Source: https://www.ourcommons.ca/publicationsearch/en/?View=D&Item=&ParlSes=42-1&oob=&Topic=176716&Proc=40816&Per=&Prov=&Cauc=14130,6&Text=Bill%20C-59&RPP=15&order=&targetLang=&SBS=0&MRR=150000&Page=1&PubType=37
Timestamp: 2019-12-15 12:24:26
Document Index: 60634896

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 3', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 5']

Murray Rankin - 16:14
View the print format [p. 15310]
2017-11-20 16:24 [p.15310]
Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that Bill C-59 is spotty in addressing some issues that were found in BillC-51 extremely well. Here I refer to part 3 at the time and its “thought chill” provisions, including the bizarre notion of terrorism in general on the Internet being an offence that could land someone in jail if that person could not understand what it is. This bill fails quite seriously.
Regarding my hon. colleague's reference to torture, my disappointment is that no one seems to have focused on part 5 of BillC-51, which amended the immigration act. Professor Donald Galloway of the University of Victoria was the only one to fully understand that section and to ask what Bill C-52, part 5, was trying to do in amending the immigration act. The conclusion was that it aimed to give information to judges for security certificates without having to inform them that the information was obtained by torture. I wonder if the member for Victoria has any insights as to where that section has gone, because no one is fixing it in Bill C-59.
C-59, An Act respecting national securit ...Data sharingGovernment billsNational securityReferred to Committee before second readingSecond readingStanding Committee on Public Safety and ...Torture
Murray Rankin - 16:26
Hon. Peter Kent - 17:05
View the print format [p. 15316]
2017-11-20 17:06 [p.15316]
Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate concerns about omnibus bills. However, I recall very clearly in the 41st Parliament when we received BillC-51, getting it on a Friday, taking it home to my riding, reading it with increasing levels of panic and concern throughout the weekend, and being the first member of Parliament to oppose it in this place.
Therefore, putting aside for the moment that we know we disagree on BillC-51, I ask my hon. colleague if it was not also an omnibus bill. It had five parts. Each part of Bill C-51 dealt with a different aspect of security. Part 1, with respect to information sharing, was unfortunately not about information sharing where we need it, which is between and among security agencies, but sharing information with others about Canadians. Part 2 dealt with aspects of the no-fly list. Part 3 was about this bizarre, undefined notion that we could ban the promotion of “terrorism” in general. Part 4 was the massively expanded powers for CSIS. Part 5 amended the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Within each of those five parts, numerous acts were amended and changed. I would have preferred to see BillC-51 split up into the five parts that were presented to us as one bill, but I do not recall my hon. colleague agreeing that it should have been split up. Where does he see the difference between this omnibus bill and BillC-51, that omnibus bill in the 41st Parliament?
C-59, An Act respecting national securit ...Government billsNational securityReferred to Committee before second readingSecond readingStanding Committee on Public Safety and ...
Hon. Peter Kent - 17:08
Brian Masse - 17:09
View the print format [p. 15318]
2017-11-20 17:18 [p.15318]
Mr. Speaker, I thank and commend the hon. member for Windsor West for his thoughtful speech. I certainly thank the New Democratic Party caucus for joining me in the 41st Parliament in opposing BillC-51.
C-59, An Act respecting national securit ...Civil and human rightsGovernment billsNational securityPrivacy and data protectionReferred to Committee before second readingSecond readingStanding Committee on Public Safety and ...
Brian Masse - 17:20