Debates of March 20th, 2017

Bill C-22--Time Allocation Motion

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the government House leader. Could she expand on why it is so important that we act on the legislation, given the fact that it was part of an actual election platform?

This is something that the Prime Minister committed to do for Canadians. The member made reference to the fact that there have already been a significant number of hours of debate. I will highlight the fact that since the Prime Minister made the commitment, there is an obligation on the House to see the legislation ultimately come to that final vote. Could she provide some comment on the importance of that commitment?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to remind Canadians that we have had over 17 hours of debate and over 40 speakers. The committee held eight meetings and heard from 41 witnesses. These conversations continue, and we are engaging not only with members, but also with Canadians.

When it comes to the national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians, it will respond to the government's commitment to achieve two objectives simultaneously: to keep Canadians safe while respecting and safeguarding their rights and freedoms. The committee's mandate and powers go further than those of any other Westminster country, in some respects, by including the review of all national security intelligence committees across all departments and agencies, as well as broad access to classified information.

The committee will act with full independence from the government in deciding which matters to review and in reporting its findings and recommendations. Its mandate and powers will be legislated and cannot be altered by the government.

This is important legislation. It is good for Canadians, and it is important that we advance it so that we can have this oversight body. This is unlike anything else that this country has ever done, and it is about time that we get it done.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, while I appreciate that the Prime Minister made some campaign promises, he also promised openness and transparency. He also made a promise about a $10-billion deficit, but we will put that aside.

I sit on that committee. The minister overruled the committee through a number of amendments that all of us put forward, to remove the tools. A lot of those tools have been removed, so I find it very interesting that we go through a whole process, hear from expert witnesses, put the amendments forward, do the work, and go across the country only to have the bill gutted. Therefore, when I hear that these are campaign promises, and we have time allocation to shut down debate, I am curious whether the House leader can comment on the waste of time of the committee and all the work the committee did going across the country and hearing the experts, if the government is not even going to pay attention to the recommendations.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not surprised to see a Conservative standing up in this place and referring to the important work that a committee does as a waste of time. I entirely disagree with her in this case. I know that the work the committee did was very important. It heard from 41 witnesses, held eight meetings, and did very important work. The legislation that was introduced—

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

I sit on that committee, and you ignored it.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, now we see the member chirping rather than listening to a response that I believe is important for Canadians to hear.

When it comes to the legislation that was introduced and given to committee versus the legislation that has come out of committee, even after this government's amendments, we see that the work the committee did was taken very seriously. There were seven exemptions. The committee chose to remove all seven. The government has chosen to remove three.

We can look at the exemptions we have kept. One is cabinet confidences. I am sure Canadians will not be surprised, and they understand cabinet confidence. With respect to information described in the Witness Protection Program Act, why we would need the name of an individual who has already been given witness protection is beyond me. We will have access to the information, just not the details about the individual. What the individual looks like and the name of the individual should not matter when we make a decision. We have suggested that the exemptions about confidential sources and “information relating directly to an ongoing...law enforcement agency that may lead to a prosecution” be kept.

We have kept the removal of FINTRAC, the removal of the Investment Canada Act, and the removal of information respecting “ongoing defence intelligence activities supporting military operations”.

This is a step in the right direction, and we will continue working hard—

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

It is a committee under the PMO, and the member knows that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member for South Surrey—White Rock that she was afforded the respect of asking the question without interruptions, and I assume that she would want to do the same so that everybody can hear the answers.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Hochelaga.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, first I hear that there had been no impasse in committee. Then I learn the all of the committee's recommendations were rejected. The report was not accepted as my colleague said.

The Liberals promised during the election campaign that they would lessen the negative effects of Bill C-51. They had also promised more transparency. However, in addition to gutting the bill, they are imposing time allocation. They are trying to sweep everything under the rug and make the issue disappear as quickly as possible. Twice, the people were let down. We call that a double whammy. It is very disappointing to Canadians.

How can Canadians trust a government that breaks so many promises? It is no surprise that people are so cynical about politicians.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise once again in this House to encourage all members to really consider the amendments that have been put forth by the government. It really is a middle ground. We have taken seriously the work that the committee has done, and we have accepted many of the amendments. For example, the whistle-blower amendment that was proposed by the NDP has been accepted by the government. Members will recognize that there is no amendment to remove that provision. It was suggested by the NDP, and it came with great information. We have accepted it, and it remains a part of the current legislation in front of the House.

