Debates of Sept. 27th, 2016

An Act to establish the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would also like to congratulate my friend, colleague, and neighbour from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for a fantastic presentation and all of his work in the previous Parliament as the NDP's public safety critic.

There are three main points I want to outline as part of my speech on Bill C-22. First, I want to outline the fact that I think the overall intention of this bill is crucial to protect the safety and rights of all Canadians. Good oversight not only builds public trust, but it makes our security services much more effective.

I would also like to note that Canadians expect a watchdog with teeth. This committee must have full access to classified information. It must have adequate resources and the independence to go along with it.

My third point is that the government is going to have to work hard to earn Canadians' trust after its support for Bill C-51 in the previous Parliament. This trust starts with a strong committee, but it must be earned by fulfilling the promise to repeal the problematic elements of Bill C-51.

The idea of creating more parliamentary oversight has been around for some time. I want to outline and underline that this is not a uniquely Liberal idea. In fact, it has been around as a recommendation for the past 35 years. Despite that, I am glad to see that the Liberals have come forward with Bill C-22. There have been previous Liberal governments that have altogether ignored this recommendation.

There are certainly some things in this bill that I do want to take a look at. It is important that we use public money responsibly, that we protect sensitive information, but that we also stop abuses of power in their tracks. If we can come together as parliamentarians to build a robust oversight committee, we can bring in the real accountability that Canadians expect.

We can protect Canadians while ensuring that they trust that their rights are not jeopardized by a rampant security state. Indeed, the national security green paper, 2016, by the Government of Canada noted on page 9 that:

...effective accountability mechanisms are key to maintaining the public's trust in these agencies. Accountability mechanisms provide assurance that agencies act responsibly, strictly within the law and with respect for Canadians' rights and freedoms.

We can look at the historical significance of this issue, and compare Bill C-22 with what is going on in other jurisdictions. We know that our allies in France, Britain, Germany, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand all have similar bodies in place. It is about time that Canada stepped up to the plate, because for far too long we have been lacking in this very necessary oversight measure.

The change is very long overdue. We have seen abuses in previous years with the RCMP, going back to the 1970s. Of course, we here in the NDP know all about the RCMP spying that went on with the great Tommy Douglas, because of his link to left-wing causes and groups. This should serve as a reminder to all parliamentarians that the abuses of state can occur and have occurred. That is why oversight is needed. We need to make sure these kinds of things do not happen again in a free, open, and democratic society.

The McDonald commission was a royal commission used to investigate these unlawful activities of the RCMP. Of course it was also implicated in the illegal opening of mail and surveilling of members of other political parties as well, not just Tommy Douglas.

A part of that commission's report recommended the creation of CSIS, a civilian agency without law enforcement powers, but of course that was altered when we saw Bill C-51 come in.

The main recommendation that I wanted to point to today was that oversight committee of parliamentarians. I really think that Canada should be at the cutting edge of dealing with oversight in security apparatus. I am going to support this bill, but I hope that when it reaches committee it will be rigorously compared to models in other jurisdictions. I think there are some much-needed amendments.

For example, in Belgium, they allow their oversight body to seize documents and launch criminal investigations into wrongdoing by security officials. That body has real teeth. Even the United States, our closest ally and neighbour, allows its oversight committees almost real-time access to covert operations. If those parliamentarians in the United States Congress can have the oversight, why can we not as well?

My friend from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke went over in detail of the most egregious examples of what was wrong with Bill C-51, but one of the recommendation in the McDonald Commission was to have a civilian intelligence force without law enforcement capabilities. Those waters were muddied by the Liberals and Conservatives when they allowed CSIS the disruption element. The real confusing part is that the definition of unlawful activities is open to interpretation.

We know our intelligence agencies have been complicit in spying on home based environmental groups, and we have also very concerned with Bill C-51's information sharing regime, which dramatically loosens the strictures on how a government internally shares data. It introduces, as mentioned, the dangerously broad category of activities that undermine the security of Canada, which can include much illegal protest. This will be of very special concern to anyone who has studied the infamous Maher Arar case.

I want to underline this fact. Bill C-22 cannot be treated as window dressing. This will not absolve the Liberals for being in support of Bill C-51, and we can be sure that the NDP will be holding them to account in that regard, very publicly, I might add.

I would like to congratulate my friend from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. Yesterday he introduced Bill C-303, which would repeal Bill C-51. That is a great step. I am glad to see us living up to our election promises for once.

