Debates of Oct. 17th, 2017

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

International Trade

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise tonight to address the very serious attacks on Canada's supply managed sectors by the American government and the lack of leadership and strength against this attack from the Liberal government.

The NAFTA renegotiations began in August, but even before that Donald Trump took aim at our dairy farmers, stating, “We can't let Canada or anybody else take advantage and do what they did to our workers and to our farmers.”

Trump has continually been belligerent, accusing Canada of violating global trade obligations, and our Prime Minister simply sits beside him stunned and grinning. Just last Sunday, the U.S. NAFTA negotiating team said that it wanted Canadian access for 400,000 metric tonnes of fluid milk and 17% of our poultry products.

Under the trans-Pacific partnership, Canada granted access to 3.25% of its dairy market and 2.1% of its chicken market. Since the U.S. has withdrawn from TPP, it is looking for even greater concessions under NAFTA. There was never any doubt on this side of the House that supply management would be under attack. The only surprise seems to be from the government.

The former Conservative and the current Liberal governments showed a real lack of forethought when they opened the door and market access to our supply managed sectors under trade deals like TPP and CETA. Because of their poor judgment now, they have created a space for the Americans to demand concessions that the government must not make.

I would like to talk about CETA. The Comprehensive and Economic Trade Agreement is a trade deal that the Conservatives wrote and the Liberals rammed through Parliament. The Liberals did not consult adequately with farmers or producers and they did not provide adequate compensation programs for the losses our dairy farmers have endured.

Instead, the Liberal government only agreed to a controversial investment assistance program. After only a week of it being open, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada announced it would no longer accept any applications from dairy farmers. Without access to the compensation that is owed to them and a lack of funds, several dairy producers are now hitting a wall.

During the 2015 election campaign, the Liberals promised to compensate dairy producers for concessions made during CETA negotiations, but they backtracked on this investment program.

Sadly, it is not the first time the Liberals have harmed dairy producers or other farmers protected by our supply managed system. Since taking office, the Liberal government has been completely inactive in the raw milk sector, and they succumbed to the European Union regarding the allocation of the tariff quotas.

The NDP has repeatedly warned the government that dairy producers would suffer with only the $250 million allocated, but it has pushed through with this bad trade deal anyway. Now we see it letting these same farmers down during the renegotiation of NAFTA.

Canadian farmers have benefited from the supply managed system since the early 1970s. This system sets the price and creates stability for dairy, egg, and poultry producers. Supply management has proven to be an effective model that equalizes the benefits of dairy and poultry production across consumers, farmers, and processors, and stabilizes the industry against price shocks or oversupply.

This attack on supply management cannot continue. Once again, will the Liberal government show real leadership and finally tell the U.S. that supply management and further market access are not on the table?

[Jean-Claude Poissant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Essex for raising this important question.

The government fully supports the supply management system for dairy products and Canada's entire dairy industry. Producers and processors of dairy products, poultry, and eggs in Canada play an important role in the prosperity and sustainable growth of our country. Supply management is a system that our producers chose and that has been working well for many years. It benefits the Canadian economy, and I can assure my colleague that we will protect and defend it.

With respect to trade negotiations, Canada's position has always been to vigorously promote and defend the interests of all agricultural industries, including supply managed industries.

Import controls are a pillar of supply management. Therefore, it is important for the government to maintain its effectiveness while ensuring the competitiveness of the agricultural processing sector when conducting trade negotiations as well.

Under the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, Canada and the United States both benefit from the highly integrated and efficient supply chains created as a result of the agreement.

The fact that Canada and the United States are each other's top trading partner is proof of that integration.

On August 16, 2017, Canada, the United States, and Mexico met in Washington, D.C., to initiate talks about updating NAFTA. The latest round of talks took place from October 11 to 17, 2017. The Government of Canada is consulting Canadians across the country and in every sector, including those with supply management, about the NAFTA negotiations.

The government will continue to consult Canadians throughout the negotiations, with Global Affairs Canada keeping its online consultation portal open for that purpose.

I can assure the member for Essex that Canadians' views will be taken into account and that Canada will not accept a new NAFTA that does not benefit Canadians.

