Randall Garrison

[Privacy, February 25th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, once again, it is difficult to square that answer with the budget cuts to CSIS and the RCMP.

There are new reports today that the Communications Security Establishment is collecting millions of emails from Canadians to government agencies and storing associated metadata for months or even years. Yet, only four emails a day are considered serious threats.

Open-ended surveillance and maintenance of these records is concerning for Canadians, especially given the weak oversight of security agencies like the Communications Security Establishment.

Could the minister explain why this data is being held for so long?

[Justice, February 25th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to square that answer with the government's impressive record for passing unconstitutional legislation.

Instead of real scrutiny at committee, what the Conservatives seem to prefer is rubber stamp approval. However, it is precisely because the minister has been unwilling or unable to answer critical questions about this sweeping bill in the House, that Bill C-51 needs full study at committee.

Why is the government always seeking to shut down debate instead of allowing a serious review of sweeping and dangerous legislation like Bill C-51.

[Public Safety, February 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, there we have the minister hiding behind fear again, instead of committing to a proper study. It is no wonder that he will not, when every day new information is coming out about critical flaws in Bill C-51. Experts are warning that the bill could create a legal grey area, mixing the roles of CSIS and the RCMP. Cases could be left in limbo without any possible criminal charges. Bill C-51 needs a full study, hearing from experts and concerned Canadians.

Why are the Conservatives so afraid of being accountable for a bill that affects all of us?

[Public Safety, February 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-51 has been roundly condemned by security experts for being over-broad, vague, and ineffectual. It would sacrifice Canadians' rights and freedoms to give security agencies new powers without any new oversight. Rather than answer questions or address these problems, the Conservatives have rammed Bill C-51 through this House.

Are the Conservatives now also going to try to railroad it through committee? Will the government commit today to a full and proper study of this sweeping security bill?

[Public Safety, February 19th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, if the government is so confident in this bill, why is limiting the debate?

The minister would do better if he took a hint from the U.S. President, who has appointed a full-time coordinator at Homeland Security dedicated to stopping violent extremism before it takes root. What a contrast. Here in Canada we have RCMP and CSIS budget cuts, and community engagement plans left to languish on the drawing board for years.

Why are the Conservatives ignoring anti-terrorism measures that work, and pushing a dangerous bill that will not?

[Public Safety, February 19th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, so much for not railroading Bill C-51 through the House, as the Conservatives could not even wait 24 hours to limit debate on this bad bill. That is in pretty strong contrast to the U.S. President, who is out talking about what works to counter terrorism. Here is what President Obama said: “...we need to do what extremists and terrorists hope we will not do, and that is stay true to the values that define us as free and diverse societies”.

We do not need divisive rhetoric and limited debate. Why is this always the Conservatives' approach, even on such an important topic as threats to our national security?

[Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015, February 19th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Northumberland—Quinte West for his comments. I have worked with him on the public safety committee, and I know him to be a member of great integrity. I value his experience and his views.

However, he is incorrect to say that we were opposed to the bill all along. We said we had concerns about the bill and we were exploring them. We did so and reached a very considered decision about our support for the bill.

I have to say something about the scenarios that government members keep bringing up, these imaginary examples. It reminds me of what my grandmother used to say, “If wishes were horses, we'd all take a ride”. It is very difficult to deal with these theoretical examples, which is too strong a word. It is not an example, but a very cloudy view of the existing legislation.

I would submit that, with most of these scenarios, we actually do have the power to address them. The RCMP and CSIS have been doing a very good job of addressing those threats under the existing legislation.

[Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015, February 19th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan for her remarks and her support for my motion.

We on this side of the House took some time to study the bill and to consult with our constituents and talk to experts in the field. Many of us learned a lot about the bill that we would like to share in this House. One of the important functions of the House of Commons is that when we have debate on measures like this, which are so important both to national security and to civil liberties, it allows the public to understand the bill and what is going on here. Therefore, as I said at the beginning of my speech, I am disappointed to see time allocation, which will prevent many of my colleagues from participating in this debate.

I also wonder whether another purpose of time allocation is to ensure that the Conservative members on the other side do not have to stand up and speak to this and do not have to answer questions about the bill. That is the other side of what happens when we have this near closure of debate, with only really two more days in this House, on such an important law.

[Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015, February 19th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to say that I have the utmost respect for the hon. member for Malpeque as a colleague here in the House. However, the Liberals keep trying this diversionary tactic of talking about oversight when they have already promised to support the bill even if oversight is not added to the bill. Therefore, I want to go back to the first part of his remarks with respect to why I would move such a motion.

I would like to know why the Liberals would support such a bill without reservation and why they have given a blank cheque to the government. This is a bill that would be ineffective in addressing the threats we face on a daily basis yet puts our personal privacy rights and many of our freedoms at risk. It also creates a whole new category of activities for CSIS, which the Liberals will now be voting for despite the fact that there would be no oversight for these kinds of disruptive activities.

Therefore, I throw it back to the member. I do not understand why we do not hold the government to its word and ask it to work together with the opposition parties to come up with measures that would be effective against terrorism and do what needs to be done, not this broad, sweeping bill, which to me seems to be designed for political purposes. The government actually tipped its hand by announcing it at a campaign-style rally in Richmond Hill instead of here in the House where it belonged.

[Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015, February 19th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, as I tried to make clear in my speech, we already have adequate provisions to combat terrorism, and the government has failed to show us where those gaps are and how the measures it is proposing would address those gaps.

At the risk of the other side accusing me of naivety on terrorism, I have a considerable amount of experience working internationally. I was present in East Timor at the referendum for independence, when the Indonesian military-sponsored militias killed more than 1,500 people and destroyed virtually the entire infrastructure of a nation. I worked on a peace-building project in Ambon, Indonesia, when the market was bombed, the very market that my partner had just set out for, but luckily to which he was a few minutes late. I worked in Afghanistan for four months in 2002 when hundreds were killed or maimed by roadside bombs laid by the Taliban. In 2010, I was an election observer in Muslim Mindanao where there were three casualties at the polling station where I worked.

What I learned from these experiences is that preventing the use of violence and terrorism is a difficult and complex task. There is never a silver bullet, nor are any two situations exactly alike. What was most effective most often was old-fashioned front-line police investigation, which is human resource intensive, demanding high skills and dedication from the police and security forces involved.