Guy Caron

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. I know he was involved in the grain sector in the past. The canola issue is also important.

I think that the Canadian Canola Growers Association and canola producers have done their job by putting pressure on the government and asking a few weeks ago for the appointment of an ambassador to start fixing the problem. They are a powerful voice for the industry, but they are not being heard.

There have been many calls for an emergency debate. My colleague spoke about the fact that she asked to discuss the canola issue in committee. When her request was approved, they held just two insignificant meetings and no report followed.

It is clear, then, that the government is not interested in taking a thoughtful and systematic approach to this issue, and that we must continue to fight together with our partners. In the case at hand, we are working with canola representatives, but eventually it may be representatives of the pork or soybean sectors, although I hope it does not come to that.

[Business of Supply, May 1st, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Essex for the excellent speech she gave. She spoke at length about canola, and I will be focusing first and foremost on the diplomatic issue.

This situation has been going on for over three months. Our ambassador to China was fired, resigned or was “asked to resign” over some awkward remarks he made about the highly sensitive case of Huawei's chief financial officer being held here in Canada. This resignation or firing made sense, because he had definitely crossed the line.

However, as we have been saying from the beginning, this government's mistake was not having a plan B. For all his flaws, Mr. McCallum, the former ambassador, had a special relationship with China. He understood the spirit, the thinking and the diplomatic philosophy that was needed to approach the Chinese government. That is extremely important in diplomatic circles. Just as we hope that ambassadors representing other countries in Canada understand how the government operates, we need to be able to demonstrate the same knowledge at our embassies abroad. Mr. McCallum had that special relationship with China, but now it is lost. That is why it was doubly important to replace him promptly.

Three days after Mr. McCallum's departure, Guy Saint-Jacques, a former Canadian ambassador to China, said that if the ambassador could not be replaced immediately, we should at least send a special envoy. This would have shown that we take the situation and our relationship with China seriously. The fact that stand-ins and backups are currently representing the Canadian embassy in China is not necessarily an insult, but I must say that it does not show respect for China. This has created all kinds of problems, and the canola issue is one of them.

We know about Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, the two Canadians who are currently in prison. In three months, two Canadians have been sentenced to death. This is obviously in retaliation for Canada's inability to maintain sensitive, reasonable diplomatic relations with China.

I want to quickly address the canola situation. This is a problem because, as my colleague mentioned, this product is right at the top of the list. We know very well that China's decision to revoke the canola export permits has nothing to do with the quality of the product. The decision was quite obviously made in retaliation. Other Canadian products like pork, peas and soybeans are currently in jeopardy. What will happen if China decides to move forward and ban these Canadian products from the country? At what point will the government step up and say that this is unacceptable? We must fight and complain to the World Trade Organization. We must use the trade tribunals. My colleague mentioned that other countries do not hesitate to do this with us. If the reason truly is unfair, as is the case here, then we should start using the tools at our disposal.

What is the government going to do now that canola is under attack? If soybeans and pork are targeted, will it finally wake up and do something? In light of the government's inept handling of this diplomatic relationship, I am seriously starting to doubt it. This is a problem because things are not going to get better.

I believe it is now clear that China is feeling out this relationship and sees that we are not reacting. It sees that we have no intention of appointing a Canadian ambassador to China, that we have no intention of sending a special envoy to open the dialogue. The Prime Minister has not even bothered to call his Chinese counterpart. There is no acceptable line of communication open to Chinese representatives. Therefore, chances are that in order for Canada to get respect, it will also have to show signs of strength. I am not referring to military strength, as the parliamentary secretary seemed to allude to, but we have to establish our own means of retaliation. The issue of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, in which we have invested $256 million over five years, is part of this.

Why invest in an infrastructure bank when we have our own? In both cases, it is a bad idea. Infrastructure banks serve to facilitate the privatization of public assets and income.

Investors in an infrastructure bank, whether it be the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank or the Canada Infrastructure Bank, want a return on their investment. If they want a return on their investment, there must be some way to achieve that. This is done through user fees, such as tolls, which are forced sources of income. These are forced fees for these pieces of infrastructure. The public loses control to the private sector. Our governments have made us complicit in the way the private sector is taking over, taking control of our infrastructure, or Asian infrastructure in this case, with the government's blessing.

