Debates of Nov. 5th, 2018

Meeting of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

We heard from the chair earlier today that the point of having more interventions on this was to have new information. I just have not heard anything that has not already been said in this place. I would much rather hear a Liberal member get up and speak to the substantive motion on veterans that is before the House today than listen to a rehashed version of things we have heard already today on this same point of order.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to remind the hon. member for West Nova that we are looking for new information. I will let him proceed, and I will listen carefully.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the point being raised. It is important, of course, that it be put in context. I appreciate the fact that many members have risen and restated similar sorts of things, but it is important to always put them in the context of the argument.

As previously referenced, disorder did not come to the committee until the chair announced the attempted adjournment. However, the then chair did not have the implied nor the expressed consent of members present to do so, nor was a motion to adjourn presented and voted upon. There was, therefore, no legal basis on which to adjourn the meeting.

As it actually happened, the chair announced her decision on a point of order to adjourn the meeting, and it was obvious that she was going to be confronted with a challenge to her ruling. People wanted to speak. She gavelled down and darted out of the room. She left the room, leaving the association staff, including the secretary, who we always call the clerk, and the analyst alone at the table, and conforming to the rules, not moving, as the meeting had not been properly adjourned.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, however, is silent, and this is an extremely important point and a novel one, as far as I have understood the points on the point of order that have been raised, on when a vice-chair can assume the chair. In practice, the chair of a committee will often get up for personal reasons. It is such a common practice that in three editions of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, no clerk or author has felt it necessary to elaborate on this. However, the chair of the House may sometimes tend to personal matters and have some other member take his or her place.

In the case of the NATO Parliamentary Association meeting, as the meeting had not, in fact, adjourned, and there was no legal basis to do so, it was not only permissible but an obligation of the vice-chair to step in and resume the meeting, given that quorum remained, quorum being 20 members, according to chapter 11 of the NATO Parliamentary Association constitution.

Any claim that Conservative members are making with regard to the fact that this was a takeover of the meeting by a vice-chair is completely incorrect. Moreover, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, the other vice-chair, also stepped up to the head table and made no effort to intervene when the member for Etobicoke Centre carried on the meeting, and thereby, I would submit, acquiesced until the motion of non-confidence was approved on the floor.

A senator overtook the chair to oversee the election. Nominations were called from the floor, and only one name having been offered, the member for Etobicoke Centre was acclaimed.

Further, had the meeting been legitimately adjourned, the clerk of the committee, bound by the rules of this institution, would also have risen and left, but he remained at the table for the duration.

While the minutes of the proceedings will not be published until the next annual general meeting, the clerk would not have been able to update the NATO Parliamentary membership page to reflect the new chair had the rules been followed.

I would like to raise one other point that was mentioned that I have not heard rebuttal on, and that is the point regarding the nomination process. The procedure in the constitution is with respect to the entire executive committee. This is a novel and unique situation, I would submit, based on the vote of non-confidence. The vote of non-confidence had yet to be voted upon, and it would have been premature for the clerk to seek nominations, because that was not decided until the meeting itself

Those are my respectful submissions.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Service Standards for Veterans

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, service members and veterans make up 23% of the population of my riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

The province of Nova Scotia has the highest population of veterans and military per capita in the country, which is extremely important.

I had the opportunity throughout the year to do some town halls with veterans so I could get a better understanding of some of the challenges, a better understanding of some of the solutions and therefore be in a better position to articulate on behalf of my constituents. I had those meetings in five legions in parts of my riding: the legion in Eastern Passage; the legion in Gaetz Brook; and the legion in Centennial, which is the Westphal region. I also had meeting in the Sackville and Fall River regions.

I have to stop a second and thank the legion and legion members for the work they do and the support they give to veterans and veterans' families, which is important.

I want to talk about the service card and ask if anyone in the House can help me understand how the Conservatives could cut out the service card. Why would they cut the service card that identifies that the individual was in the service and it gives his or her name, ranking and includes a picture. It is just beyond me. It also took 10 years of service before receiving that card. Some ministers made a presentation a couple of weeks ago to have a new service card that would meet the needs of our men and women in service.

I appreciate the short amount of time I was given. It was very important to speak about veterans, especially this week when we are celebrating them. On the weekend, we will have Remembrance Day. I am so proud to say, as an educator, that the school systems are talking, sharing and respecting service men and women throughout the week.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 6:15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, November 6, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

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

The Environment

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise tonight to reflect on a question of mine for the Prime Minister about World Oceans Day, namely, the use of single-use plastics and the lack of regulations to protect Canadians and our oceans, and to combat plastic pollution.

We know that over a garbage truck of plastic is entering our waterways every minute. Just two years ago, the people of Courtenay—Alberni really stepped up on this very important issue as a result of a November 2016 spill from the Hanjin Seattle off the Pacific Rim National Park, on the west coast of Vancouver Island. Over 35 shipping containers spilled, littering our coast with metal and thick styrofoam, which spread up and down our coast.

