Debates of April 10th, 2017

Foreign Affairs

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

Madam Speaker, this an important issue.

I would like to start by making a few corrections. The defence budget was increased this year, and $8 billion were indeed deferred in the budget for procuring equipment when it becomes obsolete. Just check the budget. There is $8 billion. There was $3 billion last year and there is $5 billion this year. Those numbers should not be added.

The government is firmly committed globally and contributes in more ways than one to making the world a more stable and safer place. Last August, our government committed to deploying 600 members of Canadian Armed Forces and 150 police officers to join United Nations peacekeeping operations. These three-year deployments are part of a multi-department strategy and have a budgetary envelope of $450 million. This approach will enable us to consider all aspects of peace operations, including mediation, conflict prevention, and peace building.

Canada also plans to host the next UN peacekeeping defence ministerial in 2017. My colleague across the aisle mentioned the possibility of Canada winning a seat on the UN Security Council. That would be a great way for Canada to actively promote Canadian values. It would allow us to achieve very noble objectives, especially in terms of governance, respect for diversity, and respect for human rights, especially those of women and refugees.

Future deployments of the Canadian Armed Forces have also been the subject of consultation with the United Nations and Canada's partner countries. We will ensure that any troops deployed have the appropriate equipment and the training needed to properly carry out their mission. Given that today's peace support operations are different than those of the past, we will also establish firm rules of engagement to maximize the chances of success. These rules of engagement will allow our troops to better defend themselves and those we are called upon to work with. In that regard, I want to reassure my colleague across the aisle that the safety of our troops is our top priority and is central to our military planning and our decision-making process.

Thus, even though our troops would be deployed under UN auspices, the chief of the defence staff would at all times be fully in command of our troops.

When the Government of Canada makes its decision about the deployment of the Canadian Armed Forces, the pre-deployment training will be adapted for each mission to the specific conditions. Training could be provided with respect to cultural awareness, gender-based analysis, peace support operations, civilian and military co-operation, and dangerous environments. There will also be training on the joint doctrine note on child soldiers, which was recently adopted by the Canadian Armed Forces. This doctrine will help guarantee that our troops are well trained and mentally prepared to act in situations involving child soldiers.

These new guidelines will help guide the actions of the Canadian Armed Forces and minimize the difficulties associated with deployments to areas where there are child soldiers. Several other documents will be used by the Canadian Armed Forces for this purpose. The government has full confidence in the Canadian Armed Forces and their ability to carry out their mission.

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

Madam Speaker, it is very clear in the budget that there is a cutback on long-term funds earmarked for military equipment purchases. The parliamentary secretary tried to skirt that fact, but he did not directly deny it.

Of course, there is an ongoing operational escalator, but that does not address the fact that the government is cutting back our investment over the long term in the military. That is not what we need right now. We need to be honouring our NATO commitments to move toward 2%, not making the kinds of cutbacks the government is talking about. Right from the very start, in its throne speech, it said it wanted Canada to have a leaner military. That just does not make sense, period, but particularly in the context of the world in which we find ourselves.

He talks about the benefits of getting onto the UN Security Council so that Canada can express its values. I would have more confidence in the government's willingness to express its values at that point if it was doing it at this point. We do not hear Liberals talking about international human rights. We do not hear them being willing to confront these issues.

We have vital strategic interests in eastern Europe and Syria. Canada needs to be engaged in a way that invests in our military and reflects our interests. This government is just not doing that.

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

Madam Speaker, I think that the Canadian Armed Forces and the government are committed to investing for the future. We are talking about over $80 billion.

The government is committed to taking concrete action and playing a more active role in the global arena. We are actively examining all of the options to see how the Canadian Armed Forces and the Government of Canada as a whole can best contribute to building peace and security. The House can rest assured that the personnel who are deployed will have the right equipment, the necessary training, and the appropriate rules of engagement, as they do on all missions. The Canadian Armed Forces has developed a joint doctrine note on child soldiers, which will help ensure that our troops are properly prepared, both mentally and physically.

In closing, I would like to once again thank my colleague for his question and for his concern for the well-being of the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Indigenous Affairs

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to take the House back to the Prime Minister and his cabinet's approval of the Kinder Morgan expansion project in November of 2016. This was in complete contradiction to promises made by the government around its relationship with indigenous people and first nations governments.

The approval would violate the campaign vow of the Liberals to conduct relations on a nation-to-nation basis. In the Kinder Morgan approval process, or the backdrop to it, was one of the promises of the government, which was to recognize the relationship between indigenous peoples and the land and to respect legal traditions and perspectives on environmental stewardship. I agree and I wish that promise had been kept.

