That is the obvious one.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 80% of the vote.
Nuclear Fuel Waste Act November 29th, 2001
That is the obvious one.
Petitions November 28th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to present a petition on behalf of dozens of teachers and those who support them. The petition calls for a national Canada teachers day to be held on the first Tuesday during Education Week in May.
The day would honour and thank teachers and would recognize the invaluable contribution they make to the lives of our children. It would show our appreciation and respect for those in the teaching profession.
Anti-terrorism Act November 27th, 2001
Madam Speaker, I commend the hon. government member who just spoke on the bill. I give him a lot of credit for his courage in standing up and taking a position against his government. This is one of those bills that is important enough for him to do that. I am surprised and shocked that there are not more on that side who would do the same because many of them have serious concerns about Bill C-36.
Many members wanted amendments made to the bill. We are at report stage with the government invoking time allocation which would allow the House only about 16 hours to deal with the amendments. That is not enough time. In question period the Prime Minister bragged that he had allowed 60 hours in committee for a bill with such a potentially negative impact.
Many say that it is a matter of balancing civil liberties with the security of the nation. The Canadian Alliance is the party that pointed out problems in our system. We have been asking for stronger security to protect the country and its citizens. We support many things in the bill because it would move us in some way toward providing better security, although we do not think it would go nearly far enough in terms of protecting our security in many areas.
There are those who say that it is a matter of either allowing people their civil liberties or providing security. I suggest they are not really looking at the whole issue in a very comprehensive way. There are many instances in the legislation where it is not an issue of curtailing civil liberties when it would improve security. There are many ways in which parliamentary oversight could be put in place. This oversight would protect civil liberties but not at the expense of security.
I would like to talk about the CSE, the Communications Security Establishment, which is overseen by the Department of National Defence. It is one of Canada's intelligence services and employs about 1,000 people, mainly civilians. These individuals listen in to various types of electronic communications from around the world. It was aimed at communications outside the country until this legislation came forward.
It has not monitored residents of Canada as far as we know, at least not to any great extent as required by law, although the oversight is inadequate for us to be sure of that. It does not provide for the current oversight and the kind of protection we would expect when it comes to an intelligence establishment that could have a huge impact on the life of individuals.
In spite of what has been said the new legislation would give the CSE the power to monitor a Canadian citizen. For example, the monitoring could start outside the country and continue if the citizen moved to Canada. It could monitor a conversation between two Canadian citizens inside Canada if the monitoring started outside the country and these citizens moved to Canadian soil. The oversight has not been improved if one considers the greater ability being given to this establishment that would impact on the lives of Canadians.
I suggested at committee that SIRC, the body which oversees our intelligence establishment CSIS, oversee the CSE as well. It would make perfect sense. There are a lot of situations where the CSE deals with CSIS because the two agencies work together. One monitors communications outside Canada. The other focuses mostly within Canada although it sometimes goes outside the country. It would make perfect sense for SIRC to oversee the CSE.
What kind of oversight is provided for in the legislation? The oversight would be directly from the minister. We all know we need more oversight than that. I will not speak about this minister but any minister could in some way be compromised and not looking out for the best interests of Canada. We have seen it happen in many cases throughout history. We must be able to look at a situation and feel confident no matter who is the minister.
The minister through cabinet and an order in council appointment appoints a commissioner to oversee the CSE. We have the minister and we have an appointment recommended by the minister. That is the extent of oversight.
In committee the minister and others have said the privacy commissioner and information commissioner would provide oversight. In some cases that is true but in many cases, particularly when tied in with other provisions of the legislation, the two offices would not be able to provide oversight. They would be specifically restricted from doing so in certain circumstances.
This is an extremely serious situation. The application of time allocation limits the ability of parliament to oversee this extremely important piece of legislation. It is a wrong minded act. The government should reconsider. Bill C-36 is too important for that type of action to be taken.
I have heard only one Liberal member speak out against time allocation and having the bill rammed through in so little time, however I have not been here all day. I was at committee before coming here so there may have been others I missed. If there were others I congratulate them.
