House of Commons Hansard #431 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was deal.

Topics

Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedNational Security Act, 2017Government Orders

7 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

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

Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedNational Security Act, 2017Government Orders

7 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedNational Security Act, 2017Government Orders

7 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

All those opposed will please say nay.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedNational Security Act, 2017Government Orders

7 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedNational Security Act, 2017Government Orders

7 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

Before the Clerk announced the results of the vote:

National Security Act, 2017Government Orders

7:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Is the hon. member for Calgary Skyview rising to indicate which way he wishes to vote?

National Security Act, 2017Government Orders

7:40 p.m.

Independent

Darshan Singh Kang Independent Calgary Skyview, AB

Mr. Speaker, I want to apply my vote and I vote yes.

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

Vote #1350

National Security Act, 2017Government Orders

7:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from June 7 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-59, An Act respecting national security matters, and of the amendment.

Motion in relation to Senate amendmentsNational Security Act, 2017Government Orders

7:45 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to give a little ad at the beginning of my speech. Tomorrow is an important day. June 12 is Philippines Independence Day. I want to invite all members from all sides of the House to come out after their caucus meetings and walk across the street from West Block to SJAM to participate in the Filipino heritage event.

I want to add my thoughts in regard to Bill C-59 and I will approach it in two ways. First I will speak to the process that has brought us to the bill before us today and then I will provide thoughts in regard to some of the content of the bill itself.

To say that the issue of security and freedom is a new debate in the House of Commons would be a bit of a stretch. I can recall the debates surrounding Bill C-51 several years ago when Stephen Harper was the prime minister. He brought in that piece of legislation. At the time, the Liberal Party, as the third party, actually supported that legislation.

However, we qualified that support in a very clear way. We indicated throughout the debate that there were some fundamental flaws in Bill C-51, and that if we were to ultimately win in the election of 2015, we intended to bring forward some changes that would rectify some of those fundamental flaws.

I can recall the hours of debate that took place inside the chamber by members of all political parties. I can remember some of the discussions flowing out of the committees at the time. There was a great deal of debate and a great deal of controversy with the legislation. Even while campaigning during the last federal election, it was a topical issue for many people. It dealt with issues of an individual's rights versus having that sense of security. I always made reference to the fact that Liberals understand how important individual rights are. That is one of the reasons I often highlight that we are the party that brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

If we take a look at the original Bill C-51, even though the principles were very admirable and we supported it and voted for it, even though at the time we received some criticism, we made it very clear that we would make changes.

This is the second piece of legislation that has attempted to make good on commitments we made to Canadians in the last election. I really enjoy is being able to stand up in this place and provide comment, especially on legislation that fulfills election commitments, starting with our very first bill, Bill C-2. That is a bill I am very proud of, and I know my caucus colleagues are very proud of that bill. It concerns the tax break for Canada's middle class. There is the bill we are debating today, Bill C-59, the second part of a commitment we made to Canadians in the last federal election, which talks about the issue of public safety and privacy rights. Yet again, we have before us another piece of legislation that ultimately fulfills another commitment we made to Canadians in the last federal election.

I mentioned that I wanted to talk a bit about the process. In bringing forward Bill C-59, I do not think we could come up with a better example of a minister who has really understood the importance of the issue, or who has gone far beyond what any other minister in the Stephen Harper era ever did, in terms of consultation.

Even before the bill was introduced, we received input from thousands of Canadians, whether in person or through the Internet. We also received input from members of Parliament, particularly from many of my Liberal caucus colleagues. We were afforded the opportunity to share with the minister and the caucus some of the issues and concerns that came out of the last election. A great deal of consultation was done. The minister on several occasions indicated that the comprehensive dialogue that took place allowed for a substantial piece of legislation at the first reading stage.

Shortly after that, the bill was sent to committee prior to second reading, which allowed for a more thorough discussion on a wider scope of issues. The bill was debated at report stage and then at third reading. It was sent to the Senate, which has sent back amendments, which is where we are today. That process indicates that we have a government, as the Prime Minister has often indicated, that thinks the roles of our standing committees and the Senate can improve legislation. We have seen many changes throughout this process. This bill is a stronger and healthier piece of legislation than it originally was at its first reading stage.

I wanted to give that bit of background and then do a comparison regarding why the government had to move closure just an hour ago. I want to make it very clear to those individuals who might be following the debate, whether it is on Bill C-59 or other pieces of legislation.

