortcomings of the bill.

The other issue is on what we want to tackle here, and that is radicalization leading to violence and ensuring public safety. As the member who sponsored the bill rightly pointed out, it certainly is not a partisan issue, even when we may have disagreements on how to obtain that objective. For that reason, I want to raise the following points.

First, more and more studies are showing, even anecdotal evidence of what we see in the news and also hear more and more from expert testimony, that the methods being employed by certain groups conducting terrorist activities are cheaper. We are not talking about sophisticated organizations that are being funded. The member would probably want me to raise the distinction between the act being committed and the money being used to radicalize. However, it is becoming clearer and clearer that it is less about money and more about the issues of which we need to tackle the root causes, and I will get to in a moment. The parliamentary secretary has also raised this.

Second, I read a study out of Great Britain. It says that 40% of the money being used to finance terrorist acts committed in Europe, and certainly the example can apply to us as well, comes from what we could call petty crime. We are talking about money laundering, robberies, drug trafficking. These things remind us of the importance of not looking to legislative change, as we have so often on these issues, but ensuring the men and women who ensure our safety have the proper resources. That is consistent with what the New Democrats have always stood for. It is exactly what we said during the debate, for example, on Bill C-51 in the previous Parliament. Why look to a legislative change to do something that can be done by providing proper resources?

Another point to consider is whether this is the right way to fight radicalization. I do not think that money is the root of this particular problem.

To go back to what the parliamentary secretary said earlier, there is a government initiative receiving some funding. I hope that the government continues to step up its efforts and maintains this funding. If we want to fight radicalization and violence properly, it will take a community effort like the one the centre in Montreal is making, for example. It will also take federal involvement in other initiatives, to encourage all orders of government, stakeholders, and community organizations to contribute to these efforts. It is very important to add that these efforts must not focus on any one group in particular.

Hon. members will recall last week's awful far-right rallies in Quebec City. Some of the groups involved either were American or had been infiltrated by or were affiliated with American far-right groups. In that context, we need to look at the whole range of factors weighing on youth, youth who often struggle with addiction or mental health issues that we have a responsibility to address.

By properly addressing those factors and making sure that a young individual in the process of being radicalized does not take the bait, not only do we help someone who really needs it, but we also ensure public safety. By making the right kind of efforts, we will be able to ensure that this individual never goes on commit the kinds of atrocities we see all too often on the news.

For these reasons, unfortunately, I will be opposing the bill. I am always open to working with my colleague on public safety initiatives, but I do not feel that this bill serves the intended objectives, and unfortunately it could end up targeting a specific community, which I think is totally inappropriate.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be here today to speak to this issue. I am very happy with my colleague for bringing this forward. It is an important initiative, and unfortunate that we need it. There are a number of other ways to approach some of these issues, basically various levels of dealing with it, and we have heard a little about some of them tonight. I will talk a bit about that later.

I guess one of the things that would give us a little more comfort is if we felt that the current government was actually willing to deal with these issues seriously. As far as we can see, in the two years it has been in power, it is not. There is no indication that it would actually treat seriously the issues my colleague has brought forward, issues such as radicalization and dealing with the connections to culture, religion, and education. In fact, we hear in the Liberals' speeches tonight that they are just not willing to do that.

Another example of the government's unwillingness to deal with this seriously is the way it claims to be handling these returning ISIS fighters, in spite of the fact that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has said that basically we are not going to be able to change these folks and we are coming late to this fight anyway. Still the Liberals come and talk about how they are going to have these programs.

Yesterday or the day before, the Prime Minister said in the House that he believes he can deprogram ISIS fighters when they come back. As we have pointed out, some of these folks are coming back deliberately, coming back here to stay and then create trouble later. I do not think poetry sessions and sitting in counselling sessions is going to change that in their minds. The government is not taking the issue of terrorism seriously. It is not really taking the issue of radicalization seriously. We have seen that at one of the committees I am on, as well.

I am very thankful that we were able to pass the Magnitsky Act earlier this fall. That was an important part of this whole piece, and is something some of us worked on last Parliament. Thanks to our colleague from Manitoba and one of our senators from the other place, we were able to bring that in here, and then the government finally came to its senses and supported it.

