Ted Falk

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, December 8th, 2015]

Madam Speaker, I, too, congratulate you on your new position. I can hardly believe that you are old enough to have grandchildren.

I would like to advise you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

I would like to begin by saying that it is an honour to stand in the House today to speak on behalf of the people of Provencher. I want to thank my constituents for their renewed faith in me and for voting me in to serve their interests here in Ottawa for a second term. I look forward to working with my colleagues in an environment of collaboration, in sunnier ways, while at the same time holding the government to account as the opposition. As the official opposition, it is clear that we have a lot of work to do, and I am confident that we are going to live up to that challenge.

I would like to take this time to also thank my wife, Irene, who was with me on the campaign trail. She tirelessly knocked on many doors with me and was at my side for the entire time during the campaign. I thank her for that, as well as the rest of my family.

I also want to take this time to address the many promises made to Canadians this past Friday during the Speech from the Throne. The Liberal Speech from the Throne was long on platitudes and very short on details. I am troubled by the long list of spending commitments that the Liberals have indicated that Canadians can soon expect, while simultaneously neglecting to describe how these promises will be paid for.

We know that it is easy to make commitments. What is the cost? Who is going to pay? These are all lofty promises.

I fear that when we choose to run large deficits, far too often the costs fall onto future generations. The costs fall on the backs of our children and grandchildren. I, along with many of the constituents I have spoken to, am not comfortable with the promises that come with that kind of price. I want Canadians to have resources, programs, and benefits that we can collectively afford, and I want to set future generations, my seven grandchildren, their children, and their grandchildren up for success.

The government has the capacity to provide great programs and benefits to Canadians, but it involves careful, long-term planning, sound budgeting, and fiscal responsibility. I cannot say that I am very surprised that one promise that the Liberals will not even be close to keeping is the $10 billion annual cap on deficits. They are introducing a tax cut that actually costs people money. The deficit is now up to $14 billion and counting. This is taxpayers' money that has been committed by the Prime Minister in just over a month in his position. It includes large sums of taxpayers' money and funding to many international projects, without any parliamentary debate or review.

If that is what we can expect in one month, I do not even want to imagine where Canada will be in four years. It is truly unsettling to watch years of careful financial planning, which brought our Canada into a sound and secure financial place during challenging economic times, including a global economic downturn, being unravelled in so little time.

With the Liberals' sights set on spending, they also do damage by not addressing as priorities in the throne speech the prominent pillars of our economy. Again, the Liberals are long on platitudes and short on details.

Coming from a large rural riding with a strong and vibrant agriculture community, I can say that rural Canadians were left with questions following Friday's throne speech. In fact, farmers were left out in the cold and, apparently, not even deserving of a platitude. Not once were our farmers or agriculture sector mentioned. It is a sector that accounts for more than $100 billion in economic activity each and every year and employs more than two million Canadians.

The Prime Minister has stated to the world that Canada is back. What are we back to? Are we back to thinking that the issues and interests of rural and western Canada can be ignored? I hope not.

Farmers are the backbone of this country. Farmers work long days in physically demanding environments so that Canadians can eat and remain nourished. This cannot be emphasized enough. While it seems as though Canada's farming and agriculture sectors were passed over as a priority for the Liberal government, I can assure the House that the Conservative Party will be here to work for and represent the interests of Canadian farmers.

Farmers were not the only ones left out of the government's priorities. There was no mention of Canada's private sector or of its industries. Conservatives have long looked at ways to bolster this part of the economy, knowing full well that it is essential for job creation and a thriving economy.

Is Canada back, back to the old way of thinking that big government knows what is best when it comes to creating jobs and prosperity? It concerns me when a government speaks of growing the economy but neglects to acknowledge or make plans for its key supporters and sectors.

Where was the mention of Canada's small businesses and entrepreneurs? They are critical to the health of the Canadian economy. Small businesses represent 99% of all business in the country and employ half of all Canadians in the private sector, and yet they were not even brought up. The government needs to keep taxes low for these businesses, enable access to finance, ensure entrepreneurs have the tools and the resources that they need. Small businesses are vital to Canada's economy, and the Liberal government needs to invest in policies that help them to grow and succeed.

