Sadia Groguhé

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Of course we are extremely worried because this bill is silent on the subject of protecting our rights. The current government has introduced a bill that will not only make it harder to protect our rights but will completely fail to achieve its objective, which is to fight terrorism in meaningful ways.

Let us not forget that, once again, we are debating Bill C-51 under time allocation. That means our rights as MPs and parliamentarians are being set aside.

Once again, this bill is indefensible. The experts have told us that over and over. It is time to listen to them.

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

Mr. Speaker, the great patriot Benjamin Franklin, father of American independence, taught us the following:

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

This is the slippery slope that the Conservatives would have us descend. This is the terrible abyss into which they would cast Canadians with their questionable laws and divisive rhetoric.

Today I rise to express my opposition in principle to Bill C-51. I do so solemnly. The terrorist attacks of recent months scarred us all. The October attacks in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and Ottawa reminded us that terrorism is a very real threat. In October, a deranged man broke in here, endangering us all. We all banded together to confirm our steadfast commitment to our values of freedom. It is therefore absurd to insinuate that anyone in this place is complacent about this issue.

Those tragic incidents also helped reunite Canadians around our values of love, tolerance and openness. However, the Conservative government once again took advantage of an issue we all agree on to put forward its ideological view through a pro-war discourse that has no place in Canada. Under the pretext of an internal threat, the Conservatives wanted us to stop thinking critically. We were supposed to hand our civil liberties over to a government that tramples them on a daily basis.

Despite their rhetoric, the Conservatives' approach to this legislation is not serious. The Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly challenged the Prime Minister to give us a single example of a case that would fall under the scope of Bill C-51 that is not already a crime here in Canada. The Prime Minister has never been able to give an example. This bill's only purpose is to serve as an opportunity for the Conservatives to exploit the fears of Canadians, and that is shameful.

Many bills have already been introduced in the House in recent years. Just as we did with Bill C-51, we always carry out a thoughtful analysis based on our principles: defending Canadians' safety and freedoms. The anti-terrorism legislation that has been on the books since 2001 is working just fine. In just the past few weeks, police have laid charges against six individuals here in Ottawa for activities related to a terrorist group.

The current laws are working, and police officers and intelligence officers have the legislative arsenal to take action, but are lacking the financial and material resources that the Conservatives keep refusing to give them. The government has a fundamental duty to protect Canadians' safety, but as usual, it is all a sham with the Conservatives: tough talk, no action. At every turn, they claim to be toughening the law, again and again, reducing spending, again and again, reducing the role of government, again and again.

I want Canadians to know what a sham this government is. It claims to be protecting us with laws that take away our freedoms and then at the same time it cuts the means for catching terrorists. First, it cuts the human means. Fighting terrorism requires extraordinary skills at infiltrating networks, tracking financial support, and so on. These are irreplaceable skills. The government's solution for developing them: 2,271 full-time jobs cut at the RCMP in two years.

Next are the financial means. Conducting anti-terrorist activities is extremely expensive. What does this government do? It cuts $44 million from CSIS's budget and $420 million from the RCMP. These are staggering figures that prove that the Conservatives have a security policy vacuum.

I therefore have a question for this government. Are our lives, our rights, our homes and our freedoms worth less than the only balanced budget in its history?

This government is leading us into disaster. It is cutting the resources needed to guarantee our safety while at the same time reducing oversight of CSIS's activities. In its most recent report, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which is underfunded, indicated that it had been seriously misled by CSIS in many investigations.

The report mentioned, and I quote, “difficulties” and “significant delays” in getting information about the spy agency's activities.

CSIS can therefore withhold information from the body responsible for oversight of its activities because that body is underfunded and understaffed. Despite the flaws in the existing structure, the Conservatives are still proposing that new responsibilities be given to CSIS. That is very worrisome.

Bill C-51 is so vague that it would allow CSIS to investigate anyone who opposes the government's economic, social or environmental policies. Under Bill C-51, the government could lump legal dissent together with terrorism and lump strikers together with violent anarchists, even though they have nothing in common. Bill C-51 proposes making it a criminal offence to advocate or promote the commission of terrorism offences “in general”. Can the minister explain what the words “in general” are doing in a legal text?

The wording of the new provision is so vague and leaves so much room for interpretation that it considerably broadens the scope of the circumstances under which a Canadian can be arrested.