The Liberals can earn the trust of Canadians by voting for that legislation or otherwise living up to their electoral promises.

Going on to the problematic elements of Bill C-22, I would like to quote the national security green paper again when it mentioned that Parliament had several roles in national security matters. It holds ministers to account for the actions of the institutions for which they are responsible.

However, the structure of the bill seems to allow ministers to hold complete sway over the committee. In other words, the committee suddenly becomes accountable to the executive branch, and that is not the function of Parliament.

Allow me this opportunity to walk members through the text of Bill C-22. Under subsection 8(b), it states that if a minister determines that a review is injurious to national security, the minister can withhold information.

Under subsections 14(a) to (g), there are seven points that further limit what information the committee can have access to.

Section 16 states that the minister may refuse to provide information that is special operational information, or again, injurious to national security. Yes, that minister has to provide reasons for the decision, but, again, if we go further down the bill to section 31, it states that the minister's decision in subsection 8(b) and subsection 16.1 is final.

If the committee is somehow dissatisfied with that decision, it can write out a report, which is outlined in section 21. Again, that describes the structure of the report, but section 21 basically gives the Prime Minister, who basically probably gave the minister the authorization to withhold the information in the first place, complete authority to revise that report and redact whatever problematic elements there are, again, on the grounds of national security.

Sections 10 and 11 of the bill outline the security requirements and oaths to secrecy that the members of that committee have to take. They will be completely free and they will suffer the consequences if any information is leaked. I do not see why concerns of national security have to be withheld from a committee whose main purpose is to oversea national security. We are just going around in circles with the bill.

I would like to remind Liberal members of Parliament that there are members in the Conservative caucus who used to serve as cabinet ministers and who had access to some of the most sensitive secrets of Canada. They are still sitting in the House, but they are still bound by their oaths of secrecy. They are able to hold a secret. There is no reason why this committee membership cannot do the same.

As the legislation stands, the government can still hide things from this committee, and that is the problem. There will be absolutely no relevant oversight if the government denies access to files and witnesses. Not only will withholding information make it near impossible for the committee to do an objective job, but it will further deteriorate the trust of Canadians in our police and intelligence services.

The Prime Minister has already appointed a chair of this committee, the member for Ottawa South. Choosing the committee chair back in January despite the bill only being introduced in June is putting the cart before the horse. By appointing the the member for Ottawa South as committee chair with a salary almost equal to the lower levels of the Liberal cabinet, the Prime Minister has, in a sense, made him a mini cabinet minister on the committee, accountable only to the government.

I will just end with—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order, please. I am sure that if the member has other things to add, he will be able to do it through questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments by the member. There has been a lot of discussion about Bill C-51 throughout the day.

Here is legislation that we should all be proud of. This is the first time in Canadian history that we are evolving to the point of having a committee of parliamentarians that would provide assurances to Canadians of a balance between security and the private rights and freedoms that we have all come to know. It is important that we respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is a positive piece of legislation, and we look forward to its ultimately going to committee. Does the member have some specific amendments he might want to share with us?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, yes, I would go back to the parts of my speech where I talked about the committee basically going around in circles because the information it would be seeking might be “injurious to national security”. That just takes away from the purpose of the committee. How can it provide effective oversight if the minister could at any time claim that something is injurious to national security? If the committee then complains about it, the Prime Minister could withhold that information in the final report. We will just be going around in circles. That is not parliamentary oversight.

I will start with that as a very real amendment that needs to be made to the bill.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could talk a little more about accountability. From my perspective, bringing in this new committee is really smoke and mirrors. It seems we are going to have this committee and the ministers will be less accountable because they will be able to point to the committee and say, “I am doing a great job because, see, the committee is not doing anything”.

However, the minister and the Prime Minister would both have control over what a report from the committee says. The committee could study something, write a report, and the minister could take all of the damning evidence out of the report and then put the report forward.

Could my colleague comment on that?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, absolutely, “smoke and mirrors” is very apt terminology for this practice.

It is incumbent on us, here in the opposition, to play our job properly during the proceedings on the bill, not only by pointing out the deficiencies of the bill, but also by not letting the Liberal government off the hook. I know that the Liberal government will say to the Canadian public that it has provided oversight in Bill C-22 and that its job is done.

