Rosane Doré Lefebvre

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

moved:

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 43.

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 44.

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 45.

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 46.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 47.

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 48.

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 49.

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 50.

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 51.

Motion No. 55

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 52.

Motion No. 56

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 53.

Motion No. 57

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 54.

Motion No. 58

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 55.

Motion No. 59

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 56.

Motion No. 60

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 57.

Motion No. 61

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 58.

Motion No. 62

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 59.

Motion No. 63

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 60.

Motion No. 64

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 61.

Motion No. 65

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 62.

Motion No. 66

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting the Schedule.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for accepting the amendments that the official opposition wants to make to Bill C-51.

These amendments did not come out of nowhere, and I will comment on that in my speech. After the Conservative government introduced Bill C-51, we, the official opposition, took the time to do the work that the government should have done. We consulted the people and experts in various fields affected by this bill.

Most of the Canadians who have been following the debate on Bill C-51 realize that is has some serious flaws. We are not the only ones to have identified those flaws; many other members of our society have as well. These include important leaders in our first nations communities, eminent constitutional law professors, former Supreme Court justices, former prime ministers and community leaders. The Canadian Bar Association also testified before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security about the serious flaws in Bill C-51.

We have taken the time to study the bill, unlike the Liberals, who immediately said they would support it, even though it is a bad bill. The official opposition did its job. We read the bill carefully and realized that we unfortunately could not support it. That is why today, after examining it rather closely in committee and consulting with a number of stakeholders and citizens, we must present these amendments. That is the most sensible thing to do, given that in committee we were told to go back to the drawing board.

For my colleagues who were unable to attend, let me give a brief overview of the evidence we heard on Bill C-51 at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. There were nine committee meetings to hear evidence, including one with the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice. At the other eight meetings, the vast majority of the witnesses were there at the government's request, but there were also a few that appeared at the request of the official opposition or the third party. Forty-five of the 48 witnesses who appeared before the committee said we should amend Bill C-51, or scrap it altogether and go back to the drawing board, and, as I said, most of the witnesses were there at the government's behest.

The Minister of Public Safety and the Prime Minister must realize that Bill C-51 is perhaps not the best solution. The right thing to do would be to listen to the official opposition and the various civil society stakeholders, go back to the drawing board and come back with real anti-terrorism legislation. Such legislation should not violate our rights and freedoms, the fundamental rights of first nations, or the right of various groups in civil society to protest, as Bill C-51 does, just to give a few examples.

The opposition did its work in committee. We examined Bill C-51 and heard from witnesses who identified its shortcomings. About a hundred amendments were proposed to Bill C-51 by the various opposition parties and they were debated for several hours, but we once again witnessed the Conservative government's lack of openness in that regard. One after the other, each of the amendments was rejected, often with no explanation from the government. It was likely simply because they were not proposed by the Conservatives.

Three amendments were adopted, but they were minor amendments proposed by the Conservatives. We are therefore not surprised at the government's blatant failure to listen during the committee meetings. We heard extremely important testimony and time was limited. As a result, many witnesses appeared at the same time. We often heard from three or four witnesses in one hour, and unfortunately, we had very little time to ask them questions and continue the debate with them.

I did not want to send Bill C-51 to committee. I would have preferred it if we had scrapped that bill and all of the parties had worked together to come up with something else, a good collective response to terrorism and radicalization. Unfortunately, that did not happen.

We proposed amendments in committee in good faith. We heard from excellent witnesses from all sides. The Conservatives did not listen to them at all. They really should have listened, because I am not sure that Bill C-51 will even stand up in court, which is fundamental when a government proposes a bill.

Unfortunately, the Canadian Bar Association and eminent professors who are extremely knowledgeable about constitutional law came and explained that to us. In fact, I asked them directly whether Bill C-51 was constitutional. The answer was a categorical no. Large parts of Bill C-51 are not at all constitutional and will not stand up in court. It is a government's primary duty to get legal opinions confirming that the bills it introduces are constitutional. That is fundamental, but Bill C-51 is not even constitutional. The members opposite did not do their job properly.

There was talk of the need to provide law enforcement agencies with new tools, but a number of the RCMP and police services representatives that we talked to told us they already have the tools they need to deal with terrorism. The problem is with resources. They do not have the resources they need. The RCMP set aside almost 200 criminal cases in order to assign all its officers to tackling terrorism. There is a serious lack of resources right now, but we do have the tools we need to take action and deal with terrorism.