Some $256 million has been invested in that bank, with the goal of obtaining a 1% share of the bank. At first the government tried to sell us on this idea by saying that it would serve as a gateway for our businesses, which could benefit from contracts with the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

Well, first of all, the bank's articles of agreement prevent it from giving preferential treatment to any country when awarding contracts, whether that country is a member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank or not. Second, no Canadian firm has been awarded a contract since the creation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. That settles that.

If we want to send China a clear message that it is not playing by established trade rules and if we want to stand up for ourselves, we can pull out of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. We can also exert pressure by filing a complaint with the World Trade Organization, as the former Canadian ambassador to China, Guy Saint-Jacques, suggested. We also plan to have a delegation at the 2022 Olympic Games in Beijing. Chinese athletes are currently training in Canada. We can graciously send them back to their country to send the message that the situation is unacceptable and this is our way of standing up and expressing our displeasure. I am not saying that this would improve the relationship, but at this point, nothing can.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said that this needs to be resolved through diplomatic channels. I agree, but we do not have an ambassador. Canada has not had an ambassador in China for three months, and the government has not given any indication that it intends to appoint one.

It is true that we need to use diplomatic channels. That only makes sense, but the government needs to make that the priority. The government needs to stop improvising all the time and start taking the situation seriously.

One can hope for the best by being nice to a giant like China, but that is not what has happened so far, quite the contrary. The government needs to hire or appoint an ambassador as soon as possible. The Liberals need to appoint someone who is very familiar with China and who understands the situation so that we can open a real dialogue.

If the government does not intend to do that, which appears to be the case right now, then we need to start thinking about sending a special envoy to open a dialogue, which should have happened three months ago. Right now, there is nothing to indicate that the government plans to do that. If it does not, then the Minister of Foreign Affairs or, ideally, the Prime Minister, needs to contact their counterpart in China to try to rethink and improve that relationship, to reach and understanding and to pave the way for the new ambassador.

We will support the Conservatives' motion in spite of its omissions. This is a complex situation, after all. We are going to support it because the Liberal response to the canola crisis and to our companies' exclusion from the Chinese market is unacceptable.

The Liberal response is unacceptable and far too tepid. The absence of a Canadian ambassador to China is compromising diplomatic relations, making it very difficult to resolve a number of problems. For various reasons, we should never have invested in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Pulling out of this bank would send a clear message that we are standing firm against the pressure being exerted on Canada.

[Foreign Affairs, May 1st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, after Jamal Khashoggi was brutally murdered, the Prime Minister announced on October 25 that Canada would review the permit to export arms to Saudi Arabia. That was six months ago, but nothing more has been said since. The radio silence is almost as deafening as Canada's silence on the 37 beheadings that took place in that country on April 23.

Some countries responded without hesitation. Less than a month after Khashoggi was slain, Germany, Finland and Denmark halted arms exports to Saudi Arabia.

What is taking so long? Will the Prime Minister finally walk the talk and ban arms sales to Saudi Arabia?

[Business of Supply, April 29th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, that means I will not have enough time to talk about the bill as a whole. My colleague is quite right.

I remember that bill well. Before being elected, I used to work as an economist with the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada. It was not the same union, but we were keeping a close eye on that issue, especially because at the time, it was represented by the Canadian Auto Workers, or CAW.

During the last Parliament, when protests were being staged by workers from Aveos, the company contracted to do the work, Liberal members would join the protests in solidarity. Once they took office, however, they went along with what Air Canada wanted, and their first bill did exactly the opposite of what their own members, including the Prime Minister, had been calling for.

I certainly remember seeing him at the protests. He said he fully supported the workers, but he let them down the first chance he got.

[Business of Supply, April 29th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Trois-Rivières for his very relevant question.

I am not trying to say that those meetings should not happen. I think that society's interest groups have to be able to meet with members to let them know where they stand and make them aware of certain issues. We are aware of many issues because we need to stay informed for our jobs, but it never hurts to have additional information.

I meet regularly with those types of groups. I also meet with companies, industry representatives and business people to find out more about what is going on.

