11385 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 175 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Thursday, February 19, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES February 19, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 175 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 175 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 175 (Version officielle) 147 175 19 02 2015 2015/02/19 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2 The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers Routine Proceedings Routine Proceedings Supplementary Estimates (C), 2014-2015 A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates (

C) for the financial year ending March 31, 2015, was presented by the President of the Treasury Board and read by the Speaker to the House. (1005) [ English ] Government Response to Petitions

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to three petitions.

Committees of the House

Justice and Human Rights Mr. Mike Wallace (Burlington, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-26,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts . The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Parliament of Canada Act Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP) Bill C-654. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-654,

An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (omnibus bills) . He said: Mr. Speaker, I have been an MP now for seventeen and a half years, and I have to be honest with my constituents and the people of Canada that I am here under false pretenses, and so is every single one of the members of Parliament in this House. Our number one responsibility, when it comes to legislation, is the fiscal scrutiny of all legislation that leaves this House. However, when legislation comes forward with 418 pages that would change 50 statutes and laws, nobody in the House of Commons reads it.

Nobody in the House of Commons properly does the job we need to do to have fiscal scrutiny of the government. My bill would stop omnibus legislation from coming in. Legislation could only be introduced if attachments were related to the subject matter. One could not introduce legislation that had nothing to do with the subject matter at hand. This practice has to stop in the House of Commons. We have to restore democracy to the Canadian people. I am proud to say that we in the NDP want to stop the bus when it comes to omnibus bill legislation. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Committees of the House Foreign Affairs and International Development Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP) : Motion for concurrence Mr. Speaker, I move that the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, presented on Monday, May 5, 2014, be concurred in. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber , and I look forward to his comments. He has a wise view of the world. I have been on the subcommittee on human rights with him for a number of years now.

The reason this particular report will resonate in this place is because of the things that are happening in the Middle East right now, particularly with respect to Boko Haram, which, as members will know, has kidnapped a number of young women. In some instances, they have been sold off as brides, and in other instances, they have been abused. I will not go into the details. The report I am referring to came out of the subcommittee on international human rights back in May 2014. The title was “A Weapon of War: Rape and Sexual Violence Against Women in the Democratic Republic of Congo”.

It speaks about Canada's role in taking action to end impunity. This report went on to the foreign affairs committee, of which we are a sub-body, and it was passed in its committee's fourth report. It is crucial to understand that war as it was known for many generations has changed. An aspect of war that might have been at one time viewed, particularly by us in the west, as being horrendous is now almost an acceptable practice. As the title of this report says, rape is being used as a weapon. It is being used to humiliate and to embarrass. I want to read a bit of the executive

summary of the report: In recent years, there has been an increasing emphasis at the national and international levels around the need to prevent and address widespread sexual violence in situations of conflict and crisis. The report talks specifically about the war in Congo.

Members have to understand that when there is a breakdown of government that comes about when there is a major catastrophe, such as an earthquake, and an example that comes to mind is Haiti, and there is a period of time when people are homeless and living in refugee-style camps and in environments that are far below the standard of living they are used to, changes for people at times like that lead to sexual violence and violence against women. It has been noted that in the western world, one in four males abuses a spouse. The added pressure of a crisis is in no way a justification.

It is simply a statement of the facts. The subcommittee held a number of hearings on this issue, and over the course of those hearings, we were told of many of the misconceptions about conflict-related violence. We were also told that there are gaps in the policy response that contribute to the pervasive nature of this particular problem. At the beginning of the report, we refer to impunity. Should one of the troops in a normal army commit an assault or a rape, or even sexual harassment, the expectation is that the person would be called before a commanding officer to account for such abusive behaviour.

However, in some militaries in some countries in the world, it is seen as a reward for service. It is also seen when there are tribal-type conflicts where the family of one's opposition is shamed by the rape of a daughter or wife, a niece or a mother. We do not even begin to understand that process. That is why this debate is important.

(1010) If we stop to consider the Rwanda genocide, some 20 years ago, with one group of people versus another, the slaughter was unbelievable. Romeo Dallaire, the Canadian general at the time, was in command, and he wrote a book, Shake Hands With the Devil , which outlined the things that happened in that war. Today there are tens of thousands of children who are 20 years old who are the result of the rapes during that time.

We have had testimony before our committee about what has happened to them in their lifetimes and how the mothers, who were shamed by multiple rapes and attacks, had children with no idea who the fathers were. The tendency of the government of the day in Rwanda, and the tendency of the victims, was to hide this and not discuss it. Of course, that makes the problem for the direct victim, the mother, that much worse. We all understand that for post-traumatic stress healing, victims have to verbalize what has happened to them. They have to lay out before someone the pain they are suffering.

However, oftentimes, little account is given to the other victim, the child. Oftentimes they are in mixed tribes with the two tribes involved in that conflict, and neither side wishes to even deal with that young person. We have had a number of these child victims grow up and immigrate to Canada. In Hamilton we were marking the anniversary of the genocide not that long ago, and one of those children was there. It was a very poignant moment to listen to that person give testimony as to what happened to them, to their mothers, and to their families. Families were destroyed.

The way one individual described it was that his mother was numb. He grew up with no sense of comfort or feeling from his mother because of that attack that had been so vicious. It is important for us to understand that although that particular conflict was 20 years ago, today, in this world, this is happening on a much larger scale. In addressing the issue of impunity for those people who think they can undertake such terrible actions, members may note that I am hesitating a bit, because I am having difficulty finding the words. An hon. member: Read the page in front of you. Mr. Wayne Marston: Mr.

Speaker, someone just said “Read the page in front of you”. The page in front of me is the report. I can read that quite capably. I thank him very much. This is not a joking matter. We are talking about the lives of men, women, and children that are destroyed by the aggression and actions that somehow have been connected to combat, when they have nothing to do with combat. They have to do with the victimization of women by the power men have.

These particular men, of course, are armed with weapons and are able to intimidate and are able to put people into circumstances that they would never in their lifetimes have anticipated. In the fold of all of this there are rights we take for granted. There is the right to gain a living. Rape victims, in many of these countries, following the attack, do not have the physical or mental capacity to continue with work, which then affects their standard of living and their children. One of the ramifications of the Rwanda genocide is that those children of rape failed to get an education.

One would not normally consider that an offshoot of rape would be that the child would not even be able to get an education.

(1015) That is not directly contained in this particular report. However, the reports we are looking at now talk about the fact that perhaps Canada has a role in countries where there has been rape as a result of war, where there has been a child born who we could help with the understanding and the mental support that both victims need, and also with some form of aid for education. Perhaps we could put in place support mechanisms for those children who have come to Canada. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the member with respect to the Democratic Republic of Congo. If we look at the actual number of rapes that have taken place, it has been horrific. Also, the impact of violence against children should be noted. If we look at the situation, at one point it was estimated that close to 50 rapes were taking place in the Democratic Republic of Congo every hour. Given that amount of violence, there is no doubt that one effective way to counter that is through education.

The member made reference to aid and how Canada might be able to influence and have more of a positive impact there. When looking at the issue of foreign aid, we need to look at and take into consideration the social benefits. My question for the member is this. To what degree does he believe Canada could play a stronger role? Does he believe it is by providing aid and support in the form of education because education can empower and help transform?

(1020) Mr. Wayne Marston : Mr. Speaker, there are many levels to this. One of the levels where Canada could help is certainly at the cultural end. However, the justice and military justice systems in most of these countries are failing the victims, so that would be an area where we could be of assistance. The education I was referring to was with respect to educating the children who were born and on whom the community has turned its back. We have to get a conversation started that allows women to respond and to have some form of healing. There is a certain level of education there, perhaps psychological.

In the past, Canada has provided funding in those cases. I would encourage that it continue. There are many fronts to this. Right now this is happening in many countries that are experiencing conflicts. [ Translation ] Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. Of course we are all very moved by all of this violence against women, especially considering that rape is being used as a weapon of war and has been for years. Clearly that is unacceptable, and Canada really must do its

part in these conflicts, especially in terms of protecting women, the most vulnerable people in our societies. It is also clear that people act with a kind of impunity in these conflict zones. Unfortunately, because of that, the men who commit these crimes are never arrested for their crimes or tried in court. I would like to hear from my colleague about how we can finally see real justice in these conflict zones. [ English ] Mr. Wayne Marston : Mr. Speaker, that is an important point.

When it comes to impunity, we have soldiers who believe they have been granted permission—in fact, encouragement—to shame their opponents, including their families and wives. In doing this, they think they are doing what their government and military wants. In my view, we have to hold accountable those officers and military leaders who are not just allowing but encouraging this to happen. Until we take those people before international courts and they feel the full weight of international justice, then there is no encouragement from the top to change that behaviour. [ Translation ] Mr.

Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise in the House to speak to this matter. As my colleague said at the beginning of his speech, we have been colleagues on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. I am very proud to be there with him. [ English ] This report is the beginning of a very important discussion, the report called “A Weapon of War: Rape and Sexual Violence Against Women in the Democratic Republic of the Congo”. Rape is a very hard word. The word “rape”, even as I stand here, is very hard to say.

One is inclined to find euphemisms and so forth or try to talk around it, but it is very important that we understand it. It is very important that we understand these actions, not in a western concept, not in a concept of a criminal act that is perpetrated against a woman, and when this act happens, we hope that the victims can find support through their families and find support through various organization that we have here. It is a different thing altogether.

The purpose of these acts of rape, as it is used in a situation like this, as it is used in the Democratic Republic of Congo, as it was used in the Rwandan genocide—and I am proud to have brought forward a motion to study that, and we have just completed a study on the aftermath of the effect of rape during the Rwandan genocide—is to not simply humiliate, but to destroy communities, to destroy families, to create a situation where those communities cannot rebuild, to create a situation where women cannot look at their children.

