Bill Blair

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 30th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, in my experience, those who are tasked with the responsibility of keeping us safe often find themselves faced with difficult choices. The imperative of protecting our citizens and making cases against those who would harm us can sometimes lead to errors in judgment in the exercise of those authorities.

My colleagues who do this important work across the country believe very sincerely that we need to have the value-added of strict oversight and governance, with a clear, impartial, independent review of how those extraordinary authorities are given to us. This is kind of a deal with everyone who engages in law enforcement or national security and public safety. We accept the additional authorities that are given to us by the government and by the people, and in return we must be fully accountable for the use of those authorities. We must uphold and respect the rule of law.

To achieve that and to be able to reassure the country and its citizens that those extraordinary powers and authorities are being used in the public interest and according to the rule of law, independent oversight is critical. The bill finally provides that effective oversight and governance of those extraordinary authorities. I know with great confidence that the extraordinary men and women dedicated to keeping us safe and upholding our laws will welcome this level of oversight provided under the bill.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 30th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, from my experience in dealing with matters of national security, I know that in order to be held accountable and to hold others accountable, it is important to have the right information at the right time. However, operational matters, because of their very nature, do require that certain information and certain types of intelligence gathering and certain ongoing operations remain secret. That is very much in the public interest. Nonetheless, I think we are making a huge step forward in creating greater transparency and far greater accountability.

Previously, the national security framework was mostly under the control of a government and a minister who kept those secrets closely guarded, and there was very little trust of the other members of the House. This is an act of trust. The bill says that we trust parliamentarians from the other parties and from all parts of Canada to do the job of protecting our rights and freedoms and making sure that our national security framework is effective at both keeping our citizens safe and protecting their freedoms.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 30th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, it is important to understand the function of this committee and its chair. As I have already stated, it will not be a parliamentary committee. We have parliamentary committees and well accepted rules among ourselves on how their leadership and chairs will be appointed.

This committee will have a special responsibility. It will not be a committee of the House but a committee of parliamentarians whom the Prime Minister is tasking with an important role. All Canadians and the House will be tasking the committee with an important role to provide effective, nonpartisan oversight of all the activities of government in maintaining national security and upholding our rights and freedoms. It is an incredibly important task.

I am proud that my government has proposed a committee that is not, as we have seen in the past, dominated by the majority of members of the governing party, but rather a committee that is truly representative of the great diversity of opinion and perspectives that is the House of Commons and this country.

I am proud of the fact that this committee will comprise members of both sides of the House and of the other place to bring that diversity of perspective and to engender that public trust that must inevitably come from Canadians in knowing that their representatives, who are accountable to them, are there, know the secrets, and have access to sufficient information to hold accountable those who are entrusted with their safety.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 30th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill C-22, An Act to establish the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. With this bill, our government would fulfill a key commitment it made to Canadians to ensure that our national security framework is working effectively to keep Canadians safe, and to ensure that our rights and freedoms are safeguarded.

Far too often, I have heard in the House that the great imperatives of every government to keep its citizens safe and to safeguard their rights and freedoms is being spoken of as if we are required to make a choice, a compromise, or a calculation. The very nature of the public discourse suggests that it may be necessary to sacrifice one in order to achieve the other. I respectfully disagree. I believe it is the responsibility of every government, and by that I mean every member of the House, to ensure that we achieve both safety and freedom in equal measure.

I have had the opportunity over the course of my life to be involved in operational matters of national security. From these operational matters, I want to share some of my experience. There is always a tension between those who are responsible for gathering national security intelligence, those responsible for gathering evidence for prosecutions, and those who are responsible for ensuring that nothing bad happens in any of our communities. That tension is often resolved through certain guiding principles.

The principles that guide the work of those dedicated men and women who are responsible for keeping our communities safe while adhering to the rule of law are precisely these things, including the highest in this country, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is their responsibility not only to obey those laws but to uphold them, to uphold them to be respected and honoured throughout the country.

We are also guided by the important principles of public interest. It is important that those who are responsible for keeping us safe do the right thing. That means, of course, not merely obeying the law, because this can lead to situations that in my old business we used to call “lawful but awful”, but respecting the public interest, ensuring that we are doing the right things and in a way that will engender the respect and trust of the public.

That brings me to the most important principle that always has to guide the work of those responsible for and tasked with keeping our communities safe, and that is maintaining the public trust. Maintaining the public trust is based upon a number of things. Certainly the rule of law and acting in the public interest are important, but it also requires transparency and accountability. This is particularly difficult in circumstances where the work is done in secret, where we are engaged in activities that are clandestine, covert, or are classified and secret, when it is not in the public interest to disclose to the public what we know or the means by which we came to know it. It is not in the public interest for that information to become known to those who would do harm in our communities.

How can the public be assured that those tasked with safeguarding their security and their rights obeyed the rule of law and acted in the public interest? It comes down to who guards the guards. I believe that Bill C-22 would allow for a more fulsome answer to this critical question in Canadian governance.

I have been the beneficiary of both good governance and bad governance, and I can say from my experience that doing the job right requires good governance. Indeed, the effective operation of a national security framework requires that we have in place governance and oversight mechanisms that work for us.

