Karen Vecchio

[Ethics, October 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, the President of the Treasury Board claimed that he had never been lobbied by the McCain family. We now know that this is not true. In fact, the minister met with Michael McCain in March, and the meeting was registered with the Commissioner of Lobbying. Why did the Liberal minister mislead Canadians?

[Fall Fairs, October 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, across our beautiful country, the leaves are changing to bright colours, the fields are being harvested, and the pumpkins are ready for carving. It can only mean one thing, fair time.

Fall is the time of year when families, young and old, attend their local fairs for baking contests, carnival rides, quilt-making, livestock presentations, agricultural displays, and my favourite, deep-fried Mars bars. Most importantly, it is about family. Volunteers across Canada spend their entire year planning the next event so families can experience the smells, sounds, and flavours that each one of these fairs offers.

Throughout Elgin—Middlesex—London, many of these local fairs are even older than Canada. This weekend in Dorchester, I will be wrapping up my fall fair tour. I have enjoyed the fairs in many of our communities, including Shedden, Rodney, Wallacetown, Thorndale, and Aylmer.

I ask everyone to take the time to let their families experience what fall fairs are all about. It will be a memory they will cherish forever. Finally, happy Thanksgiving.

[Ethics, October 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, his spouse is the chair of the board. The family personally contributed $50,000 to his leadership campaign. The family flew him to Mexico, Berlin, Davos, and Dublin.

Canadians are not buying that this family has no influence over the minister. How can the minister stand here with a straight face and claim that this is not a major conflict of interest?

[Ethics, October 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it looks like the President of the Treasury Board has decided all on his own that he is above the rules.

He used to be the chair of SeaFort Capital, a major company in Atlantic Canada that is backed by powerful families in the region. When he joined cabinet, his husband replaced him on the board.

Canadians will not believe that these families and this corporation have no influence on this minister.

What is stopping the President of the Treasury Board from doing the right thing and putting up a screen to end this obvious conflict?

[International Day of the Girl, October 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize International Day of the Girl, which will be coming up on October 11. This year's theme is “Girls’ Progress = Goals Progress” and will focus on a call to join global efforts to end discrimination against girls.

As a member of the status of women committee and as the critic for families, children, and social development, I recognize the struggles that girls face in Canada and all over the world. The strength and determination of girls to break through boundaries and to succeed, even when the odds are stacked against them, is an inspiration to us all.

As a mother of two girls of my own, I have seen first hand the potential that every girl has and the need to support them through equal opportunities and empowerment.

In 2011, the current Leader of the Opposition led the international campaign to create the International Day of the Girl, and as Conservatives we hope to continue her amazing work on this file. Join me in celebrating the International Day of the Girl.

[Government Expenditures, October 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, there is a jobs crisis in Canada, and the Liberals have failed to deliver. This is ironic given the $200,000 that the Liberals are spending to find a so-called foreign deliverology guru. The last time he delivered for the Liberals, he helped McGuinty and Wynne drive the Ontario economy into the ground.

Why did the Liberals okay $200,000 for the deliverology wizard when they know how to wreck the economy all on their own?

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 30th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, when doing research on this committee, all of us probably looked to see what they do in other Houses, such as in New Zealand, Australia, and Great Britain. As the member stated, it is not the same sort of parliamentary committee as in those other Houses. We have a hand-picked committee, whereas for the others, it is a committee similar to a standing committee of the House. Its members have the rights of committee members and the resources. The problem is that we cannot compare apples to oranges.

The government has indicated that it is the same idea and that it is using those references. Unfortunately, it is going down a totally different route than what it has seen.

We have heard many times that the Conservatives are against the selection of the chair. It is not just the Conservatives who are against it. We actually see groups in the community that usually do not support the Conservative movement now saying that this is not a good piece of legislation.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 30th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would really like to thank the member for Perth—Wellington for asking that question, because that is something Canadians need to know. This is not the way parliamentary committees work. Parliamentary committees are able to vote for their chair and that is important. We need proper leadership.

What we saw here was the Prime Minister hand-pick that person and give him a $42,000 or $43,000 bonus just to sit as the chair. That is of great concern to me. Maybe the Prime Minister vetted him, but I do not see that. It is outside the normal protocol for selecting committee chairs. Does the member have the experience in security, policing, and intelligence? Does the member who is going to chair the committee have all the proper resources? As my colleague said, the number one thing is that the member who will chair the committee was personally selected by the Prime Minister. That is unparliamentary.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 30th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate that question, because truly the security of all Canadians and protecting Canadians is paramount here.

I respect what the member is saying, but we also see that it is in the hands of one individual. I am recommending that this committee, when sworn to the Privy Council, would have the right so that the information remains with them. The committee needs to be able to make a proper decision, and the only way to do so is by having accurate information and the necessary resources. If it is supposed to be properly able to do its job, whether it is going to be something from the public or something from ministers, it needs all the resources. It does not need things that are picked and chosen by the minister and his cabinet.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 30th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand here today in the House to discuss Bill C-22, the national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians act.

I stand here after reading hours of previous debate from this parliament as well as previous parliaments, media reviews of this bill as well as the bill itself. The bill is extremely misleading and should have a disclaimer that states, "Read the small print.” The bill truly deceives Canadians. The government has deceived Canadians by introducing a bill that would not provide true parliamentary oversight, but is a facade that it is doing something.

Just a year ago many members of the House sat through electoral debates. It was during this time that the current Prime Minister campaigned on real change and less power of the PMO. Yet, in this bill, the Prime Minister would have even greater power than we can even imagine when it comes to the actual inner workings of the proposed committee.

