Debates of Oct. 22nd, 2018

Opposition Motion—Terrorism

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, certainly, I think the debate on both Bill C-51 in the previous Parliament and Bill C-59 in the current Parliament have been quite thorough.

With time being limited, it is hard to rehash my arguments where I disagreed on some elements with my colleague, but certainly when it comes to the peace bond process, in particular, it has not been without controversy over the last number of years in Canada. However, one thing we do welcome is the use of special advocates, for example.

To go back to one of the points I made in my speech, I think it is the eternal challenge to ensure fairness in the prosecution and the work that the RCMP does, law enforcement in particular. I say this because the word “fairness” might sometimes ring hollow to Canadians, as they might assume, as I said perhaps a bit too glibly, that we are using kid gloves with people who have perpetrated horrible crimes. However, fairness goes not only to the core of the rule of law in ensuring proper judicial proceedings free from political interference, but also serves to make sure that should the person actually be guilty of the crime, more fairness in the proceedings will result in a higher rate of conviction without some kind of procedural piece, or a judge or a defence lawyer managing to uncover something amiss.

I do not want to get into this next issue, because it is a whole separate piece, but the Conservatives, for example, have been very critical of the Prime Minister commenting on Vice-Admiral Norman's case. By that same barometer, we have to be careful with our comments in the cases of returning foreign fighters, if we really want to see them convicted.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like my NDP colleague, who knows these issues well, to comment once again on the Liberal Party.

In the last election, the Liberals supported Bill C-51 but then changed it. Bill C-51 had made it easier to obtain a peace bond against someone who was a risk to public safety, like a returning terrorist fighter. However, in Bill C-59, they have made it harder to obtain a peace bond for these same individuals. As I said, in the last election the Liberals criticized Bill C-51 despite the fact they had supported its passage. They have now watered it down and made it harder to tackle terrorists.

The NDP have been consistent throughout. It must be frustrating for those members to see the Liberal Party consistently changing its position on a range of issues, even when it comes to serious issues like national security.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Of course, we do not always agree. We have had some rigorous debates in recent years, not just between him and me, but between our two parties as well.

One thing is clear, the NDP has consistently opposed the draconian measures in that legislation. We firmly believe that, with more resources for our men and women in uniform and our police forces and a robust counter-radicalization strategy, the laws that existed before Bill C-51 was passed in the previous Parliament would have been sufficient. We just need the resources to enforce them. That is why we made those requests when opposing the two bills, namely Bill C-51 in the 41st Parliament and Bill C-59 in this Parliament.

On another note, I must say that, as a progressive, it is very discouraging to see the approach the Liberals are taking. They said that they would support the bill, but that we should not worry, because they would resolve all the problems with it when they took office.

In my opinion, the final result shows that Bill C-59 falls far short of resolving the problems.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned his work on the public safety committee, and I thank him for that work. On the way up this morning, I was listening to a podcast on Julia Shaw's latest book, Evil. She discussed the circumstances which lead people to make violent and often bad decisions around how they treated the people around them. The argument was whether that was evil or because of the circumstances. Then it was how we would deal with people who dealt with circumstances which lead them to make bad decisions.

In June 2017, the federal government created a Canada Centre for Community Engagement and Prevention of Violence. It looks at local initiatives that help young Canadians turn away from a path of violence. Could the hon. member mention if this new centre has been looked at as part of the studies through the public safety committee? Does he see that as being a benefit in today's discussion?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, one thing that is clear when we look at the end result of some of this radicalization. For example, when we think of Patrice Vincent, Nathan Cirillo or the genocide being perpetuated by ISIS, there is no doubt that these are crimes of the most heinous nature. I think all Canadians agree on that. How we tackle prevention is a key issue. Prevention is not always a word people like to hear, but ultimately it means that one life lost to this type of horrible crime is too many. What do we do about that? I would remiss if I did not acknowledge that the government has begun to put funding in place, but definitely more can be done to have a more overarching strategy.

