Cathy McLeod

[Health, February 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to ensuring that Canadians have access to a wide array of choice for natural health products, and Health Canada's oversight recognizes the lower risk of most natural health products. The department has approved thousands of products as being safe and effective.

Regarding citronella, the department has announced a review to ensure that these products have the proper level of oversight, and this review will ensure that Canadians have access to safe and effective products.

[Parliamentary Precinct Security, February 6th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the word is “pleased”, but I am really happy to have the opportunity to join this debate. It is clearly an important and very passionate debate about the integration of the forces on Parliament Hill for the protection of all parliamentarians and Canadians on the Hill.

As I listen to some of the motives that get impugned, I would say that there is not a person in the House who does not have the utmost respect for the work that our security forces do. We are profoundly grateful for the support they provided to us on October 22, and indeed every day.

While listening to the debate, I have been trying to think of an analogy. As I have mentioned a few times in the past, I come from a health care background. I was part of some of the change management work that had to be done. I will give an example.

I went into an organization that was treating people with significant chronic diseases. In taking care of patients, they would have dietitians, physiotherapists, physicians, and nurses all providing excellent care. These people were all providing excellent care in their field of expertise, but in isolation from what everyone else was doing. Just as it was here, that isolation was identified as not being in people's best interests. Accordingly, I think we are all on the same page here in agreeing on the significant need for integration and the importance of that.

It was a really tough job to get people together, even sharing records, because there were independent practitioners, health authorities, and small business folks. How would we get these folks to work in the best interests of the patient and start to share the support and services together? We went through that process and then we had to decide who would be the case manager.

When we were looking at that, it was not a matter of who provided the best service or who had the best training. Everyone was recognized for their important expertise in roles they brought to the table. We picked as case managers the people who were more integrated with the outside world, the community as a whole. The best connector was the person who was in the best position to coordinate the work of all the very excellent medical practitioners.

I do not see that as unlike what we are doing here. Who is the connector who will be able to connect the security to the wider whole? During this debate, I noticed there were a number of us in the House who are still a little jumpy. There was a huge unidentified noise on the roof of the building and a number of people all of a sudden jumped. What was that?

Maybe some other people are not aware, but four days before the incident on Parliament Hill on October 22, my staff member was in the office and there was a plane going back and forth over the parliamentary precinct. She was very agitated. Obviously the plane was in a no-fly zone. She did not know what it was going to do. She phoned the Hill security, but how are we best to connect to that greater whole? That is what this about.

This is about the security of Canadians and the security of parliamentarians. I have to say that the opposition members are showing a bit of a lack of faith in the Speakers of these honourable places. This is clearly like the situation in every province, where they determine whether or not they want to have a provincial police force or how they want to structure the police forces within their province and communities. These become negotiated agreements that are very reflective of the needs of their communities and what they are doing.

If we go back to the motion, with respect to the terrorist attack of October 22, 2014, it recognizes:

...the necessity of fully integrated security throughout the Parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill, as recommended by the Auditor General in his 2012 report and as exists in other peer legislatures; and call on the Speaker, in coordination with his counterpart in the Senate, to invite, without delay, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to lead operational security throughout the Parliamentary precinct and the grounds of Parliament Hill...

The following point is important. Again, this is something that opposition members are putting out in terms of their privileges and immunities. It reads:

...while respecting the privileges, immunities and powers of the respective Houses, and ensuring the continued employment of our existing and respected Parliamentary Security staff.

I think opposition members are presuming a lot of things that are not accurate. The motion is very clear about respecting privileges and immunities. What we are talking about is the need for greater connectivity within the whole.

When I first became a parliamentarian, I remember being very surprised that the Senate security was very different from the House of Commons. Then I learned about the structure. I remember many people saying that it did not make sense and that it was probably in our best interests to have a coordinated service, but it seemed as though it was a challenge to make those changes. I suppose October 22 spearheaded these changes, but they are changes that I think people have identified for a long time as needing to come forward.

The RCMP has connectivity with the broader intelligence that is out there. There is connectivity to resources. Again, this is not about the excellent work that our staff does; it is about the broader resources that are available in terms of extensive experience in security assessments, information sharing, and evolving threats. They have to deal with threats in many other areas.

