Peggy Nash

[Child Care, November 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, a report from TD Bank shows that the female labour participation rate is at its lowest since 2002. This decrease could even jeopardize our economic growth. We proposed a plan for affordable day care, which would make it possible for thousands of women to return to the labour market. Why are the Conservatives introducing regressive measures like income splitting?

[Poverty, November 4th, 2014]

We are talking about children, Mr. Speaker. No matter what the minister thinks, causing harm to small children is not a basic Canadian value. The government just does not get it on multiple fronts.

A new report today reveals that food bank use in Canada is shockingly high and almost 40% of food bank users are children. Meanwhile, the government has totally abandoned any attempt to create good jobs that would bring families out of poverty.

Why is the government ignoring the jobs crisis and leaving Canadians stuck at the food bank?

[Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, November 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising those two other bills tangentially, but in my time allotted, I would like to focus on the bill that is before us today.

I would like to say that CSIS, our spy agency, is a body that is very important for the security of Canadians, but it is essential that there be adequate oversight.

Inquiry after inquiry has identified the need for better oversight, but the government, sadly, has moved in the opposite direction. It has taken the eyes and ears away from the minister responsible by cutting the oversight of our spy agency.

That is not the way to provide better safety and security for Canadians. I submit it is a way to keep the minister responsible blind and deaf, and that is not what we need. Canadians need to know that the vast and very important powers of CSIS staff are being monitored so that they are in compliance with the rules that have been set out for them in law.

There is no other body that can fulfill this requirement, and if Canadians truly want to be safe and assured that both their security and their civil liberties are protected, we need effective oversight. It is not happening. The government needs to get that done.

[Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, November 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree that this is penny wise, pound foolish, as my granny used to say. It really makes no sense.

In response, I want to quote from Mr. Kennedy's testimony. He said that the inspector general was “the eyes and ears”. He said that “the minister is personally accountable for those intelligence officers”, who have huge powers that Canadians really do not know anything about because it is in secret. He said, "That was the way the model was, because the the public can't be involved in it”, but that the public has to be assured “that we have a responsible minister and he's on the hook for this, and he's informed and can do the job and deliver it for us.”

It was set up that way. This is a covert intelligence agency, and there were vehicles put in place to allow the minister to control it. That was the inspector general. That position has now gone. Nothing has replaced it. Where is the accountability?

[Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act, November 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Timmins—James Bay.

I am pleased to participate in this debate today on Bill C-44, an act to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and other acts. I understand that it is a bill the government had on the books and was preparing to introduce, and it is doing so now, following the recent events here in the House and another tragedy in the province of Quebec.

In short, it makes three substantive changes to CSIS. It would clarify the legal authority of CSIS to conduct security intelligence operations abroad in response to threats to the security of Canada. It had run into some difficulties in the courts with respect to this, so it now wants clarification and changes because of that.

It also confirms the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to issue warrants that have effect outside Canada. It provides for the protection of the identify of CSIS human intelligence sources in judicial proceedings. It also amends the timeline for changes to the Citizenship Act with respect to the revocation of dual citizenship for dual citizens who are involved in terrorism or other serious offences. That bill was passed this past June.

I want to state that I join with all my colleagues in this House, and in fact all Canadians, in paying tribute to Corporal Nathan Cirillo and Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent. We joined many of our colleagues today at the cenotaph in Ottawa to lay wreaths. The veterans minister was there as well. It was a very moving time. I think Remembrance Day, in a few short days, will be a moving time for our country. My dad and my grandfather fought in the First and Second World Wars. I know how emotional, painful, and deep these experiences are for the entire Canadian psyche.

The violence that took place here in Canada a couple of weeks ago was something that certainly touched the hearts of Canadians and was something we need to take very seriously. I believe we will do that.

I have had a tremendous number of constituents contact my office and encourage us as parliamentarians to react in a measured, considered way and to not overreact to the events that took place, which indeed were terrible and terrifying. I am hopeful that as parliamentarians, we will do that, because we believe that defending both public safety and civil liberties is important. This is not a balancing act, where we shave off a little of one to gain some of the other. We believe, on this side of the House, that we can do both. We can move forward and ensure the safety and security of Canadians while guarding our shared values of freedom, tolerance, and an inclusive democracy. That is why we are all here as parliamentarians. It is because we value that democracy.

We must carefully review our laws in light of the tragic circumstances of the last two weeks and ensure that our laws and security measures are adequate and appropriate for the needs of our country while ensuring, at the same time, that our civil liberties are protected. We have to make sure that this work is done responsibly and with careful study based on the evidence we have at hand. Of course, we do not have all the evidence in yet, because investigations are ongoing.

On this particular legislation, details matter a great deal. We will support the bill going to committee, because we would like a thorough, rigorous, detailed study to take place.

