Debates of Oct. 6th, 2016

Criminal Code

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred until Wednesday, October 19, immediately before the time provided for private member' business.

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

Indigenous Affairs

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am always honoured to rise in the House, but tonight I am not honoured by what we will be talking about, concerning the question I asked the justice minister, but which she refused to answer. It was regarding her decision to send lawyers into the Ontario Superior Court to try to overturn an award of compensation to a survivor of rape at the residential school in Spanish, Ontario.

My proudest day in the House was when former Prime Minister Stephen Harper stood up and made that historic apology. Where I come from, there were people who cried for days after that apology because they could not believe that justice would ever be done by a Government of Canada after what had happened to them.

They trusted the process. The process was the independent assessment process, where they could come in, talk about the abuse that was done to them, and tell their story in a non-confrontational manner. However, that is not what happened. These people came into the hearings with the federal government, which was defendant and which also had the legal responsibility to provide the documents.

In the case of St. Anne's Residential School, which was a house of horrors, they suppressed thousands and thousands of pages of police testimony. They lied about it. The ministers lied. They lied in hearings. They had cases thrown out. What kind of government could do that?

In the case of the decision on the residential school at Spanish, no one argued the merits of the case that this child had been raped by a priest, but the boy could not remember when he was raped. The IAP, agreeing with the justice department, had that case thrown out. It was thrown out under two re-reviews under the independent assessment process. It was brought to Justice Perell, who called this a “perverse” misapplication of justice. What else would any person call that?

To see the justice minister deciding to go in to challenge Justice Perell's ruling is shocking. It speaks to a larger pattern that we need to have the justice minister explain.

We had the case of a seven-year-old girl raped at St. Michael's Residential School. The government argued that it was not obligated to pay compensation because she was a day scholar student, even though Indian Affairs was paying for her attendance at that school.

We had the case of a child who had their arm broken and suffered paralysis. The government had the case thrown out, saying that under the administration, these were day scholars and that they, the government, were are not responsible even though they were paying for their attendance.

In the case of St. Anne's Residential School, they lied about the access. It had the documents. It had obtained them from Ontario Superior Court in 2003, because it said it was unfair for the defendant, that is Canada, to go into these hearings without knowing all the evidence. It was ordered to share that evidence and did not share the evidence.

It had a case thrown out of a survivor who was raped by a serial pedophile, and the government sat on the evidence. It went into the hearings and said there was no merit to his case.

Why has the justice minister refused to answer a single letter about this and why is the minister using the full force of Canadian law to fight these survivors and to continue this pattern of obstruction and denial of justice, and making a mockery out of the promise that was made in the House and by this Prime Minister when he said that he would stop fighting these victims and survivors in court?

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to respond to the question I received from the member for Timmins—James Bay earlier, first acknowledging that we are here today on traditional territory of the Algonquin peoples.

The assertion by the member across is absolutely false. The government promised a new relationship with indigenous peoples and a new way of doing things. We agreed with and accepted the ruling of the tribunal and are committed to ending the discrimination. We have made immediate additional investments in child and family services on reserve, but we are also working with first nations communities, key organizations, front-line service providers, and others to jointly overhaul the system to reduce the number of children in care.

There are more indigenous children in care today than at the height of the residential schools era. This is completely unacceptable and highlights a system that is not just underfunded but fundamentally flawed in its approach. Our priority is ensuring the health and well-being of first nation children. To do that, we need to transform the system with the benefit of hearing directly from youth and incorporating lived experiences into any new approach.

As further illustrated by the B.C. child advocate's report earlier this week, the current system is broken, and we are committed to redesigning it, in partnership with first nations and other partners, to ensure it is a truly child-centred approach.

There is no question that the system has been significantly and chronically underfunded. That is why the government has also provided $71 million in immediate relief investments to first nations child and family services agencies. We are working closely with first nations child and family services to ensure the balance of that immediate relief investment flows this fiscal year.

Budget 2016 invests nearly $635 million over five years in new funding, and $177 million annually in new investments on an ongoing basis. We have also announced a new approach to Jordan's principle to make sure children receive the health services they need when they need them. That is backed up by up to $382 million over three years in new funding.

By 2018-2019, Canada will be providing a combined annual new investment of $282.1 million for first nations children and families on reserve through the first nations child and family services program and Jordan's principle, child-first initiative. The minister will be announcing specific details of how first nations and other partners will be engaged in this joint review and reform system in the near future.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources. Wow, what disrespect the government shows. The Minister of Justice, who gets paid on these files, is a no-show, day after day.