There is no parental bond between mother and child; and it is mother and child, because the father is not in the picture, because the father is the rapist. In many cases, from the testimony we heard in this study as well as the study of the aftermath of the Rwandan crisis, children grew up not knowing who their father was, because the women were too ashamed to tell them that they were half of the opposing tribe—for lack of a better way of putting it—that their blood was mixed with the enemy's blood, with the violeur's blood, with that of the organization or the group that committed these atrocities.

The relationship between the mother and child is non-existent. The relationship between that child and the community is non-existent. This type of action, this type of weapon that is used against women and against communities in these types of conflict has far-reaching effects. We have talked about what role Canada can play in situations of this nature, and there are a number of recommendations that are laid out in this report; but in the sister studies that we are doing where this has happened in other nations, things like education come up, as the member for Winnipeg North brought up.

The issue is that although education is extremely important—for example, in the Rwandan situation—these children, these young adults, who have had no service because they are not considered victims of the Rwandan genocide, have no access to education to start to turn their lives around. We have a situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo. We have a situation in Syria, as we speak, where these types of acts are going on.

(1025) I hope every member takes the time to read this report. One of the things we need to start asking about, with regard to how Canada can help, is resources. I am not simply talking about monetary resources, but skill sets and lending the abilities that we have in psychological healing and adapting those practices to the cultural communities that are affected. We can begin to help heal and create the bonds between the mother and the offspring of this violent act. We can help create the bonds between the victims and their communities.

One of the things I hope we can gather from this report is that it takes a little more than condemnation, expressing outrage, and saying that this is a bad thing. It takes stepping in and asking what we can do to help and how we can better prepare ourselves for what is coming in the future. This is still going on. It is still going on in the DRC. It is going on in Syria and Iraq, over and above the other atrocities we hear about in the House on a daily basis. This has a long, far-reaching effect on both the community as a whole and, as a result, the world as a whole.

In the report, we talk about the need to create equality within the communities and have women brought into decision-making positions. This is a very important aspect of what can be done to strengthen communities. Unfortunately, the role and the aim of rape used as

an act of violence in war is to destroy these communities, no matter what position women hold. In the west, we still have a tendency to look at acts like this as the spoils of war. We need to change how we see these types of act and see them for what they are. They are as dangerous and as deadly as cluster bombs. They are as dangerous and as deadly as machine gun fire. They are as dangerous and as deadly as an atomic bomb in a community. Picking up the pieces after something that drastic is not an easy task.

We, in government and in Canada, have to look at how we can use the expertise that we have, learn from other nations as well, and collaborate and coordinate that expertise so that when this happens again—and mark my words, this will happen again—we as a nation can go and offer our services, our help, and our companionship to these nations, to help heal them. In terms of what can be done, because prevention is always something that is paramount, how do we get to a point where we can stop this from happening? I really do not know.

However, one of the things we can do in situations where this could possibly happen is make sure we create safe havens for women, girls, and boys, where they are thoroughly protected by United Nations troops or whoever is deemed capable of protecting these camps, where women can go and be protected. I encourage every member in the House to read this report, consider its recommendations, and consider the ramifications of the testimony that is found within it.

(1030) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the educational component, and I believe that if we want to make a difference when we deal with issues of this nature and this large in scope, we cannot underestimate the power of education. I believe Canada as a nation has incredible influence around the world, in some areas more than others, and it has a leadership role to play.

My question to the member is this: would he agree, given Canada's stature in foreign affairs and the potential influence it has, that if we approach countries like the Republic of the Congo, we can exert some influence in emphasizing the importance of education? At the end of the day, if we want to affect the lives of young children and young women, we have to ensure that there is more education about family violence and its negative outcomes for any nation around the world. Maybe he could provide further comment in terms of a potential leadership role Canada could play if it chose to do so.

(1035) Mr. Tyrone Benskin : Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree that education is paramount in situations like this, as it is in all situations. The only problem I see is that in countries where these acts happen, they happen because there is a sense of impunity because the judicial system does not support victims and the military and police do not support victims. In terms of getting that education to the people who need it, the wall of impunity that has to be broken down is problematic. As my colleague said, it is a multi-pronged issue.

Yes, education is important and needs to get there, but the problem is getting through the wall of impunity and the wall of resistance that allows these acts to happen. Canada can be a strong and very potent leader in moving this issue forward. Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague whether he would like to comment on the fact that while this report, as I am glad to see, does mention that while rape is a weapon of war, clearly from time immemorial, almost, until the present, and is mostly a crime in which women and girls are the victims, we are becoming more and more aware of men and boys being the victims of rape in war as well.

I am wondering whether he would comment on my view that while this remains a hugely gendered crime and while it is still violence committed by men and the mindset of men dominating women that lead to rape by men—whether it is of girls, women, men, or boys—nonetheless we are going to have to get our minds around the fact that while focusing on women and girls, we cannot lose sight of the fact that men and boys are sometimes large-scale victims as well. [ Translation ] The Deputy Speaker : The hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber has 50 seconds to respond. [ English ] Mr. Tyrone Benskin : Mr.

Speaker, my colleague from Toronto—Danforth is absolutely right. The focus tends to be on male-versus-female violence. It is not that there is a rise in non-gender-specific sexual violence, but we are hearing more about it now because of technology and the way information gets out. I do not think the report intends to say it is only a men-versus-women situation, but, yes, this is hugely problematic right across the board.

I would like to think that we could approach it from a vulnerability viewpoint, so that vulnerable people, be they from the LGBT community or young boys, girls, women, and men who are threatened, can find refuge in times of conflict. Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I move: Motion That the debate be now adjourned. The Deputy Speaker : Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. Some hon. members: Yea. The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay. Some hon. members: Nay. The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it. And five or more members having risen: The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.

(1115) (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) (Division No. 335) YEAS Members Ablonczy Adler Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht Alexander Ambler Ambrose Anders Anderson Armstrong Aspin Barlow Bateman Benoit Bergen Bernier Block Boughen Braid Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Butt Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Carrie Chisu Chong Clarke Clement Crockatt Daniel Davidson Dechert Devolin Dreeshen Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Eglinski Falk Fantino Fast Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk) Fletcher Galipeau Gallant Gill Glover Goldring Goodyear Gosal Gourde Grewal Hawn Hayes Hoback Holder James Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St.

Margaret'

s) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kent Kerr Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lauzon Lebel Leef Leitch Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Maguire Mayes McLeod Menegakis Miller Moore (Fundy Royal) Nicholson Norlock Oliver O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole Paradis Payne Perkins Poilievre Preston Raitt Rajotte Reid Rempel Richards Rickford Ritz Saxton Schellenberger Seeback Shipley Sopuck Sorenson Stanton Strahl Sweet Toet Trost Trottier Truppe Valcourt Van Kesteren Van Loan Wallace Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Yurdiga -- 133 NAYS Members Allen (Welland) Andrews Angus Ashton Atamanenko Aubin Bélanger Bennett Benskin Bevington Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Boivin Borg Boutin-Sweet Brahmi Brosseau Byrne Caron Casey Cash Charlton Chicoine Choquette Christopherson Cleary Côté Crowder Cullen Cuzner Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Davies (Vancouver East) Dewar Dion Dionne Labelle Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dubé Dubourg Duncan (Etobicoke North) Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Easter Eyking Freeman Garneau Garrison Genest Giguère Godin Goodale Gravelle Groguhé Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Harris (St.

John's East) Hughes Hyer Julian Kellway Lamoureux Lapointe Laverdière LeBlanc (Beauséjour) LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Leslie Liu MacAulay Mai Marston Martin Masse Mathyssen McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Mulcair Murray Nantel Nash Nicholls Nunez-Melo Papillon Patry Péclet Pilon Quach Rafferty Rankin Raynault Regan Rousseau Saganash Sandhu Scarpaleggia Scott Sellah Sgro Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) Sitsabaiesan St-Denis Sullivan Toone Tremblay Turmel -- 107 PAIRED Nil The Deputy Speaker : Motion agreed to I declare the motion carried.

Order, please. The hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans is rising on a point of order?

(1120) Mr. Royal Galipeau : Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have clarification from you as to the validity of a vote by a member who leaves his seat during the vote and then returns to it in order to vote. The Deputy Speaker : Does the member for Winnipeg Centre want to respond to the point? Mr. Pat Martin : Yes, Mr. Speaker, I realize that I did inadvertently leave my seat briefly in the middle of debate. I can blame it on a sale that was held down at the Hudson's Bay. They had men's underwear on for half price.

I bought a bunch that was clearly too small for me, and I find it difficult to sit for any length of time. I apologize if it was necessary for me to leave my seat briefly, but I did not mean to forfeit my right to vote. The Deputy Speaker : I had no briefing on this type of motion. Let me try to deal with it with at least some seriousness. We all understand that members have to be in their seats at the time the motion or bill on which they are voting is read. The member for Winnipeg Centre was in his seat at that time. He did step away from his chair for a very short time and was directed by me to sit down again.

I did not understand the explanation at the time, that he subsequently gave. I cannot say I really understand it at this point. I am trying not to deal with this with the degree of levity it deserves, but I think I would have to say, at this point, that since he was both in his seat at the time the motion was read and at the time he voted, I would have to let his vote stand.

Petitions Agriculture Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first petition was spearheaded by parishioners at St. Patrick's Catholic Church in Vancouver and has over 500 signatures.

The parishioners wish to bring to the attention of the House their concern about multinational seed companies that are gradually replacing the diversity of farmers' seeds with industrial varieties and obtaining an increasing number of patents on different seeds and threatening the ability of small family farmers to produce the food required to feed their families and communities.

