Debates of March 7th, 2017

Foreign Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, on November 14, 2016, I rose in the House to ask the former Minister of Foreign Affairs why he blocked a shipment of weapons to Thailand because of human rights concerns, which was a very good thing, but approved the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia, even if it has an even worse human rights record, if that is possible, and in spite of the actions of Saudi Arabia in Yemen.

I also asked him when he would accept the idea of creating a parliamentary committee to examine Canadian arms sales on an ongoing basis given that the Liberals promised transparency during their mandate.

I did not really get an answer. We all know that it is question period and not necessarily answer period, but the minister did inform me of Canada's intent to sign the Arms Trade Treaty. Since then, the government has continued to ignore us when we have asked for greater transparency.

The situation in Yemen has drastically deteriorated. Two-thirds of the population, or 19 million people, needs humanitarian aid and the government remains silent.

We also learned that the former Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time was not suitably made aware of the human rights situation before approving the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia. As far as the Arms Trade Treaty is concerned, we are still looking for the bill. I am not sure if it is hidden somewhere in an office, but there has been no movement on the matter.

I have a number of questions for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. First, does she believe that Canadians, through the work of this Parliament, are entitled to transparency when it comes to the sale of Canadian arms?

Did the department responsible adequately inform the minister of the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia?

How does the minister feel as a woman, on the eve of International Women's Day, about the fact that we are selling arms to a regime that oppresses women?

Does the minister believe that Saudi Arabia violated international humanitarian law in Yemen? If so, what does she intend to do about that?

When are we finally going to see the bill to have Canada sign the Arms Trade Treaty?

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, let me first say how encouraging it is to see the members of this House, as well as all Canadians, sharing the government's concerns about maintaining the highest standards on issues of peace, security, and human rights around the world.

Regarding Canada's export regime, all applications for permits to export controlled goods or technology are carefully reviewed against the full range of Canada's defence in foreign policy interests. The objective of this review is to ensure that exports from Canada do not cause harm to Canada or to our allies, do not undermine national or international security, do not contribute to regional conflicts or instability, do not contribute to the development of weapons of mass destruction or their means of delivery, that they are not used to commit violation of human rights, and that they are consistent with economic sanctions.

Our controls are in line with those of our allies and of our partners. However, we have heard the concerns of Canadians and we are fully committed to making Canada's export control regime even stronger.

On June 17, 2016, our government tabled the Arms Trade Treaty in the House of Commons, something that the previous Conservative government failed to do. Canada's accession to the Arms Trade Treaty will further enhance transparency in the export controls process, while not putting Canadian companies at a commercial disadvantage.

Let me remind the member and all Canadians that the Canadian defence industry provides 70,000 Canadian jobs. Canadians rightly deserve and expect a fair and level playing field. However, Canadians also expect us to live up to our commitment to promote responsibility, transparency, and accountability. This is the right thing to do and we will soon be introducing legislation to this regard. When we do introduce the legislation, members of the House, including my colleague opposite, will have an opportunity to study, analyze, and contribute to this discussion.

I look forward to hearing from the member opposite as well as collaborating with her, so Canada can successfully accede to the Arms Trade Treaty.

Furthermore, Canadians will soon see the results of new transparency measures that will be put in place in the form of enhancements to our annual reports to Parliament on the administration of the Export and Import Permits Act and on military exports from Canada. We committed to being more transparent and accountable, and we will deliver.

With respect to the export contract of light armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia, let me remind the House that this contract was signed under the Conservative government in February 201. All three parties, including the NDP, committed during the 2015 election campaign to respect this contract. To quote the leader of the NDP, “You don't cancel a commercial accord retroactively, it's just not done”. Unlike the NDP, we are sticking to our word in honouring the contract, but will also further enhance transparency and accountability in this regard.

Regarding Saudi Arabia's human rights record, are we passive? Absolutely not. Our government takes every opportunity to raise critical issues with senior Saudi officials like humanitarian issues, consular cases, and universal human rights. We have raised these issues directly with the king, the crown prince, the minister of foreign affairs and other ministers of state, and the president of the Saudi human rights commission. We will never shy away from the opportunity to promote human rights both at home and abroad.

I thank my hon. colleague for giving me this opportunity to point out what our government is doing on this important issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that the contract was signed by the Conservatives. What the Liberals are telling us is that it was a done deal, except that it was the Liberals who approved the export permit, which is a crucial element. The contract is not finalized until there is an export permit.

