House of Commons Hansard #192 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was amendment.

Topics

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

10:40 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, I am afraid I disagree with the hon. member. I particularly note his emphasis on citizenship obtained by fraud.

We have spoken earlier of specific cases, and I have had them in my riding, where it is for reasons that are completely understandable, including lack of information, lack of education, incorrect information, and misunderstandings. People make mistakes, sometimes deliberately, on their citizenship application, but for humanitarian and compassionate grounds, each case should be examined in its own right.

We should not see, as I mentioned earlier tonight, good Canadian citizens being forever barred from bringing their children to Canada. Would the hon. member not agree that good citizens and good, responsible, hard-working people should not be barred forever from having their children live with them for one mistake?

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

10:40 p.m.

Conservative

Bob Saroya Conservative Markham—Unionville, ON

Madam Speaker, a good citizen is a good citizen. Nobody is disputing that. The only thing we are disputing is when purposely and knowingly citizenship is gained by deceit, whatever the reason is. For humanitarian reasons, they can always appeal their case. All I am saying is if it is proved by the court or by the immigration minister that immigration was obtained by deceit. We are talking about those people. They should be sent back. For the good Canadians, we always have regard for them.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

10:40 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on the question about people who fraudulently obtain their citizenship. I believe, and I think my constituents believe, that it is important that we maintain the integrity of our system. This means that when individuals obtain their citizenship through fraud, we should not draw out the process unnecessarily, that we should recognize that is a problem for the integrity of citizenship and people should lose citizenship in that case.

In response to some of the other comments and how the Liberals seem intent on approaching this amendment, is it not fundamentally in the public interest to ensure we maximize the disincentive to citizenship fraud to ensure upfront that people know that if there is citizenship fraud, there will be a strong response? Is that not an imperative if we are to have a strong and effective immigration system that works for everybody?

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

10:40 p.m.

Conservative

Bob Saroya Conservative Markham—Unionville, ON

Madam Speaker, absolutely, in most of the cases when agencies of crooked consultants or crooked lawyers are doing these things, they are charging a ton of money and making up stories. If we let this go, then there is no respect left for the Canadian passport. Thousands of people are waiting in the queue. We should keep the integrity to ensure nobody gets citizenship by deceiving the system.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

10:40 p.m.

Liberal

Eva Nassif Liberal Vimy, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his eloquent speech.

Since he is an immigrant like me, does he not believe that by allowing newcomers under 18 to obtain citizenship this bill makes it easier for them to integrate and helps them feel more at home, while it further enriches Canadian society? What does the hon. member think about this amendment to the legislation?

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

10:40 p.m.

Conservative

Bob Saroya Conservative Markham—Unionville, ON

Madam Speaker, we believe in it. We are going to support this amendment for the age of 18 or less. We can thank Senator Victor Oh for bringing this amendment forward. We appreciate his hard work. We believe it will make the system easier for minor students, kids. It will affect their lives. In some of the old cases, for whatever reason, when the kids came, the parents did not care, or there were family issues or drug issues, or the kids did not get along. In many of these cases, we hear that 50 years later, 40 years later, those adults were deported.

We are going to support this amendment. We love this amendment. Once again, we want to thank Senator Victor Oh for this amendment.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

10:45 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Is the House ready for the question?

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

10:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

10:45 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

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

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

10:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

10:45 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

10:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

10:45 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

All those opposed will please say nay.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

10:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

10:45 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 30, 2017, the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, June 13, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle on a point of order.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

10:45 p.m.

Liberal

David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Madam Speaker, I believe you will find great pleasure in the House to see the clock at midnight at this time.

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

10:45 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Is there unanimous consent to see the clock at midnight?

Citizenship ActGovernment Orders

10:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

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

National DefenceAdjournment Proceedings

10:45 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Madam Speaker, I rise in this adjournment debate proudly as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, which includes Garrison Petawawa, Canada's largest army base. The over 5,000 soldiers at CFB Petawawa and their families know I have their backs when it comes to keeping the government accountable to provide the right tools at the right time to keep our soldiers safe in whatever task we call upon them to perform.

