11345 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 174 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Wednesday, February 18, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES February 18, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 174 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 174 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 174 (Version officielle) 147 174 18 02 2015 2015/02/18 14:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2 The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers Statements by Members (1405) [ English ] The Speaker : It being Wednesday, we will now have the singing of the national anthem led by the hon. member for St. Paul's . [ Members sang the national anthem] Statements by Members Statements by Members [ English ] Heritage Tournament Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, just recently the 40th annual Heritage tournament took place in my home riding of Oshawa. Over the course of three days, 82 youth hockey teams played in over 100 games and competed for 11 championship banners.

I am very proud to say that both the Oshawa Falcons and Oshawa Hawks claimed several championship banners. The tournament was first held on Heritage Day, or what was then known as Flag Day, in 1975, and was organized by the Oshawa Church Hockey League. For 40 years, the tournament has provided the youth of Oshawa and Ontario with an exciting display of hockey talent, while reinforcing the ideals of sportsmanship and fair play. I would like to thank Dave and Brenda Glazier for coordinating this year's event.

Dave, like his late father Bill who pioneered the Oshawa Church League in 1975, has been involved in every Heritage tournament since its inception. I also want to congratulate all the teams and players who competed and thank all the volunteers who made this tournament possible.

The Maple Leaf Forever Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in 1867, school principal Alexander Muir, living in what is now Toronto-Danforth's Leslieville, is said to have been inspired to write the poem The Maple Leaf Forever after a leaf fell onto his shoulder from a maple tree. The great tree that legend says inspired that poem, later to become a song, was felled by lightning in 2013. However, it lives on through dozens of woodworking projects coordinated by the city of Toronto, including the new flag pole beside the Speaker's chair.

This song celebrating British war victories accelerated the spread of the maple leaf symbol to English-speaking Canada from its origins as a patriotic emblem in early 1800s Quebec, helping pave the way for the adoption of the single maple leaf as our flag's symbol of Canadian unity. The song's lyrics have evolved as Canada has evolved. The most recent version was the winner of a CBC contest in 1997 to rewrite the song into something more inclusive, unifying and inspiring for a 21st century Canada.

Allow me to end by reading some lines from Vladimir Radian's 1997 lyrics: Protect the weak, defend your rights, And build this land together, Above which shine the Northern Lights, And the Maple Leaf forever!

Squamish Mr. John Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the New York Times recently proclaimed Squamish as one of the 52 best places in the world to visit, calling it an “...unusual combination of West Coast wilderness and accessibility.” Last week, Squamish was once again in the news. Maclean's magazine listed Quest University in first place for student engagement among 73 Canadian universities and colleges. Quest has topped the list in four of the past five years. I visited Quest last week, where I met with its highly regarded president, Dr.

David Helfand, teaching fellow Denise Gabriel, and a variety of students, the best and the brightest from Canada and around the world. Along with Capilano University, Quest has put Squamish on the map as a global academic centre. Squamish is also an entrepreneurial community. It is blazing trails, not only in academics but also in sustainable economic opportunities, thanks in

part in part to the initiatives of its chamber of commerce, one of Canada's most active. I congratulate Squamish and Quest on their leadership, proving that “big things really do come in small packages”.

Venezuela Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, one year ago today, Venezuelan opposition leader Leopoldo López was arrested as part of a crackdown on peaceful protests that left 43 dead, 3,000 detained, and scores of political prisoners. His trial has been a sham in which the judge has allowed over 100 prosecution witnesses while denying defence testimony. His imprisonment has been cruel and inhumane. Last week, a dozen armed men wearing ski masks destroyed the contents of his cell and moved him to a small isolation unit with no toilet or running water.

After his wife, Lilian Tintori, appeared before our foreign affairs subcommittee on international human rights, the subcommittee passed a unanimous motion condemning: —the arbitrary and illegal detention and imprisonment of Mr. López and the violations of his fundamental freedoms and rights to a fair trial as guaranteed under international law and the Venezuelan constitution; I ask all members to join this call for the release of Leopoldo López and all political prisoners in Venezuela, and to urge the Government of Venezuela to respect democracy human rights, and the rule of law for all its people.

Infrastructure Mr. John Carmichael (Don Valley West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to highlight the investments our government has made, and continues to make, toward transit infrastructure in Toronto. One of the most consistent priorities I hear from my constituents in Don Valley West in the need to get Toronto moving and remove gridlock. Our government has made historical investments in public transit. Since 2006, we have invested or committed over $3.2 billion in critical transit projects.

Some of these investments include: $92.3 million toward the Toronto Rocket subway trains; $250 million invested in improving GO Transit rail and bus services; and close to $171 million towards the new generation of streetcars. Through our government's extension and doubling of the gas tax fund, we have invested more than $2.2 billion to support municipal infrastructure right across the GTA. Transit is an important part of our healthy, growing economy. I am proud to represent Toronto and Don Valley West. It is quite clear that our government believes in Toronto.

On behalf of the people of Toronto, I would like to express my thanks for believing in our great city.

(1410) [ Translation ] CBC/Radio-Canada Mr. Jonathan Tremblay (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, we found out that the Prime Minister is not Charlie. It comes as no surprise to anyone that as far as this government is concerned, freedom of expression applies only to Conservative positions. Until recently, we knew that the Conservatives were suspicious of researchers, intellectuals, journalists and political columnists.

However, during an appearance on a Quebec City talk radio show last weekend, the Prime Minister let us in on the fact that he has Radio-Canada employees—who, according to him, do not embrace Conservative ideology—in his crosshairs. The Prime Minister revealed his true intention to get rid of this Canadian institution, which he considers an obstacle to his political party. I believe that the Prime Minister 's statements about Radio-Canada employees were out of place, unfounded and unworthy of his position.

[ English ] Volunteerism Hon. Ron Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it will be my great pleasure this week to present to Kelowna--Lake Country resident Phyllis MacPherson a Canadian flag in celebration of the 50th anniversary of the National Flag of Canada. This tradition recognizes exceptional individuals who make outstanding contributions to our communities and to our country, and Phyllis certainly fits this bill.

A dynamic and compassionate individual, Phyllis MacPherson has been the volunteer manager of the Lake Country Food Assistance Society for over 30 years, helping many individuals and families when they are most in need and giving tirelessly of her time and talents to raise funds for the society to find a permanent home. In dedicating her life to the others in this way, Phyllis reminds us all that the misfortune of others could be one's own and that in order to call ourselves members of a community, we must look out for each other. I congratulate Phyllis on this well-deserved honour.

May we all strive as Phyllis has to remember to see our neighbours through the eyes of understanding and live with hearts of compassion. There but for the grace of God go I. I thank Phyllis.

Ruben Deogracias, Blessie Capule Orbigo and Napoleon Orbigo Mr. Blaine Calkins (Wetaskiwin, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in December of last year, the town of Rocky Mountain House was rocked by the sudden and tragic loss of Ruben Deogracias, Blessie Capule Orbigo and her new husband Napoleon Orbigo, all of them temporary foreign workers, who perished tragically in a car accident on a snow-covered highway just weeks before Christmas. What followed was a truly inspiring reaction from the folks of Rocky Mountain House who rallied to support those left behind and their families back in the Philippines.

For example, student-aged co-workers wore their work hoodies to school or picked up extra shifts to support each other and honour their lost friends. Donations were accepted at many local businesses and the students of St. Dominic's High School set up a fundraising event. The community of Rocky Mountain House came together and raised enough money to ensure that Blessie, Napoleon and Ruben could be returned home for burial, and the extra cash was sent to their grieving families back in the Philippines.

The good people of Rocky Mountain House through their kindness, compassion and generosity demonstrated to all of us what it means to be our best in the face of tragedy. They truly honoured the lives of Ruben, Blessie and Napoleon. May they rest in peace.

[ Translation ] Mark Salesse Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, on February 6, 2015, Sergeant Mark Salesse, a search and rescue technician based at 17 Wing Winnipeg, passed away during a training mission, as a result of an avalanche in Banff National Park in Alberta. Sergeant Salesse was originally from Chamberlain Settlement, near Bathurst. He was accompanied by three other ice climbers, who managed to escape without injury. Forty-four-year-old Sergeant Salesse was the son of Liz Quinn and Maurice Salesse. He loved his job in search and rescue, despite all the associated risks.

He loved being able to help people in distress. To his entire family, including his military family, I want to extend my deepest condolences on behalf of the NDP. I hope his joie de vivre and the love of your family and friends will help ease your grief.

[ English ] Islamic State Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to working with our international allies to fight against ISIL around the world in order to protect Canadians. According to the Liberal member for Westmount—Ville-Marie , air strikes against the ISIL death cult are “overkill”.

My constituents do not believe that working to stop a gruesome terrorist organization that beheads people who do not agree with it, threatens to behead the elderly in their beds if they do not convert, and has committed countless crimes against women and children is “overkill”. In fact, our armed forces has confirmed that our air strikes have successfully degraded ISIL's capabilities. ISIL is a threat to domestic and international security. It has declared war on Canada. It called for brutal attacks against Canadians. Although the Liberals want us to sit and do nothing, we will persist.

(1415) Violence Against Women Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, every year in Canada violence drives 100,000 women and children out of their homes and into shelters, where those options exist. In northern Canada, the problem is extreme and more women face abuse. Yet, despite greater rates of violence, 70% of northern and remote communities do not have safe houses or emergency shelters. [ Translation ] When it should be doing so much more, the government is doing less to help women in the north escape violence.

With this so-called action plan, the government is doing nothing more than reannouncing money already promised. [ English ] The irony of the situation is that the government has actually promised less money for shelters than was given in recent years. On this side of the House, we will not accept a frontier mentality that excuses abuse and violence as part of a rugged northern lifestyle. We call upon the government to challenge our own patterns of violence perpetrated on women and create viable options for women facing domestic abuse in northern Canada.

[ Translation ] Citizenship and Immigration Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Liberal leader opposed the government’s principled position on the oath of citizenship being delivered without a niqab. It is a matter of deep principle. Most Canadians would find it offensive for people to hide their identity at the very moment they want to join the Canadian family. Our government understands that. It is disappointing that the Liberal leader does not. I am pleased that the government plans to appeal this decision.