The export permit is not a Christmas ornament; it is the last, crucial step. If we look at this as some secondary, minor point, it is no big deal, and all the fine speeches about the highest standards for peace and human rights are nothing but empty rhetoric in such a context.

My colleague also said that all arms sales are carefully reviewed. If they are carefully reviewed, why is it that the minister was not even briefed on it, which we know through an access to information request?

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the contract in question was negotiated by the former government and we all know that the NDP strongly supported that contract.

As I said, our government is delivering on our campaign commitment to join the Arms Trade Treaty, which will increase transparency and accountability. In regulating the global trade of arms, we all know that this is the right thing to do.

As we move forward on this commitment, I look forward to an open and rigorous debate in the House with colleagues from all parties, including my hon. colleague opposite.

Our government has clearly expressed its position on human rights: human rights are an integral part of our foreign policy because they are an integral part of who we are as Canadians.

Finance

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government likes to boast about supposedly unprecedented consultation with Canadians but exactly who did the finance minister consult before changing insured mortgage rules? I can tell the House who he did not consult. He did not consult the mortgage or the housing industries.

On February 1 I attended the Standing Committee on Finance to hear witnesses discuss the effects that mortgage rule changes are having on their businesses, their customers, and Canada's many regional housing markets. One point was absolutely clear: none of them had been consulted.

Here are some of the things that the finance committee heard that the minister would have heard had he bothered to ask:

He would have heard from many witnesses that the new rules will reduce competition, leading to higher interest rates and fewer options for Canadian consumers.

He would have heard from Michael Lloyd of DLC Canadian Mortgage Experts that the new rules are, “not even effective in Vancouver and Toronto. You're bludgeoning everyone and it's not fixing a thing.”

He would have heard from Paul Taylor of Mortgage Professionals Canada that, “The spin-off impacts of a reduction in purchasing power for the middle class could have the unintended consequence of creating the scenario that these policies aim to prevent, which is a national debt crisis caused by a significant economic decline.”

He would have heard from Stephen Smith of First National Financial that the insured mortgage stress test will, “reduce the affordability of housing for first-time homebuyers in the softer markets in the country—the Prairies, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada—and will have a minimal effect on the overheated markets in Vancouver and Toronto.”

He would have heard from the President of Canada Guaranty Mortgage Insurance that, “elevated housing market activity in Toronto or Vancouver is not and has not been driven by the first-time homebuyer.”

He would have heard from Bob Finnigan of the Canadian Home Builders' Association that measures like the stress test can, “lock out otherwise qualified homebuyers, they can cause a downward spiral in local economies.”

He would have heard from Sherry Donovan of the Nova Scotia Home Builders' Association that a mortgage lender she knows in Newfoundland estimated that 25% to 30% of its clients would not qualify under the new rules. She would have told him that a Newfoundland homebuilder reported that he went from an average of 50 home sales between October and December each year down to zero sales for the same time period once the new rules came into effect.

The minister could also have heard from the Canadian Homebuilders' Association that the cost of a home in Toronto has increased by $300,000 over the past few years due largely to government regulations, fees, and taxes.

He would have heard that the crisis of affordability in Vancouver and Toronto was not caused by mortgage availability, but by lack of supply, largely due to government regulation.

Did the Minister of Finance intentionally avoid consultations because he did not expect to like the answers that he would get, that he did not want to hear about first-time homebuyers and young families, or about the folly of imposing a uniform national policy on diverse regional markets?

Did the minister not think that the mortgage and housing industries expected to have a say, given that they were consulted on all five of the past mortgage rule changes over the past decade?

For a government supposedly devoted to science and evidence, is it not hypocritical for the Minister of Finance to impose changes to the rules on mortgages without asking any outside experts in the field?

For a government dithering aimlessly on a host of other issues in the name of consultation, it sure rammed through the mortgage rule changes, running over both industry and consumers. The question is why?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to answer that question.

The government fully appreciates the challenges faced by middle-class Canadians and those who are working so hard to join the middle class. This includes middle-class families' concerns over reduced housing affordability in some regions and taking on high levels of debt, reducing the likelihood that they will be able to afford their properties over the long term if economic circumstances were to change. Those who already own their homes want to know that the market is stable and that the most important investment they have made in their life is safe. This why our government has been focused on housing issues since coming into office. We have taken a series of carefully targeted measures to ensure stability and to promote affordability.

