House of Commons Hansard #85 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was oversight.

Topics

Immigration, Refugees and CitizenshipOral Questions

11:55 a.m.

Markham—Thornhill Ontario

Liberal

John McCallum LiberalMinister of Immigration

Madam Speaker, I can say that we are addressing this issue of these Conservative-imposed rules that are causing some trouble. I am hoping to have a response in September.

I could also say, on the international students, that we want to court international students. We have reversed the Conservatives' provision taking away the 50% credit for citizenship, and we are adding points for international students on express entry.

We Liberals are working for international students and reversing what the Conservatives did.

Sport and Persons with DisabilitiesOral Questions

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC

Madam Speaker, this summer, Canadians across the country were glued to their televisions as they watched our athletes excel at the Rio Olympic Games.

My question is for the Parliamentary Secretary for Sport and Persons with Disabilities.

Now that the Rio games are sadly over, can the parliamentary secretary advise the House just how well Canada's Olympic and Paralympic teams performed?

Sport and Persons with DisabilitiesOral Questions

11:55 a.m.

Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation Québec

Liberal

Stéphane Lauzon LiberalParliamentary Secretary for Sport and Persons with Disabilities

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Châteauguay—Lacolle for her excellent question.

I watched both the Paralympic Games and the Olympic Games. Saying that our athletes made us proud is an understatement. The Canadian paralympic team finished 14th, and our Olympic team finished 10th. Both teams exceeded expectations.

On behalf of all Canadians, I thank our athletes for their hard work, perseverance, and courage. This past summer, they gave us memories of a lifetime.

Sealing IndustryOral Questions

Noon

Conservative

David Yurdiga Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB

Madam Speaker, on June 21 there was a screening of the documentary Angry Inuk held here on Parliament Hill. Produced by a prominent Inuit filmmaker, this documentary covers the struggles of Inuit seal hunters, who have seen the cost of their seal products crash due to the EU product ban. Pelts now go for half of what they once did.

When will the government take action to combat the EU seal ban, which is devastating Inuit hunters?

Sealing IndustryOral Questions

Noon

Labrador Newfoundland & Labrador

Liberal

Yvonne Jones LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs

Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak to this particular issue. Being an Inuk myself and living in the north, I know how critical the sealing industry is to our communities and our people.

We continue to work hard as a government and we continue to work hard with Inuit people to open new markets around the world. It is a very humane industry. It is one that we take a lot of pride in. It is a long-standing part of our culture. As we speak today, there is a delegation from Nunavut that is in the U.K. marketing and promoting seal products from Canada.

Immigration, Refugees and CitizenshipOral Questions

Noon

Bloc

Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC

Madam Speaker, last week, the Minister of Immigration did not answer my question on Haitian and Zimbabwean refugees who are still waiting for a response to their application for permanent residency.

More than 1,000 refugees have been living with uncertainty for years, without status, often in great difficulty, and without access to work permits, health insurance, or even telephone services.

Will the minister commit to adopting a special measure to give these refugees a response and their permanent resident status—

Immigration, Refugees and CitizenshipOral Questions

Noon

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Order, please. The hon. Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

Immigration, Refugees and CitizenshipOral Questions

Noon

Markham—Thornhill Ontario

Liberal

John McCallum LiberalMinister of Immigration

Madam Speaker, we have been working very hard on these files. We held a press conference with my counterpart in Quebec and the hon. member for Bourassa. We offered a simplified process and a loan with an interest rate of less than 1%. The hon. member for Bourassa spoke in Creole at a church and on the radio. We have made extensive efforts to help the Haitian community.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

Noon

Bloc

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

Madam Speaker, first, the Liberals adopted the Conservative government's greenhouse gas reduction targets, and now they are approving the Conservatives' project.

The same minister who, in Paris, stressed how urgent it was to fight climate change has approved the Pacific NorthWest pipeline. By so doing, she is condoning the production of an additional six to nine million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year.

I would like her to explain how we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by increasing them.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

Noon

Ottawa Centre Ontario

Liberal

Catherine McKenna LiberalMinister of Environment and Climate Change

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Our government knows that the environment and the economy go together. We are working very hard on all the files. I am very pleased to say that, next week, we will have the opportunity to discuss the Paris agreement. I hope that my colleague opposite will participate in that dialogue.

Monday, I will be meeting with my provincial and territorial counterparts to propose our pan-Canadian plan.

Canadian HeritageOral Questions

Noon

Bloc

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

Madam Speaker, yesterday, the ADISQ sounded the alarm. The Quebec music industry is in crisis.

For example, Jean Leloup's song Paradis City was streamed 540,000 times on Spotify but he was paid just under $30 for it. What did the Minister of Canadian Heritage say? She said she felt bad for him. The house is on fire and the chief firefighter is saying, “oh, that is too bad”.

