Debates of March 9th, 2016

The Environment

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that we need to reduce greenhouse gases and grow our economy in a sustainable way. They also know that reducing emissions will make our economy more competitive, not less competitive.

The carbon pricing policies that the hon. member talked about will minimize the cost of producing greenhouse gas emissions, provide a continuous incentive for technological innovation, and allow us to achieve significant emissions reductions.

I would say that the hon. member should listen to some of the folks who used to sit on that side of the House. The current Ontario Conservative leader and former MP on that side of the House stated this week, “Climate change is a fact. It is a threat. It is man-made. We have to do something about it, and—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order, please. The hon. member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte.

Manufacturing Industry

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal policies make doing business in Canada more expensive. Auto manufacturers are hurting in Ontario because our electricity rates are 30% higher than in other jurisdictions, and that is before the new Liberal carbon tax.

When will the Liberal government give manufacturers a break, rather than break manufacturers?

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say today is a very special day. It is an honour and privilege to serve with the member for Ottawa—Vanier. For me, he is a role model. I am delighted to be here today with him.

With respect to the question asked, we have a plan when it comes to manufacturing. We have a plan that is going to help companies in the 21st century digital economy by making sure we have ICT adoption. We are also going to put forward industrial and technological benefits that will assist companies. We have a plan for manufacturing because we know manufacturing is very important to our future progress, growth, and creating jobs.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are missing in action. The Canadian manufacturing jobs are at risk. The low dollar has put Canadians goods on sale, but the Liberals refuse to explain how they will encourage private sector investment. Yesterday, they even blocked the industry committee from asking Bombardier about a billion-dollar bailout.

What are the Liberals hiding? Is the reason the Liberals will not share their plan with Canadians that they do not have a plan to share?

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, we are a very open and transparent government. We have been very clear with Canadians.

When it comes to committees, they have their own unique dynamic and they set their own agenda.

With respect to Bombardier, we are engaged with it. It came forward with a proposal on December 11 of up to a billion dollars. It asked for an investment. We are looking at the business case. We are doing our due diligence. We will make sure we do our homework. We will make sure we provide a thoughtful response in the public interest.

National Defence

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to understand something. Apparently, the mission in Iraq is not a combat mission, but our soldiers are going to be on the front lines and will have the right to shoot first. Is that not a combat mission?

Can the Minister of National Defence explain why the government is so determined to deny the evidence and why it refuses to tell Canadians and our soldiers that this is in fact a combat mission?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is true that our soldiers will be at greater risk, as was said by the Chief of the Defence Staff. However, I cannot do better than quote him at the committee yesterday where he said, in an engagement like this, “...specifically allow Canadian Forces to defend themselves, anticipate their defence so that they can engage a hostile act, or a hostile act or an intent before it materializes.”

Therefore, our soldiers are not engaged in combat, they are allowed to defend themselves, and their rules of engagement are clear for all concerned.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the National Defence military foreign service instructions define a combat mission as, “where the use or threatened use of force, including lethal force, is...[used] to accomplish a mission”.

Yesterday, Canada's Chief of the Defence Staff admitted that, in the Liberals' new expanded mission in Iraq, Canadian troops will be authorized not only to use lethal force but also to shoot first. To everyone, except the current government, that sounds exactly like the definition of combat.

Why is the Liberal government continuing to try to disguise the nature of this mission and its risks?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no disguise. This is in fact a non-combat mission, as I just outlined, with what the Chief of the Defence Staff just said.

The hon. member can argue with the Chief of the Defence Staff, but he has in fact outlined this as a non-combat mission. We are there to train, to assist, to advise, and to produce intelligence.

The hon. member may wish to argue with the CDS, and I welcome his opportunity to do that, but this is a non-combat mission as defined by the Chief of the Defence Staff.

Foreign Affairs

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Nadiya Savchenko, a Ukrainian air force pilot and member of the Ukrainian parliament, has been held illegally in a Russian prison for 21 long months.

Many thousands of people in Ukraine and around the world are demanding her release as she continues her hunger strike, yet all the efforts by the international community to advocate for her release have been brushed aside by Moscow.

Time is running out. How can Canada's call for the release of Ms. Savchenko be taken seriously when all the Liberals want to do is have happy talk with Putin?

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, that could not be more misconstrued.