That member stood up and said what I said was not true. What was not true? Was it the fact that her government is fighting in court a rape survivor from Spanish?

The Liberals think that if they just talk indigenous stuff, it will somehow cover everything. They will get up and say indigenous this, new partnership that, and nation to nation.

We are talking about the fact that they lied at the hearings. We are talking about the minister refusing to take responsibility, and the fact that they lied in this House when they said they were not fighting the survivors at Ontario's Superior Court. That is a lie.

If that member had any level of credibility or—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I have two points. One is that “lying” is not a parliamentary word. It is unparliamentary. Two, I want to remind the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay that we cannot mention the presence or lack of presence in the House of a member.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Actually, Mr. Speaker, I never said that the member lied. I said the government has lied.

It is a fascinating thing that it is perfectly okay to lie in court, but—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand on behalf of our government, as this is a new promised relationship with indigenous peoples and a new way of working together. From our earliest days of government, we have clearly stated that our priority is, first and foremost, the well-being and equality of indigenous children.

We have highlighted from early on the need to overhaul the child welfare system. In fact, even before the tribunal decision was released, we began preparing to make increased investments for prevention. We have since accepted the ruling of the tribunal, and are not waiting to end this discrimination.

We have made immediate investments in child and family services on reserves, and we are working closely with first nations communities, key organizations, front-line service providers, and others to overhaul the system together and to reduce the number of children in care. We want to fix the system for the sake of children and families, and we are doing so in full collaboration and partnership.

Consular Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again to ask the government to pursue very actively the case of Pastor Hyeon Soo Lim. He is a Canadian citizen and the pastor of a church in Mississauga, which I believe is in the parliamentary secretary's riding. He is currently in prison in North Korea. Pastor Lim was sentenced to hard labour for life for alleged crimes against the state in North Korea.

Too often, I think, the current government declines to criticize violations of human rights in other countries. Too often we hear phrases like “countries whose values are different from ours”, or “countries who do things differently than we do”. I am concerned when I hear weak and relativistic language like that. It gives us the sense that values or rule of law standards are like items in a cafeteria. Some like roast beef and some prefer noodles.

Our differences with countries like North Korea and China are not matters of mere preference. We in Canada behave according to accepted international legal standards when it comes to justice and human rights. Countries that do not adhere to these basic standards of justice, human rights, and the rule of law are doing things that are wrong, and it is okay to say so. In fact, it is right and necessary to call that out.

North Korea is not just a country with different values. To be frank, it is an open-air prison where 25 million people are trapped and, for the most part, starving. Here is what Human Rights Watch has to say about North Korea:

Under the rule of Kim Jong-Un, North Korea remains among the world’s most repressive countries. All basic freedoms have been severely restricted under the Kim family’s political dynasty. A 2014 UN Commission of Inquiry found that abuses in North Korea were without parallel in the contemporary world. They include extermination, murder, enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape, forced abortions, and other sexual violence. North Korea operates secretive prison camps where perceived opponents of the government are sent to face torture and abuse, starvation rations, and forced labour. Fear of collective punishment is used to silence dissent. There is no independent media, functioning civil society, or religious freedom.

It is so important that we in the House and the government not let up pressure on North Korea, or its enablers in the region, or on its fellow travellers in other countries.

When I asked the original question, it was at a time when an American missionary named Kenneth Bae was in town to raise awareness of Pastor Lim's case. He had himself been imprisoned in North Korea, but the Americans were able to get him out.

I do understand and appreciate that many of the conversations that occur around these cases have to occur outside the public eye and that there has to be sensitivity to that. However, at the same time, if the Americans could do it, then we should be able to make use of the same techniques and achieve similar results. Therefore, I ask the parliamentary secretary again, as much as he is able, to give us an update on this case and to assure us that the government will do all of the necessary work in this case.

As well, although this was not part of the original question, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary if he is able to give us an update on the case of Huseyincan Celil, a Canadian citizen imprisoned in China, who was seized from a third country. Mr. Celil is from the Uighur Muslim community.

I was very pleased to hear of the recent release of Mr. Garratt from China, but I would like to know if the case of Mr. Celil was also raised in the same context and to the same degree. Mr. Celil has been held in China for a very long time, after being taken from Uzbekistan.

Again, I would underscore that human rights questions are not subjective matters of national preference. They are matters of basic accepted norms of the international order, and it is important that we call that out—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his ongoing commitment to issues of human rights and for his advocacy on issues of Canadians abroad. I respect his passion and commitment to raising these issues. I will always work with him and my colleagues in the House of Commons to ensure that obviously we do our best to help Canadians abroad and if they are in trouble, to bring them back home. We will constantly speak up for Canadian values. We are not just talking about Canadian values. We are talking about universal human rights. We should always be consistent in our defence of universal human rights and always speak up for those rights.