Effective since February 15, 2016, the minimum down payment of a new insured mortgage increased from 5% to 10% for the portion of the house price above $500,000. In October, the government made changes to the mortgage insurance rules and tax measures to help ensure that new homebuyers are more resilient and that the principal-residence exemption is only claimed in appropriate cases. These measures are focused on addressing the buildup of housing debt across Canada. This includes markets such as Vancouver and Toronto, which have seen significant house price increases, but also other areas of the country where buying activity is more modest but new buyers are highly indebted. These measures will require borrowers and lenders to make adjustments in the short term and are expected to lead to a temporary reduction in housing activity. However, they are important in containing risk to preserve the long-term stability of the housing market.

The government is also committed to doing its part to fully understand the range of factors impacting regional housing markets. This is why in budget 2016 we provided funding to Statistics Canada to develop a methodology for gathering data on purchases of Canadian housing by foreign homebuyers. The finance minister also created the federal, provincial, and municipal working group of officials to review the range of factors affecting regional housing markets.

Finally, the government is engaging on housing affordability to support the needs of our most vulnerable population. In budget 2016, the Government of Canada spent $2.3 billion on affordable housing. It will continue to work closely with the provinces and municipalities on this file. My colleague the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development is currently developing a housing strategy. We have seen in other countries what can happen to the housing market and economy when housing risks and the leverage are not appropriately managed. In these situations, it is often middle-class families who suffer the most.

It will take time before we can fully assess the impact of all of these measures, and the government is closely monitoring housing and mortgage markets across the country. Measures that ensure a sound and stable housing market and financial security for Canadian families are a part of the government's economic plan, which is based on the notion that, when we have an economy that works for the middle class, we have a country that works for everyone. The series of actions the government has taken over the course of the past year demonstrates our commitment to protecting the long-term financial security for Canadians.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government is stating that it is concerned about the affordability of housing for Canadians; yet the measures the Liberals have taken have done absolutely nothing to address this issue in the pockets of concern that they have identified in Vancouver and Toronto, according to the experts who have testified at the finance committee; and they are taking the dream of home ownership away from a substantial number of would-be first-time homebuyers in markets like Calgary, Victoria, cities of southern Ontario outside of the GTA, and especially Atlantic Canada, as was put very forcefully at the finance committee by the Nova Scotia Home Builders' Association. It is the same government that is running an absolutely out of control deficit, has in this House used low interest rates as a justification for doing so, and is lecturing homebuyers about the risks of credit.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, investing in a home is the single largest and most important financial decision most Canadians will make in their lives. Home ownership is vital to the economic and financial health of Canada and middle-class families. It is vital that we do what we can to ensure that the market is stable and that we provide peace of mind to homeowners all across Canada. The government continues to work collaboratively to address housing affordability and stability issues. We are closely monitoring the impact of recent policy measures and are committed to addressing the overall health and stability of the housing market across Canada, financial systems, and the economy.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government's own definition of the safe third country agreement with the U.S. states:

Only countries that respect human rights and offer a high degree of protection to asylum seekers may be designated as safe third countries.

However, it is clear that many refugees no longer feel that the U.S. is a safe country for them because of Trump's discriminatory edicts, fuelled by his anti-refugee and Islamophobic rhetoric. Trump's first attempt with his discriminatory immigration ban was quickly struck down by the U.S. court system. However, a new order was issued just yesterday, and frankly, the new order is still discriminatory and the impact of that will be felt in Canada.

To date, we have seen the numbers at irregular crossings spike, more than doubled and in some cases tripled, since Trump was elected. Some people suffered frostbite and had their fingers and toes amputated. People crossing have included families with babies and toddlers, and pregnant women. In one of those crossings, a toddler said to his mom that he could not go on anymore. He said that he wanted to die and asked his mother to go on to Canada without him.

Let us be clear. People are doing this because they are desperate. For them the U.S. is no longer a safe country and they no longer feel that they could have a fair hearing about their claim in the U.S. This sentiment was verified by Amnesty International which surveyed 30 asylum seekers from the U.S. and all 30 said that they had no intention of coming to Canada, that is, until Trump.

