Debates of Oct. 29th, 2018

Elections Modernization Act

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

moved that Bill C-76, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendments, as amended, be concurred in at report stage with a further amendment.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #920

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.

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

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in May I rose in the House to draw the minister's attention to the spousal sponsorship case of Mr. Baig and the inappropriate language used in a procedural fairness letter to “tease out a response”. The language was offensive and relied on ethnic stereotyping to question the legitimacy of a marriage.

I was glad to hear over the summer that the application had been approved and that refresher training was provided to the officers processing permanent resident applications in London. The minister acknowledged that “the lack of a clear explanation of the intent of the procedural fairness letter deserves to be acknowledged and addressed. The concern of the officer could have been expressed in a less abrupt manner by providing more context and I would like to assure you that steps have been taken to address this issue.”

I had hoped that we would no longer require debate on this subject. Unfortunately, it appears that similar practices continue within IRCC.

Jason Abrahamson, a Canadian citizen, married his wife Suhkpreet Kaur, who goes by the name Sooke, in India in 2016. After living together for some time in India, they applied for a visitor visa for Sooke to come to Canada. That application was rejected.

As members of this place know all too well, visitor visa rejections contain little to no information about why a negative decision was reached and are immensely frustrating for applicants as a result.

In February 2017, Jason had to return to Canada to go back to his job, leaving his new wife behind. In May 2017, they applied for Sooke to obtain permanent resident status through the spousal sponsorship program.

In the meantime, through visits to India, this new family was expecting their first child. Their healthy baby boy was born on October 21, 2017. In December 2017, just months after meeting his newborn son, Jason had to leave his family to come back to Canada to return to work. The application was in process for over 17 months before it seemed to start moving.

The couple responded to all lRCC requests as quickly as they could, including interviews that were required because IRCC officials believed that the wedding pictures were “staged”. A request for a special marriage certificate, with a 30-day deadline to respond, was made, all because Jason was not Sikh. That was despite having already submitted their marriage certificate signed by the Minister of External Affairs of India. IRCC staff suggested to Jason staff that this was because he was a “white boy”.

The delays caused medicals to expire and, at great travel expense and other costs, they had to be redone. A second visitor visa for Sooke was denied. The family spent over $10,000 in legal fees trying to deal with IRCC requests.

Thankfully, I found out just days ago that this application had finally been approved. However, once again we are dealing with inappropriate, intrusive and rude lines of questioning and accusations.

This is not the approach necessary to determining legitimacy of a relationship, and in the summer, the minister agreed with me on that. Why is this kind of approach continuing?

[Matt DeCourcey, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, the hon. colleague knows that even in adjournment proceedings, privacy rules preclude me from speaking about particular cases, including the two cases she spoke about this evening.

However, she can rest assured, as can all Canadians, that reuniting families remains one of our government's top priorities. We are committed to reuniting families who are apart, and to easing the uncertainty of those who are together but who are waiting for their immigration status to be finalized.

When families are able to reunite and stay together, it vastly improves their integration into Canadian society, their economic outcomes and their ability to contribute to their communities and to Canadian society as a whole.

It did not serve either newcomers or Canadians well when, for too many years, far fewer family members were allowed into the country than had applied and not enough action was taken to reduce the growing backlog of applications.

Because of that, in December of 2016, our government announced improvements to Canada's spousal sponsorship application process in order to make it more efficient and easier for families to navigate. These changes included a new and improved spousal sponsorship application package to make it simpler and easier for sponsors and applicants to understand and use.

As part of our commitment to enhancing client service, we have responded to feedback from applicants and have made additional improvements to the application package just last year.

All along the plan has been to improve the spousal sponsorship process, making it faster and easier for Canadians and permanent residents to reunite with their spouses or common-law partners.

Our government has done just that and it has yielded results. Over the past two years, we have made the spousal sponsorship process faster and easier. We met the commitment to reduce the backlog left to us by the Harper Conservatives of spousal sponsorship cases by 80% and shortened the process times from 26 months to less than a year.

Thanks to these changes, families, spouses and common-law partners who have been separated can now be reunited more quickly in Canada.

As well, our government continues to help applicants by making additional updates to the application guide and checklists. These updates help to process applications even more quickly and avoid unnecessary delays.

Canadians with a partner or a spouse who is abroad should not have to wait for years to have him or her immigrate. Nor should those who are in the country be uncertain of whether they will be allowed to stay. The bottom line is that we want newcomers to settle and immigrate into our communities, contribute to the economy and succeed.

