Robert Sopuck

[Taxation, May 6th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party admitted that his plan for higher taxes has a $2 billion hole in it. The Liberal leader admitted that he will have to raise taxes on people earning less than $60,000 a year by cancelling their expanded tax free savings accounts.

He admitted that he would replace the Conservative family tax cut with a Liberal family tax hike. He admitted that he would get rid of the universal child care benefit, yet he also admitted that after all those tax hikes, he would still have a $2 billion hole.

We know how the Liberal leader will fill this $2 billion hole. He will have to raise taxes. With the Liberal leader's opposition to income-splitting for families, we can be sure he will also cancel income-splitting for seniors.

Middle class Canadian families know they can trust the Prime Minister and our Conservative government to keep their taxes low and to protect the benefits they already receive.

[Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, May 4th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, first, we want to dispense with the point that there is massive opposition to Bill C-51 because there is simply not. My constituents in Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette are strongly supportive of the security measures.

Again, as a member of the governing party, and thankfully so, I see no lack of criticism, or commentary and demonstrations and opinions, on what this and any other government does. Therefore, to suggest that Canada is less free or would become less free is complete nonsense.

In terms of the oversight for the CSIS, I would again quote Justice John Major, who said, “I don't think Parliament is equipped as a body to act as an oversight...which is what is being proposed”.

Clare Lopez, from the Center for Security Policy, said, “the use of an intermediary review committee rather than direct parliamentary oversight has advantages..”.

[Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, May 4th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me. The NDP opposite claims to want to protect the security of Canadians, but each and every time that this and any other government moves actively against terrorism, it is automatically against it.

I would remind the member opposite of the history of her party. One of the founding fathers of the party, J.S. Woodsworth, actually voted against Canada's participation in the Second World War. Can members imagine that? Had Canada followed that advice, who knows what the consequences for the world would have been. The NDP's sorry track record on protecting Canada's security is there for all to see.

In terms of the opponents of our particular bill, I would quote Justice John Major regarding the letters from the lawyers on the bill. He said the criticism goes “way over the top. You’ve got to come back to what we’re dealing with – a serious problem of terrorism in Canada. You can’t have a halfhearted war against that”.

I agree.

[Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, May 4th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise and speak to Bill C-51, the anti-terrorism act, 2015. I will most certainly be supporting it.

First, I would like to digress and congratulate the Minister of Finance on economic action plan 2015. This is a balanced budget, but it also invests in one of the key priorities of my constituents, namely, national security. The budget set aside almost $300 million to counter terrorism in Canada, funds which our security and law enforcement agencies will use to keep all Canadians safe.

During my time today, I would like to speak about the threat environment in Canada and globally, how it has changed since the inception of CSIS and why we must respond accordingly, particularly by allowing CSIS to disrupt and prevent terrorist threats from developing further.

Let me be perfectly clear. The international jihadi movement has declared war on Canada and her allies. Jihadi terrorists have stated their intent to target Canadians because they hate our values, our freedom, and our prosperity.

In 1984, when the CSIS Act entered into force, the primary national security concerns were cold war era espionage. The actors were well known. The threat environment today is much more complex. Enhanced by technology, the threats are global and can develop very quickly. While this applies to the full range of threats, espionage, foreign interference and proliferation concerns, we know all too well that the twin spectres of violent extremism and international jihadi terrorism in particular require a robust, and very importantly, flexible response.

Our Conservative government is tackling this important issue. That is why we have tabled the legislation which is before us. It is why we have made significant investments in the budget to protect national security.

The legislation contains a critical new tool for the government to improve our capacity to act, to deter and to diminish threats at an early stage. It is a threat disruption mandate for CSIS.

Creating a new threat disruption mandate for the service to take authorized and focused action against threats would increase the range of response options that may be brought to bear against those who would do us harm. However, let us be clear. In no way does threat disruption amount to police powers. This is a complete falsehood spread by the opposition. Policing would rightly remain with the RCMP and local law enforcement. The amendment adopted by the public safety and national security committee provides even greater clarity on this point, which I strongly support.

For 30 years, CSIS has been singularly charged with investigating, assessing and advising on threats to Canada's national security. In doing so, it has proven itself to be a respected and highly professional Canadian institution. In fulfilling the new mandate to disrupt threats to the security of Canada, CSIS would build upon its existing capabilities and expertise. CSIS develops and maintains unique and unparalleled access to intelligence on threats to Canada, which provides it with unique insights and operational leads.

The director of CSIS has been quite clear in his appearances before parliamentary committees, stating that the jihadi terrorist threat to Canada has never been as direct and immediate as it is today. Unfortunately, this is no longer simply a threat. In recent months and years, Canada and most of our close allies have been directly impacted by the scourge of terrorism. Our citizens have been both perpetrators and victims of terrorist attacks here at home as well as in allied countries and in conflict zones.

Canada has a responsibility to the international community to prevent and deter our citizens from engaging in such activities both at home and abroad, and the anti-terrorism act, 2015 would accomplish these tasks. As we have seen, such activities can destabilize countries and whole regions and cause significant harm.