These crossings are dangerous for asylum claimants and distressing for many Canadians. Suspending the agreement would allow refugee claimants to be processed through official border crossings in an orderly fashion. Honestly, I do not know what it takes for the Liberal government to act. Are we waiting for another tragedy? The death of Alan Kurdi prompted the Liberals to make their campaign promise to resettle Syrian refugees. Are we waiting for a child to die in the snow before we will act?

Groups calling for the suspension of the safe third country agreement include Amnesty International, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, the Canadian Council for Refugees, and a group of some 200 law professors from universities across Canada. In fact, a report from Harvard Law School's immigration and refugee law clinic concluded that the U.S. “is not a 'safe country of asylum' for those fleeing persecution and violence”.

New Democrats will continue to call on the Liberals to suspend the enforcement of the safe third country agreement. The government needs to evaluate whether the U.S. asylum law, policies, and practices comply with the 1951 Refugee Convention and other international human rights obligations. If we do nothing, we are complicit with Trump's discriminatory ban.

In addition, the Liberals need to stand up for Canadians of visible and religious minorities who are being targeted and discriminated against at the border. A young Moroccan student travelling with his team to compete at a sporting event was singled out and interrogated for five hours before he was denied entry. He was asked about his parents, even though they were not travelling with him, and his phone was searched. A Moroccan woman was questioned for hours intrusively about her religion and about her opinion of Trump before she was turned away. An Afghan Canadian doctor was interrogated for five hours and ultimately refused entry as well.

Just yesterday, it was reported that a young Indo-Canadian woman who was trying to go to the U.S. for a one-day spa trip with her girlfriends was singled out, interrogated, and reduced to tears before she was refused entry. It was reported that the border agent actually said, “I know you may feel like you've been Trumped” before informing her she needed an immigrant visa to travel to the U.S.

To be clear, all those targeted are travelling with valid Canadian—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to take part in this adjournment debate and explain the safe third country agreement to Canadians.

The safe third country agreement is based on the principle that individuals should seek asylum in the first country they arrive in. This principle is accepted by the United Nations Refugee Agency. It is important to note that the safe third country agreement applies only to refugee claimants who are seeking entry to Canada from the U.S. via land border only, and does not apply to asylum claims made inland. It also does not apply to claims made by people intercepted while entering Canada at a place that is not a legal point of entry.

Foreign nationals from any country may make a claim for asylum in Canada. Immigration officers receiving a refugee claim will decide whether the claim is eligible for referral to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, an independent administrative tribunal that makes decisions on immigration and refugee matters.

The Immigration and Refugee Board decides who is a convention refugee or a person in need of Canada’s protection. Once a claim is made, individuals may also apply for social assistance which is the responsibility of provinces and territories.

The safe third country agreement remains an important tool for Canada and the U.S. to work together on the orderly handling of refugee claims made in our countries.

As the minister mentioned yesterday in the House, the head of the UNHCR in Canada is on record as stating that the domestic asylum system in the United States is intact, and therefore it would be irresponsible, and I did say irresponsible, to withdraw from the safe third country agreement.

Having said that, if the NDP would like to have discussions with the High Commission, whose team has very specialized knowledge of this area, it is free to do so. We will continue to monitor this evolving situation and we are working with the United States as it reviews parts of its resettlement program.

The Government of Canada will continue to provide protection to those in need, as always.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, those who are trying to seek safety here in Canada are on the record as saying that they do not feel that the U.S. is a safe country for them. That is why that agreement needs to be suspended.

It is not just the NDP that is saying it. The Canadian Council for Refugees, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Amnesty International, and more than 200 law professors have been clear that in light of these troubling developments south of our border, Canada must suspend the safe third country agreement.

Those who are risking life and limb are doing it because of this agreement. The member talked about wanting to create orderliness at the border. The way to do that is to ensure that people go through the proper channels, that they go through the front door to seek support from Canada with their applications and are processed accordingly, and not through the back door, which is what they are being forced to do because of the safe third country agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said for the hon. member's benefit. The safe third country agreement is based on the UNHCR-accepted principle that individuals should seek asylum in the first country they arrive in.

Again, as the minister said yesterday in the House, the head of the UNHCR in Canada is on record as stating that the domestic asylum system in the United States is intact, and therefore it would be irresponsible, he did say irresponsible, to withdraw from the safe third country agreement.

The safe third country agreement remains an important tool for Canada and the U.S. to work together on handling of refugee claims made in our countries.

The Government of Canada will continue to provide protection to those in need, as it has always done.

[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 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:43 p.m.)