The petitioners ask that the government adopt international aid policies that support small family farmers, especially women, and ensure that Canadian policies and programs are developed to ensure that farmers have access to the seeds they need.

(1125) Citizenship and Immigration Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am getting thousands of petitions from people across this country in support of my Motion No. 558, to urge the Canadian government to negotiate with the Chinese government 10-year multiple entry visas for Canadians to visit China. This is good for tourism, good for businesses, and good for family unification. It would also level the playing field with the United States, which in November negotiated 10-year multiple entry visas for American citizens visiting China. The petitioners urge the government to level the playing field and obtain this benefit for Canadian citizens as soon as possible.

Impaired Driving Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today. The first is on behalf of petitioners who believe that impaired driving charges in Canada are not strict enough and who ask that Parliament change the Criminal Code to redefine the offence of impaired driving causing death as vehicular manslaughter.

Sex Selection Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners call on Parliament to end the discrimination against girls that is occurring through gender selection pregnancy termination.

Agriculture Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the third petition is about seeds. The petitioners want to ensure that small farmers in particular have a right to grow their own seeds.

Animal Welfare Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House, as I have on many occasions, to present more petitions concerning the fact that every year hundreds of thousands of dogs and cats are brutally slaughtered for their fur in a number of Asian regions. These animals live in deplorable conditions. The petitioners call upon Canada to join the U.S., Australia, and the European Union in banning the import and sale of dog and cat fur. We are the only developed country without such a ban.

I have about a hundred pages of petitioners' names and have now introduced thousands and thousands of these petitions. These are from metro Vancouver and Victoria, but I know that the concern is spread across the country, so I am very pleased to introduce more of these petitions today.

Agriculture Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by numerous residents of Northumberland—Quinte West and the surrounding area, who want the government to ratify the convention on the protection of new varieties of plants, known as UPOV '91; to adopt international aid policies that support small farmers, especially women, and recognize their role in the fight against hunger and poverty; and to ensure that these policies and programs are developed in consultation with small farmers; and that they protect the rights of small family farmers in the global south to preserve, use, and freely exchange seeds.

[ Translation ] Citizenship and Immigration Mr. Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present. The first petition has been signed by many Canadians who are calling for citizenship legislation that is fair to everyone. This petition expresses people's concerns regarding Bill C-24 .

[ English ] Agriculture Mr. Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition seeks a guarantee for small farmers to have the right to save, reuse, select, exchange, and sell seeds, which is presently a custom and tradition. This is particularly concerning to urban consumers who want to buy organic food and know the sources of their food. Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present, the first of which is on behalf of many residents who want the government to recognize the inherent rights of farmers to save, reuse, select, exchange, and sell seeds. The petitioners call upon Parliament to act upon this matter.

(1130) Sex Selection Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with sex-selective abortions. The petitioners ask that Parliament condemn discrimination against girls through sex-selective abortion.

Iraq Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I present the third petition on behalf of many residents of my constituency and surrounding area. The petitioners call upon the government to recognize the serious situation that Christians in northern Iraq are facing. They call upon the government to increase the number who can apply for refugee status within Canada.

Genetically Modified Foods Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to stand and present a petition of several hundred signatures to make sure that Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency do not approve a request for the genetically modified non-browning apple. This petition has been signed by many people in my riding under the leadership of the Big Carrot in Toronto—Danforth, which continues to lead the way in my riding for awareness of the problems of genetically modified products.

Nuclear Waste Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I am receiving hundreds and hundreds of petitions dealing with the Nuclear Waste Management Organization. Many of these petitioners are from Thunder Bay—Superior North, and others from across northern Ontario. NWMO is considering 15 communities for the storage of nuclear waste in northern Ontario, in close proximity to Lake Superior, which supplies drinking water to 60 million people. The petitioners ask that the NWMO reject proposals to construct nuclear waste facilities in northern Ontario and reject any proposals to transport nuclear waste through northern Ontario communities.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Costas Menegakis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Deputy Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders Government Orders [ English ] Anti-terrorism Act, 2015

Bill C-51—Time Allocation Motion

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I move: Motion That, in relation to Bill C-51,

An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, not more than two further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the Bill; and That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the second day allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate of amendment.

If this motion is adopted, it will mean that there will be three days of debate on this bill, including today and Monday, and a vote with certainty on Monday evening.

(1135) The Deputy Speaker : Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1 there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite all hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period. The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have to start off by marking another milestone for the government. This marks the 88th time the government has moved time allocation or closure to limit debate in the House.

It is particularly shocking this time because we had not even finished the fourth speech. We only got through three speeches in the House of Commons before the government gave notice that it intended to limit the debate. For me, one of the most important functions of second reading debate is to let the public know what we are dealing with in the House, to shine a light on the contents of the bills we are dealing with and allow Canadians then to contact their MPs to let them know how they feel about the bills. We on this side have had an enormous response from the public, just after yesterday.

Therefore, we would like to ensure we have the time for people from all across the country to participate in this debate, people representing all different kinds of ridings and people bringing the input from their constituents into the debate. Instead, without even finishing the fourth speech, the government has moved to limit the debate. It says that three days will be enough. I am asking the same question I have often asked at this point. Does this mean we will also see a very severe limit on the time in committee? Is the government going to refuse to hear expert witnesses?

Is it going to refuse to provide enough time for Canadians who want to have input on the bill to come to the House of Commons and provide their input? Could we get assurance from the government, even though it is limiting the debate, that it will allow a free, open and full debate in the committee on this very important bill? Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, first, I would remind the member that the approach of our government has been to utilize time allocation as a device for scheduling debate, not as a device for limiting debate.

If we were limiting debate, we would be concluding it today and having the vote on it. That of is not our approach. In fact, the proof of that approach is the fact that the mother Parliament of Britain, which is held up as the model for us all to follow, debates all its bills in the normal course in the current Parliament for a much shorter period of time at each stage than we debate ours in this Parliament on average at every stage and in total. In fact, we spend on average about twice the time and at some stages much more than the members do in the mother Parliament.

Therefore, we cannot in any way argue that there is a lack of adequate debate. The hon. member is quite right, committee is a very valuable part of the process for consideration of a bill like this. It is an opportunity to hear from experts and an opportunity to look at the bill in detail, not simply to have tub-thumping speeches but rather that detailed examination. That is why committee is so important to the parliamentary process. Far be it from me, however, to instruct the committee on the efforts it should put in. That is a question for the committee members themselves. They are masters of their own process.

As we all know, this is very important legislation for the people of Canada and their national security. Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I can hardly believe the words I just heard from the government House leader. Committees at one time were masters of their own destiny, and they should do a detailed process. However, you know as well as I, Mr. Speaker, how parliamentary committees work now. The parliamentary secretary sits to the right of the chair and the Conservative backbench members sit along the line.

However, back against the wall is a representative, as Mike Duffy called them, “The boys in short pants”. I expect there are boys and girls, but they sit against the wall and the parliamentary secretary takes their direction from those from the Prime Minister's Office. The members say “yea”, and that is what they follow. Also, they do not allow amendments. That is not how Parliament is supposed to work. Would the House leader give us some assurance? The Conservatives are going to limit debate here, will he at least give us some assurance that the committee will actually hold robust hearings?

The government could direct the committee. We know it does. There are dozens of people who want to come before the committee. They have concerns. Would he at least give us that assurance? Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, my friend need only consult the actual debates in the mother Parliament in Britain and compare those with our debates here. He will see that what I have said is indeed true. Our debates at every stage of the bills we do in our Parliament, on average, extend much longer than the debates the members have in the mother House in Britain.

Our track record on having ample and significant debate here is demonstrated. The facts are very real. I invite him to inquire into that. One thing I will not do is take up his invitation to extend beyond what I think is my proper role as House leader and give direction and dictates to a committee on how it conducts its business. (1140) [ Translation ] Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak out against this measure. We unfortunately have a tendency to repeat our mistakes here in Canada.

I did some research on the debates held in October 1970 on the War Measures Act. That legislation was also passed too quickly. Its repercussions were not properly studied and, as a result, 300 people were arrested. There was also the unfortunate tradition whereby the RCMP did it all: it was responsible for intelligence and intervention, as well as being a police force. At the time, the RCMP had denounced Tommy Douglas as a dangerous Communist, and he was not allowed to travel to the U.S. That was also when David Lewis said it might be a good idea for the RCMP to learn to speak French, in order to combat the FLQ.

However, that is the kind of debate we cannot have, because time is limited. We will not be able to weigh the legal merits of our old laws and examine our errors together, errors made by this Parliament, in order to correct them. That is why time allocation is unacceptable. It does not allow the legislative branch to judge its own work, past work and mistakes. Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, this bill includes security measures that are very important in the wake of recent events in Canada, but also in other countries such as France.

The provisions of the bill would criminalize the promotion and advocacy of terrorism; counter terrorist recruitment by giving courts the authority to remove terrorist propaganda online; enhance the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to address threats to the security of Canadians, while ensuring that the courts continue to provide oversight; and provide law enforcement agencies with enhanced ability to disrupt terrorist activities and offences. These things are very important, especially at this time. We need to pass this bill for the safety of all Canadians. Ms.

Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, this is the 88th time the government has imposed time allocation on a bill. It is really a sad record for the Conservative government. When the Conservatives announced Bill C-51 , they promised that we would have enough time to debate and study at length this immense bill and its very serious repercussions for Canada. Why did the government break its promise to give us enough time to properly study and debate this bill in the House? [ English ] Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr.

Speaker, I will repeat that when we adopt the approach to scheduling bills for debate, it is a scheduling approach that allows certainty for members and voting. It ensures we have more debate on bills than members have in Britain, a pretty good example of the extent of debate here. I could look to the French Assemblée Nationale and the contrast is even greater, certainly in terms of the powers that exist there.