We already have a fairly robust system of oversight for national security. We have ministerial oversight, and many of our laws require the explicit consent of the relevant minister for those enforcement and intelligence-gathering agencies to proceed and for those involved to do their job. Much of their work requires judicial oversight to ensure that certain legal thresholds are met. The organizations and the individuals who are responsible for this work are guided by internal policy. In addition to that, we have other important review bodies. CSIS, for example, is governed and overseen by the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which has access to certain classified information to review the work of CSIS. The work of our RCMP officers and other police services is subject to the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission and other oversight bodies to ensure that they are obeying the rule of law and acting in the public interest. CSE is overseen by the Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner.

In addition to that work, Parliament has a number of parliamentary committees. Here it is important to acknowledge that the committee being proposed in Bill C-22 would not be a committee of Parliament. It would not be a committee of either house of Parliament. Instead, it would be an additional review mechanism to assure Canadians that we are effective in our oversight and control of the extraordinary powers that are given.

I can tell the House from my experience that those who are tasked with this responsibility welcome oversight. They welcome that accountability. It is important to them that oversight and governance exist, because without public trust in the important work they will be doing, they cannot succeed in their dual mission of both maintaining safety and upholding the rights of our citizens. This measure is an important one to fulfill our commitment to provide effective governance and oversight of national security matters and to protect the rights and freedoms of our citizens.

The committee, from its proposed composition in the bill, would be an effective mechanism to ensure that matters are dealt with across various government agencies. In my experience, keeping our country safe and upholding our laws and freedoms is the responsibility not of a single agency of government, but of all agencies of government.

In far too many cases we have seen that oversight by one body is insufficient to review all of the activities of those other bodies engaged in this important activity, and that as a result there have been a number of gaps in information sharing, and our effectiveness has been compromised. Through the introduction of this new review committee, our government will be able to assure Canadians that those gaps are closed and that all committees are operating in a collaborative and more effective way.

[Police and Peace Officers' National Memorial Day, September 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to acknowledge the 39th annual Canadian Police and Peace Officers' National Memorial Day service, which took place yesterday on the nation's front lawn here in Ottawa.

Thousands of men and women in uniform from across Canada gathered just outside this chamber to pay solemn tribute to the more than 850 men and women whose names are engraved on the honour roll tablets on Parliament Hill.

Sadly, five new names were added to the memorial this year, including those of Constable Sarah Beckett, of the RCMP, and Constable Thierry Leroux, of the Lac Simon First Nations Police Service, who lost their lives in the service of their communities.

All Canadians mourn the death of a police officer in the line of duty, but none feel that loss more personally or more painfully than their families, colleagues, and friends. Yesterday was an opportunity to honour their sacrifice and to remember them in our prayers.

Every member of this House recognizes the vital role police officers and peace officers play in keeping our communities safe as well as the inherent risks they face when carrying out their duties.

These men and women are essential to the quality of life we enjoy in Canada, and they carry out their essential function with courage, pride, and professionalism.

I ask all members to join me in paying tribute to these brave police and peace officers who selflessly dedicate their lives to keeping our communities safe, and in particular—

[Safe and Regulated Sports Betting Act, June 16th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to private member's bill, Bill C-221. After carefully considering the bill and reviewing the earlier debate on the subject, I want to advise the House that I cannot and will not be supporting it. The bill would amend the Criminal Code to authorize a province or territory to conduct betting on a single sporting event, which is sometimes called “head-to-head betting”. Bill C-221 would essentially replicate former Bill C-290 of the previous Parliament.

The bill would delete paragraph 207(4)(b) of the Criminal Code, meaning that the current prohibition on provinces and territories against conducting single-event sports betting would be removed. Currently, section 207 of the Criminal Code authorizes provinces and territories to conduct betting on multiple sporting events, which is normally called “parlay betting”. The current gambling provisions in the Criminal Code criminalize all other forms of gambling, except those that are specifically authorized by the Criminal Code.

I understand that the provinces and territories would stand to gain a substantial increase in gambling revenues if Bill C-221 were to pass. For casinos that have proximity to a city in the United States that has no legal, single-event sports betting, there could be a strong market advantage. Canadian border cities with casinos might see some additional economic development benefits.

While I appreciate the economic advantages that the proposed reform could bring about, the big concern I have to share is the impact that this proposed change could have on individuals and families, the social costs of gaming.

I would like, now, to turn to the very important issue of gambling addiction.

The dangers involved with gambling addictions are serious and profound. Problem gambling is associated with mental health issues, such as depression, anxiety, and suicide. It can also affect family and marital relationships, work and academic performance, loss of material possessions, and it can lead to bankruptcy and, certainly, crime.

Provinces and territories spend millions of dollars toward the prevention and treatment of problem gambling. They offer a variety of services and treatments that have been derived from many different methods of counselling and therapy to assist those who have a compulsive gambling problem, as well as family members of those who suffer from this problem.

Youth are particularly vulnerable to the problems arising from gambling. A 2014 study by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, CAMH, in Toronto, found that 35% of students in grades 7 to 12 gambled at least once in the past year. Another study found that a quarter of Ontario students with gambling problems reported a suicide attempt in the past year, roughly 18 times higher than in the general population.