Let us start by pointing out that the Prime Minister would personally choose the chair of the committee, and he chose that member and provided a handsome bonus for this position. Let us point out that the makeup of the committee would not be like one of the standing committees in the House of Commons. These committee members would be approved by the Prime Minister. This committee would only be able to receive information approved by the Prime Minister and his cabinet. This committee would report directly to the Prime Minister, and the report that would be tabled in Parliament would be vetted by the Prime Minister. Let us not forget the Prime Minister would have the right to edit this report. I truly think I see a theme in these things that I am stating.

On another note, this committee would be made up of parliamentarians who would not require any experience in security, policing, or defence. Am I wrong for thinking that a hand-chosen committee with political imbalance is right for Canada?

I would like to point out that the information that would be reviewed by the parliamentarian committee would already have been cleansed by the cabinet and the Prime Minister. Information that would be reviewed by the committee would have been approved yet restricted. I will share a section of a speech given by the hon. member for Durham, citing former speaker, Peter Milliken:

The insinuation that members of Parliament cannot be trusted with the very information that they may well require to act on behalf of Canadians runs contrary to the inherent trust that Canadians have placed in their elected officials and which members require to act in their various parliamentary capacities.

This legislation would do exactly opposite of the statement by the former and reputable Speaker.

We all understand that there would be sensitive information presented to this committee. However, the fact that the committee would not be seen to have this privilege is very disturbing. My thoughts on this committee can be compared to a family dinner. The committee is not old enough and not wise enough to sit at the grown-ups' table. As well, how could there be true oversight if the information received were already edited? It is sort of like reading a letter that has black marker all over it, except in this case it would be done all by the Prime Minister's Office.

I am unsure if the members of the committee would even know there was edited information that they would be receiving, so that when it came to them it would already have been edited so therefore they would not have all points of view and they would not have the opportunity to look at all of the information necessary to make the appropriate decisions. I say that because there has been little information provided on this actual committee, just the limitations it would be given.

The government is introducing a committee to be more transparent to Canadians, the Liberals say. However, we know that transparency is truly not the case here. I speak as an average Canadian with the honour of representing the great constituents of Elgin—Middlesex—London, an average Canadian who hopes the government will recognize this flawed bill and make important amendments, such as the amendment requests that were presented to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and completely ignored, amendments that were not only reviewed by the official opposition but were shared with the critic for the NDP for its input as well.

These suggestions include: a set number of members and senators; the ability for the committee to summon any witness required; the election of the chair; the request that all parties should have the right to select members who have the necessary experience and who are familiar with security, intelligence, and defence issues; and as well become a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council and swear an oath of secrecy for the work conducted.

These are just some of the suggestions presented to the minister, and as I just stated, with no response.

Changing gears, I have reviewed numerous suggestions indicating some sort of support for the bill. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association supports the introduction of the bill; however, it notes that there are many considerations that need to be addressed. These include the government's power to halt a committee investigation, the Prime Minister's power to redact the committee's report, as well as the decision that the Prime Minister personally appoint the chair.

A law professor at the University of Ottawa, Craig Forcese, has stated that he has concerns about the government’s ability to veto the committee’s plans, limit its ability to see secret materials, and redact its reports. A University of Ottawa historian stated that this is a “good bill”, but he too adds that the real test will be finding the right members.

Even when people look at the bill who actually support it, they too have questions. We have seen academics, lawyers, and many people react to the bill by saying that it is just not right. It needs to have amendments made to it, and it needs to have suggestions from the opposition parties as well.

The bill is not perfect. Therefore, I urge the Minister of Public Safety to start looking at these suggestions and start listening to the opposition members. My colleagues and I are not saying that third-party oversight is not important, but we see a government setting up a new branch of the PMO, not a committee that is allowed to do its job.

Currently, there are watchdogs in place, including the Security Intelligence Review Committee that reviews CSIS, the CSE commissioner who reviews the Communications Security Establishment, and the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission that reviews the RCMP.

This is a committee that is not and will not have the tools and resources available to be effective. This committee already has limitations set out by the Liberal government. The committee is already hampered by the government's decision on the development of the parliamentarian committee.

I ask my colleagues to review this piece of legislation and proposal for the committee, and ask themselves whether this is what Canadians are really looking for. Did they ask for a committee that is another branch of the Prime Minister's Office, or did they ask for third-party oversight? Did they ask for hand-picked members, including a hand-picked chair that reports to the Prime Minister directly, or did they want to see a committee that truly has the rights of a committee and can do its work with all resources available to them?

The legislation is very worrisome to me. If the Prime Minister is hand-picking, then can we be sure that he is not also setting the agenda? How can we be sure that the agenda is allowed to be scrutinized by members, ministers, and the Prime Minister himself, or is this committee just fluff?

I am not against watchdogs and whistleblowers. However, the legislation is not that at all. The legislation would not provide the true parliamentary oversight that is necessary. This committee is window dressing, and it does not have the teeth to be able to do anything. This committee reports to one person and one person alone, and that person is the Prime Minister of Canada. It is he who will decide what is actually tabled in the House. National Security is extremely important and the Prime Minister would not allow the committee to do its work.

I urge the Minister of Public Safety to scrutinize the bill and provide something to Parliament that is meaningful. I urge the minister to work with all members, government and opposition, to do what is best for all Canadians. Please work with the recommendations made by former security lawyers, our Armed Forces members, and former RCMP and police officials, who now sit in the House, to make this a better piece of legislation that we can all support.