Individual projects are receiving funding, which is certainly a positive thing. However, when we visited Montreal, the mayor of Montreal, Valérie Plante, pointed out something about the centre. It is the only centre of its kind in North America and it has to deal with people from all over Canada and the east coast of the U.S. to help them tackle radicalization. This demonstrates to us that more can be done. We could have more centres like that in more geographically strategic locations to allow us to maximize the efforts we deploy. It is perhaps a good first step, but definitely more needs to be done.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beloeil—Chambly, who works very hard in committee and in the House to protect the rights and safety of Canadians, which are not mutually exclusive.

I have not heard any mention of far-right violence in today's discussion and motion. Last year, the acts of violence committed in North America were largely perpetrated by the far right, by misogynistic and racist groups that spawned right here in North America.

I want to ask my colleague what he thinks about the fact that today's motion does not recognize the radicalization of and growing violence by the far right?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Indeed, the Conservatives too often forget to include in their approach this aspect of extremism and the violence associated with it.

This is not an ad, but as I mentioned in my speech, the Toronto Star published an extraordinary report on the rise of the far right.

I think I speak on behalf of all parliamentarians, and especially those in the NDP, when I say that we strongly condemn all violence resulting from radicalization or extremism, whether we are talking about ISIS, the far right or any other form of extremist ideology. I think it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to condemn this violence. It is also our responsibility to give intelligence services and police forces the tools they need to do their job, while still respecting our rights and freedoms, of course.

To get back to my colleague's question, the fact that this is not included in the motion shows once again that there is a focus on a particular aspect, admittedly an important one, that is being prioritized over others.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member and my friend from Durham.

This is an important motion, one I am glad my colleagues have brought forward. We are talking about ISIS's crimes against humanity. We are commemorating the work and efforts by Nadia Murad, and even her sentiment is captured in the motion, about what happened to the ISIS women and girls who were used as sex slaves. The member for Calgary Nose Hill described in detail the horrific existence, injuries and impacts that rape, as a weapon, had on culture and society, particularly how it traumatized the lives of these women and girls. We need to act upon that.

It is one thing to have a Prime Minister call himself a feminist, but we have to take action. If we want to stop genocide, we need to have plan on how to do that. It is one thing to talk about the responsibility to protect. It is another thing to call an atrocity a genocide, such as ISIS committed against the people in the Syrian and Iraqi regions. We need to ensure that we stand with them and that those who committed these atrocities and crimes against humanity are held accountable.

I have had the privilege over the last number of years to work with the Yazidi community in Canada. It was shocking to hear the stories of the women and girls who were sex slaves, They have come to Canada for refuge, asylum and our protection and are glad to be here, even though they still have family members in refugee camps in the region who cannot get out. We need to be of more help to them on that basis.

It is disturbing when I talk to them and hear the stories they are experiencing right in Canada. A lady in London, Ontario, a Yazidi refugee, got on a bus with her captor, who was an ISIS terrorist. He had bought her, used her and then sold her again like she was property, like livestock. He is here under the so-called Syrian refugee program. He lied to get into Canada. We cannot allow this individual and his family to stay here. First, he is an ISIS terrorist. Second, he committed atrocities as part of the ISIS genocide. Third, he entered Canada on false pretenses.

Another lady has had the same experience in Winnipeg. An ISIS terrorist, who is on the streets, was recognized by one of his Yazidi sex slaves. She too has talked to the police. She has not talked about it in the media, like the other case in London, but she saw him face to face in Canada.

It is disturbing that these people have snuck into Canada under the Syrian refugee program and have lied about who they are. They were definitely part of ISIS. Then there are Canadians who have returned after the war started going sideways. They had joined ISIS and fought in Iraq and Syria. We know of some who are being held today by the Kurdish forces in northern Syria.

