House of Commons photoLost her last election, in 2015, with 24% of the vote.
Public Safety February 6th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, if we want to fight radicalization, the federal government absolutely has to work with the communities that are on the ground.
Instead, the Conservatives are using the terrorist threat to advance their political agenda. Experts fear that this is counterproductive. We all agree that terrorism is a threat.
Does the minister recognize that this is too important to be made into a campaign issue?
Public Safety February 5th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, this week the RCMP laid a number of terrorism-related charges right here in Ottawa, under the existing laws. We would like to thank the RCMP for doing a good job.
This case also shows the need to provide more support to communities that are fighting radicalization. The idea is to work together.
Why has the Prime Minister decided to alienate communities rather than work with them?
Public Safety February 5th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, on the Conservative's new security bill, Canadians have more questions than answers about whether these new powers are necessary, or even what they do.
Would the minister please explain what new activities would be allowed by the clause that gives CSIS the power to “disrupt threats”?
Public Safety February 4th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the minister went on at length about the program to counter violent extremism.
However, he never said a word about any new funding even though the program has been in place since 2013. The minister said that urgent measures must be taken to protect Canadians.
If that is the case, why is he dragging his feet when it comes to funding the fight against radicalization?
Public Safety February 3rd, 2015
Mr. Speaker, clearly, we cannot increase CSIS's powers without increasing civilian oversight at the same time.
Instead of increasing oversight of our intelligence agency, the Conservatives are doing the opposite and reducing it by eliminating the Office of the Inspector General of CSIS.
Why are they refusing to increase civilian oversight now, when it is more crucial than ever?
Public Safety February 3rd, 2015
Mr. Speaker, the new security bill does nothing to solve the problem of resources.
At this time, CSIS cannot even monitor all the people who have been identified as potential threats. Agents are already swamped just with high-risk travellers.
How does the minister expect those new powers to be useful when the agency cannot even fulfill its current duties?
Petitions February 3rd, 2015
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to present a petition that calls on the Government of Canada to reject the idea of using the Port of Gros-Cacouna as an oil terminal, in accordance with the principles of sustainable development.
This petition was signed by several hundred people from the north and south shores of Montreal and from my riding of Alfred-Pellan in Laval.
Public Safety February 2nd, 2015
Mr. Speaker, true to form, the Minister of Public Safety flatly dismissed any notion of civilian oversight for CSIS activities while getting ready to give CSIS considerably more power. He seems to think all that stuff is just useless red tape.
Now we have a better understanding of why the Conservatives eliminated one of the two CSIS oversight mechanisms.
Why did the minister reject the idea of making sure that CSIS protects Canadians' security and freedom?
Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act January 30th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Lambert for raising that question in the House. I think it is very important because the time is right. We will be talking about public safety and national security a lot in 2015. This issue is extremely important to most Canadians. It is important to talk about it now in the House, to try to find a consensus and to come up with good ideas for the solutions we need.
The first step is to look to our communities to see what is happening there. Many of our colleagues want to know what is going on in their community. Is radicalization happening? Are things different on the ground? There are also people who go to observe what is happening outside the country. The Charlie Hebdo attacks had a profound impact on us. The French are going through similar experiences to ours. People went to see what was happening there and to talk to people in these communities, and they realized, in the end, that the problems we are seeing here are very similar to those experienced by our French colleagues, friends and cousins across the ocean. Our fight against radicalization should be founded on an understanding of exactly what is happening on the ground .
Furthermore, we need to place more trust in our police forces, whether we are talking about the RCMP, provincial police forces, border services officers, or CSIS agents. These people work on the ground and they understand the dynamics. We must give them the tools they need.
In conclusion, my colleague mentioned at the beginning of her comments that the NDP is a champion of balancing public safety and civil liberties. We demonstrated this in committee with the various amendments we proposed to ensure that there would be a balance between the two.
Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act January 30th, 2015
Mr. Speaker, this is an example of the difference between the NDP and the Liberals. At the beginning of his remarks, the member said that Bill C-44 provides clarity on a number of issues. I strongly disagree with that statement simply because most experts that we heard from told us that they did not know whether the bill was constitutional or whether it could even be used.
What is happening with Bill C-44 is not necessarily clear. It does not necessarily address all of the issues associated with radicalization and terrorism in Canada and throughout the world. I would like to talk a bit more about the lack of clarity concerning the direction the Conservatives and the Liberals want to take. What is their position on the tools and resources available to ensure public safety and national security?
I do not think that we can talk about clarity here because the bill does not address civil liberties, does not protect Canadians from CSIS and does not allocate the necessary resources. What is more, the bill deals with issues that are not necessarily even related to the general subject of the bill.