[ English ] Figure Skating Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute an outstanding young athlete from Hammonds Plains, Nova Scotia. Olivia Rybicka-Oliver is a provincial figure skating champion, but she is also becoming recognized for her commitment to others. On January 19, this amazing 11-year-old broke the world record for fastest spinner on ice skates with a speed of 342 rpm. Olivia used this challenge to raise money for Coalition for Kids International. That means a hundred terminally ill children in Poland will have a wish come true.

She is also helping local youth in the leave out violence organization, or LOVE, in Halifax. I know my colleagues will want to join me in congratulating Olivia for her remarkable achievements.

Taxation Ms. Joyce Bateman (Winnipeg South Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, mothers and fathers should be able to make the important decisions that affect their own children. That is why our new family tax cut and enhanced universal child care benefit will give 100% of families with children an average of more than $1,100 dollars per year to spend on their priorities, with the majority of benefits flowing to low and middle income families. Our government trusts that parents know what is best for their children, but both the Liberals and the NDP are against putting money back into the pockets of hard-working families.

In fact, the Liberals would reverse our tax cuts and want to impose more taxes on middle class Canadian families. On this side of the House, we will not hike taxes like the Liberals propose. Rather, we are proud to ensure that mom and dad have the final say in where their money is going for their family.

[ Translation ] Official Languages Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville likes to lecture the Conservatives about using both official languages on Twitter. In my opinion, he should have a look in his own backyard. As someone who claims to care about bilingualism, can he explain why his own party treats French as a second-rate language here in the House? In 2014, barely 22% of the questions asked in the House by the Liberals were in French. Clearly the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville is better at lecturing than getting results.

He is all talk and no action, just like the Conservatives, who appointed a unilingual Minister of Foreign Affairs, a unilingual Auditor General, and unilingual judges in just about every court. Only the NDP takes the official languages seriously. Even though we are in opposition, we have advanced bilingualism, for example with our bill on officers of Parliament. Imagine everything we will be able to accomplish when we form the government in 2015.

(1420) [ English ] Taxation Ms. Joan Crockatt (Calgary Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I was happy to hear the statement by the member for Winnipeg South Centre because 100% of families with children will benefit from our new family tax cut. Those are families in Calgary and across the country. We expanded and increased the universal child care benefit so families will receive $2,000 per child in every riding in the country. That is nearly $12,000 by the time a child is six. However, the Liberals and the NDP would reverse those cuts. They want to put that money back in the hands of the government bureaucracy.

We will not do that. Already the Liberal leader has said that he would reverse those cuts. The Liberals even want to impose more taxes, like the job-killing carbon tax. Canadians can only trust our government to be able to put money back in their pockets. That is something the people of Calgary Centre and the people across Canada appreciate from this government.

House of Commons Flagpole The Speaker : I would like to draw to the attention of all hon. members a new flagpole and stand fashioned from wood from the silver maple tree that inspired the song The Maple Leaf Forever here at the right hand of the Speaker's chair. The remains of the tree, which fell during a storm in 2013, are being turned into 150 art-craft projects for public display across Canada.

I wish to thank the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth who proposed that the House of Commons participate in this initiative. [ Translation ] I would also like to thank the teams of conservators and tradespeople in the House administration for their superb design and excellent craftsmanship in creating these historical objects. Members may also have noted the maple leaf flag in the Hall of Honour. It was flown at the top of the Peace Tower 50 years ago on February 15, 1965. [ English ] It will be on display until March 1.

I invite all hon. members to stop by and have a look at this remarkable artifact of our country's history.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ Translation ] Public Safety Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, inciting a terrorist act is already a crime in Canada. The Prime Minister wants to change the law so that promoting terrorism in general will now be a crime. The problems is that this definition does not add anything meaningful. The Minister of Public Safety claims that he does not want to get caught up in

definitions. Can the Prime Minister give Canadians an example of a situation that is not covered by the existing legislation? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, obviously promoting terrorism should be a crime in Canada. This clarification of the law is just common sense. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, inciting a terrorist act is already illegal. Is the Prime Minister the only one who does not understand that? Right now, CSIS already has the mandate to investigate any threat to Canada's security.

Under the Prime Minister's bill, the definition of a threat to security would include anything that could interfere with economic stability. What does that mean? Can the Prime Minister tell Canadians exactly what his bill means when it refers to interfering with economic stability? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, obviously, terrorism can affect Canada's economic stability. Take, for example, the impact of the events of September 11, 2001. [ English ] The bill is very clear.

It lists a range of national security threats to Canada, but it also makes clear that any activity undermining security does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent or artistic infringements. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, right now CSIS investigates security threats, but the Prime Minister's proposed bill would redefine security threats to include all activities that “interfere” with infrastructure and economic stability, to give only two examples. CSIS is already charged with investigating things like terrorist threats against our economic infrastructure.

It is already there So what new kind of economic interference would CSIS now be charged with investigating? Can the Prime Minister give Canadians a single example?

(1425) Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, under present authority, CSIS does not have the authorization to disrupt security threats that are in stage. This bill gives CSIS those authorities to be exercised with judicial oversight and court authority. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, terrorism is a real threat and everyone agrees that public safety is the primary responsibility of any government, but Canadians do not have to choose between security and their rights.

Interfering with infrastructure, interfering with economic stability, why is the Prime Minister lumping in legitimate dissent with terrorist activity? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the bill, as I just outlined, does absolutely no such thing, not even remotely. This is, in fact, the attempt of the NDP to always say that anything that is in defence of our security somehow undermines our freedoms. That is simply not true.

All we are seeing here is that as the NDP's positions on this issue become more and more irrelevant, more and more unconnected to Canadians' real concerns, their statements on the issue become more and more extreme. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Of course, Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister uses the word “extreme” to define the opposition, and then he denies that this is about political opportunism, everybody can see right through it. [ Translation ] CSIS already has a mandate to investigate security threats and potential attacks of any kind against Canada.

The Prime Minister 's bill would expand its mandate, but to what? What activities? He is not able to give Canadians a single example. Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the bill is very specific. The Leader of the Opposition says that the bill changes nothing, but it is excellent. It only makes sense to ensure that all of our police forces and security agencies have the power to deal with security threats and terrorism and share information. That is common sense, and that is why the vast majority of Canadians support this bill.

[ English ] Foreign Affairs Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, last night I spoke with Mohamed Fahmy, and today I have two questions. First, will the Prime Minister pick up the phone and call President el-Sisi to personally ask for Mr. Fahmy to be returned to Canada? Further, will the Government of Canada make a formal submission at trial requesting his immediate deportation? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, although Mr. Fahmy has been released on bail, the government remains very concerned about this case and about the process in question.

We have expressed those concerns to the government of Egypt at all levels and we will continue to do so until we get a resolution of this that is satisfactory.

Health Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the government has a responsibility to educate Canadians about matters of public health, but yesterday the health minister simply pointed fingers at parents for not vaccinating children. Instead of blaming parents, will the Prime Minister cancel his wasteful partisan ads and start a national education campaign on the importance of vaccinating our kids? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, there is a bit of a shuffle over there, because yesterday, the leader of the Liberal Party accused the government of having cut vaccination campaigns and vaccination funding. I checked on those numbers overnight and saw that there has been no reduction whatsoever. In fact, this government has not only continued doing what we have always done domestically, we are also involved in unprecedented programs internationally promoting vaccination.

The Minister of Health has made this very clear, and I would encourage all members of the House to indicate to Canadians that medical science is absolutely clear that vaccinations are good and children should be protected.

(1430) Justice Mr. Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Lib.) : There has been a 23% cut since 2006, Mr. Speaker. [ Translation ] The Supreme Court has given the government just one year to draft legislation on physician-assisted death. Parliamentarians must be able to hear from Canadians and experts and hold a respectful, responsible discussion on this important issue. Will the Prime Minister start this process in the coming weeks, or will he force Canadians to wait until after the next election? Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, this is obviously a sensitive topic for many Canadians, and there are strong opinions on both sides. We will examine this decision and hold broad consultations on all aspects of this difficult issue.

Public Safety Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, everyone here agrees that we have to do everything in our power to keep Canadians safe. However, we cannot do that at the expense of our identity, our values or our way of life. We should not have to choose between our safety and our rights and freedoms. Why are the Conservatives acting as though we must choose between our freedom and our safety? Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that freedom cannot exist without safety.

Unfortunately, the NDP does not seem to have gone to the trouble of reading past page 3 of the bill. The bill includes provisions to ensure that anyone who engages in crime or terrorism will be prosecuted. I would like to remind my colleague that safety and freedom go hand in hand and that our police forces and our intelligence agencies exist to protect our freedom and our democracy. Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, frankly, it is very clear that Bill C-51 is a direct attack on our freedom and that it will quite simply not work. This bill goes way too far, period.

The government is getting rid of measures that work and that are already reducing the threat of terrorism. What is it replacing them with? With a bill that undermines our rights and freedoms. Why are the Conservatives refusing to use common sense and include logical, necessary measures, such as increased oversight of CSIS and an anti-radicalization strategy? Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the New Democrats are blowing things out of proportion, which comes as no surprise to anyone because they never support measures to protect Canadians from the terrorist threat. The bill before us contains concrete measures to prevent terrorism. For example, it enables intelligence services to talk to parents whose child could fall prey to radicalization and to shut down websites that engage in terrorist or jihadist propaganda. Clearly, there are some very good reasons. Once again, I am looking forward to the speeches for more on this excellent measure. [ English ] Mr.

Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the issue of countering terrorism in Canada and doing what is necessary to protect Canadians while preserving our rights and freedoms is a profoundly serious debate. Canadians expect that all parliamentarians will do their jobs and stand up against any legislation that would erode our Canadian way of life. It is imperative that the government allow for an open and meaningful debate on Bill C-51 . We cannot afford to allow this sweeping legislation to be rushed through the House.

Would the minister commit now to not railroading Bill C-51 through the House? Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I think there is a misunderstanding among the opposition. Those who are threatening our way of life, those who are threatening this very Parliament, and who have indeed done so, the terrorists, are why we need to table a sound, reasonable, well-balanced approach to tackle the terrorist threat. That is the first duty of our government.