The big difference is that, when a group is calling for improvements to EI or improvements relating to important social issues, they will meet with us once or maybe twice a year. The group meets with a limited number of MPs.

However, in less than two years, Google met with the government, which has the power to act, 99 times. Lobbyists for SNC-Lavalin and other companies have the ability to meet with MPs, ministers, cabinet members and senior Liberal officials dozens or even hundreds of times. They have the ability to exert pressure. They present economic arguments that scare the government. That is how we end up with governments that refuse to take action for the collective good. Instead, they act for the good of those companies.

[Business of Supply, April 29th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise in the House to speak to the opposition motion moved by my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona. I would like to approach this issue from a slightly different angle. I will begin by reading the preamble to the motion:

That, in the opinion of the House, corporate executives and their lobbyists have had too much access to and influence over the Government of Canada, setting working Canadians and their families back...

The preamble is crucial. The rest of the motion lists examples of how that influence is exerted, but the fact that there is undue and excessive influence on the part of corporate executives and their lobbyists is a growing problem here in Canada.

This is interesting because we started the day off with a debate on my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby's Bill C-331, which is about giving Canadian courts the power to hold Canadian mining companies responsible for things they do in other countries. That makes perfect sense to me because they are Canadian companies. How interesting that the government was besieged by lobbyists representing the Mining Association of Canada and its members, who did not want the new ombudsperson for responsible enterprise to have more power over them. Although we still do not know exactly what the ombudsperson's duties are, we do know the position is vital to holding mining companies accountable, which explains why, even before the mandate was defined, there was a barrage of lobbying aimed at neutralizing the position.

There are many more examples. We have heard a lot about SNC-Lavalin, so I will not spend much time on that. Instead, let me talk about the web giants, also known as GAFA. In 2016, 2017 and 2018, while we were talking about them being given unfair advantages in Canada compared to Canadian companies, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Netflix were unrelentingly lobbying the Liberal government.

Amazon lobbyists and executives had 99 meetings with the Canadian government in 2016-17. Google had 337 registered contacts. Microsoft, for its part, had 35 registered contacts. Netflix had 16. While all this was going on, we were debating whether companies like Google, Netflix, Facebook and Twitter should collect sales tax on their products and advertisements and pay income tax on their revenues. I did not include Amazon in this list, because Amazon Canada collects sales taxes.

This goes beyond lobbying. These companies have had privileged access to members of the government. For example, Google hired former Liberal chief of staff John Brodhead to run a program. Leslie Church, who worked as director of communications at Google, became the chief of staff to the then heritage minister.

As for Microsoft, its national director of corporate affairs used to be the director of operations and outreach for the then Liberal leader, who is now the Prime Minister. There are really a lot of ties between these people. Ultimately, the upshot of all this is that the status quo continues for telecommunications companies and American web giants. Nothing changes. Why? Because this lobbying is highly effective, and these companies can afford it.

My Conservative friends should not feel too smug, because they have some questions to answer about their own history with lobbying. The examples of Arthur Porter and KPMG have been raised in the House.

While CPA Canada, the organization that represents Canadian accounting firms, was seeking to intercede on behalf of its KPMG members, it signed a deal with the federal government to have a say in potential changes to CRA programs and services. This happened under the Conservative government.

Does anyone believe for one second that the whole SNC-Lavalin affair would not have happened under a Conservative government? We know that SNC-Lavalin secured a meeting with the Leader of the Opposition and several other MPs. That meeting was specifically about issues related to law and order and the administration of justice. It was clearly about the situation that has been making headlines for the past few months.

In 2012, I stumbled upon a CBC article published online under the following headline:

“Enbridge lobbying of Harper government a 'success story'.”

At that time, everyone was talking about the northern gateway pipeline. Apparently, there were dozens of meetings between the government and Enbridge lobbyists. In fact, in 2011-12 alone, meetings were held with 12 different lobbyists. In 2006 and in 2010, 27 different lobbyists lobbied the Conservative government to try to make northern gateway a done deal.

I find that interesting, because one of the groups that lobbied the government is called the Clean Air Renewable Energy Coalition, made up of groups as diverse as Enbridge, Shell and ConocoPhillips Canada.