Muhammad Ali has been on Global TV, talking about how he wants to come back to Canada. His wife lived for sometime in Vancouver. He would like to come to Canada with their children, but they are in detention. He admits to being part of ISIS and to committing atrocities, while fighting against Canada and our allies in the region, yet we are offering him consular services. Those crimes were committed in Iraq and Syria. When Canadians travel abroad and commit crimes abroad, they should be charged, prosecuted and brought to justice in those jurisdictions, just as we witnessed this past week when a young girl, who wrote graffiti on a historic site in Thailand, was arrested for it.

If they do the crime there, they will do the time there. Many Canadians are incarcerated around the world in various prisons, because they committed crimes in those countries. However, we still offer them consular services, but we do not need to make a case for them to return to Canada, like consular services did in talking to Muhammad Ali on how to get back to Canada and how to get his passport in order.

Consular services also spoke to Jihadi Jack, Jack Letts, a British citizen. He became famous in 2014-15, promoting ISIS and even talking about using the heads of his victims as soccer balls and the atrocities he committed. He has a father of Canadian citizenship and wants to be returned to Canada, even though he has never lived here. Consular services are helping him with a passport application. It just does not make any sense at all.

I am proud of the record we had under the Conservative government. We committed our Canadian Armed Forces to help our allies fight against ISIS. We went over there. We put our CF-18s in the fight, bombing ISIS positions in Iraq and even in Syria. We put over 200 trainers on the ground to help the Kurdish peshmerga become better equipped. We gave them equipment plus training so they were more effective soldiers. We helped save lives and protected those vulnerable communities.

It was great that we were able to do that. We provided our surveillance aircraft, two CP-140 Auroras. We were not just providing targeting and looking for intelligence on the ground on where ISIS fighters were located, but we were there supporting our allies. We also had a Polaris refueller aircraft to help with the air attack.

Our air task force there has done great work. How did the Liberals treat the air task force? One of the very first things the Liberals did when they came to power was to pull our CF-18s out of the fight. Shame on the Liberals. Kurdish peshmerga, the Kurdish regional government, said that those planes helped save lives and helped ensure that not just Canadian troops on the ground were safe, but that the Kurdish peshmerga fighters were safe as well. We were destroying ISIS targets, ensuring it could not continue on in committing its atrocities. We completely eliminated its offensive capabilities.

Then the Liberal government took out one of our surveillance aircraft, cutting that by 50%. It brought one of our Auroras home. Adding insult to injury, the Liberals took away the danger pay for our air task force that was set up in Kuwait. Some of our guys on the ground there saw their pay cut between $1,500 and $1,800 a month, even though they were still in theatre. Even though they were part of Operation Impact, they were treated differently.

After Conservatives embarrassed the government, the Minister of National Defence had to climb down on that and reinstate that danger pay, bringing in a new policy. It was our Conservative government that stood up for our troops, for the people who were fighting ISIS.

We had many successes through that whole process, including having boots on the ground. We had snipers in theatre. We had special operations forces working. We trained over 1,100 Kurdish peshmerga.

The Liberals changed the mission. We have not had a briefing on the mission in over a year. We are going to receive one, finally, next month, but it is well long overdue. For a government that says that it is transparent, we should see more about this rather than waiting until the last minute, before the mission has expires in March 2019 and has to be renewed.

What it comes down is that we have people like Abu Huzaifa who is in Canada. He is a Canadian, he went abroad and enlisted with ISIS. He is 23 years old. We have not heard anything from the government about him being arrested. Abu Huzaifa was part of ISIS. He admitted to it on a New York Times podcast, called Caliphate, put out a few months ago. All of this is on the public record. He admitted to it in a CBC interview as well.

We do not see anything from the government about arresting these individuals. The Liberals always like to talk about how the Conservatives never arrested any of them either. We have to remember that the fight was going on. It was a hot conflict until the end of 2016 when everybody started coming home. We know that Abu Huzaifa did not even come back until the winter of 2016.

We expect better from the government. We are here to ensure we are acting on terrorism. A Conservative government will do just that to ensure Canadians are safe, that we act on protecting people who are vulnerable to genocide.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are talking about the approaches the government takes toward combatting terrorism. We look at the Canadian approach of peace, order and good government in helping to establish and train security forces on the ground and also within Canada to make sure that we have a safe and secure country.

