Ted Falk

[Standing Orders of the House of Commons, March 22nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals campaigned on a promise of real change. This is real change, a move from democracy to what? A dictatorship? The Chinese style of dictatorship the Prime Minister seems to prefer is creeping its way into committees. Discussions are more like directives.

I would like to ask the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, what is the schedule, what is the agenda, and what are the priorities of the committee on procedure and house affairs?

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, March 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate listening to the member. I do not need to use my earpiece as everything is nice and clear. I am always intrigued by the hon. member for Winnipeg North because he knows something about everything, and I actually appreciate that. However, I do want to help him a bit with his facts on this bill.

I am going to read from subclause 4(2), about the committee makeup. It states:

The Committee is to consist of not more than two members who are members of the Senate and not more than seven members who are members of the House of Commons. Not more than four Committee members who are members of the House of Commons may be members of the government party.

He said that the government party would have a minority of members on this committee. That is absolutely false. The assumption is, and that is if the Prime Minister would actually appoint a full committee, and it does not say he has to; it just says “not more than”. He could appoint four Liberal members from the House of Commons to that committee. He could appoint two Liberal senators to sit on that committee. Of course, we know they are not really Liberal senators, there are just senators who are Liberals, but he could appoint both of those. He has also indicated that he is going to appoint a Liberal chair, as he has already done. He has appointed a chair to a job that does not exist.

That means that on a committee of 10, there are actually seven members who could conceivably be Liberals, which in all likelihood will be Liberals, providing he actually appoints another three members who might be from the Conservative Party or other opposition parties.

I am going to give the member an opportunity to clarify his comments.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, March 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Victoria, my friend, for that question. It was a great honour and privilege to work with him the last year and a half on the public safety committee. I have a great deal of respect for his opinion and his insight into security matters and issues, although we did not always agree. One good example would have been Bill C-51. My NDP friend from Victoria did not agree Bill C-51 was a good balance between security and freedom. Of course, I think Bill C-51 struck a very good balance.

The government has the opportunity today to build on the good work that we did as Conservatives through Bill C-51, which provides assurance to Canadians that we will keep them safe and gives our law and security agencies the right tools to keep them safe. The government had the opportunity to build on that through Bill C-22 and through the committee establishing oversight of our security agencies. Contrary to what the Liberal member said before, the proposed committee is actually disproportionately represented by Liberal members. It is appointed by the Prime Minister. The prime minister would have full oversight of the committee, even through the access to information the committee has by the prime minister having control over the ministers. No, I do not think this is a good balance.

The Liberals keep comparing the bill to what our Five Eyes partner nations have struck, and many of them have experience with this. Instead of gaining from that valuable experience our partners have in establishing their oversight review committees, the Liberals have decided to go it alone and say it is their first opportunity, their first kick at the can, that they will come up with this and review it. That is absolutely not acceptable. When we have methods that are proven with our partner nations, we should be looking at those structures and taking seriously what they have done and what works.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, March 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the power in this particular piece of legislation we are studying and discussing still lies in the PMO. It starts with the Prime Minister appointing the chairperson, and the Prime Minister directly appointing all committee members.

The Liberals say they will consult opposition parties, but it is the Prime Minister who would ultimately make those appointments. The Prime Minister, through his ministers, would be able to control the access of information to this committee throughout the bill. The Prime Minister's influence, authority, and power is just interwoven throughout the whole bill.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, March 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-22, the national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians act.

I want to thank my colleagues in this place who have already taken the opportunity to contribute to this important conversation. I have appreciated hearing all of the different perspectives they have raised.

The Conservative Party has always made the safety and security of Canadians a top priority. Our previous Conservative government understood that our ultimate responsibility was to protect Canadians from those who would do us and our families harm.

Providing law enforcement and national security agencies the necessary tools to prevent and detect national security threats ensures Canadians would be protected from the threats that are, unfortunately, today's reality. At the same time, it was paramount that we stood up for the Canadian values of freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. This was and is the right thing to do as parliamentarians, to consider this delicate balance between freedom and security, and this is still our view in opposition today.

We cannot be so naive as to pretend that there are no credible threats against Canada today. There are real concerns that we must pay attention to, and to do that we have to create effective national security policies. It is critical that we treat public safety and the security threats that our country faces with clear, sober minds.

While I hate to say it, we live in a world that necessitates our constant watchfulness and vigilance. Unfortunately, Canada has been targeted by those who hate us, and who hate our most cherished values, values like freedom and democracy. They want us to feel unsafe in our own homes.

Indeed, we have seen in recent history examples of threats posed by these individuals on Canadian soil in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec, here on Parliament Hill, and also in Strathroy, Ontario. Canada is clearly not immune to security threats, and it is critical that we take steps to counter threats at home and abroad. Horrendous attacks in Europe and the United States have shown that no country is immune to security risks.

Government has a large role to play when it comes to protecting Canadians, and the safety of our citizens is too important to be politicized. I know the member for Durham wrote the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness in advance of the introduction of this bill to indicate that the Conservative Party was willing to work with the government to make this truly an effective and functional committee. The goal on this side of the House was to work collaboratively with all parties in the House to ensure that Bill C-22 is a sound piece of legislation. That is why I am extremely disappointed to learn that none of the meaningful amendments proposed by the Conservatives were adopted.

