James Bezan

[Paris Agreement, October 3rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Whitby, she has a lot of people who live in urban settings and probably will not see as big a cost associated with this tax grab, which is going to come out with this $50-a-tonne carbon tax, compared to what rural Canadians are going to face, what northern communities are going to have to deal with, and how it is going to impact agriculture. However, one way they are going to see it, especially those who are living on fixed and low incomes, is in the price of food.

We know that a $50-a-tonne carbon tax will increase the price of fuel by 11.5¢ per litre. That translates into higher production costs, higher transportation costs for getting products to market, and higher costs for growing those products. It will actually disadvantage locally produced foods over imported foods, since trucks coming in from the U.S. will bring it in at a cheaper rate on cheaper U.S. fuel compared to what our truckers are going to pay here in Canada.

Could my colleague from Whitby explain to me how she will explain to her own constituents why they are going to be paying so much for locally grown produce?

[Paris Agreement, October 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the problem that we see with the carbon tax that has been introduced by the Liberal government.

Even though the Liberals are going to pass it off to the provinces and try to isolate themselves from consumers and taxpayers being upset about having to pay more in taxes, we have to remember that a $50-a-tonne tax on carbon will result in about an 11.5¢ increase in the price of gasoline. Does the parliamentary secretary realize that the hardest hit people by the carbon taxes the Liberals have introduced today are going to be rural Canadians?

It is going to be our farmers. It is going to be seniors living on fixed incomes who often have to drive from rural areas to urban centres to get the health care and medical attention they require. It will be these individuals who will be hit the hardest.

Why are the Liberals not considering the impact on rural Canada and how this would increase the production costs of food products right across this country?

[National Defence, October 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, despite the Liberals saying "The north is no place for military confrontation or buildup,” here is what Russia is doing. It is building a new fleet of nuclear-powered submarines and icebreakers. It is performing snap military exercises in the north. It is opening new military bases in the High Arctic, and it has stood up a 6,000 soldier battle group. In no way is Russia a friend to Canada, and just moments ago, the U.S. suspended relations with Russia.

Will the Prime Minister stand up and put our Arctic sovereignty ahead of becoming BFFs with Putin?

[Foreign Affairs, October 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, despite confirmation that the Russians downed Malaysia Airlines MH17, the Liberals are still pursuing their asinine policy of normalizing relations with Russia, even though Russia invaded and illegally annexed Crimea and is waging a war in eastern Ukraine, and even though Russia is bombing and killing hundreds of civilians in Syria while it props up the brutal Assad regime.

When will the foreign minister get his head out of the clouds and realize that any step to rationalize our relations with Russia is a threat to international security and Canadian sovereignty?

[Holocaust Remembrance, October 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, last week marked the 75th commemoration of the Babi Yar massacre, which occurred just outside of Kiev during the Holocaust.

In 1941, on September 29 and 30, there were 33,771 Jewish Ukrainians slaughtered by Nazi forces. Men, women, and children were ordered to strip before they were marched into the Babi Yar ravine and gunned down in the mass grave. Last week, Ukraine embarked on a series of memorial events, including musical performances, lectures, speeches, and an official state ceremony to commemorate the 1941 massacre.

Let this dark chapter in history reaffirm our commitment to never again allow such atrocities to occur. Let us pledge to denounce anti-Semitism and xenophobia.

Last night was the beginning of the Jewish New Year, so let us stand up with our Jewish friends and celebrate Rosh Hashanah. May this new year be sweet, healthy, and happy. L'shanah Tovah. Happy Rosh Hashanah.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 27th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton makes a great point. Why would we call it the “national security and intelligence committee” when any minister could determine that a review would be injurious to national security and that we could not therefore look at it? The hypocrisy in this legislation is beyond the pale.

The seven exemptions that would go beyond that include the committee's not being entitled to information that has confidence of the Queen's Privy Council, because no one on the committee would be sworn in as a member of the Privy Council. The committee members are just going to take an oath under the Security of Information Act. They would not be able to get information respecting ongoing defence intelligence gathering for national security. The list goes on. There are seven exemptions in total, and the Prime Minister or ministers could always hide under the veil of national security, and the members would not be entitled to see those matters even though they were the national security and intelligence committee.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 27th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore knows full well that the committee proposed in Bill C-22 would not provide parliamentary oversight. All it would be is an all-party caucus. It would not have the tools to provide true oversight and report back to us here in Parliament. We want to have parliamentary oversight and want it to work in a responsible manner. Those are some of the apprehensions that we had as a government. I can see, based on this bill, that those apprehensions continue with the PMO today, because it would control the committee.

If those apprehensions exist, the Liberals should not have promised in the last election campaign that they would provide parliamentary oversight, because they are not doing that. What they would do is provide more vetting and control by the PMO over anything this committee would do and over a number of parliamentarians who, in this process, would give up the immunity and privilege guaranteed to them by the House if it were done as a parliamentary committee.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 27th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I would just say this is not a parliamentary committee, and maybe they should call it an all-party committee for the Prime Minister on national security intelligence issues. That would probably be the best way. They will definitely go through the process of making it look like it is a parliamentary committee, but we know for a fact that Parliament would not approve this committee, that Parliament would have no say in what the committee does, and that Parliament would not see the reports coming from the committee until after they have been vetted and rewritten by the Prime Minister's Office.

Until that point in time when the government realizes the folly of Bill C-22, we unfortunately will not have a committee that provides the oversight that Canadians want and were led to believe in the last federal election they would have.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 27th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, in the last election I always enjoyed how everyone referred to the big, bad PMO under Stephen Harper and said that Conservative members were all told what to do. In the last Parliament, I was the most independent voting member of Parliament. I did not see the Liberals or the NDP vote as often against their own party line as I or some of my other colleagues did, who were second and third. Therefore, that was not a fair analysis.

However, there is a lack of trust from our side with respect to Bill C-22, because it does not address the promise made by the Liberals, or what those of us who respect Parliament would like to see it do, which is to create a parliamentary committee by statute and the Standing Orders of Parliament that would provide the same type of oversight discussed in the legislation but not under the control of the Prime Minister. Unfortunately, with this bill, first and foremost, all of the control, vetting, and reports have to go through the Prime Minister's Office. That is not democracy.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 27th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I can see why the member opposite is confused. That is because she thinks the Liberals will be bringing in parliamentary oversight, and they are not. That is what we are opposed to in this bill. This bill must empower us as parliamentarians. It does not do that; it empowers the PMO.

If we look at the previous 10 years, Peter MacKay supported more parliamentary oversight of national security agencies. There are a number of us here who believe that we need to have more parliamentary oversight. Unfortunately, we did not see co-operation from all the other parties on how to do that in a responsible manner. Therefore, it was laid to rest. However, we now have an opportunity to do it right, but Bill C-22 is getting it wrong. All we are doing is putting more power in the hands of the Prime Minister, Gerald Butts, and Katie Telford.