I wonder if the hon. member could comment on the Harper government's cuts of nearly $1 billion from our security in Canada: $530 million taken from the RCMP, $390 million from the Canada Border Services Agency, $69 million from CSIS, $42 million from the Communications Security Establishment, and $171 million from the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority. Was this moving us toward better peace, order and good government in Canada?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals can sit here and try to do their spin. The reality is that we actually increased resources for the RCMP and for border guards so that they could actually act upon these people. We brought in Bill S-7, the Combating Terrorism Act, which made it a crime under the Criminal Code to leave this country to join a terrorist organization. The Liberals have the option of using that and the peace bonds that are described under that act to hold terrorists, but they do nothing instead. They sit here and spin. They have been in power for three years, and we have seen nothing from them about how they are going to protect the Yazidis, how they are going to protect Canadians from terrorists who return to Canada or how they are going to continue prosecuting those who are abroad.

I am looking forward to hearing my colleague from Durham talk about international law and how the International Criminal Court should be involved in this case. However, we are hearing absolutely nothing from the Liberals. Instead of standing up for Canadians, standing up for our troops, all we see from them is hug-a-thug and give a pass to terrorists who come back to Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I find it amazing that the member would even make the statement he just did. At the end of the day, this government went after terrorism and individuals who were wanting to come back to Canada, whereas the Harper administration did absolutely nothing. There was no prosecution. No charges were ever laid.

The Conservatives talk a tough line, but the reality is that they cannot prosecute. When it comes time to pony up in terms of financial resources, they have failed miserably. They made serious cuts totalling $1 billion. That is not government spin. That is reality. Those are the facts.

The former Harper government talked a tough line, but it delivered zero. I am wondering if my colleague has any regrets for supporting the Harper regime when it chose to cut back, when we should have been investing in and supporting our security forces.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I regret sitting here and listening to all the rhetoric coming from the member for Winnipeg North. This individual continues to stand and spew all sorts of words in the House but fails to actually accomplish a single thing in supporting victims. This is an individual who continues to make excuses for his government, which does not do a thing to stop terrorism. This is a member who continues to stand up and fight for the rights of returning terrorists rather than fight for the rights of Yazidi refugees right here in Canada. He should be ashamed of himself. He should be talking about what the plan is going to be and how we move forward, because the Liberals have failed for three years, and Canadians deserve better.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my friend from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman to compare his time in government as a Manitoba MP with the deputy House leader of the Liberal Party. He was part of the government that introduced Bill C-10, which allowed victims of terrorism to sue terrorists internationally, whereas we have seen recently Liberal members actually attack victims of terrorism. It is a totally different approach.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for bringing up Bill C-10 on victims of terrorism. He and I saw again this past weekend Maureen Basnicki, who was a victim of terrorism. Her husband died in 9/11. She lives in Collingwood, and she has no recourse against those criminals. She is one of the inspirations behind Bill C-10. We brought in Bill S-7 to allow more government tools and more tools for the RCMP and border services so we could get the job done.

What we see from the Liberals is Bill C-75, which would take joining a terrorist organization down to a fine rather than an indictable offence.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am privileged to follow my friend from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, who raised a number of issues related to the Canadian Armed Forces. I want to also thank our colleague from Calgary Nose Hill for her long and consistent efforts in working with people like Nadia Murad, who is quoted in this opposition motion, because Canadians are concerned about a government that has no ability to act.

It is sad when I hear the rhetoric from the deputy House leader, but it is also sad to hear a distinguished veteran like the member for Kanata—Carleton suggest that the government is somehow powerless and that we are politicizing this. Protecting Canadians is probably the most fundamental aspect of what a federal government should do.

