Tony Clement

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

Mr. Speaker, the spectacle in the House today was not a good one for the Prime Minister. He was there laughing and heckling and over-talking the Conservative House leader when she was trying to make a pertinent point about the future of parliamentary democracy in this country. The Prime Minister treats this chamber as his personal chew toy.

We are going to stand in our place, we are going to fight for democracy, and we are going to fight for Canadians' rights. When is the Prime Minister going to be on our side and live up to his promises in the last election, rather than throwing it all out the window for his own personal gain?

[Public Safety, March 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the reeve of Emerson, Manitoba, says another 29 asylum seekers illegally crossed into his community on Sunday night alone. We also know that refugees are illegally crossing into Quebec with American visas issued at the U.S. embassy in Saudi Arabia.

Canadians are tired of the Liberals' inaction and denial. Where is the plan? When will the Liberals finally take action and regain control of our borders?

[Sexual Assault, March 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I recently hosted a meeting in my riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka with local advocacy groups and the mayors of Huntsville and Bracebridge to discuss an alarming report in The Globe and Mail.

The report revealed one in five sexual assault claims in Canada is dismissed as unfounded by the police. My riding has some of the highest numbers in the country, with more than half of sexual assault allegations being dropped. We must work together to address these disturbing and unacceptable statistics.

We should be looking at alternative models of addressing sexual assault allegations, including the Philadelphia model. This model was implemented 14 years ago, and allows front-line groups, which understand trauma, to review reported sexual assault cases directly with police.

I am encouraged that communities and advocacy groups in Parry Sound—Muskoka and across the country are working together and learning from one another to find effective solutions to support sexual assault victims. Let us all help our communities to reduce and eliminate sexual violence, and bring perpetrators to justice.

[Operation UNIFIER, March 20th, 2017]

Mr. Chair, I would like the hon. member to expand on the legal framework, because I hear apologists who take the Putin line ask, and we heard it in this House just a few minutes ago, why we should care about Crimea as it is primarily Russian. Perhaps the hon. member can describe in more detail the legal framework that was based on the fact that the major powers guaranteed the sovereignty and the borders of Ukraine at the time it gave up its nuclear arsenal at the breakup of the Soviet Union. Perhaps the hon. member could delve into that a bit.

[Operation UNIFIER, March 20th, 2017]

Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. minister for her remarks, which were a tour d'horizon of the previous government's support, and obviously the support of the minister and the government as well.

I was in Ukraine, as the hon. minister knows, from February 28 to March 3, on a humanitarian mission with One Free World International. There are over one million displaced persons in Ukraine right now. They have been displaced by the horrific war that is still going on. It is not a cold war, but a hot war in the Donbass region. I visited the military hospital. Many Canadian doctors are there, working overnight shifts because there are young men who need their help after being in the war zone.

I also met with a number of Ukrainian officials. They worried about the corruption in their society still and how Canada could help them.

I have a three-part question for the hon. minister. I know we have Operation Unifier, which is amazing and should be continued, but how can we help combat corruption? How can we help make sure Ukrainian soldiers can better defend their homeland? How can we help the displaced persons who need our help?

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, March 20th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for his interventions, but I also want to remind him about some of the other testimony we heard at the committee stage from people Liberals like to call experts and like to defer to. I am thinking of Professor Roach, for example, and others in the privacy realm, who said that this bill—and it is only reinforced by the amendments the Liberals are proposing—actually creates a triple lock on the ability of the committee to do its job properly. It is a lock that is dictated by the Prime Minister's Office and is further dictated by the minister, and it prevents the committee from gaining access to information in a timely manner to do its proper job of oversight.

Would the minister care to comment on that?

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, March 20th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, how can the hon. government House leader justify watering down the government's own bill when promising in an election to have a meaningful parliamentary oversight process?

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, March 20th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, very simply, the hon. House leader knows full well that the hon. Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, as well as other members of her caucus, have been on the record decrying this very parliamentary motion when they were on this side of the aisle, when they were in opposition. Indeed, I am quite concerned that it is being used on a measure that relates to the national security of our country and the parliamentary oversight that is being proposed by the bill. Certainly we have not debated it long enough. There have been a number of meaningful amendments by the government. I would like to know how she can square the Liberals' opposition to these kinds of motions when they were in opposition with what they are doing today in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. During the election campaign, the government promised a national security oversight process. However, under this bill, the committee will not have all the necessary powers to ensure the security of our country and protect the interests of our citizens.

My hon. colleague, the NDP critic, and I face a very difficult situation together where we want to support the legislation, but the amendments that are being proposed here further weaken the legislation. We cannot abide by that and we do not support that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat again. If we are going to go through the trouble of creating a parliamentary oversight committee, which was, one could argue, the will of the people as a result of October 2015, then make it work. We want it to work.

We accept the will of the people. We are democrats on this side of the House. We accept the democratic will. We are saying to the hon. member and his party, “Fulfill your promise.” Do not get into this Potemkin village parliamentary oversight committee, which does not have the powers it needs to do its job. What is the point?

That is the point I am trying to make as the Conservative Party critic. I am saying this not only for myself and not only for our caucus but that was the testimony we heard at committee from the experts that the hon. member and his colleagues seem always to agree with and want to be subservient to, unless they disagree with the government's proposal, in which case they ignore the experts.