Where I differ with my hon. colleague sometimes is not that we do not speak up on human rights issues, but he may want us to use a different tone or a different approach, and I respect that. A healthy discussion and a healthy debate needs to be done here in the House of Commons and in the public domain. I will always welcome that conversation and I am happy to engage him on it all the time. I welcome his input.

Let me first talk about the case of Pastor Lim. Obviously our government is gravely concerned about the well-being of Pastor Lim and his health and his rights. I have met with Pastor Lim's son and I want to take a moment to congratulate Jim on the fact that he now is a new father. It really saddens the family and all of us frankly that the grandfather is not with his son celebrating the arrival of his first grandson. The fact that the family has welcomed a new child but the grandfather is not here with them is a difficult, bittersweet moment. It only adds to the level of urgency with which we want to see Pastor Lim return home. I have also met with members of the Korean community who passionately care about the well-being of Pastor Lim and I will continue to do so.

I want to assure them and my hon. colleague that our government is approaching this with the highest degree of urgency. He is right. I wish I could publicly share with my colleague all the work that we have been doing and will continue to do. I just cannot do that for the benefit of Pastor Lim. In order to respect all of the efforts and ensure that hopefully we have some success, I need to respect the privacy and the diplomatic confidentiality of the many efforts we are putting into this case.

I want to also assure the House and my hon. colleague, and everybody who cares about this case, that we are constantly re-evaluating our approach. We are constantly assessing and reassessing what we are doing to identify creative and innovative ways to deal with this case. This is an important matter. I want to assure the member and others that we are actively engaged on this case.

To the member's other question about the case of Mr. Celil, we are obviously concerned about his well-being. Mr. Celil's deportation to China from Uzbekistan happened when I was serving as a member of Parliament in my first term in 2006. It has been almost 10 years and I cannot believe Mr. Celil is still in prison and we have not been able to get even access to him because the Chinese government is denying the fact that he has Canadian citizenship. We will continue to push for at least first consular access and then his release.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do want to affirm many of the sentiments expressed by my colleague, in particular the fact that he started out by saying that we are not just talking about Canadian values, but we are talking about universal values. May I say respectfully that is a sentiment that I would like to hear from the foreign affairs minister as well as from the parliamentary secretary, because the tone is often one very different from the one we heard tonight. I want to affirm and recognize the tone at least being used by the parliamentary secretary. From him tonight we are hearing it said the right way.

When it comes to the issue of Mr. Celil, this is why it is so important that we be willing to call out the realities of the Chinese so-called justice system. My colleague is absolutely right. This is an innocent man who has been imprisoned in China for 10 years. He is a Canadian citizen and he has not been permitted consular access. How could we contemplate an extradition treaty with a country that has that kind of so-called justice system?

We need to be very clear about what is not a justice system at all in this case.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments, but I do want to assure him that what I am saying is exactly what the Minister of Foreign Affairs has repeatedly been saying. Those are universal values that we, as Canadians, hold dearly. He has never shied away from speaking up, nor has the Prime Minister, even during his visit to China.

Let me repeat that I cannot reveal some of the work, in fact much of the work, that we have been doing on Mr. Celil's case. In order for us to help Mr. Celil, which I know the hon. member wants us to do that, because that is why he is standing here today, we need to be engaged with China. We need to sit across the table from China to bring up the cases of Mr. Celil and others.

Today, we had a visitor with us, Mr. Kevin Garratt. That is a great example of how engagement can produce results.

Natural Resources

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to follow up on my remarks of June 7, when I addressed the issue of pipelines and pipeline development, in particular the steel industry. I asked the original question because of my interest in and understanding of how the Canadian economy interlinks.

Our manufacturing sector, represented by the steel manufacturers, is often related to and linked with our natural resource sector. That is very important, because the Canadian economy is linked from coast to coast.

We see this most clearly in the steel industry, the industry that I was urging the government to support. I was urging the government to support it by approving and standing up for, if not necessarily directly but at least in principle, the energy east, northern gateway, and other pipelines. I understand that the regulatory system has to go through the process but, in principle, a government can stand behind it and say, “If environmental conditions are met, we support the underlying principle”.

Let me talk about and note the value of the Canadian steel industry and why we should support pipelines in order to support steel jobs.