What is troubling about the Liberals is that they act as if they have no ability to act on all issues. Whether it is criminal justice and a killer going to a healing lodge, funding the PTSD treatments of a murderer or recruiting ISIS foreign fighters to come back to Canada, the Liberals make it seem like they are powerless to act. It is actually an abdication of leadership. When their departments make a mistake, leaders rectify it. If there is a risk facing Canadians, they prevent it. I see nothing of the kind from the Liberals, and that should concern Canadians less than one year away from an election, when they can get a government that is serious again.

I am going to start with a quote about ISIS, ISIL, and how dangerous it is, as an organization, and as the people who belong to it are:

ISIL threatens peace and democracy with terror and barbarism. The images are horrific, the stories are appalling, the victims are many.

The person who said that was the Prime Minister of Canada, the member for Papineau, in this House, three or four months into his government. He recognized the profound barbarism and threat of this terror force, but what did he do? Why did he say those words in this chamber? He was withdrawing Canadian participation in air strikes meant to hinder the advance of ISIS. He was stepping back at a time when France and a lot of our allies were asking Canada to step up, because our pilots are the best at targeting in those circumstances. He was pulling back at the same time he recognized that ISIS was a grave threat to Canada and our allies. That just shows how out of touch the Prime Minister of Canada is when it comes to terrorism and national security.

What is worse is that the defence minister at the time made it seem that our allies were fine with that decision, that there was no concern that we withdrew our CF-18 fighter jets from degrading and destroying ISIS and put in more training and ground troops, supplementing the ground troops, the CSOR and JTF2 people the previous Conservative government had put in with the fighter jets. The defence minister made it seem that our allies were fine with that. The trouble is that documents came out later showing that the Iraqi minister, where our troops were operating, pleaded with him not to withdraw. I still do not think the minister has addressed how he misled the House with respect to that. Documents revealed, on December 20, 2015, after he inspected a parade, that the defence minister of that country pleaded with him consistently not to withdraw our fighter jets.

That is how the Liberals started with ISIS, and now we see it continue to the point where they are almost proactively recruiting foreign fighters back to Canada, even those with tenuous links.

There are two areas where this is wrong in law. We should not be repatriating people who have gone and, to use the term of the Prime Minister, committed barbarous acts overseas. We should not be bringing them home, and historically Canadians have not. What previous governments have done is something called constructive repudiation of dual citizenship or of consular rights, meaning that we do not act on consular affairs. The Prime Minister sending people to see “Jihadi Jack”, a British national involved in terrible crimes, it is reported, and even in his own words he acknowledges that, and Canada proactively offering him consular affairs is something the government does not have to do.

In fact, our foreign affairs committee right now is confirming, witness after witness, that consular affairs are a Crown prerogative. It is the ability of the government to decide who they provide consular support to. If my Liberal friends, who I am glad to see are listening, do not take my word for it, let them take the Supreme Court of Canada's words for it.

In the Khadr decision, what is interesting about Omar Khadr is that it was that government, in previous iterations under Martin and Chrétien, that actually violated his rights by participating in investigations. The Supreme Court of Canada said that the Harper government was within its rights not to repatriate Mr. Khadr.

Here is the irony of it. Paragraph 35 of that judgment states that “The prerogative power over foreign affairs has not been displaced by s. 10 of the...Act...and continues to be exercised by the federal government.” It goes on to say, “It is for the executive and not the courts to decide whether and how to exercise its powers....”

It is for the government to decide. There is no right of consular access for terrorists, and certainly for nationals from other countries.

What has the government decided? What discretion is it exercising? It is recruiting Jihadi Jack and a number of these terrible individuals back to Canada. It does not have to do that in law. That is important to note.

What did the previous government do? We mentioned Bill S-7, which actually criminalized the activity of travelling to a foreign country for training or work with terrorists. It could have charged every single one of these people, because they were detained by the peshmerga. The peshmerga has said that those Canadians were found with ISIS fighters. The Conservative government provided a charge for that, which made it easier to seek peace bonds. Our law enforcement has degraded with Bill C-59 under this bill.