It goes without saying that anyone who actually incites another person to commit violence should be arrested. However, we need measures that protect Canadians but do not undermine any of our freedoms. The rule of law is the fundamental principle of the Constitution Act, 1867. Where is that in this bill?

We have called on the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to explain the scope of his bill, but he is unable to do so. Instead, his leader would rather fan the flames of divisiveness by attacking Canada's Muslim community. That is shameful.

Instead of succumbing to the temptation to divide people, the NDP stands by its principles and believes that it is possible to adopt measures that protect Canadians without undermining our freedoms.

First, if we want to enhance the powers of CSIS, we must enhance the powers and means of oversight. That is simple and essential. Then, we must ensure that the RCMP and CSIS have the material, human and financial resources they need to do their job properly. As a result of the Conservatives' budget cuts, these agencies must now choose between monitoring suspected terrorists and funding other law enforcement activities. They should not have to choose. The government should give them the resources to do both.

Canada must adopt a strategy to counter radicalization. We are asking for a plan to support Canadian communities that are combatting radicalization on the ground. That approach works. It has been adopted by most of our allies.

The United States has taken a proactive approach to combatting radicalization. It supports communities and faith leaders by connecting them with counter-radicalization experts. It strives to provide communities with information on how to recognize the warning signs of radicalization and the means to prevent it. Canada has no such approach. The Conservatives reject that, and that is absurd.

We must have a real debate on how to tackle the threats of radicalization, terrorism and attacks committed by disturbed lone wolves. A free society is a safe society. These four measures are the way to balance freedom and public safety. As always, Canadians can count on the NDP to stand up for the values of Canadian society.

Our critics proposed 28 amendments to protect our families and our rights. With its usual arrogance, this inept government simply dismissed them. That is why I invite all true patriots in this chamber to follow my example, support the NDP amendments and reject the main motion.

In closing, I would like to personally address every Conservative and Liberal member who is preparing to vote for Bill C-51. They must not forget that Canada is a land of hope for the entire world because our society is based on the values of love, tolerance and openness, which we cherish. They must not forget that giving in to the shift in security policy being proposed by this government means giving in to fear. They must not forget that voting for this bill means renouncing everything that makes us a people of love, tolerance and openness, everything that makes us Canadian.

[Privilege, May 1st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for all of the attention you have given to this matter.

As I was saying at the beginning of this discussion, I was truly shocked to learn that our members—because there were several of them—were prevented from coming to the House to do their duty. I think that your attention to this matter is necessary, but above all, it shows how important this is. Thank you.

[Privilege, May 1st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to add my remarks on the question of privilege raised yesterday by my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

I will remind the House of the incident. While my colleague was in an official House of Commons shuttle bus, an RCMP officer refused him, as well as some other members of the House, access to the parliamentary precinct.

That physical obstruction impeded him from performing his parliamentary duties, which I believe constitutes a prima facie breach of the member's privilege and therefore the privileges of all members of the House.

There were also some Conservative members on the bus with my colleague, and they too shared his concerns regarding what happened and their inability to return to the House, because as members will know, we had a number of votes yesterday.

I was very surprised to hear the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, who said that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has already dealt with this issue, and therefore the issue of obstructing members needs no further comment. I find that extremely troubling, which is why I wanted to add my voice to the discussion.

On page 75 of Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, Erskine May defines parliamentary privilege as:

Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively…and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions.

These functions are critical to the work that we all do here in the House and in Parliament to represent our constituents.

It is true that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has already considered this issue. In fact, it submitted its report on March 26. The committee considered a question of privilege raised by my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst, who was denied access to Parliament Hill during the official visit of the President of Germany.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to the study by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, more specifically to the testimony from Marc Bosc, Acting Clerk of the House of Commons, Kevin Vickers, former Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons, and Patrick McDonell, current Sergeant-at-Arms but the then Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms and director general of security services.

During the course of their appearance, the process for determining the security arrangement during visits by foreign dignitaries to Parliament Hill was explained. It was stated that during such visits, extensive planning and numerous meetings take place between the three partners involved in providing security on the parliamentary precinct: the House of Commons security services, the RCMP and the Ottawa Police Service.

Mr. Vickers noted a key step towards interoperability was taken five years ago with the creation of the master security planning office, comprised of representatives from the Senate, House of Commons and RCMP.