The Canadian steel industry employs 22,000 Canadians in 19 plants in five provinces, with spinoffs in iron ore mining from Quebec; processing in Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta; manufacturing in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta; and recycling in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. This does not even include the hundreds of jobs in Alberta and British Columbia involved in the production of metallurgical or coking coal. It is truly a national industry that we need to support.

My home province of Saskatchewan has a big part in making pipe for Canada's oil and gas pipelines. This is the safest way to transport oil across Canada, and natural gas, as well.

The average steel industry job brings each worker $75,000 a year. Yet, Canadians in steel industries are losing their jobs and Canadian metallurgical coal mines are being shut down.

What do we need to do?

We need to support pipelines that can be built across this country, to support steel jobs.

An employed steel industry worker can earn enough to pay for a mortgage, to support their family, and to build a life in a community. These jobs cannot be replaced by lower income jobs elsewhere.

In my home province of Saskatchewan, dozens of high-paying jobs were lost in Regina when steelworkers were laid off from the Evraz plant in Regina.

If we look at other places, like northern Ontario, these are good-paying jobs.

In the riding of Sault Ste. Marie, the steel industry, including companies like Essar Steel Algoma Inc. and Tenaris Algoma Tubes, would surely welcome more business.

Our domestic steel producers across Canada should be buying thousands of kilometres of specialized steel pipe, but they need a government that is willing to speak out for them. They need a government that is willing to say, “Once the environmental processes are taken care of, we will support pipelines across Canada, pipelines to Vancouver and pipelines to New Brunswick”.

Pipelines are there. The private industry will pay for them. We in the government, we in the House of Commons, we in the opposition need to be supportive of these good jobs for hard-working Canadians.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the government understands the importance of Canada's resources to the strength of our economy and the quality of our lives. Our government has a clear vision for how to leverage those resources. As both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Natural Resources have said, we must continue to generate wealth from our abundant natural resources to fund our transition to a lower-carbon economy.

However, we also know that we will not be able to proceed with major resource projects unless the public has faith in how they are reviewed. That is something the previous government just did not understand. Perhaps that is why it did not get one kilometre of pipeline built to tidewater during its entire time in office.

Our government has a different approach, one that listens to Canadians, respects indigenous communities and their traditional indigenous knowledge, and one that bases decisions on firm facts and sound science. That is why we have expanded consultations, including through ministerial panels, to build an environmental review process that carries the confidence of Canadians by meaningfully engaging with indigenous communities, modernizing the National Energy Board, and establishing an interim strategy with guiding principles to give proponents certainty and the process transparency.

Will all of these efforts lead to unanimity on any particular project? Of course not. We understand that there are strongly held views on all sides, which is exactly why it is so important that Canadians have the opportunity to be heard. At the end of the day, Canadians will be able to say, whether they agree with a decision or not, that the process was fair, the evidence was weighed, and their voices were heard.

We are also investing in clean technologies, energy efficiency, and renewable sources of energy. There is tremendous opportunity for Canada to lead in the lower-carbon economy of tomorrow and these investments will position us to do so. That is how to develop the consensus required to get our resources to market.

The hon. member may think differently. He may think it wise to approve a pipeline before a federal regulator has even reviewed it. We do not. As the Minister of Natural Resources said, “We think a better idea is to have a transparent process, with predictable timelines and ways in which Canadians can let government know what they think is in the national interest”.

Then our government can take all of the comments and recommendations to make the right decision, the environmentally responsible decision, the balanced decision, one that develops the resources we need while protecting the environment we all cherish.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, first, let me remind my hon. colleague that pipelines did get built under the previous government, the Keystone pipeline and the Clipper pipeline being two of several examples.

I also want to remind the hon. member that the Conservative government did nothing to impede or hurt the construction and growth of these industries. The carbon tax grab just announced by the Prime Minister will do grave damage. We cannot build an economy by taxing natural resources. If we hurt natural resources, we hurt the steel industry. If we stop the steel industry from growing across Canada, people lose jobs. Because of the Liberal carbon tax grab the other day, good, hard-working Canadians in the steel industry will be unemployed.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to a future where a strong economy and a clean environment go hand in hand, and we are well along in this important work. We are helping to ensure Canada's vast natural resources are developed in a way that commands public confidence and respects the environment.

We are ensuring that the National Energy Board has the expertise it needs. We are engaging meaningfully with indigenous communities, taking into account indigenous traditional knowledge, respecting scientists, and listening to Canadians. Why? It is because we understand the importance of natural resources, not just to our past but to our future, a lower-carbon future where economic prosperity and environmental responsibility are not competing interests but complementary to one another.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

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 6:23 p.m.)