House of Commons Hansard #184 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was cannabis.

Topics

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

On division.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

Consequently, the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:05 p.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the House, could we see the clock at 12 o'clock high so we can all go off and address our munchies?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

Is that agreed?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

10:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

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

Immigration, Refugees and CitizenshipAdjournment Proceedings

10:05 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to urge the government to take actions to address the impact of the significant and troubling shift in humanitarian policy in the United States, following the most recent presidential election. Despite the fact that President Trump's discriminatory travel ban continues to be struck down by the courts, other anti-immigrant measures have not. As a result, fear and uncertainty have greatly increased among those with precarious immigration status in the United States, and it has without a doubt fuelled a significant increase in asylum seekers crossing into Canada.

To cut to the facts, for all of 2016, the RCMP intercepted 2,464 individuals at irregular crossings. From January to April 2017, the RCMP has already intercepted 2,719 individuals. Should irregular crossings continue at this rate, we could expect over 8,000 interceptions this year.

It is very important to properly understand what these irregular crossings are. The current government's approach of simply ignoring that this is even occurring has allowed misinformation, fearmongering, and anti-refugee rhetoric to spread unchecked. This is a fundamental failure for a government that claims to be “back” and says, “Welcome to Canada”.

Asylum seekers from the U.S. crossing irregularly into Canada are not illegal border crossers. Canada is a signatory to international conventions and has obligations toward the acceptance and treatment of asylum seekers. The current process, where irregular crossers are intercepted by the RCMP, turned over to the CBSA, and have their asylum claim processed and sent to the Immigration and Refugee Board is following both our domestic and international legal obligations.

These individuals are not jumping any queues. These individuals are being correctly treated as in-land asylum claimants. They are not displacing government-assisted refugees or privately sponsored refugees, and they certainly are not displacing economic or family class immigrants. Canada's immigration levels plan has an allocation for in-land asylum claimants. Lastly, this is not a crisis of people streaming across the border, though it is a significant increase, with causes, and some that have solutions. Should the government get around to actually acknowledging the problem exists, it can be addressed.

One of the main drivers of irregular crossings from the U.S. is the safe third country agreement. As a result of this agreement, individuals crossing from the U.S. into Canada at authorized border crossings will be turned away at the border, based on the notion that the American asylum system is of equal standing to ours, and if its system rejected the claim, we can safely assume ours would as well. Unfortunately, that is simply not the case, especially given the new and troubling shifts under its current administration. We now have proof of this.

On Christmas Eve 2016, Seidu Mohammed, a Ghanaian asylum seeker whose refugee claim in the U.S. was denied, walked across the Canadian border into Emerson. Freezing temperatures left Mohammed badly frostbitten and cost him eight fingers. On May 17, the IRB accepted his asylum claim. Mr. Mohammed said his claim was rejected in the U.S. for similar reasons to those the Harvard immigration law program, Canadian immigration legal scholars and students, humanitarian and civil liberty associations, and others have for repeatedly calling for the safe third country agreement to be suspended. During his lengthy, punitive immigration detention, he was unable to access counsel and adequately prepare for his hearing. Under our system, he was able to do so.

I have called for the suspension of the safe third country agreement—

Immigration, Refugees and CitizenshipAdjournment Proceedings

10:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

Immigration, Refugees and CitizenshipAdjournment Proceedings

10:10 p.m.

Ajax Ontario

Liberal

Mark Holland LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Speaker, certainly there is no doubt that every Canadian, regardless of their gender, their sexual orientation, or their ethnicity should have the ability to move freely in an unencumbered way, and any instances that the member is referring to are ones that we take seriously.

The minister has met with Secretary Kelly, and they have shared information. I have to say that Secretary Kelly and the folks working with him have been incredibly good to work with and to have a dialogue back and forth with as situations emerge, and there are a number of recourses. Obviously, the decision on whether somebody may enter a country is solely at the discretion of the country that is doing the admitting. We cannot force the United States, or any other country, to accept anybody they choose not to.

However, it is imperative that we stand up and fight for Canadians' interests so that when they are crossing into the United States, they are treated fairly. We continue to have dialogue with Secretary Kelly on that point.

It is important to note that there a number of resources that folks have at their disposal. I could perhaps enumerate them offline, but I doubt I will have time to do so in my remarks here. If they think that they are treated unfairly by U.S. authorities, there are clear mechanisms for redress that have been in place by the U.S. government.

On the issue of the safe third party agreement, this is overseen by the United Nations. This ensures the proper facilitation of claimants on both sides of the border. It is working effectively. We continue to monitor it. It is important that both countries are working in tandem with one another to make sure that we do not have chaos in the management of asylum seekers.

