Cheryl Gallant

[Fair Elections Act, February 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I draw the member's attention to the independent commissioner, who would have sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand.

The fair elections act would empower law enforcement with sharper teeth, a longer reach, and a freer hand. Sharper teeth would mean stiffer penalties for existing offences; a longer reach would mean empowering the commissioner with more than a dozen new offences to combat big money, rogue calls, and fraudulent voting; finally, a freer hand would mean the commissioner would have full independence, with control of his or her staff in investigations, and a fixed term of seven years so he or she could not be fired without cause.

[Fair Elections Act, February 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, it is a privilege to rise in the House and participate in this debate on a bill that would contribute to the integrity of the democratic process in Canada.

I congratulate the Minister of State for Democratic Reform for the excellent job he is doing. Our minister has demonstrated with this legislation that he is listening to Canadians, and it is a pleasure to work with such a knowledgeable and hard-working member of our Conservative government.

The Canada Elections Act reforms that the Minister of State for Democratic Reform has presented to Canadians are well thought out and reasonable. I have listened very carefully to the criticisms of the opposition and have yet to hear a valid point that gives me pause for consideration. Canadians have complete confidence in the minister. If substantive reasons are presented that would improve the fair elections act, our government welcomes the input.

By way of today's discussion, I intend to focus on the proposed amendments in Bill C-23 that would remove the Commissioner of Canada Elections from the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer and place that individual in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. While this step is absolutely necessary, I draw the following sequence of events to the attention of the minister as a caution with regard to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

In practice, I encourage all parliamentarians to share their election experiences as a means to give the voice of practicality to our proceedings in the House. The minister has done this by making some very practical recommendations to improve the way elections are run in Canada.

While we as parliamentarians try to do our best when we propose legislation, accounting for every scenario is a difficult challenge. In the aftermath of the 2011 general election, my office was contacted by outraged voters regarding the blatant political activity conducted by the law firm McCann, Sheppard. The law firm received a political patronage appointment to be the federal crown agent for Renfrew County when Chrétien was in power. The recommendation to appoint this law firm came from the Liberal candidate I defeated in the 37th general election while he was an MP. This defeated candidate, whom I handily beat, ran again in the 2011 election.

A member of the McCann, Sheppard law firm acted as the official agent for the defeated candidate in the 2011 election. The law office prominently displayed a sign on its front lawn for the defeated candidate. In the election return, the law office address is even identified as the campaign office, and it charged the campaign $5,000 for miscellaneous expenses.

The Terms and Conditions of Fixed-Term Agreements of Agents of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada that are signed by all agents are clear. Under section 3.9 of that agreement, agents are prohibited from political activity, specifically being an official agent, with penalty of suspension or termination. They are required to inform their agent supervisor without delay of any involvement or proposed involvement in political activities.

The law firm of McCann, Sheppard had been acting in the capacity of official agent for over a year, as the defeated candidate had declared well before the dropping of the writ and was actively campaigning.

I wrote the Director of Public Prosecutions to relay the concerns of my outraged voters, asking why the law firm of McCann, Sheppard had not been suspended or terminated as agents of the crown. I then found out that a very flawed process had taken place, resulting in the five-year reappointment of McCann to the position of federal crown agent for Renfrew County. This was done even though the Director of Public Prosecutions had been made aware of the blatant partisan political activity in the office where the crown prosecutor works.

Making matters worse, lawyers in Renfrew Country who would have applied for the position of federal crown attorney were denied a fair opportunity to apply for the position of crown agent.

When I wrote the Director of Public Prosecutions, I reminded him of his own words in the annual report:

Prosecutors must be of absolute integrity, above all suspicion of favouritism....

To the detriment of the administration of justice in Canada, the Director of Public Prosecutions failed to do the right thing and terminate the McCann, Sheppard practice as crown agents. Once McCann, Sheppard admitted their guilt, which the Director of Public Prosecutions confirmed to me in writing, it should have been case closed. The decision to reappoint McCann was wrong.

Members of Parliament can rightly ask where the accountability of the Director of Public Prosecutions is. Any reasonable individual can see the clear conflict of interest in this case.

Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that a performance audit by the Auditor General on the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions would have identified problems with how agents are hired, which is what was suggested as the next course of action.

I outlined the bare details of this case for several reasons.

Members of the Public Prosecution Service prosecute, on behalf of Elections Canada, the offences of election law. How are Canadians going to have confidence in the administration of justice, knowing that political partisans are able to conduct political witch hunts after an election?

It also begs the observation that it seems that Conservatives are held to a different standard by Elections Canada than other political parties. This was made very clear by my colleague, the member for Selkirk—Interlake. I was shocked, as I believe most fair-minded Canadians were, when, earlier in this debate, he shared with the House his experience with Elections Canada.

I know what it means to be the object of a political vendetta. That was the case after a previous election campaign when, under bullying from an employee in Chrétien's office during his time as prime minister, Elections Canada was pressured to conduct an inquisition into my election campaign. Under Jean Chrétien, the Liberals pushed the line of what is considered fair game for partisan politics. Adscam, the sponsorship scandal, is evidence of that. Canadians may never know if the $40 million in taxpayer money that was handed out in brown envelopes to Liberals will ever be found.

Prior to 2006, the Commissioner of Elections was responsible for both investigations and prosecutions. The then Commissioner of Elections made no effort to prove political pressure was not a factor, as he was asked to prove. This only results in the consequence of bringing that office into disrepute in the eyes of the public, which is what happens every time something like that occurs.

Using the Canada Elections Act to try to subvert the will of Canadians over whom they elect is an old trick of those who do not respect the democratic process. Had the Commissioner of Elections been independent of Elections Canada at that time, as our Conservative government is proposing in Bill C-23, the commissioner would have had the independence to say “no” to political partisan persecution, if he had the integrity to do so.

[Persons with Disabilities, February 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I am pleased to support my colleague, the member of Parliament for Brant, regarding his motion to endorse rethinking disability in the private sector and encourage greater private-public partnerships to increase job opportunities for persons with disabilities.

The member of Parliament for Brant has a sincere interest in assisting people with disabilities. I am pleased to acknowledge his efforts as chair of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons With Disabilities.

I was also delighted with the support he gave me with respect to my private member's bill, Bill C-462, An Act restricting the fees charged by promoters of the disability tax credit and making consequential amendments to the Tax Court of Canada Act. Bill C-462 was passed unanimously by all members of the House of Commons and for that, on behalf of persons with disabilities, I thank everyone.

The motion before us is very timely as it fits in with our Conservative government's focus on jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity.

We have all heard of the skills mismatch in this country. Businesses all across the country are calling it the greatest obstacle to their continued growth. Our Prime Minister has called it the most serious economic issue of our time.

We have hundreds of thousands of jobs going unfilled, and yet we have about 800,000 working-age Canadians with disabilities who are unemployed even though they are capable and want to work. About half of this group have college or university education.

Just under 60% of people with disabilities are in the workforce, compared to 80% of other working-age Canadians. There is a clear mismatch here. Businesses are telling us they cannot find workers with the right skills. At the same time, people with these particular skills, who just happen to be disabled, cannot find work. Here is the crux of the matter: we are ignoring an important source of talent.

People with disabilities can be part of the answer to our skill shortage. When the panel on labour market opportunities for persons with disabilities interviewed employers across the country, it found that there was considerable openness to the idea of hiring people with disabilities. It received positive reactions from businesses of all sizes and from a broad range of industry sectors.

Those employers who already had employees with disabilities were more open to hiring more people with disabilities. In fact, they were enthusiastic. They had seen how much people with disabilities contribute to their businesses. People with disabilities are just like all workers. They are highly motivated to do well and they work hard. They make excellent employees.

The cost of accommodating a person with a disability is often quite low or even nonexistent. As I said before, the panel's report makes it clear that accommodation costs are usually so manageable that they should not be a barrier to hiring a person with a disability.

For a small investment, employers get very good value. For one thing, businesses with employees with disabilities have less turnover. People with disabilities can give businesses a competitive advantage. Why then are employers not hiring more people with disabilities? It must be that these workers currently do not have the skills for the jobs that are available. That is why our government is responding to this motion directly by investing in programs that will equip people with disabilities with the skills they need for the jobs that are available.

In economic action plan 2013, we announced that the Government of Canada would work with the provinces and the territories on a new generation of labour market agreements for persons with disabilities, to more effectively connect Canadians with disabilities with employers and with jobs. These new agreements will be negotiated this year and will deliver better results by being driven by demand and have more employer involvement.

We provide $222 million a year for these agreements, which support approximately 300,000 interventions every year for people with disabilities through more than 100 programs designed and delivered by the provinces. We have rewritten these agreements to better meet the labour needs—the particular skills employers need—and Canadian businesses will improve the employment prospects of people with disabilities through these programs.

Economic action plan 2013 also maintained funding of $40 million per year for the opportunities fund for persons with disabilities starting in 2015-16. The opportunities fund is a subsidized job program that will help Canadians with disabilities gain the hands-on experience they need to fully participate in the labour market. Since 2006-07, the opportunities fund has helped more than 34,000 clients develop skills and gain work experience.

Economic action plan 2013 proposed that employers and community organizations be more involved in local project design and delivery to ensure a stronger link to the labour market needs. This will improve the outcomes for people with disabilities.

Some of the other measures that were announced in the action plan include additional funding for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, some of which will support research related to the labour market participation of people with disabilities; support for the creation of the Canadian employers disability forum, now officially incorporated under the name Canadian Business SensAbility, as recommended by the panel; and the extension on an ongoing basis of the $15-million-per-year enabling accessibility fund, which defrays the costs of construction and renovations related to improving physical accessibility, including the addition of a workplace accessibility stream.

We want to see the private sector do more. According to a Conference Board survey, in the last 20 years employer investment in workplace training has declined by nearly 40%. This has hit persons with disabilities harder than most, for they often require more training.

Canadian businesses spend about 35% less on workplace training than their U.S. counterparts do. This is why, if we are going to tackle the problem of skill shortages, we are all going to have to pull together. Governments at all levels, employers, institutions, and yes, even individual job seekers are going to have to co-operate for the common good.

In conclusion, I would like to commend the hon. member for Brant for introducing the motion, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today in support of his efforts.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is precisely the socialist parties that want to expand government and bureaucracy. That being said, CSEC is prohibited from targeting the communications of persons in Canada or of Canadians anywhere under its foreign intelligence and cyberprotection mandates. CSEC is required to operate within all Canadian laws, including the Privacy Act, which has legislative measures in place to protect the privacy of Canadians.

Protecting the privacy of Canadians is the law, and CSEC follows the letter and the spirit of that law. As well, CSEC's activities are reviewed by the independent CSEC Commissioner, who has specifically noted CSEC's continued adherence to lawful compliance and its genuine concern for protecting the privacy of Canadians.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the government recognizes the importance of independent review in maintaining Canadians' trust in our national security activities. National security organizations, specifically CSIS and CSEC, are subject to independent review by the Security Intelligence Review Committee and the Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner respectively. The review bodies have always found these agencies to work within the confines of Canadian law.

I certainly understand that the recent controversy in the United States has caused concern here in Canada, but I can assure the member that CSIS warrants do not authorize mass surveillance of Canadians, and our agencies do not engage in such activities. Any investigative techniques employed are lawfully authorized by the Federal Court and are directed against specific individuals who pose a threat to the security of Canada, a threshold that is clearly articulated in the CSIS Act.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, it is my pleasure to join the debate today.

As a Canadian Conservative, I view with alarm any development or operation of government that extends its reach into the daily lives of Canadians. Big government and faceless bureaucracies are the purview of the socialist, left-wing, left-of-centre governments and their supporters. It was Big Brother who implemented the hated long gun registry. Big Brother is responsible for forcing rural Canada, without consultation and at great cost to taxpayers, to accept industrial wind turbines in their rural communities. It is Big Brother who would be listening to private conversations.

I am pleased to assure my constituents in Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke that when it comes to the creep of Big Brother and big government, I will oppose anything that reduces their privacy and the privacy of all Canadians. Within limits, I will not, at the same time, compromise the safety and security of Canadians.

As the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, which includes Canadian Forces Base Petawawa, I understand the importance of reliable intelligence in a dangerous world. This is particularly important when Canadian Forces personnel are sent overseas and put in harm's way. Our military require the proper intelligence to assess security threats. The women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces have a dangerous job. Let us make sure we do nothing to make it any more dangerous.

I thank the mover of today's motion for the opportunity to discuss the importance of the work done by the Communications Security Establishment Canada, CSEC, on behalf of the Minister of National Defence and all Canadians. In a perfect world, we would not need CSEC. However, it is a dangerous world, and in order to keep Canada safe, we have to keep one step ahead of those who would do us harm.

Canadians understand that CSEC was legislated by the mover of today's motion while his party was in power. Flawed legislation, Big Brother government, and not listening to the concerns of Canadians led to his party being reduced to third party status in the House of Commons.

If there were gaps or shortcomings in the way CSEC operated, as a right-of-centre Conservative, I would be one of the first to be critical. Under our Conservative government, CSEC respects and is bound by Canadian law, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Privacy Act, and the Criminal Code of Canada.

By law, CSEC can only undertake activities that fall within its mandate. CSEC fully respects these legal parameters and authorities under which it operates under the National Defence Act. CSEC cannot direct its foreign intelligence or cybersecurity activities at Canadians anywhere in the world or at any individual Canadian. CSEC is specifically required to apply measures to protect the privacy of Canadians in the execution of its foreign intelligence and information technology security activities.

CSEC may assist federal law enforcement and security agencies under their legal authorities, such as any applicable court warrant.

The independent CSEC commissioner, an esteemed retired or supernumerary judge, reviews all CSEC activities and has never found CSEC to have acted unlawfully. Among the former commissioners are Supreme Court justices and one chief justice of Canada's highest court. The current commissioner is the Hon. Jean-Pierre Plouffe, appointed on October 18, 2013. While he reports to the Minister of National Defence regarding CSEC's activities, he does not take direction from the minister, the government, or CSEC.

The office of the commissioner is independently funded by its own budgetary appropriation from Parliament. It is the CSEC commissioner who decides independently what activities will be reviewed. The resources of the office of the commissioner are comparable to other similar review bodies.

In order to review the agency's activities, the commissioner is supported by an expert staff. The office has 11 full-time employees and contracts additional subject matter experts as appropriate and when required.

The commissioner and his staff have full access to CSEC employees, records, systems, and data and have the power to subpoena if necessary. The resources of the commissioner are also solely focused on one organization.

Since 1996, the commissioner has regularly reviewed CSEC activities for compliance with the law and protection of privacy and has made helpful recommendations to improve CSEC's programs. In other words, the commissioner has a sharp focus on compliance with the law and the protection of Canadians' privacy.

The commissioner's findings and recommendations for each of the reviews he undertakes during the year are sent to the Minister of National Defence. The classified report is necessary to provide a full account to the minister while at the same time protecting sensitive operational information under the Security of Information Act. The commissioner also submits an annual unclassified report on his activities to Parliament.

In addition, the commissioner is also available to appear before Parliament at any time. He most recently appeared before the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence in December to talk about his role. The commissioner spoke positively about his ability to fully review CSEC activities, his access to systems and staff, and the resources that are allocated to his office to undertake his important duties.

To date, CSEC has implemented all of the commissioner's recommendations related to privacy and is in the process of implementing recommendations from the most recent reviews.

If the commissioner encounters any activity that he believes may not be compliant with the law, he is obliged under our legislation to inform both the Minister of National Defence and the Attorney General, who will perform their own assessments of whether CSEC has broken the law. The commissioner also has a mandate to receive information from CSEC employees if they believe it is in the public interest to release special operational information about CSEC. This provides an avenue for employees to come forward with any concerns they may have without breaching the Security of Information Act. To date, no such complaints have been received.

To reiterate, the commissioner has never found CSEC to have acted unlawfully. In fact, he has specifically noted CSEC's culture of lawful compliance and genuine concern for protecting the privacy of Canadians. Like other departments, CSEC is subject to review by the Auditor General, the Privacy Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, the Commissioner of Official Languages, and the Canadian human rights commissioner. In addition to external review, CSEC's internal audit, evaluation, and ethics directorate also conducts regular reviews, and these reports are reviewed by an external departmental audit committee.

All of these forms of review help to reassure Canadians that CSEC and its staff respect and follow the law and protect the privacy of Canadians in performing the important roles in collecting foreign signals intelligence in addition to protecting the Government of Canada's important computer systems and networks.

CSEC's activities are also guided by legislation that was implemented through amendments to the National Defence Act in 2001. This legislation established CSEC's mandate in statute and included special measures to recognize the unique operating environment of CSEC.

Given the complex and global nature of cyberspace and telecommunications, CSEC's foreign intelligence and cyberprotection activities sometimes risk the incidental interception of the private communications of Canadians. This happens because there is no way to know in advance with whom foreign targets will communicate, including people in Canada.

The National Defence Act recognizes this. Under the law, and solely for the purpose of fulfilling CSEC's mandate to obtain foreign intelligence or protect Canadian networks, CSEC must obtain an authorization from the minister for any activity that may risk the incidental interception of private communications. These authorizations are valid for up to one year and are subject to strict conditions, which include measures to protect the privacy of Canadians.

[Business of Supply, January 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, on the heels of comments by the member across the way—“Giving somebody a lump sum…that’s like hanging a case of beer in front of a drunk…. They get the lump sum, they go and spend it, either trying to buy a house or buying a fast car or spending it on booze or addiction”, or, “A lot of the veterans were in the army. We taught them one skill, to kill or be killed, to survive in order to be able to kill tomorrow, if I can put it bluntly”—it comes as no surprise that today in the House he says that legions are no more than drinking offices.

I take quite an exception to that because a number of our legions do very good work, not only for soldiers who have served in the past but also through other forms of community involvement.

Our serving soldiers do have, through OSISS, access to the members' assistance line 24/7, which is 1-800-268-7708. It is manned with qualified medical personnel. The families as well as reservists and the members themselves can call the family info line at 1-800-866-4546.

So instead of grandstanding with some off-the-cuff line that the member has put together to get publicity for himself, why is he not giving information on the scores of programs available to our people who have served in Canada's armed forces on behalf of Canadians?

[The Environment, January 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, our government supports job creation and economic growth from natural resources development. We focus on what matters to Canadian families. We understand that economic development must be balanced with environmental protection.

Would the Minister of Natural Resources update the House on what our government is doing to hold companies to account in the case of an accident?

[Business of Supply, January 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, what is happening is that if expenses are going toward brick-and-mortar offices that are getting fewer than a dozen visitors a day, we are taking that money and reallocating it to people who can counsel and provide health care for our veterans.

Let us talk about the facts. As far as health care goes, in one year alone we increased funding by $11.4 million. We continue to commit $50 million. There have been no cuts to health care, especially mental health care, for our soldiers and veterans.

The member who came in to make a point of order on an error made another error as well in saying that the first time a soldier goes for help is the first day of the end of that soldier's career. That is absolutely false. Everything that is discussed between a medical professional and a soldier who comes for help remains absolutely confidential. The military chain of command does not have access to it.

Instead of spreading false information and causing harm to the people who need help by discouraging them from seeking it, I wish everyone could work together, including the sponsors of this motion, to ensure that people have the courage and the willingness to go ahead and seek help.

[Business of Supply, January 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member outlining all the different VAC offices that are closing and the distances. Those distances will now be travelled by the assisting Veterans Affairs officers. Much of the service is done by phone or over the Internet, but for those who need one-on-one service, we will now be going to them.

More to the point, when the member's party was in power, the Veterans Affairs committee travelled to Base Petawawa. We had a group of people who were transitioning out due to operational stress injuries. I will always remember the last person who spoke. He came back from Afghanistan. All his buddies had been blown up in a transport carrier. He was the only survivor. He begged for a year for a psychiatrist to meet with him. It was not until that day, a year later, that he received his first psychiatric appointment.

If something like that were to happen today, it is either immediate or within two weeks that a person who requests a psychiatrist would get one. We have gone miles ahead of where the old government could not be bothered to tread.