We can look at the chair. In the original legislation, the chair had two votes. After the committee's hard work, we recognized that the chair should have only the tie-breaking vote, if a tie exists. We have accepted that amendment and we have more than worked with committee members, as well as all members in the House.

This is important legislation for Canadians. It is the first of its kind. It is important that we have a committee of parliamentarians. We are the only country in the Five Eyes that does not. We are starting at a step that is way further ahead than any other country. It is important legislation, and I encourage all members to really consider the amendments rather than assume that everything has been changed when this is not the case.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening carefully to the debate on the time allocation motion that was moved this morning, and I am a little confused. Well, I am not so much confused as bothered by the characterization of time allocation that the government House leader made in response to the question from my colleague from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola. In the same sentence, she characterized the invocation of time allocation by a Conservative as abuse of Parliament while at the same time lamenting its being the only tool available when the government needs to advance important legislation. It does not make any sense, other than to say that when a Liberal wants to allocate time, then it is, regrettably, the only tool, but if anybody else does it, it is abuse.

Is simply fulfilling a campaign promise, when you have broken countless other ones, an acceptable excuse for limiting the parliamentary prerogatives of members, when nine out of 10 members have not yet been able to speak on this bill?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to clarify that I certainly have not broken any campaign promises. I would ask the member to address his comments to the chair.

The hon. government House leader.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity, once again, to rise in this place and correct the record. Over 40 members have spoken to this piece of legislation and have expressed their views, and more members will have the opportunity to speak at report stage, as well as at third reading. There have been over 17 hours of debate on this legislation. When we look at the number of hours we have to debate important pieces of legislation, 17 hours is more than a reasonable amount of time. This is important legislation, and we will advance it. The committee had eight meetings and heard from 41 witnesses.

The member speaks about time allocation and the fact that he is bothered by it. This government has more than tried to work with members on the opposite side. I am comparing what we have to do with the fact that the previous government moved time allocation over 100 times. Sometimes legislation would be introduced with a motion for time allocation. That is not the approach this government is taking. We will not take that approach, because we believe we can work better together.

When it comes to campaign commitments, we know that we need to have meaningful debate as well as advance legislation. We committed to lowering taxes for middle-class Canadians, and we delivered. We committed to increasing taxes for the wealthiest 1% of Canadians, and we delivered. What did the Conservatives do? They voted against it every time.

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

Madam Speaker, it is quite interesting to hear the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader talk about how the House is obliged to pass government legislation. I guess the Liberal caucus members did not get the memo the last sitting week when they voted against the government, twice. I guess that is why they have to have two caucus meetings this week, because the caucus does not feel that cabinet is consulting it.

It is not just opposition members; it is the Liberal caucus as well that is fed up with the notion that the Liberals promised to do better and are well on their way, I would argue, to doing even worse at this point. While we knew where the Conservatives stood, I suppose the Liberals like to say they are going to do better and then stab us in the back with a knife on these issues, because that is exactly how we feel, having worked hard at committee.

My colleague from Victoria worked hard to try to get some of those amendments passed. While the government House leader will brag about the three or four that are still there, there are some critical pieces that are missing, such as what information the committee gets access to. We can just look at the issue of ongoing investigations. This means that the Air India inquiry and Afghan detainees, issues that are now decades old, would not be looked at by this committee.

It is great to have whistle-blower duty, but what good is that if the committee does not actually get the information it needs? I would add that this is exactly the kind of information the member for Vancouver Quadra wanted a similar committee to get in a piece of legislation she proposed in the last Parliament, supported by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

I want to understand. If the member has so many great things to offer about which amendments the Liberals picked, why not have that debate and discussion over a proper period of time?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am a little surprised that a member of the NDP would be disturbed that a federal government would encourage its members to vote openly and freely. We committed to doing government differently, and we will. For the member not to understand what democracy looks like is, unfortunately, what has been the culture of this place for far too long. We allow our members to have opinions. We allow and encourage our members to be part of the debate. We do not randomly whip votes, unlike what the members on the other side have to deal with every single day. Our members are free to represent their constituents, advance democracy, and have these tough conversations.

What the member cannot understand is that we had tough conversations and meaningful debate. This piece of legislation is way more robust than what any other country started with. What the member cannot fathom is that he did not get everything he wanted. However, the reality of working together in this place is that there is going to be a middle ground. It is okay to work together; it is okay to have differing opinions. When delivering for Canadians, we need to have many opinions. It is important that we advance in a meaningful way so that we can protect Canadians' rights and freedoms, as well as national security. That is what we will deliver on.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. government House leader, it is not that members over here cannot fathom things, but that we do not agree that we are working together when we are looking at legislation that still needs to be as robust as it can be and respect the role of parliamentarians on the committee.

