Debates of March 21st, 2013

Foreign Affairs

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been tremendously clear. We want to see meaningful progress with respect to reconciliation; we want to see meaningful progress with respect to accountability; and we want to see meaningful progress with respect to human rights abuses, which have occurred since the war concluded.

Canada has spoken out loudly at every international forum. Often, we are the only one with the courage to do so. I can certainly commit that this government, this Prime Minister, will continue to do the right thing on this important issue.

Natural Resources

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the Irving refinery is a key employer of highly paid workers in New Brunswick. I am proud to say I support a pipeline from Alberta to Saint John to support jobs and economic prosperity.

The Minister of Natural Resources recently visited the Saint John refinery and expressed our government's support for this pipeline. On the other hand, the NDP leader recently made unclear and contradictory remarks about the pipeline.

Could the Minister of Natural Resources update this House on our government's position on the west-east pipeline to Saint John?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, while our government has supported a west-east pipeline since it was first proposed, the NDP leader has been less than clear. After he met with U.S. lawmaker Nancy Pelosi, she said that Canadians do not want the pipeline in their own country. That is news to New Brunswickers and millions of other Canadians who support pipelines.

From advancing the discredited Dutch disease theory to advocating against Canadian jobs, the NDP leader has shown he does not have what it takes to lead.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question about a miraculous transformation for the Minister of Natural Resources.

The giant of business who brought “decades of experience in business and economic development” and “nearly 30 years of experience in developing regional business prospects in Newfoundland and Labrador”, in the words of the Minister of National Resources when he appointed one Reg Bowers to the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, suddenly was transformed into a nameless, inexperienced volunteer.

Can the miracle worker, the minister, tell me how this miraculous transformation took place?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue to appoint very experienced independent people to our regulators who protect Canadians and protect our environment. We are very proud of the record of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board.

Regional Economic Development

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a major December snowstorm turned the Gatineau Valley into a disaster zone. While the local economy is in jeopardy, the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec is not even bothering to respond to the demands of the area's economic stakeholders, members of the SOS Vallée-de-la-Gatineau committee, or even the RCM's elected officials.

Will the minister stop ignoring these individuals and quickly implement a real plan to provide relief to the businesses that are affected?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, do not be surprised that the Conservative government is now to blame for snowstorms. I am not surprised at all. It has come to that.

Of course, a system is in place and it is working. There is a business office taking care of the entire Outaouais region. All these business people have to do is go and meet with Marc Boily, the director of the Outaouais business office, and he and his team will be happy to take care of any claims that are submitted. That being said, there has to be a claim to submit.

Public Safety

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, today in Guelph, Constable Jennifer Kovach was laid to rest. Constable Kovach was killed in the line of duty while responding to a call for back-up from a fellow officer in trouble. We know that police officers put their lives on the line each and every day to keep our streets and communities safe.

Being a former police officer and member of the RCMP and having experienced the fatal shootings of two members of my detachment, I thank the police officers from across Canada who put themselves in harm's way daily to protect us. Can the Minister of Public Safety please comment on this tragic incident?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost our thoughts and prayers are with Constable Kovach's family, especially her mother Gloria and father Bill. Constable Kovach made the ultimate sacrifice to help keep her fellow Canadians safe.

The death of a police officer in the line of duty is a sobering reminder of the devotion and sacrifice of those who serve each day to keep us safe. On behalf of the government and all Canadians, I thank police officers across Canada.

Transportation

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities whether he was in discussions with Quebec and Montreal about extending the Montreal metro's blue line. He replied that he wanted to be a partner. We agree. This project would be important to the economic development of eastern Montreal, but federal funding for this kind of infrastructure is not always renewed.

How are discussions with the city going? What kind of partnership will be developed?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, in cases like this, we must respect jurisdictions. If the City of Montreal wants to speak with us, it must first speak to the Government of Quebec. That is how Canada's infrastructure system works, and the province of Quebec is the only province in which municipalities cannot speak directly to the federal government. The municipality of Montreal must speak to the Government of Quebec, which must make this issue a priority. The Government of Quebec must then talk to us. This process has not yet begun.

As soon as people have set their priorities and come talk to us, we will see. With respect to the issue of public transportation on the new bridge over the St. Lawrence, we are waiting for the province to choose the type of public transportation. As of right now, we have not received a request.

International Trade

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the Prime Minister is about an investor state agreement that was tabled with the House in February. It is with the west African country of Benin. Benin has a gross domestic product of $7 billion. We can compare and contrast it to the People's Republic of China, which is $7 trillion, yet this tiny West African country has negotiated far better terms that are much more protective of domestic health, environment and labour legislation in an investor state conflict than what Canada negotiated.

Why is this? Why could we not negotiate as good a deal as Benin got from us?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, once again, as I think I have said many times before, Canada's economic relationship with China is very important. China is the second-largest economy in the world and growing. I note that Canadian businesses, Canadian investors and Canadians generally have welcomed the fact that we will have legal protections in our dealings with China.

