House of Commons photo

Track Randall

Your Say

Elsewhere

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word is nato.

NDP MP for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke (B.C.)

Won his last election, in 2015, with 35% of the vote.

Statements in the House

National Security Act, 2017 June 18th, 2018

Madam Speaker, certainly the hon. member and I did a lot of work together on opposite sides of Bill C-51. I will start by disagreeing with him that Bill C-51 is the gold standard of anything. What I have yet to see is anyone present the evidence.

It is very interesting that the Liberals had a good chance to do that when they presented Bill C-59 and to say that if they were going to keep major parts of Bill C-51, how they made us safer. Where is that report? That report is nowhere to be seen.

I do not believe it is a gold standard. I do not believe it made us safer. The hon. member fell once again into this idea that somehow giving up part of our rights will make us more secure. To me, that is a fundamental fallacy. Rights, freedoms, and security go together. I do not want to say hand in hand, because the government has devalued the currency of that phrase. However, I would say that we must do both. We must protect rights and freedoms. Full rights and freedoms do not make us less secure. They make us more secure and more united as a country.

National Security Act, 2017 June 18th, 2018

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to speak against Bill C-59 at third reading. Unfortunately, it is yet another example of the Liberals breaking an election promise, only this time it is disguised as promise keeping.

In the climate of fear after the attacks on Parliament Hill and in St. Jean in 2014, the Conservative government brought forward Bill C-51. I heard a speech a little earlier from the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, and he remembers things slightly different than I. The difference is that I was in the public safety committee and he, as the minister, was not there. He said that there was a great clamour for new laws to meet this challenge of terrorism. I certainly did not hear that in committee. What I heard repeatedly from law enforcement and security officials coming before us was that they had not been given enough resources to do the basic enforcement work they needed to do to keep Canadians safe from terrorism.

However, when the Conservatives finally managed to pass their Anti-terrorism Act, they somehow managed to infringe our civil liberties without making us any safer.

At that time, the New Democrats remained firm in our conviction that it would be a mistake to sacrifice our freedoms in the name of defending them. Bill C-51 was supported by the Liberals, who hedged their bets with a promise to fix what they called “its problematic elements” later if they were elected. Once they were elected in 2015, that determination to fix Bill C-51 seemed to wane. That is why in September of 2016, I introduced Bill C-303, a private member's bill to repeal Bill C-51 in its entirety.

Some in the House at that time questioned why I introduced a private member's bill since I knew it would not come forward for a vote. In fact, this was an attempt to get the debate started, as the Liberals had already kept the public waiting for a year at that point. The New Democrats were saying, “You promised a bill. Well, here's our bill. It's very simple. Repeal all of C-51.”

Now, after more than two years and extensive consultations, we have this version of Bill C-59 before us, which does not repeal Bill C-51 and fails to fix most of the major problems of Bill C-51, it actually introduces new threats to our privacy and rights.

Let me start with the things that were described, even by the Liberals, as problematic, and remain unfixed in Bill C-59 as it stands before us.

First, there is the definition of “national security” in the Anti-terrorism Act that remains all too broad, despite some improvements in Bill C-59. Bill C-59 does narrow the definition of criminal terrorism speech, which Bill C-51 defined as “knowingly advocates or promotes the commission of terrorism offences in general”. That is a problematic definition. Bill C-59 changes the Criminal Code wording to “counsels another person to commit a terrorism offence”. Certainly, that better captures the problem we are trying to get at in the Criminal Code. There is plenty of existing case law around what qualifies as counselling someone to commit an offence. Therefore, that is much better than it was.

Then the government went on to add a clause that purports to protect advocacy and protest from being captured in the Anti-terrorism Act. However, that statement is qualified with an addition that says it will be protected unless the dissent and advocacy are carried out in conjunction with activities that undermine the security of Canada. It completes the circle. It takes us right back to that general definition.

The only broad definition of national security specifically in Bill C-51 included threats to critical infrastructure. Therefore, this still raises the spectre of the current government or any other government using national security powers against protesters against things like the pipeline formerly known as Kinder Morgan.

The second problem Bill C-59 fails to fix is that of the broad data collection information sharing authorized by Bill C-51, and in fact maintained in Bill C-59. This continues to threaten Canadians' basic privacy rights. Information and privacy commissioners continue to point out that the basis of our privacy law is that information can only be used for the purposes for which it is collected. Bill C-51 and Bill C-59 drive a big wedge in that important protection of our privacy rights.

