Debates of March 26th, 2015

Citizenship and Immigration

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is oblivious to the facts in this matter, just as in many others. From the outset, we achieved our 2013-14 objective, and in January we announced the much more ambitious objective of welcoming 10,000 Syrian refugees over the next three years. That is the most ambitious objective of all the peer countries around the world that are part of the refugee resettlement network. Canada is proud to welcome one in ten refugees resettled each year worldwide.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives congratulate themselves for being two years late when it comes to fulfilling a promise to bring Syrian refugees to Canada and measures that would save the lives of ISIL's victims are now left on the backburner. Yet the Prime Minister cannot move fast enough when it comes to launching Canada into a war with no exit strategy and no end in sight.

Could that minister explain why the motion of the Conservatives does not include any new money for refugees?

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the member is completely wrong. Two years ago, we announced our first objective for Syria. We have met and surpassed that objective, and we have announced that 10,000 refugees will be resettled in Canada this year, next year and, if necessary, in 2017. That is the largest commitment to refugee resettlement from Syria by any country yet made publicly. It is in addition to 21,000 Iraqis resettled here. That is on top of asylum seekers who come here in the thousands.

We are taking action against the Islamic State, which is the force creating refugees in Iraq and in Syria. We have to act militarily, in humanitarian terms and also to resettle refugees.

National Defence

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, according to media reports, yesterday's briefing from the Department of National Defence was clear about how long it saw the mission in Iraq and Syria lasting: years.

The Minister of National Defence has admitted as much, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs has compared the mission to Afghanistan.

Could the government confirm that this one-year extension of the mission is actually only the first step in a much longer engagement? How long do the Conservatives expect the Canadian Armed Forces to be in Iraq and Syria?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of National Defence and Minister for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, the terms of the motion for the government's extension are clear for the next 12 months, based on the RCAF commitment of six fighter jets, two surveillance aircraft, a refueller and sixty-nine special operations forces in a training mission near Erbil. That is the mission we are seeking support for from this place.

To get back to the last question, we just had a visit here from Iraqi refugees, among the 21,000 accepted in Canada. They told us to please ask the opposition parties to support this military program because they wanted their people to be able to go back to their homes in Iraq. They want protection for those minorities. That is what they want.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of National Defence said that the legal case for dropping bombs in Syria was based on criminality, or Canada's independent right of self-defence, or it was because of the genocide dimension, or perhaps it was article 51 of the UN charter. The Prime Minister said that international law was not really applicable.

Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us what the legal rationale is today, or does he too believe the question is only a joke?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that members of the NDP are concerned about the legal justification and once they hear it, I take it they do not support the mission. Is that a fair comment? Those are all the questions we are getting.

We have indicated that the government of Iraq has the collective right to self-defence under article 51 of the United Nations. It has officially requested international help, so we will comply with that. We will work on the same basis as our American allies are doing and report that to the United Nations.

CBC/Radio-Canada

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have learned that many more jobs at the CBC are being cut and that this round will affect local stations. Will the minister finally admit that this recurrent downsizing is due to the Conservatives' cuts? Since 2006, they have slashed $227 million, in 2014 dollars, which is about one-fifth of the CBC's budget.

Will the minister at least try to convince her government to restore that money in the next budget? We hope so.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the CBC is responsible for its own operations. It is up to the CBC to provide programming that Canadians actually want to watch and listen to in both of our official languages.

Our government provides, on a yearly basis, the CBC with very significant funds. Let us be clear that these changes, and the member is probably aware of this, are part of the CBC's restructuring and strategic plan, which it began implementation of in 2014.

The Economy

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Alberta is the epicentre of the energy downturn and yet Premier Prentice was able to table a budget today on time in this fiscal year. Premier Wall did the same last week in Saskatchewan.

The economists who advise the government say that there is no credible reason for procrastination. Will the Minister of Finance stop playing peekaboo with Canadians and table a budget investing in the real drivers of economic growth: infrastructure, access to higher learning, innovation, effective trade and environmental credibility. Will he do that in this fiscal year?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, we know very well that we are in a fragile global economy and of course our country has been impacted by the dramatic fall in oil prices. That is even more reason to stick to our government's plan that has generated almost 1.2 million net new jobs since the end of the recession. It is because of our actions that the overall federal tax burden is at its lowest level in 50 years.

However, the solution is not a tax hike on the middle class like the Liberal leader is proposing and the solution is certainly not a $20 billion carbon tax that would hurt Canada's economy and kill the jobs of Canadians. Our government has a low-tax plan for jobs and growth for all sectors of the Canadian economy, which is working.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, decent economic growth is not Canada's reality and despite the government's boasting, it is not doing better than the rest of the world.

Last fall, before the oil downturn, the IMF projected 139 countries would grow faster this year than Canada. In the OECD, there were 16, including Greece. More recently, the OECD has downgraded Canadian growth, while upgrading many others: the U.S., Europe, Japan, Germany, France, India.