It is easy to promise job creation and a robust economy, but without a plan or consideration of key players, they are empty words and broken promises.

I am also concerned about a government that continually repeats its commitment to families but is seemingly unconcerned with the rights of families to decide what is best for them. Cancelling income splitting for couples, as promised by the Liberals, will hurt the middle class. It will punish the many families that I know have made a decision to have a full-time stay-at-home parent, and it will hurt families that have a low-income earner.

Is Canada back, back to believing that government is better at raising a family than mom and dad? I hope not. It wants to take away the universal child care benefit and introduce a middle-class tax cut. This cut will cost Canadians money.

Conservatives know that families are better off when families make their own decisions about what is best for their household. Cancelling income splitting for families will limit options for households that need it the most. Conservatives will continue to stand by families and advocate for fairness and choice.

I am not the first person nor will I be the last to rise in this House with concerns about the acts of terrorism occurring around the world. These violent and horrendous acts appear to be occurring more frequently. The Prime Minister, in the wake of the terrorist attacks in France, offered all of Canada's support, again simply more platitudes.

While our allies come together to address these real threats straight on, the Liberals are offering real change and Canada is simultaneously working to withdraw its fighter jets. Sadly Canada is back, way back when it comes to supporting our allies, when it comes to doing the right thing. My default, my preference would be to negotiate a peaceful solution. However, when this is not possible, we must do the right thing. We must stand with our allies. The fight against ISIS continues. The threat of terrorism is very real, and yet it seems the government would rather turn a blind eye. There was no mention of this in Friday's throne speech. I find it disconcerting that the government is more focused on the legalization and regulation of marijuana than it is with the growing threat of terrorism around the globe.

To conclude, I believe there are occasions when it is necessary to run deficits, but I am not convinced this is one of those times. After years of careful financial planning, Conservatives promised and successfully delivered a surplus. The Liberals, on the other hand, made lofty promises when they campaigned to curry favour with voters and are now willing to put the economy into jeopardy to immediately put forward those plans.

These commitments, as evidenced in the Speech from the Throne, lack important details, key players, and long-term vision. I want to remind Canadians that all these promises come at a cost. Deficits put additional burdens on future generations. Our Prime Minister continues to tell us he plans to increase the tax on the top 1% of Canadians. This will only begin to offset the cost of expensive promises already made.

How do the Liberals intend to pay for their spending spree? Is Canada back, back to tackling huge deficits by slashing health care and social transfers to the provinces?

Conservatives are a party for the Canadian taxpayer not a party of platitudes. We will continue on behalf of all Canadians to push the Liberals for details as to how they plan to finance all their lofty promises.

[Royal Canadian Air Force, June 11th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the depraved genocidal death cult of ISIS continues to commit brutal crimes in Iraq and Syria, especially against women and children. ISIS has called for brutal attacks in Canada against Canadians. Ignoring this threat is not a solution.

On behalf of my riding of Provencher, I want to thank the Royal Canadian Air Force for standing on guard for Canada and for standing up to this threat. Our CF-18 Hornets successfully led their third air strike in Syria, hitting an ISIS compound near Al-Hasakah. That followed another successful strike against an ISIS fighting position in Baiji, Iraq.

We thank our men and women in uniform, who are getting the job done.

[Taxation, June 9th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today in support of hard-working Canadian families who form the cornerstone of our society. As a basic unit of any successful nation, families drive our economy, build our communities and provide our children with moral, social and financial stability. I firmly believe that when the family unit is healthy, when families prosper, all Canadians prosper. I stand here today in support of our government's commitment to help families.

In our most recent budget, we introduced a number of initiatives that will help millions of Canadian families, including those who live in southeastern Manitoba. Since forming government, we have cut taxes over 160 times. This will result in a typical two-earner Canadian family receiving tax relief and increased benefits of up to $6,600 this year. Some examples of these tax credits include the family tax cut, the universal child care benefit and the children's fitness credit.

I have received many supportive comments on our government's low-tax initiative from families all across my riding of Provencher. They are encouraging us to work hard and continue to deliver results for families.