Business of the House

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise in the House to ask the Thursday question about what the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has planned for the rest of the week and what is on the agenda for next week.

Canadians wait with bated breath and some healthy amount of fear for the finance minister's latest round of meanspirited and short-sighted attacks on the services that they relied on and paid for. If it is anything like his previous budgets, he will ignore economic reality, cling to ideological anchors and outdated views and continue to lecture Canadians on their personal debt while racking up the largest mortgage add-on to this country's debt in this country's history.

Could my hon. colleague on the other side of the House share his plans for the budget debate and his other plans for next week?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue with the report stage debate on Bill C-15, the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, until 4 o'clock.

At 4 o'clock, my friend, the hon. Minister of Finance, will unveil economic action plan 2013, this year’s federal budget.

Of course, we will have to wait until that speech—which will not be much longer, I can assure the opposition House leader—to find out all of the important measures our government is putting forward to support jobs and growth for all Canadians, workers, families and the job-creating businesses that make all their lives better with the over 950,000 net new jobs we have created so far with, I am sure, more to come.

In the meantime, I can tell hon. members with certainty that with that objective of job creation in mind, economic action plan 2013 will not contain the NDP's risky proposals to hurt our economy and job creation. It will not include, for example, a tax hike on Canadian job creators, the one that was advocated by the leader of the NDP when he was on his visit to Washington arguing against Canadian jobs, a tax hike that Canadian manufacturers and exporters have said would cost 200,000 Canadian jobs off the top just in their sector.

The budget will not include the over $56 billion in reckless past NDP spending proposals and, of course, our economic action plan will not include the NDP's signature initiative, its $21 billion carbon tax, a concept that has already been rejected by Canadians. We will undoubtedly hear about these differences in priorities over the course of the four days of the budget debate, which our rules provide. Those days will be tomorrow, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.

Finally, on Thursday, March 28, we shall start third reading of Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act, before question period. After question period, we will resume the third reading debate on Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act.

Statements by Members

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding a statement made yesterday by the member for Essex during statements by members. He stated:

—to mark the end of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee year, I awarded medals to 30 outstanding Canadians from Windsor-Essex...

The member then went on to list some 26 names. Then the member stated:

As well, I awarded the medal to four distinguished Canadian blacks...

I stand on this point of order to highlight that exclusion is one of the subtle tools of institutionalized racism. It slides by us, very often unnoticed, but it affected me deeply, viscerally and immediately.

I waited to stand today because I wanted to verify in Hansard that these were the words spoken. They were. I stand in this place and ask my hon. colleague from Essex to withdraw those remarks to demonstrate his belief that these individuals are not separate from those other outstanding Canadians.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the intervention from my colleague opposite, I want to provide a bit of context in terms of background for that statement.

I did do my Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal celebration on February 23, which consequently was also Black History Month. The reason I took note as a separate item of these distinguished medal recipients is precisely for the same reason we have a Black History Month. We have not yet reached the point where there is integration. Therefore, to celebrate the individual successes of Canadian blacks is important. It is important to commend that. I hope it is understood by the member opposite that is the spirit we have achieved. We will reach the point where it becomes our shared history, where we all embrace that aspect.

In terms of the specific term used, I did counsel with the former curator of the North American Black Historical Museum to ensure that I was accurate both in the speech I gave on February 23 at home and also with respect to my statement in the House when recognizing members. I did want to be very sensitive to that, so I hope the member understands there was no intention of any type of a slight.

This is a major celebration for all walks of life, but I thought it was appropriate because it was Black History Month. I did counsel with those who would have knowledge, including one of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal recipients I spoke of, Ms. Elise Harding-Davis, who is a very well-noted expert on black history in Canada, a history going back as well to fugitive slaves and underground railroad history.

I hope the member understands that is the context here. I do celebrate the accomplishments of all Canadians, including black Canadians.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that integration may not be fully resolved, but it would only happen if we actually practise it. Even though I understand what the member's intent was by separating those of African decent from the main list, it sends a message that they are not included.

Inclusion is what we need. Inclusion will build integration.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-15, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, and the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie has six minutes remaining.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue speaking to Bill C-15.

Before question period, I explained that this bill had been introduced during the 40th Parliament, and that it had been studied. Some changes proposed by the opposition parties had even been adopted. Unfortunately, the government did not do its homework before reintroducing Bill C-15, which means that we had to debate it all over again. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence complained during debate at second reading that we were debating these issues.

I would also like to remind him that in the House, not only must we debate bills, but we must also explain to Canadians the issue being discussed. It was only through that debate and the fact that the opposition was in a position to put forward all those factors, that the government backed down and accepted the amendments in order to improve the bill. Unfortunately, although we said that this bill was a step in the right direction, it includes one point that is still problematic.

I heard the parliamentary secretary ask a number of times this morning why the NDP is speaking today when it did not raise these questions in committee. However, that is not the case. Our position is clear. We raised it in committee; we discussed it. The Conservatives hold the majority in the House and in committees. They choose what they want to accept and they have accepted certain amendments.

