House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2015, with 38% of the vote.
National Defence March 8th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, one of the great moments in Canadian history was when the Prime Minister said that the F-35 was the only fighter jet to meet the needs of the air force.
Can the Conservatives confirm that they believe the best plane for our troops does not have to fly through clouds or when the temperature is -15o?
Citizenship and Immigration March 7th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, the immigration minister's fine words are nothing but a smokescreen.
Instead of increasing the number of refugees being settled, as it promised, the government admitted 25% fewer refugees than the previous year. The year 2012 now has the dubious distinction of having the second-lowest number of refugees in the past 30 years.
Why has the minister broken his promise to welcome more refugees to Canada?
Foreign Affairs February 26th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have decided to further diminish Canada's influence in the world. The estimates show that there will be hundreds of millions of dollars in cutbacks at CIDA and Foreign Affairs. The Conservatives will be terminating a peace and security program that operates in such places as Colombia, Haiti and the Congo.
Why are the Conservatives bent on getting rid of our tools for conflict prevention and peacekeeping, one of our best global investments?
Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act February 25th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I think there are two problems. The first one is probably the most basic. We are in Parliament here. My understanding is that Parliament is a place for talking, for dialogue, for exchanging views in order to find good solutions, solutions that are fair, equitable and effective.
Unfortunately, in my short career as a member of Parliament, I have found that we are now dealing with a government that is not very interested in dialogue, that is not very interested in in-depth discussions on the issues that we are supposed to be debating. This can be seen in Parliament, it can be seen elsewhere in the country, and it can be seen worldwide. It is as though the government has no concept of what dialogue is all about and is completely unaware of how to work with others.
There is of course another matter that may raise a number of concerns. I have received many comments from my constituents regarding respect for the various institutions that are part of Canada’s democracy, including respect for the Constitution, respect for the courts and respect for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We must understand that these kinds of things are so much more essential than short-term political gains.
Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act February 25th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed any “other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace”. As long as there is no clear definition, there is the potential for a violation of the basic rights of Canadians. We need to be very rigorous and very precise about this. We must have a clear definition of this term and all the others.
Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act February 25th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House today to speak about Bill C-55, Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act.
We have known for quite some time now that certain provisions in the Criminal Code needed to be amended. In fact, the Supreme Court decision in R. v. Tse was handed down more than 10 months ago, nearly a year ago, in fact. The decision was very clear: the provisions of Criminal Code section 184.4 had to be amended. We know this; we have spoken a great deal today about the provisions that allow for private communications to be intercepted without prior authorization.
I would like to clarify something at the outset. We in the NDP have no problem with the fact that, sometimes, in order to save lives, in matters of public safety and so on, private communications must be intercepted before prior authorization can be obtained. However, when this is done, and because it is really on the borderline, there must be safeguards in place.
In R. v. Tse, the Supreme Court stated that the existing safeguards are not sufficient to ensure that there is no abuse or undue interference in a person's private matters or that the basic principle of the right to privacy is always respected. As one of my colleagues said, when we see what has been happening recently in surveillance organizations such as CSIS, where there have been serious issues and questionable appointments, it is even more important to have a rigid, clear legislative framework.
In short, the court asked Parliament, the government, to fix the problem, which absolutely had to be done. But what did the government do? It came up with Bill C-30, a terrible bill that was poorly designed and included all sorts of things but did not provide more safeguards. Instead, it increased the power to intercept private communication.
We on this side of the House opposed Bill C-30, and we were not the only ones. Many Canadians across the country strongly opposed it. My office received hundreds of emails and letters from people who were opposed to Bill C-30.
When we opposed it, we were called every name in the book. We were told that we were siding with pedophiles, and so on. Those responsible for the file treated us with their usual haughtiness and arrogance, but as it happens all too often with this government, its arrogance backfired. As the expression goes, when one spits into the wind, it blows back into one's face. That is more or less what happened with Bill C-30.
We graciously admit that Bill C-55 is a little better. That said, we have a small problem with the fact that the Conservatives want it passed so quickly. The Supreme Court ruling on R. v. Tse was handed down on April 13, 2012, and at that time, the court gave us one year to correct the situation.
Almost one year has passed, and the government is finally introducing a bill that is moving in the right direction to correct this situation. That leaves only 19 sitting days to debate this bill at second reading, send it to committee, have it return to the House for third reading and carry out the rest of the process. That is a very short timeframe, and it is truly typical of this government, which is always so short-sighted. I work on international files a lot and I am always fascinated at the lack of foresight of this government. You would think that a year would be long enough for the government to have seen this coming. Are the Conservatives so shortsighted that even a year is too long to plan? That is rather frustrating.
Maybe the government is hoping that the bill will pass easily. In case we were not clear before, we will be clear now. We believe that this bill is necessary, that we must ensure security, but we must also ensure that privacy is protected. We do not have a problem with that.
The problem arises when it comes to doing things right. Many people have concerns about the bill as it stands. Let us look at several examples. The bill talks about peace officers that can intercept communications. However, the term “peace officer” is not defined. Could a private security guard be a peace officer?
The bill deals with the issue of the time required before a person must be notified that his or her communications have been intercepted. Should this be 30 days or 90 days? Can this be extended for up to three years, as it is proposed in certain cases? Where is the happy medium?
There is another even more fundamental problem. What have we done to ensure that the legislation really responds to the Supreme Court case? What evaluation mechanism have we put in place to ensure that, in six months or one or two years, we do not find ourselves before the Supreme Court once again? This government seems to think that the executive branch does not have to answer to anyone and that it is above the law. That is not true. The charter and the Constitution are more important than the Conservatives' or any other party's political agenda.
The committee will have to take a close look at these concerns. Canadians have every reason to be apprehensive about a Conservative privacy bill. The Conservatives have a dismal track record in this area. Regardless, it is never a good idea to speed through bills. It is important to act, but we must do things properly. We have only 19 sitting days left to get this job done. We will roll up our sleeves and work hard.
The government's rush to get this passed unfortunately shows its lack of professionalism and lack of respect for Parliament, which in itself shows a lack of respect for Canadians, who have every right to expect Parliament to work diligently on such important issues.
Foreign Affairs February 14th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I would not have to speak so loudly if the other side were not so noisy.
Thankfully, the American authorities have backtracked because this measure may be in violation of the Geneva Convention on Road Traffic.
Why did the Conservative government not warn travellers when the measure was put in place?
Foreign Affairs February 14th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, today we learned, thanks to the media yet again, that it has been illegal to drive in Florida with a driver's licence from Quebec or any other province since January 1 of this year.
Petitions February 13th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise today to table a petition in support of Bill C-400.
The petitioners point out that Canada is the only industrialized nation without a national housing strategy. Perhaps that is why 1.5 million households, many of which are in my riding, Laurier-Sainte-Marie, are in core housing need.
I find this issue extremely important. The petitioners ask that we support Bill C-400.
International Cooperation February 12th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, this group's views are inappropriate, offensive and contrary to Canadian foreign policy goals. In fact, it would seem that under the government, CIDA does not just consider effectiveness when it funds groups. It funds groups like Crossroads, but at the same time, it cuts off experienced groups that happen to be critical of its policies.
Does the minister truly believe that it is acceptable to fund groups with homophobic policies and give them credibility?