I am more than happy to open the debate right after question period so we can debate this issue and get the bill through so we can protect Canadians. Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a commitment to full debate. All I heard was a reference to starting the debate. This is not the kind of approach that Canadians expect from their government on this serious issue. The Conservatives have put forward legislation that would simply go too far, a bill so vague that the minister cannot even explain its key provisions.

Bill C-51 must be changed to remove the threat it would pose to our rights and freedoms. Would the government commit to listening to Canadians and hearing from experts at committee, and then change its bill to strengthen oversight and to protect Canadian freedoms?

(1435) Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, two years ago we introduced the Combating Terrorism Act. We wanted to protect Canadians against terrorists. What did the NDP do? They opposed it. We wanted to remove citizenship from those convicted of terrorism. Once again, regarding dual citizenship, the NDP opposed it. It is not surprising that they oppose this common-sense and reasonable bill, because they seem to be ideologically opposed to any measure that would protect Canadians. We are open for debate but, more importantly, Canadians are expecting us to take measures to keep them safe.

[ Translation ] Employment Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the retail sector is going through a major crisis, and this is symptomatic of the general state of the economy. Like Target, Mexx, Jacob and Smart Set, now Bikini Village is going out of business, and another 400 jobs will be lost. In my riding, merchants in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield are worried. Downtown businesses are disappearing one by one. In Ormstown, many other merchants are afraid of being pushed out.

The Conservative government is helping the richest 15%, but where is the plan to help SMEs and create jobs for the middle class? Hon. James Moore (Minister of Industry, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, of course it is crucial to have a plan, a policy and budgets in place to protect and promote job creation across Canada. That is why, in last year's budget, we cut taxes to ensure we have an approach that will guarantee and create jobs. Today we have the best employment numbers out of all G7 countries. We will certainly have new plans and policies in this year's budget to ensure Canada's future prosperity. [ English ] Ms.

Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the new so-called jobs minister had no answer for unemployed Canadians who cannot get EI benefits. Maybe he does not realize just how big the problem has grown under the current government's watch. We have lost more than 400,000 good manufacturing jobs under the Conservatives so far, and too many of them in my region. The NDP has a plan to boost innovation in manufacturing and to create good jobs. Why are the Conservatives turning their backs on southwestern Ontario? Hon.

Pierre Poilievre (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the only plan the NDP has is to raise job-killing taxes on workers and the businesses that employ them. On the question of EI, the majority of eligible applicants receive their benefits within 28 days. However, the New Democrats are trying to distract from their irresponsible 45-day work-year plan, which would cost Canadian taxpayers $4 billion in job-killing payroll taxes. On this side of the House, we will reduce taxes to create more jobs. Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, unemployment is up by 200,000 since before the recession, and somehow the minister thinks he is doing a good job. The fact is we have seen so many plant closures on the Conservatives' watch that the sector cannot even take advantage now that we have a lower dollar. In order to help manufacturers compete and create jobs, we need to support investments in equipment and innovation, which is exactly what the NDP plan would do. Why do the Conservatives refuse to support good middle-class jobs for Canadians? Hon. James Moore (Minister of Industry, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, Jason Myers, the president of the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, says the NDP plan is, to put it bluntly, a joke. He says that the NDP plan would result in higher taxes and would erode investment and put Canadian jobs at risk. The New Democrats pretend to be in favour of lower taxes, but we actually lowered taxes and they voted against it. The Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters understand that, which is why they have supported our budget. They also recognize that the ideas of the NDP have failed everywhere they have been tried.

The public understands that and knows that our government is the only government that is on the side of manufacturers.

Taxation Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are letting tax cheats of the hook and are doing nothing to help middle-class Canadians. The media report that a single bank, the HSBC, has helped as many as 1,800 Canadians avoid paying their taxes. However, while the Swiss and American authorities are going after HSBC for money laundering and fraud, the current Conservative government does nothing but make excuses. Billions of dollars are being lost every year to tax-evasion schemes, while the current government guts the Canada Revenue Agency. When will the minister start really going after tax cheats?

(1440) Hon. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Minister of National Revenue, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this government has zero tolerance for tax evasion. Since 2006, the CRA has audited over 8,600 international tax cases, identified over $5.6 billion in additional taxes being collected, and we have not reduced our audit forces. Regarding HSBC, the CRA has conducted hundreds of audits, leading to over $21 million in taxes and penalties being reassessed. Further, CRA has received over 250 voluntary disclosures relating to Canadians with an HSBC account. That represents another $123 million. [ Translation ] Mr.

Pierre Dionne Labelle (Rivière-du-Nord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the HSBC Bank in embroiled in a huge scandal involving tax fraud and money laundering linked to drug trafficking and the financing of terrorism. Some 1,800 Canadian clients had accounts with that Swiss bank. Often it was unscrupulous institutions here that facilitated the transfer of funds, allowing people to hide money with HSBC. Now that we know that Swiss authorities began conducting searches today, can the minister tell us what she is doing to catch white collar fraudsters and crack down on their accomplices? Hon. Kerry-Lynne D.

Findlay (Minister of National Revenue, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our government has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to tax evasion. [ English ] As I have stated with respect to the HSBC accounts, when non-compliance was expected, the CRA conducted hundreds of audits. This has led to over $21 million in taxes and penalties being reassessed. Further, our voluntary disclosure program, which is more robust than ever when it comes to international tax evasion, has brought forward 250 voluntary disclosures representing another nearly $123 million in previously undisclosed amounts.

Ethics Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, Treasury Board contracting rules are in place to prevent corruption and political favouritism. Yet documents show that in March 2013, the office of the then minister of natural resources, now the Minister of Finance , ordered his department to approve a $9,200 payment that, according to his own department, “contravenes...Treasury Board...Contracting Policies”. This was an after-the-fact speech-writing contract for the minister. Who was the money for? It was for none other than Guy Giorno, the Prime Minister 's former chief of staff.

Why were proper contracting rules violated? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we expect all Treasury Board guidelines to be followed. Having said that, we know that the Liberal Party still has some $40 million of taxpayer funds outstanding. Now that there is a new member over there, I wonder if she might help them search for that $40 million, maybe give them a bit of a leg up. Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, government documents make it clear that this procurement was “inappropriately actioned”.

The amount charged was conveniently just under the $10,000 public disclosure limit, but what is really distressing is that the department has no copy of the speech or any record of whether or where it was actually delivered. Can the minister immediately produce a copy of this speech, and can he advise why taxpayers paid for it if the department has no record of its very existence? Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, again, of course we expect all Treasury Board guidelines to be followed.

When it comes to giving speeches and being paid for those speeches, I suggest that the member actually ask the leader who sits in front of him, who we know accepted huge contracts, while being a member of Parliament, to speak at places like school boards, unions, and churches. We are going to focus on what matters to Canadians: safety and security and the economy. Our plan has created over 1.2 million jobs. We are getting people back to work. We are cutting taxes. We are investing in infrastructure. We are going to continue to do that for a very long time to come. (1445) [ Translation ] Mr.

David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, Treasury Board rules were broken in order to give an after-the-fact contract to the Prime Minister 's former chief of staff. The office of the then minister of natural resources even insisted that the payment be made in the fiscal year-end panic. Even worse, the department cannot find a copy of the discussion and does not even know what it is about. How can the minister find this to be acceptable? [ English ] Mr. Paul Calandra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, let me just get this straight.

It is 2:45. We are a number of months ahead of an election, and the best the Liberals have is they want to see a copy of a great speech, apparently, that the Minister of Natural Resources gave. They do not want to talk about cutting taxes. They do not want to talk about the fact that we are giving parents, every single family in this country, more money in their pockets. They do not want to talk about the massive infrastructure program the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs has brought forward. They do not want to talk about the mission we are taking right now in Iraq.

The best they have is “Can you please send us a copy of a speech that was given by the Minister of Natural Resources ?” I will take a look, and I will see what other great speeches he has delivered.

Aboriginal Affairs Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today we are mourning the loss— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Speaker : Order. We have moved on. The hon. member for Churchill has the floor. Ms. Niki Ashton : Mr. Speaker, today we are mourning the loss of two children from the Makwa Sahgaiehcan First Nation in Saskatchewan who lost their lives in a devastating house fire. Their bodies were carried out of their burning home by their father when the RCMP finally arrived. There was no fire response. No one responded to the emergency call in a community with no fire services.

My question to the minister is simple. How could this happen? Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I know I have to be careful with the words I am going to be using. For that member and that party to try to score cheap political points over the death of children on a reserve is just unacceptable. Our thoughts and prayers are with that family that has been through this disaster. We will continue to work with these first nations to prevent such in the future. Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the minister may already know that people living on a first nation in Canada are 10 times more likely to die in a house fire than in any other community in our country. This has everything to do with the lack of federal funding to first nations when it comes to fire and emergency services. The family deserves better. First nations across the country deserve better. When will the federal government stand up and show some leadership so that tragedies like the one that happened in Makwa Sahgaiehcan do not happen again? Hon.

Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member may yell if that makes her feel good, but it does not change the situation. The fact of the matter is that we provide funding to first nations to support operations and maintenance, fire protection infrastructure, and fire protection training on reserve. First nations manage the fire protection services on reserve to meet the needs of their communities, and we also know that education and awareness play an integral role in fire safety, and that is what we are funding.

[ Translation ] Housing Ms. Annick Papillon (Québec, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' approach to homelessness does not meet the needs of the people involved. By opting for a strategy based on housing, the minister is providing a very simplistic response to a complex problem. Organizations across Quebec believe that the best way to fight homelessness is to use varied approaches. Why does the minister never consider prevention as a way to fight homelessness? Does she not believe that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? (1450) [ English ] Hon.

Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we are using an evidence-based approach to fight homelessness. It is called Housing First. We know that the NDP members are opposed to evidence-based solutions. Instead, they are committed to their ideology. In fact, in Quebec, decisions are made through a joint committee of federal and provincial officials who look at the local needs in that particular area. We will continue with our homelessness partnering strategy, focusing on Housing First across this country. [ Translation ] Ms. Annick Papillon (Québec, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the Conservatives' pigheaded determination to impose a new strategy to fight homelessness is causing chaos for 26 Quebec organizations. In Quebec City, organizations such as Maison de Lauberivière, Maison Dauphine, Armée du Salut, Point de repères and others are operating with the sword of Damocles over their heads. RAIIQ member organizations believe that this is one of the biggest backward steps in years. Why is the Conservative government not going with what works? Why impose a one-size-fits-all strategy on Quebec? [ English ] Hon. Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, what is so good about our HPS strategy is two things. First of all, it focuses on Housing First, but it allows flexibility in each one of the regions and major cities across Canada. We are allowing each of the community entities to consult with their community advisory boards and to be able to look at which projects should be funded. Yes, we are focusing on Housing First, and yes, we are allowing flexibility. I would be happy to brief the member on HPS.