[Petitions, June 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition from my constituents who say that Canada's 400-year-old definition of a human being is inadequate in this day and age. The petitioners would like Parliament to confirm that every human being is a human being in Canadian law by amending section 223 of our Criminal Code in such a way as to reflect 21st century medical evidence.

[Telecommunications, May 28th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, last week I had the privilege, together with the President of the Treasury Board, of announcing funding in my riding through the connecting Canadians program. This will, for the very first time, bring affordable, high-speed Internet to over 4,500 homes in the riding of Provencher.

Can the Minister of Industry please update this House on what our government is doing, and our plans to continue to bring affordable, high-speed Internet to rural and remote communities?

[Telecommunications, May 5th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, in today's digital economy, Canadians live in a world where access to the Internet is essential to create jobs, to realize economic opportunities and to link Canadians to online services.

Last summer, our government announced the connecting Canadians program, which will connect 280,000 households to affordable, high-quality broadband services.

Could the Minister of Industry give the House an update on the other steps our government is taking to help connect rural and remote communities to high-speed, affordable telecommunications services?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety for her leadership on this bill, and also for her leadership at committee. She does amazing work. Her constituents should be very proud of her.

We listened to over 48 expert witnesses, who brought years and years of experience and credibility to the discussions and deliberations at committee. They provided expert testimony to confirm that the bill would provide our law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to identify and also reduce and minimize the risk of jihadi terrorists in Canada. They spoke favourably of being able to accomplish the work we have asked them to do if they had the tools provided in Bill C-51.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Winnipeg North. It gives me the opportunity to speak to that exact question.

At committee when we reviewed this bill, we heard from many of the witnesses that they would like additional oversight. Our government has responded in economic action plan 2015 by almost doubling the funds for oversight.

As members have said previously, this bill would also continue to provide for judicial oversight. This means that before CSIS agents can carry out their activities, they need to present their case and get a judge to agree that what they want to do is proper and good. Then we have the oversight to confirm that the permissions that were granted by the courts to CSIS were carried through with, and that is done by SIRC.

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

Mr. Speaker, trust, like respect, is something that is earned. I think Canadians can see from the track record of our Prime Minister and our government that we have delivered time and time again, whether it is on balancing the budget or providing victims of crime with rights. Our government has delivered on many initiatives.

I think the that the NDP is proposing questions here: Can we trust CSIS with the powers that the bill would give them to fight the jihadi terrorists? Can we trust our law enforcement agencies with the powers in the bill to enable them to share information so they can properly fight the jihadi terrorists?

The question is not so much on whether we can trust the government, but can we trust the law enforcement agencies that work so diligently in keeping us safe? I find that question offensive.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak in the House today on Bill C-51. It is very important legislation that this House and the committee have been working on.

Canadians are worried about the threat the international jihadist movement poses to their communities and to Canada as a whole. The horrors committed by jihadi terrorists are well documented. We have all seen the pictures. We have heard the stories. We have read the articles. We know of the savage beheadings, of people being burned alive and being buried alive. We know that women are being raped, tortured, and enslaved. The list could go on.

These jihadi terrorists recognize no border, and if frustrated in their attempts to travel overseas to join the caliphate, they will seek to commit acts of terrorism right here in Canada. We do not believe in exporting terrorism, and that is why we need Bill C-51.

As Barry Cooper, from the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, put it:

So let us state the obvious: Bill C-51 is aimed at violent Islamic jihadi terrorists, and those are the persons against whom its provisions are to be enforced. The reasons are clear enough provided one makes reference to facts and events of the real world today.

Unlike their critics, the authors of Bill C-51 are sensible enough to have recognized the danger. However, the opposition members are insisting that politicians be handed control of oversight of our national security agencies.

As a sitting member of the committee for public safety and national security, I sat through the vigorous study of this act. Witnesses testified that we needed to enhance oversight of our CSIS review body. I am pleased that our government listened and heard those concerns and has responded.

Economic action plan 2015 proposes to provide up to $12.5 million over five years, starting in the 2015-16 fiscal year, and then $2.5 million ongoing thereafter in additional funding to the Security Intelligence Review Committee to enhance its review of CSIS.

