Denis Blanchette

[Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015, April 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I talked about the balance between rights and the protection of privacy and civil liberties. Of course, there also has to be a balance between what a law sets out to do and the means to do it.

How many times during this Parliament have we seen stricter laws against certain crimes that were not accompanied by the necessary resources? Consider prisons, where there was not enough room for more prisoners. The provinces were forced to pay for that.

As for the bill before us, unfortunately the government did not think the whole problem through. It acted on impulse without taking the time to reflect on everything that such a law entails.

[Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015, April 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have risen to speak to Bill C-51. After everything that has been said, my first instinct is to wonder what has happened to reason.

In this debate, it seems that we are motivated only by negative emotions. That may not be the best way to do things. This bill is obviously based on a well-meaning intention to better protect all Canadians. However, it is important to take a balanced approach in order to ensure, on the one hand, the safety of Canadians and, on the other, respect for their rights. It is vital that we not let ourselves be carried away by our emotions. We have to take a rational approach to this problem.

Since we are at report stage, now is the time to talk about what happened in committee. It is unfortunate that there was a limit on the number of witnesses who could speak during the study of a bill that is probably the most important bill of its kind since the bills that were passed in the aftermath of the tragic events of September 11, 2001. It is also unfortunate that some witnesses who could have made very important contributions to the debate were not able to participate. I am talking about the Privacy Commissioner and the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner, who are not nobodies. If the government had wanted to do a serious study, it would have invited these two people to testify in committee.

I have to wonder why a government that does not listen to all of the stakeholders and all of the experts can claim to be listening to Canadians and meeting their needs. Although the government invited a lot of witnesses, it is important to note that the vast majority of them—45 out of 48 witnesses—expressed concerns about this bill. That means that the bill is not perfect and still needs a lot of work.

Unfortunately, I get the impression that the government does not want to hear what anyone else has to say. It made its decision and does whatever it wants. However, more and more people are adopting the position that the NDP has defended since the very beginning. I could give a list of people and groups who have taken positions similar to ours. I am thinking of the Privacy Commissioner, the advisor to the UN's Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force, the former assistant director of intelligence with CSIS, and the former chief of the Ottawa Police Service, as well as others, such as journalists, columnists and editorialists. Many of them have expressed concern about the bill as it now stands.

What is more, many of my constituents have shared their concerns with me about this dangerous bill. That is also important to mention. I would also like to point out that the Stop C-51 campaign alone has collected nearly 200,000 signatures from Canadians. Are 200,000 concerned Canadians not enough to make the government think again about this bill? That is something that the government really needs to consider.

Bills, particularly bills about security, require a balanced approach. When more power is given to protect our society, more monitoring of that power is also needed. It is not complicated.

We must not allow any opportunities for serious mistakes to be made. It is as simple as that.

Everyone knows that we need concrete measures that protect Canadians. However, we must not bring in such measures at the expense of our liberties and our way of life. With these kinds of bills, we must always find a way to strike a balance.

I find it unfortunate that the Conservatives wanted to play partisan politics with this bill instead of acting in the best interests of Canada, because fundamentally, this is one of those bills that leaves a mark on society forever.

When this kind of bill is introduced, it needs to be properly drafted and flawless. As some experts said, this bill may be struck down by the Supreme Court. Just think of all the time we will have wasted. It is unacceptable.

We need to keep Canadians safe, while at the same time protecting their civil liberties. It is not so complicated. Right now, according to most of the witnesses we heard in committee, that is not what this bill does.

Many people said that Daesh wanted to attack our way of life. One of the pillars of our way of life is the protection of civil liberties. This bill is an indirect attack on that important pillar, and that is just not good.

In our opinion, an anti-terrorism approach means tighter control over security agencies and the allocation of appropriate resources so that we can be sure that we can carefully monitor how these new powers are exercised both for the agencies and for Canadians. It is just a safeguard to ensure that everything is done right and that the power is exercised in accordance with the will of Canadians and the House. It does not go any further than that.

We understand that there is a need to exchange information between the various departments, but there again, there are shortcomings with regard to how to control and define the parameters of those information exchanges in order to ensure that not too much information is being shared. It is not complicated.

Furthermore, there is nothing about prevention. What is prevention? We have heard a lot about it in the context of preventing radicalization, the spiral of violence that the world seems to be caught up in these days. We have not talked very much about integration. The government is not trying to understand how it is that new converts are quickly picking up and leaving, for example. This bill does not address those problems.

