Debates of Oct. 24th, 2016

Canada Pension Plan

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go ahead with the next segment, I would remind the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain that there are two and a half minutes remaining in the time for him for questions and comments when the House next returns to debate on the question.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Employment Insurance

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to again ask why the federal government continues to exclude Regina from extended employment insurance benefits.

The federal budget extended EI for certain regions in response to the drop in oil prices, but it left out Edmonton, south Saskatchewan, and Regina. The NDP challenged these exclusions, and the government eventually added Edmonton and south Saskatchewan, but the government has still left out Regina.

Of eight EI regions across Alberta and Saskatchewan, seven are currently getting extended benefits. Regina is the only one that is not. This anomaly has real consequences for laid-off workers and their families.

I spent this past summer knocking on doors and talking to constituents in Regina—Lewvan. I met many people on employment insurance who were about to run out of benefits. If they lived in any other part of Saskatchewan, they would have received a benefit extension.

Last month, Statistics Canada provided data that confirmed what I heard on the doorstep. On September 22, Statistics Canada reported EI figures for July, the first month of extended benefits. As expected, the number of recipients jumped, with extended benefits kicking in. Between June and July, the number of people receiving benefits rose by 23% in Saskatoon, 26% in smaller Saskatchewan cities, and 29% in rural and northern areas. Similarly, the number of Albertans receiving benefits jumped by 24% in that month. However, the number of workers in Regina receiving benefits dropped by 8%.

Regina was the only part of Saskatchewan or Alberta excluded from extended EI benefits, and Regina was the only part of either province where the number of recipients fell. Is that a coincidence? I think not.

This summer, laid-off workers in Regina were running out of EI benefits as the extension kicked in elsewhere. We have to ask why the government has chosen to continue excluding Regina. We also have to ask about the deafening silence from Regina's other members of Parliament.

The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle sent out a press release about the exclusion of south Saskatchewan, but has said nothing about the continued exclusion of Regina itself. As a candidate for the Conservative leadership, perhaps he cannot advocate for a better social safety net. The member for Regina—Wascana is the most senior cabinet minister in Saskatchewan or Alberta, yet our city is the only part of either province left out of the benefit extension. What has the member for Regina—Wascana done to advocate for laid-off workers in Regina?

It is not too late for the government to do the right thing by including all of Saskatchewan, along with all of Alberta, in extended employment insurance benefits.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the concerns raised by the member opposite.

I would like to reassure all members of the House that our government is giving Canadians the help they need.

The measures included in our budget improved the employment insurance program by making it more responsive to the needs of Canadian workers and employers. There were 12 EI economic regions that were first identified in budget 2016 as qualifying for the extended EI benefits due to the downturn in the commodity sector. This means that the duration of regular EI benefits has been extended by five weeks, up to a maximum of 50 weeks for eligible claimants in those 12 EI economic regions that have experienced sudden, sharp, and sustained increases in unemployment. Up to an additional 20 weeks of benefits will be available for long-tenured workers.

In the budget, we also committed to continue monitoring the economic situation across the country. We did exactly that. We fulfilled that commitment by announcing that three more EI economic regions, namely Edmonton, southern interior British Columbia, and southern Saskatchewan, met the criteria to also qualify for those extended benefits. The addition of these three new regions completes the assessment, and no more regions will be added.

Although the unemployment rate is worrisome, the employment insurance system is supporting those who need it.

Canada's economy is undergoing significant changes, which means that our EI system needs to adapt to these changes while continuing to help those workers most in need. In some cases, help is needed because they have lost their job through no fault of their own. For some others, it is because they have left the workforce to raise children or provide care for a loved one.

When Canadians find themselves out of work, they know they can count on the EI program, and that is why we eliminated provisions that disadvantaged workers newly entering or re-entering the workforce. An estimated 50,000 additional claimants will become eligible for EI benefits as a result of this measure. Also, we reversed the changes that put pressure on unemployed workers to move away from their communities and take lower paying jobs.

However, it does not end there. EI consultations have been launched on maternity, paternal, and caregiver benefits as well as unpaid leaves under the Canada Labour Code. We are working toward developing more flexible parental benefits and more inclusive EI support for caregivers.

As members can see, our government is responding to the unemployment situation across the country.

We are taking the situation seriously and we are working diligently to improve things for Canadians.

We are strengthening employment insurance to ensure that it works for our economy and works for all Canadians. Our government has been clear and transparent from the very start about the methodology that was used to select regions, and the data used are publicly available.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would thank the member across the way for his candour to the point of bluntly stating that no more regions will be added to extended employment insurance.