We will not allow that to stand. There is still a lot more to be done.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, since Bill C-51 remains in place, I would like to hear more from my colleague about what protections are in place to ensure that the right of legitimate dissent by first nations and environmental activists remains in place. Does the bill remedy those deficiencies in Bill C-51? If there is any infringement on such legitimate public discourse, which I view as in the public interest, allowing free speech? How can that public interest be protected?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, we have seen in previous examples, most notably with northern gateway, that CSIS was complicit in providing information to oil companies about suspected activists and environmental protesters, so there is a very real threat.

The bill could address that particular problem only if the oversight committee is allowed to have real teeth and real investigative powers. That means not allowing a minister to just shut something down because he or she thinks it is “injurious to national security”.

That is such broad-ranging terminology. Could someone on the Liberal side please define that for me?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, what a privilege it is to be able to stand in this place to talk about what I believe is a really important piece of legislation, and it is so in many different ways. I hope to be able to provide some comments with respect to the process, some of the content, and some of the amazing work that, in particular, the Minister of Public Safety has done for all Canadians by putting in the effort that he has in working with his other cabinet colleagues, and indeed, coming right from the Prime Minister's Office, too.

I would recognize, first and foremost, that we have once again before the House, a piece of legislation that was promised in the last federal election. There was a great deal of discussion and debate at the doors and through many other venues about the issue of freedoms and rights and the issue of security and ensuring that we get the right balance. I am absolutely convinced that the government has provided a piece of legislation that will be overwhelmingly supported by Canadians.

It is not to say that there is no room for improvement. If I can quote the Prime Minister, there is always the opportunity to make things better. We opened the door for the opposition, and as the Minister of Public Safety indicated in his opening comments, we have already received ideas and thoughts, such as the appointment of the chair for this particular committee to be made by the Prime Minister, which was a recommendation or a thought that came from the official opposition.

However, it is important to recognize that this is indeed the first time ever where we have seen a parliamentary committee established to deal with the issues of security and privacy and freedoms for Canadians. That is a very big thing. We should be happy to see it here today because it has been a long time in coming.

Another big issue, which I really have appreciated, is that there has been a great deal of thoughtful debate that has taken place, as members from all sides of the House have been engaged on what we all know is a very important issue to Canadians.

I believe, at some point, it will pass and go to committee and we will find that the debate will carry over in the form of listening to what some of the different stakeholder groups have to say, with the idea that if there are indeed ways in which we can reflect on the current legislation, the government is, at the very least, open to that.

The other thing that I think is really worth noting is that the Minister of Public Safety also made reference to the Five Eyes. Canada is a member of the Five Eyes nations, which include the U.S., the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand. I have had the opportunity to talk about this particular issue during the debates on Bill C-51. All those other countries have some form of a parliamentary committee to oversee these types of security and rights issues. Only Canada did not have something.

Today, what we are witnessing is not only Canada joining and being a part of the Five Eyes, in regard to a parliamentary committee, but it is a committee that has a far greater and broader mandate. Many would argue that it has the potential to be the most effective in the Five Eyes group. Again, I think that we owe a great deal of gratitude to all those individuals who have been involved.

I am sure that the different ministries would be first to indicate that it is not just coming from within the departments, but rather, it is from many of the presentations that were made during the debates on Bill C-51, many of the debates that took place inside this chamber, and the messages that we received, whether through emails, telephone calls, letters, or just the door-knocking that took place. The bill encompasses a great deal of dialogue that has taken place both here in the chamber and in every region of our country.

I think this is one of the reasons why we should all take a great deal of pride in what is being proposed by the government.

It has been noted that it was the government House leader who introduced the bill, and a number of members were somewhat surprised that it would be the government House leader. Let me assure members that when we talked about that, we made reference to the idea of this broader mandate. We need to recognize that a multitude of departments provide some form of security-related issues to Canadians. I believe it is 17. Therefore a number of departments are directly affected by this legislation, and so the committee would have a significant role that goes beyond one department. It is most appropriate that it be the government House leader who introduces the legislation. I am quite pleased that the Minister of Public Safety has had the opportunity to address the legislation also.

A national security green paper was recently released by the minister, and it was co-signed with a message from the ministers. I would like to refer to it. It was approved in terms of being received by the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice, Canada's Attorney Journal. There is a great deal of content in it, and as we continue to have dialogue both in Ottawa and the different regions of Canada, I would encourage people, the listening audience and the different stakeholders, to get a copy of this green paper because it is loaded with wonderful content. By reading through it, we get a fairly good sense of why it is such an important piece of legislation and why Canadians have taken such an interest in it.