When I say that, I am obviously thinking about France, for example, which introduced a bill on March 19. I invite the government to look at what France did because it has a balanced approach. France is not only considering security but also respect for rights and freedoms. That is very important.

However, if we look at the budget on this issue, all we see are so-called repression measures. If I were to read all of the headings in Chapter 4.3 of the budget, members would see that protection, prevention and combatting radicalization are not mentioned anywhere.

In closing, the more Canadians learn about this bill, the more they are opposed to it. That is clear.

The government tried to rush this bill through but was unable to put one over on people. We need balanced legislation that will not increase violence in our society or anywhere else.

Once again, I have to wonder what happened to reason in this bill.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 20th, 2015]

With regard to the lawsuit initiated by the government in 2005 against Canadian National concerning compliance with agreements to maintain the Quebec Bridge, which was subsequently divided into two suits, and the ruling by Judge Louis Lacoursière with costs on October 22, 2014: (a) how much has the federal government spent on legal fees for the two suits between 2005 and now; (b) are there any foreseeable costs, other than those mentioned in the ruling, that have yet to be accounted for; (c) how much are the costs referred to in the ruling; (d) does the government plan to appeal the ruling delivered October 22, 2014; and (e) what is the status of the second suit?

[Petitions, March 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition today signed by 1,700 of my constituents who believe that the agri-food industry's patents are threatening the ancestral rights of farmers to preserve, use and exchange seeds.

These people are calling on the government to adopt international aid policies that support small farmers, particularly women, and recognize their vital role in the struggle against hunger and poverty, as well as to ensure that Canadian policies and programs are developed in consultation with small farmers, and that they protect their right to preserve, use and freely exchange seeds.

[Quebec Bridge, March 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Bridge file is stagnating. The latest study from Roche estimates that painting the bridge will cost about twice as much as expected, but CN is refusing to release the complete report. How is that for transparency?

While the Conservatives are busy making promises in Quebec City, the federal government is getting ready to repaint the Jacques Cartier Bridge in Montreal.

Will the minister stand by the people of Quebec City and demand that CN release the study?

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, March 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent question. No matter where in the world you live, 5¢ a day does not go very far. You cannot buy what you want.

You have to start with the basics in order to combat radicalization and eventually achieve peace. You must first meet people's basic needs. As I was saying earlier in response to the previous question, it is important to enhance this aspect of the international collective effort.

It seems easy to invest in bombs and much more difficult to invest in humanitarian aid. When the immediate crisis has been resolved, everyone will forget the ongoing humanitarian crisis. At that point, new hotbeds of radicalization will be created and we must avoid that.

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, March 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond in two parts. First, considering that this is a very sensitive issue, I have no problem withdrawing the word “crusade”.

As far as the hon. member's other question is concerned, everyone agrees that the Islamic State is evil. However, what we are saying is that there are enough members in our coalition to share the tasks. Canada, whose citizens are more sensitive, should do more in terms of providing humanitarian assistance. We have always said that.

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, March 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, here we are six months later, once again talking about extending the mission. What has happened in the past six months? One outcome has been clear: the progress of Daesh has been slowed.

In all honesty, however, in six months and with 60 countries involved, there has not been much progress on the ground. The Kurds won the battle for Kobani. For the first time since June 2014, when the Iraqis fled Mosul, Iraqi forces engaged in attacking Tikrit. However, as we speak, they have decided to stop their advance.

If we look at what is happening right now with the government motion, the strategy seems simple: charge in and see what happens later. There does not appear to be a long-term vision here.

One of the things we have heard over and over, but bears repeating, is the question of whether air strikes in Syria are lawful. When our military allies are not at risk—and for Canada, that means NATO—we cannot go into a country unless it invites us to do so, or a resolution is adopted by the United Nations Security Council. At this time, of course, those criteria do not apply. In fact, despite the fancy footwork of the Minister of National Defence regarding section 51, everyone recognizes that we are not in a situation of legitimate defence, but rather in a pre-emptive war, which is quite different. In his speech, even the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness said that the tragic attacks against Canada, which we deplore, were inspired by Daesh. They were not perpetrated by Daesh, but inspired by that group, which is an important distinction.