In the Kinder Morgan approval process, the government cannot say that it is fulfilling that promise when in September of last year a coalition of indigenous leaders from across the entire continent, including Stewart Phillip of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, a very strong leader in my province, said that there was unprecedented unity against the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

In my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, the Snuneymuxw First Nation feels betrayed. Former Chief Kwul'a'sul'tun, also known as Doug White III, said, “this project puts at risk our way of life”. He also said that the decision was “premised on a denial of aboriginal people’s rights and voice”.

Many indigenous governments in British Columbia are challenging this decision in court. Three first nations in January announced legal actions against the federal government, challenging the approval of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline.

Tsleil-Waututh Chief Maureen Thomas said, “We do not consent to the Kinder Morgan pipeline project in our territory. We are asking the court to overturn the federal cabinet's decision to approve this project.”

We have also heard in the House that the government is blocking access, again breaking a promise, to indigenous women's organizations. The Native Women's Association wanted to be involved in the last first ministers meeting around climate change, asked repeatedly, but was denied.

Against all of this backdrop, part of the decision making, as articulated by the federal cabinet, was that this project was so in the national interest that it was justified to break its promise on indigenous relationships and to cause cost to the B.C. coast.

Just last week, a new report came out from Simon Fraser University, authored Tom Gunton. Given a recent forecast for oil demand and what he predicts as a massive overcapacity to move oil in Canada because, both federal on the U.S. and Canadian side, a new pipeline approval is coming, he says, “there are clearly viable options to Trans Mountain that have significantly lower environmental risks”.

My question for the government again is this. How can it say that this is in the national interest given the growing evidence that it is not? When will the government wake up and admit that the approval of the Kinder Morgan pipeline is a violation of its promise to indigenous peoples in Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has said many times that no relationship is more important than the one with indigenous peoples. In fact, he wrote it into the mandate letter of every cabinet minister. He added, “It is time for a renewed, nation-to-nation relationship with Indigenous Peoples, based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership.”

My colleagues and I have taken this responsibility very seriously. It informs our polices and guides our actions. That is why our government has invested in an unprecedented $8.4 billion to improve the socio-economic conditions of indigenous peoples and their communities, endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, acted on the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, established a public inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, appointed a working group of ministers responsible for the review of all laws, policies, and operational practices related to indigenous peoples, and meaningfully engaged with indigenous peoples on sustainable resource development.

It is that last point that I want to talk about this evening. Within months of taking office, our government implemented interim principles for reviewing major resource projects already in the queue. Its guiding principles ensure that indigenous peoples are meaningfully consulted and engaged in the process, their rights and interests are accommodated, and their traditional indigenous knowledge is fully considered in the decision-making process. That is what we have done. Our pipeline announcements last November confirm that. So does the reaction from so many indigenous leaders, who praised our government's decisions, including our decision to reject the northern gateway pipeline through the Great Bear Rainforest, and imposed a moratorium on tanker traffic along British Columbia's northern coast.

We are proud of our balanced approach. Yes, there are indigenous communities opposed to the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline project, but there are others that support it, including those indigenous communities that have signed benefit agreements worth more than $300 million. Our government is providing more than $64 million for an indigenous advisory and monitoring committee to oversee the pipeline's operations, the first time that indigenous peoples will have a direct and ongoing role in these projects. We are also establishing an economic partnership to create more training and job opportunities for indigenous groups.

Unanimity and consensus are two different things. It is simply not realistic to expect unanimity in these decisions. However, we can build consensus through consultation and review processes that carry the confidence of Canadians, and by ensuring that local communities and indigenous peoples are true beneficiaries of resource development. That is what we are doing.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, the answer is so disappointing, at every level.

The ministerial panel specifically named six different questions that the government has to ask before it can go ahead and approve the pipeline. None of them have been answered. One example is how cabinet might square approval of the pipeline with its commitment to reconciliation with first nations and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, with its principles of free, prior, and informed consent. That was a campaign promise of the government. It was raised again by the minister's own panel. It is still not answered, there is still no clarity, yet still the government gave the thumbs-up to the Kinder Morgan pipeline.

It is blowing this relationship with coastal first nations people. There is no way that the list of good deeds that the minister's representative has listed comes anything close to squaring the environmental and social costs of this pipeline approval. It is very sad for Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, we understand that indigenous communities have differing opinions on pipeline projects. The Prime Minister anticipated as much when he announced our decisions. He said, “There’s no question that there will be people on both sides of any decision we make [on this issue]. I accept that.” The fact is that people asked us to serve, “to make difficult decisions” in the interests of our country. That is exactly what we have done. We listened to Canadians, we heard their voices, and we have taken a balanced approach.

Based on those meaningful consultations and rooted in solid science, we made decisions in the best interests of our country.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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 6:59 p.m.)