I am not trying to blame anyone in particular, but rather point out the undue influence of the corporate sector in Canada. It is undue influence because it is not transparent and because these companies usually get whatever they want. If we really want to ensure transparency, we need to go further than just the registry of lobbyists. It is estimated that Canadian companies spend about $300 million a year on lobbying activities. Since this is considered to be part of their business activities, they are given tax credits worth about $100 million. This means that we are paying companies so that they can engage in lobbying in the hopes of influencing the government.

Perhaps that does not seem like a lot of money. Every year in the United States, roughly $2.6 billion are spent on lobbying. I want to illustrate just how much that is. That is more money spent on lobbying than is spent on funding the United States House of Representatives and Senate combined. American companies spend more money to appeal to and influence U.S. Congress than U.S. Congress budgets for its own operations. That shows just how powerful a force lobbying is in North America. That is true in the United States and it is true in Canada. Yes, we have the lobbyist registry, but no one knows exactly how much is spent. No one knows exactly how much money has been invested.

Our saving grace is probably the fact that we have a limit on contributions. Companies and corporations cannot contribute directly to campaigns, which makes our system different from the U.S. However, our lobbying system is not better than the U.S. There is more accountability and more transparency with respect to the lobbying that is done in the U.S. than there is in this country.

I will be voting in favour of the motion and I invite other members of the House to do likewise. The reason is simple. We need to be able to examine for ourselves the impact that lobbying has on the life of Parliament and the impact it has on the balance of forces in Canadian society. We do not talk about this enough, and we take for granted that the current reality cannot be changed. It is our responsibility to change that reality, to restore the balance that no longer exists, and to ensure that Parliament, the House of Commons, represents what it is supposed to represent, namely all of the ridings across Canada, not just the economic interests of corporations that are only looking out for number one.

[Petitions, April 29th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by dozens of people primarily from eastern Quebec. The petitioners are calling for universal access to employment insurance.

The petition mentions that only 35% of unemployed women have access to EI benefits compared to 52% of men. The petition also calls on the government to lower the eligibility threshold to 350 hours or 13 weeks, establish a minimum threshold of 35 weeks of benefits and increase the benefit rate to 70% of salary based on the best 12 weeks of salary, among other things.

I am pleased to present this petition.

[Business of Supply, April 29th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

If he will be voting against the motion because he feels it is an attack on the oil industry, I would like to say to him that he is probably a little thin-skinned and sensitive.

With respect to the oil and gas industry, the motion simply states that the government provides huge subsidies to large oil and gas companies. It is a matter of public record that the federal government provides $1.6 billion to the oil and gas industry year after year.

I would like to know if my colleague is denying or agreeing that this is true, which it is. Is he saying that, in the end, the oil and gas industry should continue to receive these subsidies or perhaps not receive more? The motion clearly states that the oil and gas industry receives subsidies. I would like to now where he stands on this.

[Federal Courts Act, April 29th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to this very important bill introduced by my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby. It is important to the New Democratic Party, because we have introduced it ourselves in several different forms in the past. I think this is really interesting. I am going to come at this subject from a different angle, by focusing on the Canadian aspect and the international aspect. I will also respond to the member for Winnipeg North's intervention.

First off, I want to point out that Canada already offers many advantages to mining companies. That goes a long way to explaining why over 50% of the world's mining and mineral exploration companies are headquartered in Canada. It is because we have a very permissive tax system and regulatory system, making Canada highly appealing to these corporations. On that note, I urge my colleagues to check out the work of Alain Deneault. He has written two fascinating books on this subject, Imperial Canada Inc. and Canada: A New Tax Haven. These books clearly demonstrate that the Canadian tax system was designed to minimize mining companies' tax obligations and corporate responsibility.

My colleague spoke of human rights violations in a number of countries. Over half of the world's mining companies are headquartered in Canada, which is why we need a way to hold them to account. We need to give the Federal Court the power to make these companies take responsibility for their actions and those of their executives and employees. We see that as crucial to ensuring true accountability, not just lip service.