Like any other country, we will vigorously defend our interests in all sectors, including the supply management system. Any U.S. proposal to eliminate supply management is simply unacceptable.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am surprised but happy to hear the member opposite saying that the Liberals will not accept that at the table. At this point, I hope that is being communicated well across our country, and that everyone will be watching tonight and hear the parliamentary secretary say that we will not open supply management.

My question goes back to the member, and it has to do with where we are now in these negotiations. Of course, the U.S. has thrown this on the table. From what I can hear from the member across, he is saying quite clearly then that we will not enter into negotiations around that and that potentially we will leave the table. I am not sure what the option is.

I would like to hear from the member what it is the Liberals have planned at this point to communicate that to the U.S. I have not heard that quite so strongly from the minister. Can the member opposite enlighten us in this House on how the Liberals plan to communicate that to the U.S., and what their plan is now at the negotiating table around this issue?

[Jean-Claude Poissant, Liberal, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, the government has proven that it is defending supply management in Canada.

Canadian officials are keeping open lines of communication with the United States to dispel the many misleading statements about Canadian dairy policies. Specifically, Canada has reminded the United States that their excess milk production is the reason American producers are in the situation they are in, and that the United States already has a trade surplus exceeding $400 million thanks to its dairy product trade with Canada. Our officials also reminded the United States that Canada is not to blame for the global economic conditions affecting both Canadian and American producers. On the contrary, supply management is the reason that Canada's milk production meets but does not exceed our country's needs. Canada will continue to stand up for the supply management system—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

National Defence

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

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a question that I originally asked on May 9 when I was questioning the trust that people have in our Minister of National Defence when it comes to the lives of those who serve.

He has made misleading comments on numerous occasions, from embellishment of his record to the capability gap he fabricated about our fighter jets, and other misleading comments in Iraq and on other issues.

Last night, during adjournment proceedings, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence actually built on to the embellishment of the minister's record, saying in his closing comments:

His missions as a reservist in Bosnia and his three tours in Afghanistan make him an example to us all.

I agree with that 100%. As a veteran, he did that.

However, then he went on to say:

We all know he helped fight Daesh.

First and foremost, the minister never fought Daesh. He was fighting the Taliban. He was fighting al-Qaeda. Again, it is a bit of stretch of the truth. We definitely know that as a minister, he has provided policy and some direction to our Chief of Defence Staff, who then directs our special operation forces, those who are out there helping our allies and coalition partners in Iraq and Syria in the fight against ISIS or Daesh. However, the minister himself never directly fought Daesh. I just want to point out that embellishment by the parliamentary secretary.

The credibility of the defence minister goes to a number of different issues. We talked about the embellishment of his record in Operation Medusa, that many have also called “stolen valour”. However, there is more than just that. It is more about the transparency of the minister and the government. It is about how we do not get technical briefings anymore on Operation Impact and other deployments that Canada is involved in, such as in Latvia, Ukraine, and elsewhere.

We know that the minister has embellished the truth as to whether or not we should have pulled our CF-18s out of the fight against ISIS in Iraq, when that was done back in December 2015. He had meetings with Iraqi and Kurdish officials and said they had not had one discussion about the CF-18s. However, through access to information requests, we have seen the memo for government officials who accompanied the minister in those meetings who were told that the Iraqi and Kurdish forces were very upset that we were withdrawing our CF-18s.

It was brought up not just once, not twice, but in the memo it actually said that it was brought up on numerous occasions when the minister was asked to consider the decision. This is significant, again, in terms of how the minister has been fast and loose with the truth.

We went through this whole ordeal last spring, when the minister had okayed the reduction in danger pay for our troops involved in Operation Impact, with those serving in Kuwait going to see a cut to their pay and taxable benefits of $1,500 to $1,800 per month. One soldier who spoke to me off the record said, “It feels like we got kicked in the stomach.”

It took a lot of embarrassment to force the minister to change that. Even through the summer, he was still struggling to find a way through that. Then of course there is the defence spending.

I am just putting it on the record again that the minister continues to mislead Canadians, has not been transparent, and that Canadians deserve better.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for bringing us back to a question that was first asked five months ago, for the second evening in a row.