However, Canadians do not have confidence that the government is going to do the right thing. Another example of that would be in its relationship with Iran. The member opposite asked earlier if there are examples of places where we can see this kind of radicalization that could be taking place. Obviously, over the years, Iran has been listed as a state sponsor of terror for a number of years by a number of countries. Again, the relationship this government insists on having with Iran is just naive. It thinks that somehow it is going to change its direction by cuddling up to it. That is not going to happen. It is very disturbing. We see Iran trying to stretch itself out in the Middle East, and the trouble it is causing in places like Yemen where it has gone in. It is trying to create as much of a conflict there as it possibly can.

For those of us who have been working on the religious freedom issues over the years, another place we see radicalization has taken place is through Wahhabism that has come out of Saudi Arabia. If the money that has been put into spreading that ideology around the world had been stopped 20 or 30 years ago, we would not find ourselves in the situation we do right now.

I respect the bill that the member has brought forward, but we do have several levels of dealing with these things. I mentioned state sponsors of terrorism. I think we have two of them listed still, which are Iran and Syria. Other countries list places like North Korea and Sudan. There is also another level of dealing with these issues, which is to list the terrorist entities. The government on the other side seems to say that this is not really a serious issue or whatever.

If we take a look at the number of listed entities that Canada has listed, it is well over 50. These are 50 terrorist organizations that function around the world. It is naive to think that not one of them is taking money and putting it into kind of parallel organizations, sister and brother organizations that may have very different names and is not trying to influence governments around the world. As my colleague has pointed out, it is the flow of money that is actually critical.

We have sanctions on countries as well. There is a third level layer of sanctions. We have over 20 countries listed on a sanctions list, and that started in the Special Economic Measures Act. Those countries had sanctions put against them for good reason. However, this bill deals specifically with the flow of money and trying to stop that flow of money. It is more than timely. It is past time that we should have brought this forward.

It does not sound as though it is going to, but I hope the government will step up and at least send the bill to committee and see if there are some changes it would like to make and we can agree to, so that the bill can go forward and become effective in the future.

The bill starts off by talking about religious, cultural, and educational institutions, and where they may play a central role in the lives of many Canadians. We know that is true. Those three components are critically important to a lot of people around the world.

The government is naive about the role that religious faith plays in many people's lives. The government—from some of the comments we have heard from some of the leadership—seems to think it is not a relevant concept for people in this time and age. That just shows naivety about what is going on around the rest of the world, where the majority of people are informed and driven by some very serious faith considerations and beliefs in their own lives. That is why I appreciate the member bringing this forward in those terms.

We also know that education plays an incredibly important role around the world. Typically, if an individual is going to try to influence people and is going to spend money doing that, that individual is likely going to put that money into some sort of either faith institution or educational institution in order to try to change people's thinking. The bill specifically addresses those issues and those components.

It goes on to say “some foreign states and some entities and individuals abroad provide those institutions with funding through donations or gifts”. We understand that money travels around the world. People who hold to different beliefs and principles are willing to spend their money and commit it to causes, and for the most part they are good causes. That is why Canadians contribute to charities. That is why we are known as some of the most generous people in the world, because people are willing to make those contributions to things that they think are important.

That is the good side of the equation, but there are also people who do not have those same benevolent attitudes and who want to use their money in another way, which is to bring down other governments, other institutions, and other states. This bill addresses that.

It says “funding could flow from foreign states, entities or individuals that support or promote extremism, radicalization or terrorism and that seek to influence those institutions”. That is where we believe that the Parliament of Canada needs to step in. It is important that we do.

This bill has a number of provisions to it. Its purpose is to prevent an individual, an entity, or a foreign state that does support or is associated with radicalization or terrorism being able to fund those institutions around the world through either donations or gifts. It is a pretty simple explanation. There is a schedule that could be put in place that would deal with that, and then that would address the issue of those states, those individuals, those foreign entities trying to have influence in Canada when they should not do that.

It is incredibly important that we address this issue. My NDP colleague said that money is really not the issue here, but I would disagree with him. The only way to actually diminish the activity is to cut off funding and reduce the money. Then we can look at some of the other causes, some of the other things that are influencing people to become radicalized. As long as foreign money is allowed to come into a country, whether it is Canada or another country, it gives people the capacity to influence, to tear down institutions, and then to do the damage that they really would like to see happen.

There are a number of provisions to this legislation that might be worth going through.

The bill would apply to a foreign state whose name is set out in the schedule or any senior official or member of the official's immediate family. We often see a senior official who is functioning and then family members are doing something off in another direction or whatever.