Speeding up family reunification helps them to do that, and all Canadians benefit from it.

The changes our government has made to the spousal sponsorship program are helping to bring spouses and families together faster. Through these actions, we will continue to make Canada stronger both today and for our future. It is our genuine belief as a government that the economic success of our country is dependent on our ability to accept skilled workers and their families and that the cultural vibrancy of our country is only strengthened by newcomers who come and contribute to our communities.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary completely misses my point. I raised those two examples to show the government what was going wrong with the system today. The issue here is how they are being dealt with and the inappropriateness of the language. The fact is that despite promises from the government to cease these practices and retrain processing officers these inappropriate practices continue.

What steps will the government take to ensure that it stops once and for all, not just for these two cases but for all applicants?

We can all understand the importance of ensuring that marriages are legitimate and not of convenience or coercion. We should also be able to agree that this can be determined in a respectful manner. That is what Canadians expect.

[Matt DeCourcey]

Madam Speaker, I did not misunderstand a thing. I started by stating that I would not be commenting on particular cases in front of the House, a principle I know my colleague understands and respects as well.

She indicated in her initial speech that the minister had addressed some of the concerns she previously had. As a matter of improving client service delivery in our department, the minister and the entire government are working feverishly to ensure that we are able to reunite families faster and that families are able to settle and contribute in communities across the country. We are doing that because we believe that immigration and family reunification through immigration is a key driver of economic success in our country and that the cultural vibrancy of our country is only enriched by the newcomers and their family members who come and settle in Canada.

Natural Resources

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to follow up on a question I asked on October 19 regarding the protection of the environment, which is a crucial social issue. There is also the fact that the Liberal government is constantly touting itself as the undisputed champion of the environment, when anyone can see that that is far from true. A real champion of the environment would never buy a pipeline.

In Paris, the Prime Minister said, “Canada is back”. However, once he returned to Canada, he said we would adopt the same greenhouse gas reduction targets as Stephen Harper's government did. These are extremely weak targets that will not enable us to do our share to hold climate warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

These revelations stunned many. The comments that the Prime Minister has made on television and in other media have been picked up by a number of stakeholders. Patrick Bonin of Greenpeace said that the Prime Minister's remarks on Tout le monde en parle almost made him sound like a climate change denier.

I will address these harsh comments from a very experienced environmentalist in a bit. I do think it is very important to point out that science tells us, as we saw in the latest IPCC report, that we can limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius and we have the technology to do so, but that we must do much more than what the current government is doing.

I want to give some examples of people who are taking meaningful action my riding of Drummond. In the summer, the city of Drummondville consulted more than 2,400 residents about sustainable mobility. I want to congratulate John Husk, the municipal councillor for ward 5 and the chair of the Chantier sur le développement d'un plan de mobilité durable et de transport actif et collectif. This consultation will be used to develop an initial sustainable mobility plan for the city of Drummondville, which is projected to come out in September 2019. These are the kinds of actions that the Liberal government should be encouraging and supporting.

Other groups are working to protect the environment in Drummond too. One of these is the Coalition pour une action citoyenne solidaire, or COACS, which plays an important environmental protection role in our community by raising awareness and doing hands-on work. I would like to salute two members in particular, Mélanie Daigneault and Alain D'Auteuil, who are doing an amazing job of raising public awareness in our community about the importance of taking immediate action on this issue.

Let me get back to the issue at hand. Here is what Patrick Bonin had to say:

He is implying that Canada is not in a position to play a lead role in the fight against climate change. Other countries around the world expect a rich industrialized nation like Canada, which is one of the biggest polluters per capita, to be a great leader, but it is falling far short of that expectation.

Here is my question. What will the Liberal government do to be a great leader?

[Matt DeCourcey, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond. I want to assure him, all members of the House and all Canadians watching on television that our government is determined to develop the abundant resources of our country in the right way, namely by investing significant amounts in clean technology and a greener future; by advancing reconciliation with indigenous peoples and strengthening environmental performance; and by moving forward with good resource projects, in a timely, responsible and transparent manner and with the confidence of Canadians and investors. That is what we have been working on since we took office in November 2015.

That is why we took a leadership role in forging the Paris Agreement on climate change.

That is why we quickly implemented an interim strategy for reviewing new resource projects already in the queue.

That is why we met with the provinces and territories and consulted indigenous leaders to draft the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change.