I think we are going to have a difficult change. There is no question that it is going to be a challenge, but I think it is an important change. I believe that 10 years from now we are going to be saying that our Speakers have done a good job, our parliamentary security is in a good position, and we made sure that we have the protection and support we need.

We have to recognize that our security staff serve a variety of important functions, and we fully expect that will continue under the integrated security unit. All decisions related to the integrated security unit will ensure continuous employment and will be managed with full transparency.

I will go back to my original example of a patient who is struggling with many different issues and is surrounded by caregivers. There may be family members, dietitians, nutritionists, and physicians who have to be integrated, number one, but they will also need to realize who is in the best position and who can connect to the wider whole. In this case, I think we are trying to do what is best for the security of the personnel on the Hill—

[Points of Order, February 6th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, during one of the responses from our side of the House, the member for Scarborough Southwest clearly yelled something that I found very offensive and unparliamentary. I would request that he apologize to the House.

[Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, January 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I find it strange how the NDP cannot look at the definition of terrorism and call a spade a spade in what happened in both events in Canada last October.

More important, lone wolf attacks are difficult to prevent and our law enforcement agencies need modern tools to do the job that we want them to do with respect to protecting us.

[Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, January 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have the benefit of being a lawyer, as I believe my colleague on the other side is. The Minister of Justice has a number of lawyers within the justice department and all legislation that we bring forward has had a full analysis in terms of the protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, January 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, what we created with Bill C-44 is a strong piece of legislation that needed all its elements to do the tasks we set out for it. The opposition proposed amendments, but in general the amendments would have eroded the ability of this piece of legislation to take on the responsibilities it needed in responding to the court decisions.

I note that there are complementary pieces of legislation. The member talked about some gaps and some additional needs; I welcome her response, and I also look forward to the support that I hope we get from the NDP on Bill C-51.

[Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, January 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to clarify that we are discussing Bill C-44 today. Bill C-51 was recently tabled, and we look forward to some very important debate on this complementary legislation for protecting Canadians.

I rise in support of the protection of Canada from terrorists act, which is another important step taken by our government to protect Canada against terrorism. We are looking at amending two key pieces of legislation. This bill would strengthen our response to so-called extremist terrorist travellers and confirm the tool kits of our security agencies.

Before highlighting the most important amendments, let me situate this legislation within a global context and explain how it would build on our existing legislation and policy.

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, has become a household name around the world. It is destabilizing Iraq and Syria while carrying out horrific acts against innocent people. As members know, as part of international coalition, Canada's CF-18 fighter jets are targeting ISIL forces in Iraq. We have joined our allies in this fight because we know that groups like ISIL pose a serious threat not just to regional security but to the citizens of Canada as well.

However, the fight against terrorism does not take place only under foreign skies. Every day, along our borders, in front of our computer screens, within our communities, and with our partners, Canada's intelligence security and law enforcement agencies are standing on guard against terrorism. They carry out their work guided by the four tenets of Canada's counterterrorism strategy, which are prevent, detect, deny, and respond. They are supported by legislation passed by Parliament, which includes the Combating Terrorism Act, for example, which makes it illegal to leave or attempt to leave Canada with a view to committing certain terrorism offences outside the country. Indeed, the RCMP laid its first charges under that act last summer.

The landscape for terrorism, however, is rapidly evolving, and our agencies need better tools to keep Canadians safe and secure. Members may want to consider the findings of the 2014 Public Report on the Terrorist Threat to Canada. In 2013, Canada added six groups to the list of terrorist entities, bringing the total to 53. Moreover, as early as 2014, the government had identified approximately 145 individuals with terrorism connections who may have been involved in terrorism-related activities in foreign countries. These are Canadians that groups like ISIL are trying to recruit through sick propaganda.

When Canadians are lured into fighting for a terrorist cause, they can inflict harm on innocent people in a foreign country. What is more, with the training that they receive and the propaganda that they are subjected to, extremist travellers may return home motivated to carry out terrorist acts on our own soil. Thus, while our brave men and women take part in combat missions overseas, it is our responsibility here to prevent, detect, deny, and respond to terrorism in all of its forms.

This brings me to Bill C-44, the protection of Canada from terrorists act.

This act addresses two key pieces of legislation that are essential in our fight against terrorism. As members will recall, the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act received royal assent in June and expanded the grounds for the revocation of Canadian citizenship. It also streamlined the process for making those decisions. Once in force, there will be authority to revoke Canadian citizenship from dual citizens convicted of terrorism, high treason, and treason or spying offences, depending on the sentence that is imposed. It will also provide authorities with the authority to revoke citizenship from those who have served as members of an armed force of a country or an organized armed group engaged in an armed conflict against Canada.