As the minister explicitly said in his declaration yesterday, the Government of Canada is gravely concerned about the health of Nadiya Savchenko, who has been unlawfully detained by Russia. We have repeatedly underlined that her transfer to Russia was illegal, the charges brought against her are politically motivated, and her treatment during her detention is a matter of grave concern.

The Government of Canada calls on Russia to immediately release her and return her to her friends, colleagues, and family in Ukraine.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Nadiya Savchenko has restarted her hunger strike. Her health is deteriorating, and the Liberals have done next to nothing.

The charges against Nadiya are clearly trumped up. This illegal show trial demonstrates the Russian regime's utter contempt for international law, due process, and human rights. Rallies are scheduled across Canada this evening, demanding her release.

The Liberals are saying that they want to talk to Russia; so, will the Prime Minister pick up the phone, call the Kremlin, and demand that it free Nadiya Savchenko immediately?

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, may I say that Canada stands steadfast with Ukraine? We always have, and we always will.

As I stated, and I am happy to state it again, we have repeatedly underlined that Ms. Savchenko's transfer to Russia was illegal. We know it was politically motivated. Her treatment during her detention is a matter of grave concern, and we call on Russia to immediately release her.

National Defence

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the U.S.-led air combat coalition successfully took out the ISIS war minister.

The Pentagon said this is a victory on the battlefield and will hurt ISIS' ability to recruit foreign fighters. Clearly, these air strikes are working, but the Liberals have taken us out of the fight.

Just once, can the Minister of National Defence coherently explain why the Canadian Armed Forces cannot do both air strikes and training?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to explain what he does not get about democracy.

We have had an election over the past year, the longest election campaign in Canadian history. The decision of the Canadian people was definitive on October 19.

We then had a debate here for four or five days, with 98 speakers. The vote this week was definitive.

What part of democracy does the hon. member not get? We have debated this and debated this. The people have spoken. It is unfortunate for the hon. member.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask in French and give my colleague opposite a chance.

CNN reported that American air strikes in Syria likely killed the person thought to be ISIS's minister of war, a Chechen fighter who joined rebel groups in Syria and then swore allegiance to ISIS in 2012. He participated in ISIS propaganda and recruitment videos, and the U.S. State Department offered a $5-million reward to have him removed.

I thank those U.S. pilots for what they did. How can the government continue to doubt the effectiveness of air strikes against ISIS?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in a coalition. The coalition has quite a number of partners. We do some things very well. Advise, assist, and train, we do very well. Intelligence missions, we do very well.

We are engaged, as I say, in a coalition. We are working together to delete this scourge from that particular part of the world. The idea of this coalition is to end this combat. We are contributing in a significant and major way.

Indigenous Affairs

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the residential schools tragedy is still a burden for so many people.

For example, a survivor of St. Anne's residential school in northern Ontario is seeking justice, but he is being thwarted by Justice Department lawyers who knowingly, yes, knowingly, withheld documents that would have helped his case. That is not only unacceptable, it is appalling.

Will the Minister of Justice order her officials to stop denying this survivor's legitimate requests and to stop obstructing justice?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to the successful implementation of the Indian residential school settlement agreement and to fulfilling all of its obligations under the agreement. The abuse of children is tragic and unacceptable.

While I cannot comment about specific cases, under the independent assessment process, I can say that Canada has complied with Justice Perell's June 2015 order and provided all the documents as soon as they were complete.

In addition, Canada has revised and made available an updated school narrative and person-of-interest reports for St. Anne's Residential School, in compliance with court direction—

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

Mr. Speaker, the independent assessment process was supposed to bring justice to survivors. Instead, government lawyers in the Department of Justice had over 1,000 cases thrown out under the administrative split. We now find that justice department lawyers suppressed evidence about a serial pedophile at St. Anne's Residential School, and then told the hearings that the victims were simply lacking credibility.

This really puts Canada in the spotlight if the Minister of Justice cannot explain why this is happening. I am asking her: Will she do the right thing? Will she stand up in the House and say that she will meet the survivors and fix this?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, feel that this is a terrible tragedy—

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

It is not a tragedy, it is a criminal crime.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the clarification. Pedophilia is a terrible crime, and we need to deal with the ongoing effects of those abuses.

I can tell the hon. member that I am the client and the Minister of Justice is my adviser, and we will get to the bottom of this and seek justice.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!