That is why we introduced Bill C-69.

That is why we are holding consultations on a framework to recognize and implement indigenous rights.

We want to build a Canada that works for everyone; a Canada that creates good jobs, grows our economy and expands our middle class; a Canada that develops its resources sustainably and competitively; a Canada that leads the global transition to a low-carbon economy.

The Trans Mountain expansion project has been part of that very vision. Part of our plan for using this time of transition to Canada's advantage is by building infrastructure we need to move our resources to new markets at fair prices, and using the revenues they generate to invest in our clean energy future. It is a matter of doing the hard work necessary to move forward in the right way.

That is why we are also following the direction provided by the Federal Court of Appeal on August 30 in its decision on the TMX project. We are doing so by instructing the National Energy Board to reconsider its recommendation and to take into account the environmental impacts of marine shipping related to this project. We are doing so by relaunching our government's phase three consultations with indigenous groups affected by this project.

Regarding the member's question about the future of the energy east project, I think he may be a bit confused. We cannot speak for TransCanada, the company which owns the project, nor can we make any guarantees on its behalf one way or the other.

What I can say, however, is that this government will always support good resource projects by creating good sustainable jobs in Quebec and across the country. That is how we will create an inclusive, sustainable and prosperous future for all Canadians.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I said, in the most recent IPCC report, thousands of scientists indicated that we need to do a lot more and be a lot more ambitious.

I would like to once again quote the Radio-Canada article, which reads:

Patrick Bonin, head of Greenpeace Quebec's climate and energy campaign, believes that [the Prime Minister] lied on Sunday's episode of Tout le monde en parle when he said that Canada will meet the greenhouse gas reduction target it set for 2030. Bonin also believes that the Prime Minister's arguments to justify government support for the oil industry are “practically worthy of a climate change denier”.

I would like to end by quoting Patrick Bonin. He said:

By saying that there needs to be a transition period and that this is going to take time, [the Prime Minister] is denying science. The decision to put off taking action is practically worthy of a climate change denier. This is urgent and scientists are sounding the alarm.

My question is therefore very simple. If this transition is so important, why did the Prime Minister not say that he would put a stop to energy east and never come back to it?

[Matt DeCourcey]

Madam Speaker, first, I would remind our colleague that it is our government that is putting a price on pollution. That shows we have an ambitious plan to deal with climate change.

Second, the Trans Mountain expansion project represents a good investment for the future based on clean growth in Canada, period.

Third, as far as energy east is concerned, we do not own that project and we cannot comment on what that company is doing. However, if it helps, I can assure the hon. member for Drummond that this government will continue to support any resource development activity that reflects our vision that economic prosperity and environmental protection go hand in hand, while growing the economy to ensure the prosperity of all Canadians.

International Development

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

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to speak about the government's decision to give $50 million to UNRWA, an organization operating in the Palestinian territories, which, in our judgment, is far too tolerant of intolerance.

I had the opportunity in the last year to visit an UNRWA school in the West Bank, and I want to briefly share with members a bit of my experience there. I had an opportunity, along with other members of this House, to have a tour of the school and to chat with some students who were part of this school's school parliament. It was an all-girls' school. These were impressive, intelligent, accomplished young women whom we spoke to.

At the end of the conversation, we asked them if they had any opportunity to interact with Israelis, because there was an Israeli settlement very close to this refugee camp. They can see it from the school. The students told us that no they did not and they had no desire to, as a result of the political situation. As they explained the fact that they only could perceive the Israeli side through the lens of the political conflict, I noted teachers who were nodding along approvingly as this conversation was happening. I became frustrated because we should set a high standard for what Canada funds in terms of education. We should not be seeking less for Palestinian children. We should rather be seeking more, in terms of the quality of that education.

Members know, and we have discussed in the House, the fact that UNRWA teachers have posted virulently anti-Semitic material through social media websites. We know there are significant concerns about the content of curriculum and how it does not advance the ideals of peaceful coexistence. At a minimum, when we are funding education programs abroad, Canadian dollars should be clearly avoiding supporting curricular content that is promoting intolerance or supporting the employing of teachers who are promoting intolerant messages through social media. That is the minimum.

However, I would submit that we can do even better than that. When Canadians see their tax dollars go abroad for programs related to international education, they should expect that those dollars are always reflective of the highest principles in terms of Canadian values, in terms of peaceful coexistence. That is what we would want. We must end the soft bigotry of low expectations when it comes to education programs that we might fund in the Palestinian territories. We must demand better. I do not believe this is the “least bad” option. We can expect the government to look for ways of investing in capacity building for a future Palestinian state that promotes educational materials to facilitate peaceful coexistence.