I know he listens carefully to our debates, and yes, he was quite right to point out the mistake I made yesterday when I mentioned Daesh. It must have been in the wake of the victory in Mosul under the mandate of the Minister of National Defence.

I appreciate the opportunity the member is giving me to talk about the defence minister's professionalism and unwavering commitment to our men and women in uniform and our armed forces as a whole. In that regard, as I told the member opposite on May 9, the minister worked very hard on developing a new defence policy following the most extensive consultation process in the past 20 years. That policy was released last June. Our friends opposite have not said a word about it. Our colleagues opposite are not talking about the new policy because it is good news for all members of the Canadian Armed Forces and their families.

We absolutely understand that without them, without their dedication and conviction, and without the support of their families, Canada cannot achieve its defence objectives. That is why we have put them at the heart of our new defence policy. Today, the minister, the Canadian Armed Forces, and the Department of National Defence are focusing all their attention on implementing our policy. This policy lays out a bold vision for ensuring the protection of our fellow citizens, guaranteeing security in North America, and promoting Canada's engagement with the world.

Our plan is an ambitious one, containing no fewer than 128 separate initiatives. However, it is above all a realistic, fully costed, and fully funded plan to help Canada meet the defence challenges of today and tomorrow. I have said this more than once in the House, but the Minister of National Defence has one priority, which is to ensure that our soldiers get the support, training, and resources they need in order to do what we ask them to do. The Minister of National Defence has been a particularly effective spokesperson, given that defence spending will increase by close to 70% over 10 years under the new policy.

Thanks to that stable, predictable funding, we have undertaken one of the biggest modernization efforts in decades. We will replace our surface ship fleet by investing in 15 Canadian surface combatants and two joint support ships. We will replace our existing CF-18 fleet with 88 fighter jets to strengthen our sovereignty and fulfill our NORAD and NATO commitments. We will acquire new joint intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms. We will stimulate cutting-edge research and innovation in key defence sectors, which will enable our military forces to adapt to rapidly changing technology and maintain interoperability with our allies.

We will take better care of our military personnel and their families. We will invest in recruitment, retention, and training. Those are just some of the steps the Minister of National Defence has taken to better support our troops. The minister is determined to do what needs to be done to ensure the success of our armed forces and defend Canadians' interests, and we see outstanding proof of that every day.

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

Madam Speaker, we have had many discussions on this. My hon. friend must not have been listening when I said, on the defence policy review, that we do not believe it. In their first two budgets, the Liberals cut $3.7 billion in the first budget and $8.5 billion in the second budget. That was $12 billion in defence spending gone, and all the promises the Liberals made in the defence policy for new equipment will not take place until after the next election.

The member mentioned the CF-18 fighter jet replacement. That has turned into a circus, from inventing a capability gap, which all the experts say does not exist—and again that undermines the credibility of the minister himself—and then the member went on to talk about what happened to sole sourcing for the Super Hornets, and then the Bombardier-Boeing fights started. Now, the Liberals are actually going to buy used, worn-out F-18 legacy Hornets from Australia.

This is not the way to serve our military. The Liberals have not bought any new kit, they continue to mislead Canadians, and we deserve better.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to meet our troops in other countries and here in Canada. Last night, at the leadership dinner for members of the command staff in the capital, I really noticed the enthusiasm of all the military members, but especially that of the chief of the defence staff, General Vance, for this new policy.

For the first time, members of the military feel like they are at the heart of this policy. We are looking after them, their families, their training, and their equipment. For the first time, we have a budget designed to ensure they have this equipment, that is to say fighter planes and ships. This is a far cry from the Conservatives' plans for just six surface ships.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, many times I have risen in the House to speak out and demand that legislative changes be made to eliminate the unjust cessation provisions targeting refugees brought in by the previous government. Every time I do so, I basically get the same response, such as the one I received from the parliamentary secretary in May, who said, “We acknowledge that there is room for improvement to further enhance refugee protection while ensuring that we preserve the integrity of Canada's asylum system.”

The Liberals have been acknowledging that there is room for improvement since November 2015, but like so many of the Liberal election promises, it is all talk and no action.