In terms of those who are crossing at the border, it is true the numbers are up. They are around the levels that we saw in 2008 and 2001 when resources were actually less, so it is important to note that these levels fluctuate. However, we are monitoring them. The resources that we have currently are working effectively. We are going to make sure that we work with local authorities, the RCMP, and immigration to ensure that the process for people seeking asylum is done in a way that is thorough and effective.

Immigration, Refugees and CitizenshipAdjournment Proceedings

10:10 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, it has now been reported an individual has died of hypothermia in attempting to make this crossing. This was a tragedy that could have been avoided.

When will the government acknowledge what is happening? When will it suspend the safe third country agreement?

I remain deeply disappointed that the government refuses to back up its rhetoric with actions. The safe third country agreement has now contributed to a woman's death. Because she could not enter Canada and have her claim heard at an authorized port of entry, she had no choice but to attempt a dangerous irregular crossing. She has now lost her life. We will never know if her claim would have been successful in Canada, as Mr. Mohammed's claim was. This was a preventable tragedy, one that will likely occur again if nothing is done.

What is the government waiting for? Why is it refusing to acknowledge the issue? Why is the government so scared to stand up to Trump and stand up for humanitarian values? Canadians expect the government to do that.

Immigration, Refugees and CitizenshipAdjournment Proceedings

10:15 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax, ON

Mr. Speaker, obviously the death is indeed tragic. It occurred in Minnesota. The person in question was not near Canada at the time, so I am not sure how that life would have been saved by anything being different.

However, what I do know is that we want people to seek asylum by using the mechanisms that they have. The safe third party agreement ensures that is done efficaciously and in a way that does not create chaos.

The claim will be processed, whether or not there is a normal entry, through the normal process to assess the veracity of the claim. If a person crosses irregularly, then obviously they are going to be apprehended by local authorities and are going to have appear before a quasi-judicial process, and then their claim is still going to be assessed in exactly the same manner.

The UN has looked at the safe third party agreement, has looked at the way in which we are dealing with asylum seekers, and has commended it for its effectiveness and how well it is working. That is the measure we work by.

National DefenceAdjournment Proceedings

10:15 p.m.

Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals politicized the heck out of the CF-18 file. That is about as low as it gets.

First, during the election campaign, they made promises that they could not keep. They promised to hold an open and transparent process to replace the current fleet of CF-18s, but they excluded the F-35. They were off to a great start.

The Liberals had their minds made up from the very beginning. They wanted to give a big contract to their friends at Boeing. That was clear, straightforward, and transparent. They wanted to give them a nice gift of $7 billion. They planned to bleed the Canadian Armed Forces to grease their friends' palms. That is a great Liberal tradition.

Even though the commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force said, on April 14, 2016, that we had the resources we needed to live up to our obligations under NATO and NORAD, the Liberals decided to change the number of aircraft that the Royal Canadian Air Force would need at any given time. They were already beginning to tinker with the numbers. That is exhibit A.

The minister fabricated the capability gap. We know the minister likes playing architect. In this case, the minister was the architect of the air force capability gap. As it turns out, creating that gap involved a lot of meetings with Boeing. Since coming to power, the Liberals have had so much contact with Boeing that things are verging on the incestuous. It just so happens that the government's stance has shifted since the first of those meetings. I have a list of the meetings here. Let us call it exhibit B. There have been at least 14 known meetings with Boeing lobbyists, who met with political staff, ministers, and parliamentary secretaries over the past year.

After every meeting, the minister's position changed. The architect came up with his plan on the fly, apparently. This is a Liberal fabrication, pure and simple. One little sticking point interfered with developing the plan: Lieutenant-General Hood and the chief of the defence staff, General Vance, both told a parliamentary committee that they had sufficient resources to fulfill all of their commitments. Let us call that exhibit C.

This story simply does not hold water. If there really were a lack of resources, would the solution proposed by the government to acquire a fleet of 18 Super Hornets really be an effective solution, when we know that two-thirds of the American fleet is grounded? Indeed, two-thirds of the Super Hornet fleet in the United States is grounded. They are out of service. Parts are missing and there are problems with the oxygen system. It is a complete mess.

Problems with the Super Hornet are well known, and I have here a report, which is my exhibit D, that I found on the DND website. It is a public website. This 2014 report from the national defence research branch shows that having two fleets of aircraft was the worst idea in the world. Make no mistake; the CF-18s in our current fleet are not the same aircraft as the Super Hornets, even though they have the number 18 in their description.