When the previous government was in power, we gave significant amounts of aid to the Palestinian authority, and we did so in ways that reflected our values. I had an opportunity while in the West Bank, as well, to tour a security facility that was Canadian funded and is used by the Palestinian authority to protect its own security, in co-operation with Israelis. It was an investment that Canada made in an institution that was facilitating security co-operation between both sides. That is what we could be doing. That is what we should be doing on education, but, unfortunately, the current government is buying into those low expectations by giving $50 million to UNRWA. We believe that, in the interests of the Palestinian people and the interests of the children we visited, the government can do much better with Canadian tax dollars.

[Kamal Khera, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to take an opportunity to send my condolences to the families of the victims of the shooting that took place at the synagogue in Pittsburgh. Our hearts are with the Jewish community in Pittsburgh and Canada. Our government will always stand united against hatred, violence and anti-Semitism in Canada and abroad.

To respond to my colleague's question, earlier this month, on October 12, the Minister of International Development announced $50 million over two years to support millions of vulnerable Palestinian refugees who live in the West Bank, Gaza, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. This funding provides education, health and social services as well as urgent humanitarian assistance for those affected by the Syrian crisis.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, UNRWA, is the only UN organization mandated to provide assistance to Palestinian refugees. These refugees are among the most vulnerable in the region, and if not for UNRWA, their needs would be unmet.

Our continued engagement with UNRWA allows us to closely monitor it to ensure accountability and transparency. In fact, neutrality is central to UNRWA's operations and is a condition for many donors, including Canada, of providing funding. Canada's support is contributing to UNRWA's neutrality activities, which include regular inspections of the agency's facilities; training for UNRWA staff on neutrality, including in social media; the promotion of students' knowledge and skills reflecting human values, including human rights, conflict resolution, gender equality and tolerance, through educational activities and materials; and UNRWA's development, distribution and use of additional educational materials, as part of the agency's approach, to enable teachers to promote neutrality.

UNRWA has in place a framework to review all textbooks that host governments require them to use, and where needed, provides additional training for teachers to address any problematic issues related to neutrality, bias, gender equality or age appropriateness. Canada will remain engaged on this issue and will continue to make the case for education as a tool for peace.

The Minister of International Development personally raised Canada's concerns about particularly problematic material in Palestinian textbooks with the Palestinian Authority representative in Canada last spring and more recently with the PA Prime Minister and the Minister of Education during her visit to the West Bank, in July 2018.

As with all Canadian assistance for Palestinians, we exercise enhanced due diligence measures for our funding to UNRWA. This includes ongoing oversight, regular site visits, a systematic screening process and strong anti-terrorism provisions in funding agreements. If and when issues arise, Canada and UNRWA engage quickly to get to the bottom of any issues.

Upholding the neutrality of its operations allows UNRWA to deliver effectively on its important assistance to Palestinian refugees. Canada will continue to take all allegations of neutrality violations very seriously, and our government will continue to provide assistance to the most vulnerable on behalf of Canadians in a way that reflects Canadian values.

Thanks to UNRWA's work, more than three million people have access to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Time is up.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, with all due respect, my colleague's remarks are themselves self-refuting, because she argued that there is a framework in place for neutrality, and she also talked about how the minister has been raising concerns about issues of neutrality. One cannot have it both ways. Either the existing framework is adequate, and therefore, the dispensing of funds is appropriate, or the framework is inadequate, in which case, why are we giving it money? If the minister has specifically raised concerns about neutrality, then clearly, there is some understanding on the other side that the framework is inadequate, yet the money is being dispensed anyway.

Education is important, but I would submit that what is taught as part of that education is critical to evaluating its effectiveness. The parliamentary secretary said that UNRWA is the only UN organization working with Palestinian refugees. I would submit that maybe that is a case for delivering support to Palestinian refugees outside of the UN system, until UNRWA and until—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development.

[Kamal Khera]

Madam Speaker, UNRWA and its donors take neutrality extremely seriously.

In Canada's view, UNRWA has demonstrated its commitment to increasing strong accountability and neutrality measures among its more than 30,000 employees. UNRWA has acknowledged that some staff have misused social media, and it has taken direct action to address this issue, including discipline, in line with due process, where allegations were substantiated.