Those convicted cannot get time off for good behaviour. These individuals will never be allowed to become Canadian citizens again.

The amendments of Bill C-44 introduced technical changes to the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act that would allow the government to bring into force the revocation provision of the act earlier than, and separate from, the remaining provision.

I would also note that there is a second important change included in the strengthening Canadian citizenship bill. It relates to the process for revoking citizenship. Without these new provisions, the process for revoking citizenship can take up to three years, which I believe, and I believe many Canadians believe, is much too long. Let us imagine a dual citizen who has been radicalized. We may have the evidence to revoke citizenship, but we cannot do it in a timely way because the process is so lengthy. It was vital to streamline the process for revoking citizenship, while respecting the rights of the people involved.

To that end, depending on the grounds for the decision, once the provisions are in force, there would be authority for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or the Federal Court to decide on revocation cases.

These amendments to our citizenship laws introduced in the strengthening Canadian citizenship bill would protect the safety and security of Canadians and value and safeguard of value of Canadian citizenship.

Bill C-44 would also amend another piece of legislation, the CSIS Act. We heard earlier that when the CSIS Act was introduced 30 years ago, the expression “extremist traveller” was not part of our lexicon, and neither was “social media.” Who could have imagined that messages of intolerance and hate would one day be transmitted without filters to a mobile telephone? Who could have foreseen how this propaganda could turn someone with mainstream views into an extremist?

However, this is the world we now live in. We must adapt, and adapt quickly, to ensure that CSIS has the tools it needs to investigate threats in a new world. To do this, we must affirm key elements of CSIS' mandate that have been brought into question by recent court decisions. That is really what Bill C-44 is all about. It is not about new powers.

First, this bill would confirm CSIS' existing authority to undertake investigative activities outside of Canada in relation to the security of Canada or to security assessments.

Second, it would confirm the existing jurisdiction of the Federal Court to issue warrants to authorize CSIS to undertake certain intrusive investigative activities outside of Canada.

Third, it would clarify that in determining whether to issue warrants for activities outside of Canada, the Federal Court need only consider relevant Canadian law.

Fourth, it would ensure that the identities of CSIS' human sources would not be disclosed in legal proceedings, except in certain circumstances. This provision is similar to the common law privilege protections that already exist for front-line police informers.

In addition to protecting the identity of CSIS sources during legal proceedings, it would also protect the identity of CSIS employees who are likely to become involved in future covert operations.

Taken together, the amendments proposed in Bill C-44 address recent court decisions related to CSIS and ensure that CSIS has the tools it needs to fulfill the mandate it was given by Parliament 30 years ago.

Canadians depend on our government to protect them from terrorist activities, and we must not fail them. I urge all members to join me in offering unconditional support for Bill C-44, a much-needed response to a rapidly changing security environment.

[Petitions, January 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition asks the Government of Canada and the House of Commons to commit to adopting international aid policies that support small family farmers, especially women, and recognize their vital role in the struggle against hunger and poverty; to ensure that Canadian policies and programs are developed in consultation with small family farmers; and to protect the rights of these small family farmers in the global south to preserve, use, and freely exchange seeds, which, as members may know, was done in our recent legislation.

[Petitions, January 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present from my riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

The first petition is requesting that Parliament pass a new firearms act that contains a provision for licensed handgun owners to carry a sidearm for protection from predatory wildlife.

[Taxation, January 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, our government pledged that we would balance the budget, and we will.

Now we are in a position to help Canadian families balance their budgets also. That is why our family tax cut plan will give 100% of families with kids an average of more than $1,100 per year to spend on their priorities.

When this is partnered with the expansion of the universal child care benefit, families in British Columbia and across Canada will receive nearly $2,000 per year for every child under six and $720 per year for every child between the age of six and seventeen.

The Liberals and the NDP have said that they will take this money away from moms and dads to pay for expensive and burdensome programs through big government instead. We cannot let this happen.

The Liberal leader seems content to push a typical Liberal tax-and-spend agenda at the expense of Canadian families. Only our Conservative government can be trusted to keep their money where it belongs: in their pockets.