Bill C-51 allowed sharing information between agencies and with foreign governments about national security under this new broad definition which I just talked about. Therefore, it is not just about terrorism and violence, but a much broader range of things the government could collect and share information on. Most critics would say Bill C-59, while it has tweaked these provisions, has not actually fixed them, and changing the terminology from “information sharing” to “information disclosure” is more akin to a sleight of hand than an actual reform of its provisions.

The third problem that remains are those powers that Bill C-51 granted to CSIS to act in secret to counter threats. This new proactive power granted to CSIS by Bill C-51 is especially troubling precisely because CSIS activities are secret and sometimes include the right to break the law. Once again, what we have done is returned to the very origins of CSIS. In other words, when the RCMP was both the investigatory and the enforcement agency, we ran into problems in the area of national security, so CSIS was created. Therefore, what we have done is return right back to that problematic situation of the 1970s, only this time it is CSIS that will be doing the investigating and then actively or proactively countering those threats. We have recreated a problem that CSIS was supposed to solve.

Bill C-59 also maintains the overly narrow list of prohibitions that are placed on those CSIS activities. CSIS can do pretty much anything short of committing bodily harm, murder, or the perversion of the course of democracy or justice. However, it is still problematic that neither justice nor democracy are actually defined in the act. Therefore, this would give CSIS powers that I would argue are fundamentally incompatible with a free and democratic society.

The Liberal change would require that those activities must be consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That sounds good on its face, except that these activities are exempt from scrutiny because they are secret. Who decides whether they might potentially violate the charter of rights? It is not a judge, because this is not oversight. There is no oversight here. This is the government deciding whether it should go to the judge and request oversight. Therefore, if the government does not think it is a violation of the charter of rights, it goes ahead and authorizes the CSIS activities. Again, this is a fundamental problem in a democracy.

The fourth problem is that Bill C-59 still fails to include an absolute prohibition on the use of information derived from torture. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan made some eloquent statements on this with which I agree. What we have is the government saying that now it has included a cabinet directive on torture in Bill C-59, which gives the cabinet directive to force of law. The cabinet directive already has the force of law, so it absolutely changes nothing about this.

However, even worse, there is no absolute prohibition in that cabinet directive on the use of torture-implicated information. Instead, the prohibition says that information from torture can be used in some circumstances, and then it sets a very low threshold for when we can actually use information derived from fundamental rights violations. Not only is this morally repugnant, most likely unconstitutional, but it also gives us information that is notoriously unreliable. People who are being tortured will say precisely what they think the torturer wants them to say to stop the torture.

Finally, Bill C-59 would not do one of the things it could have done, and that is create a review agency for the CBSA. The CBSA remains without an independent review and complaints mechanism. It is one of our only law enforcement or security agencies that has no direct review agency. Yes, the new national security intelligence review agency will have some responsibility over the CBSA, but only in terms of national security questions, not in terms of its basic day-to-day operations.

We have seen quite often that the activities carried out by border agencies have a major impact on fundamental rights of people. We can look at the United States right now and see what its border agency is doing in the separation of parents and children. Therefore, it is a concern that there is no place in Canada, if we have a complaint about what CBSA has done, to file that complaint except in a court of law, which requires information, resources, and all kinds of other things that are unlikely to be available to those people who need to make those complaints.

The Liberals will tell us that there are some areas where they have already acted outside of Bill C-59, and we have just heard the member for Winnipeg North talk about Bill C-22, which established the national security review committee of parliamentarians.

The New Democrats feel that this is a worthwhile first step toward fixing some of the long-standing weaknesses in our national security arrangements, but it is still only a review agency, still only an agency making recommendations. It is not an oversight agency that makes decisions in real time about what can be done and make binding orders about what changes have to be made.

The government rejected New Democrat amendments on the bill, amendments which would have allowed the committee to be more independent from the government. It would have allowed it to be more transparent in its public reporting and would have given it better integration with existing review bodies.