For instance, parliamentarians on the committee would lose parliamentary privilege and are assumed somehow to be not trustworthy, yet the government has done nothing to create the same kind of restrictions for the other review agencies, such as SIRC, on which the previous prime minister put a known fraudster in charge. Arthur Porter had access to all state secrets. Under Bill C-22 as now drafted, senators and members of Parliament would have even more restrictive access than a civilian who is the head of SIRC. There are substantive issues of concern here.

I would quickly like to note a historical record. The hon. government House leader is absolutely right that the Conservatives used closure 100 times in the 41st Parliament. However, the problem here is that what they did, which was egregious, seems to have normalized a practice that should not be seen as normal at all. In the early part of the 20th century there was a 40-year period in which closure was used exactly seven times. I do appreciate that the Liberal government is using it less, but it should be using it far less so that we could go back not just to a bar set by what Harper did, but to a bar set by normal parliamentary practice when debates did not face so many time allocations.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the important work the member does in this place but I have to remind her that this will not be a parliamentary committee. It will be a committee of parliamentarians, the first of its kind. It will start with a scope unlike that in any other Westminster country. It will start further ahead.

The legislation that was sent to the standing committee has now been approved because of the important work the committee did. The government has a responsibility to Canadians and this is a first step and it is a substantial first step. There is a review mechanism in place so that we can revisit this legislation and ensure that we either have it right, that we need to go further, or pull back. Members of Parliament will have the opportunity to do that.

To say that I take time allocation lightly is a disservice, because I take it very seriously. It is a tough decision to make.

We have had over 17 hours of debate in this place on this legislation. The standing committee had eight meetings and heard from 41 witnesses. We need to understand that the government has a responsibility not only to have meaningful debate but also to advance legislation.

I look forward to working with the member. She raised this question when I spoke in the House on this legislation, and at that time I offered that I would welcome the opportunity to answer any questions or concerns that she has.

I believe we are taking a meaningful step and we need to keep working harder together.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, we all recognize the important work that committees do on behalf of us as parliamentarians as we explore legislation that is tabled in the House. I am wondering if the minister could talk about the amendments that were accepted and the collaboration that did take place in committee with respect to this legislation.

I wonder if she could talk about how we work in committees to make sure that we fix legislation, improve legislation, and review legislation in a collaborative way and not simply pursue legislation as it is presented with no questions, no amendments, and no alterations as it moves forward. Perhaps she could also comment on how that differs from the previous government which never listened to committees whatsoever.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that question because it is important to highlight the amendments that were accepted. The committee made substantial changes to improve the bill and I would agree that the committee's work did improve this legislation. During clause-by-clause study on Bill C-22, amendments were made, including some by the government.

The Liberals amended the bill to broaden the committee's mandate in clause 8 and this was further amended by the NDP. It was agreed to by all parties and accepted.

The chair's double vote was removed from clause 19, ensuring the chair would only cast a deciding vote in the event of a tie. The committee advanced that amendment and the government accepted it.

Clause 21 was amended so that if anything is redacted from the committee's report, the revised version must be clearly identified as revised and must indicate the extent of the revision. The amendment was accepted.

A whistle-blower clause that would require the committee to inform the appropriate minister of any activity to discover that may not be conducted in compliance with the law was proposed by the NDP and was accepted.

Clause 14 and clause 16 in the original bill included seven automatic exemptions. The committee removed all of them. The government has reinstated those that are needed to protect individual privacy and rights, so the witness protection program and human intelligence sources for the government directly related to the ongoing investigations carried out by law enforcement agencies. The committee removed and the government has agreed to remove ongoing defence activities, the Investment Canada Act, and FINTRAC.

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

Madam Speaker, how can the hon. government House leader justify watering down the government's own bill when promising in an election to have a meaningful parliamentary oversight process?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, once again I am not surprised that a Conservative member would rise in this place and say that agreeing to amendments would actually water down legislation. It is something the previous government was not able to do.

This government believes that we can find a middle ground. This government believes that the work the committee does is important. When the committee hears from witnesses, we have a responsibility to take that testimony seriously. That is why this government has accepted many amendments proposed by committee members. This government is advancing legislation that is in the best interests of Canadians. We will continue working hard for Canadians because that is what we were elected to do.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.