House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2025, with 57% of the vote.
Passport Canada February 1st, 2019
Mr. Speaker, as the winter vacation period approaches, many Canadians are looking into trips to warmer climates.
Could the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development tell the House how this government is making it easier for Canadians to access passport services regardless of where in Canada they live?
The Francophonie December 5th, 2018
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the importance of the French language. It is one of Canada's founding languages and part of our identity. I am so convinced that our great country is stronger for having adopted bilingualism that after I was elected to represent a region in Ontario where the majority of people are anglophone, I decided to learn French. Today, I am reaffirming my commitment to always promote the French language and culture. I want to sincerely thank the francophone community of London for working tirelessly to preserve its culture.
Thank you for your historic resistance to Doug Ford's policies.
Social Development November 28th, 2018
Mr. Speaker, in my community of London, Ontario, the Pillar Nonprofit Network supports more than 600 non-profits, social enterprises and social innovators by helping them share resources and knowledge, and building connections between non-profit, business and government organizations.
Could the Prime Minister tell the House what the government is doing to support organizations such as Pillar, as well as the many social enterprise businesses and organizations like it across the country?
International Development November 19th, 2018
Mr. Speaker, the ebola epidemic in the Democratic Republic of Congo is especially troubling because this is the largest outbreak since the virus was discovered in that country in 1976.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development update the House on what the government is doing to address this issue?
London North Centre November 1st, 2018
Mr. Speaker, as members of Parliament, we all agree that to carry out our roles we must lean on our personal staff for their support and expertise. I know every MP has a highly capable team working tirelessly to help those we represent. In our London community office, I want to thank Ryan Gauss, Heather Marshall, Josh Chadwick and Allison Birs for everything they have done and continue to do.
Though I am unable to mention everyone, I also want to highlight those here on the Hill who help us do our jobs as well. To our committee coordinator Mélanie and her staff, House votes coordinator Nathalie, our lobby general Patrick and member statement coordinator Evelyne, I say thanks. To the staff who help us liaise with ministries, in my case the Ontario desks, I say thanks. To Jamie Kippen in the Prime Minister's Office, I say thanks. To our committee analysts, clerks, support staff and pages, I say thanks.
Without the efforts of many, we would be unable to do our jobs effectively.
Business of Supply October 22nd, 2018
Mr. Speaker, as far as the wording of the motion is concerned, what I will say is that we have to stand behind those who have defended human rights.
I mentioned in my speech that I have had the honour of meeting Nadia Murad, once here in Ottawa and in my home community of London. When she calls on the perpetrators of terrorism to be prosecuted, I think we have to get behind that sentiment.
What I do not agree with is some members, and I am speaking specifically of the Conservatives, having taken that very important notion she has put forward and transitioned it into something else, not only here today but especially outside the House, constantly pressing this button of fear.
I go back to what I said before. I am certainly interested in hearing from the Conservative members opposite what happened to that tradition in Conservative thought that took pride in common-sense solutions to dealing with national security threats, and getting away from fear entirely and, rather, working together to find ways forward. Here I refer to Bill Davis, Brian Mulroney, Joe Clark, and so on and so forth.
Business of Supply October 22nd, 2018
Mr. Speaker, I said before that facts matter. Let me simply read a clear fact. Since 2016, the RCMP has charged four individuals for terrorism-related offences after their return to Canada. Two of them have been successfully convicted, and the other two cases remain before the courts.
The hon. member will note, I hope, that despite all their talk, no returned terrorists were charged under the Harper Conservatives.
I will also take the opportunity to note that this motion is draped in fear. What has happened to the time when the Conservatives, not just at the federal level but also at the provincial level, embraced common-sense solutions to very serious problems? I think, for example, of John Robarts, Bill Davis, Bob Stanfield, or even Brian Mulroney or Joe Clark. What happened to that Conservative tradition of working constructively to address national security threats and challenges?
I do not hear it on the opposite side. All I hear is fear.
Business of Supply October 22nd, 2018
Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposition and I know her to be a diligent member. On this matter, we simply disagree for a number of reasons. First, evidence has to exist in order for convictions to take place. How many convictions took place under the previous government, under the terrorism offence in the Criminal Code, for individuals returning from abroad that led to successive prosecutions of such individuals? We are monitoring the situation where individuals who are suspected have returned. Surveillance is always at the forefront. Our national security agencies have the tools because we have funded their work, not defunded, as the previous government did. That will continue.
Business of Supply October 22nd, 2018
Mr. Speaker, I join with colleagues across the aisle and here on this side of the House today. My hon. colleague who just spoke mentioned Nathan Cirillo. I echo the sentiment expressed and pay homage to his memory, his service. I also wish to express gratitude for the work done in the House on the part of the Parliamentary Protective Service and certainly the RCMP. I am fortunate enough to be the member for London North Centre, where “O” Division Headquarters is based.
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the motion. Members in the House do not always agree on everything, but I know we can always stand united in denouncing the depraved and barbaric acts committed by Daesh. We can salute courageous women such as Nadia Murad, who I have had the honour of meeting twice, the Yazidi Nobel Laureate who suffered unspeakable horrors under the Daesh rule and survived to tell her story. Mercifully this group's reign of terror is all but over.
Through defeats on the battlefield, it has lost the land it once controlled in Iraq and Syria, However, Daesh terrorists began returning to their countries of origin even while the so-called caliphate still existed. More of them may try to do so now that the group has been defeated.