The former Conservative government also brought in the ability of victims of terrorism, like our friend Maureen Basnicki, to sue foreign terror agencies. That is what that government did. In fact, at the time, Professor Christian Leuprecht, at Queen's University, said that the Conservative Bill S-7 “prevents the foreign fighter problem”.

We actually tried to deal with the difficult decisions of governing. We did not pass them off and act like these issues were floating down the river and taken down the stream. Whether it is funding PTSD treatments for criminals or transferring child killers to a healing lodge, the Liberals act like they are powerless. They should check an org chart and realize that they are in charge.

I will also bring up how the Liberal government's current conduct is actually in violation of a United Nations Security Council resolution. What is interesting is that there is a half-baked campaign under way by the government to obtain a temporary seat on the Security Council. Perhaps it should read the resolutions of the Security Council it intends to join. Resolution 2178 deals with foreign terrorist fighters and defines it.

There are two key findings I would note from this Security Council resolution. First, it states:

The massive flow of refugees and asylum seekers from conflict zones also raises the risk that FTFs will attempt to use the refugee system to escape prosecution.

It said that vigilant vetting must be a requirement for specific countries. That was the United Nations. The resolution goes on to say something that shows how disconnected the Liberal government is. It states:

Because the related challenges are by their nature international, the Council has called on Member States to enhance their international cooperation in preventing their travel.

The Security Council of the United Nations is asking Canada to prevent the travel of foreign fighters, and we have a government facilitating it.

I am wondering if the members of the Security Council, when they vote to see who they should add, will wonder if they should invite the one country swimming in the opposite direction, the one country pulling out against the fight against ISIS, the one country recruiting them back rather than preventing their travel.

Governing is about making tough decisions. There is more to being the government than just photographs and hashtags.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am not surprised that none of the Liberals wanted to ask a question, as it is just before question period when everybody is starting to tune in, and take on the member for Durham, with his very well-thought-out and researched argument on today's debate.

I would like the member to talk a little bit about the international law that is in application here, and how it might be possible for the International Criminal Court to get involved in this and what Canada should be doing to facilitate that. We should be providing better investigations and more resources on that front, and should be working with Nadia and her group regarding the ISIS terrorists who committed the atrocities and genocide against the Yazidis and other religious and ethnic minorities and who used rape as a weapon. Could the member address that particular issue as well?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad we started the motion with comments from someone who has been a victim of ISIS. I am glad my friend from Calgary Nose Hill ensured that Nadia Murad's comments were included. “I dream about one day bringing all the militants to justice”, she said. She went on to say they should not be given a chance to hide. Those are her words.

I hear the Liberals suggesting in the House that we are politicizing this. Nadia Murad wants us to politicize this because many of these people committed horrific crimes. That is why the Security Council has advised all nations not to let them travel, hide and claim to be refugees, and to bring them to justice in the International Criminal Court or in the jurisdictions in which they reside. That is what victims expect.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to apologize to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. Unfortunately, I did not see her until I had recognized somebody else. However, there will be an opportunity for questions and comments on this issue after question period.

United Steelworkers

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, over the weekend, CBC reported that this will be Leo Gerard's last term as president of the united steelworkers.

As a member of the union and of the all-party steel caucus, I rise to congratulate Leo on his extensive service to steelworkers across North America, including those at EVRAZ and other workplaces in Regina. Leo distinguished himself as one of a very few Canadians to be elected as president of an international union. With his leadership, the united steelworkers have been steadfast in advocating for a Canadian exemption from U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs. All Canadians appreciate such cross-border solidarity as we push to maintain fair and balanced trade with our neighbours.

I invite all members of the House to join me in congratulating Leo.

Gaétan Gervais

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, a year ago, I rose in the House to pay tribute to a great Sudburian, a great historian, a great professor. Today, I rise to once again give him a Franco-Ontarian tribute. Gaétan Gervais passed away over the weekend.