This is terrible news for workers in Regina who have been laid off due to the same downturn in oil prices that has afflicted all other parts of Saskatchewan and Alberta. What we did not hear from the member across the way was any sort of rationale or explanation for why Regina was left out when every other part of Saskatchewan and all of Alberta were included.

I would also ask the member across the way in his final minute to let the House know what if anything the member for Regina—Wascana did to advocate for workers in our city and to make the case for Regina being included in the benefits extension.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, just to reiterate, this issue is top of mind for our government. The flexibility built into the EI program allows it to respond efficiently to deteriorating economic conditions in local markets.

I want to assure my colleagues that we are not standing idly by while Canadians are losing their jobs. We will continue to strengthen and promote existing tools and services. As I mentioned, we have eliminated the requirements that restrict access for workers who were entering or re-entering the labour market. We have introduced more flexibility for those working while on claim. We are improving service by investing $92 million in Service Canada.

Canadians deserve no less. We will continue to improve our EI program.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to our next speaker, just a reminder to all hon. members that during our adjournment proceedings it is certainly permissible for members to take the seat of their choice in the chamber. Adjournment debate is less formal than the usual debates in the House and it sometimes improves the collegiality and exchange that takes place, much like in a take-note debate and such.

That was not a commentary at all on the previous exchange not being collegial; it was certainly. However, sometimes members are not aware. I know we are creatures of habit. We tend to always speak from the seat that we usually are appointed to, but members are welcome to take other seats if they wish, even on the other side of the chamber. I have seen members do that. It is perfectly fine.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

Foreign Affairs

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite timely that I have the opportunity to again raise the issue of human rights in China and to talk about the Canadian response to it.

Certainly I have heard the government's talking points on this issue before, so I want to say very clearly at the outset that I think all of us in the House support constructive engagement with China. There is no debate about that fundamental principle. Indeed, the previous government engaged China, and at the same time, trade increased, but it also talked very tough when it came to fundamental issues of human rights.

When the Conservatives first took office, we raised the profile of abuses of human rights by the Chinese government. We were aggressive in our advocacy in consular cases and with respect to the rights of Falun Gong practitioners, Tibetans, Uighurs, Christians, and all Chinese people who are just as deserving of the full rights enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as anyone else is.

While talking tough on human rights, Conservatives increased Canadian exports to China by nearly 22% in 2007 and by another 10% in 2008. In fact, exports grew the most during the period of the toughest talk on human rights. This data should clearly demonstrate that we do not have to choose between being true to our values and pursuing our economic interests. Indeed, we can do both.

We can also engage China in concert with our allies, supporting like-minded countries in the region as they stand up for a properly multilateral process for resolving issues in the South China Sea and a rule-of-law and human-rights-based approach to trade. It is not a choice between engaging China and engaging our allies. It is simply to say that we will be stronger in our engagement with China if we do so on the basis of collaboration with our allies.

The government has talked about standing up for our values, but unfortunately, it has missed every opportunity to actually do so. There are many examples I could give: the ongoing negotiations, it seems, of an extradition treaty; the fact that a Canadian journalist was berated by a Chinese minister while our foreign minister stood by; and the fact that even a spokesman for the Prime Minister's Office declined to criticize China's co-called justice system.

The realities of human rights abuses in China are clear and well known to all members. Experts say that China executes more people than any other country in the world, often for non-violent crimes, often for things that are not crimes at all. Despite denials by the Chinese premier when he was in Canada, we know that there is widespread use of torture.

I will read a quote from Alex Neve, of Amnesty International: “We stand by our assessment that there are a vast array of very serious human-rights concerns. Torture is widespread and rampant throughout the country and backed up by near total impunity”.

We know that Chinese human rights abuses affect all Chinese citizens, but especially members of certain key communities, communities like Falun Gong practitioners, who are the victims of execution as well as of organ harvesting. There are significant concerns about the abuses the Falun Gong community faces.

I had the honour of being the vice-chair of the Canada-Tibet parliamentary friendship group. There are ongoing severe abuses of the Tibetan community, and there has been an issue of Canadian officials being unable to get access to the Tibet region when they have requested it.

There is the persecution facing the Uighur Muslim community in eastern China. In many cases, people within that community are not even being allowed to fast during Ramadan.

There are ongoing abuses of the Christian community. In general, we see efforts by the Chinese government to infiltrate different religious communities to try to control every aspect of their practices, not necessarily to outlaw them outright but to try to micromanage their practices and dictate things that would be against their values.

We need engagement that reflects Canadian interests and values. I am calling on the government to engage with China in that way.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour to rise again in the House to debate my hon. colleague on a matter of great importance to the House and to Canadians.