The other area the Liberals claim they have already acted on is the no-fly list. It was interesting that the minister today in his speech, opening the third reading debate, claimed that the government was on its way to fixing the no-fly list, not that it had actually fixed the no-fly list. Canada still lacks an effective redress system for travellers unintentionally flagged on the no-fly list. I have quite often heard members on the government side say that no one is denied boarding as a result of this. I could give them the names of people who have been denied boarding. It has disrupted their business activities. It has disrupted things like family reunions. All too often we end up with kids on the no-fly list. Their names happen to be Muslim-sounding or Arabic-sounding or whatever presumptions people make and they names happen to be somewhat like someone else already on the list.

The group of no-fly list kids' parents have been demanding that we get some effective measures in place right away to stop the constant harassment they face for no reason at all. The fact that we still have not fixed this problem raises real questions about charter right guarantees of equality, which are supposed to be protected by law in our country.

Not only does Bill C-59 fail to correct the problems in Bill C-51, it goes on to create two new threats to fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians, once again, without any evidence that these measures will make it safer.

Bill C-59 proposes to immediately expand the Communications Security Establishment Canada's mandate beyond just information gathering, and it creates an opportunity for CSE to collect information on Canadians which would normally be prohibited.

Just like we are giving CSIS the ability to not just collect information but to respond to threats, now we are saying that the Communications Security Establishment Canada should not just collect information, but it should be able to conduct what the government calls defensive cyber operations and active cyber operations.

Bill C-59 provides an overly broad list of purposes and targets for these active cyber operations. It says that activities could be carried out to “degrade, disrupt, influence, respond to or interfere with the capabilities, intentions or activities of a foreign individual, state, organization or terrorist group as they relate to international affairs, defence or security.” Imagine anything that is not covered there. That is about as broad as the provision could be written.

CSE would also be allowed to do “anything that is reasonably necessary to maintain the covert nature of the activity.” Let us think about that when it comes to oversight and review of its activities. In my mind that is an invitation for it to obscure or withhold information from review agencies.

These new CSE powers are being expanded without adequate oversight. Once again, there is no independent oversight, only “after the fact” review. To proceed in this case, it does not require a warrant from a court, but only permission from the Minister of National Defence, if the activities are to be domestic based, or from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, if the activities are to be conducted abroad.

These new, active, proactive measures to combat a whole list and series of threats is one problem. The other is while Bill C-59 says that there is a still a prohibition on the Canadian Security Establishment collecting information on Canadians, we should allow for what it calls “incidental” acquisition of information relating to Canadians or persons in Canada. This means that in situations where the information was not deliberately sought, a person's private data could still be captured by CSE and retained and used. The problem remains that this incidental collecting, which is called research by the government and mass surveillance by its critics, remains very much a part of Bill C-59.

Both of these new powers are a bit disturbing, when the Liberal promise was to fix the problematic provisions in Bill C-51, not add to them. The changes introduced for Bill C-51 in itself are minor. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan talked about the changes not being particularly effective. I have to agree with him. I do not think they were designed to be effective. They are unlikely to head off the constitutional challenges to Bill C-51 already in place by organizations such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Those constitutional challenges will proceed, and I believe that they will succeed.

What works best in terrorism cases? Again, when I was the New Democrats' public safety critic sitting on the public safety committee when Bill C-51 had its hearings, we heard literally dozens and dozens of witnesses who almost all said the same thing: it is old-fashioned police work on the front line that solves or prevents terrorism. For that, we need resources, and we need to focus the resources on enforcement activities at the front end.

What did we see from the Conservatives when they were in power? There were actual cutbacks in the budgets of the RCMP, the CBSA, and CSIS. The whole time they were in power and they were worried about terrorism, they were denying the basic resources that were needed.

What have the Liberals done since they came back to power? They have actually added some resources to all of those agencies, but not for the terrorism investigation and enforcement activities. They have added them for all kinds of other things they are interested in but not the areas that would actually make a difference.

We have heard quite often in this House, and we have heard some of it again in this debate, that what we are talking about is the need to balance or trade off rights against security. New Democrats have argued very consistently, in the previous Parliament and in this Parliament, that there is no need to trade our rights for security. The need to balance is a false need. Why would we give up our rights and argue that in doing so, we are actually protecting them? This is not logical. In fact, it is the responsibility of our government to provide both protection of our fundamental rights and protection against threats.