We must also be concerned about individuals who return to Canada after having spent time abroad engaging in terrorist activities. While their terrorist experience abroad may vary greatly, we must consider their radicalizing influence on others, their ability to facilitate other people's terrorist activities, or the potential for such individuals to engage in attacks here.

We should not be so naive to think that Canada is immune to such threats in this age of global travel and ubiquitous communications technologies. It is incumbent upon us in such an environment to reassess our approach and ensure appropriate authorities are in place so that we may take reasonable and necessary steps to protect the safety of Canadians.

Many of our closest allies already exercise similar authorities and view them as vital to their own investigations. We must ensure that the tools at our agencies' disposal keep pace so that Canada can work effectively to address threats and contribute to global efforts to combat terrorism. To do so, we are harnessing all relevant capacity and expertise to build a robust and agile system that allows us to bring the right tools to bear at the right time.

I think all members can agree that preventing terrorist acts proactively is certainly preferable to a reactive posture, and this bill would ensure that.

While I have focused my remarks on terrorism, I would remind members that authorizing CSIS to diminish threats would allow it to take measures to address all threats to national security identified in the CSIS Act. These threats include not just terrorism, but also proliferation, espionage, sabotage and foreign interference. This new mandate would allow CSIS to take authorized measures to disrupt the threat posed by sophisticated and determined cyberspies whose activities are contrary to the security of Canada.

These measures could also be used against proliferation networks active in Canada which seek to covertly and illicitly export our technologies and expertise to weapons programs.

When CSIS was created, the threats we faced as a country and as a global community were markedly different from those we must combat today, threats that are agile, diffuse and evolving rapidly. The terrorists' ability to use modern social media is becoming very well known, as we see on almost a daily basis around the world.

I think all my colleagues must agree that we cannot expect CSIS to fulfill its duties and functions with dated legislation crafted for another era, another environment, and indeed, a more innocent time.

I would also remind members opposite that CSIS is not the enemy. ISIS is the enemy. It is important that we focus on who the real enemies are in these threats to our country.

We must take the necessary steps now to ensure that we as a government and as a nation can protect the safety and security of our citizens at home and abroad. This new legislation creates a clear mandate for CSIS within a well-established and rigorous system of accountability and review by the Security Intelligence Review Committee, or SIRC, whose budget our government doubled through economic action plan 2015. Yet again, this is another measure from one of the finest budgets that a government in Canada has ever brought in, as is evidenced by the widespread support for economic action plan 2015. Such an increase in funding for SIRC will provide it with greater capacity in order to assure both Parliament and Canadians that CSIS will appropriately exercise its threat disruption mandate.

It never ceases to amaze me that members in the opposition view this as a zero-sum game. They automatically assume any measures that we take to protect Canadian security come at the expense of personal liberties. Clearly, this is nonsense. The measures we are taking under Bill C-51 would not only improve security, but they would also increase the freedom of Canadians.

Most important, the bill would provide the necessary tools for CSIS to play its part in protecting Canadians and in being a responsible international partner in the fight against global terrorism.

I am very proud to be part of a party that labels terrorism and terrorists for what they actually are, and we are not afraid to use those words.

In conclusion, I hope all members will rise in this House to support the bill.

[Criminal Code, May 1st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues on this side of the House for their thoughtful speeches.

I am the chair of the Conservative hunting and angling caucus, and proudly so. We are the only political party that has such a caucus in Parliament. Over the last year, my caucus members and I have met with dozens of hunting, angling, trapping, and outdoor groups across the country. Contrary to popular opinion, the culture of the outdoors—angling, hunting, trapping and fishing—is very much alive and well. My friend from Prince George said it well when he used the term “culture”. We are the only political party and the only government that so strongly defends the outdoor culture.

Contrary to popular belief, this is not a declining culture in our country. In fact, the request for hunter safety instruction is growing by leaps and bounds across the country; this community is roaring back. There are some four million people in this country who hunt, fish, and trap. It is a sizeable part of our country.

In order to help and work with this very important constituency, we put forth Bill C-42, which was widely and positively received by the hunting and sport shooting community. In the environment committee, we are doing a major study of hunting and trapping, and in the fisheries committee we are doing a major study of recreational fishing. Why do I mention those two committee studies? That is because both of those studies in each committee were strongly opposed by the Liberals and the NDP. We were shocked by that opposition. It is the first time that those committees have studied these topics: hunting and trapping in the environment committee, and recreational fishing in the fisheries committee.

Interestingly, the members of the hunting and angling community are Canada's first, foremost, and most effective conservationists. Their appearance before our committee was astonishing. They described the conservation activities that the hunting and angling community does across the country, which this government strongly supports.

In terms of my bill, which is basically a kind of housekeeping bill, as my colleague from Prince George said, we are ensuring that such activities as paintballing and owning a BB gun are not subject to criminal sanctions if some paperwork is not done. This important legislation responds to the needs of the owners of paintball guns, BB guns, and air rifles, providing much-needed clarity with respect to how Canadian law treats this type of property.