National Defence Mr. Earl Dreeshen (Red Deer, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, according to the Liberal MP for Westmount—Ville-Marie , air strikes against the ISIL death cult are “overkill”. For the benefit of the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, can the Minister of National Defence update the House on the mission against ISIL and why it is so important? Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of National Defence and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, sadly, the comments of the Liberal critic echoed those of the so-called security expert of the Liberal leader, Mr.

Leslie, who said that the biggest threat in the Middle East is those internally displaced persons, the refugees, the minorities, who have fled the death cult of Daesh. We could not disagree more profoundly. We do not think that it is overkill for Canadian troops and airmen to be striking this genocidal death cult that is seeking to kill tens of thousands of innocent people and that just decapitated 21 people because of their faith. No, this is responsible action by Canadians to defend international security and our own.

Citizenship an Immigration Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, thanks to negotiations between the U.S. and Chinese governments, Americans are now able to get 10-year multiple-entry visas to China, and even though Canada gives Chinese nationals 10-year visas, Canadians can only get a one-year visa for travel to China. This is unfair to Canadians who want to visit China or conduct business there, harms businesses, limits families, drives up costs, and makes our business sector less competitive.

Will the government support my Motion No. 558 and immediately work with the Chinese government to obtain 10-year multiple-entry visas for Canadians? Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member obviously thinks we have our Canadian policies so right that they do not even deserve a motion from him. He needs a motion to go after Chinese policies for visas for Canadians. We have enhanced the business relationship with China in every way. There are more direct flights. There are more visas being issued.

One-quarter of all the visas we issued in the world last year were issued to Chinese citizens, most of them 10-year multiple-entry visas, and yes, we will continue to work with the Chinese to ensure that more tourists come, that business expands, and that business people have every opportunity to grow a vital trade and investment relationship. [ Translation ] Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the minister clearly has no intention of showing any leadership here. We have been pressing the minister for months and he has yet to do anything tangible.

The Americans managed to negotiate with China to get visas that allow unrestricted movement, including for business people. Canada is still lagging on this. Will the government show some leadership? Will it support my colleague's motion and work with the Chinese government to obtain a 10-year multiple-entry visa for Canadians? Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, it is a bit rich for the NDP to ask us to support a motion to change the Chinese government's visa policies, when the NDP themselves voted against the investment protection agreement, and when they themselves voted against all our immigration reforms to help Chinese business people, tourists, and students come to Canada. This is just more NDP hypocrisy. The Conservatives, however, will continue to promote a very dynamic relationship with China.

(1455) Taxation Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we would not recommend that a person with dual Canadian-American citizenship contribute to a registered disability savings plan. The current situation is completely unfair. The person is taxed by the United States when the money is deposited and, surprise, taxed again by Canada when the money is withdrawn. Will the minister change the tax treaty in order to protect the thousands of citizens living with a disability? [ English ] Hon. Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, we are very proud of the registered disability savings plan, the only one of its kind in the world. It was created and really birthed by the late Jim Flaherty. It is one that allows families to save for their children or adult children who have disabilities, because for most parents, a very deep concern is what is going to happen to their children when they are gone. We are absolutely very proud of our registered disability savings plan.

We are proud that there has been more and more uptake on it, and we encourage any family that has a child with a disability to invest, because we are providing a huge amount of grant money for that. Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the government is double-taxing the disabled. That is a Conservative failure. Canadian-American citizens are being taxed twice, once by Canada and once by the U.S., when contributing to their child's disability savings plan. Money invested is meant to increase the financial security of children living with a disability throughout their lifetime.

Why is the minister not listening to families and amending our tax treaty? Why are Conservatives penalizing parents for saving to secure their children's futures? Hon. Kevin Sorenson (Minister of State (Finance), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, again, we are delivering historic tax relief, leaving money in all Canadians' pockets. We have increased the amount Canadians can earn tax free. We have introduced the family tax cut. We continue to bring forward measures to keep money in the pockets of Canadians.

Housing Mr. Adam Vaughan (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, $9,000 did not buy much of a speech for our last question, but we will try again. The finance minister and another minister showed up in Toronto last week to re-announce no new money for housing for Toronto. No doubt the government's response to this is going to be about a Tory praising a Tory, but let me tell the House that it is fake praise in Toronto. Just yesterday, their Tory was in Ottawa talking to us all about what he needs for that city to get better.

What they need is money for transit, money for infrastructure, and—guess what?—new money for housing. Celebrating the status quo means that only 60 units of housing are going to be built in Toronto next year. The waiting list now is 1,500 years for someone on the wait list. When will the government commit new money for housing? When will it build new housing with new money? Hon. Candice Bergen (Minister of State (Social Development), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we were very pleased to be in the city of Toronto with the Minister of Finance and the mayor of Toronto to announce $86 million for our homelessness partners.

What did Tim Richter, head of the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness, say? He said: The policy shift that the federal government announced in its budget this year is going to radically overhaul Canada’s response to homelessness. We will keep making these announcements, working together with our partners and working on evidence-based solutions to end homelessness.

Citizenship and Immigration Ms. Chrystia Freeland (Toronto Centre, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, in an email to the Conservatives about his plans to strip Muslim women of their right to wear the niqab at citizenship ceremonies, the immigration minister got the basic facts wrong. In a cynical political ploy, the government, he said, will appeal a court decision “allowing people to wear the hijab while taking the oath”. Surely the minister, of all people, ought to know the difference between a niqab and a hijab.

As the Conservatives seek to restrict the rights of Muslim women, can they not at least pay them the courtesy of getting the facts right? Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may not have had the honour of living in a majority Muslim country where the hijab has been used to cover the face of women just as the niqab has been used and just as the burka has been used under the terrible influence of the Taliban in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Those practices have no place in our citizenship ceremonies, where we insist on confirming the identity and confirming the commitment of new citizens to our laws, to our sovereign, to our values, and to our traditions.

(1500) [ Translation ] Foreign Affairs Ms. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the new round of sanctions against Russia is missing the mark yet again. Vladimir Yakunin, president of the Russian Railways company, is still not on the sanctions list. Yakunin is an old friend of Putin's and they even co-founded a company together. Why are key individuals such as Yakunin not included in the most recent sanctions against Russia? Why are the Conservatives sparing certain friends of the regime? [ English ] Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the member could not be more wrong. Nobody is tougher on Putin and those associated with him than this government in its support for Ukraine. This is why just yesterday we announced further sanctions. We have now placed sanctions against 270 individuals and entities. That is the toughest sanctions record in the world. The member should be applauding that. Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the minister just told us Yakunin is not on the list, but it gets worse. Including Yakunin, we have Putin's former deputy aide and former deputy prime minister, Igor Sechin. He is not on the list.

He just had a meeting with Putin last week, and this person is not on the list. Why are the Conservatives protecting Putin's friends? It is a very simple question: why are Sechin and Yakunin not on the list? Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, nobody has a better record of supporting Ukraine than this government. Why does the NDP not get behind that, just for a change, just to mix it up? We have been very clear. We have the toughest sanctions regime in the world. We are very proud of that, and it should have the support of the NDP.

Citizenship and Immigration Mr. Brad Butt (Mississauga—Streetsville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I attend many citizenship ceremonies in Mississauga. Becoming a Canadian citizen is a proud time when newcomers commit themselves to Canada and embrace all of the rights and privileges that come with being Canadian. A very important step in joining the Canadian family is reciting the oath of citizenship. Can the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration please explain to this House why the government intends to file a notice of appeal in this matter? Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Mississauga—Streetsville for his hard work for his constituents and for Canadian citizenship, because Mississauga is one of the places in this country where we swore in a record number of citizens in 2014, and we did it through a public declaration. The oath of citizenship is a statement that one is joining the Canadian family and that he or she is committed to Canadian values and traditions.

That is why most Canadians find it offensive that someone would conceal their identity at the very moment when they are joining and expressing their commitment to Canadian laws, values, and traditions. It is not a matter of practical policy. This is a matter of principle. The oath of citizenship is something we do publicly. Someone keeping his or her face hidden from view at the moment he or she joins our country— The Speaker : The hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville.

(1505) [ Translation ] Official Languages Hon. Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage told me that the ministers who were communicating electronically in just one language were sending out personal messages. Could she explain why francophones are not entitled to personal messages from the Minister of Health ? [ English ] “It is important to vaccinate your children.

Download free information here” or “If you smoke, read more in my message here.” [ Translation ] This one is from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans . [ English ] “Important reminder: fishermen have until April 12 to comply.” [ Translation ] Why are francophones not entitled to get these public service announcements? [ English ] Hon. Shelly Glover (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for repeating messages that are important to all Canadians. First and foremost, official communications of the government are always in French and English.

The fact that our ministers take the time to also put out messages on personal accounts is exactly that: they can do it personally. We encourage them, of course, to send out messages that have to do with official communications in French and English. However, these are personal Twitter accounts that we are talking about, and they are not subject to the Official Languages Act.

[ Translation ] Canada Post Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the community mailboxes being forced on communities are a disaster—and some might say a nightmare. Canada Post is not following through on its promises. These much-touted boxes are surrounded by garbage, covered in graffiti and are often not cleared of snow. That is not all. We can only imagine what will happen when these mailboxes are installed on Mount Royal, Beaubien or 9th Avenue. It will be an epic disaster.

Unlike Canada Post, the commission on social development and Montreal diversity conducted public consultations. Surprise, surprise, it recommended that Canada Post immediately reverse this decision. When will the Conservatives finally listen to the public in Montreal and throughout Quebec? [ English ] Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is implementing a five-point plan to ensure that it remains self-sustaining going into the future. One aspect of that plan is the conversion of one million households to community mailboxes.