I am thinking in particular about criminal records for members of the Canadian Forces. For someone who wants a normal life after having served his country, having a criminal record has some very negative repercussions. I remember rising here in the House to push the issue. We are happy that the government listened to us, that it listened to the opposition.

However, it backtracked on aspects that had been agreed upon during the 40th Parliament. Turning back specifically to the Military Police Complaints Commission, the MPCC, we are asking that the commission be truly independent. The proposal set out in Bill C-15 has a negative impact. This bill gives the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff the authority to establish guidelines and to issue instructions regarding police investigations. We also feel that has an impact on the terms set out in the current accountability framework and that it goes against the principle of independence. We feel it is a type of interference, which his problematic.

Glenn Stannard, chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission, raised this point when he testified before committee. I am not going to reread what he said, but I would like to make it clear that people will trust the independence of the military police when it is truly independent and when there is no interference. That is important. Again, when we say that we respect our military personnel and that they are important, we also must make sure that we have the best possible system in place.

That is why we are rising today. We are standing up for a better military justice system because the members on this side of the House have a great deal of respect for our men and women in uniform who have served and are still serving our country, and I know that the members opposite do as well. In fact, all members of the House have a great deal of respect for them. However, we must respect them not only when they are working to represent us but also once their work is complete. It is our turn, as legislators, to ensure that they have all the tools they need, to ensure that those tools are in their best interest and to support them in their return to civilian life.

Peter Tinsley, former chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission, testified in committee as an individual, and he supports the NDP's position.

He said that Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction. However, he also said that the independence of the police, recognized by the Supreme Court in 1999, is also a problem. The provision we are talking about right now, namely, subsection 18.5(3) of the bill, violates the judicial independence recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1999 as a fundamental principle underlying the rule of law. What is more, the subsection deviates from the norm with regard to the relationship between the police and the government.

That is why we are rising today. This morning, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice repeated the same question several times. He was trying to find out why the NDP did not rise. I would like to answer him by saying that this was something that we raised in committee and that was put forward. Some progress was made on the issue and the government agreed to certain amendments, but there is a problem with this provision.

The motions moved by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands are a step in the right direction, but they are not exactly what we wanted. However, we know that, at this stage, these motions will allow us to move forward. That is why we are discussing this subject. It is important to debate it in the House. We have seen that this can have a positive effect because the government can learn from what is happening and move in the right direction.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie is painting us a very nice picture of what the NDP could do. He says he wants a better military justice system. Excellent. He says he wants to improve the bill. In reality, his party and he himself are supporting an amendment that, over several weeks of study, was never proposed in committee.

At second reading of this bill in this House, it was never mentioned, despite the 78 speeches made by New Democrat members. In the last three Parliaments when we had a minority government and they had much more influence over bills, there was never any question of the amendments proposed today by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

In reality, it seems that the NDP wants to needlessly prolong this debate by doing what it always does, which is to vote against the interests of the Canadian Forces.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little disappointed with the tone of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. He knows full well that debate and discussion are important in this Parliament. This is the first government in the history of Canada to be found in contempt of Parliament by imposing a record number of gag orders, I do not know how many. The government clearly sees that the opposition is highlighting the issues, proposing amendments and trying to work to make the legislation the best it can be. He clearly said, "in the best interest of military justice". That is what we are trying to do and what we are trying to propose.

Unfortunately, when we arrived with some very reasonable amendments that the government could have accepted, they rejected them. That is why we are speaking about this today. It is important to discuss it today, contrary to what the government is used to doing. It is used to saying that if we oppose the government, we are against the government. That goes against what we should be doing as parliamentarians. That is why I was disappointed with the parliamentary secretary's tone.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the record.

The NDP did put forward a very similar amendment to what we are debating today. In my judgment, it is actually a better amendment. It was thoroughly debated, we had witnesses on the issue and it was rejected by the Conservatives, using their power of the majority. Therefore, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has put forward this amendment for debate today.

It is very difficult to support the government when generally speaking on this issue the Conservatives are actually moving in the right direction. Therefore, why, in heaven's name, do they continue to belittle the legitimate activities of the opposition members who are bringing forward what is a significant concern of numerous witnesses, expressed to the committee but ultimately rejected by the government? That is apparently what debate is for.

I would be interested in my hon. colleague's comments on doing the right thing.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree. We are the opposition. All parties are together. That is why we have come together with the government to make Bill C-15 a better bill. There are still holes in the bill. We want to make it better. That is why we said we would support it in the way we want it to move forward. It was a good step. However, there are things that need to be amended.

I would like to thank my colleague for mentioning that we came up with some amendments, which were better than what is currently proposed. However, they were already refused. There was debate and discussion at committee. Right now what we are saying is that we want to support the bill and make it a better bill, even though the amendment does not come from our party. We are not partisan on that front. We just want to support it, because we want to move forward, and we want to make it a better bill.