The mandate of this office is to provide guidance and strategic direction and to ensure a proactive and coordinated security approach within the precinct. Mr. Vickers indicated that all official visits are accorded different security levels, ranging from levels one to five, with level one being the highest level of risk.

The visit on September 25, 2014—when the incident involving the member for Acadie—Bathurst occurred—was designated as a level four visit, during which it is common practice to not limit pedestrian access at closed points.

In the case of the member for Acadie—Bathurst, there was to be no stopping of pedestrians, regardless of whether they were members of Parliament or not. However, the member for Acadie—Bathurst was prevented from entering the precinct.

I think it is important that the House be aware of what the level of security was yesterday when the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and other members were blocked from accessing the parliamentary precinct.

When the committee examined the question of privilege raised by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, we were told that the House security services were going to double their efforts to ensure that front-line officers thoroughly understand that members must have unfettered access to the parliamentary precinct. However, the problem that arose yesterday involved an RCMP officer.

I would like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to something else that was said before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, when the committee was examining the question of privilege raised by the member for Acadie—Bathurst.

Bob Paulson, the RCMP commissioner, Gilles Michaud, the assistant commissioner and commanding officer of the national division of the RCMP, Mike Cabana, the deputy commissioner of federal policing for the RCMP, Charles Bordeleau, the chief of police for the Ottawa Police Service, and Murray Knowles, an inspector for the Ottawa Police Service, appeared before the committee.

Commissioner Paulson gave the committee an overview of the RCMP's role on Parliament Hill and during visits by foreign dignitaries. The RCMP is responsible for securing the grounds of Parliament Hill and ensuring the safety of the Prime Minister. The RCMP is also responsible for the safety and security of visiting dignitaries when they are outside the buildings that make up the parliamentary precinct. The RCMP is often faced with competing security priorities. Commissioner Paulson said that the RCMP takes every measure possible to ensure that its security operations do not impede parliamentarians.

[National Defence, May 1st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, Justice Deschamps's report demands a strong and immediate response from the government. The Chief of the Defence Staff is promising an action plan, but does not seem to know, and I quote, “what the government expects”. What Canadians expect is protection and respect for women in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Will the minister tell his Chief of the Defence Staff that so that he implements all the recommendations in the report?

[National Defence, May 1st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the report by Justice Deschamps reveals how miserably the army failed to protect its own members by tolerating a culture where sexual misconduct is widespread. In 2014, two journalists from L'actualité revealed that since 2000 there had been an average of 178 complaints of sexual assault every year in the Canadian Armed Forces and that hundreds of other cases were not reported.

Why did the minister wait so long to deal with this scandal?

[Manufacturing Industry, April 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the decline in manufacturing production translates into the loss of good jobs for Canadian families. There are no measures in the Conservatives' budget to protect jobs in the manufacturing sector, and they did nothing to save the 400,000 jobs that have already disappeared since they came to power.

Why is the minister not protecting manufacturing jobs that provide an adequate standard of living for many families in the middle class?

[Manufacturing Industry, April 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has become an expert at creating illusions.

The Minister of Finance likes to boast that he balanced his budget, but it is a smokescreen that poorly masks the real state of the Canadian economy, which has been crippled by the Conservatives' poor decisions.

According to the most recent data, there has been a decline in manufacturing production for the second month in a row. That is worrisome because it indicates a continuing economic slowdown.

Does the minister have a plan to address the decline of Canadian manufacturers?

[Unemployment Rate, April 29th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

There is no doubt that the manufacturing sector must be modernized. It is about being competitive internationally, with everything that is available on the market right now. The manufacturing sector needs to have the means to innovate and create jobs that will ensure that our industry is competitive both today and in the future. That cannot happen without modernizing.

[Unemployment Rate, April 29th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant question.

It is important to remember that it is because of this government that jobs today are precarious and part-time, for the most part. If the government really wanted to help economic recovery, it would create real jobs. To boost job creation requires a dynamic that only the NDP has; for one thing, it would allow wages to be assessed properly.

We have put forward our proposal for a $15 an hour federal minimum wage. To help the middle class and stimulate the economy and job creation, it is crucial to be able to go ahead with bold principles and action that will allow SMEs to create good jobs and the manufacturing sector to stimulate the economy.