However, we feel that this is an important priority, moving forward on legislation that will give the opportunity for us to: criminalize the promotion and advocacy of terrorism in order to protect Canadians from it; counter terrorist recruitment by giving courts the authority to remove terrorist propaganda online; enhance the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service; address threats to the security of Canadians; provide law enforcement agencies with enhanced ability to disrupt terrorist offences and thereby be able to provide greater security and public safety; enhance the passenger protection program, which our air travellers rely upon, but also to use that program to prevent travellers who represent a terrorist threat from coming to our country; make it easier for law enforcement agencies to detain suspected terrorists before they can harm Canadians; and toughen penalties for violating court ordered conditions on terrorist suspects.

I could go on, but these are all very important measures. . We have seen first hand the threats that can arise to us, the threats that exist out there that have within the past year been amplified and repeatedly broadcast by those abroad, in ISIS and elsewhere, who seek to harm Canada and Canadians. They have given orders and injunctions to those who support their cause and believe in their cause. We know they do exist are out there. We have seen them actually act on that encouragement to do harm to Canadians. It has resulted in deaths right on our soil. That is why this legislation is important.

That is why we need to have these protections to keep Canadians secure. That is why the government is moving forward on this legislation.

(1145) Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the importance of the legislation should speak to the need for us to be able to debate it and not to cut off debate. I could not believe the disdain coming from the government House leader when he effectively said that one of his goals here was to cut off “tub-thumping” speeches. I have already spent dozens of hours reading and analyzing Bill C-51 . I come from a background where I know a lot about security law. I will likely not get to speak to this bill.

My constituents, and Canadians in general, will not have the benefit of the time I have spent on this and the knowledge I bring to the House in this area. That is a complete travesty and an affront to democracy. A further affront that I see is that the government House leader is taking these questions, not the minister, who should be here to defend the bill. We all know, and we have already seen, that he does not even understand his own bill.

It has been a travesty, listening to the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness , whose bill this is, when it is as clear as day that they do not know their own bill. Personally, I doubt that the minister has even read the entirety of his bill. The time has come to speak up for what the government is doing to our democracy. It is not just one more affront in one more bill, it is undermining our entire parliamentary democracy on one of the most important bills to come before the House in the three years since I have been here. Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr.

Speaker, I am disappointed that if the hon. member has indeed worked as hard as he said on studying this and preparing arguments, that his own House leader has not seen fit to allow him the opportunity to speak to it. I am further disappointed that having just stood and said that he has studied the bill and has lots of questions about it, he failed to ask me a single question about the bill. I am a former public safety minister. I have some knowledge of the issues involved. I would be quite happy to answer them, and I am here to do so. Ms. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to echo the comments of my colleague from Toronto—Danforth . What I find incredulous is that the government would invoke a limitation on the debate of this bill that it has said is a critical bill for the safety of Canadians. This is the point in time where we debate the fairness of the process in this place to represent our constituents across the country, yet when we raise our concerns about the time allocated to debate the very bill, the government House leader uses the opportunity to start talking about the substance of the bill.

If he believes so strongly that we should have the opportunity to debate the substance of the bill, why is he putting time limitation on the debate and limiting our opportunity to debate the bill? I have to share that it is important for Canadians to understand the ambit and extent of these measures that the government has proposed in the bill, and why it is so important that we have the time to debate and discuss the ramifications of the bill in this place and at committee.

Frankly, it is my personal opinion that this bill should go across the country so people in every small community understand what they are about to face. I am saying this because of a situation that occurred in my province of Alberta, when there was a proposal before a utility board to build an electrical transmission line. I was working with farmers who were deeply concerned because they had already put up with a lot of impacts on their farm land, and there was going to be yet another major transmission line to export electricity.

During our telephone calls, it was discovered that the utility board had spied on those calls. The end result of that revelation was that the whole agency was shut down. We are not just talking about extreme terrorists. We are talking about intrusions on the right of ordinary Canadians in their community, protecting their property rights, which is supposed to be a concern of the government, to have the right to come forward and state their objections. I am very deeply troubled that the government is trying to reduce debate on this significant bill.

(1150) Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, the example raised has nothing to do with the content of the bill or the agency involved, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service is given powers to deal with threats to the security of Canada. Those are enumerated in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. However, it should also be understood by all of those who are in the House and those watching at home that they explicitly, according to the statute, do not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent.

One knows that those protections are there. There are some on the other side who have problems with that wording, but we think it is wording that properly circumscribes and identifies the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service so lawful dissents and protests are protected. Ms. Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we saw again this past weekend another attack in Copenhagen. We have seen attacks recently in Paris and Australia, and of course we saw them in October of last year here in Canada.

The international jihadist movement has declared war on countries like Canada and our allies, countries that believe in freedom, democracy, openness, and tolerance. Canadians are concerned about this. They understand the concepts of the bill and they support it. Could the minister tell us why it is so important to get the bill passed and how it is going to improve our national security and the safety of our citizens? Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr.

Speaker, as the member said, it is urgent because we are almost at a stage where rarely a week goes by without some kind of terrorist attack or incident inspired by the Islamic state somewhere in the world against those they have identified as targets, many of which are outside of what might be called the conflict area. One of the notable things about these attacks is that they involve individuals who are already on the radar screen. These people were known to intelligence services.

The bill seeks to enhance the ability of such intelligence agencies to get, with the assistance of the courts, a recognizance with conditions so that such individuals can be prevented from carrying out some of the actions they would like to carry out by identifying changes to the threshold necessary for recognizance of those people who are of concern. Even in the case of those attacks in Canada, we know we were dealing with individuals who were on the radar screen and were known to law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Mr. Tyrone Benskin (Jeanne-Le Ber, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, just to refresh my learned colleague's memory, this debate is about closure and time allotment. It is not about the bill. Unfortunately, this moment right now is about limiting, yet again, discussion of a bill. We are voted into this place in order to represent the thoughts and feelings of our constituents, to hear from them and bring their concerns to this place. Unfortunately, each time that the government limits time, we are less able to bring their voices forward. A colleague across the way said that Canadians understand this. They do not.

People are calling my office and telling me they do not know what this is about and asking what it means for them. Why is the government yet again shutting down the opportunity for Canadians to learn and understand how this legislation would affect their day-to-day lives? Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, I will remind my friend that this is not a debate on closure. The government has not moved closure. Closure is a different

section in the Standing Orders. We are utilizing a scheduling device. It is important that the bill pass in this Parliament because we are living in an era when threats continue to escalate and continue to change. The tools and devices that were available to protect us have been demonstrated to be wanting. We have demonstrated that there is a need for more. We have unfortunately learned the hard way, and other countries around the world have also learned the hard way.

We will probably never be able to make ourselves 100% safe and secure, but as a government it is most certainly our duty, as it is the duty of everyone here in this Parliament, to do what we can to make Canadians safe and secure in this country while protecting Canadians' rights and freedoms so that they can continue to enjoy the country that they have enjoyed so much. (1155) [ Translation ] Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, 22,000 people signed a petition to say “no” to the Conservatives. They do not agree with what is in Bill C-51 .

Today, an open letter signed by former prime ministers and Supreme Court justices made the point that civilian oversight of CSIS is virtually non-existent relative to the powers that will be given to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. I would like to ask the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons why he moved a time allocation motion for Bill C-51 . Is it because the more people talk about it, the more they understand the bill and the less they agree with it? [ English ] Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr.

Speaker, in preparing this legislation, our government did have to deal with the question of oversight. I hear some say that the answer is to have parliamentary oversight of the actions of CSIS. We took a different approach. We believe that the expanded powers that are to be given should not be dealt with after the fact by politicians but should be dealt with before the fact by independent judges. We thought that was the most effective form of oversight for the expanded powers this legislation seeks to give to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

We think that is actually more effective than simply turning to politicians after the fact to duplicate the work of SIRC, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, for after-the-fact review. It is an important role. SIRC is there to play that role, but we think that these expanded powers, because of their extraordinary nature and the circumstances we are in, also require independent oversight by judges before they are used. That is why these powers can only be exercised under warrants provided by judges. Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I was quite intrigued by that last answer.

The government, over the course of its mandate, has brought in time and time again new laws that limit judicial discretion, that take powers away from judges, that tie the hands of judges when it comes to sentencing. Why is it that these judges who cannot be trusted to impose a proper sentence are the only ones who should be responsible for oversight of our national security? Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, I reject both the premise and the conclusion of the hon. member's question.

We obviously believe that judges are best equipped to provide the oversight in advance of actions taken here through the requirement for warrants, but we also believe that is not the only oversight necessary. There is the oversight provided by the Security Intelligence Review Committee. They can look at matters after the fact. They can look at the overall pattern of issues and deal with the policy questions that result from them.

However, in terms of every individual action and the actual exercise of expanded powers such as those we are giving, there is a requirement for some ability to assess whether they are truly necessary and whether the threat justifies the exercise of the powers. We believe that having judges take evidence would be the best way of providing that kind of protection of Canadians' rights while at the same time allowing the security agencies to make their best efforts to keep Canadians safe. It is the right balance and it is the best form of oversight for the kinds of powers we are talking about in this legislation. Mr.

Randall Garrison : Mr. Speaker, I think this last exchange between the Liberals and the government illustrates why we need the time to have a full debate and expose what is actually in the bill. The government keeps saying that the new powers of CSIS are subject to judicial oversight. No, they are not. It would be only if CSIS were to decide that what it was about to do would be illegal or unconstitutional that it would then be given the choice of applying for a warrant. All the other disruption activities would not require a warrant. The government is either being disingenuous or not fully reading its own bill.