When the budget was presented to us this week, nearly two months late, I was hoping to at least see a decent allocation for fighting terrorism. I saw that it was included in the budget and I looked at the amounts. To my great surprise, no money was allocated at all. For the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the envelope is a little less than $300 million over five years. Before 2017, these agencies combined will get less than $20 million to deal with terrorism. This is a drop in the bucket and an insult to the work of our police services. They are being squeezed and are forced to move their staff in order to do the work being asked of them. Now, this budget is giving them peanuts for their work.

When a government claims that it is there to protect its communities, cities and the entire country, to serve its citizens and protect national security, it must turn words into action. It has to allocate the necessary money. It has to provide the money and give it to our law enforcement agencies so that they have the means to act. That is not in Bill C-51 or in the 2015 federal budget tabled by the Conservative government.

I am extremely disappointed with the government's lack of leadership and its failure to take seriously the fight against terrorism and radicalization. There are a lot of holes in the Conservatives' botched approach. For example, it would have been productive for the Conservatives to propose measures against radicalization. Various stakeholders have talked about this. Efforts are being made to counter radicalization in some of our regions and communities, and this work has even been adapted in the United States. That is the first suggestion.

The American government is currently working very hard on devising a national strategy to combat radicalization and is achieving some success. Communities are working with law enforcement agencies on a national strategy to counter radicalization. Quite frankly, we should have followed that fine example. The NDP suggested it at the outset.

Unfortunately, once again, I cannot support Bill C-51 as proposed by the Conservative government. That is why the amendments moved today by the official opposition are so important.

We have to go back to the drawing board, draft a bill together, ensure that we have a national strategy to counter radicalization and stop terrorism once and for all.

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

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 6.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 9.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 10.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 14.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 15.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 16.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 17.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 18.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 19.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 20.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 21.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 22.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 23.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 24.

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 25.

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 26.

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 27.

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 28.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 29.

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 30.

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 31.

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 32.

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 33.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 34.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 35.

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 36.

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 37.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 38.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 39.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 40.

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 41.

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 42.

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting the long title.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting the short title.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

[The Budget, April 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that is even sadder: it appears that there are big gifts in the Conservatives' 2015 federal budget, but most of these measures and funding plans will only take effect in 2017.

The measures proposed for all sectors of public safety in budget 2015 do pose a problem. To give just one example out of many, in budget 2015 they propose an envelope of around $290 million—I do not have the exact figures here—but in the upcoming fiscal year less than $20 million will be set aside for the RCMP, Canada Border Services and CSIS to fight terrorism. That is not much money. We get the impression that there is a lot of money to fight terrorism but the funding is very far away in the Conservative's budget forecast.

That is only one example among many because the same thing occurs in many departments. This affects cities, infrastructure, public transit and homelessness, all across the country. It is a fine smokescreen, but in the end, there is very little substance for our cities and communities.

[The Budget, April 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North for pointing out the federal government's lack of commitment to our seniors. He mentioned the problem of raising the retirement age from 65 to 67. That is one part of the problem that the federal government has created and that he sees as a challenge for seniors.

In his question, he also mentioned the issue of income splitting. I think he is quite right. It is something the NDP has been working on a great deal. We are fiercely opposed to income splitting as proposed by the Conservative government. It is completely unfair. It will favour the richest families, unfortunately. It will cost Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars. It is really sad to see Canada going in that direction when we should be helping our seniors who live in poverty. There are thousands of them all across Canada. Sadly, in every riding, in all regions, there are still seniors living in poverty.

It is most unfortunate that they have not made a clear commitment to our seniors and have not helped them. Instead, they have decided to raise the contribution limit for tax-free savings accounts, which will, once again, help the richest among us. They have decided to put all their eggs—including income splitting— in one basket and give that big basket of goodies to the rich.

I am truly sad to see the government going off in this direction.

[The Budget, April 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member forParkdale—High Park.

I am very pleased to take part in the debate on the 2015 budget introduced by the Conservative government. In the short time I have available, I want to raise some issues that I, and the people I represent in Laval, think are the most important in this budget.

