Rob Nicholson

[Justice, March 10th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada if she would do what it took to prevent convicted criminals from getting two-for-one or even three-for-one credit for time served off their sentences. I am disappointed that she did not mention the rights of victims, and her answer dealt solely with the rights of the accused, which makes no sense because this issue involves convicted criminals.

I will give her another chance. Does she believe convicted criminals should receive this kind of a break?

[Justice, March 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, for years, judges were routinely granting two-for-one and even three-for-one credits for time served before trial. This is why we brought in the Truth in Sentencing Act to ensure that convicted offenders serve the sentences they were given.

Now it appears that there are judges in Ontario who are disregarding that law. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice says a law is a law is a law. Are they going to do what it takes to enforce the present law or will criminals continue to get a break?

[Indigenous Affairs, March 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the B.C. government has stated that it will vigorously oppose any declaration that creates any uncertainty for private property owners. On January 15, the Minister of Justice asked for an extension before making a decision. Well, it has been close to eight weeks and there has still been no response.

While the Premier of B.C. has boldly reassured Canadians, the justice minister has left land owners in the dark. Will she stand with the premier of B.C. to defend property rights, yes or no?

[Justice, February 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are making a mess out of the marijuana file, and it is just one more example of Liberal incoherence. They say that pot is illegal but it should be sold in liquor stores. Police chiefs across this country are asking for clarity on whether or not they should enforce the law. We know that marijuana is dangerous for kids, yet in Vancouver there are now more pot shops than there are Starbucks.

What is the Liberal plan to keep marijuana out of the hands of our children?

[National Strategy for Alzheimer's Disease and Other Dementias Act, February 25th, 2016]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-233, An Act respecting a national strategy for Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias.

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the member for Don Valley West for seconding the bill. Also, I want to acknowledge a previous member, Claude Gravelle, who also raised this matter.

The bill has a number of changes that I support, of course,. It calls on the provinces and all stakeholders to develop a plan to co-operate in finding a cure and dealing with the challenges of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias.

There is probably no family in the country that can say it has not in some way been hurt by these particular diseases. We know they are increasing. There are more than 700,000 Canadians currently suffering from Alzheimer's and other related dementias. As we know, as the population increases, the word is that this is going to increase.

The bill has the support of a number of stakeholders, particularly the Alzheimer Society of Canada.

I would appreciate if all members could revisit this area, have a look at it; and I hope it gets the support of everyone when it comes up for second reading.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 24th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, it is one complete package.

I support the mission we undertook, that we had approved by Parliament, which was an advise-and-assist role with respect to the soldiers on the ground. At the same time, and the hon. member made mention of it, the air refuelling and surveillance aircraft were an important component.

However, the key part of our contribution to the coalition against ISIS was the members of the Royal Canadian Air Force and the CF-18s. I can say that I did not run into any of our allies, whether they be at NATO conferences or the conference we held here in Quebec City with the coalition members, who said to me that we did not have to worry about sending our CF-18s. It was the exact opposite.

When I spoke to anyone, from the Prime Minister of Iraq to the foreign affairs minister and the defence minister, they were all very clear in saying that what we were doing in the air was helping them hold on to the territory they had and moving forward against ISIS. They told me that it was absolutely vital. They could not have been more appreciative of Canada's efforts.

Again, this is consistent with what we always do as a country. This is Canada's role, not standing on the sidelines and not, as was suggested to me here, hoping that other people will pick up the slack and get the job done. That is not what Canada is all about.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 24th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, this is exactly what I have been saying. The point I have made in this House for the second time since we have touched on these debates is that is not the Canadian way to stand on the sidelines and tell everyone else they should be doing that.

Throughout Canadian history, we did not say we would not be sending Canadian soldiers, that the British and everyone else could do the work over there, that they could stand up for freedom and for those who are oppressed. That has never been the Canadian way.

I indicated what happened in Kuwait. Yes, there were other parts of the coalition, but Canada always does its share. We always do more than our share. That is what I have said on a number of occasions to our allies. We do more than our share, and that is what we should do. To say that it will be picked up by someone else, I completely reject.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 24th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to split my time with the hon. member for Banff—Airdrie.

I rise today to address the Liberal government's motion to cease air operations in Iraq and Syria.

The Liberals state that they want to redefine our contribution to the effort to defeat ISIL, in part with the addition of additional members of the Canadian Armed Forces but while removing air support at the same time. However, removing air support will only serve to put our men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces at greater risk.

I agree with the assertion of the Minister of National Defence when he said that we have to win the war on the ground, but doing so without overhead protection from our CF-18 fighter jets makes no sense. How can we send members of the Canadian Armed Forces into the line of fire without adequate air guard?

As minister of National Defence and Foreign Affairs, I travelled to the Middle East on a number of occasions, and time and time again, my counterparts in Kuwait, Iraq, and the United Arab Emirates reiterated just how important Canada's contribution was with our CF-18s.

Our fighter jets have been very effective in taking out ISIL and other targets as well as in depleting ISIS resources. The Canadian Armed Forces, by all accounts, have severely disabled ISIS' infrastructure and senior personnel. They have truncated its ability to manoeuver in large numbers, shattered moral, and allowed Iraqi forces to retake towns like Ramadi. They have effectively taken out oil resources and have thus curtailed ISIS' means of funding its so-called caliphate.

