House of Commons Hansard #82 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was first.

Topics

Citizenship and Immigration
Oral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Hull—Aylmer
Québec

NDP

Nycole Turmel Leader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, at the time, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism was singing a different tune. He said, “There is a remarkable spirit of co-operation around this bill. It is amazing to see that a consensus could be reached on such a sensitive issue by all the parties in the House with their divergent views.” That is what the government was saying at the time. The minister was right: we did improve the refugee system.

Why undo this good work? Why change something that is working? Why be so shamelessly partisan and renege on the consensus reached with regard to refugees?

Citizenship and Immigration
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Calgary Southwest
Alberta

Conservative

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, once again, Canada has the fairest and most generous refugee system in the world. It is essential to maintain that system and take the measures necessary to put an end to the abuse of that system. Some changes were made in the last Parliament but there are still thousands of people from safe, democratic countries who are claiming refugee status in Canada. This is unacceptable to Quebeckers and Canadians, and we are going to change it.

Public Safety
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, to accuse someone of supporting child pornography is just vile. The minister needs to take responsibility for his comments.

Here is one quote, “I think this bill is too intrusive. There's a lot of concern across the country”. Who said that? The member for New Brunswick Southwest.

So now are Conservative MPs on the side of child pornographers? If not, will the minister stand and apologize to the child victims for using them as political cover to push a bill that even the Conservative backbench would not support, for crying out loud?

Public Safety
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Provencher
Manitoba

Conservative

Vic Toews Minister of Public Safety

Mr. Speaker, I will not apologize for ensuring that victims of crime, especially children, are protected, and that is what we are going to do. Canada's laws do not adequately protect Canadians from online exploitation. We want to update our laws while striking the right balance between combatting crime and protecting privacy.

Let me be very clear. Police officers will not be able to read emails or view web activity unless they obtain a warrant by a judge.

Public Safety
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, here is a good quote to help him, “This is going to be a gold mine for the hackers and the real bad guys”. Who said that? The Ontario privacy commissioner because she is opposed to his bill that will force every telecom, telephone, Internet, wireless provider to create these elaborate spy backdoors so they can snoop on law-abiding citizens.

Will he strike these provisions that will treat ordinary citizens as criminals, or will he continue to side with the hackers and the snoopers? Will he change that provision, yes or no?

Public Safety
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Provencher
Manitoba

Conservative

Vic Toews Minister of Public Safety

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, police officers will not be able to read emails or view web activity unless they obtain a warrant issued by a judge.

I will continue to stand by the Ontario attorney general, the NDP Nova Scotia attorney general and the NDP Manitoba attorney general. Every attorney general in the country supports the bill.

Public Safety
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Wascana, SK

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government confessed it was wrong to try to track without warrant every use of email, cellphones and the Internet, but Canadians will be forgiven if they do not trust the government.

Would the Prime Minister guarantee today that he will refer the subject matter of Bill C-30 to a parliamentary committee for full reconsideration, without the limitations of Standing Order 73(1), without time allocation or closure and without secret proceedings behind closed doors? Will the Prime Minister commit to that transparency?

Public Safety
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Provencher
Manitoba

Conservative

Vic Toews Minister of Public Safety

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister state yesterday that he wanted this legislation sent directly to committee for full examination on the best way to protect all Canadians from online crime and online predators.

It is important to remember, in the context of that referral, that amendments can be considered, and will be considered, by the committee, whether they are within the scope of the legislation or outside the scope of the legislation. It is a very broad referral.

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Wascana, SK

Mr. Speaker, the government is reneging already.

On another matter of transparency, or the lack of it, the government's position on F-35 fighter jets is imploding. There are now only two possibilities: either the government will completely blow through its budget for fighter jets, or it will fail to get the minimum number the air force needs.

I have simple questions for the Prime Minister. How many planes will he buy? At what price per plane? When will Canada take delivery? How many, how much and when?

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Central Nova
Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, what is imploding is the credibility of the member opposite's party. It was the Liberal Party that entered Canada into the program. It is a good program that has gone on for a number of years.

We are obviously working to give the Royal Canadian Air Force the best possible aircraft on the market. Only fifth generation aircraft will be available to the Royal Canadian Air Force.

Unlike the NDP, the Liberal Party does believe in a well-equipped Canadian air force.

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Beauséjour, NB

Mr. Speaker, we already know the many reasons for the delays in developing the F-35. But now we have learned that Chinese spies gained access to secret documents, compromising some security features of this aircraft. We now have reason to believe that anyone in China with a laptop has more information about the development of the F-35 than the Conservative government.

Was the government aware of this breach of the integrity of the F-35 program?

National Defence
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Central Nova
Nova Scotia

Conservative

Peter MacKay Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I do not think those members would know more about the aircraft than member countries like Canada when it comes to this fighter aircraft.

What we do know is the current fleet of F-18s will need to be replaced around 2020 or in that range. For that reason, it makes perfect sense. It is prudent planning, to prepare to replace that aircraft. We have set a budget aside, as the Prime Minister has mentioned a number of times. The Royal Canadian Air Force will live within that budget.

Unlike other parties, we intend to ensure the long-term viability of the Canadian air force when it comes to the fighter aircraft we need to protect our country, the continent and international missions.

Public Safety
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

NDP

Françoise Boivin Gatineau, QC

Mr. Speaker, day after day, I find it hard to believe that the minister is capable of giving that kind of response with a straight face.

It is time for the government to be transparent with Canadians regarding the implications of the government bill on surveillance. This bill means that police officers and even the Commissioner of Competition will have access to Canadians' personal information at any time and for any reason. The Prime Minister admitted that this bill has a number of shortcomings that need to be addressed.

Will the government commit to withdrawing the foolish provisions concerning warrantless access that its own members have trouble accepting?

Public Safety
Oral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Provencher
Manitoba

Conservative

Vic Toews Minister of Public Safety

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for me to understand which provisions those members consider troublesome, given that they have never once identified accurately any provisions in terms of what is actually in the bill.

That party's member went to the technical briefing, stayed three minutes and then went out and read a prepared statement, without even listening at all to the technical briefing.

What we are prepared to do with the opposition, when this matter is referred after first reading, before second reading, is to consider the bill, hear from the experts as to why the law is needed and consider matters accordingly.

Firearms Registry
Oral Questions

February 16th, 2012 / 2:25 p.m.

NDP

Françoise Boivin Gatineau, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have trouble believing a government that, to date, has accepted so few amendments to the bills studied in committee. I have even more difficulty believing an irresponsible government that dismantles the firearms registry in the name of privacy rights on the very same day that it introduces a bill enabling police officers to spy on law-abiding Canadians as if they were criminals. It is clear that this government is refusing to stand up for the rights of victims of gun related crimes. The government is ignoring the warnings of police chiefs and the families of victims. And, now, it is ignoring the provinces that wish to keep the data.

Will the government preserve the data in the registry until a final decision is made concerning the court challenge—