Quebec artists need swift and concrete action, not consultations that will take months.

What is the Minister of Canadian Heritage waiting for? When will she finally protect Quebec culture?

Canadian HeritageOral Questions

Noon

Ahuntsic-Cartierville Québec

Liberal

Mélanie Joly LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her important question.

I am working on that file. We have taken the lead in studying how digital content is affecting the entertainment and information industries. We are listening to all stakeholders and have invited them to a consultation process where they can express their opinions. I truly hope that they will attend those consultations in Montreal on October 28.

I am also in talks with my counterparts in other countries on this issue because it does not just affect Canadians. It also affects many—

Canadian HeritageOral Questions

12:05 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Order. That concludes question period for today.

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

12:05 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Glen Abernethy, Minister of Health and Social Services, Minister Responsible for Seniors, for Persons with Disabilities, for Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission, and for the Public Utilities Board for Northwest Territories.

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

12:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear!

Global AffairsRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country B.C.

Liberal

Pam Goldsmith-Jones LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaty entitled “Final Acts of the World Radiocommunication Conference of the International Telecommunication Union”, done at Geneva on November 27, 2015.

Holidays ActRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-311, an act to amend the Holidays Act (Remembrance Day).

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to introduce my private member's bill, an act to amend the Holidays Act, regarding Remembrance Day.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Gatineau for being the seconder on the bill.

Similar versions of the bill have been introduced by former members of Parliament from the NDP, the Conservative Party , and the Liberals, including in the 41st Parliament where it received nearly unanimous support on a vote at second reading.

Every year, on November 11, ceremonies are held across Canada to remember those men and women who have made the supreme sacrifice for our country. We have the privilege of living in a free and democratic country, thanks to the valour of those brave Canadians who fought to protect our rights and freedoms. It is with a deep respect for members of the Canadian Forces and our veterans that I put forward the bill that would officially recognize November 11 as a solemn day of remembrance by including it as a federal legal holiday.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

JusticePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

Madam Speaker, I am presenting 10 petitions today in support of a law protecting pregnant women and their preborn children.

This week, I received an email that put into words the very essence of why Bill C-225 is resonating and reflecting in the hearts and minds of Canadians. The email contains three letters, addressed to their MP, the Minister of Justice, and thePrime Minister. I am posting them on my MP Facebook page for all read.

I do not expect all my fellow parliamentarians to like my page, but I would encourage them to go there and read the views of three of my amazing grandchildren. I have nine of them altogether. They write about what they would have felt if their mom and baby brother, whose birth was a highly-anticipated event, had been attacked the way Cassie was when she was carrying Molly.

When they learned they were not old enough to sign this petition, they decided to petition their friends anyway. There is a petition mailed to me with the heading “Kids' Petition”, and all 15 signatures in their choice of coloured pencil crayon. Sometimes it is out of the mouths of children that true wisdom comes.

Falun GongPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, today I present a petition from hundreds of Calgarians who are publicly calling for an end to the persecution of Falun Gong in China.

Public SafetyPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by Canadians from Coaldale, Alberta.

The petitioners are concerned about the accessibility and impact of violent and degrading sexually explicit material online and the impact on public health, especially on the well-being of women and girls. These petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to adopt my Motion No. 47.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Ajax Ontario

Liberal

Mark Holland LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, An Act to establish the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians ActGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand here today in the House to discuss Bill C-22, the national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians act.

I stand here after reading hours of previous debate from this parliament as well as previous parliaments, media reviews of this bill as well as the bill itself. The bill is extremely misleading and should have a disclaimer that states "read the small print”. The bill truly deceives Canadians. The government has deceived Canadians by introducing a bill that would not provide true parliamentary oversight, but is a facade that it is doing something.

Just a year ago many members of the House sat through electoral debates. It was during this time that the current Prime Minister campaigned on real change and less power of the PMO. Yet, in this bill, the Prime Minister would have even greater power than we can even imagine when it comes to the actual inner workings of the proposed committee.

Let us start by pointing out that the Prime Minister would personally choose the chair of the committee, and he chose that member and provided a handsome bonus for this position. Let us point out that the make-up of the committee would not be like one of the standing committees in the House of Commons. These committee members would be approved by the Prime Minister. This committee would only be able to receive information approved by the Prime Minister and his cabinet. This committee would report directly to the Prime Minister, and the report that would be tabled in Parliament would be vetted by the Prime Minister. Let us not forget the Prime Minister would have the right to edit this report. I truly think I see a theme in these things that I am stating.

On another note, this committee would be made up of parliamentarians who would not require any experience in security, policing, or defence. Am I wrong for thinking that a hand chosen committee with political imbalance is right for Canada?

