Debates of June 13th, 2016

Democratic Reform

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

When it comes to electoral reform, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals give a whole new meaning to the phrase, “a penny for your thoughts”.

Here is why a referendum is essential. A paper published last week by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute said that the government's December 1 deadline meant that irrespective of what the committee actually reported, the only electoral reform option that would be on the table happened to be the one the Prime Minister had favoured all along due to the short timeline in which it could be implemented.

Is not the fact that the fix is in the reason why we need to have a referendum on that proposal when it comes to people?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows we have entered this process with an open mind. We are reaching out to Canadians and finding out from them what values and principles they would like reflected in their electoral reform. I urge the member opposite to consider contributing meaningfully to the all-party committee, and look forward to the work of that committee and its report on December 1.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to encourage my open-minded colleague opposite to consider the following.

I am going to quote from that paper, which states, “the only electoral reform that could be implemented in time for the ... election in ... 2019 is [ranked ballots in single-member districts]; quite simply, time has run out on implementing [other alternatives]”. The paper goes on to say, “In a non-coincidental coincidence, the only system that Parliament could adopt in time for 2019 is the very same system that [the] Prime Minister...himself has identified as his own personal preference”.

Therefore, the fix is in. Is that not why we need to have a referendum to decide whether what the Prime Minister prefers is what Canadians want to have?

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate and admire the member opposite's respect for the media, which I share, I believe our responsibility is to reach out to experts and academics to hear from members of our free and independent press, but also to reach out to our communities and to hear from our constituents how they would like to see their democratic institutions modernized. I look forward to that kind of insight and that kind of feedback from the member opposite.

National Defence

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

Mr. Speaker, on Afghan detainees, the current Prime Minister once said, “We need to get at the truth. [Our] international reputation...is at stake”.

Last week, Joe Clark, former ambassadors like Stephen Lewis, former Afghan head of mission, and human rights advocates like Amnesty International called on the Liberals to hold an inquiry into the handling of Afghan detainees.

Liberals can now get at the truth, so will they do the right thing and launch an inquiry?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, we take our obligations to the Geneva Convention international law very seriously. When it comes to any of our missions that our men and women go on and our current missions that we have, there is a considerable amount of pre-deployment training where we emphasize this and human rights. In addition, we emphasize this while we take part in the training with the Kurdish forces and those who are training as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister did not say anything about an inquiry in his answer.

When the report on the internal investigation was tabled in 2011, the Liberals said it was incomplete and accused the Conservatives of a lack of leadership. Last week, over 40 Canadians, including former prime minister Joe Clark, human rights advocates, and diplomats, called on the Prime Minister to launch a public inquiry.

Why exactly do the Liberals not want an inquiry now?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as I stated, we take our obligations very seriously. Our men and women in uniform, for all our missions, have done extraordinarily well, in particular, in Afghanistan.

In terms of our focus being the current missions and the missions that we will go on, we will always have an emphasis on the Geneva Convention international law and a strong stand on human rights.

Foreign Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Liberals said we should not be guided by emotion and, instead, must arrive at a legal determination before declaring that ISIS had committed genocide. However, here are the facts on the ground. Women are being burned alive for refusing to renounce their faith and for resisting becoming sexual slaves of ISIS. This is not a time for more reviews, more investigations, more fumbling around.

When will the Liberals do the right thing and declare this genocide?

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

Mr. Speaker, we strongly condemn the atrocities by the so-called Islamic state. Official recognition of genocide is to be done by a credible judicial process, following a proper international investigation, which is exactly what we are doing. It is exactly what our U.K. allies have said, which is that it is not for governments to be the prosecutor, judge, or jury. It is exactly what Secretary of Sate of John Kerry said. We are working in concert with our allies and we are doing all we can in the fight against ISIL.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals said that other countries have not declared ISIS's actions to be genocide.

However, perhaps my Liberal colleagues do not know that today, the U.S. Secretary of State, Mr. Kerry, and Hillary Clinton said that the atrocities that are being committed constitute genocide.

Why are the Liberals refusing to acknowledge what our allies clearly understand: that ISIS is committing genocide?