It is always in this context that I ask the Minister of National Defence to explain the discrepancy between the huge military budget cutbacks in every Liberal Party budget, and The Wizard of Oz response from the minister. In this case, the pot of gold is somewhere over the rainbow, which, according to this minister, will be after the next election.

It is time for the minister to ask the puppet master behind the curtain to give him some courage and confront the Prime Minister with the fact that funding is not needed 10, 20, or 50 years from now, but today. Based on the minister's actual response to a real question, there was no response.

The evidence for Canadians was the announcement of the Liberal defence policy, which was a bust for the soldiers serving today. The spending promises contained in the policy do not start until after the next election, and not surprising for me, the entire policy depends on the Conservative Party being elected after the next election. I urge all Canadians who believe that an independent Canada depends on a robust defence capability to vote for the Conservative Party, as we share that belief.

Military spending as a percentage of Canada's gross domestic product, or GDP, at .88% is at its lowest level since World War II. In the last federal budget, the Liberals dug an $8.5-billion hole, cutting the defence budget by $8.5 billion. They now state in their new defence policy that sometime after the next election, it will be up to a new Conservative government to take the defence of Canada seriously and actually implement the proposed defence increases. Meanwhile, the Liberals' deficit budgets are bankrupting the country. No wonder the Minister of National Defence was not prepared to answer my question in the House.

As the member of Parliament for Canadian Forces Base Petawawa, home to the Canadian Special Operations Forces Command, I am encouraged by any promise to increase special operations forces by 605 personnel. The concern of the soldiers and their families who serve in our special forces is that the promises come with no time frame of when these increases will occur. It is no state secret that the government favours clandestine military operations, the kind that stay out of the media, so that the loony left wing of the Liberal Party is kept in the dark. This is the same loony left wing that demanded and got an $8.5 billion cut from today's defence budget.

CSOR is a battalion-sized, light infantry, high-readiness special operations unit, part of Canadian Special Operations Forces Command, which is headquartered in CFB Petawawa. CSOR is capable of conducting and enabling a broad range of missions: reconnaissance, counterterrorism, defence diplomacy, and military assistance. Along with CSOR is the 427 Special Operations Aviation Squadron, 427 SOAS, in Petawawa. Our special forces soldiers are overextended.

National DefenceAdjournment Proceedings

10:50 p.m.

Saint-Jean Québec

Liberal

Jean Rioux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her question. I know that she cares a whole lot about our men and women in uniform, and I appreciate that.

Our government committed to giving our soldiers the training, support, and equipment they need to successfully carry out the missions they are assigned, and we are keeping our promise.

Our new defence policy and budget 2017 will help us meet that objective. First, I would like to address the matter of the $8.48 billion. It is true that budget 2017 strategically deferred an amount of $8.48 billion to later years. Contrary to what the hon. member and others claim, the department's budget was not cut. The funds were simply deferred. This deferral of funds will not delay the execution of contracts and will not affect the timing of projects. The funding will be available when it is needed.

This strategic deferral is not a matter of funding but of accounting. This approach seeks to ensure that the funding for major projects is available at the point in the project schedule when it is needed. It takes into account the changes made to major government projects as they progress.

When funds have to be deferred, we make sure it is done in accordance with our procurement plan. We put money aside during good years to cover the acquisition and in-service support costs of these projects.

The deferral of $8.48 billion balanced the books prior to the approval of our new defence policy by transferring 2017 funds to 2034-35, 2035-36, and beyond. We will allocate $4.4 billion to fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft, $2 billion to Canadian surface combatant in-service support, $0.8 billion to Arctic and offshore patrol ships, $0.3 billion to light armoured vehicles, and $1 billion to various other projects.

Our new defence policy, which was released on June 7, outlines an increase in military spending of more than 70% over the next 10 years, a funding level that is affordable and realistic.

