House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 54% of the vote.
National Defence May 25th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, the death cult ISIS and jihadi terrorism pose a real threat to Canada. They have made it clear that they target by name Canada and Canadians. Thankfully, Canada is not sitting on the sidelines and is facing this threat head on.
Can the Minister of National Defence update the House on the mission to degrade ISIS?
Taxation May 15th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, I have travelled throughout my riding, speaking to hard-working parents about the opportunities our Conservative government gives them to save more money for their families.
Our government wants to help all Canadian families succeed by keeping taxes low and delivering programs like the universal child care benefit and family tax cut.
Can the Minister of Employment and Social Development please update the House on what families across Canada are telling him about our efforts?
Member for Northumberland—Quinte West May 14th, 2015
Mr. Speaker as my time in this place draws to a close, I would like to take this opportunity to thank God for all the gifts he has bestowed upon me. I thank the constituents of Northumberland—Quinte West for putting their faith in me as their federal representative in the 39th, 40th and 41st Parliament. Of course, I would not be here without the tireless efforts of our EDA and volunteers in all those elections. My thanks to the fine folks who, under your command, make this a great place to work. To my staff, I gave heartfelt thanks. They are the reason we have such a good reputation in the riding.
To my wife Judith Irene Bangs, she is the reason I said yes to public life. We could not have been successful without the support of my sons James and Matthew, their wives Jennifer and Shawnda and the greatest grandchildren a grandpa could ever have: Macee, Ben, Luke and Fisher. The four of them make Grandpa and Yadda very proud, and we love them so very much.
Business of Supply May 11th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, I think if you seek it, you will see unanimous support for seeing the clock at 6:30.
Privilege May 8th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, under no circumstances would the government ever suggest that the Speaker does not have authority here. When I hear the member across the way say “partisan Conservative”, that is what that is all about.
What I meant by that response is that every single member of the 308 members of Parliament has a right to speak on an issue, including the government. That is what I addressed the Chair about, not to question your authority, not to preach to the Speaker, suggesting that somehow you had better be careful, Mr. Speaker, because we are keeping an eye on you. That is exactly the sentiment.
We respect, 100% and wholly, the authority of the Chair. We think there are certain things we would like to look into to be able to give the government's side of the issue, and that is it only.
Privilege May 8th, 2015
I am rising, Mr. Speaker, to advise that the government will be looking into this matter. We will get back to the House once we have looked at the issue and have been able to ascertain certain precedents and facts. We will get back to the House with a response from the government in due course.
Business of Supply May 8th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find the unanimous consent of the House to see the clock as 1:30 p.m.
Business of Supply May 8th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the member intently, and she made a lot of accusations. I guess that she fails to realize that the government has done much for the women of this country.
She just needs to take a look at small businesses. We know that the majority, some 60%, of single-employer businesses or small businesses are owned by women. Those are the last statistics I have heard. What did we do? We turned around and made the employment insurance program for those small businesses, most of them owned by women, so that they could collect employment insurance and receive the same kinds of benefits, especially maternity benefits, that other people enjoy.
When we talk about reducing taxes, we have reduced taxes right across the board. We have reduced the GST by 2%, so every single person, including women, does not pay that amount in GST.
In this government, some senior civil servants and more and more heads of departments are women. Under the previous Liberal government, I do not think there were any more senior bureaucrats who were women.
We have done much, especially in the private sector. My question is this: If a person is male, should he be refused a job in the civil service or anywhere else simply because of his gender, or should it be that the best person who is qualified for the job gets it?
Anti-terrorism Act, 2015 May 4th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with a broad spectrum of government officials, such as CSIS, RCMP, Canadian Border Services members, all of whom have taken an oath to uphold the laws of Canada, of which the Charter of Rights and Freedoms forms a basic part. I do not believe any of those individuals would act in any other way than in good faith, knowing their rights and responsibilities.
The member asked if the legislation went too far. It absolutely does not go too far, and there are several reasons why. Any part of this comprehensive legislation that would begin to infringe on any right or freedom of Canadians would have to be scrutinized by a judge before a warrant would be issued. Therefore, Canadians have the right to know, and should know, that these individuals have sworn to keep the laws of Canada and that a judge will oversee any warrants that may be obtained for actions to be taken. Canadians can rest assured that this act is in compliance with and respects the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Anti-terrorism Act, 2015 May 4th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, many of us in this House can start calling each other names, such as spineless and gutless. There are over 10 police officers in the Conservative caucus, and I would say hundreds of years of police experience. We are anything but gutless and spineless and all those other words.
It says something in this House, with a person's God-given ability to put together a speech, that they person cannot put something together that does not have to result in calling other people names and casting disparaging remarks against them and everything they stand for. What people in this country need to realize is that the member talked ad infinitum, and never talked about one thing of total consequence, except being able to read that secret Conservative conspiracy out there because of the price of oil.