The report contains all kinds of technical information that confirms that there was no capability gap, and that investments to upgrade the aircraft were going well and that they were operational. Most importantly, the report recommends not having a mixed fleet.

Here is my exhibit E. It is a letter signed by 13 former commanders of the Royal Canadian Air Force that was sent to the Prime Minister and that says exactly the same thing, specifically, that above all, we should not purchase an interim fleet or have a mixed fleet. Therefore—

National DefenceAdjournment Proceedings

10:20 p.m.

Liberal

National DefenceAdjournment Proceedings

10:20 p.m.

Saint-Jean Québec

Liberal

Jean Rioux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for his question.

First, I would like to say that his question is rather odd because it covers two subjects which, at first glance, appear completely unrelated. It must be said that my colleague was a little too vocal that day, to the point that the Speaker had to call him to order by encouraging him “to refrain from using such disruptive language.” I know that my hon. colleague does not want to be disruptive.

First, I am delighted that he spoke about the role of honorary colonels because I now have the opportunity to remind members that they are an integral part of the Canadian Armed Forces family. Their role is vital to our local communities. They use their experience and their expertise to promote and support members of the military and their families. They provide leadership and mentorship and foster camaraderie in units across the country.

Under section 3.33 of the Honorary Colonel Handbook prepared by the Royal Canadian Air Force, and as representatives of the Department of National Defence, honorary colonels must refrain from defending any political opinions. Indeed, in order to fully exercise their leadership and promote esprit de corps, it is very important that they steer well clear of comments that could possibly threaten operational security or promote political opinions. In other words, they must not cause any controversy.

I will now address the so-called gag order my colleague referred to. The gag order is not an accurate reflection of the reality of the obligations government representatives and suppliers with a security clearance must meet.

As the member is well aware, and I am sure he agrees, the Government of Canada takes the handing of secret information very seriously. The special security accountability forms he mentioned are documents that remind people of the need to protect information for security reasons, regardless of the individual's security clearance level. These forms are used to ensure that staff meet their obligations to the Crown under the Security of Information Act, particularly with respect to commercial information and sensitive military information.

These agreements protect delicate co-operative information for the long term. Signing such a document does not prevent a public servant from complying with the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. It is our duty to protect material belonging to the private sector that is used in our procurement process. This obligation is especially important when it comes to replacing our fighter jets, one of the government's major procurement projects. This project is complex, costly, and important to national security.

Considering the expertise and sensitivity involved, we decided it was necessary and appropriate to have people sign special security accountability forms. Information from other governments and contractors, regardless of its classification, is given to us in confidence. Failure to keep that information safe and confidential and to be mindful of corporate concerns could compromise Canada's future contractual relationships and place Canada at a disadvantage.

That is why the security forms were signed to ensure that employees would not divulge sensitive information to any unauthorized party, regardless of their security clearance. The forms enhance existing security protocols and procedures by reminding employees that it is important to share this information on a need-to-know basis only.

This is the normal, usual, accepted procedure—

National DefenceAdjournment Proceedings

10:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

Order.

The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

National DefenceAdjournment Proceedings

10:25 p.m.

Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, for those listening, this is really interesting. When I laid out five arguments, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence added information to my preamble. He just said that there is a lifelong gag order and that honorary colonels are silenced. The aircraft file is a real shambles.

In closing, I would like the parliamentary secretary to answer. This morning the Minister of National Defence said that Boeing was not a trusted partner.

Now that we have all the information, can the parliamentary secretary confirm that the Liberal government will discard this stupid plan to replace aircraft with a fleet of 18 Super Hornets that are completely useless, and will he immediately initiate a procurement process to equip the Canadian forces with the best aircraft for the next 40 years?

National DefenceAdjournment Proceedings

10:25 p.m.

Liberal

Jean Rioux Liberal Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility of the minister and the government to ensure that the members of the Canadian Armed Forces have all of the equipment they need to successfully carry out their missions, and all the support they need for their well-being

The Minister of National Defence has been given a broad mandate and he is carrying it out. Next week, he will unveil a new defence policy that will ensure adequate funding and rigorously established resources for the next 20 years. Our government intends to make sure that the Canadian Armed Forces has everything it needs to be a modern, more flexible, and better equipped force.

The men and women of our armed forces do an exceptional job of performing their duties, but they cannot successfully carry out their missions without adequate support. We are currently working to fill the gaps that have resulted from our predecessors' mismanagement.

National DefenceAdjournment Proceedings

10:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

The hon. member for Calgary Shepard is not present to raise the matter for which adjournment notice has been given. Accordingly, the notice is deemed withdrawn.

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 10:27 p.m.)