While this legislation provides a necessary framework for parliamentary oversight of our national security apparatus, it is far from perfect. Bill C-22 ignores some of the key areas where success has been so clearly pronounced in the U.K.'s experience. There are some serious holes in the legislation that have been pointed out in debate and at committee. Unfortunately, these were not addressed in the form of meaningful amendments during the committee process.

One of the issues with this bill is that it positions the Prime Minister to have ultimate control over the national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians. Subsections 5(1) and 6(1) of the bill would effectively give the Prime Minister full control over the direction of the committee. The Prime Minister would choose the committee members and the committee chair. It is designed to be an arm of the Liberal government rather than a non-partisan committee that can function based on the facts. This legislation would go forward to create a committee that acts according to the wishes of its political masters. The Prime Minister should not have full control over this committee. This committee was intended to be independent and non-partisan, and to provide oversight, as the committee should. The Prime Minister already has control over all of our security agencies through his ministers. The way this bill is designed, he would also have control over this committee as well.

It was unfortunate that months before this bill was even introduced, the Prime Minister had already selected and appointed a chair for the committee. In addition, to the Prime Minister already designating a chair, he would be paying him an additional $42,000-a-year for the privilege. The bill has not even received royal assent yet. Who does that? Who pays someone for a job that does not even exist? The Liberal government does.

A more congenial approach would have been to let a candidate or candidates stand before this House, or even just before the members of the committee to seek their consent on who should lead the committee. Again, this shows that there was no intention to collaborate with the opposition parties in any meaningful way.

The Liberal platform talked a good game about increasing accountability, strengthening the role of committee chairs, which included a commitment to their election by secret ballot, but when the rubber meets the road, we see that the Liberals' words are hollow. The best structure for this committee would be one in which it is appointed by and reports to Parliament.

It is clear, after the study of the bill, that the Liberals wish to continue the facade of collaboration and co-operation while they continue to pull the strings behind the scenes. This cuts at the heart of what I believe is the intent behind the bill, creating an oversight mechanism that would be independent of partisanship. We should expect nothing less from a committee which would, in effect, ensure the security and safety of the security and intelligence community. I believe as it stands, the safety of our security intelligence personnel is jeopardized by the partisan nature of this committee.

I also must raise concerns regarding the effectiveness of this committee going forward. Bill C-22 would provide for numerous exceptions and permits government agencies and ministries to opt-out of providing information for the NSICOP review. The committee cannot access information about ongoing defence intelligence activities supporting military operations, information related to ongoing law enforcement investigations that may lead to prosecutions, and other notable exceptions that would really limit this committee's ability to do its job.

Section 16 would allow ministers to simply refuse to share information with the committee. The Prime Minister would control who is on the committee, who chairs the committee, and as if that was not enough, his ministers would decide what the committee is able to see. Control by the Prime Minister's Office is woven throughout this entire bill. This is unfortunate because this legislation could have truly been an effective tool for Parliament and be supreme in the equation rather than the Prime Minister.

An effective committee, like that of our U.K. allies, is supposed to have a cabinet-like level of secrecy where there is a reasonable, free flow of information to all of its members. Unfortunately, this committee has been left with no teeth, weakening oversight, and preventing the committee's mandate from being fulfilled.

For these reasons, I will not be voting for Bill C-22 in its present form.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, March 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned in her speech being consistent with our Five Eyes partners with this bill. I wonder if the member would also agree with giving our security agencies threat-diminishing powers, as our Five Eyes partners have?

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, March 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, as far as populating the committee, as it stands today, is the bill consistent with the practices of other Westminster parliaments in their appointments to this particular committee?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, February 24th, 2017]

With regard to the government’s planned legalization and regulation of marijuana, since November 4, 2015: (a) what are the details of any consultations or meetings which have been held with stakeholders including (i) date, (ii) locations, (iii) attendees; (b) what are the details of any briefing notes or correspondence related to the meetings referred to in (a), including (i) title, (ii) date, (iii) sender, (iv) recipient, (v) subject matter, (vi) file number; (c) what is the content of any information provided to the Minister of Justice and her parliamentary secretaries by (i) the Department of Justice, (ii) the Department of Health, (iii) the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, (iv) the Department of Finance, (v) the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development; (d) has the Minister of Justice or her officials consulted other jurisdictions that have legalized marijuana; and (e) if the answer to (d) is in the affirmative, what are the details, including (i) jurisdictions consulted, (ii) findings for each consultation?

[Public Safety, February 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, over the past several days, 35 migrants have illegally crossed the border from the United States into Canada near Emerson, Manitoba in my riding of Provencher. The residents of Emerson have been doing everything they can to assist the migrants and the authorities in dealing with this influx. However, the Minister of Public Safety has been missing in action and needs to assure Canadians that our borders are secure. Can the minister explain to the people of Emerson what action he is taking to restore and maintain the integrity of our borders?

[Taxation, February 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for answering the question that I presented to the minister. Just to reiterate, the tax will cost Canadian taxpayers $8 million then grow to $30 million over time for talk shows.

I was also pleased to hear the parliamentary secretary confirm that there will not be a tax on Netflix.

I am just wondering whether the parliamentary secretary would be so kind as to confirm that Canadians do not have to worry about their health and dental benefits being taxed as well. I am sure Canadian taxpayers would love to be reassured that they will not be burdened with another tax.