Roxanne James

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

Mr. Speaker, again the NDP members are either intentionally pushing out information that is incorrect, or simply showing that they do not completely understand the bill. I think it may be that they do not completely understand the bill.

The previous member asked a question with regard to the information sharing act. He indicated that there were seven points and none of them had to do with security. We heard from witnesses who spoke about how critical the information sharing aspects of this bill are. When they get pieces from different areas, they can put it together to solve a puzzle and are able to hone in on the issue of terrorist activity.

Once again, I would like to ask that member what he thinks of the NDP misleading Canadians and what a serious impact that would have if Canadians actually believed the opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, the NDP has proven that it has sympathy for the perpetrators of these terrorist acts. Throughout the member's entire speech, he talked about them being, more or less, victims, including the two jihadi terrorists who came to Montreal and Ottawa and took two lives. He referred to those two lives as simply “unfortunate incidents”.

I absolutely cannot believe what I just heard.

A lot of what he said in his speech was absolutely untrue. He also mentioned that none of the measures in this bill would have stopped those incidents, but I would read a quote from testimony that we heard before committee:

If C-51 had been in place on October 19, Martin Couture Rouleau would have been in prison and my brother would not be dead today.

Who said that? Louise Vincent, sister of slain Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent.

My question for the member is would you like to explain to Louise Vincent why the person who killed her brother is a victim, and why her brother is just an unfortunate incident?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad parliamentary oversight was brought up and the fact that my colleague spoke about the importance of having judiciary oversight for review of warrants for the activities of CSIS. I cannot imagine for a moment that CSIS would have to come to partisan politicians to determine whether it could carry out an activity. Through this bill, we would give that to a non-partisan body, the courts, the judge, to make those decisions. When Canadians think about that for a moment, they will recognize the importance of that and the reason for it.

I also want to clarify this for the record. When it comes to the information sharing act, that there will be review of that. The Privacy Commissioner as well as the Auditor General have the ability to review any aspects of that as well as internal processes. Therefore, that is certainly not an issue.

Again, this is misinformation being pushed out by the opposition parties. Could my colleague comment on what that really means to national security if we actually start to listen to the opposition?

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

Mr. Speaker, a wide array of information has been pushed out by the NDP, whether it be intentionally or through a complete lack of understanding of the bill. Even in committee, when we were going through clause by clause, the critic for the NDP actually felt that the information sharing act, not the CSIS Act, would determine the subject of CSIS's activity. The officials who were on hand at that committee had to correct him, on the record, and tell him he was wrong.

The fact that the NDP still is pushing out information that is inaccurate is very harmful to this country with respect to national security and the protection of Canadians.

I will just ask the member a very brief question. Is that member intentionally pushing out information that is inaccurate, or is it because he has a complete lack of understanding of the bill?

[Public Safety, May 1st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, as I just said, our Conservative government has provided significant funding to the RCMP. We have provided legislative tools in order to keep Canadians safe. In fact, it is our government that has passed more than 30 tough on crime bills to do just that. We are also the party that has invested more than $30 million on crime prevention right across the country.

[Public Safety, May 1st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely false. This government has actually increased the resources to our national security agencies, including the RCMP. We have actually done that seven times. The seven times we have done those increases, that member has voted against them.

Canadians know that when it comes to supporting our men and women who keep Canadians safe, it is this government that is going to give them the legislative tools, the funding for crime prevention and also the funding to get the job done.

[Public Safety, April 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, of course our Conservative government has taken strong action to keep British Columbians and all Canadians safe.

It is very interesting that they are standing here in the House asking for more resources when in fact this government has increased resources for the RCMP seven times, and seven times the member who asked that question voted against it.

[Public Safety, April 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to gang violence, I think the member was here yesterday when I brought forward the good news that the government had invested $2.8 million in crime prevention in Surrey alone.

Having said that, I am very proud of our government's actions in tackling crime. We have actually passed more than 30 tough-on-crime policies. It is only this government that stands for the protection of all Canadians.

I would like to ask that member how many of those policies that we passed he actually voted for.

[Legalization of Marijuana, April 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the Liberal Party, we have been very clear. We have no intention of legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana. The chiefs of police have also been very clear that they do not support legalizing marijuana.

Now that he has joined the Liberal Party, Bill Blair has flip-flopped and now wants to legalize marijuana, which would make it easier for children to smoke pot. Already he puts it on equal footing with alcohol and is already planning to, as he says “tax the thing” and “control the price”.

Unlike Mr. Blair and the Liberal Party, we do not intend to compromise on the safety of our youth. These drugs are illegal because of the harmful effects they have on users and on our society. One can only wonder how Mr. Blair can feel comfortable now that he belongs in the same basket as Liberal supporters such as drug-pushing Marc and Jodie Emery.

[Public Safety, April 29th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for that question. It is true. Our Conservative government has passed over 30 new measures to crack down on dangerous and violent criminals, including tough new prison sentences for drive-by shootings.

Shockingly, but not surprisingly, the Liberal leader has said that he would repeal all mandatory minimum sentences in the entire Criminal Code. The Liberal leader should instead listen to his new candidate, Bill Blair, who said that when we have minimum sentences and we keep criminals in jail and they're incapacitated, “our streets are safer”.

There seems to be a little conflict within the Liberal Party.