Why is the government content to have the worst economic growth record in eight decades?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, since forming government, we have had the strongest economic growth record of any country in the G7. We have created almost 1.2 million net new jobs and we have launched the largest federal infrastructure plan in Canada's history.

The G20 summit's action plan singled out Canada for our strong growth. The IMF and OECD both project that Canada will have among the strongest growth in the G7 in the years ahead.

We will not take lessons from the Liberals who think that budgets balance themselves.

Public Safety

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have heard from many groups and experts across the country, and they are getting more and more worried about the scope of Bill C-51. The Conservatives are wrong to reject serious criticism of their bill.

That is why the NDP will move a motion to broaden the debate. We want to talk about a counter-radicalization strategy and better oversight mechanisms for intelligence agencies.

Will this government support our motion?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to fighting terrorism, the New Democrats are behind the times. Over two years ago, we implemented our counterterrorism strategy, which the New Democrats did not support.

I would like to thank the committee members, who are doing important work and have listened to dozens of witnesses in recent weeks. They will hear from more this evening.

We have observed tremendous support for a bill that will protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians and will also protect them from the terrorist threat.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if we are talking about the same meetings of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, but as for witnesses supporting Bill C-51, give me a break.

Yesterday in committee, we heard others criticizing Bill C-51 for being too broad in scope and lacking oversight provisions for intelligence agencies. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association was clear: a significant part of Bill C-51 is unconstitutional and would infringe upon our basic rights.

Does the minister realize that this ill-conceived bill will violate Canadians' rights and freedoms?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I hope our NDP friends will listen to the Supreme Court, which finds that our Canadian model, in other words, the review committee, strikes the perfect balance between procedural rights and privacy.

Bill C-51 targets Islamist jihadists to prevent them from achieving their stated objective of carrying out terrorist threats against the west, including Canada.

In this context the measures proposed in Bill C-51 to deal with the nature of threats Canada faces are quite rightly and urgently needed to protect and keep secure the freedom of her citizens.

That was professor Salim Mansur from Western University, in Ontario—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order.

The hon. member for Alfred-Pellan.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to oppose Bill C-51.

The Canadian Bar Association criticized the new, almost unlimited powers to disrupt that would be given to CSIS.

The association said:

It is untenable that the infringement of Charter rights is open to debate, in secret proceedings where only the government is represented.

Why is the Conservative government so determined to pass its flawed bill that waters down our fundamental values?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister for Public Safety has said numerous times and others who are learned on the bill, they see the legislation for what it is. It is there to protect Canadians. It is there to do so in a balanced way.

With respect to the powers that are vested in judges, the Canadian Bar Association has somehow indicated that this is putting judges in a compromised position. This is what judges do each and every day in a pre-emptive way when they examine warrant applications. This is exactly what judges should be doing in a pre-emptive way.

This is an undertaking judges at the federal court will do that we believe is necessary to enhance the protection of Canadians.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the ministers over there still do not get it. Bill C-51 is chockablock full of measures that threaten Canadians' rights and freedoms, but missing key elements that would actually help keep Canadians safer.

The committee heard today from community leaders, like Zarqa Nawaz, who are working on the ground to prevent radicalization. They desperately need more resources, not divisive rhetoric from the government.

Why is de-radicalization not a priority for the government when we know it works and it can actually prevent future attacks?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have attended a cross cultural round table. However, he should also have listened. I hope he was there when Ms. Raheel Raza, the president of the Muslims Facing Tomorrow, appeared. What did she say at committee? She said that legislation was important to combat radicalization, that we needed better tools to track jihadists who travelled overseas. That is the reality. She does not have a problem with sharing information because the larger picture is that of the security and safety of Canada. Ms. Raza gets it. When will the NDP get it?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things the minister forgot to mention she said was that the bill lacked sufficient oversight. He is selectively quoting from his own witness.

Despite the fact that leaders from faith communities have testified at public safety, they all agree that we urgently need a national deradicalization strategy and that Bill C-51 lacks critical oversight mechanisms that would prevent abuse.

How can the minister refuse to act in the face of overwhelming evidence that his bill is fatally flawed, when 45 out of 48 witnesses are telling us that this bill needs to be amended or abandoned?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to know that we will enable the left hand of the right hand government to know what is happening.

I am proud that we will provide the capacity to our intelligence officers to speak to the parent of a young individual who is being radicalized.

We reject the argument that, every time we talk about security, our freedoms are threatened. Canadians understand that their freedom and security go hand in hand. They expect us to do both and to protect both.

There are protections, of course, in that legislation. The fact is that our police are there to protect us against terrorists.

Canada Revenue Agency

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' spy bill will criminalize environmentalists, but they are not even waiting until the bill is passed. Conservatives have already attacked members of the environmental movement, calling them radicals and foreign threats. Meanwhile, they are just regular Canadians who care about protecting our natural world.

The Conservatives are spending $13 million on a charity audit witch hunt to silence people who disagree with them. Meanwhile they are cutting CRA auditors and giving out the wrong information to businesses.

When will the minister stop deflecting and call on the Auditor General to look into the mess she has made of CRA?