Governments used to say that these companies were out of reach because they operate internationally. My colleague shared some examples of the many excuses that have been used, but none of them hold water. The excuses we have heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons do not hold water either. He said we do not necessarily need to give the Federal Court that power or have the Canadian justice system handle these issues because the government created the office of the ombudsperson for responsible enterprise.

The Liberals announced the creation of this office during their election campaign in 2015. Fifteen months ago, the government announced that the position was finally being created. The ombudsperson was appointed just this month, in April, but we still have not been given a breakdown of the duties of the office of the Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise. Organizations that monitor this file very closely, such as MiningWatch and the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability, are not terribly impressed with the government's efforts. It makes no sense that the creation of the office of the Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise was announced 15 months ago, and we still have no idea what her job description entails.

This is crucial, because right now, the government, especially the minister of international trade, is under heavy lobbying from mining companies that are basically against increased powers for this office. They are opposed to the office being able to compel documents when it is investigating cases of mining company abuse in the world. They are opposed to the fact that this body could compel testimony from executives in mining companies. They have been heavily lobbied, as can be demonstrated through the lobby registry.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons claims that we do not need this legislation and its ramifications because the government has created something, but that simply does not cut it.

I find it interesting that he also referred to the efforts of one of his Liberal MP colleagues, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood. He tabled Bill C-300, which was a step in the right direction. He said that it was a demonstration of the goodwill of the federal government on this file.

What he neglected to say is that at report stage for Bill C-300, back in October 2010, it failed by six votes. The bill was defeated by six votes. Fourteen Liberal MPs were missing during that vote, including the party leader, Michael Ignatieff, Scott Brison and John McCallum. Most of the front bench did not show up for the vote on that bill. If there had been seven or eight more MPs, that bill would have passed. That shows that the Liberals had no intention of letting the bill through.

A bill like this is necessary because of the countless examples of abuse we have seen in the past, especially in the mining sector. The environment has been destroyed by these companies, and entire communities have suffered as a result.

People in these countries have been abused and even murdered, particularly those who were concerned with the workers' situation and tried to advocate on their behalf. Unspeakable atrocities have been committed, and the mining industry does not want to take responsibility for its actions.

The acting president of the Mining Association of Canada said that his organization does not support the investigative powers that human rights advocates and groups like MiningWatch want the office of the ombudsman for responsible enterprise to have.

I doubt they agree with my colleague's bill.

Mining companies will say that they have improved their practices and that they are better than they were at the end of the 2000s and early 2010s, but that is no excuse. I hope they have improved their practices because many of them were indefensible. It goes without saying that we are pleased that this is happening.

Does that mean we do not have to have a stronger framework and better tools, given that these practices may well re-emerge? Is this an excuse to get Canada out of requiring a minimum level of accountability and responsibility in exchange for the extremely good benefits it gives to mining companies?

The bill introduced by my colleague is indeed necessary. I sincerely hope that the government will take note and do what it should have done when it was in this position in 2010, namely stand up and vote in favour.

The bill is currently at second reading stage. We want the bill to at least be studied in committee, which would allow us to debate it and call witnesses from around the world. We want the countries that are currently being exploited by some of these mining companies to inform us of what has happened and why Canada should introduce measures to protect ourselves. The courts, police, and the systems of law and order in many countries where mining companies do business are not as developed and robust as ours.

We have the means to ensure that this accountability is not just lip service. Words are often forgotten and fade away. Accountability must be written into the law and the judicial process so that mining companies operating abroad start conducting themselves as they would here and be subject to the same monitoring and oversight they would have in Canada.

For all these reasons I will be voting for my colleague's bill and strongly urging all members of the House, whether in government or the opposition, to vote in favour of it. This will ensure that the bill is sent to committee and that we can start working on it to advance objectives and ideas that should have materialized a long time ago.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 10th, 2019]

With regard to transfer payments to TransCanada Corporation since November 4, 2015: (a) what is the total of transfer payments, broken down by (i) year, (ii) grant, (iii) contribution, (iv) any other form of payment, (v) ministerial portfolio, (vi) ministerial portfolio program; and (b) do the public accounts refer to these transfer payments to TransCanada Corporation, and, if not, why?