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

Mr. Speaker, forgive me for reading, but I will quote John Kerry who said:

I want to be clear. I am neither judge, nor prosecutor, nor jury with respect to the allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing by specific persons. Ultimately, the full facts must be brought to light by an independent investigation and through formal legal determination made by a competent court or tribunal.

We could not agree more John Kerry.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Nadia Murad is one of thousands of Yazidi women violated by ISIS. She was enslaved and raped by ISIS fighters for three months. She said, “The fate of most of 3,500 Yazidi women and girls who remain in captivity is known and probably most will face a similar fate if the world does not act now.”

Canada has an obligation to prevent genocide and not to turn a blind eye when it is occurring. Will the Prime Minister finally name these crimes for what they are, and that is genocide?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about what we are doing to fight ISIL. Our approach is a whole-of-government approach. It is absolutely integrated between military training and intelligence, between humanitarian aid, between intelligence on the ground to document these heinous crimes, and then, of course, to work through the International Criminal Court to bring justice to those innocent people.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is interesting, because the member opposite asked the Leader of the Opposition what responsibility she felt to the International Criminal Court.

A noted human rights lawyer believes that the ICC has the responsibility to Yazidis. In announcing her intent to represent Yazidi women at the ICC, Amal Clooney said, “How can it be that the most serious crimes known to humanity are being carried out before our eyes but are not being prosecuted by the International Criminal Court...”.

Will the government join international consensus, do the right thing, and name these crimes, finally, as genocide?

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

On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite the party opposite to join with us in our pursuit of justice.

International Trade

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said that the diafiltered milk file was being negotiated along with the new softwood lumber agreement.

During an interview, he said that the government would have to choose a less harmful solution for the industry.

Can the Minister of International Trade tell us what is the less harmful solution? Is it closing sawmills and laying off thousands of employees in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, or shutting down dairy farms and laying off thousands of workers in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question. As the question is addressed to me, I will talk about the softwood lumber file.

As I have already said, our government recognizes the importance of the forestry industry for Quebec and for Canada. I met with representatives of the Quebec industry last week in Montreal, and our team is in regular contact with the negotiators of the office of the trade representative.

We are working on negotiating a good agreement for Canada.

Softwood Lumber

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are just five days away from the government's 100-day softwood lumber deadline and the minister still has nothing more than empty talking points. Thousands of Canadian forestry jobs are at stake. According to reports, talks have stalled and court battles are looming. The Prime Minister promised action to protect our forestry sector.

When will the negotiators meet again? When does the minister expect to conclude a new softwood lumber agreement?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, our government absolutely recognizes the importance of the forestry industry to Canada. Our officials are in very regular contact, including this month, in frequent meetings with negotiations from the USTR. I spoke to Ambassador Froman in Paris two weeks ago. I talk to him on this issue regularly.

I would like to quote someone who cares a lot about this issue as well, and that is B.C. Premier Christy Clark, who says about our work that we are “a strong voice for Canada as we seek a new softwood lumber deal.”

This is a problem left for us by the previous government and we are working hard—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The member for Ottawa South.

Air Transportation

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are concerned about air safety. Pilots are reporting an increasing number of drone sightings near airports, including in my riding of Ottawa South. Flying a drone near aircraft without permission is extremely dangerous. Violators could face steep fines and/or jail time.

Could the Minister of Transport please update the House on how the government plans to further address this serious and troubling issue?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with the member for Ottawa South. Air safety is of vital importance and Canada will be a leader in drone safety.

Drones are becoming increasingly popular and of significant economic value, but they must also be safe. Consequently, we are looking at the regulations, the classification of drones, drone identification, and the registration of those who want to operate drones. We will unveil these regulations in the coming months.

Pensions

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, next week the Minister of Finance is going to meet with his counterparts in the provinces and territories to sell them on his CPP scheme which would tax the average worker an extra $3,000 per year. This new payroll tax would kill 130,000 jobs in our country and it would permanently and significantly lower wages for our young people especially.

How does the Minister of Finance expect Canadian workers to save, start a family, or buy a home when he is increasing their taxes?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, every Canadian shares the goal of a secure retirement. That is why one of the first things the Minister of Finance did was to meet with his provincial counterparts in December. He is going to meet in the coming days with his financial counterparts to ensure we work collaboratively with our partners in order to enhance the CPP for the benefit of all Canadians.