However, in doing so, and I want to be very clear, Canada Post has the obligation to work with the municipalities to ensure that the siting is appropriate. I know that consultations are ongoing and I encourage Canada Post to continue on with that process.

International Trade Mr. Dave Van Kesteren (Chatham-Kent—Essex, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, free and open trade generates jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity. Today Canada, the U.S. federal government, and the State of Michigan have concluded and signed a plan of arrangement regarding the U.S. customs plaza with a new Detroit River international plaza between Windsor and Detroit. Can the Minister of Transport please update this House on this important project? Hon. Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to thank the member for Chatham-Kent—Essex for that excellent question.

I would also like to commend the member for Essex , my parliamentary secretary, for all the great work that he has done on this project. I can confirm for the House that an arrangement has been signed by all parties and all partners in the project to allow the U.S. customs plaza to be incorporated into the public-private partnership that will be building the other aspects of the bridge. We said very clearly that we were not going to allow financial considerations to get in the way of having progress on this bridge, and indeed that is the case.

I think it is important to note as well that the entire amount will be compensated— The Speaker : The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

[ Translation ] Health Mr. Raymond Côté (Beauport—Limoilou, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, overnight, while Quebec Stevedoring was moving nickel concentrate in the port, the air quality in Limoilou deteriorated even more. Quebec's environment minister sounded the alarm, warning that children and seniors could be affected. This problem has been ongoing for two years and the government refuses to take action. The Prime Minister popped by Quebec City but did not make any announcements about addressing this problem. When will the Conservative government take the health of people in Quebec City seriously? [ English ] Hon.

Lisa Raitt (Minister of Transport, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we have discussed this matter with the Port of Quebec, and this is what I am told it has undertaken: a full review of the company's operation, installation of sensors in sensitive areas to ensure monitoring of dust emissions, fully operational sprinkler systems in transmission, and washing stations in order to ensure that vehicles returning are free of dust. The Port of Quebec is working with its tenants to ensure that the citizens of Quebec are actually protected from this.

(1510) Public Safety Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, through you to the Prime Minister , in response to the very important decision today of the official opposition to oppose Bill C-51 , I see that the Conservatives' talking points are to accuse opponents of the bill of either not having read it or of being forever ideologically opposed to anything the Conservative Party does.

I wonder if the Prime Minister would square that point with the fact that The Globe and Mail editorial board, which has consistently supported the Conservative Party, has read the bill and condemns it as a secret police act. Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we reject the argument we hear every time we talk about security that our freedoms are threatened. Canadians understand that their freedom and security go hand in hand. Canadians expect us to protect both, and there are protections in this legislation to do that. I invite the member to take

part in the debate and eventually support the bill. It is important for our country.

Routine Proceedings Routine Proceedings [ English ] Committees of the House Canadian Heritage Mr. Gordon Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in relation to Bill S-218,

an act respecting National Fiddling Day . The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

Canada Water Act Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) Bill C-653. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-653,

An Act to amend the Canada Water Act (recycling, conservation and efficiency) . He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce this bill,

an act to amend the Canada Water Act. I call the bill the water efficiency bill. The bill would allow the federal government to create water efficiency standards for products and processes in Canada that are sold in Canada and that use water. It would also allow the government to recognize water efficiency standards for devices and the like that were developed elsewhere, like in the United States or at the international level. The bill would also require the government to report on the impacts of the measures on water consumption. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Anti-Semitism Hon. Jason Kenney (Minister of National Defence and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Mount Royal : Motion That a take-note debate on the subject of the troubling rise in anti-Semitism around the world, as discussed at a special meeting of the United Nations General Assembly on January 22, 2015, take place pursuant to Standing Order 53.1 on Tuesday, February 24, 2015. The Speaker : The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. (Motion agreed to)

(1515) Petitions Abortion Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present two petitions to the House today. The first petition highlights that Canada is the only western nation along with China and North Korea that has no restrictions whatsoever on abortion. The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to speedily enact legislation that would restrict abortion to the greatest extent possible.

Impaired Driving Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the other petition I have highlights, sadly, that Bryan McCron, a 49-year-old single dad, was tragically killed by a drunk driver. The drunk driver was driving while his license was suspended. After serving seven months in prison, the drunk driver was released back into the community right near the victim's family. Families for Justice is a group of Canadians who have lost loved ones killed by an impaired driver. It believes that Canada's laws for impaired driving are much too lenient.

The petitioners want the crime called vehicular homicide, which it is. Over 12,000 Canadians are killed every year by a drunk driver. They also want mandatory sentencing from the government.

[ Translation ] Agriculture Mr. Jonathan Tremblay (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House of Commons a petition signed by hundreds of people who are calling on the government to respect the right of small family farmers to store, trade and use seed.

[ English ] Canada Post Hon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition, which is one of many hundreds of others that I have received in my office. The petitioners call upon the government to reverse the cuts to Canada Post.

Sex Selection Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present to the House today. With respect to the first petition, the petitioners call upon the Canadian Parliament to end discrimination against girls and condemn discrimination against girls caused through gender selection of pregnancy termination.

Genetically Modified Alfalfa Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in the second petition, the petitioners call upon Parliament to put in place a moratorium on GM alfalfa.

Impaired Driving Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the petitioners who signed the third petition call for tougher action on impaired driving. They call for a new mandatory sentence for those persons convicted of impaired driving causing death. They also want the offence under the Criminal Code to be redefined from impaired driving causing death to vehicular manslaughter.

Anaphylaxis Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of Canadians who ask the House of Commons to honour and support a motion that was unanimously voted on in regard to Motion No. 230 on anaphylaxis. Those who suffer from anaphylaxis are very vulnerable, particularly when they are travelling. In an airplane, at 35,000 feet, it is very difficult to get emergency medical care. The petitioners ask that Parliament enact policy to reduce the risk of anaphylactic passengers when they are on public transportation.

Agriculture Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition today signed by a number of people from Regina and across Saskatchewan. The petitioners express concern about small family farmers, particularly women farmers. They call upon Parliament to protect the rights of small family farmers to preserve, use and freely exchange seeds. Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton—Leduc, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I stand to present a petition on behalf of hundreds of Canadians in the Edmonton area.

The petitioners ask that the Government of Canada and the House of Commons commit to adopt international aid policies that support small family farmers and ensure that Canadian policies and programs protect the rights of small family farmers in the Global South to preserve, use and freely exchange seeds. Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition from dozens of residents of Sudbury.

The petitioners also ask the government to ensure that Canadian policies and programs are developed in consultation with small family farms and to preserve the right to freely exchange seeds. Recently I held a round table in the community of Verner with the member for Welland . All farmers at the table were very worried about the policies of the government.

(1520) Autism Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, autism spectrum disorders are characterized by social and communication challenges and a pattern of repetitive behaviour and interests. They are lifelong, effect development and life experience, and exert emotional financial pressures on families. The petitioners call on the government to work with the provinces, territories and stakeholders to develop a pan-Canadian strategy for autism spectrum disorder.

Fisheries and Oceans Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions today. The first petition I am honoured to present is from residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands, particularly from Sidney and Victoria areas. The petitioners call on the government to immediately implement all 75 recommendations of the royal commission inquiry into the fate of British Columbia's Fraser River sockeye in 2009. Mr. Justice Cohen's report has still not had an official response.

The Environment Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition comes from residents of St. Catharine's, Ontario. The petitioners call on the government to act to protect the Kipawa Lake system and its important environmental studies against the threat of Matamec Explorations.

Protection of the Sage Grouse Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions to present today. The first petition is on the recovery strategy for the greater sage grouse. The petitioners ask the government rescind the strategy. The second petition is also on the protection of the greater sage grouse. The petitioners would like the government to rescind the emergency protection order. The third petition is also on the emergency protection order. The petitioners also ask that the emergency protection order be rescinded.

Species at Risk Act Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the fourth petition asks the Government of Canada to rescind the Species at Risk Act and replace SARA with

an act that encourages voluntary implementation.

[ Translation ] Veterans Mr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure and honour to present a petition regarding support for veterans. Residents of my riding are calling on the government to implement a plan to stop the unfair cuts to pension benefits, reopen the Veterans Affairs Canada offices that were closed and improve access to home care, long-term care and mental health services.

[ English ] Falun Gong Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table six petitions today on behalf of some 3,000 Canadians who are concerned about the cruel practice of forced organ harvesting by the Chinese Communist regime on prisoners, including Falun Gong practitioners, resulting in the deaths of some tens of thousands, as documented by David Matas, David Kilgour and Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting.

The petitioners call on the government to take measures to end the Chinese regime's practice of killing Falun Gong practitioners for their organs, to amend Canadian legislation to combat forced organ harvesting and to publicly call on China to end its persecution of the Falun Gong. Having introduced Bill C-561 to further restrict organ trafficking and hearing testimony of this practice at our foreign affairs subcommittee on international human rights, I am pleased to stand in solidarity with these petitioners.

The Environment Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition in support of my climate change accountability act, Bill C-619 . The signatories to the petition want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that Canadians are concerned about the inaction of successive federal governments to address climate change, all the while giving billions of dollars to the oil and gas industries in the form of subsidies.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to support the climate change accountability act, a law that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and hold the government accountable to those reductions. Mr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.

The first one is from citizens of Thunder Bay—Superior North who are concerned about the nuclear waste management organization's plan to perhaps bury nuclear waste from southern Ontario in northern Ontario, especially in the Lake Superior watershed, which supplies drinking water indirectly to 60 million people in the Great Lakes Basin, which holds over 20% of the world's fresh water. The petitioners ask that the proposals be rejected and that transport through Thunder Bay—Superior North also be rejected. The second petition is with regard to climate change.

The petitioners say that the economic costs will be in the tens of billions of dollars annually, that flooding damages to a variety of coastlines will occur and that there are many other effects as well. The petitioners want us to invest in climate adaptations.

(1525) Canada Post Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I table today a petition signed by residents of Winnipeg North who are quite upset with the fact that Canada Post made the decision to end door-to-door delivery. The petitioners call upon the government, and particularly the Prime Minister , to take action and censor Canada Post. They are very disappointed that the Prime Minister and the government ultimately supported Canada Post's decision to terminate door-to-door delivery.