First, I must mention the impact that the reduction in Canada Post services is having on the people of Laval, along with the Conservatives' reluctance to invest and tell Canada Post that it should do its work properly and respect the will of Canadians across the country.

From east to west on our island of Laval, we are beginning to see community mailboxes appear; we are also seeing the lack of consultation by Canada Post with respect to the changes it is making.

I have met with a number of constituents and received many phone calls lately. People are writing to me about this issue, as they probably are to many of my colleagues, as they deal with these changes. They are worried and they are angry.

I would have liked this budget to say something about Canada Post, to see the government in some way admit that there are problems and repercussions for our constituents, particularly seniors and people with limited mobility.

I should also mention the lack of consultation about the future being planned for Canada Post. At the moment, the existing plan is unnecessary and badly designed, especially since Canada Post had a recent profit of $194 million. I just wanted to say this as I began my speech.

Another element I have been studying concerns the whole issue of seniors' pensions and well-being. First, the government has finally listened to the NDP. It looked into the question of obligatory minimum withdrawals from registered retirement income funds. This is something the NDP has been asking for for years, in order to ensure that seniors do not outlive their savings. That is important, as I am sure we all agree. No matter which party we belong to, we all think seniors deserve to live with dignity.

Dealing with the issue of minimum withdrawal requirements from RRIFs is a good thing, and I am pleased that the Conservative government has learned from the NDP's example.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the incredible work being done for the well-being of seniors in Laval. I am thinking of the Association pour aînés résidant à Laval, DIRA Laval and the Table régionale de concertation des aînés de Laval, who do wonderful work every day to make sure that our seniors receive adequate services, no matter where they live on the island of Laval, and to ensure they have a happy and dignified retirement.

However, in terms of pensions, the Conservatives have not respected the commitments they made to our seniors, and this budget does not bode well for the future.

As we all know, the Conservatives want to increase the retirement eligibility age from 65 to 67. Moreover, they are blocking any attempt to increase CPP and QPP benefits, which is frankly unacceptable when we see the number of seniors across the country living below the poverty line. It is deplorable that the federal government is not looking into an issue that is as fundamental as the well-being and the dignity of our seniors, who built the society in which we are living today.

However, they responded to the NDP’s request that the amount that seniors must withdraw from their RRIF be reduced, beginning with a reduction of 29% of the amount withdrawn at age 71 and smaller reductions in later years. We can see that there is some openness here, but very little. I had hoped for more for our seniors from our federal government.

This brings me to another issue. This is an issue that is often raised by the seniors I represent in my riding of Alfred-Pellan. They tell me they really hope that we can leave future generations with a healthy environment, with development that is sustainable and with a greener economy. This comes up all the time in the comments that I have received ever since I began my term.

The environment and climate change have always been issues that are important to seniors, because they worry about the generations to come, about their children and grandchildren. Basically, I am here today to voice their concerns and I have to say, unfortunately, that in the Conservatives’ 2015 budget, there is absolutely nothing that tackles the issue of climate change. It is very disappointing because the federal government should play a leadership role on climate change.

On reading the budget, I also noted that they are preventing Canadians from taking part in the review of natural resources projects. This is ridiculous. I do not want to go into too many details. However, at home in Laval, the residents have always taken action to protect their land. We live on an island near Montreal that has a lot of green space and a number of little islands as well, including those in the Des Prairies and Mille-Îles rivers. A number of organizations are watching over these areas. I am thinking, among others, of Sauvons nos trois grandes îles, and the wonderful work they are doing. All the small organizations that are working to protect the parks, such as the Bois de l'Équerre and the Boisé Papineau park, are making sure that we can visit these places and take advantage of the large urban parks that Laval residents hold dear. It is discouraging to note that the Conservatives do not support the people of Laval in their efforts and their initiatives to protect the environment. This is a huge disappointment to me.

One good thing the Conservatives have done is to reduce the tax rate on small business, as the NDP had suggested. They are reducing it from 11% to 9%. We suggested doing that over two years, but the Conservatives are proposing to do it over four. Any lowering of the tax rate is a good thing.