It really illustrates why we need the time to consider in debate all the provisions of the bill. The bill makes some very major changes in our basic privacy rights and in basic, fundamental aspects of our freedom of speech. At the same time, I think we need to consider whether any of these things are actually necessary or whether the existing laws already provide a good basis for acting against terrorism.

The fact is that when we had both the Commissioner of the RCMP and the Director of Operations of CSIS before committees of this Parliament, they said that because of the budget cuts by the government, they do not have enough resources to actually make effective use of the powers they already have. This, to me, illustrates why we need a full debate in this House of Commons in which all members are free to participate, not the restricted scheduling the House leader is talking about.

(1200) Hon. Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, on the question of resources provided to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the gentleman need only go through the estimates provided by the government every year since we formed the government to see that the resources we have provided to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to do its very important work have increased considerably over that period of time. That is because we recognize the importance of the work CSIS does, as well as the work done by its companion agencies.

On the question of disruption, if what CSIS was doing was entirely legal and there was no question of people's rights being infringed, then obviously there would be no need for a warrant. However, in the case of any other activity that might violate someone's rights but would be carried out for a good law enforcement reason, a warrant would be needed. That is what we are proposing here. The benefit of the disruption is that it allows the diversion of materials, revenue, or resources away from someone planning a terrorist attack.

That allows our intelligence services, which are trying to keep us safe, to take away the public security threat while at the same time allowing the course of a plot to unfold. This not only keeps Canadians safer but also ensures that we have a higher prospect of achieving a prosecution of those who seek to conduct terrorist threats against Canada. It has those two benefits: keeping us secure from the immediate threat and also moving forward with prosecutions. The very best way to deal with terrorist threats is to be able to prosecute those who wish to carry them out. Hon. Wayne Easter : Mr.

Speaker, the House leader seems to place a lot of faith in the judicial warrants, but that only works if all of the security agencies that are asking for those warrants actually do what they claim they would do with the warrants. Justice Mosley issued a warrant in 2009 in conjunction with certain activities between CSEC and CSIS, but he found out by chance that they really had not lived up to what the warrant called for. I will read from his decision of December 20, 2013.

He stated: CSIS breached its duty of candour to the Court by not disclosing information that was relevant to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court.... He went on: ...the Court has determined that the execution of the type of warrants at issue in Canada has been accompanied by requests made by CSEC, on behalf of CSIS...to foreign agencies for the interception of telecommunications of Canadian persons abroad. That is a quote from the decision. The court concluded that this is not authorized under any warrant issued to CSIS.

Therefore, while the government claims that judges' oversight would be the safeguard, Justice Mosley makes it very clear in his decision that CSEC and CSIS have not always lived up to the purpose of the warrants. I would also say that the pressure on judges to issue a warrant would be unbelievable, because if they do not issue it and a terrorist incident happens, they would feel responsible. That is not oversight, nor is it a proper protection of either Canadian civil liberties or our national security. The Deputy Speaker : The hon. government House leader will have only about 40 seconds for reply. Hon.

Peter Van Loan : Mr. Speaker, that should be more than adequate for me to tell the House that the gap the member is concerned about was actually introduced in the previous piece of legislation that we dealt with in this House, a piece of legislation that the member himself and his party voted for, so I think his indignant outrage should be directed at himself. [ Translation ] The Deputy Speaker : It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House. [ English ] The question is on the motion.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No. The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. Some hon. members: Yea. The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay. Some hon. members: Nay. The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it. And five or more members having risen: The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.

(1250) (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:) (Division No. 336) YEAS Members Ablonczy Adler Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht Alexander Ambler Ambrose Anders Anderson Aspin Barlow Bateman Benoit Bergen Bernier Bezan Block Boughen Braid Brown (Leeds—Grenville) Brown (Newmarket—Aurora) Butt Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Carrie Chisu Chong Clarke Clement Crockatt Daniel Davidson Dechert Devolin Dreeshen Duncan (Vancouver Island North) Dykstra Eglinski Falk Fantino Fast Findlay (Delta—Richmond East) Finley (Haldimand—Norfolk) Fletcher Galipeau Gallant Gill Glover Goldring Goodyear Gosal Gourde Grewal Hawn Hayes Hoback Holder James Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission) Keddy (South Shore—St.

Margaret'

s) Kenney (Calgary Southeast) Kent Komarnicki Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings) Lake Lauzon Lebel Leef Leitch Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney MacKay (Central Nova) MacKenzie Maguire Mayes McLeod Menegakis Miller Moore (Fundy Royal) Nicholson Norlock Oliver O'Neill Gordon Opitz O'Toole Paradis Payne Perkins Poilievre Preston Raitt Rajotte Reid Rempel Richards Rickford Ritz Saxton Schellenberger Seeback Shipley Sopuck Sorenson Stanton Strahl Sweet Toet Trost Trottier Truppe Valcourt Van Kesteren Van Loan Wallace Warawa Warkentin Watson Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country) Weston (Saint John) Wilks Williamson Woodworth Yelich Young (Oakville) Yurdiga -- 132 NAYS Members Allen (Welland) Andrews Angus Ashton Atamanenko Aubin Ayala Bélanger Bennett Benskin Bevington Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Boivin Borg Boulerice Boutin-Sweet Brahmi Brosseau Caron Casey Cash Chicoine Choquette Christopherson Cleary Comartin Côté Cotler Crowder Cullen Cuzner Davies (Vancouver Kingsway) Davies (Vancouver East) Dewar Dion Dionne Labelle Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dubé Dubourg Duncan (Etobicoke North) Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona) Dusseault Easter Eyking Freeman Garneau Garrison Genest Genest-Jourdain Giguère Godin Goodale Gravelle Groguhé Harris (Scarborough Southwest) Harris (St.

John's East) Hassainia Hughes Hyer Julian Kellway Lamoureux Lapointe Laverdière LeBlanc (Beauséjour) LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard) Leslie Liu MacAulay Mai Marston Martin Mathyssen May McGuinty McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood) Michaud Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue) Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord) Morin (Laurentides—Labelle) Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) Mulcair Murray Nantel Nash Nicholls Nunez-Melo Papillon Patry Péclet Quach Rafferty Rankin Rathgeber Raynault Regan Rousseau Saganash Sandhu Scott Sellah Sgro Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor) St-Denis Stoffer Sullivan Toone Tremblay Turmel -- 111 PAIRED Nil The Speaker : I declare the motion carried.

Motion agreed to

Points of Order Procedure During Votes Points of Order Hon. John Duncan (Minister of State and Chief Government Whip, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, when we had the vote earlier today on the adjournment motion, we had a request for a clarification from the member for Ottawa—Orléans about the behaviour of the member for Winnipeg Centre during the vote. We had a ruling by the Speaker, which I think is going to prove to be very problematic without clarification that one should be in one's seat when the motion is read, throughout the voting, and right up until the count is made.

One could read the Speaker's ruling as being quite different, and I do not think there was an intent to make a new precedent at that time. Could you please clarify for everyone assembled that there is no change to the procedure for voting and that we are expected to be here from the time of the reading of the motion until the announcement of the count of the vote?

(1255) Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, what the chief government whip is doing he knows he cannot do, and that is challenge a decision made by the Chair. He knows that is improper. He knows he should not be doing that. The ruling of the Chair stands, and so let us move on. The Speaker : I will undertake to take a look at the situation that occurred and come back to the House if necessary. I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings of the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015 Government Orders Bill C-51. Second Reading The House resumed from February 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-51,

An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of my remarks, I intend to move a motion. It is with a genuine sense of disappointment that I rise to speak against Bill C-51, the anti-terrorism act, 2015.

I am particularly disappointed to be doing it under time allocation, which will have the effect of not allowing many of my colleagues to actually speak to this important bill. It will also have the effect of making it difficult for Canadians to understand the full extent of what is in this bill. This is a very important bill. I would remind all of us that all of Canada, and indeed much of the world, was shocked at the deaths of two Canadian soldiers here at home last October. Certainly those deaths, along with the attack on Parliament Hill, were sobering for all of us.

All of us here in the House, and I believe all Canadians, were proud to see their MPs back at work the next morning, standing together in our determination not to be cowed by violence. At that time, all of us made the commitment to work together to meet the terrorist threats Canada now faces in this new world we live in. What happened to those lofty promises to work together? Just days later, when the new CSIS bill, Bill C-44 , was introduced, suddenly the government, by itself, had all the answers.

The government argued that the urgency of the threat meant that there was no time for debate at second reading, no time for a full study at the public safety committee, and no time for serious consideration of amendments put forward by the official opposition. New Democrats supported Bill C-44 at second reading, still hoping the government was serious about co-operation between the government and the opposition on this important topic, still hoping that there would be adequate time for debate and consideration of amendments to improve the bill.

We ended up voting against that bill, a bill of questionable constitutionality in its attempt to have judges authorize illegal activities abroad and a bill without an ounce of improvement in CSIS oversight, despite granting new powers to CSIS. It was also a bill lacking any direct connection to the events of October. The government said to wait for the next bill. Here we are, four months later, with a new bill in front of us. Unfortunately, this is another bill of questionable constitutionality, this time attempting to get judges to authorize illegal and unconstitutional activities right here at home.

As well, it is another bill without an ounce of improvement in oversight of our security agencies. However, this bill goes even further. This is a bill that will wreak havoc on the privacy rights of all Canadians in the name of threats to national security. Further, it is a bill that contains

definitions so broad and so far-reaching that it risks lumping together legitimate dissent with terrorism. It is at one and the same time broad, dangerously vague, and most likely ineffective in confronting the threats we face. This is a bill that still lacks any direct link to the actual events we faced in October or the ongoing threats we face today. The government has rushed ahead with this bill and with changes to security on the Hill, again without consultation, and without even waiting for full reports on the October incidents.

