Ralph Goodale

[Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship, June 14th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, in the report from the U.S. this past week, the comments by and large were very favourable about the relationship with Canada, about what they called the “northern border”, and about the strength of security and other operations along that border. Indeed, the former secretary of homeland security, who is now chief of staff in the White House had nothing but praise for the Canadian border and said that he was happy to work with Canada to ensure that the border was constantly thinning, to the advantage of both countries.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 6th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the government's answers to Questions Nos. 1671 to 1683.

[National Security Act, 2017, June 6th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that a judgment call needs to be made when dealing with legislation, in terms of assigning an appropriate amount of time for legislation to be considered thoughtfully and carefully. If the opposition chooses, rather than to engage in debate, to use parliamentary time for other purposes, then they are in fact forgoing their own opportunities.

[National Security Act, 2017, June 6th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the accuracy or not of a particular quote depends on the facts of the matter and the context in which the quotation is taken. Here, in the course of the last half-hour, I have laid out for people to judge how extensive the consultation was before the legislation was introduced.

Secondly, the fact is that we referred the legislation to committee before second reading to give the committee maximum flexibility to deal dealing with amendments. Then when the committee got to the work of clause-by-clause, after they had heard three dozen witnesses and received 95 briefs, they amended the legislation no less than 40 times. Now we are into the final stages in Parliament, which will include five more hours of debate, and then another five hours. That gives ample opportunity for the opposition to participate and make any worthwhile contribution they might care to make. If the last half-hour is any indication, I will not hold my breath.

[National Security Act, 2017, June 6th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the committee itself would be the better judge of how the actual amendments reflected the testimony it heard. Let me give one very significant example on the issue of intelligence activities conducted in other countries, not in Canada, that may involve the risk of torture or mistreatment in those other countries. It was very clear from the testimony before the committee, as well as the comments made by members of the committee, that they wanted to put into law very strong provisions to protect against any Canadian complicity in behaviour overseas that might involve mistreatment or torture. We have had that protection until now through the vehicle of ministerial directives. However, members of the committee wanted to make that tougher. They wanted to see those ministerial directives reflected in the law itself. Indeed, a whole new section was added that will ultimately be a standalone piece of legislation to ensure that there are very strong protections in Canadian law against any behaviour on the part of Canadians that would in any way be complicit in mistreatment or torture.

[National Security Act, 2017, June 6th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the first speaker at this stage of the debate was in fact the hon. gentleman's colleague, the NDP critic for this piece of legislation. Therefore, indeed, other people have participated in the debate, including the NDP.

The fact of the matter is there are five more hours of discussion. I would note with respect to the work at report stage that there were only three amendments proposed by the opposition in total, which would indicate a degree of satisfaction with the legislation. The opposition members had the perfect opportunity to propose an unlimited number of other amendments. They did not. They proposed three, and we're debating those three.

[National Security Act, 2017, June 6th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the issue of complexity, unfortunately in this world issues related to public safety and national security are not simple. They are complex. They require expert work by our security and intelligence agencies and police forces. They also require expert work by the review agencies that examine the operations of the police and CSIS. We are improving the standards by creating the new national security and intelligence review agency. We are creating, for the first time ever, an opportunity for oversight before the fact rather than after the fact, complemented by the committee of parliamentarians.

[National Security Act, 2017, June 6th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, probably the single most important change we are implementing though Bill C-59 is to create a much stronger and more comprehensive review process. Instead of having individual review agencies that only have the authority to examine a single security or police agency, which is the case now, we are creating a new, comprehensive body called the national security and intelligence review agency. It would have authority across the entire government of Canada. The silos will be gone, and the review will be able to follow the case, the issue, and the evidence wherever it may be in any department or agency of the Government of Canada.

That will be complemented by the work of the new National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. It will also be complemented by the work of the new intelligence commissioner, who will, for the first time ever, create actual oversight and not just review things after the fact.

[National Security Act, 2017, June 6th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, this is from an hon. member who was quoted in the media a few days ago as saying that, by and large, he supports this legislation. I thank him very much for that support.

The fact of the matter is, the opposition has numerous opportunities for debate and discussion. If it chooses to use its time in a different way, that is its choice.

Ultimately, though, it is incumbent upon Parliament that, once a good, strong debate has taken place and there has been ample time for debate in the public arena, to take decisions. After several more hours of debate on this topic, which will run over the next several days, it will be time for members of Parliament to weigh all the issues, both pros and cons. If the opposition chooses to vote against the legislation, that is entirely its prerogative.

[National Security Act, 2017, June 6th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, members said we took far too long to discuss it with Canadians and present the legislation, which came in June of 2017, and then they said we were hurrying things too quickly and not allowing enough time for public discussion and debate. The reality is that we undertook to have the most extensive consultations in Canadian history. We did that throughout 2016.

We took all of that advice and information on board. We presented legislation in June 2017. We put it out in public for Canadians to examine, review, and weigh carefully, and then we brought the legislation before the House for debate. In the course of that debate, we put it to the committee before second reading so the committee could have maximum flexibility. The committee heard three dozen witnesses, received 95 briefs, and made 40 amendments. That seems to me to be the product of a democratic process that is working.