While we would ensure that our national security agencies have the tools they need to protect Canadians from the threat of terrorism, we would also ensure that these practices are governed by an effective and transparent framework that protects the rights of individual Canadians. The fact is, budget 2015 will almost double the resources of the Security Intelligence Review Committee. Unlike the opposition, we believe that third-party, non-partisan, independent expert oversight of our national security agencies is a better model than political intervention in the process.

Justice John Major had this to say about the plan to inject politics into national security oversight: “I don't think Parliament is equipped as a body to act as an oversight...which is what is being proposed” by the opposition.

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

The truth is that the opposition members have been trying to force their way into politicizing national security oversight. The opposition is on record as saying that it is concerned that its social policies might attract the attention of our security intelligence establishment. As Ray Boisvert, former assistant director of CSIS, put it, “anybody who had an issue they'd like to protest [who thinks they] will now become a target of the security establishment.... I think you should not...flatter yourself to that degree”.

Justice John Major also confirmed this reasoning, saying, “citizens who are not validly under suspicion will not have some manufactured reason for their private lives to be interfered with”.

Professor Salim Mansur of Western University also added, “Bill C-51 in my reading is not designed to turn Canada into some version of Hobbes' Leviathan or Orwell's 1984, despite at times the fevered imagination of its critics”.

Canadians understand that freedom and security go hand in hand. They understand that our police and our national security agencies are working to protect our rights and freedoms, and that it is the jihadi terrorists who endanger our security. I could go on, but I believe I have made my point clear.

I would like to read a very descriptive quote from Tom Stamatakis, president of the Canadian Police Association, because I believe it is a good reminder in this debate that those who threaten our freedom and our liberties are not the police officers and the intelligence community tasked with protecting Canadians. Those who threaten our freedoms are the jihadi terrorists.

Mr. Stamatakis stated:

I would take issue with calls for oversight bodies to take a more active role in the operational nature of the jobs we entrust to highly trained and very accountable professional law enforcement, whether a police officer employed by a federal, provincial, or municipal agency or an intelligence officer employed by the federal government. Those who have criticized the Security Intelligence Review Committee for only providing “after the fact” oversight often underestimate how difficult real-time operational oversight can be to achieve, particularly in the context of a fast-moving investigation with very real public safety consequences.

He went on to further say:

Those criticisms also undervalue the often positive effect that ex post facto oversight can have on our industry. Identifying where inappropriate actions may have been taken or where different and more positive decisions could have been made is the very foundation of our services and the training and education that comes from those service reviews.

Mr. Stamatakis clearly makes the point that we have strong oversight that allows them to draw lessons from their experience and continually improve themselves.

As to why we need Bill C-51, I would like to quote Ms. Raheel Raza, president of Muslims Facing Tomorrow. She said that legislation is important to combat radicalization and that we need better tools to track jihadists who travel overseas. She went on to say that “unfortunately we are living in a post-9/11 world and times are such that personal information needs to be shared. That's the reality and I don't have a problem with it.” She said that the “larger picture is that of the security and safety of Canada.”

I believe this quote is very interesting because it mentions the larger picture here and why the anti-terrorism act is needed.

When we talk about the security and safety of Canada as parliamentarians, we should understand that this means ensuring the safety and security of our families.

We intend to continue to work to keep Canadians safe by ensuring our law enforcement agencies have the tools to do the job they need to do to combat the threat of the international jihadi terrorist movement.

As Tahir Gora of the Canadian Thinkers' Forum said:

The government's proposed Bill C-51, when passed by Parliament, shall help Canadian Muslims to curb extremist elements....

The world is a dangerous place, as was most brutally demonstrated by last October's attacks in Ottawa and Quebec, and Canada is not immune to the threat of terrorism. The proposed legislation would provide Canadian law enforcement and national security agencies with additional tools and flexibility to keep pace with evolving threats and to better protect Canadians here at home.

We are ensuring our law enforcement and national security agencies can counter those who advocate terrorism, prevent terrorist travel, and the efforts of those who seek to use Canada as a recruiting ground. We are also making sure that our law enforcement agencies can prevent and disrupt planned attacks on Canadian soil.

We will continue to support this legislation because we believe the anti-terrorist act as being the appropriate response to the growing threat of jihadi terrorists that seek to further their radical ideology and their idea of totalitarian caliphate by murdering those who oppose them.