We and our allies are well aware that our success on the battlefield has not eliminated the problem entirely. To an extent, we have only displaced it. Virtually every democratic country in the world is grappling with this issue. Some of our allies are dealing with hundreds or even thousands of potential returnees. The number we have to deal with is thankfully much smaller, but that is not cause for complacency.
In 2015, our security agencies were aware of about 60 people who had returned to Canada after engaging in terrorist activity abroad. That number has remained relatively stable since. While some of these people returned from former Daesh strongholds in Syria and Iraq, most of them were actually involved with other terrorist groups in other parts of the world.
Today, according to the most recent public report from CSIS, about 190 Canadians have left our country to join terrorist groups, Daesh or others, and remain abroad. Some of them may be dead. Some of them may not want to come back. However, we must be ready for those who do, and we are.
The professionals in Canada's national security agencies are working extremely hard to track these individuals, to bring criminal charges whenever possible and to carefully monitor them to keep us all safe. Here are a few facts. Facts are always important, but particularly in a debate such as this.
First, if extremist travellers attempt to return to Canada, there is a very high likelihood that our agencies will know about it. That is because of the information-sharing we do domestically and with our Five Eyes allies, on an ongoing basis, to identify individuals seeking to return. When Canadian authorities become aware of such travel, a process is activated to control and indeed to manage their return. Even before they are back on our soil, Canada's intelligence, security and law enforcement agencies actively assess and monitor the threat each individual poses. Threat assessments, monitoring and investigations continue for as long as necessary after their return. If evidence supports charges, terrorism charges under the Criminal Code can and will be laid upon their return. Since last year, in fact, four individuals have been charged for terrorism-related offences after their return to Canada and two have been convicted. It is also worth pointing out that under the Harper government that number was zero.
The task of collecting enough evidence about activity in a war zone on the other side of the world to support charges in a Canadian court is certainly a challenging one. While police and prosecutors go about the difficult work of collecting it, our security and intelligence agencies make full use of a broad range of tools at their disposal. For instance, they can issue peace bonds. They can cancel, revoke and refuse Canadian passports on national security grounds.
Under the passenger protect program, they use the no-fly list to ensure that people are prevented from travelling for terrorism-related purposes. They also engage in surveillance and legally authorized threat-reduction measures to keep Canadians safe.
At the same time, we should recognize that people do not travel to join a terrorist group and then become radicalized. Indeed, the radicalization happens at home. We should therefore be doing everything we can to prevent Canadians, mostly Canadian youth, from becoming radicalized in the first instance. The Canada Centre for Community Engagement and Prevention of Violence supports community-based organizations that do this important work.
While I am on the subject, the Conservatives should stop denigrating counter-radicalization work. For example, think of parents whose teenage son has started bringing home extremist literature and visiting extremist websites. What would those parents prefer I ask? Would they rather the government have nothing to offer but handcuffs once it is too late? Or would they rather the government's support programs at their son's school, local community centre or place of worship to help extricate him from the clutches of extremism before he did something violent? I think we all know the answer to that question or ought to know it.
None of us should pretend this can only happen to other people's kids or only to Muslim kids. Counter-radicalization programs help prevent all our children from being victims or perpetrators. Of course, once someone does cross the Rubicon and engages in terrorist activity, we need a modern national security framework our agencies can use to keep us safe.
That is the purpose behind our landmark national security legislation, Bill C-59, which is currently being debated in the Senate. Bill C-59 would overhaul Canada's national security framework and bring it into the 21st century. It would modernize and enhance Canada's security and intelligence laws to ensure our agencies would have the tools they would need do their jobs. This would be achieved within a legal and constitutional framework that would be charter-compliant. For example, it would clarify definitions that are vague or overly broad. This includes the term “terrorist propaganda”.
The former Bill C-51 created a new offence of knowingly advocating or promoting the commission of terrorism offences in general. Currently, the maximum punishment for it is a five-year prison sentence, but this provision is so unclear that it has hardly been used. That is why the government is revising the definition by using the clearer and more precise legal concept of counselling the commission of terrorism offences. This change would make it more likely that charges would be laid and successfully prosecuted.
It is crucial we get all this right, the legal authorities, the counter-radicalization programs and all the work our agencies do at home and overseas, because extremism of all kinds remains a real threat to our security. That includes extremism inspired by Daesh and al Qaeda, extremism inspired by white supremacists and all the other varieties that exist in our country and around the world. Canada is, by and large, a safe and peaceful place. We should not get hyperbolic about the threat of terrorism, but we must take it seriously.
I am not entirely convinced the Conservative motion takes this seriously enough. This motion seems to me more of a political game than anything else. However, we can all support the statement in it by Nadia Murad. I join all colleagues in their desire to see the villains of Daesh brought to justice.
Corrections and Conditional Release Act October 19th, 2018
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member quite rightly raises the issue of indigenous incarceration. I had the honour of serving on the public safety and national security committee last year, which studied that very issue. I am sure she is aware of this, but I would ask the hon. member to again review the sections in the proposed bill, Bill C-83, that focus on bringing to life what was called for in the landmark decision of the Supreme Court, the Gladue decision of 1999, almost 20 years ago.
This is an incredible step forward, a very positive step forward for all those Canadians concerned about indigenous incarceration, about which we have to do more. This is not the end of the line; this is a beginning. It is a new opening. In that light, the bill offers an entirely new and different approach, a more effective approach, to the issue of segregation. I think we will see more positive results as a result of the bill going through.