I want to spend a bit of time on the notion of improved civilian oversight of CSIS. We are disappointed that the bill does not include that additional civilian oversight.

I had the great privilege of sitting on the finance committee in 2012, when under yet another budget implementation act, there was a debate about CSIS oversight. Members might well ask why the finance committee would be debating CSIS oversight, and that is a very good question. It was a measure included in the budget implementation act, 2012. The measure specifically included the elimination of the inspector general, a position I am sure most Canadians did not know we had, and if they did know, they were not sure what it did.

We had the terrific privilege of having as a witness at committee one of the key people responsible for setting up that position, Mr. Paul Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy has a long history of over 20 years in the public service. He has advised ministers. For a number of years, he was the senior assistant deputy minister of public safety responsible for national security activities. He spent five years as senior chief counsel to CSIS and four years as chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. He was the senior general counsel of justice and coordinated all the legal advice among intelligence agencies. I am sure members would agree that he was an eminently qualified person to speak about CSIS and advise the committee.

I want to tell the House some of the facts he gave us. We had heard from officials that eliminating the position of inspector general would save $1 million of the public purse and that this was good value for money. We heard that SIRC would be able to take up the slack and take on the monitoring responsibilities.

Mr. Kennedy told the committee that we would save $1 million in a $7-billion public safety department budget but that ultimately, it could cost the government, and therefore Canadians, a great deal more when there were problems. He said there would inevitably be problems. For example, he said that the Arar inquiry, about the illegal arrest, imprisonment, and torture of Mr. Arar, was a $30-million inquiry, $10 million of which the government paid in compensation. It was tremendously expensive, and that $30 million did not include all the hours public servants spent on that inquiry.

There was the ongoing investigation of the Robert Dziekanski case at the Vancouver airport. There have been many other inquiries.

Mr. Kennedy pointed out that if we were talking about a consolidation of the responsibilities of this oversight position and SIRC, then we should have a transfer of staff and files and money to make that happen. None of that happened. In spite of many inquiries recommending greater oversight and more resources, that simply has not happened.

This is the direct responsibility of the Minister of Public Safety. The buck stops with the minister. Without the inspector general in place, who can keep an eye on the spies, Canadians have no guarantee that their public interests are protected.

We need that position. We need greater oversight. At committee, parliamentarians should make sure that this happens.

[Canada Post, November 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is cutting home delivery to 5.1 million households. Mail delivery is a lifeline for many Canadians, especially seniors and people living with disabilities.

Even with these major cuts, Canada Post has found the money to launch a major advertising campaign, all the while taking away door-to-door service.

How much is Canada Post spending on this advertising campaign?

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2, October 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen the Conservatives come out with a wasteful and ineffective income-splitting program that will benefit only the most wealthy 15% of Canadians. The Conservatives will try to spin it that it is not what their income-splitting program is, but anyone who examines it will know that.

Could the member describe the benefit of having a universal child care program? I know that people in my area are paying tens of thousands of dollars every year to get good quality care for their kids, if they can find it. The NDP will fix that. Could he describe how?

[Manufacturing Industry, October 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk jobs. Four hundred thousand lost manufacturing jobs speak for themselves. Eleven hundred jobs have been lost in Leamington, 600 lost in London, 550 lost in Bradford, 300 lost in Mississauga, 300 lost in Bramalea, and 525 jobs have been lost in Oakville. That is just part of the losses from last year.

Communities across southern Ontario are being devastated by these cuts. Families are struggling to pay the bills. Where is the Conservative strategy to create good manufacturing jobs?

[Manufacturing Industry, October 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, while the Conservatives are happy to help the rich get richer, they completely abandon middle-class Canadians.

Four hundred thousand good manufacturing jobs have disappeared under the Conservatives, 4,100 in the city of Peterborough alone, yet they cannot seem to stir themselves to action. Last week we lost out on another 1,000 jobs because the government refused the investment needed to get another Ford assembly line in Windsor.

How many good manufacturing jobs do we have to lose before the Conservatives are going to do something about it?

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2, October 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his pertinent question, because we see across the country far too many of what I would call precarious jobs: part-time jobs, temporary jobs, low-wage jobs, and jobs with no benefits. There is no hope associated with those jobs. I think of young people coming into the job market today who are sometimes carrying thousands of dollars of debt. They cannot afford to get a home or start a family, because they cannot get a decent job.

In most developed countries, governments prize their manufacturing sector. They defend it and fight for it. They work hard to make sure they have those jobs, because they are high tech jobs, value-added jobs. It is where they get the great spinoffs. For example, in the auto industry, there are seven jobs for every auto assembly job.

Under the Conservative government and the previous Liberal government our country has fallen from one of the top four auto-producing countries to number 10. Australia lost its auto industry altogether.

We do not see any plan. There is no auto strategy. There is no manufacturing strategy. We do not see anything except giving more money back to companies and hoping they have a nice day.