It is my understanding that when the Prime Minister was asked at his campaign-style event in Richmond Hill, where he unveiled this bill, instead of in the House of Commons, where it should have taken place, whether this bill would have prevented either of the October events, he had to say that he was not sure. New Democrats have given this bill careful consideration before coming to our decision to oppose it in principle. We have consulted broadly with groups potentially most directly affected by this bill, with legal experts, and with our constituents when back in our ridings last week.

We have repeatedly asked the government to explain what some of the broad wording in this bill would cover and what specific new security actions will be authorized by this bill, all to no avail. The response more often that not has consisted of reciting general talking points about the severity of the threats we face, in a transparent attempt to use fear to marshal support for its bill, support that it obviously hopes will carry through to the ballot box. We have not taken this decision to oppose Bill C-51 lightly.

We have done our due diligence before pronouncing on a bill that would make major changes to over two dozen pieces of legislation and that would potentially have major impacts on privacy rights, rights to peaceful dissent, and fundamental freedoms, like freedom from detention without charge. It will clearly have impacts on Muslim Canadians in particular because of the unfortunate tendency of the government to stray into Islamophobic rhetoric and bizarre claims by the Minister of Justice that terrorism is somehow culturally based.

It will clearly have an impact on those concerned with climate change and other environmental issues, especially when read in concert with the RCMP's 44-page memo on so-called anti-petroleum activists, a memo that, just as this bill does, tends to lump together both dissent and extremist and violent activities.

(1300) Neither the Muslim community nor environmental activists or first nations activists will be surprised to find themselves targets of the new measures in this bill. What I hope Canadians will come to understand is that it is not just the Conservative government's tendency to divide Canadians that makes some of us targets of this bill; it is the tendency of the government to overreach that makes all of us potential casualties of this bill. Let us look at the changes the government is proposing that would have the biggest impact. Here I would start with

part 1 of the bill, entitled “Security of Canada Information Sharing Act”. I believe that this part of the bill would have the broadest potential impacts for all Canadians. This bill would allow all federal departments and agencies to share information that may be relevant to national security with Canadian intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The NDP agrees that government departments and agencies should be able to share information about real threats to public safety, but it must be done with appropriate safeguards that do not catch innocent Canadians in the net.

The Privacy Commissioner has expressed concerns that this bill would allow the information of many law-abiding Canadians to be collected and shared with a long list of other government agencies and used for purposes other than those for which it was collected. This would clearly undermine a fundamental principle of our privacy rights when it comes to the government's use of our personal information.

Many of the departments and agencies that would now be allowed to share information do not have adequate privacy protections in place, nor do they have any oversight mechanisms governing their information sharing activities. A second aspect of this bill with very broad implications is the

section granting new powers to CSIS. They are powers that would change the nature of CSIS as an organization, moving it from being an intelligence gathering agency to an active arm of the government in opposing threats to security and to the economy, infrastructure, and a wide list of activities, which potentially raises the question of whether the government would be able to use CSIS for political purposes. This rolls back the clock more than 30 years and ignores the lessons of the McDonald Commission, which resulted in the creation of CSIS.

It abandons the important lesson that combining intelligence gathering activities with disruption activities not only is mostly ineffective but almost inevitably leads to the kind of sordid activities the RCMP engaged in the 1970s in Quebec. These kinds of activities undermine public confidence in police and security agencies, and when we undermine public confidence in these agencies, we undermine the very co-operation with the public that is necessary for their success. Bill C-51 would now give CSIS the ability to conduct threat disruption.

These provisions would allow CSIS to take measures at home and abroad to disrupt threats when CSIS decides that it has “reasonable grounds to believe” that there is a threat to the security of Canada. Activities to disrupt threats that would contravene a right or freedom guaranteed under the charter would require CSIS to seek authorization from a judge. However, here is the important point on this question. The government likes to say that this amounts to oversight of CSIS activities.

The point I would raise is that CSIS would not require a warrant for any and all disruption activities, only those that CSIS itself judged might involve illegal or unconstitutional activities. Once a judge issued a warrant, the judge would have no further oversight role over what CSIS did with that warrant. If we look carefully at the Mosley decision, we see that the judge said that not only was CSIS not fully forthright in the material it presented to the court to get a warrant but that once it had the warrant, it did not carry the warrant out in the manner it had prescribed to the judge.

In other words, it did not do what it said it would do with the warrant. For me, the important point is that it would still be left for CSIS to decide if the warrant application was necessary, and it would be left to CSIS to decide on its own and without oversight what activities that warrant authorized and how it would carry them out. As I mentioned, CSIS's record before the courts leaves much to be desired on this point.

When asked in question period, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has been unable or unwilling to provide examples of the kinds of activities that would be allowed under threat disruption. We have asked him repeatedly to give us a single example of what those kinds of thing are.

The presumption always is that disruption activities would always be illegal or unconstitutional, but we know quite well that this bill would authorize CSIS to do things like shut down someone's Internet service, maybe shut off someone's phone service, or conduct surveillance on private conversations carried out in public places.

(1305) There are all kinds of things here that will not require a warrant, and there are all kinds of things, as I said, that we would leave to CSIS to decide if a warrant were even required. Remember, the power to disrupt includes giving CSIS the right to enter any place, open or obtain access to anything, as well as obtain or copy any document, install or remove anything, and to do any other thing that is reasonably necessary to take those measures. I submit that this is a pretty broad mandate when it comes to these activities.

In other words, in taking measures to reduce a threat, Bill C-51 would give CSIS a free rein. It would only prohibit CSIS from killing or causing bodily harm, violating the sexual integrity of an individual, or obstructing justice. I know that those provisions were put in to reassure us, but I do not find it very reassuring that those are the only limitations on CSIS' disruption activities. These are not very robust limits for an organization carrying out secret activities, and not very reassuring for an agency with such weak oversight and review.

The government always likes to say that there is active, robust oversight of CSIS, pointing to the activities of SIRC. However, it is not just a technical point to say that when the government eliminated the position of inspector general in CSIS, it actually eliminated the one independent officer who provided oversight in real time of the activities of CSIS. It was the mandate of the inspector general of CSIS to make sure that CSIS' activities conformed to the law.

Those responsibilities have in theory been transferred to SIRC, which has no capacity and no access to the information it would need to provide that kind of active oversight, and to make sure that CSIS were always acting legally. I will refrain from talking about whether those appointed to SIRC have always been the best appointees, because of the limited amount of time I have. However, I only need to mention Arthur Porter. Also, I would question whether part-time appointees and non-specialists can be expected to successfully carry out the kind of oversight we need for a body like this.

If we look at the last annual report of SIRC, SIRC itself said similar things to Justice Mosley. It said that CSIS did not always provide full and timely information when SIRC was trying to investigate CSIS activities. It said that in some cases, CSIS had not been fully forthright in providing information to its review body. Therefore, we do not have robust oversight and review; we have problematic oversight and review, and now we would expect that same body to take on oversight of this much broader mandate we would give CSIS.

A third aspect of the bill that has broad implications is the provision that criminalizes the promotion of terrorism and the related provision that authorizes the removal of online terror propaganda. Bill C-51 would make it a criminal offence to knowingly advocate and promote “...the commission of terrorist offences in general”. This provision is designed to make the general promotion of terrorism an offence, in addition to the existing legislation that outlaws advocacy of specific terrorist acts. The new offence would be punishable by a prison term of up to five years.

Again, when the leader of the opposition asked the government to give us an example of what would now be illegal but is not already illegal under existing legislation, a question that I think he asked five times, he did not get an answer from the government. However, such a provision would certainly place a chill on free speech by its very enactment. It would also lower the threshold for what is considered promotion of terrorism. The existing hate propaganda

section of the Criminal Code criminalizes communication that advocates violence, where such incitement is likely to lead to breach of the peace. Why is that not adequate? Certainly we have seen RCMP able to lay terrorism charges frequently, and very recently here in Ottawa. Again, we ask, why is this new much broader provision needed? Under the new provision, a person may be convicted if their statements are simply “being reckless” as to whether or not any of these offences may be committed. Again, this new offence would expand the existing Criminal Code offence, which makes promoting a specific terrorist act a crime, without explaining how this would help reduce threats to our security.

(1310) There is always a danger when we have limited resources—and certainly, the current government has severely limited the resources available to both the RCMP and CSIS—and when we spread the net too wide that we will miss the real terrorists, that we will miss the real threats to society, because we will not have enough resources to actually take on the hard work necessary to identify them. As one person said, “Searching for terrorists is like looking for a needle in a haystack and the last thing we need people doing is adding extra hay”.

To me, when we spread this broad net, we start adding extra hay that makes it much more difficult to identify the real and urgent threats to our security. Under the new law, a judge would be able to order Internet service providers, website administrators, and so on to remove any material when he or she has grounds to believe that the material might be terrorist propaganda. The judge could also order the custodian of a computer network to provide the court with information about who posted it. Moreover, the court would be able to order the seizure of physical materials.

In both cases the authors or owners of the materials could appeal the decision before the material is destroyed. This brings back shades of the old government bill that sparked the creation of the “tell Vic everything” campaign, by its expansion of government access to information about the online activity of perhaps any of us. The inclusion of amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act also raise the question about how the government is proposing to spend the limited resources police and security agencies have.

Again, in Richmond Hill, I understand that the Prime Minister was asked whether the bill would apply to teenagers in their parents' basement. He said yes. My question is, do we really want to waste time chasing kids in basements at the possible cost of letting the real terrorists slip through an overfull net? A fourth element of the bill that should raise general concerns is the changes to preventative arrests and peace bonds, which threaten one of our most fundamental rights, the right to freedom from detention without charge.