Costing was supported by external experts, and our methodology was verified by five external accounting firms. This long-term funding will provide the stability required to make major investments that meet today's needs while also enabling us to plan for the future.

Our armed forces need to know that the resources will be available when they are required. Among the investments announced in our new policy, we are acquiring 15 Canadian surface combatants, for which full funding is assured under our policy. We are procuring 88 fighter jets to replace the current fleet of CF-18s in order to strengthen our sovereignty and keep our commitments to NORAD and NATO. The fleet of light armoured vehicles will be fully modernized. We are also investing in land capabilities such as ground-based air defence and training simulators. Projects such as the Arctic and offshore patrol ships and tactical armoured patrol vehicles continue to move forward.

National DefenceAdjournment Proceedings

10:55 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Madam Speaker, the military is more than hardware. It is about people, our greatest asset. As I said, our special forces are overextended. It is taking a toll on their families. Long separations can lead to marital breakdown and a whole host of other problems.

One military family shared with me that the military spouse in that family was gone 265 days last year. That is almost nine months of the year. Our special soldiers take pride in being the best of the best. However, that pace is unsustainable.

Special forces soldiers maintain a high level of alertness. They must be ready to be deployed immediately. They know that as special forces, this level of dedication is part of the job. We owe it to these soldiers not to abuse that trust and dedication. I challenge the Minister of National Defence to announce the hiring of 605 special operations personnel starting immediately.

National DefenceAdjournment Proceedings

10:55 p.m.

Liberal

Jean Rioux Liberal Saint-Jean, QC

Madam Speaker, the focus of our new defence policy is the men and women in the armed forces. We want to give them all the necessary resources and training and take care of their health and well-being.

We will ensure that the financial resources the armed forces need are available when they need it. The deferral of funds is not a cut in the defence budget. It is sound financial management. The new defence policy was carefully costed to ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces have adequate resources for the future. We are seeing our commitments through when it comes to major equipment acquisition and modernization projects for our armed forces, and that is what we will keep doing.

Fisheries and OceansAdjournment Proceedings

10:55 p.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Madam Speaker, by now everybody in the House and beyond are well aware of the crisis facing the planet with respect to the plague of plastic in our oceans. It is of concern to all of us. Soon we could see plastic outweigh fish.

I have risen in the House on numerous occasions to urge the government to act in response to a spill of 35 shipping containers from a Korean tanker off the coast of Vancouver Island last November. Seven months have now passed and although a small contribution has been made to reimburse the partial costs of the Pacific Rim chapter of Surfrider, one of the community organizations that mobilized its members to respond to this travesty, no other effective action has been taken.

The government tells us that it is doing all it can and is working with communities to recover the vast quantities of styrofoam used to line the containers, which have long since broken up into small pieces and have been carried with the tides and currents onto our precious beaches. However, those who are out on the beaches are telling us that the government has been invisible. In fact, the government's reaction has been neither rapid nor responsive. It collected $72,000 from the bankrupt shipping company and waited six months before allocating less than a quarter of the total to one of the volunteer organizations that has been doing the work.

Needless to say, the impact of this container spill has consequences for the local population and its food security. The Pacific Rim relies heavily on the pristine coast for its economy, jobs, the ecosystem, and species at risk. This region relies heavily on tourism, as the Prime Minister and many members of the House know well.

Increasingly, I am receiving images, photos and videos of the situation, along with the media reporting on both the damage and the courage and hard work of local first nations, Surfrider, the Wild Pacific Trail Society, the Clayoquot Cleanup, and other dedicated local groups and Canadians who have taken to the beaches. The message from these groups, my own voice, and the voices of others across the country and around the world seem to be falling on deaf ears.

First, we need a proper response plan to remove the tons of marine debris along the coastline of Vancouver Island. We need a plan that sets out the activities required to achieve common-sense outcomes that provide for the safety of those doing the work and for the disposal of massive amounts of debris.