I would like to point out that the information that would be reviewed by the parliamentarian committee would already have been cleansed by the cabinet and the Prime Minister. Information that would be reviewed by the committee would have been approved yet restricted. I will share a section of a speech given by the hon. member for Durham, citing former speaker, Peter Milliken:

The insinuation that members of Parliament cannot be trusted with the very information that they may well require to act on behalf of Canadians runs contrary to the inherent trust that Canadians have placed in their elected officials and which members require to act in their various parliamentary capacities.

This legislation would do exactly opposite of the statement by the former and reputable Speaker.

We all understand that there would be sensitive information presented to this committee. However, the fact that the committee would not be seen to have this privilege is very disturbing. My thoughts on this committee can be compared to a family dinner. The committee is not old enough and not wise enough to sit at the grown-ups' table. As well, how could there be true oversight if the information received were already edited? It is sort of like reading a letter that has black marker all over it, except in this case it would be done all by the Prime Minister's Office.

I am unsure if the members of the committee would even know there was edited information that they would be receiving, so that when it came to them it would already have been edited so therefore they would not have all points of view and they would not have the opportunity to look at all of the information necessary to make the appropriate decisions. I say that because there has been little information provided on this actual committee, just the limitations it would be given.

The government is introducing a committee to be more transparent to Canadians, the Liberals say. However, we know that transparency is truly not the case here. I speak as an average Canadian with the honour of representing the great constituents of Elgin—Middlesex—London, an average Canadian who hopes the government will recognize this flawed bill and make important amendments, such as the amendment requests that were presented to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and completely ignored, amendments that were not only reviewed by the official opposition but were shared with the critic for the NDP for its input as well.

These suggestions include: a set number of members and senators; the ability for the committee to summon any witness required; the election of the chair; the request that all parties should have the right to select members who have the necessary experience and who are familiar with security, intelligence, and defence issues; and as well become a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council and swear an oath of secrecy for the work conducted.

These are just some of the suggestions presented to the minister, and as I just stated, with no response.

Changing gears, I have reviewed numerous suggestions indicating some sort of support for the bill. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association supports the introduction of the bill; however, it notes that there are many considerations that need to be addressed. These include the government's power to halt a committee investigation, the Prime Minister's power to redact the committee's report, as well as the decision that the Prime Minister personally appoint the chair.

A law professor at the University of Ottawa, Craig Forcese, has stated that he has concerns about the government’s ability to veto the committee’s plans, limit its ability to see secret materials, and redact its reports. A University of Ottawa historian stated that this is a “good bill”, but he too adds that the real test will be finding the right members.

Even when people look at the bill who actually support it, they too have questions. We have seen academics, lawyers, and many people react to the bill by saying that it is just not right. It needs to have amendments made to it, and it needs to have suggestions from the opposition parties as well.

The bill is not perfect. Therefore, I urge the Minister of Public Safety to start looking at these suggestions and start listening to the opposition members. My colleagues and I are not saying that third-party oversight is not important, but we see a government setting up a new branch of the PMO, not a committee that is allowed to do its job.

Currently, there are watchdogs in place, including the Security Intelligence Review Committee that reviews CSIS, the CSE commissioner who reviews the Communications Security Establishment, and the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission that reviews the RCMP.

This is a committee that is not and will not have the tools and resources available to be effective. This committee already has limitations set out by the Liberal government. The committee is already hampered by the government's decision on the development of the parliamentarian committee.

I ask my colleagues to review this piece of legislation and proposal for the committee, and ask themselves whether this is what Canadians are really looking for. Did they ask for a committee that is another branch of the Prime Minister's Office, or did they ask for third-party oversight? Did they ask for hand-picked members, including a hand-picked chair that reports to the Prime Minister directly, or did they want to see a committee that truly has the rights of a committee and can do its work with all resources available to them?

The legislation is very worrisome to me. If the Prime Minister is hand-picking, then can we be sure that he is not also setting the agenda? How can we be sure that the agenda is allowed to be scrutinized by members, ministers, and the Prime Minister himself, or is this committee just fluff?

I am not against watchdogs and whistleblowers. However, the legislation is not that at all. The legislation would not provide the true parliamentary oversight that is necessary. This committee is window dressing, and it does not have the teeth to be able to do anything. This committee reports to one person and one person alone, and that person is the Prime Minister of Canada. It is he who will decide what is actually tabled in the House. National Security is extremely important and the Prime Minister would not allow the committee to do its work.

I urge the Minister of Public Safety to scrutinize the bill and provide something to Parliament that is meaningful. I urge the minister to work with all members, government and opposition, to do what is best for all Canadians. Please work with the recommendations made by former security lawyers, our Armed Forces members, and former RCMP and police officials, who now sit in the House, to make this a better piece of legislation that we can all support.