The Liberals again will tell us that the promise is kept. What I am here to tell members is that I do not see it in this bill. I see a lot of attempts to confuse and hide what they are really doing, which is to hide the fundamental support they still have for what was the essence of Bill C-51. That was to restrict the rights and freedoms of Canadians in the name of national security. The New Democrats reject that false game. Therefore, we will be voting against this bill at third reading.

Main Estimates, 2018-19 June 14th, 2018

Mr. Speaker, my problem with the arguments the hon. member makes about carbon pricing are similar to those that were just raised by the hon. member from the other side. He is focusing on the upfront costs, but he is skipping what happens if we do not take effective action on climate change.

When we look around British Columbia, where I am from, we see the families that are bearing extreme costs from flooding, families that can no longer get insurance because floods have become more and more frequent because of climate change. We see those who have lost their homes due to forest fires, which are becoming evermore fierce and evermore frequent.

Therefore, I really cannot understand this obsessive focus on the front-end cost here, which completely ignores the massive costs to families and to our society of ignoring climate change.

Main Estimates, 2018-19 June 14th, 2018

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech, although it bore a great resemblance to a long string of heckles.

The member talked about $7 billion, which does not have any real purpose in the budget. I happened to sit in in the government operations committee, so I would have to disagree with him. Very serious questions were asked. We asked officials what it really meant if we voted for $7 billion now? The officials said we could ask questions about it later.

That is not the way it is supposed to work in Parliament. We are asked to approve measures. We know what they are and we vote for or against them based on what is going to happen.

The member's analogy with the members' office budgets proves he has not looked very closely at his own budget. Our budgets are itemized. We know what the dollars are are for. We know what we can spend them on.

I would ask the member to think again about this request in the budget for members of Parliament to give a blank cheque of $7 billion to Liberals and only ask about it later.

Business of Supply June 12th, 2018

Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question points out the very obvious thing that we in the NDP have all been talking about today and that is if we took that money that is being used to buy this pipeline, if we took the money that is being used to subsidize the oil and gas industry, and we put it into renewable energy projects in Alberta, it would create the jobs that are needed in Alberta now and for the future. One thing I disagree on with Alberta is this pipeline, but what we do not disagree with the Alberta government is on the need to transition to a renewable economy in the future. The government is doing very little, if anything, to make sure that happens.

Business of Supply June 12th, 2018

Madam Speaker, I thank my neighbouring MP for her tireless support in opposition to this pipeline. We know very clearly that we do not have the evidence that dilbit can be cleaned up successfully, but we do know that this pipeline and a spill of this kind would threaten the thousands of jobs on the Lower Island that already exist in sport fishing, recreational fishing, and in tourism. The very backbone of our private sector economy is put at risk by a 700% increase in tanker traffic with no real prospect that a spill could be cleaned up.

Business of Supply June 12th, 2018

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his somewhat hostile question. It is very clear that the Alberta government is a climate leader in this country and that there is one thing that I do disagree with him on and that is the need for the Kinder Morgan pipeline.

There is some real question and I think it was the real reason there was no private sector buyer for this project. Once the Keystone pipeline is built, and it is approved and is proceeding now, and once the Louisiana superport is built for oil tankers, there is not enough oil for two pipelines and the price differential that would have made Kinder Morgan profitable disappears.

This is a false choice we have placed in front of us. This is something Kinder Morgan walked away from because it was not profitable in the future and it found a chump to buy it and that is the Canadian public.

Business of Supply June 12th, 2018

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak in support of the NDP opposition day motion in the names of the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and the member for Edmonton Strathcona.

This is a motion that sets out a clear path for Canada to walk the walk of a climate leader. For more than a decade, I have been advocating for a rapid transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. I have consistently opposed further investment in fossil fuels, especially in investments that would result in an increase in tanker traffic on B.C.'s coast.

My opposition to increased tanker traffic, as many people know, dates back to when I was first elected to Esquimalt's council in 2008. I went to my first emergency preparedness meeting as a councillor and found that we had no plan and no resources for an oil spill on our beaches. I moved a motion in council then to oppose an increase in tanker traffic, and that motion was unanimously adopted by my council and later by the Union of B.C. Municipalities, because municipalities understood that a lack of a plan to even deal with the current tanker traffic meant that we could not afford the risk of a seven-times increase in tanker traffic that would come with the Kinder Morgan pipeline.