I say that I am debating my hon. colleague, but I will reiterate that we agree on the fact that Canadians expect their government to be a voice for the promotion of human rights around the world. I also agree with the hon. member that we need to have a constructive approach to dealing with China.

Members do not have to take my word for it. It is documented that the previous government had a hot-and-cold approach to dealing with China. There were times when it spoke fondly of the need to engage with China, and there were times when it was aggressive or disinterested in dealing with China.

Our government has committed to renewing our relationship with China, not on an ideological basis but on a principled basis. We all know that China's economy is the second-largest economy in the world. It is our second-largest trading partner. We need to have a constructive and meaningful relationship with China.

We also need to be frank and honest with China. We need to be able to sit across the table from Chinese officials and voice our concerns. Our Prime Minister visited China recently, and he was not quiet about our desire to see China uphold its international obligations to universal human rights. He was not quiet about the fact that the Chinese constitution dictates that the Chinese government must protect the rights of minorities.

We know that the rights of minorities in China are not respected. We have spoken out for the rights of minorities, whether they are Uighur Muslims, whether they are Tibetan Buddhists, whether they are Falun Gong practitioners, whether they are Christians or any other minority. We know that there are practices by the Chinese government that do not respect those minorities' rights. We have called out the Chinese government to ensure that it upholds its international obligations.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs has spoken out, privately and publicly. The Prime Minister has spoken out, privately and publicly. We know we need to have a constructive relationship with China in order to ensure that we produce results. I am not talking about economic results. I am talking about results for minorities who live in China.

We know a fair China would be good for the world and it would be good for Canada. We have not shied away from raising these issues. In fact, last May our government announced the creation of the office of human rights, freedoms, and inclusion. We have tripled the previous government's budget and made sure that office, that voice, is loud, consistent, and reliable when it comes to the promotion of human rights around the world, including in China.

We have mandated all of our ambassadors, including those in China, to make sure that when they deal with foreign governments, human rights is an important and integral pillar of all aspects of all files. We are making sure that our ambassadors, our heads of missions, are promoting human rights in whatever file they are dealing with.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I really wish that were true. I really wish we were seeing principled engagement by the government.

Anybody can look at the media stories on this. They can look at, during our important discussions about extradition, the refusal to criticize the Chinese justice system. Canadians can look at how our foreign affairs minister stood by while a Chinese foreign minister attacked a journalist for asking legitimate questions on human rights.

They can look at the fact that the government is negotiating an extradition treaty with a country that executes more people than any other country in the world. It is not just about getting exceptions to the death penalty when it comes to extradition. It is also about having a credible system of justice. We have the case of Mr. Celil, a Canadian citizen who has been in prison for over 10 years without consular access. This is the kind of regime we are dealing with.

The government needs to step it up and actually do something in terms of principled engagement. It needs to follow its words with actions.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my hon. colleague that the case of Huseyin Celil is important to our government. He knows that he has been in detention there for 10 years. What did the previous government do? If it were that simple, why did the previous government not solve this case?

All I ask from the hon. member is some humility. I am not suggesting that there is no room for debate here.

Let us talk about extradition. Our foreign affairs minister was very clear that there is no negotiation ongoing right now. We learned today in The Globe and Mail that the previous government sent 300 individuals back to China for prosecution. Let us not fool ourselves. We do not want Canada to be a safe haven for criminals, but we also must ensure that when dealing with the Chinese government, it knows what Canadians expect and what the Canadian government expects. We expect human rights to be upheld both domestically and abroad.

National Defence

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask a question in relation to a question I asked previously on national defence and the process to replace the CF-18s.

When the Conservatives were in power, they were often criticized for charging ahead with the F-35s by sole-sourcing and not using an open and transparent process. Now we find out that this government is heading in the same direction. It is charging ahead with the Super Hornets without using an open and transparent process that would help us make the best choice for our armed forces.

The fact remains that we are no further ahead in replacing the CF-18s. The statement of operational requirements still has not been redone. That statement was tailored to the F-35 fact sheet. Someone took the F-35 fact sheet and wrote our statement of operational requirements based on what the F-35s could offer. That is no way to go about writing a statement of operational requirements.

With a proper statement of operational requirements, what is needed is put down on paper and we do not rely on the spec sheets. When a statement of operational requirements is done properly, no fighter aircraft will meet all its criteria. It is as simple as that. The requirements are not based on the spec sheets and therefore some elements will be present and others will not. A comprehensive assessment will be carried out to determine what type of aircraft best meets the requirements.

