Ralph Goodale

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

Mr. Speaker, there was a huge opportunity on Monday afternoon to have four, five, or six hours of debate. The opposition members chose a different procedure to occupy the day in a different way and pre-empted their own debate with the tactics they used. They did it again this afternoon in the House of Commons. There could have been ample debate on many important topics in the House. Instead, they chose to fritter away the time that has been made available.

It is obvious that the opposition has no interest in serious, substantive debate. Members are overwhelmed with tricks and tactics that abuse the process, and the business of the country must go forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, as with all complicated pieces of legislation, and as is the natural disposition of experts in whatever field, there are various opinions. However, some of the most prominent commentators from, for example, the University of Ottawa, Carleton University, and the University of Toronto, and former heads of various security agencies across the country, who usually, perhaps, are in the category of being critical of legislation of this type, have described this as the most significant overhaul of public safety and national security legislation in Canadian history, certainly since the CSIS Act was originally introduced in 1984. They described the changes we have made as progressive and aimed at a very important balance. Number one, keep Canadians--

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

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the hon. member's interventions and her comments with respect to Bill C-59.

There has been a huge amount of input already, including ample public consultation for a full year before we even introduced the legislation in the first place.

Now, at this stage of the legislation, there will be another five hours of discussion in the House, and following that, another five hours of discussion in the House, which should be ample time for all serious proposals and propositions and comments to come forward, based upon what has already been the most extensive--

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

Mr. Speaker, it is the function of Parliament and the committees of Parliament to deliberate, debate, discuss, take legislative proposals, seek amendments, and go through that valid exercise in democracy, but it is also the function of this place and the committees of this place to ultimately, having heard all the evidence and all the information, to take a decision and actually vote on the decisions that reflect the best interests of Canadians. That certainly is happening in spades with respect to Bill C-59.

There has been extensive consultation, the largest in Canadian history. There has been a full process in Parliament, and now, as we come to the conclusion of the deliberation stage, we are getting closer to the point when it will be time to vote and take a decision.

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

Mr. Speaker, I read in the media the other day comments from that hon. member indicating words to the effect that by and large, Conservatives support this legislation. I appreciate his support for Bill C-59.

Again, I point out that this legislation is the product of extensive consultations. Fifty-nine thousand people responded online with respect to the proposals we have now before the House of Commons. Eighteen thousand submissions were received by email. Town hall meetings were held across the country in places like Halifax, Markham, Winnipeg, Vancouver, and Yellowknife. The standing committee held numerous meetings in preparation for the legislation. Social media was engaged, with Twitter and online conversations. There were 17 engagement meetings held by various members of Parliament across the country and 14 in-person sessions with experts from civil society.

All the results of that have been published so that all Canadians can see what everyone was saying to everyone about the content of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. gentleman that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and Security did very good work on this legislation. It heard from at least three dozen witnesses. It received some 95 briefs, and it amended the legislation no fewer than 40 times. The result of those 40 amendments was to take what the experts had previously referred to as a very good piece of legislation and strengthen it in a number of ways. I am very happy to accept those 40 amendments.

I also remind the House that this legislation is based upon the most extensive public consultation about national security ever in the history of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. gentleman's question, but I beg to differ with his interpretation. The fact is that the changes we are in the process of making with Bill C-59 would bring much greater clarity to the law. It would make the constitutional authorities much more clear and distinct so that our police and security agencies would have a much better sense of the scope and impact of their powers.

In consultations with those authorities, and I obviously had the opportunity to discuss these issues with them quite frequently, they said the one thing that bedevils their work is uncertainty, a lack of clarity, and doubt about what they have the authority to do and not do. In Bill C-59, clarification is brought to a great many matters with respect to CSIS and other agencies, which would make them more effective in conducting the important work they do to keep Canadians safe and to safeguard rights and freedoms.

[Marijuana, June 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, both bills, Bill C-45 and Bill C-46, are extremely important. Bill C-46 includes the toughest measures in the world to deal with impaired driving.

We have worked very carefully with all members of Parliament, with the Senate, with provinces, and with law enforcement agencies to get this strengthened law in place. I look forward to the Conservative Party actually supporting Bill C-46, because some of the elements in that bill were originally proposed by the hon. member.

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, June 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, as I explained in my previous answer, this is a multi-stage process involving several agencies in my portfolio plus the department of immigration and refugees Canada. It is a process that has worked remarkably well under very stressful conditions over the last 18 months. I think all members of the House of Commons would want to congratulate the officials at the border who have made sure that every Canadian law is enforced and every Canadian international obligation is respected.

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, June 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the border operation is a three-part process. First of all, for those who cross the border outside of ports of entry, they are arrested by the RCMP. When the RCMP has done its security check, they are turned over to the CBSA for further processing. If they pass that security check, they proceed to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada officials for consideration of their eligibility. It is a very detailed process, and security is not compromised.