This increase in tanker traffic presents a threat to the environment on our pristine coasts and our already stressed ecosystems. However, it presents a particular threat to the 76 southern resident killer whales. Even the National Energy Board admitted that these orcas will probably be extinct if the Kinder Morgan project goes ahead, although the National Energy Board said it was not in its jurisdiction, of course, to look at that question.

Also, an increase in tanker traffic threatens the existing economy in my riding where fishing, both recreational and sport fishing, and tourism are the backbone of the private sector. No one comes to Vancouver Island to see oil spills. They come to enjoy the pristine beaches, the coastline, to fish, and to see the iconic southern resident killer whales.

A 700% increase in tanker traffic means a 700% increase in the likelihood of a spill. Therefore, even if the current risks are fairly low, we know that a spill will eventually take place. Even Kinder Morgan admitted that in its submission to the National Energy Board.

When the government says that we have world-class measures in place, it is important to talk about what it means by world-class measures to deal with spills. As a newly elected MP in 2011, I talked to the chief operating officer of the Western Canada Marine Response Corporation, which is the oil and pipeline-owned non-profit responsible for spills. Of course, there is a little irony there when oil and pipeline companies own the company responsible for cleaning up the spills, but I digress. I asked what the standards are for a successful cleanup of a spill. He said that it is a 10% to 15% cleanup of the actual oil spilled and a response time of six to six and a half hours from my riding. I asked if that was because that is what science says is necessary or was it because that 15% cleanup and that six-hour response time is what would best limit the impacts in my riding. He said that, no, it was the best they could do and so that is the standard. This was the standard for cleaning up crude oil spills, not bitumen, which sinks, not floats.

As for the Liberals' vaunted $1.5-billion oceans protection plan, well, let us do the math. With $1.5 billion over 10 years, we are down to $150 million per year divided by three oceans. Let us say that the north gets cheated, as usual, and only gets $30 million of that. That then leaves about $60 million for each coast. Really, $60 million a year for each coast to improve our oil spill response capacity when we are going to have a seven-times increase in tanker traffic. Of course, the oceans protection plan really is not a plan. It is more a wish list, most of which consists of additional consultation and replacement of badly outdated equipment that is already needed on the coast.

Before the other side starts accusing me of hypocrisy or callousness to existing oil workers, or being a big spender for taking these actions, let me say three things before my hon. friends get started.

First, personal actions are necessary from all of us to meet the challenges of climate change. I do make best efforts personally, as those of us who are privileged can do. I have been driving an electric car for more than five years, and we have a heat pump and energy-efficient appliances in our home. I also buy carbon offsets for my flying as an MP. Individual action, however necessary, will never be sufficient to meet the challenges of climate change, and most Canadians lack the resources to make the changes in their lifestyle. Even if they were able to make those changes, they would not be enough without collective action.

Second, I have never suggested than an immediate shutdown of the oil sands is the solution, but I have called for a moratorium on the expansion of the oil sands, because we have to stop rushing headlong in the wrong direction.

Third, the question here of jobs is not one of making people unemployed. It is of making sure that they have high-quality, family-supporting, sustainable jobs in the long term.

Renewable technologies already exist. These technologies are proven and economic. In fact, as of this year there are more jobs in Canada already in the existing renewable energy industry than in the entire oil and gas industry.

Investment in renewable energy creates jobs in every community, not just in remote camps. These are skilled jobs, long-term jobs, not sunset jobs.

If we look at how much these jobs cost, it is very clear. Oil and gas investments per $1 million produce about one full-time job. Renewables do far better. Solar projects, just to take one example, generate more than six jobs for every $1 million invested. If we are going to make a straight economic argument as to where to invest for family-supporting, high-skilled jobs in the future, it is in renewable energy, not in oil and gas.

In some of the sectors of renewable energy the very skills that have been used in oil and gas are transferable. The best example of that is geothermal, mostly used for space heating and totally underutilized in Canada. This is the best example, because geothermal projects need civil and geological engineers. They need drillers, pipefitters, and welders. These are exactly the skills directly transferable from the oil and gas industry. What we need is support from government to get started on the transition for those workers.