I have heard many people comment that this is something that has been in place for something like 800 years in our legal system. Again, there is a serious question of what value this new provision has, especially when weighed against its negative aspects. We should remember that legislation allowing for preventative arrests was first adopted under the Liberals after the events of September 11, 2001. This allowed police to detain someone for up to three days without laying charges. However, between 2001 and 2007, that clause was never used, before sun-setting in that latter year.

Nonetheless, it was reinstated by the Conservatives in 2013. Now, Bill C-51 proposes to lower the threshold required for a judge to authorize preventative detention from reasonable grounds that a terrorist activity “will” be carried out to “may” be carried out. The RCMP would now need to establish only that a terrorist activity might happen, instead of the previous grounds that there was some certainty that the person would commit a terrorist act. One lawyer described to me that what we had in the previous preventative detention was the lowest possible evidentiary standard, and now we are lowering that.

While keeping in mind that law enforcement agencies never found the preventative arrest provisions useful, we also need to remember the historical record of Canada on detention in times of crisis. Japanese Canadians were interned on the west coast despite the lack of any evidence at the time, or thereafter, of a single Japanese Canadian aiding the enemy in World War II. Ukrainian Canadians were similarly interned. At the time of the FLQ crisis in Quebec, hundreds of Quebeckers were arrested and detained without charge, and no one so detained was ever charged with, let alone convicted of, a criminal offence.

Certainly fears of political injustices resulting from the interaction of this bill with the apparent ongoing practices of racial profiling in Canada will need to be addressed. Therefore, I am voting against the bill and hope that we can have a full airing of the issues. However, we have not had a very good indication of that today with the introduction of time allocation. I remain disappointed that the Liberals have given the government a blank cheque on Bill C-51 , offering their support for the bill even if it is unamended.

Do I have confidence that the government will listen to evidence, experts, or the communities affected by this bill? Frankly, I do not. Therefore, I move:

(1315) Amendment That, the motion be amended by deleting all the words after “That” and substituting the following: this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-51,

An act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, because it: (

a) threatens our way of life by asking Canadians to choose between their security and their freedoms; (

b) was not developed in consultation with other parties, all of whom recognize the real threat of terrorism and support effective, concrete measures to keep Canadians safe; (

c) irresponsibly provide CSIS with a sweeping new mandate without equally increasing oversight; (

d) contains

definitions that are broad, vague and threaten to lump together legitimate dissent with terrorism; and (

e) does not include the type of concrete, effective measures that have been proven to work, such as working with communities on measures to counter radicalization of youth. Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, that party opposite voted to keep travel for a terrorist purpose legal. Those members voted to allow convicted terrorists to keep their citizenship. They voted to stop our security agencies from co-operating with our allies, and now they have expressed concerns about this important and timely legislation.

Could the member tell me what, if any, national security legislation he and his party would support? Mr. Randall Garrison : 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.

(1320) Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the member outlined a number of concerns in his remarks that do need to be addressed, but I really am surprised by the amendment to the motion. I do believe that the threat level is heightened, and at a time of threats to our country, we should be coming together in this place and bringing in a bit of sanity. The government should allow democracy to work and allow amendments. I am surprised that the NDP would put an amendment forward that basically attempts to throw the bill out and that would, therefore, put our national security at risk.

The NDP also calls fairly strongly for proper oversight. In 2004, the current Minister of Justice and the Minister of State for Finance were on an all-party committee that called for that oversight. In 2009, there was another committee, which the member for Yorkton—Melville chaired, and which the member for Northumberland—Quinte West was on, as was the member for Oxford . There were actually six Conservative MPs on that committee, which also called for oversight similar to what we called for in 2004. It was with respect to Bill C-81.

Does the member have any idea why the Conservative members now seem to take for granted what the Prime Minister says, that SIRC is enough? Why do they not want to fight for proper oversight of all of our national security agencies? That is what Canadians are demanding. Mr. Randall Garrison : 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. [ Translation ] Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for his excellent speech. I thank him not just for his excellent speech, but also because we have the opportunity to work together on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I am very proud to second his motion today and to see the incredible work we do as the official opposition when it comes to a bill like Bill C-51 . In his speech, he mentioned that we are very aware that terrorism is a real threat to everyone. We agree that public safety is, or should be, one of the top priorities of any government in the world.

However, Bill C-51 does not directly tackle the problem. My colleague pointed out that the bill is too broad, does not necessarily address the real problems, does not provide the right tools and does not really deal with what we should be targeting. As we mentioned during the questions and comments in the debate on the time allocation motion, we have realized that the more people learn about the content of Bill C-51 and the more they understand the consequences of this bill, the less they agree with the government's position.

What does my colleague think about the fact that the Conservatives have decided to shut down such an important debate and refuse to let MPs talk about this extremely important issue? Why are they muzzling us when they do not have as much support as they thought? People are realizing that Bill C-51 is not such a good bill. (1325) [ English ] Mr. Randall Garrison : 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. Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have served on the committee the hon. member referred to for some nine years now, and I can say that we have had a lot of debates on a lot of issues. I have looked at this.

The member said that they have had time to consult on it. The New Democrats were saying no to it almost from the minute the bill entered this House, so it is somewhat inaccurate to say something otherwise. I will provide a scenario for my constituents. Let us say there are two people with Canadian citizenship in a foreign country where there is some unrest and we know terrorism exists. They want to leave the country, so they go to the airport and see a CBSA official and state that, according to international law, as citizens they have the right to re-enter their country.

That official must immediately agree, which is a good thing. However, the official then sees something that causes him or her to believe there is a possibility that these two individuals may have been engaged in a terrorist activity in that country and may be coming back to Canada. Under the current legislation the CBSA official cannot go next door to where there is an RCMP officer to voice his or her concern so that something can be done about it, because the current legislation does not allow for that.

All this bill would do is allow, under the Privacy Act, that official to talk to that RCMP officer to ensure that something is done about it to remove that fear. That is one of the simple things this legislation would do, and I do not know why the opposition is so fundamentally and ideologically against this bill. Mr. Randall Garrison : 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. Mr. Costas Menegakis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech today, I will inform you that I will be splitting my time with my friend and colleague, the hard-working, esteemed member representing the great riding of Medicine Hat .

Today I rise to speak to the anti-terrorism act, 2015, which I am proud to say was announced in my home town, the great town of Richmond Hill. I will be speaking specifically to those provisions regarding the passenger protect program and how we are working to guard our aviation industry from terrorist attacks. From its beginnings in the 1900s, flight has always been connected to risk.

In the early days, poor navigational devices meant that pilots had to fly close enough to the earth to navigate, using roads and railways during the day and relying on bonfires lit in fields on poorly lit days when visibility was bad or, indeed, at night. It is not surprising that fatal accidents were common. Today, thanks to advances in navigation, aerodynamics, aircraft design, and digital technology, our aviation system is one of the safest ways to travel, and it is a method of travel that Canadians have embraced, particularly given our vast geographic size.

However, we face a rapidly changing threat landscape that can and has had an impact on aviation security. As we know, terrorists have made a point of targeting airplanes because these attacks offer a large number of potential victims, have a high economic impact, and lead to widespread publicity to feed their propaganda machines. From hijackings to bombings, we have seen terrorist groups target the aviation system throughout the past many decades. The incidents and dates are clearly imprinted on our minds.

I remind the House of the bombing of Air India flight 182 in 1985, the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988, the attacks that destroyed four planes and killed thousands of people on September 11, 2001; and of course, there were the failed attempts, such as the shoe bomber on a flight headed to Miami in December 2001, the underwear bomber on a flight headed to Detroit in December 2009, and the printer cartridges rigged with explosives originating in Yemen in 2010. Each of these attacks and near misses has meant another shift in airline security.

Many of these are physical security measures: restrictions on the amount of liquids brought onboard, the scanning of all baggage, removing shoes to go through security, requirements to undergo physical searches or body scans as requested by airport security agents.

Other measures include the scanning of passports and other travel documents to confirm citizenship and identification and the provision of basic information to transportation security agencies when booking flights that travel through United States airspace Like many of its allies, Canada has a program in place to protect air travellers by, for instance, denying boarding to specified individuals who pose a threat to aviation security. That is the passenger protect program, to which I will return in a moment. These measures were put in place with one clear purpose: to keep our aviation system safe.

That means guarding against immediate threats to airplanes and protecting the lives of airline crew and passengers, not to mention citizens who may find themselves in the pathway of a compromised airplane, such as we saw on that fateful day, 9/11. Today, however, terrorist incidents around the world are forcing us to once again re-evaluate our aviation security and look beyond the immediate threat to an airplane. It is clear that the international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada.

Canadians are being targeted by jihadi terrorists simply because these terrorists hate our society and the values it represents. That is why our government has put forth these measures that protect Canadians against jihadi terrorists who seek to destroy the very principles that make Canada the best country in the world in which to live. One of the gravest threats to global security is the phenomenon of terrorist travel: individuals who travel by air to regions of unrest and violence to engage in terrorist activities. These individuals do not pose an immediate threat to an airplane.

Indeed, they want their flight to be safe and uneventful so that they can reach their destinations.

(1330) While these violent extremists are not an immediate threat to an airplane or to passengers when they travel, they do pose a significant danger to those people living in the countries where they undergo their training and terrorist activities and in the countries in which they want to perpetrate their crimes. Moreover, there is a great risk that they will return to their home country to test out their newly acquired skills by plotting and carrying out attacks on innocent civilians. In order to meet this shifting threat, Canada's passenger protect program itself must evolve.

The legislation before us includes measures that would expand and strengthen this program, allowing us to address the threat of terrorist travel. First and foremost, we would expand the program's mandate so it would focus on two key areas: stopping threats to aviation security and preventing individuals from travelling by air for certain terrorist purposes. These include training, recruiting or conducting terrorist attacks in another location. The full scope of these activities would be aligned with the new Criminal Code offences on terrorist travel that were brought in under the Combating Terrorism Act.