That is not all. Worse still, the government is spending millions of dollars per year to strip away refugees' permanent resident status, simply because individuals have travelled back to their countries of origin, regardless of the reason.

Imagine people who arrived as refugees and have spent 20 years here building new lives, contributing to Canadian society, and starting families. Years later, significant changes in the situation in their countries of origin take place, making it safe for them to travel back, maybe to see family or bury a loved one. At the time of travel, there is no law that says that their status would be put at risk if they went back to their countries of origin. However, when they apply for citizenship, instead of reciting the oath of citizenship, CBSA files a cessation application against them, and they are, all of a sudden, faced with a situation where their permanent resident status can be revoked and they can be deported. This is wrong. What is worse is that the government even acknowledges that this is wrong, yet since the passage of Bill C-31, nothing has changed. In fact, 575 individuals have had cessation applications brought against them.

Why has the Liberal government refused to repeal these provisions? The efforts of Canadians from coast to coast to coast during the Syrian refugee initiative showed Canada's humanitarian spirit and how hard we are all willing to work to help those in need.

As of January 2017, 40,000 Syrian refugees have resettled. Is the government telling them that Canada can strip away their status here and deport them if they travel back to their countries of origin for any reason? I do not think so. The government proudly proclaims that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. Why then do we treat refugees with this injustice? Why are they not provided the same mobility rights other Canadians have? After all, do we not abide by our own Charters of Rights? That is my question to the government.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Vancouver East for her question. I understand her concerns, but I would like to provide some background information.

Canada has a long and proud tradition of offering protection to those who need it. We have one of the fairest and most generous immigration and asylum systems in the world. Our immigration laws are applied impartially, based on facts, and they are meant to accord with the principle of due process.

Under Canada's immigration laws, people can lose their refugee status if it is proven that they no longer require Canada's protection. The grounds for revoking someone's refugee status are consistent with the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Generally, when a protected person returns to the country from which they fled, for example, this suggests that they no longer require Canada's protection and they no longer qualify as a protected person.

Canada offers permanent residence for those who are determined to need refugee protection. Those subject to loss of refugee status because they voluntarily returned to their country of persecution or because they obtained protection from another country have demonstrated that they no longer need protection from Canada.

To cease a person's refugee status, the government must make a representation to the Immigration and Refugee Board, an independent agency that determines whether the person has lost his or her status. These decisions rest on strong and compelling evidence. The IRB's authority to determine whether someone is no longer entitled to protection is not new. The authority to revoke permanent resident status, including permanent residence for refugees, is nothing new either.

However, as part of the refugee reforms made in 2012, the effect of a decision on loss of refugee status has changed such that in most cases, it leads to the lost of permanent resident status. That said, nothing has changed when it comes to the asylum system reforms for facilitating the presentation of a request for loss of refugee status, and the grounds for presenting such a request have not changed.

The Immigration and Refugee Board still requires strong, convincing evidence in order to determine that a person has lost their refugee status. The government will continue to consult stakeholders, as it has been doing, so we can make improvements to the current asylum system. I can assure the members of the House and the member for Vancouver East that we will be reviewing the policies and legislative provisions put in place over the past few years and making improvements.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the government has been consulting ever since it was elected. In fact, the former minister of immigration said to me that this is wrong, and that the Liberals were going to bring in legislation to change it. Then, of course, nothing happened.

Bill C-31 is anything but just or fair, and the member should know that. There are individuals whom I have come across who travelled back to their country of origin when the country was safe to return to. At the time they went back, they even had authorization from Canadian officials to make the trip, but still, once they came back and applied for their citizenship, they actually had cessation applications brought against them. This is wrong.

If the government wants to get out into the universe and tell the world how we are open and humanitarian in our approach, then the government needs to rescind Bill C-31.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, we have a proven record on refugee protection in recent years. However, as the member said, there are some concerns, and I want to reiterate that we are consulting stakeholders on this file on an ongoing basis.

We want to make improvements to our policies and laws in order to make the system better. Stakeholder consultation is a necessary part of that process. I want to assure the member that the work is ongoing and that we are going to consider making improvements with regard to the matter she raised this evening.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:42 p.m.)