Time allocation absolutely should not have been invoked on a piece of legislation this important which has had so little time spent on it. The Prime Minister bragged that the bill had 60 hours at committee. That is not much when we consider the complexity of the legislation and the various acts it must be tied in with. It is extremely complex and 60 hours is nowhere near enough. The bill had 16 hours at report stage in the House. Time allocation has either been invoked or will be invoked at third reading. I can be confident of that.
This is not the amount of time an important piece of legislation like this should be given. In spite of the fact that we pushed the government to bring the legislation forth and it was tardy in doing so, it is the type of legislation we must give a proper hearing to. That is important.
I have referred to only one example in the legislation. I do not want to get into it in any more depth as I only have about a minute left. If the government will not listen to the opposition I ask that it listen to its own MPs. It should reconsider the issue of time allocation and give us a proper chance to put forth amendments starting with one that would ensure proper oversight through the application of a currently existing body, SIRC, to the other intelligence body, the CSE. That would make perfect sense.
I encourage the government to bring forth the amendment. I do not need to bring it forward. I would be happy to see it come from the government. I would support it. It is what I want. The legislation is far too important to be partisan as the government has made it by invoking time allocation.
Terrorism November 22nd, 2001
What is appalling, Mr. Speaker, is that the government would in any way question the commitment of this party to our military.
The government simply does not have enough planes to get our men and our equipment over to Afghanistan. That is a fact. How will he do it? Will he perhaps commandeer another ship like the Katie ?
Terrorism November 22nd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I think it is safe to say that we are all very proud of our soldiers who we may be sending to Afghanistan.
What we would like to know is how we are going to get them there and how we are going to get their equipment there. Yesterday the minister said that we did not need the Hercules aircraft to get them and their equipment there. He said that we could use the airbus instead.
Could the minister explain to us, if he possibly could, how we are going to get our military jeeps on an airbus?
Terrorism November 20th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the troops are always ready and willing to go. That is the way they are.
The government has been caught flatfooted. It is totally unprepared for this. Since it has been in power, it has allowed the military to become a shadow of its once proud self. It will take a real commitment to our military to get it back on track. Our men and women serving in the forces deserve better than what this government has given to them.
When will the Prime Minister begin the process to develop a new white paper so that our troops will get better?
Terrorism November 20th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, what is really scary is that when it comes to Afghanistan and the war against terrorism, the government cannot even commit 1,000 troops who have trained together. It cannot sustain operations. It cannot even get our troops there because 11 of the 32 Hercules aircraft are not ready to go. The government is obviously not ready for this conflict.
Will the Prime Minister commit today to a new white paper so that he will have the military ready for the next conflict?
National Defence November 8th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, this so-called good piece of work did not mention any specific requirements for the government to meet the recommendations. There was no specific funding amount asked for.
Several ministers have paid lip service to the idea that security is the top priority of the government. The military is our largest security force.
Will the Minister of Finance put the money where his mouth is and commit funds in his budget to demonstrate that security is the top priority? Will he commit at least $2 billion per year?
National Defence November 8th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal chair of the defence committee complained in the committee's report, when referring to the actions of his government on the military. He said “Canada has shown a certain ambivalence when it comes to our commitments. We can't have it both ways”.
Will the Minister of Finance end his ambivalence today and make a specific commitment to fund the rebuilding of our military?
Veterans Week November 6th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, this week is Veterans Week which leads up to Remembrance Day, a time for us to focus on honouring all of those who served Canada in war so that we may have peace.
Canadians have always been quick to answer the call to defend freedom and democracy. The cost has been thousands of lives lost and even more injured or mentally scarred for life.
We owe it to them to remember every day that we are living and working in a peaceful, democratic society because our men and women were and still are willing to risk their lives and their futures to make it so.
This is a remarkable country. We are so fortunate to be Canadian. We owe all of this to our military and those who have served to defend it. This year I would ask everyone who knows a veteran or a Canadian forces member to make sure to thank them for our freedom. Their sacrifices are not something to be taken for granted. Lest we forget.