We also propose to strengthen the program's legislative framework. This means clearly defining the authorities of both the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Minister of Transport .

We will make it clear in law that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has the authority to identify and list individuals who pose a threat to aviation security as well as those suspected to be travelling for terrorist purposes; determine the appropriate measures in each case, an authority currently held by the Minister of Transport ; provide administrative recourse to individuals who are denied boarding under the program; and share the specified persons list, in whole or in part, as needed with foreign states in support of the program's mandate.

The Minister of Transport will have the authority to communicate with air carriers, including sharing information about individuals listed under the program to air carriers flying to, within and from Canada; monitor industry compliance with the program; and regulate civil aviation in general, including overall security of the aviation system. To support its expanded mandate, the passenger protect program will also include an expanded range of response measures that can be used other than denial of boarding.

These could include additional physical screening of specified individuals and coordination with the RCMP in-flight security officers. All actions would be undertaken proportionate to the perceived risk posed by the individual. We will also put in place a streamlined appeal process. In effect, we will establish clearly defined procedures for appeal of decisions and actions related to the passenger protect program. This means that one Federal Court judge could protect and rely upon classified information in making his or her decision.

This is similar to procedures already in place for judicial review of ministerial decisions about listing terrorist entities and denying charitable status to organizations that support terrorists. As members can see, an enhanced passenger protect program would allow Canada to better address terrorist travel by air. We firmly believe that not only do we have an obligation to our citizens but also to our global allies to do everything we can to prevent individuals from leaving and returning to Canada for terrorist purposes.

This is what this legislation is intended to do: to stop terrorists before they can perpetrate terror on innocent civilians in Canada and abroad. The changes I have itemized would provide firm backing for our approach, and we must act now to put these changes in place. I hope the New Democrats will put aside their opposition to criminalizing this kind of terrorist activity, including terrorist travel, and that the Liberals will put aside their opposition to revoking citizenship from terrorists. I hope all members can come together to support this important legislation.

At the end of the day, we all want a safer Canada and we all want to keep Canadians safe. (1335) [ Translation ] Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, Bill C-51 is broad in scope—too broad. If the Conservatives want to deal with radicalization and the serious and complex problem of terrorism in the world, then they need carefully targeted tools, rather than broad measures like the ones they are introducing. I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary a question.

I doubt he will be able to answer me since, unfortunately, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety could not, but I will try anyway. Bill C-51 indicates that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service will be able to disrupt or intercept any threat to the Canadian economy or infrastructure, among other things. I would like the parliamentary secretary to tell us exactly what is being targeted. Can he explain to us what exactly constitutes a threat to Canada's security when it comes to its infrastructure and economy? I am asking for just one example. (1340) [ English ] Mr. Costas Menegakis : Mr.

Speaker, it is perplexing to hear NDP members so ideologically stuck in this partisan view all the time when we bring forward legislation that is meaningful legislation for Canadians. I know the member is a member for Parliament from Quebec. Quebeckers overwhelmingly support this legislation. The international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada. Canadians are being targeted by jihadist terrorists simply because these terrorists hate our society. I need not remind the member of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent who was run over simply because he was wearing the uniform in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu.

With respect to the specific question on threat disruption, an example of threat disruption could be as simple as speaking to the family of a radicalized individual to dissuade him or her from a dangerous path or by impersonating and discrediting a terror traveller facilitator online. A number of things can be done that we as Canadians have a responsibility to bring to the attention of authorities, including CSIS. Let us break down these silos, these barriers between departments so we can stop these threats from threatening Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, this legislation demonstrates very clearly, whether New Democratic or Conservative members of Parliament, that they are not listening to what Canadians actually want. They want a higher sense of demonstration that the House of Commons is dealing with the very important issue of safety and security of our nation. If we listen to the NDP, the NDP does not want to build upon the powers of preventive arrest, and that is why they are voting no.

It does not want to build on making better use of our no-fly list, It does not want to allow for more coordinated information sharing by government departments and agencies. Canadians want to see this. On the other hand, we have the Conservatives. The Conservatives are not recognizing the importance of oversight. Canadians want oversight of the system. The Five Eyes, including England, Australia and others, has recognized the importance of oversight. Why do the Conservatives not listen to what Canadians want? They want to have adequate oversight, and that means parliamentary oversight.

Why will they not accept that as an amendment going into committee stage? Mr. Costas Menegakis : Mr. Speaker, on one hand, we have the Liberal Party saying that it supports the legislation. On the other hand, its members get up and complain about us bringing in the legislation. The member mentioned oversight. He talked about the NDP. However, he said nothing about the 15 minutes the NDP members chewed up by slow voting. That took time away from people to have the opportunity to stand in the House to speak about the bill. The irony of that is comical to say at best.

However, the Security Intelligence Review Committee is a robust Canadian model that has provided expert oversight of CSIS for decades. Threat disruption powers will be reported on and tabled in Parliament and SIRC will continue to have unfettered access to all information of CSIS. CSIS remains subject to judicial authority and under no circumstances can CSIS pervert the course of justice, inflict bodily harm, or violate a person's sexual integrity. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin) : Before we resume debate, I would just like to remind all hon. members of two points.

The first is that when members have finished their speeches and are taking questions, when the question is being asked, members are to take their seats. I have noticed several members recently who have fallen into the habit of remaining on their feet, waiting for the questions to be asked, when they ought to take their seat. On a related point, when members would like to ask a question or make a comment, standing before the previous answer is completed is also inappropriate.

Quite frankly, it results in the opposite of what members want, which is that the Chair will not recognize somebody who has been standing through the previous answer in order to not reward conduct in which members were not supposed to be engaging in the first place. With that, thus endeth the lesson. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Medicine Hat .

(1345) Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank my outstanding hon. colleague for Richmond Hill for sharing his time with me and also for his hard work on this file. It is an important file, and I am pleased to be on the public safety committee. It is also my pleasure to rise today in the House to debate Bill C-51 , the anti-terrorism act, 2015. We find that the world we live in today is a dark and dangerous place. This was most brutally demonstrated by last October's attacks in Ottawa and in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu.

We are not immune to the threat of terrorism, nor are our allies. We have tragically seen this in Paris, Sydney, and Copenhagen, beacons of western civilization struck by jihadist terrorists. Let us make no mistake: the international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada and her allies. The legislation before us today would provide Canadian law enforcement and national security agencies with additional tools and the flexibility to keep pace with evolving threats and better protect Canadians here at home. However, that is not all we are doing.

It is important to fight terrorism at home, but we are also fighting it abroad. Our brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces are engaged in a battle with the barbaric so-called Islamic State. In line with the measures taken by our allies, the government is taking additional action to ensure that our law enforcement and national security agencies can counter those who advocate terrorism, prevent terrorism from travelling, prevent the efforts of those who seek to use Canada as a recruiting ground, and disrupt planned attacks on Canadian soil.

The proposed legislation includes checks and balances to ensure it respects the rights of Canadians and complements other legislation passed by our Conservative government in order to better protect Canadians and secure institutions. These measures include the Combating Terrorism Act and the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act. However, I would be remiss if I did not note that the Liberals and the NDP have consistently voted against these types of measures for increasing our national security.

We have heard from both the Liberals and the NDP that they believe more money ought to be invested in CSIS and the RCMP. I find it interesting that when our Conservative government brought forward more funding for these agencies for parliamentary approval, on seven separate occasions the Liberals and NDP voted against this funding. I would like to look at the facts. The fact is that our Conservative government has increased funding to both CSIS and the RCMP by over one-third since forming government. We will hold that record up any day of the week.

Much has been made by the NDP of portions of the anti-terrorism act that relate to disrupting terrorist threats. I would like to give some concrete examples of how these powers would help keep Canadians safe. One example would be if a 21-year-old Canadian citizen had become disenchanted with his home life due to videos of sermons given by radical imams. He has additionally sought to acquire copies of Inspire , the English-language magazine published by al Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula. Individuals with this local mosque have advised CSIS that he is planning to travel overseas to engage in terrorist activity.

Currently, CSIS can investigate but cannot do anything to stop the individual from travelling. The furthest CSIS could go is to advise the RCMP that it believes he is about to commit an offence, and the RCMP could launch its own investigation. However, under Bill C-51 , CSIS would be able to engage with a trusted friend or relative who could speak to this individual and advise against travelling for terrorist purposes. Further, CSIS would be able to meet with the individual to advise him that they know what he is planning to do and what the consequences of taking further action would be.

Another example would be if CSIS learned that a planned shipment of chemicals might be used in a terrorist attack on a Canadian business operating in a foreign country, but the exact timing was not known. Currently CSIS can share that information with the foreign government and other foreign partners. A travel alert could potentially be issued by Foreign Affairs. Under Bill C-51 , CSIS could engage in a joint operation with a foreign partner to disrupt the shipment. For example, the shipment could be rerouted so that it would not be delivered into the hands of terrorists.

Lastly, let us say a Canadian ally warns CSIS that foreign spies are planning to meet with a Canadian avionics firm. CSIS investigates and determines that the spies are posing as businessmen in order to purchase telemetry equipment. This dual-use technology has a civilian application in test programs, but it is also used in ballistic missile targeting.

(1350) Currently CSIS, as part of its investigation, can interview officials from the Canadian company to gather information. CSIS can ask the CBSA to check the parts' paperwork at the time of export to determine if there are customs violations. Under Bill C-51 , CSIS could seek and receive a warrant to intercept equipment and alter it so that it would not have any suitability for non-civilian applications. With this new mandate, CSIS could take measures at home and abroad to disrupt threats wh