We have an official opposition party that is determined to work with the NDP, and I often refer to it as the unholy alliance of the Conservatives and the New Democrats. They work together to try to prevent any legislation from passing. They will do whatever they can to prevent legislation from passing. It does not take much to do that. At the end of the day, a few members can cause a great deal of issues to prevent legislation from passing. There is no sense of responsibility coming from the opposition side in regard to working hard for Canadians and recognizing the valuable pieces of legislation that would be for the betterment of our society. In fact, those parties will put up speaker after speaker even on non-controversial legislation, because they have no real interest in passing legislation. If it were up to the Conservative opposition, we would still be debating Bill C-2. The opposition members have many different tools, and they have no qualms about using them. Then—

Motion in relation to Senate amendmentsNational Security Act, 2017Government Orders

7:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Motion in relation to Senate amendmentsNational Security Act, 2017Government Orders

7:55 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I want to remind members of the opposition that they will have plenty of time to ask questions and make comments. I would ask that they please hold their thoughts until the hon. member has finished his speech.

I have a point of order from the member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

Motion in relation to Senate amendmentsNational Security Act, 2017Government Orders

7:55 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Madam Speaker, the extreme closure motion that was just passed does not give an opportunity for the opposition to reply. I just wanted to clarify that.

Motion in relation to Senate amendmentsNational Security Act, 2017Government Orders

7:55 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I would ask members to listen closely, because they will be able to use the information as they see fit.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Motion in relation to Senate amendmentsNational Security Act, 2017Government Orders

7:55 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, let me cite a few examples. On the one hand, the combined opposition, that unholy alliance, will be critical of things like time allocation. The members will be critical because the government has prioritized bills and we want to pass them through. However, when it is a priority bill for the New Democrats, they have no problem saying that they want time allocation. They have supported time allocation.

When it comes time to get down and work hard for Canadians, we have the Conservative Party that will adjourn debate. The Conservatives will adjourn the House because of their unwillingness to spend time in a constructive way. The examples are endless. We remember the budget debate. I would not fault members if they do not remember the budget debate. That was when the member for Carleton stood in his place and literally talked out the whole clock. There was only one member who was allowed to speak to the budget, because the Conservative Party at the time wanted to allow its partners, the New Democrats, at least one opportunity to speak. One Conservative member talked for 14 and a half hours straight.

I raise this because the opposition members consistently do what they can to prevent legislation such as this from being able to move on. Then, they get upset if we use the tools that advance the interests of Canadians. The hypocrisy there—

Motion in relation to Senate amendmentsNational Security Act, 2017Government Orders

7:55 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I have a point of order. It is getting very loud in here. Someone does have the floor, so I would ask members to hold their thoughts.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

Motion in relation to Senate amendmentsNational Security Act, 2017Government Orders

7:55 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like you to clarify that the extreme closure motion imposed by the Liberals does not give the opposition the right to reply to these absurd comments being made by the member for Winnipeg North.

Motion in relation to Senate amendmentsNational Security Act, 2017Government Orders

7:55 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

The hon. member is absolutely right that there will not be a right to reply. We still owe the member the respect of the House in letting him finish his speech in order to finish the debate here.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Motion in relation to Senate amendmentsNational Security Act, 2017Government Orders

7:55 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, I am sorry if I am hurting some feelings on the other side. I recognize that the truth hurts at times, but that is the truth. Everything that I have said is true.

The opposition members can continue to play games all they want. I can assure them that they can stay in the gutter. They can try to put in all of the preventive measures that they want. They can attempt to adjourn the proceedings of the day all they want, but this government and this Prime Minister are committed to working day in and day out, right to the very last day for Canadians.

We will continue to be focused on bringing forward good, positive legislation, making a difference in the everyday lives of Canadians, whether it is through a legislative measure that we have today or the many budgetary measures that we have brought in. We know that our agenda is in fact having a positive impact on the lives of Canadians every day, and we are not scared to work hard.

Motion in relation to Senate amendmentsNational Security Act, 2017Government Orders

8 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Again, it is getting very loud. The hon. parliamentary secretary has only a few minutes left. I would hope that members would want to hear what he has to say. Although members may not be able to ask questions and give comments right now, they will be able to raise any issues they may not agree with during a different debate.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Motion in relation to Senate amendmentsNational Security Act, 2017Government Orders

8 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, it is obvious that we have hit a nerve on the other side.

Let me focus on Bill C-59, which is a very important piece of legislation. If there were a part that I would highlight, it would be the national security intelligence review agency, an agency that would be more holistic in its approach. As opposed to having a review agency for the RCMP and a review agency for CSIS, we will have one review agency that ultimately has the responsibility for all of those security organizations, thereby ensuring we do not have independent silos all over the place.

This is really good stuff. I would encourage the members opposite to vote in favour of this legislation. Let us pass some legislation today.

Motion in relation to Senate amendmentsNational Security Act, 2017Government Orders

June 11th, 2019 / 8 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

It being 8:02 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the consideration of the Senate amendment to Bill C-59 now before the House.

The question is as follows. Shall I dispense?

Motion in relation to Senate amendmentsNational Security Act, 2017Government Orders

8 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.