Following up on the comment by the Minister of National Defence about winning the war on the ground, this is exactly what Iraqi officials told me when I met with them. They said that it has to be won on the ground, but it has to be won by them. They said that we are making it possible, with our air strikes, for them to hold on to the territory they have within Iraq. It has allowed them to retake the land that was taken from them, but they need that support in the air. They made that very clear.

The deployment of the RCAF Griffon helicopters for close combat aerial support in fact is inherently more dangerous than bombing ISIS' fighting positions with our CF-18s. What the new government has accomplished in forging ahead with its plan is to highlight just how incoherent it is.

The Conservative Party of Canada supports providing our troops with whatever equipment it needs, whether it is helicopters or fighter jets. The Liberal government has no justification whatsoever for withdrawing the CF-18s. I have to tell members that I am disappointed. Before this debate even began, the Liberals ceased the air strike operations.

We owe it to the brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces to offer them the confidence that we have their backs and are defending them from above while they are engaging with the Iraqis and Syrians on the ground. The parents, sons, daughters, husbands, and wives of Canadian Armed Forces personnel deserve to know that their government is doing everything possible to ensure the safety of their loves ones while they defend their rights, freedom, and democracy on the ground. What they do not want to hear is that their government is incoherent in terms of what it is that it is trying to do.

I have to point out that the Liberals are offside with Canadians. Not surprisingly, 63% of Canadians say that they would like to see Canada continue bombing ISIS at its current rate or go further and increase the number of bombing missions it conducts.

Canada understands that ISIS has declared war on Canada and our allies. The Liberals should understand that. Canadian Forces involved in the advise and assist mission have already been drawn into firefights. We have to make sure that we do not put them at greater risk, and I believe that is exactly what will take place if we get out of the business of air strikes.

I emphasize that the men and women of the Canadian Forces warrant the assurance of knowing that they are protected at all times, in particular by our CF-18 fighter jets. The Iraqis understand that very clearly, as do our other coalition allies. They know, and we know, that ISIS seeks to destroy the very fabric of our nation. The Prime Minister himself has stated that people terrorized by ISIS every day do not need our vengeance. They need our help.

Canada continues in the fight against ISIS, and the work we do is an important part of the coalition. How is it that our Prime Minister does not understand that we cannot begin to help the people of Syria and Iraq unless we confront ISIS? It is only in its defeat that the people of that region will be able to regain their sovereignty and rebuild their lives.

I admire our allies. They are not sitting on the sidelines and watching while others do the heavy lifting. As I said before, in my role as the defence minister and foreign affairs minister, all our coalition partners thanked Canada profusely for the effective role our CF-18s played in preventing ISIS from overtaking their respective countries. This is what we are talking about: preventing ISIS in Iraq and ISIS in Syria from forcing its ideology on not just those countries but on the rest of the free world. That, of course, includes Canada. Standing on the sidelines has never been our way.

I remember in the early 1990s, after Iraq invaded Kuwait, former prime minister Mulroney calling us into the government lobby and telling us what had happened and talking to us about his conversation with the President of the United States. Prime Minister Mulroney made it clear that it is not Canada's role to stand on the sidelines when people are being abused. There was unanimous support for the idea of standing with Kuwait at that particular time.

I have to say that on the occasions when I have visited Kuwait, the people there have made it clear again and again that they are appreciative of what Canada did when they were in desperate need.

That is exactly what I hear from our allies in Iraq. At the present time, throughout the Middle East, they are grateful for what Canada is doing and has been doing as part of those CF-18 air strikes.

I actually chaired a meeting in Quebec City a little over six months ago with our coalition partners. I ask the Liberals whether we are still part of that coalition in the sense that we have now withdrawn from that. Are we being ignored? Are we being forgotten about? Nobody wants that. We want to be a part of that.

Again, I am very disappointed that the Liberals are not doing what Canadians want or what Canadians have done, which is to not stand on the sidelines but to be a part of this. I hope that the Liberals will reconsider this and do what is right for the men and women of our armed forces and do what is right in the fight against ISIS.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has it exactly correct. Things were said during the campaign. I am well aware of Liberal platforms in the past saying one thing during the election and then having a different position later.

That being said, it is important for them to realize, now that they are actually in government, that a $10-billion deficit is not minor. This could be a major problem for this country. It could completely degenerate into $20 billion or $30 billion, and we will be paying the price for that for many years to come.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure exactly what the hon. member is implying from the Department of Finance. He said he was a member of the Department of Finance. It was the finance department that said there is a $1-billion surplus.

I am hoping that the NDP is still onside with us. They apparently lost some votes because of their support for a balanced budget, but nonetheless, I believe it was the right thing for them to do. They should train their sights on the Liberal government, which is determined to run a deficit. This is exactly what we do not want, and he should know as well. If he has been a member of the Department of Finance, he should know better than anybody how difficult it is to come out of a deficit when there is a deficit. He should be completely supportive of this.

This recognizes the wonderful work that is being done by our public servants, and in this case the public servants within the Department of Finance. I agree with them that we have a $1-billion surplus. We can all be very proud of that.

I hope the government reconsiders its plans to recklessly spend in the future.