I would like to provide some selected quotes from the green paper, because it better reflects what the government is hoping to ultimately accomplish. It is not to say that every aspect of the green paper is going to be implemented by the government, but it shows that the government is listening and, where it can, it is taking the necessary action to make a difference in the lives of all Canadians.

I first refer to the message from the two ministers where they clearly indicate that:

A fundamental obligation of the Government of Canada is the responsibility to protect our safety and security at home and abroad. Equally fundamental is the responsibility to uphold the Constitution of Canada, and to ensure all laws respect the rights and freedoms we enjoy as people living in a free and democratic country.

On many occasions I have indicated my support for Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I have argued that the Liberal Party is a party of the Charter of Rights of Freedoms. We recognize how important those individual freedoms are, but we also recognize—and we saw that in the debate—that they are one of the things that distinguished the Liberals from the New Democrats while we were in opposition. We also recognized the importance of security, and that is why it is a balancing that needs to take place.

I go back to the document, which says:

Reflecting the seriousness with which the Government regards the concerns about the ATA, 2015, our mandate letters direct us to work together to repeal its problematic elements and introduce new legislation that strengthens accountability and national security. In this respect, we have made commitments to:

This is something that, I would hope, provides comfort not only to members of this chamber, but to all Canadians.

The government has made commitments on the following: it has guaranteed that all warrants of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service will comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to ensure that Canadians are not limited in legitimate protest and advocacy; it will enhance the redress process related to the passenger protect program and address the issue of false positive matches to the list; it will narrow overly broad definitions, such as terrorist “propaganda”; and it will require a statutory review of the Anti-terrorism Act after three years.

It is great that within this legislation there is a requirement for a mandated review five years after the bill has been proclaimed. We know that as time goes by, there will be a need to review and reflect upon what we could be doing differently to improve the legislation.

As the minister has pointed out, we are establishing a statutory national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians, with broad access to classified information, to examine how national security institutions are working. That is, in fact, within the green paper and what we are actually going through today.

The legislation fulfills a key commitment we made during the election campaign by establishing a national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians.

It is great that the committee would have nine members, seven members of Parliament and two senators. Up to four MPs would be from the governing party. The Prime Minister would be required to consult with the opposition party leaders before naming opposition members and with the Senate before naming senators.

I hear a great deal of concern from both opposition parties about the PMO and the Prime Minister. I think there is one point that has been lost in this. It is important to emphasize that the Prime Minister would not be authorized to alter the findings or recommendations of the report that would be tabled. The Prime Minister's role would be solely to review the report to ensure that it did not contain classified information.

I believe that the Conservatives are underestimating the abilities of members of Parliament when they question whether it would be an open process. Yes, ministers would have the discretion to withhold information on a case-by-case basis should they believe that disclosure would be injurious to national security, but one would expect that they would have that authority. However, a minister who wished to withhold information would have to provide a rationale for the decision to the committee. The committee could choose to report on the matter to Parliament should it deem the rationale unsatisfactory. We need checks in place, and that is within this legislation.

We are underestimating and undervaluing the potential role members of the House can play on such a committee, which I believe would be second to no other, potentially, in the world.

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness talked about the way it would broaden responsibilities and about all the departments that would be taken into consideration.

As much as I would love to be a member of that committee, I am quite content not being a member, so I say this knowing full well that I will not be a member of the committee. Those who are selected to be members of the committee, I believe, will have the ability to ensure that rights and freedoms, versus the security of our national interest, will be protected first and foremost.

There are checks in place within the legislation that would allow this committee to get the job done. I believe that if the Conservatives, in particular, were to better appreciate that fact, then they would be supportive of the legislation.

I listened to members of the New Democrats respond, and I appreciate the response that I have heard today from the New Democrats. They are supportive, but they want to see some amendments. However, this is not quite as clear with regard to the Conservatives. I understand that the Conservatives are in a very awkward position because of Bill C-51. I sat in opposition and, yes, there were many members who stood up to say that we did not need a committee of parliamentarians. However, today when I listen to the debate the Conservatives are providing, they are a little unclear.

I understand that now the Conservatives are going to be voting against the legislation, but it would appear as if they are voting against the legislation because they want to see this parliamentary committee have more teeth. This seems to be the reason they are voting against it, depending on the member one is talking to. I did pose the question to my colleague across the way of whether he would be supporting the legislation. In fairness, they have been very delicate in terms of their responses today, but they had one member who has indicated a vote against the bill.