I believe that if Bill C-221 were to pass, the costs to the provinces and territories would inevitably increase. More important, the cost to individuals, families, and society would increase.

We must also consider the issue of illegal bookmaking. Illegal bookmakers enjoy a monopoly on single-event sports betting. Police report that bookmakers are connected to organized crime.

We know that numerous Canadians illegally bet on single-event games. In my view, even if Bill C-221 were to pass, the vast majority of those who bet with illegal bookmakers would continue to do so. This is because bookmakers extend their credit directly to the bettor, unlike the provinces and territories. Illegal bookmakers also have lower overhead costs and can offer more favourable betting odds. Bill C-221 would do nothing to change the attractions offered by illegal bookmakers.

Sports leagues are rightly concerned to ensure that there is no match fixing. Professional sports leagues previously have strongly opposed similar bills. They have argued that allowing single-game betting would open a Pandora's box of match fixing and social problems associated with gambling. The integrity of sport is critical to maintaining the interest, respect, and loyalty of sports fans.

In my view, while the sponsor's stated objectives are indeed laudable, the proposals would not achieve the desired objectives without doing significant harm to society and increasing the already high social costs of gambling. For that reason, I will not be supporting the bill and do not recommend that it be sent forward to a legislative committee for its consideration.

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask a point of clarification. The member opposite gave some indication that this confusion he alleges exists is on the backs of the RCMP.

Notwithstanding that, quite frankly, on this side of the House, I do not think we could possibly be any clearer that the law remains in effect, so it should be obeyed, it should be upheld, and it should be enforced. At the public safety committee, about a month and a half ago, the RCMP commissioner appeared before that committee, and at that time, he made it very clear when he stated that the confusion around the enforcement of marijuana laws should not be overstated.

In light of those remarks and that clarification coming from him, I wonder if the member opposite would like to clarify his remarks.

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of points I want to qualify.

First, the Prime Minister made it very clear in the campaign and most particularly in the throne speech of our intention in this mandate to bring forward legislation to legalize, regulate, and restrict marijuana. We have not been ambiguous in any way and to suggest otherwise is simply not factually correct.

As I listened to the remarks of the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, I wondered why he was so afraid of saying, “legalize, regulate, and restrict”. He focused very clearly on one aspect of our government's policy, in which we said we would legalize marijuana, but we have also been equally clear about the importance. This is not based on ideology or the latest popular poll, which members across the aisle seem to rely on so much. It relies on science, the best advice that we have received from, for example, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, which is the pre-eminent mental health and addiction facility in all of Canada, on research we have done, and examples we have looked at in other jurisdictions, such as Washington and Colorado.

Overwhelmingly, the science says that in order to address all of the social and health harms associated with cannabis use, the proper approach is legalization, coupled with an effective, comprehensive, and responsible system of regulation on production, distribution, and consumption. I have listened carefully to all NDP members who have spoken today, and they are all loath to acknowledge all of the government's policy. They speak only of legalization and they neglect to include that.

I would ask the member opposite if perhaps he could address the issue of the importance of effective regulation to protect our kids and communities, to take billions of dollars of profit away from organized crime, and to protect the health of Canadians.

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a couple of questions of clarification. My questions come from a report by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and some of the insight and guidance that it has provided through its scientific research and recommendations for a public health policy framework for the legalization and effective and efficient regulation of cannabis.

I would seek the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue's response to this. That report says very clearly that decriminalization is a half measure that does nothing to control the potency or quality of marijuana consumed by Canadians because it remains prohibited under decriminalization. In the member's remarks, I was somewhat confused as to whether she was talking about immediate legalization or decriminalization. Of course, decriminalization and prohibition remains the rule, but law enforcement on prohibition does drive cannabis users away from prevention, risk reduction, and treatment services.

Perhaps most important, I want her response to CAMH, which is, by the way, the leading mental health and addiction research facility in Canada. It said, “Decriminalization...encourage[s] commercialization of cannabis production and distribution – without giving government additional regulatory tools”. This is an opportunity of enormous profit for organized crime. I have seen first-hand the ravages of organized crime and the violence and victimization that it perpetuates on our neighbourhoods.

Is this what the member intended?

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, there are just a couple of things I want to clarify for the member.

First, the government's promise in its throne speech was to legalize, regulate, and restrict the use of marijuana. The member only spoke to the first third of that, which is legalization. He neglected, unfortunately, to talk about the importance of regulation and restriction for cannabis control.

The member opposite made reference to the importance of learning lessons from other jurisdictions. In November 2015, the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse submitted a report on cannabis regulation entitled “Lessons Learned in Colorado and Washington State”, which said that it is essential to “[t]ake the time required to develop an effective framework for implementation and to prepare for a successful launch;... [d]evelop the capacity to administer the regulatory framework;... [and] invest proactively in a public health approach that builds capacity in prevention, education and treatment”.

I am just wondering if the member opposite has had the opportunity to read that important report. I know he values the lessons learned from other jurisdictions. Those lessons are available to him if he cares to read them.