[ Translation ] Optimist Movement Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present. The first deals with the creation of a national optimist movement awareness day to encourage members of the optimist movement to recruit other volunteers in order to help young people develop their potential and become excellent citizens. The first Thursday of February would be optimist movement awareness day.

Agriculture Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition, which was signed by many people from my riding, seeks to support a pan-Canadian food strategy. The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to implement a food strategy to support farmers, improve access to healthy food and allow Canadian products to benefit from a growing market, as in the rest of the world.

The Environment Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Beauharnois—Salaberry, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the third petition was signed by over 3,000 people, most of whom are from Beauharnois in my riding, since the wreck of the Kathryn Spirit has been moored in Lac Saint-Louis since the summer of 2011. The petitioners want this crumbling ship to be safely towed out of Canadian waters because it is currently anchored in a drinking water reservoir. [ English ] Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I also rise to present a petition in support of my colleague's climate change accountability act, Bill C-619 , the debate on which will start tomorrow. Signatures have been collected by Sharon Howarth from Toronto—Danforth . I would like to note that the bill, if implemented, would lead the way to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% below 1990 levels by the year 2050. It is

an act this country and the world desperately needs.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Motions for Papers Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand. The Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders [ Translation ] Anti-terrorism Act, 2015 Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) moved 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. Bill C-51. Second reading He said: Mr.

Speaker, I rise in the House today to deliver on our government's firm commitment to fight and protect Canadians from jihadist terrorists who would destroy the very principles that make Canada, our country, a nation of freedom and democracy that is the envy of the world. The international jihadist movement has declared war on Canada and our allies. As we have seen, terrorists are targeting Canadians simply because they despise our society and the values it represents. Let us not forget the October 20 attack in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and the attack that happened right here in our national capital.

Those incidents are etched in our hearts and in our memory and show us how serious these issues are for us as a country. These attacks, like the recent attacks against our allies in Sydney, Australia, Paris, France, and Copenhagen, Denmark, speak to the violence that can be committed by determined terrorists. These events reinforced our government's determination to take action. Our Prime Minister said that we would not react excessively, but we would not remain passive in the face of the evolving terrorist threat.

That is why I have the honour to introduce, with my honourable colleague the Minister of Justice , this important bill on behalf of our Conservative government. People worked tirelessly on this bill. They spared no effort to create a balanced bill. It is a bill that ensures that Canadians can count on the government to protect them from the threat of terrorism. Like many people here in the House, I vividly remember the events at the end of October. I remember I was sitting in the caucus room when we heard gunfire and the terrorist being killed just steps away.

Frantic moments followed, but we regrouped and have since reacted moderately. In the days that followed, I attended the funeral of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent. I still remember what his sister said at the funeral. She asked us to make sure that her brother did not die in vain, that he did not fall at the hands of a terrorist in vain. (1530) [ English ] There is no higher calling of any government than to keep its citizens safe. That is a responsibility that our Conservative government takes very seriously. That is why we have taken, and are taking today, strong action on this file.

We have always said that the threat is real and that we must remain vigilant. We must also adjust to that evolving threat. That is why we are tabling this bill. Indeed, our Conservative government passed the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, which listed Syria and Iran as state sponsors of terror. More than a year ago, we passed the Combating Terrorism Act, which made it illegal to travel abroad to engage in terrorism or receive training to engage in barbaric and horrific acts here at home. We took measures to strip the citizenship and passports of terrorists, despite the lack of support from the opposition.

A few weeks ago, we passed the Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act in this House. This important legislation gives CSIS the tools it needs to investigate serious threats to Canada and confirms that it has the mandate to operate here and abroad, and to exchange information with our allies and partners. We have also listed numerous entities as terrorist organizations, effectively cutting off the lifeblood of their resources.

Unfortunately, when it comes time to vote on these measures, Conservative members often stand alone while others play politics. [ Translation ] Our government has been very clear on the need to introduce new measures to guarantee our safety and ensure that our security and intelligence agencies have the tools they need to do their job.

The legislation before us today is an important step toward improving the means our intelligence gathering services and police forces have for effectively fighting the terrorist threat. [ English ] The anti-terrorism act, 2015 will give our national security agencies 21st century tools to combat jihadist terrorists, wherever they may be. There are five key elements to this important bill. [ Translation ] Although they are complementary in many respects, these measures will allow us to share the federal community's latest knowledge, expertise and work and to use them in a way that will enhance Canada's security.

The first element we must consider is very simple. When we take the time to explain this to people, they ask us why we did not do this sooner. I am talking about sharing information amongst the various federal agencies. (1535) [ English ] Canadians legitimately expect that if one branch of government is aware of a threat to their security that this information would be shared with other branches of government to protect Canadians. This is not the case and we need to fix this with this bill.

In many cases, barriers to effective information sharing are rampant across government, slowing the speed of this exchange to a crawl or acting as a total barrier. These barriers exist in the form of often well-intentioned legislation; however, in the national security context, they manifest themselves into unacceptable silos that put Canadians at risk. [ Translation ] Consider this example. A passport officer contacts an applicant's reference person as part of a routine check. Without being asked, the reference person expresses some concerns about the applicant's intentions abroad.

The reference fears the applicant could go to Iraq to fight alongside ISIL, because he supports its goals. At this time, the passport officer can open an investigation in order to determine if the passport application should be denied for national security reasons. As we have seen, passports can be revoked or not issued for reasons of national security. However, that officer will have a hard time sharing information proactively for further investigation of that threat. This could push the individual to commit a terrorist act in Canada.

Indeed, if we prevent him from travelling outside Canada, he becomes a threat here, since he did not get his passport. This increases the threat of a terrorist attack here on Canadian soil. This situation is unacceptable. That is what we are trying to correct with the first of the five measures set out in this bill, in order to improve the means we have to reduce the terrorist threat here in this country.

Under the anti-terrorism act, 2015, passport officers would be able to proactively share information with a national security agency in order to combat this possible terrorist threat. [ English ] These obvious changes, through the creation of the security of Canada information sharing act, are common sense solutions to real problems, and it is our duty to make it come through.

Contrary to dire suggestions by some members of the opposition, who should certainly read the bill before fearmongering, there are robust safeguards in place to protect the liberties of Canadians, such as review by the Privacy Commissioner, the Auditor General and various other oversight bodies. I will add at this point in time that we have consulted the Office of the Privacy Commissioner in the drafting of this bill. However, I fundamentally reject the argument that protecting our security threatens our freedom. Indeed, there is no liberty without security.

Canadians I have spoken with about this legislation understand that their freedom and security go hand in hand. The fact of the matter is that our police and national security agencies are working to protect our rights and freedoms, and it is jihadi terrorists who endanger our security and would take away our freedoms. The second element of this legislation that I would like to share with members is the secure air travel act, which finds its origin in the Air India inquiry action plan. We call it a passenger protect program, or the no-fly list.

It currently relies on authorities found in the Aeronautics Act, but has never been given its own legal footing. [ Translation ] The air transportation system is still a target for terrorists. That is why this list was established after the attacks on the World Trade Center towers. However, we must also take additional measures to address the growing number of people who fly with the intent of committing terrorist acts abroad. Even though they are not an immediate threat to the plane on which they are travelling, they could represent a direct threat to the country of destination or to Canadian allies abroad.

Canada cannot allow people to commit terrorist acts here or abroad. That is why we must improve the program's mandate in order to include those who travel to take

part in a terrorist activity. The government will thus have another tool to prevent travel for terrorist purposes, including in cases where it is impossible to go ahead with an arrest or legal action at this time. This second element of the bill will also allow the government to use gradual or proportional security measures, such as denying boarding or an additional physical search at the airport, as additional means of managing the risk posed by people who travel on aircraft to take

part in terrorist activities. (1540) [ English ] This enhanced mandate would ensure that our skies are safe and secure, both from those who cause a risk to aviation security, which is actually the case, and from those seeking to travel to seek martyrdom or carry out other twisted ideological violence.

That is why, as in the first part, which includes information sharing among federal agencies, we also need to protect our skies from terrorists. [ Translation ] I would now like to talk about the third element of this anti-terrorist bill, which is a proposed change in the mandate of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, an agency created 30 years ago to which no major changes have been made since then. Unlike the security intelligence agencies of our closest allies, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service can only collect intelligence in order to help identify threats against security.

However, it cannot take direct measures to protect Canadians and Canada's interests. [ English ] What does it mean in practice? I think this issue was raised during question period, so I hope my colleagues are listening carefully. Let us say that CSIS becomes aware of an individual in the process of becoming radicalized. Perhaps the person is acquiring jihadist propaganda or viewing radical material posted on YouTube and, in fact, individuals within the person's own close circle have advised CSIS that they are concerned the person may travel for terrorist purposes.

Currently, CSIS can investigate, but it cannot do anything to stop the individual from travelling. The furthest CSIS can go now is to advise the RCMP that it believes the individual is about to commit an offence, and then the RCMP would launch an investigation. Therefore, we are far from action. Under the anti-terrorism act, 2015 , CSIS could engage a trusted friend or relative to speak with the individual to advise them against travelling for terrorist purposes.

Further, CSIS could meet with the individual to advise them that it knows what he or she is planning to do and what the consequences of taking further action would be. These needless roadblocks have the potential to cost human lives. As I just explained, we have seen all our western allies providing their intelligence services with these kinds of tools. [ Translation ] With this strengthened mandate, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service could use a variety of techniques to counter threats in order to thwart plans or even alter behaviour.

For example, CSIS could talk to the family of a potential terrorist about his travel plans. This is a legal activity in which CSIS cannot currently participate because it does not fall within the service's intelligence gathering mandate. Let me be very clear. As is currently the case with intelligence gathering, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service would have to seek a warrant from the court to make use of any more intrusive techniques. What is more, as with all CSIS activities, activities to disrupt a threat would be subject to a rigorous external review by the Security Intelligence Review Committee.

Under its new mandate, CSIS would be required to conduct an annual review of at least one aspect of its performance and summarize its findings in its annual report, which is tabled here in Parliament. CSIS would also be required to present statistics on its use of warrants to disrupt threats. (1545) [ English ] I realize that many of the Liberal and NDP members have expressed concerns about the level of oversight of our national security agencies. On this side of the House, we believe in and are proud of our Canadian model.