If we had an open and transparent process, if we had a real statement of operational requirements, we could bring the matter to a close by making the right decisions. There remain many unknowns. We still do not know why the Conservatives decided that we needed 69 aircraft.

Since I was first elected in 2011, no one has been able to tell me why we need 69 aircraft. Why not 60 aircraft? Why not 75? No one can tell me how the number 69 was arrived at.

I think it is time for the Liberals to be more straightforward about replacing the CF-18s. We have heard almost nothing about other options. What happened to the Rafale? What happened to the Gripen? What happened to the Eurofighter Typhoon? We hear about the F-35 and the Super Hornet, but it is as though the other options no longer existed.

In my view, if you want to make good decisions, you have to really think about what lies ahead. The government is not thinking carefully and is charging ahead. Government after government, the defence ministers are sent out shopping at the military equivalent of Toys “R” Us. In the end, the minister's favourite toy is the one that is selected or that is preferred. However, this is not a question of taste. We are not shopping for a dress here. We are shopping for fighter jets, and this will be one of the most important military procurements in the history of Canada.

We cannot afford to have a process that is not open, transparent, and coherent. Unfortunately, the Liberals are doing exactly the same thing as the Conservatives: they are charging ahead, without even tyring to understand what is on the table. They do not understand the enormity of the issue.

I would like to hear the parliamentary secretary's comments on that.

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am seriously contemplating moving to another spot. I wonder if I moved to a front bench if I automatically become a minister at the same time. Possibly if I move down there, I will become a prime minister. I appreciate the advice that we can talk from any seat.

The hon. member raises a perfectly legitimate question. I am glad she has done that, because the government has not let grass grow under its feet. We are very aware that this is one procurement mandate that we need to get done within this mandate, and I would say sooner rather than later. Therefore, I want to thank the hon. member for raising the issue.

Of course, the government is committed to a well-equipped and modern military, particularly with respect to the jets. The hon. member will appreciate, and she possibly more than most members in this House, that we inherited a bit of a procurement mess from the previous government. We had a risk-averse system, designed by risk-averse people, to purchase an inherently risky piece of equipment. Therefore, the utility of the previous government's activities was actually quite limited.

The first stage of the process was to get cabinet, in effect, to sign-off on what we need as a jet, and that was done in the early part of this year. The cabinet considered the various needs of the Canadian military for securing the appropriate jet to replace the F-18, and therefore provided the minister with the guidance that is necessary in order to get the right jet for the Canadian military.

The second step was initiated on July 6, and this is in direct response to the hon. member's concerns about whether all available aircraft are being considered. At that point, during July and August, the government consulted with and sought information from Eurofighter, Boeing, Dassault, Lockheed Martin, and the Saab Group. That is basically all of the jets that are on offer.

Therefore, all five companies were consulted. They were asked for up-to-date information. They were asked for their specs as far as what the jet could do, the payload it could carry, and all of the various statement of requirements that the member referred to. That information was put together over the course of the summer and is currently being analyzed, which is the third stage of the process. It is moving forward in an appropriate fashion.

Ultimately, that information, which is being collected, collated, and analyzed, will be reduced to a memorandum to cabinet. That will be the next and hopefully further stage of this procurement. It will ultimately result in a decision to cabinet.

May I assure the hon. member that the government is very seized with this particular procurement, and it is moving forward at a pace and in a manner that is lightening speed, in government speak. I would like to give the hon. member more detail, but may I say that this procurement, in particular, is moving in an open and transparent fashion as quickly as possible.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since my colleague was also a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence in the previous Parliament, he will understand what I am talking about. We had access to some secret defence documents, under certain conditions to prevent information from being leaked, of course. That helped us to better understand the issue.

Does the government intend to make detailed information, such as the statement of operational requirements, the analysis of the various aircraft, and everything that has been done by cabinet, available to the people who will sit on the committee that Bill C-22 proposes to create?

Will the opposition critics on this file have access to that information so that they can determine whether the best decision was made for the future of the Canadian Armed Forces?

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

Mr. Speaker, the question is somewhat premature, in that the material has been assembled and analyzed, and reduced, if you will, to a memorandum to cabinet. That, in turn, will go forward in its own fashion and own time.

Subsequent to that, the material will presumably be made available in as open a fashion as possible. The government's position is generally that we are open by default, so there will be an open, transparent process, which the hon. member will be able to examine after a decision is made. I can assure the hon. member that at this stage no decision has been taken. A lot of the information necessary to make the decision has been gathered and is in the process of being presented, and hopefully the hon. member will raise this issue again.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:04 p.m.)