I would advise all members of the House, given the importance of the legislation, to take it for what it is and allow the legislation to be sent to committee where there can be a proper vetting from all parliamentarians. It is there that they can actually advance potential amendments if they have concerns and they can make their case.

We often hear of disputes over the facts inside the House. We listen to what the minister says here and believe that this is a committee that is going to be quite powerful and have many responsibilities. However, we then hear members opposite having reservations about just how powerful it will be and are wondering if the Prime Minister's Office would be too powerful. Therefore, there seems to be a bit of a disconnect.

However, where there is no disconnect is that there seems to be a political will that we are going to have this committee, and we will have this committee. The Prime Minister made a commitment to establish it, so we will have it. When that committee gets established, I do believe that there are members of the House who have the integrity, goodwill, and the ability to get the job done. I believe this is what we should be looking at going forward.

If in fact there are ideas that are genuine, where there has been background work and it can be clearly demonstrated, then I am sure, whether it is a government amendment coming from one of my colleagues, or from Conservatives, New Democrats, or independents, these ideas are something we will want to foster if in fact they are ways we can improve upon the legislation.

There are so many things that the government is doing that goes beyond Bill C-22 in addressing the concerns that Canadians have with respect to the issue of security, such as amending provisions enacted by Bill C-51 so as to better protect the right to advocate and protest; amending provisions enacted by Bill C-51 so as to better define rules regarding terrorist propaganda; mandating a statutory writ review of national security legislation; ensuring faithful compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; creating an office of community outreach and counter-radicalization from budget 2016, including $35 million over five years and $10 million annually, which would be ongoing; consulting Canadians about what further measures they would like—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry to interrupt the member. I am sure he has much more to say, and I am sure the members are looking forward to it.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite has raised a number of points today. He said this legislation should go to committee, and obviously there is a process for that, but first it is important that all members in this place get a chance to share their initial thoughts on it, not just the parliamentary committee. The initial thoughts I have heard time and time again today from the Conservatives are that the Prime Minister will appoint the chair—and we know that has already happened—that there is going to be a majority of Liberal members on this committee, that they will examine what the Prime Minister wants, and that the committee itself will report to the Prime Minister and not to Parliament.

My question is simple. Does the member opposite believe that this is parliamentary oversight, or is it oversight by the Prime Minister?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it shows, just based strictly on the question that has been posed, that our government is listening to what the Conservative opposition has been saying. It was the Conservative critic who wrote to the minister saying that those members would like the Prime Minister to appoint the chair. Is that not right?

The committee will consist of nine members with seven members of Parliament and two senators. Up to four of those members will be from the governing party. That is not a majority. If it is a nine-member committee and four members are from the government—

[An hon. member]

That is the majority. The chair gets to vote twice.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

It's simple math. Look at the math.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Members have a chance to get up and ask questions, so I would ask them to please not interrupt the member.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, if we could put aside some of the partisan stuff that has been said today—and I have been accused of saying partisan things at times too—and look at what is being proposed, we would find it is good, sound legislation. If we get the co-operation of the opposition, or if we work together on it, I would argue we could have some of the best legislation in the world dealing with parliamentary oversight. We could—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Windsor West.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is important to hear why this legislation should go to committee. Last week the member voted against sending a bill to committee for study that would have diverted $10 billion from organized crime. I find that quite ironic. Perhaps he could enlighten me on that. Among the witnesses who wanted to appear were provincial representatives, representatives from the Canadian Labour Congress, representatives from Canadian chambers of commerce and lottery gaming associations. Since we are talking about security issues, maybe the member could talk about why organized crime continues to get these resources.

Perhaps he could also explain to Liberal candidates who were out there saying the Liberal Party supported this legislation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party does support Bill C-22. We introduced the bill.

The member asked why I did not support a particular issue going to committee. Our standing committees have the potential to do phenomenal work. I have argued in the past and will argue into the future that committees are the backbone of Parliament. That is consistent with what our Prime Minister and many colleagues have said. The fine work that committees do is the backbone of Parliament going forward into the future.

We can refer virtually endless issues to committees, but today we are debating Bill C-22, a balance of rights and freedoms with the issue of security for all Canadians. If we continue to work in a co-operative way and have the bill go to committee, we could ultimately have one of the greatest parliamentary oversight committees possible.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member will have five and a half minutes of questions and comments the next time this subject comes before the House.