We have third-party, non-partisan, independent, and expert oversight that is bringing continuity to the monitoring of the intelligence community. We believe that it is much better than importing a made-in-America political intervention in the process. I would reiterate the important point that often seems to be forgotten around this place, that it is the jihadis who represent a threat, not our own police officers and those protecting us. I am glad that my colleague, the hon. Minister of Justice , will speak on the bill, because there are two very important measures in it.

I see that my time is running out, so let me briefly mention those two measures. [ Translation ] The fourth element of the bill is an amendment to the Criminal Code to allow our police forces, in co-operation with the Attorney General of Canada and with a warrant from a judge, to intervene when an individual poses a threat. The fifth element—and my colleague and those who speak after me can elaborate on this—deals with how we will increase our prevention efforts.

We can do this by eliminating the sources of terrorist propaganda, or in other words, by putting an end to activity on websites that could constitute terrorist propaganda and criminalizing those who may be encouraging terrorist acts. [ English ] We have a robust bill here with five common-sense measures. Who could oppose the federal agencies sharing information among themselves to better protect Canadians with full respect for our charter and Constitution? I was proud to work on that bill.

Unfortunately, as we might expect, we have heard the opposition members engaging in a kind of rhetoric this afternoon, but I am certainly open and hope that we will have an open and fair debate and sound questions on this important bill for the safety of Canadians. Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for his remarks, in which he again made reference to a full debate. Earlier in his speech he talked about giving some answers to items from question period.

I will go back to the question I asked him in question period, to which he responded by saying that he was looking forward to starting the debate this afternoon. Will the minister promise us that we will have a full debate on this bill, and that when we get it to committee, we will listen to experts who have concerns about the effectiveness and the constitutionality of this bill? Will he listen to Canadians who want to come to committee and testify on this bill, and have a complete and full debate on the bill? Will he make that commitment now, here in the House? Hon. Steven Blaney : Mr.

Speaker, I expected to hear a question on the bill itself, and not on the process. The member knows full well that the committee is totally independent of me and that the committee will decide by itself how to proceed. Why do we not have a debate in the House about the merits of this bill? The opposition members seem to laugh at this bill. This is an important bill for Canadians, and we should devote our time to seeing how we can make it even better. I think Canadians are expecting us to do a thorough review of this bill and to get it through. The threat is real. We saw it in Copenhagen just this weekend.

There are no jokes to be made about the terrorist threat and what is happening here and around the world.

(1550) Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the minister said that the bill is well balanced. We certainly question that. Moreover, the minister stated that SIRC, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, provides third-party oversight. Sadly, at the beginning of this debate, the minister has already misinformed the House. Let me quote from SIRC's annual report: An oversight body looks on a continual basis at what is taking place inside an intelligence service and has the mandate to evaluate and guide current actions in “real time.” SIRC is a review body, so unlike an oversight agency....

SIRC claims that it is not an oversight agency. Why is the minister continuing to claim that it is? His seconder to this bill, the current Minister of Justice , was part of a report in 2004 that called for proper oversight, similar to what our Five Eyes have. He, at the time, refuted that SIRC is a proper oversight agency. Why did the minister leave oversight out of this bill? Hon. Steven Blaney : Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Justice reminds me that this very member was occupying that very function not so long ago, and was working with SIRC and expressing his confidence in this great Canadian model.

SIRC is a body that is an extension of Parliament. I encourage the member to read the report a bit further, and he will see that SIRC is an extension of Parliament. It is acting on behalf of us all, but it is non-partisan. It is not a political intervention. It has continuity, expertise, and knowledge. As members may be aware, we just appointed a very respected Canadian, the dean of a law faculty, to it. Mr. Holloway is joining as an honourable member of SIRC and will assist it in its very important duty of keeping an eye on our intelligence community. Ms.

Roxanne James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, at the start his speech, the minister talked about information sharing and mentioned that Canadians would expect that if one branch came across information pertinent to national security threats against Canadians, it could give that information to another branch. Canadians sitting at home might be saying to themselves, “I thought that was already being done”. Certainly, terrorist threats and how they have evolved have changed over the years.

They certainly are not the same as they were 30 years ago when the CSIS Act was first enacted. Certainly, they are not the same as they were 10 years ago. However, when we talk about information sharing, I wonder if you could elaborate a bit more on who actually controls that information. I know some members of the opposition parties are assuming that there is going to be some sort of big database and that people could just freely access that information. That would not be the case. Could you please clarify that for the opposition parties? The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Barry Devolin) : I am presuming that the parliamentary secretary is not asking me to clarify this. I would like her to direct her comments to the Chair rather than directly to the minister. The hon. minister. Hon. Steven Blaney : Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for her question and her excellent work. As she comes from a large urban community, certainly one of the largest in our country, she knows how important it is to put in place measures that will keep Canadians safe.

Regarding the question on information sharing, this is enabling legislation that would empower every agency to share information related to national security and direct it to the authorities when they are concerned about national security. I gave the example of an individual who could represent a threat and that this information could be conveyed to the authorities.

We want to prevent Canadians from travelling abroad to commit terrorist attacks, but we also want to make sure that if a part of the Canadian government is aware that an individual could represent a threat and if that individual is prevented from travelling, we are not generating a home grown terrorist who could carry out an attack here on our soil. This is why the bill is so important. It addresses some of the questions that arose from the terrorist attacks that took place on October 20 and 22, especially on October 20 when we knew that the individual was prevented from travelling. (1555) [ Translation ] Ms.

Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I think everyone in the House would agree that terrorism is a real threat. We can also all agree that governments around the world should consider public safety an important issue. However, Canadians do not have to choose between public safety and their rights. They go hand in hand. It makes me sad to see the Minister of Public Safety giving Canadians a false choice. Today I would like to ask the Minister of Public Safety why there is not more civilian oversight of CSIS in this bill.

Why is the government not directly addressing radicalization by working with communities on the ground? Why is the government working in a vacuum? Hon. Steven Blaney : Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my hon. colleague that we brought in legislation to combat terrorism, as well as a strategy that has been around for several years now, through which we invest in prevention and research. Unfortunately, we did not have the support of the New Democrats for the first pillar of our anti-terrorism strategy, which is prevention.

This afternoon I showed that the bill before us contains elements that will improve and reduce the risk of radicalization, in particular by giving intelligence officers the ability to reduce the threat as soon as they are in contact with an individual who could fall prey to radicalization and also by shutting down websites that could be spreading terrorist propaganda. The New Democrats have an opportunity to take action by supporting the bill before them this afternoon. [ English ] Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I will come back to my question on oversight.

I know that the minister and his parliamentary secretary try to make the point that they want a non-partisan committee. As the current Minister of Justice knows, the other oversight committees among our Five Eyes partners are from all parties. Their interest is national security and they do it in a non-partisan way. I will quote from the SIRC report: To establish and maintain the confidence of both chambers of Parliament and the trust of Canadians, Parliament’s role in this area must be, and be seen to be, independent of the Executive (Cabinet).

Why, in heaven's name, would the minister not allow Parliament to do its job and provide proper oversight to all the security agencies, including CSIS and the others? Why is the signature of the Minister of Justice not worth much? Hon. Steven Blaney : Mr. Speaker, let me remind my hon. colleague that SIRC is a very good oversight mechanism. I am little surprised to hear the member asking that question this afternoon. When he was minister, he was fully happy with the expertise provided by SIRC. However, I am satisfied. I met with the current chair, the members of the board, and the executive director.

I read their report. They are somewhat critical of part of the work that has been done by CSIS, and it is expected that CSIS will respond appropriately to those issues. I would like to remind my hon. colleague of one thing that is more important, that they are acting on our behalf. This is a Canadian model that has expertise and, frankly, we can be proud of the work they are doing on our behalf.

(1600) Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today as leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition to indicate that the New Democratic Party of Canada will oppose Bill C-51 . I do so with a deep sense of responsibility, because, as members know, over the last several months, horrific terrorist attacks have shocked the world. However, at the same time, mourning those events has brought people together and strengthened our resolve to defend our way of life against cowardly attackers who seek to intimidate us and erode our freedoms.

Canadians came together in grief and defiance the day after the Parliament Hill shooting, pledging that violence would not, even for a day, halt the work of our democracy. That day we were united. We were resolved to keep this land strong and free, to protect our freedoms, to stand by our principles. [ Translation ] The day after the Parliament Hill shooting, it was important to affirm our duty to stand on guard for Canada, loudly and clearly. Let us be clear: terrorism is a very real threat both at home and abroad.

The events of September 11, 2001, changed the face of the world and forced countries to tighten surveillance and take threats seriously. The Canadian government has invested considerable resources over the last two decades and has taken forceful measures to strengthen its laws against terrorism. Over the same years, many bills have come before the House. Every time, the New Democratic Party has provided a thoughtful and balanced analysis. We have supported some of these bills and opposed others, as we will oppose Bill C-51 . We do the same when there are difficult international issues to deal with.

We remember when this House was asked to vote on a mission to bomb Libya in the days of Moammar Gadhafi, and the NDP voted in favour of that mission because there was a mandate from the United Nations. When the mission evolved into an American one aimed at regime change, we withdrew our support. That is what it means to have principles and be consistent. Some legislation that was created post-2001 is working well. Moreover, that is at the heart of some of our criticism of the government. It is as if these laws that are working well did not even exist.

Members will remember that in June 2006, some 400 police officers were involved in the arrest of 18 people in Toronto who were planning attacks on public places such as the Peace Tower here in Ottawa and the CN Tower in Toronto. In 2013, so recently it is still in the news, the RCMP thwarted a planned attack on a VIA Rail train. Just since the beginning of 2015, police officers have laid charges against six individuals here in the Ottawa area for participating in and facilitating the activity of a terrorist group. There are laws in place already. The current system has proved its worth. It produces results.

It works well. The NDP believes that the laws that exist today enable police and intelligence officers to do their work properly. Providing new legislative tools is not the only solution. First and foremost, we must ensure that our officers have the financial resources they need in order to better enforce the law.

(1605) In addition, some of the laws enacted to combat terrorism are never used by the police. Nonetheless, the NDP has always stood up in the House to ask questions about each new bill, at each reading, and about the measures proposed by the government, because the NDP believes that security and freedom are fundamental values that must be preserved at all costs. We also believe that they go hand in hand and that countries where the people have the most freedom are the safest countries. I believe, fundamentally, that the first duty of every government is to ensure that its citizens are safe.