How do these devices differ from firearms? They are essentially pneumatic devices that propel projectiles by means of compressed air. This differentiates them from regular bullet-firing firearms, which use a propellant charge. Air guns are commonly used for hunting, pest control, recreational shooting, and competitive sports; for example, the Olympics include 10 metre air rifle and 10 metre air pistol events. Beyond this, they remain popular with thousands of Canadians because they are quieter, more affordable, and their regulation is not nearly as stringent as with true firearms.

Air guns are generally divided into the following categories.

First we have air guns, in which the shot or projectile will not cause serious injury or death. These devices fall outside of the scope of the Firearms Act. An example is a harmless air gun made out of clear plastic, or a device that is a child's toy. The next category includes those air guns that have the potential to cause serious bodily harm, injury, or death, and these fall under the Criminal Code.

I would note, as well, that my colleagues across the way were talking about the potential criminal use of air gun devices. I would point out that it is a criminal offence to point an air gun, or to act as if it is a firearm. If a store is robbed by an individual with an air gun, for criminal law purposes it is treated the same as a firearm.

My bill simply reduces red tape on law-abiding Canadian citizens. This is what Canadians want. I ask all members to support this bill and ensure that we continue to move toward safe and sensible firearms policies in this country.

[Ongoing Situation in Ukraine, April 29th, 2015]

Mr. Chair, I am a member of Parliament with a large Ukrainian population and therefore, this is of interest to me and my constituents. Being of Czech extraction, I do remember the Prague Spring of 1968 when I was part of the Czech community in Winnipeg. It is something I will never forget.

I want to address quickly some of the comments from the member for St. John's East. He told us to be nuanced. We on this side of the House believe in right and wrong. It is because Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul believed in right and wrong that they brought down the Soviet Union. This idea that we can deal gently with the Soviet Union, or Russia, which is actually the same thing these days, is the reason Lenin called the western left, the western liberals, useful idiots.

I would ask the parliamentary secretary what his view is of what Vladimir Putin's end game is in Europe.

[Taxation, April 28th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government believes that parents know what is best for their children. That is why we are increasing the child care expense deduction to $8,000, increasing the universal child care benefit to $1,920 annually for children under age 6, and expanding it to $720 annually for children aged 6 to 17.

Policy is much more than numbers on paper. The right policy has an important human dimension, as I learned from one of my constituents. Ms. Mackenzie Danard, from Swan River, Manitoba, wrote me a letter to say, “This helps a lot for single parents. Thank you for helping us raise our children”.

Our government is delivering support directly to families like Mackenzie's. The Liberals and the New Democrats want to take that money away from Mackenzie and families like hers. That is shameful.

[Business of Supply, April 20th, 2015]

What is shameful, Mr. Speaker, is the NDP's continuing attack on the families and workers of Canada's natural resource industries.

The oil sands in Alberta generate 575,000 jobs, and so his disingenuous comment about 50 jobs is pure nonsense. We are talking about real people and real families. Getting our oil to tide water is critical. Our economy loses some $20 billion per year, which could pay for a lot of social programs if we got the world price for oil. However, in his next breath, the member was complaining about the low price of oil. Which is it?

Again, another speech from the NDP in which no numbers were put out. There was all of this rambling about the environment and where it is at. The member lives in Vancouver where the Fraser River goes through. In 2010 there was a record sockeye salmon run, and in 2014 an even higher sockeye salmon run under this government's watch.

This government is doing what needs to be done to create a sustainable economy, high growth, high-paying jobs, and high environmental quality. How does he square this?

[Business of Supply, April 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for giving me this incredible opening. The numbers that he cites are dollar numbers. The only numbers that count are the numbers on the environment, air quality, water quality. I know the idea of actually spending government money and generating real environmental results is foreign to them because for both parties opposite, spending money is an end in itself. If we can spend less money and get greater environmental improvement and protection, this government will do that. In fact, we are balancing our budget and because we are such prudent fiscal managers, Canadians in all walks of life will be receiving tax benefits very soon. That is smart and good government.

[Business of Supply, April 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, that is a typical rambling, scattered question on the environment, with nothing but hyperbole and speculation.

It is the numbers related to air quality, water quality, biodiversity, fish and wildlife that count. On the other side, they never cite the numbers because the numbers are too good.

Under our watch, in 2010 the sockeye salmon run to Fraser River was the record in history. Lo and behold, in 2014, on the Fraser River again, the sockeye salmon run surpassed the run in 2010. That was a remarkable achievement, done under our watch.

After listening to the members across the way wailing away about things they know nothing about, the only thing that counts is the improvement in the numbers on the environment to the air quality, water quality, fisheries, biodiversity, and almost every one is improving.

In terms of taking the precautions in English Bay, the government is being very prudent in ensuring that everything is absolutely safe before that area can be used again. That is just smart.