Professor Gervais was a proud Franco-Ontarian, a thinker and influencer, and a proponent of the social and economic development of francophones in Ontario. He had a knack for encouraging young students and the entire community to get involved and fully contribute to their community and country. He was made a member of the Order of Canada and the Ordre des francophones d'Amérique and dubbed a knight and officer of the Ordre de la Pléiade. He also received many other awards and honours.

There is a little of the man we knew as the father of the Franco-Ontarian flag in all of us. Our flag, with the green, the white, the trillium and the fleur-de-lys, represents where we come from, where we are and where we are going. It is one of our pillars.

Canada Summer Jobs Initiative

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it was recently learned that the Liberal government approved federal funding through the Canada Summer Jobs initiative for an organization that is currently suspended by the Canada Revenue Agency for potentially funding terrorism. Federal charities regulators have flagged concerns that this organization had provided resources that may have been used for armed militancy.

Meanwhile, the discriminatory Liberal values test meant that hundreds of legitimate charities running soup kitchens or children's day camps across Canada had to sign a statement supporting Liberal Party values as a condition of receiving federal funding.

Support of terrorism or support of children's day camps? It is really not a difficult issue, or at least it should not be. If the Liberal government's moral compass were not so out of whack, it would not be.

It is time for the Liberals to put aside their ideology, rescind their Liberal values test, and drop the attestation.

Women's History Month

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this October, we celebrate Women's History Month. It is a time to honour the women and girls who have made a lasting impact as pioneers paving the way for future generations of trailblazers, leaders and innovators.

Although it is important to recognize the success stories of extraordinary women who have had a lasting impact on our society, we also need to think about the obstacles that women and girls still face today. Although they may not be as obvious as they were before, we still need to understand those obstacles, address them and overcome them, so that gender equality becomes a reality in Canada and throughout the world.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Status of Women and as a young woman myself, I encourage all women and girls to reach their full potential and make a lasting impact on our society.

This month, and every month, we must remember to recognize the accomplishments of women around us and to use them as motivation for ourselves.

Justice

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for the past few years, several rooming houses providing shelter for some of the most marginalized citizens in my riding of Hochelaga have had to be evacuated. Naturally, this has resulted in increased homelessness. Many people living on the streets today are drug users, which causes further marginalization and criminalization. We are trapped in a vicious cycle because people do not want to see them on the streets anymore, but they are unable to find new accommodations. In the meantime, it is no wonder their drug consumption has negative effects on public spaces.

The war on drugs as we know it is not working. All health experts agree. I am proud to be a member of a political party that acknowledges this reality and that passed a resolution at its last convention in favour of decriminalizing simple possession of all drugs.

Small Business Week

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last week we celebrated Small Business Week, during which time Canadian shone a spotlight on entrepreneurship and the ingenuity of local small businesses while recognizing the contribution these businesses make to our communities and our economy.

In Edmonton Centre, we have a number of thriving local businesses, including specialty shops, health care service providers, technology-based companies and non-profits.

Our government proudly supports small and medium-sized enterprises and works hard every day to help Canada's small business owners get ahead.

We know that when our small businesses succeed, our economy prospers.

Last week I visited a few of these businesses, such as the Colombian, Jobber, Alberta Women Entrepreneurs and the Table Top Café, to thank them and to learn about their unique challenges. I thank them, their families and their clients. They make me and all of us very proud.

Battlefords—Lloydminster

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, like Canadians across this country, my constituents in Battlefords—Lloydminster want to feel safe and secure in their communities. However, spikes in rural crime rates are causing great concern. This trend is unacceptable, yet the Prime Minister and the public safety minister are not focused on making our rural communities safer. Instead, they continue to prioritize improving the lives of convicted criminals.

Just last week the Liberals unveiled a plan to end solitary confinement in federal prisons. They have already introduced legislation to make many serious crimes eligible for just a mere fine. They are giving veterans benefits to a convicted cop killer who has never served a day in his life in the military. They paid out a convicted terrorist. The list goes on and on. Canadians have had enough of these backward priorities. It is time that the Liberals put the rights of victims and law-abiding Canadians ahead of criminals.