Randall Garrison

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the minister's speech on the bill, but we on this side have been very clear that we think Canadians want protection both of public safety and of civil liberties, and I did not hear anything about civil liberties protection in the minister's speech.

I want to come back to what is becoming a canard from the minister, and that is his statement that he has increased the funding for Public Safety. He refers back to 2007, I think, in an attempt to mislead the House. Will he admit that in the 2012 action plan the government laid out a plan to cut $688 million from Public Safety, including $24.5 million from CSIS, $143 million from the Canada Border Services Agency, and $195 million from the RCMP; and that he has carried out those plans so that in fact all three of those agencies have significantly less funding to deal with our national security problems than they had in 2012?

[Public Safety, October 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as the government rushes to respond to the events of last week with more legislation, one thing remains clear. Canadians expect that any new legislation should improve public safety and protect civil liberties. Inadequate oversight of our intelligence agencies continues to be a major concern. It has been eight years since the Arar inquiry recommended improvements.

Why have the Conservatives persistently refused to boost intelligence oversight despite these recommendations?

[Public Safety, October 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as we consider how to respond to last week's terrible events, one thing is clear. We need an approach that protects both public safety and our civil liberties. Today, the Information and Privacy Commissioners issued a joint statement underlining this fact.

Will the government listen to their recommendations and ensure that any new legislation contains new and effective oversight for our intelligence agencies?

[Nathan Cirillo, October 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, today Canadians have come together to lay Corporal Nathan Cirillo to rest. His family, his friends, and his neighbours have come together in Hamilton, and across the country, Canadians have joined them in spirit. They are taking a moment to mourn the tragedy of a young man who was both a son and a young father, a moment to honour a soldier who volunteered to serve our country. He was a man who stepped forward without hesitation, willing to put himself in harm's way for Canada. It reminds Canadians of all the young men and women who came before him who put on the uniform and were taken from us before their time.

I am a proud representative of a military community. Today, as we join all Canadians in honouring and mourning Corporal Cirillo, let us say again, to all members of the Canadian Forces, that we thank them for keeping us safe. To Corporal Cirillo and his family, we say, as Barbara Winters said to Corporal Cirillo in his final moments, “You are loved.”

[Public Safety, October 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, the government put out calls for research on the role of the Internet in radicalization and on ways to prevent or intervene when Canadians are being radicalized. This research will provide important context for an appropriate response from government to radicalization.

Will the results of this research be considered before any new legislation is brought forward by the government?

[Public Safety, October 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the need to ensure public safety, and we all understand that public safety is a primary responsibility of this House, but we are also responsible in this House for protecting our fundamental freedoms. These will both present continuing challenges in the coming weeks and months.

How does the government plan to ensure that both public safety and our fundamental freedoms are protected moving forward from the events of the past few days?

[Public Safety, October 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as we begin trying to comprehend the events of this week, it has become clear that members of the Canadian Forces may have been specifically targeted for attack.

Like many MPs, I have a base in my riding, which is obviously at the heart of our community. Can the government assure the House that steps are being taken at bases across the country to ensure security for Canadian Forces members and civilian staff?

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, again, what we have before us is a lack of a clear objective.

I do not expect the government to tell us on what day it is going to bomb what target, but I do expect it to tell us what it is going to accomplish with this mission and with these air strikes.

I have not heard anything about what the government intends to accomplish through this strategy and these tactics.

If we look at the United Nations resolution, it is very clear that the priority would be placed on stopping the flow of recruits and funds to ISIL, which we have done very little on, and providing humanitarian support for the three million refugees in the region.

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say, at the beginning, I do not share the doubts about the capability of the Canadian Forces that the member and the leader of the third party quite often express in public. I know they are ready, willing and able to go. They will do their best on the part of this country.

What we really need to do here is to address the question of what it is we expect them to accomplish. That is what is missing from the motion as it is presented to us.

I have to also say that last week the Liberals were supporting some kind of mission in Iraq and this week they are opposing the mission in Iraq. Therefore, I think we see an equal lack of clarity from the third party as we see from the government.

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question.

What the minister has said, I believe, places the question kind of backwards to us. We have asked what the objectives are and what we are going to achieve. What is it we are going to accomplish through air strikes?

We do not see what that is and they have not told us what that is. Therefore, we cannot support a motion that calls for air strikes at this point.