It is good that we have followed the lead of other countries. My colleague mentioned countries such as Australia, which did this very specifically to deal with an issue it had in that country. Norway and Austria are other countries that have acted on this. Others such as the United States and the United Kingdom are thinking about it.

It is a good idea that Canada thinks about it as well. It would be a great help to many people around the world. It would be a great help to many Canadians if the government would treat this seriously, support the bill, and send it to committee, and then we can have further discussion about it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I have some thoughts I would like to share with members, and I will start with one of the criticisms from across the way, which is that this government is not concerned about a very important issue to Canadians. We have not only talked about the issue of safety, but very tangible actions have been taken, whether it is budgetary or legislative measures.

My colleague made reference to the Magnitsky legislation that was passed by the House. It received all-party support. There were many strong advocates within the Liberal caucus for that legislation. In fact, Irwin Cotler, the former member for Mount Royal in Montreal, is a very strong human rights advocate. He is very well known and respected in the world. In fact, he is one of the most able-minded individuals dealing with that. He contributed immensely in the House with respect to that act, which was discussed not only over the last couple of years but for a few years. Even under Stephen Harper, there was discussion about the Magnitsky Act.

Many of the comments we are hearing, even this evening, have been dealt with in part through the Magnitsky legislation. I have had the opportunity, not only in Ottawa but in other places, particularly in Winnipeg, to talk about the importance of the issue.

This was one piece of legislation that passed with the support of all members of the House.

However, we also introduced government legislation. Members will recall Bill C-51 and the impact that legislation had in the chamber. When the member across the way is critical of the government and says that it is not doing enough, I remind the member that two substantial pieces of legislation have been brought forward to the House.

Bill C-22 dealt with the establishment of the parliamentary oversight committee. This might even be an issue the oversight committee could discuss, once it is up and running, but I suspect it will have a fairly busy agenda. That was put in place to ensure rights and freedoms were being addressed, which is very important.

When we talk about the safety of Canadians and the radicalization of individuals who call Canada their home, we take it very seriously. At the same time, we also want to ensure that the rights and freedoms of Canadians are being protected. Therefore, that legislation was put in place.

Today, we are having a great deal of discussion about Bill C-59. Many measures within that legislation deal with safety. I do not know how many times I have heard the Prime Minister talk about the importance of ensuring that Canadians feel safe. Aside from governance, it is most important to ensure there is an element of safety. Many measures have been put in place by this government. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the minister responsible for global affairs, and members as a whole recognize what is being talked about and the concerns that Canadians have.

This is the reason I asked the questions of the sponsor of the motion. What is the motivation behind this legislation? We all want to ensure we have safe communities and there is proper legislation in place to prevent radicalization whenever we can do that. There is already a litany of measures in the Criminal Code.

I emphasize that we have proactive law enforcement agencies, security agencies, and even the Canada Border Services Agency for border control. There are many different departments in place today to protect Canadians.

One of my colleagues across the way made reference to education. We have invested, through budgets, millions of dollars for education or outreach. In fact, we launched the Canada Centre for Community Engagement and Prevention of Violence to support local initiatives. To cite a few examples, we looked at pushing back against violent extremism, addressing online terrorist propaganda and recruitment, intervening early to turn young Canadians away from the path of extremism, and supporting families and communities affected by radicalization.

I was involved with the youth justice committee for many years, and we had a wonderful RCMP officer who participated in it. I know first-hand the commitment of our women and men in the RCMP. It is about making connections and connecting the dots to promote more harmony and tolerance in our communities.

I did not like the debate that took place here regarding Islamophobia. I believe it did more damage than good inside this chamber. I still do not quite understand why we have some people in the House who do not recognize Islamophobia as something that is real.

We have to go out of our way to ensure that there is more communication among the many different groups out there. We even have a group in our caucus that meets on occasion with two different faith groups to try to bring faith communities together. This is something I believe is really important.

When I think of radicalization, one of the areas of concern I have is not necessarily what takes place in communities as much as what takes place on the Internet. The Internet is one of those areas we could spend time evaluating. Some of the problems being generated in society are because of the Internet, and we should consider ways we can address that issue.

We have seen radicalization that has stemmed from the Internet. I am concerned about the attraction it has. It is universal. It does not apply to one group of people or one faith group. Youth look at it far too often as something that might be an attractive thing to do. At times, it even crosses gender.

Many of my colleagues reach out to the community on this issue. At the end of the day, I believe we should be promoting education. It think education is the best way to combat radicalization. Whatever we can do to support that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Sorry, the time is up for the member.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis.