Dianne Lynn Watts

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 28th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-22, the national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians act.

The bill was first introduced in the House of Commons on June 16. It looks to establish a national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians.

We know that the committee's mandate, as laid out in the legislation, is to review the legislative, regulatory, policy, administrative, and financial framework for national security and intelligence; any activity carried out by a department that relates to national security or intelligence; or any matter relating to national security or intelligence that a minister refers to the committee.

I believe that the overall principle of the bill is relevant and necessary, given what we are dealing with in today's reality. However, there is a significant amount of responsibility and understanding, and it requires knowledge and critical thinking on a number of fronts. This is why I find pieces of the legislation somewhat troubling, especially when the act does not require the members of the committee to have any experience in dealing with security or intelligence-related matters and information.

I will frame this up in order to put some context around the issue.

From a personal perspective, and as a former mayor whose city bordered on the United States and is the second-largest border crossing in the country, next to Windsor, Ontario, I have presented before the U.S. Homeland Security on a number of issues. I have presented and also had the largest RCMP detachment in Canada, and I have dealt with significant financial, legislative, and security issues, from the proliferation of gang activity, cross-border drug and firearms issues, and murder investigations to the importation of drugs from China, Mexico, the Middle East, and the list goes on.

I cannot stress this point enough. The people serving on this committee must have some understanding and experience of sensitive, confidential, and secure information as it relates to national security and intelligence.

The bill is about the security of our country and the committee and its processes must be transparent. Regardless of political stripe, we all bring something unique to this discussion and this debate.

The chair should not be appointed. Rather, the chair should be elected. I want to take a moment here, because at this point one of the government member's stated that the critic said, in a letter, that the chair should be appointed. However, I will reiterate point seven of the letter, which is that the committee should elect its own chair from among its members. This is the practice with the U.K. committee and other allied countries. The election of the committee chair was also a commitment made by the Prime Minister. This was a direct notation from the critic to the Minister of Public Safety.

There is no doubt that this is an issue. It is unfortunate that the chair of the committee was already selected and appointed by the Prime Minister before the mandate of the committee was even established. It undermines the integrity of the committee even before it begins its work.

We need to look at the U.K. model, which was reformed in 2013 to be a committee of Parliament that reported to Parliament, and the members are appointed by Parliament, except for issues of national security, which are reported to the Prime Minister.

The stark difference with Bill C-22 is that the Prime Minister appoints the chair, the members of the committee are recommended by the Prime Minister, and the committee reports to the Prime Minister.

Also, the bill states that:

If, after consulting the Chair [who is appointed by the Prime Minister], the Prime Minister is of the opinion that information in an annual or special report is information the disclosure of which would be injurious to national security, national defence or international relations or is information that is protected by litigation privilege or solicitor-client privilege or, in civil law, by immunity from disclosure or the professional secrecy of advocates and notaries, the Prime Minister may direct the Committee to submit to the Prime Minister a revised version of the annual or special report that does not contain that information.

While parts of subclause 21(5) of the bill make perfect sense, I believe it is also far-reaching and extremely broad in its context. Virtually, the Prime Minister can have any report from the committee rewritten if he does not like the content. I believe the parameters need to be much more prescriptive and narrower in scope.

Openness and transparency is what we all want. We all want to achieve this while still maintaining the integrity and confidentiality of sensitive or classified information. The current bill as it stands would not instill confidence in the process or the general public when the Prime Minister and the chair of the committee, whom he appointments, can revise and change the committee's report at will. Censorship of the committee just simply will not work.

As I stated earlier, I believe a national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians needs to be struck. However, we need to get it right, because we are talking about the security of this country and its people.

Therefore, I put forward three points. First, the chair of the committee should be elected. Second, the committee should have full powers to summon any witnesses and require them to give or produce evidence that the committee deems necessary to meet its mandate. Third, the committee should submit an annual report to Parliament, but the committee, in consultation with the Prime Minister and their national security adviser, exclude from the report any information that may, if released publicly, jeopardize national security.

I believe that these three points would add a level of transparency, as the committee would be arm's length from the Prime Minister's Office, and instill a level of confidence within the general public.

I believe all members support the concept and the principles and really want to ensure that we get this done right. We want to make sure that the safety and security of our intelligence personnel is intact, and we do not want the polarization or politicization of the oversight of our national security operations.

Therefore, Bill C-22 in its current state, I will not be able to support.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 28th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, from his preamble onward, the member talked about Bill C-51 and what a flawed bill it was.

Does the member realize that his Liberal government supported Bill C-51?

[CANADA LABOUR CODE, September 26th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, as the mayor of a large city, we dealt with many unions. We dealt with the firefighters union and CUPE. We also dealt with private sector unions.

The fact is that we all need to work together. We all need to have a healthy work environment that supports and empowers us. To have anything else is unacceptable. We need to work toward that end. When we deal with all types of unions, union leaders and executives, we find that common ground.

[CANADA LABOUR CODE, September 26th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, this comes back to an individual's right. We have secret ballots for electing representatives. We have secret ballots for electing union leaders. We have secret ballots on a number of fronts. They protect and give confidence to people who vote, regardless of whether joining a union or not, or electing a union leader, or casting a ballot for the individuals they want representing them.

All of us have the fundamental right to a secret ballot so we can keep information to ourselves for whatever reason. Democracy is all about that. This is the most undemocratic piece of legislation I can think of.

[CANADA LABOUR CODE, September 26th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, that is not exactly what I said, and I will clarify it for the member. I was speaking about the town hall in my riding and what that consisted of. I also said that town halls were a way of gathering information, but that they were not the entire way of gathering information.

Let us be clear. There is value in gathering information on many fronts, but when we fundamentally change the way people elect their representatives, we must have a referendum so all people can have a voice.

[CANADA LABOUR CODE, September 26th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

Madam Speaker, I rise in this House today to speak to Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act.

The bill would reverse a number of pieces of legislation that made it easier for union members to have a fair say within their unions via a secret ballot. It also ensured that union leaders were accountable to their membership and taxpayers by having their financial statements disclosed, as they operate tax free. This is no different from political members of Parliament, MLAs, crown corporations, charities, and native reserves, which I now understand has been reversed as well.

I have heard much throughout this debate, from all parties. I heard some of the most disturbing comments last week from members, and again from one of the members today, calling this original legislation “backdoor”, “anti-union”, “an attack on labour unions”, “union busting”, and that we, as Conservatives, hate unions.

I not only find those comments absurd; I find them frankly offensive. Many of our members have worked with unions and many have belonged to unions. There are seven out of 10 provinces that have financial disclosure requirements. Union members, past and present, along with the general public, supported disclosure, by over 80% in polling data when the bills were first introduced in 2013. When did accountability and transparency become so abhorrent to the government?

I have personally worked with numerous union leaders, union executives, and union organizations over many years. We did not always agree on every topic, but we still worked together. We still resolved issues. We still respected each other's opinions. More important, we respected each other's differences. In past elections, I have been publicly endorsed by unions, and even in this past federal election, as a Conservative, I was endorsed by a union.

The reason I say this is to allow some balanced perspective to enter into this debate. Bill C-377, passed by the previous government, added an additional tool of confidence and transparency for workers, requiring unions to disclose the way that they spent their money. It did not regulate how unions could spend their money, nor did it regulate any other activity. It simply helped to give Canadians a more open and transparent picture.

Bill C-525, also passed by the former government, helped strengthen the rights of union members. It gave them the power to vote by secret ballot.

However, this bill, Bill C-4, would take those rights away from union workers. It begs the question of why a government, which insists that it is all about openness and transparency, is so insistent on taking away workers' rights.

I have witnessed the certification of manufacturing plants. I can assure members that this is not an easy nor a smooth process. I have personally witnessed the intimidation by both union workers and management personnel. A secret ballot lets an individual's true opinion be heard without fear of repercussions. By not allowing a secret ballot, we are putting workers, on both sides of the issue, in a very awkward and intimidating situation.

Let us never forget that all parties must work together to create a healthy and productive working environment. Jobs need to be created; they need to be sustained. Opportunities need to be provided for workers, and industry sectors need to grow. It is a symbiotic relationship, one that cannot survive without the other.

Canadians across this country have the democratic right to vote for their elected representatives by secret ballot. Abolishing the secret ballot is one of the most undemocratic actions that a government can take, and this is exactly what would happen with this legislation. A government cannot and should not pick and choose who gets the right to a democratic process. However, the current government is continuing down this path.

Not only are we seeing the lack of democratic process through Bill C-4, but we are seeing this play out in communities across this country with the so-called consultation on electoral reform. There is an overwhelming desire by the general public to have a referendum. We have seen it over and over again, in dozens of polls, in letters, newspaper articles, and in petitions across this country. People want a say in the way that they elect their political representatives. To have a few people gathered at town halls is not representative of the people's voice. It is one element to gather information. However, we cannot base our decisions solely on a few people showing up at a town hall.

By note, there were about 70 people in my riding who came to a town hall: the EDAs, the last candidate of record for the Liberals, some of their friends, and a very small number of people who were non-partisan. That does not represent the majority. However, I did send out a questionnaire to every household in my riding to ask about electoral reform, as well as having an online questionnaire. Overwhelmingly, the people want a referendum. They want a say in how they elect their representatives. They do not want politicians deciding for them.

Another funny little anecdote is that the issue of electoral reform was at the bottom of their concerns. People are concerned about health care, jobs, rising taxes, and a litany of other things. It certainly is not electoral reform.

This tells us many things, and it gives us an indication of what the current government thinks of openness, transparency, and accountability. People want a referendum on electoral reform and for workers to have a right to a secret ballot. Whether they use it is up to them, but they should have that right. Conservatives value transparency, accountability, and democracy, which is why we introduced those pieces of legislation in the first place. Bill C-4 is the complete opposite of transparency, accountability, and democracy. Therefore, I cannot support Bill C-4.

[CANADA LABOUR CODE, September 26th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the member referred to a private member's bill as a backdoor move. I know his Liberal colleague just tabled a private member's bill that speaks to funding priorities for infrastructure. I am wondering why that should not be brought forward in the context of the overall climate change plan. Would he agree that this private member's bill too is a backdoor move?

[Infrastructure, September 23rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, again, the minister can talk about all of the planned projects, but what Canadians really care about is how many jobs have been created in their communities.

On the government's website, Canadians can clearly see that only six projects began construction this summer, six. These six projects are only worth $8.5 million. Does the minister really think this is good enough when thousands of Canadians are out of work?

[Infrastructure, September 23rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, let me get to the end before members start clapping.

The minister and the Prime Minister have been announcing and reannouncing infrastructure projects across Canada for the past year. There are thousands of Canadians who want and need jobs.

Will the minister please tell Canadians exactly how many Liberal infrastructure projects have actual shovels in the ground and are under construction?

[Infrastructure, September 23rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the minister and the Prime Minister have been announcing and reannouncing infrastructure projects across Canada for almost the past year now.

There are thousands of Canadians—