Second, we need a policy to address spills like this in the future. It needs to be clear about the roles of local people using local knowledge and community resources to remove marine debris. It needs to be developed with the lessons learned internationally from countries with best practices.

Third, we need a funding formula that accurately calculates the resources, the funds, and the source of funds that must be allocated to support the work of cleanup in an efficient and effective manner.

Fourth, we need a public education program that informs Canadians about what is happening to our oceans, the peril of single-use plastics, the consequences of using styrofoam in shipping containers, and multiple other risks to our oceans.

The government needs to tell the House about its plan of action for removing marine debris that is being deposited on the shores of Vancouver Island before it can cause further damage. We want to know what its plan of action is.

I also want to thank the government. I appreciate its response to my concerns about its omission of the west coast of Vancouver Island on the list of priorities identified in the minister's announcement of the coastal restoration fund last week. I very much appreciate the addition of our coast to this list. It is certainly better late than never.

As well, I would like to know if cleaning up and removing marine debris and plastics is eligible under this coastal restoration fund. If so, when will the resources required to support the work be available?

Fisheries and OceansAdjournment Proceedings

11 p.m.

Burnaby North—Seymour B.C.

Liberal

Terry Beech LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries

Madam Speaker, I was born just outside the member opposite's riding and caught my first fish, a rainbow trout, when I was five or six years old in his riding, so it is a pleasure to be here today to discuss a topic about which we are both passionate.

The Government of Canada is committed to protecting our coasts and oceans and keeping them healthy for future generations. We have recently announced a number of funding commitments, including $123.7 million over five years to support marine conservation activities, $197.1 million over five years to increase ocean and freshwater science, and a $1.5-billion national oceans protection plan that improves marine safety and protects Canada's marine environment.

Marine litter poses a threat to marine ecosystems. With the longest coastline in the world and bordering three oceans, Canada recognizes the importance of preventing and reducing marine litter to keep our oceans healthy. While there is no overarching federal marine litter framework, some 10 federal acts and associated regulations, as well as guidance materials and programs for pollution prevention, are aimed at the sustainable use of Canadian waters and habitat.

In particular, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Canada Shipping Act, and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement prohibit discharge or disposal of marine litter in Canadian waters. The Fisheries Act prohibits the deposit of harmful substances into domestic waters frequented by fish and prohibits serious harm to fish and fish habitat. The Species at Risk Act contains a provision for the protection of critical habitat for listed species, which can include the marine environment for aquatic species at risk.

We acknowledge that there is more to be done to address marine litter. International collaboration is needed to address hot spot areas, fill research gaps, and take action to prevent this global issue. Canada is an active participant in global efforts that contribute to the prevention and reduction of marine litter from land and sea-based sources.

Canada has made recent marine debris commitments, including among others: the G7 environment ministers' communique of 2016, and the United Nations Environment Assembly resolutions of 2016 and 2014. These commitments call for action to prevent and mitigate marine debris and to substantially reduce marine debris globally by 2025. In addition, Canada will continue to fulfill its obligations under international treaties that deal with waste and marine protection, particularly the Basel convention, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, and the London convention and protocol.

The federal government also conducts extensive research and monitoring on issues related to water quality, sediment, chemicals, and issues of emerging concern. ECCC's Canadian wildlife service conducts research and administers guidance to help aid seabirds that are at risk of ingesting or getting entangled in marine debris. Internationally, Canada participates via DFO in international regional marine research and science programs, including the North Pacific Marine Science Organization and the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.

In June 2016, the Government of Canada added microbeads to the list of toxic substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, and Canada is developing proposed regulations to prohibit the manufacture, import, and sale of toiletries that contain plastic microbeads, including non-prescription drugs and natural health products. We expect final regulations to be published by summer 2017.

The great Canadian shoreline clean-up, which is supported by Parks Canada, is one of Canada's largest environmental initiatives. In 2015 alone, almost 60,000 participants cleaned over 3,000 kilometres of shorelines across the country, removing an incredible 180,000 kilograms of litter.