Finally, I am often challenged to explain how we are actually going to pay for this necessary transition. Let us be clear. We must pay to act quickly or we will face catastrophic consequences and costs in trying to cope with climate change and perhaps even risk our future on this planet.

How do we pay? We could start by ending the federal subsidy on fossil fuels, estimated at nearly $3.3 billion per year. This is something that both the Liberals and the NDP promised in the last election, just a little difference in the timing. It would be immediately for us and by 2025 for the Liberals.

It is also interesting to note that a recent report from the Auditor General found that despite that promise, he could find no plan to phase out these subsidies, let alone any evidence that the government had started to do so.

There is $3.3 billion per year that we are putting into the old technology and into the climate-threatening technology in oil and gas.

In addition to that, I would argue, as I always have, that we should back away from wrong-headed decisions like buying out Kinder Morgan. Buying the old pipeline for $4.5 billion and then spending another $7 to 10 billion on its replacement is squandering up to $15 billion when we combine that with the subsidies that we could eliminate. This would give us an investment fund for renewable energy of over $10 billion in the first year, with another $3.3 billion available annually with the end of those subsidies. That is a lot of money to put into a solid renewable energy future and into jobs in every community across this country.

Now the government is telling us that the investment in Kinder Morgan is only temporary and the pipeline will be sold once it has been “de-risked”. However there was no private sector buyer for this pipeline when this guarantee by the government against delays was already in place, so it is hard to figure out who that future buyer would be, unless the Liberals plan on taking a big loss on behalf of the public. It is not clear yet from the government how it intends to pay for this big investment, both for buying Kinder Morgan and for building the new pipeline. There was obviously no provision in the last budget to do this, so where is the government going to find that money? It is very hard to figure that out.

It is very easy for some to try to blame the Horgan government for delay, easy perhaps rhetorically, but harder to make that case in reality. No permits applied for in British Columbia have been denied and going to court to protect provincial jurisdiction makes sense, because the B.C. Supreme Court ruled in the northern gateway case that the province had to do its own environmental assessment of that pipeline. How could that be the case if there is no provincial jurisdiction?

We face some stark choices ahead. We can continue down the path of investing in fossil fuels and we can continue to have increasingly harsh impacts of climate change that threaten all our jobs and all our families, or we can choose a path to a low-carbon economy, one that creates good, family-supporting jobs, sustainable jobs in all provinces and all communities, and one that avoids the looming catastrophe of climate change that will come with missing our Paris targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and that will come with the inevitable temperature increase beyond 2°.

I call for us to take that more progressive path.

World Oceans Day June 5th, 2018

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize World Oceans Day. This past weekend, I was pleased to celebrate World Oceans Day on the Gorge Waterway in my riding, and I offer my congratulations to the organizers of this great annual event.

The recovery of the Gorge offers both inspiration from the success of volunteer-led efforts to restore both salmon runs and swimming to the Gorge, but also a cautionary tale in the ongoing vigilance so necessary to protect this inlet. However, now, when we are facing a future with more plastic than fish in the water, it is time for the federal government to act to protect our oceans, starting with an immediate phase-out of single-use plastics.

If we are to stop global warming, we must end subsidies to fossil fuels, like the government's wrong-headed decision to buy the Kinder Morgan pipeline. This project is not just an impending climate change calamity, but also a major threat to west coast marine life and ecosystems on which our local economy and our very future depend.

On World Oceans Day, I stand with my constituents in their commitment to protecting our oceans and ask the Liberals to do the world to do the same.

Criminal Code May 29th, 2018

Mr. Speaker, in just a moment I will be seeking unanimous consent for a motion dealing with Bill C-32. Bill C-32 would repeal an archaic section of section 159 of the Criminal Code. Adopting Bill C-32 would remove a longstanding point of discrimination against gay men by eliminating the unequal age of consent for anal sex.

Bill C-32 was tabled on November 25, 2016, and it has been sitting on the Order Paper since then. With the imminent passage of Bill C-66 in the other place, I am asking that Bill C-32 be adopted at all stages by the House today so that criminal records based on section 159 of the Criminal Code would immediately and clearly qualify for expungement as provided in Bill C-66.

That is why I am seeking unanimous consent for the following motion, that notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-32, an act related to the repeal of Section 159 of the Criminal Code, shall be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage, and deemed read a third time and passed.