As for the mission itself, the mandate before us is not clear. We have a mission, but we know nothing about the objectives or the strategies. However, we do know the Conservative government's strategy at home in Canada, namely to twist Canadians' arms. The government presents something small, plays with words and then things escalate. That is the government's technique. That is a problem because we do not really know where this is leading us. I would remind the House that this is not the first time the West is intervening in that part of the world. There is a risk of getting stuck there.

What has happened in Iraq since 2003? Of course, Saddam Hussein left, as everyone remembers. I am not saying I would have wanted someone like him to come back, that is not the issue, but what followed his departure was chaos and violence. In fact, the Americans and a coalition went to Iraq to take down a dictator. They stayed there for almost 10 years and after all that, the situation is worse than ever. Are we to believe that using the same recipe is going to lead us to a different outcome?

I have not heard much about what we are going to do once we take care of the Islamic State. History tells us that time and again, violence escalates. Everyone is thinking about ways to thwart the Islamic State's plans, to get rid of all this, but no one is thinking about how to bring stability back to that region.

I would now like to talk about geopolitics in that corner of the world. A few days ago, former general Petraeus, who commanded the American forces in 2007-08, called the conflict zone in Iraq and Syria a geopolitical Chernobyl. That is what he called it. We need to look at what we are getting into. We are talking about Iraq and Syria here, but we cannot forget neighbouring Turkey or, obviously, Iran.

There is also the religion aspect, which we do not hear much about, but it must be taken into account when we look at the different forces at play, whether we are talking about the Sunni, the Shia or the various religious minorities like Christians. There are also the Azerbaijanis. A religious war is not that far off in that part of the world, which could be even more damaging, if that were even possible.

There are also armed groups. Obviously, there are the Kurds. In Syria there is also Hezbollah, which is on the government list of terrorist organizations. It is funny to see that the government and Hezbollah currently have the same objectives in Syria. It is rather bizarre. I know it is hard to swallow, but it is the truth. It is a question of opportunity, is it not?

There are also small ethnic groups we do not hear much about. These are the victims we do not hear about. For example, there are the Bedouin tribes. In the early days of Daesh, 500 Bedouins from one tribe were massacred in just one or two days. Did that make international headlines? No. Did anyone care about what had happened to them? No, of course not, because they are herders. No one took an interest in them, but they paid a very high price in blood.

We are also seeing something else going on. I am referring to what is going on in Yemen. People forget to connect things. Right now, major cities in Yemen are under siege by a minority Shia group called the Houthis.

There is a coalition led by Saudi Arabia, our ally in Iraq and Syria. It is currently bringing some unusual pressure tactics to bear. Saudi Arabia has 150,000 troops at the moment in an operation with 100 fighter jets. The United Arab Emirates have 30 planes. Bahrain and Kuwait have 15 each, and Qatar has 10. The other countries in the coalition are Egypt, Jordan, Sudan, Pakistan and Morocco. There is a religious context to this because behind the Houthi minority are the Iranians, who themselves also support Shia militias in Iraq as well as Hezbollah and the Syrian government.

With all of those ingredients in the mix, we are approaching something truly catastrophic on a planetary scale. Given the number of Muslims on the planet, the context is very difficult. Has the government taken all of that into account? Absolutely not.

Bombs cannot resolve such a complicated conflict. I do not believe they can. To ease its conscience, the government has been talking more and more about humanitarian aid. What that means is that the Conservatives are not very comfortable with their own position.

Let us think about this. Right now, are we really protecting a religious ethnic minority that has found refuge in Iraq? Not really. Have we created safe places to protect them? Not really.

If the government had chosen the NDP's approach six months ago, would things be any different on the ground? Would minorities be better protected? I think so.

In conclusion, I think that the government's approach—embarking on a crusade—is juvenile, immoral, dangerous and irresponsible.

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, March 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech and noted his deep compassion and concern for ethnic and religious minorities.

However, in my opinion, there was a problem. Does he really believe that by bombing left, right and centre we will truly be able to engender tolerance and diversity? Is that how we want to go about it? Or will this only give rise to further intolerance?

[Public Works and Government Services, March 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, Davie Canada employs over 1,100 workers at its shipyard in Lévis. Today, Davie has the largest dry dock in Canada and the highest production capacity. The shipyard has hard-working managers and employees. Davie Canada is waiting for an answer from the federal government on a major contract with the Royal Canadian Navy.

Can the minister promise to support Quebec's shipbuilding industry and the people of Lévis by finally making a decision?