It being 5:39 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

(Bill C-236. On the Order: Private Members' Business)

February 25, 2016—Second reading of Bill C-236, An Act to amend the Payment Card Networks Act (credit card acceptance fees)—The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

Payment Card Networks Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles is not present in the House to move the order as announced in today's Notice Paper. Accordingly, the bill will be dropped to bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Status of Women

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, the last time we had this discussion, we were talking about greater support for survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault.

The need is great. One in four women in Canada will experience intimate partner violence or sexual violence in her lifetime. That is according to the World Health Organization. I cannot overstate how badly my region of Nanaimo—Ladysmith needs action to prevent violence against women, and how much has fallen to our front-line organizations who pick up the pieces every day.

One such group, Nanaimo's Haven Society, receives eight crisis calls every day. Every year, it serves close to 4,000 people suffering physical, sexual, and emotional abuse and violence. However, because of inadequate financing, every year Haven turns away over 75 women who are ready to leave abusive situations, but who the Haven Society simply does not have enough room to house.

Across our country, there is a powerful network of domestic violence shelters picking up the pieces in just this way. One night alone last year, 8,000 women and children were in domestic violence shelters. Every day, 305 women and children are turned away from shelters, mostly because of overcrowding. This means that three out of four people seeking help to flee a violent situation cannot be accommodated.

I acknowledge the dedication of the Minister of Status of Women, and I deeply hope that her Liberal cabinet and the Minister of Finance agree with her that funding solutions is vital. The cost of not dealing with it is extreme.

Justice Canada estimates that the economic cost of violence against women is $12.2 billion to Canada every year. That is $415 per capita annually in costs from domestic violence.

The Liberal government's announcements do not seem to be enough to meet this enormous pent-up need over the last decade. The Canadian Network of Women's Shelters & Transition Houses has said that if half the money went to new spaces, because it could partly also go to renovate or repair existing shelters, it would mean just two new shelters for every province.

For first nations, the budget announcement will only support the creation of five new shelters on reserve and it will take three years to build them. In short, there will be only five new shelters on reserve across Canada over the next three years.

While the one-time capital funding is being welcomed, does the minister's representative believe it will be sufficient and what can she do to address the lingering need for operational cash? More than half the shelters are feeding their clients using food banks. The cost of electricity and every other kind of operating cost has gone up and up while the funding has gone down.

We do not have enough staff hours to deal with the increases in the number of clients served. We have waiting lists for counselling that the clients really need, and more operational funding would help that.

My two questions for the parliamentary secretary are as follows. Is the funding announced adequate for capital funding? What can be done about operational funding to support this very important community work?

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to discuss one of the critical social issues to our country.

Gender-based violence represents a significant barrier to women and girls, and other vulnerable groups from reaching full equality in this country. Gender-based violence costs all of us. It takes a severe toll on victims and their families, and imposes tremendous social and economic costs on communities and our country.

Our government believes that eliminating gender-based violence in all its forms is critical if we are to make gender equality a fact of life in our society. We have made this a priority, and we are taking a number of important actions to address it.

In order to prevent and eliminate gender-based violence, it is important to ensure that women who fall prey to that type of violence can find shelter when they need it.

Our government believes that shelters are an important part of the solution. For that reason, almost $90 million over two years has been allocated in the 2016 budget to improve and expand the Canadian shelter and transition housing system. This investment will support the construction and renovation of more than 3,000 housing spaces over the next two years.

Budget 2016 also provides $10.4 million over three years, starting in 2016-17, to improve the safety of victims of family violence in first nations communities by building and renovating shelters.

We are committed to addressing the ongoing national tragedy that is the high number of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls in Canada. In August, we announced the five commissioners who would lead the inquiry, as well as the terms of reference for this work.

However, we recognize that we cannot wait until the conclusion of the inquiry to take action on this critical issue. We will continue to invest in existing and new initiatives that meet the specific needs of indigenous communities on and off reserve, solutions that prevent future violence, support survivors, and keep indigenous women and girls safe.

Status of Women Canada is also carrying out important work. The organization uses various methods to help reduce and prevent gender-based violence in our society.

For example, as a centre of excellence in gender equality, it is working with partners to enhance knowledge about and best practices for a range of issues pertaining to violence, such as human trafficking, cyberviolence, and engaging youth in the prevention of violence.

By funding projects in areas such as engaging men and boys, cyberviolence, and violence on campuses, Status of Women Canada is helping organizations take action to eliminate gender-based violence in their fields.

It uses a range of tools, including social media, to engage Canadians against violence, especially through the annual commemoration of significant dates such as December 6.