That includes the duty to ensure the safety of the food supply. Let us remember that for ideological reasons, we no longer have government inspectors in meat processing plants. We have a system of self-regulation where the company says whether it is doing a good job. That is not unrelated to the fact that a few years ago, under this government, dozens of Canadians died during the listeriosis crisis. Protecting the public is a duty, and the Conservatives failed in that task. They even made tasteless and inappropriate jokes at the expense of the people who died.

Even worse, the person who made those inappropriate jokes is still the Minister of Agriculture . That is shameful. The government has a duty to ensure that hazardous materials are transported safely. We have all seen the result. Once again, this government’s ideological vision means allowing the railway companies to self-regulate, to check off a box and tell the government whether they are doing a good job.

We will never forget that one of the few railway companies to have special permission from the Conservative government allowing it to have only one engineer on board was the railway company whose train exploded in Lac-Mégantic. That too is about protecting the public. We are talking about 50 deaths. The public must be protected in all realms of life. When a legislative framework is put in place, the appropriate financial resources to enable the police and intelligence services to preserve the public peace and protect the public must also be allocated.

In fact, what happened in the meat processing plants was the result of a system of self-regulation and the elimination of millions of dollars and hundreds of jobs at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. What happened with the railway companies is the same thing: a system of self-regulation where the government no longer plays the role that it is its job to play. We can make a very long list of things that the government gave up on or did not have the courage to move forward with. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights unanimously voted in favour of legislation to crack down on impaired driving.

Nothing was done. We never heard about it again. The Conservatives love to chat with groups of mothers who lost their children or loved ones to impaired driving, but in all their years in power, they have never done anything to address this important issue. Compelling evidence shows that these changes alone would have saved hundreds of lives. This too is a way of protecting the public. [ English ] There is no question that terrorism is a real threat, both here at home and abroad.

Taking effective action to protect public safety must be the top priority for any government, but we as parliamentarians also have an obligation to protect Canadians' way of life by standing up for our freedoms and our values.

(1610) Parliamentarians must come together to address this threat with responsible, effective measures that are targeted on the threat, rather than playing political games as we saw today. At a time when we need a responsible and serious approach to this threat, an approach that protects Canadians' values and freedoms, we saw the Prime Minister playing games and putting the freedoms of Canadians at risk. Canadians saw it today. We asked him five times to provide one single example, and he was incapable of doing it. Why? It is because this is a political play more than anything else.

The Conservatives have even admitted it. They see the recent events, as one of their officials put it, as a “strategic opportunity” for them, so Canadians are right to suspect that the Prime Minister 's new anti-terrorism bill, Bill C-51 , goes too far. [ Translation ] The NDP team analyzed, examined and reviewed this bill from every angle. We consulted our civil society partners to see if the Conservatives' new approach would be effective in protecting Canadians and their civil liberties. We also asked for clarification from the Prime Minister and his ministers responsible for this portfolio, but to no avail.

As we have seen, they are unable to answer us. That proves that the Conservatives are playing political games. Unlike the Liberals, who supported this bill without even reading it and abdicated all power to negotiate amendments, the NDP took the time to read, think about and analyze this long and complex piece of legislation.

The NDP will not support the Conservatives' Bill C-51 in its present form because it has too many flaws and will undermine the rights of Canadians. [ English ] After studying this complex piece of legislation, after consulting with experts, after talking with Canadians, and after lengthy democratic discussions in our own caucus, the NDP has come to the conclusion that the Prime Minister 's approach is one we cannot and shall not support. Bill C-51 is sweeping, dangerously vague, and ineffective. It does not do things that are proven to work, and it puts politics ahead of protecting Canadians. Why do I say that?

Well, instead of introducing this legislation right here in Parliament, as he should have, the Prime Minister chose to do it in an election-like campaign-style event. That is called tipping one's hand. He even went so far as to make remarks that singled out Canada's Muslim community. That is not leadership that unites Canadians, and he should be ashamed of himself. Canadians are being told by the Prime Minister that they need to choose between their security and their rights, that safety and freedom are somehow, in the Conservatives' minds, mutually exclusive.

It is the classic Conservative political approach, which is not based on good policy but entirely on what Conservatives see as good partisan politics: to drive wedges, to put one region against another and one community against another, and to create false choices. The Prime Minister should know that it is not either the environment or the economy. It is both. It is not either free trade or human rights. It is both. It is not either public safety or freedom. It is both. [ Translation ] The Conservatives are once again offering us a false choice. We should not have to choose between our freedom and our safety.

It is our duty to protect both for everyone at all times, at every opportunity and in every way.

(1615) We can and we must have both at the same time. We are convinced that we can have them both. [ English ] The Prime Minister could have decided to put forward concrete measures to make Canadians safer and protect our freedoms. Instead, the Conservatives have once again put politics over principle and have introduced a bill that is so broad it would allow CSIS to investigate anyone who opposes the government's economic, social, or environmental policies.

Bill C-51 proposes to give CSIS a sweeping new mandate to disrupt the activities of people or groups it does not like or that it believes pose any kind of threat under any of those chapters. What has happened to the rule of law in our country? We have been asking the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to explain what that means. He has been entirely incapable. Neither he nor his officials nor the Prime Minister , for that matter, have been willing or able to describe what activities this new mandate would cover.

Anyone who was here today during question period saw what happened: a Prime Minister wholly incapable of providing a single example of what this bill was supposed to correct as mischief. That is because it is a political ploy. [ Translation ] However, according to the brilliant and oh so talented Minister of Public Safety , we must not get caught up in

definitions. As we just heard from his empty speech, however, he has no problem at all getting caught up in the platitudes and talking points written out for him by the Prime Minister's Office, which are completely meaningless. The rule of law is the very essence of a state of law. It is the very wording of the law; it is the construction of the law; it is what is written in the law. That is why he is incapable of talking about it, because he does not understand what he just wrote in his own bill. For absolute clarity and so that everyone has the same understanding and the same

interpretation of the bill, let us be clear. If the Conservatives had wanted to do things right, they would have begun in Parliament and announced that experts would be given the time to clarify the bill and study it together. Instead, we were treated to an election campaign-style announcement hundreds of kilometres away from Parliament, and that revealed their deepest thoughts.

This is all a political game to them. [ English ] Those experts who are starting to write about this, those highly respected individuals, are warning that the broad measures in Bill C-51 could lump legal dissent together with terrorism and lump strikers together with violent anarchists. Bill C-51 proposes to make it an offence to advocate or promote terrorism “in general”. Can the minister even explain what the words “in general” are doing in a legal text? Canada already has strong laws that make it an offence to incite a terrorist act.

That is why the Conservatives cannot give a single example of what is taken care of by this new bill that is not already taken care of by existing legislation. Those same experts, and we are seeing more and more of their papers appear, are saying that the language in this new provision is so vague and so open-ended that it could vastly expand the kind of statements that could get a Canadian arrested. Anyone who is genuinely inciting violence against others of course should be stopped.

However, we need measures that keep Canadians safe without eroding our fundamental freedoms. [ Translation ] This government should be known as the “government of fear”. When a government plays with people's fear and takes advantage of Canadians' sensitivity and raw emotions following a tragedy, there is a high risk of abuse.

(1620) Like many Quebeckers, I remember the improper arrest and detention of hundreds of innocent people when Trudeau's Liberal Party passed the War Measures Act during the October crisis. At the time, the NDP shrugged off criticism, had the courage of its convictions and stood firm against this attack on the rights and freedoms of all Canadians. It was difficult at the time, but history has proven us right, and we are proud of that. All parliamentarians are responsible for ensuring that such abuses of power are never repeated. Never again.

Those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are condemned to repeat them, and that is what we are seeing with these people. [ English ] Today the Conservatives want to give significant new powers to CSIS without addressing serious deficiencies in oversight. We know that there are currently serious deficiencies in the oversight of CSIS.

The last report of the under-resourced Security Intelligence Review Committee found that CSIS is “seriously” misleading the committee in one investigation after another, and it faced “difficulties”, which is their term, and “significant delays” in getting information about the spy agency's activities. In other words, they are hiding the information from the people who are supposed to be guaranteeing oversight, because the oversight is deficient, ineffective, and weak. That is the reality. That is before the enhanced responsibilities.

It is already problematic. [ Translation ] We are concerned that the Conservatives want to give the Canadian Security Intelligence Service more powers without improving the inadequate oversight mechanisms currently in place, mechanisms that resulted in the Conservative government putting Arthur Porter in charge of that oversight. They seem to think that Arthur Porter is a model of ethical conduct. To us, this is quite straightforward. If the government wants to give CSIS more powers, then it absolutely must increase oversight.

That is crucial. [ English ] By the way, this is on top of the Conservative decision in 2012 to simply eliminate the position of CSIS inspector general. That, of course, further weakened the reviews, but that is exactly what the Conservatives wanted. In view of these shortcomings, it is simply irresponsible to give the agency such broad new powers without providing additional oversight and without in any way attempting to prove what such new powers are supposed to do that are not already in the law.

The bill also comes on the heels of cuts to our security agencies, cuts that sideline other public safety priorities, and the Prime Minister has yet to offer a plan to support Canadian communities that are combatting radicalization on the ground. No stranger to the threat of terrorism, the United States of America, under President Obama, has taken a proactive approach to combatting radicalization. The White House has spearheaded work with at-risk communities to make them more resilient against the lure of radicalization.

The U.S. government works to support community and faith leaders by connecting them with counter-radicalization experts, providing information on how to recognize the warning signs of radicalization and training in the kinds of tactics that are proven to actually work to diffuse radicalization. Absolutely none of this is being done in Canada by the Conservatives. In fact, the Conservatives have chosen a very different approach. For example, the RCMP plan to work with communities to counter violent extremism has sat on the drawing board for years. Why? It is because it does not suit the Conservatives' purpose.

(1625) Meanwhile, the Prime Minister has cut the budgets of both the RCMP and CSIS, and top officials have testified that they do not have the resources to monitor terrorism suspects and keep fully funding other areas of their policing. Why? It is because they prefer talking about it to doing anything about it. Instead of doing the things