I have spent a large part of my term visiting small and medium-sized businesses in my riding. I am thinking, for example, of the Dolce Pane bakery in Saint-François, the small butcher shops in Duvernay and Saint-François and a small restaurant called Démen-Ciel, which opened not long ago and is doing an incredible job in Saint-Vincent-de-Paul. A number of SMEs were waiting to hear about federal government initiatives to help them make ends meet. We all agree that these are the prime job creators across Canada, and we have to support our entrepreneurs who have good ideas and sound ventures. I want to say once again that this rate reduction is a good thing. It is not being done as quickly as the NDP was suggesting, but it is nevertheless a very good initiative.

This time I will quickly move on to another subject, specifically stable funding for organizations that are so important in our communities, because I have to mention what disappoints me about this budget. This affects all organizations. We can talk about it among colleagues. It really is a problem for community organizations. Recurrent funding is not there. They often ask us to help them obtain such funding. Once again, it would have been good evidence of leadership on the part of the federal government to help organizations obtain stable recurrent funding.

A number of organizations do such good work, and I just want to name a few of them: the Centre communautaire Petit Espoir in Saint-François, SBEVA, APARL, the Société d'histoire et de généalogie de l'Île Jésus—with which I developed a good partnership for my 2014 calendar—Development and Peace, which does very good work in all our constituencies, Patrimoine en tête in Saint-Vincent-de-Paul, Sports Laval, the Maison des grands-parents, Jeunes au travail, Mieux-Naître in Laval, the Association des Cartier d'Amérique, youth centres, volunteer centres, Entraide Pont-Viau, and so many more.

Concerning stable funding—and unfortunately I will have to end with this—I would like to talk about infrastructure and transportation, which are priorities for the Laval region. I should mention that the mayor of Laval responded to the federal budget. He expressed disappointment that the necessary investments will be a long time coming. He said:

We recognize that there are good intentions, but the 2015 federal budget falls short when it comes to major and necessary investments, particularly for public transit....Waiting another year before getting access to funding creates a pointless delay that will push back the introduction of efficient public transit and the improvement of systems already in place. For Canada's big cities, the wait time will exacerbate the urgency of the need for action.

I completely agree with him.

I see that my time is up, but there is so much more I would like to say. If my colleagues would like some ideas for questions they could ask me, may I suggest household debt, the middle class, anything to do with wastewater infrastructure, and the HPS. Go ahead; that is what I am here for.

[Drug-Free Prisons Act, April 21st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel for her excellent speech on Bill C-12. Today I would like to share some thoughts about this bill in particular with the House of Commons.

First, I would like to say that the title of Bill C-12 is misleading, considering the content. It is misleading to say that Bill C-12 will eradicate drugs from our prisons. Unfortunately, nothing in this bill will address the problem of drug addiction in our prisons.

I expected better from the federal government. I wish it had handled this issue with greater respect. Unfortunately, it did not. As my colleague pointed out in her speech, that is always the problem whenever it comes to issues associated with drug addiction and mental health. Nothing in this bill tackles the problem directly. There is nothing here that will help the men, women and first nations people coping with drug addiction, which, sadly, is so widespread in our prisons.

[Public Safety, April 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have managed to get unanimity across the country. Canadians are unanimously opposed to the government's anti-terrorism bill.

In cities such as Calgary, Edmonton, Halifax, Vancouver and Ottawa, thousands of people have protested against Bill C-51. Members of first nations, unions and experts across the board are telling the Conservatives that this legislation is unnecessary and dangerous.

When will the minister listen to Canadians and do the right thing: drop Bill C-51?

[Public Safety, April 2nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the more people hear about Bill C-51, the more they oppose it.

Ninety per cent of the witnesses who appeared before the committee agreed that Bill C-51 jeopardizes our rights and freedoms. Members of other parties have even changed their tune and plan to follow the NDP's lead. Only the leader of the third party would rather let the Prime Minister win than stick to his principles.

Is the minister so easily distracted by clay pigeons that he really cannot see the consensus against his flawed legislation and the need to withdraw Bill C-51?

[Public Safety, April 1st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about real threats to Canada, such as explosives, radioactive material and smuggled weapons. The government was clearly warned. Since 2006, the ability of researchers to develop tools to counter new threats at the border has been seriously compromised by the lack of space and antiquated lab facilities. That seriously jeopardizes the health and safety of Canadians.

How do the Conservatives justify this nickeling and diming at the expense of our security?