Nobody believes what that member has to say because he uses too much emphasis on calling people names. He has a good use of the English language. It is too bad he could not put it to some more positive use.
I am pleased today to speak to the antiterrorism act, Bill C-51. This important bill provides additional tools and greater flexibility where required to meet threats to our national security which, as we know, have never been more direct.
I am also pleased to highlight that our government will invest almost $300 million to significantly enhance the investigative capacity to counter terrorism.
During my time today, I would like to speak about the proposal to create a new threat disruption mandate for CSIS. These important changes, found in part 4 of the bill, are another key element of our strategy to help prevent terrorist attacks and keep Canadians safe.
In particular, I would like to elaborate on how this mandate for CSIS fits into broader efforts by the government, and how it complements and enhances existing tools in place to combat terrorism. I will also address the governance and authorization framework within which CSIS will exercise this new mandate.
It goes without saying that the international jihadi movement has declared war on this country. Canadians have been highlighted in jihadist propaganda as a target simply because of our freedoms, our values and our prosperity.
In fact, several months ago Canadians were victims of horrific jihadi attacks. These victims were targeted solely because they were wearing the uniform of the Canadian Armed Forces. We will never acquiesce to the Liberal desires that we sit on the sidelines in fright. We are all participating in the military mission to degrade and destroy ISIS abroad and we must also take strong action here at home. That is why the bill before us today is all about anti-terrorism.
CSIS has a strong record of responsibly exercising its authority and has matured as an organization over its 30-year history. The Security Intelligence Review Committee, CIRC, consistently found that CSIS has carried out its duties in accordance with the CSIS Act and ministerial directives. That is an exemplary record I must say.
I have full confidence that CSIS will continue to comply with its statutory mandate as it relates to the proposed threat diminishment mandate. Given its well-established, investigative and analytical capacity and singular focus on national security, CSIS is well-positioned to act directly to disrupt threats to the security of Canada, which are clearly defined in the CSIS Act.
I must emphasize that this definition has anchored CSIS' national security mandate for over 30 years, and will continue to do so. Nothing in the current bill before us will change that. Taking reasonable and proportionate measures to disrupt threats to the security of Canada is a natural extension of CSIS' existing investigation. By giving CSIS the authority to disrupt threats, we will leverage existing expertise within the national security community to create a significant new capacity to meet today's complex threat environment.
We will also harness the unique insight and expertise CSIS has developed through its investigation and analysis of a full range of national security threats.
CSIS would now be able to take the logical next step of disrupting “threats to the security of Canada” as clearly defined in the CSIS Act. It is important to note that, in this regard, the definition has been in place for more than 30 years and would not change with Bill C-51.
This does not, however, mean that CSIS would go at it alone or act in a vacuum. CSIS has well-established relationships with its federal and provincial partners, and would continue to work closely with these partners in support of its mandated activities. Just as CSIS co-operates with partners as it investigates threats to the security of Canada, it would likewise co-operate with partners as it takes reasonable and proportionate measures to disrupt such threats.
As an example, CSIS and the RCMP have a strong working relationship guided by an overarching framework and protocols for working effectively together in accordance with their respective mandates. Ultimately, this framework for co-operation recognizes the primacy of public safety and would serve as a foundation for co-operation and de-confliction between CSIS and the RCMP as the service exercises this new authority. CSIS' relationships with all relevant partners would be similarly reinforced to reflect requirements associated with this new mandate.
Moving to the authorization framework for this mandate, the bill is clear in describing what conditions must be met. Any measures that CSIS takes must be reasonable, proportionate and necessary to address the threat at hand. Additionally, the bill contains a number of express prohibitions, including a prohibition against any measure that would cause death or serious bodily harm. Moreover, in no circumstances may such measures be used to wilfully attempt to obstruct the course of justice. These prohibitions are consistent with and modelled after those found in the Criminal Code, establishing a firm foundation in Canadian law.
The bill also clearly identifies when CSIS would have to seek a warrant and what conditions would have to be satisfied for the Federal Court to authorize certain measures. As with the current warrant regime, CSIS would require ministerial approval before seeking such a warrant. Much like the existing warrant regime, the requirement to seek judicial authorization would allow a Federal Court judge to determine whether a proposed measure contravenes the charter and, if so, to determine whether the measure represents a reasonable limit on the right or freedom and is, therefore, in accordance with the charter as a whole.
In addition to ministerial accountability and the warrant regime, the exercise of this new mandate would be subject to review by the Security Intelligence Review Committee, or SIRC, which is required by law to review at least one aspect each year. As an added measure of assurance, our government would double the budget of the Security Intelligence Review Committee by providing $12.5 million. This would increase SIRC's capacity to review CSIS activities.
The new mandate for CSIS would not be introduced into a vacuum. Building on existing expertise and leveraging existing capacity makes sense, and it would enhance the government's ability to protect Canadians. I therefore urge all members of the House to support the bill.