People like Captain Josh Temple, Misty Lawson, and the people of Clayoquot Action mobilized, got on the ground and started to clean up this huge marine debris spill, one of the largest on the west coast of Vancouver Island. Michelle Hall at Surfrider and hundreds of volunteers hit the beaches with staff from Pacific Rim National Park and Barb Schramm of the Wild Pacific Trail from Ucluelet. These people from Tofino, Ucluelet, Ahousat, Clayoquot, and Tla-o-qui-aht all came out in the spirit of making sure that we protect our beaches and mitigate the impact of what is happening to our environment when it comes to marine debris. We had a very difficult time.

We were asking questions of the government in the House as to who was responsible for marine debris, and we could not get a straight answer. We were asking the question of the transport minister. He said this would be the full responsibility of the shipping company under the Canada Shipping Act. However, what we found out was that Pacific Rim National Park had petitioned the bankruptcy court dealing with the shipping company, which of course had gone bankrupt after the spill, to get funds to help remediate the problem on the coast. The court awarded $72,000 to Pacific Rim National Park. That money came to Ottawa. However, only $15,000 of that money came to the coast in May 2017. We are still unsure what happened to the rest of the money.

What we do know is that local people pulled money out of their own pockets and contributed to cleaning up this mess. Small business people donated money. We had to hire specialized contractors to go out and clean this up on our own accord. There was no help from the federal Government. Even though it could have called back the people who were helping deal with the tsunami debris cleanup after the Japanese earthquake that had brought marine debris to our coasts, it did not. Those people worked so diligently and hard to mastermind cleanups on our coast, cleanups that could be applied on a regular basis. Instead, the federal government chose to sit back and left us high and dry. Therefore, we have no confidence in any future oil spill cleanups. The government failed to build trust and relationships with volunteers and community citizens who were out there protecting our environment. It had a great opportunity.

People are still wondering where that money is. They want to know there is a plan in place should this happen again. We know there is not. The world oceans charter that the government has developed does not talk about marine debris. There is no funding at all allocated for cleaning up marine debris. We know there are Canadians from coast to coast to coast who are cleaning up marine debris every day, people like John Burchette of Tofino to Mark over on Lasqueti Island and all over Vancouver Island who are dedicated to cleaning up our oceans. However, they do require some support. I hope the current government will come up with a plan and provide the necessary resources.

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

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I want to thank the member for Courtenay—Alberni for his continued interest in combatting plastic pollution in our waterways and oceans.

As we all know, the private members' business system is a lottery. No member is guaranteed the opportunity to introduce a bill or motion. It is not lost on me that the MP for Courtenay—Alberni could have chosen any other topic to introduce a bill or motion on, but chose this issue as it is extremely important to all Canadians. I know it is for my constituents in Brampton West as well.

To the member's question, there is no doubt that plastics play an important role in Canadians' lives. However, it is their mismanagement that poses a threat to our livelihoods and ecosystems. Preventing plastics pollution is a pressing global issue that requires action by all. Canada made ocean health and addressing plastics pollution a priority in the 2018 G7 presidency. During the G7 leaders' summit in June, we launched the oceans plastics charter and the Charlevoix blueprint for healthy oceans, seas and resilient coastal communities.

Canada also committed $100 million to help vulnerable regions improve their waste management practices and combat plastic pollution. In fact, while the Minister of Environment and Climate Change was recently in Nova Scotia, she announced that we would be eliminating the use of unnecessary single-use plastics in all government operations. I am proud that our government has taken a leadership position on this file and hope that other levels of government and other organizations will begin to follow suit.

In terms of the plastics charter and other G7 commitments, these undertakings provide a springboard for action in Canada. Federal, provincial and territorial governments are currently working together through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment to develop a national approach that responds to the charter and moves toward zero plastic waste. Our shared goal is to keep all types of plastic in the economy out of landfills and the environment. This is an ambitious vision that will require actions by governments, industry, consumers and individuals. We are working with all of these partners to identify innovative ideas to improve the design, use and management of plastic products.

There is no one solution that will address this issue. This will require action by governments, industry, retailers, consumers, researchers and, of course, all Canadians, including youth. It will also require a shift in emphasis from end-of-life management to treating plastics as a resource. We need action that embraces a circular approach to materials management. We need to go beyond focusing on one product type, like straws, and take concerted action throughout the life cycle of plastics.

While we recognize the need to address single-use plastics in Canada, such as straws or bags, we are working with the provinces and territories to develop a more comprehensive approach to effectively address this issue, and this includes evaluating all available policy options.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for commenting on some action the government is taking and undertaking.

I talked about marine debris and the lack of legislation and the regulatory void that is in place. We also learned that is the same with single-use plastics in our country. I will applaud the government for committing to getting rid of single-use plastics in federal facilities. We would like to see the federal government follow the lead of the European Union, which is going to phase out most single-use plastics by 2021. If the federal government really wants to take action on this issue, it would follow that, but also support my motion.

My motion, Motion No. 151, was designed by the University of Victoria. It includes seven reforms to address plastic pollution. It gives the government the framework to take concrete steps to help prevent plastic from entering our waterways and aquifers.

[Kamal Khera]

Mr. Speaker, I again want to thank the hon. member for his advocacy and all of the important work he does on behalf of his constituents, the environment and oceans, and I certainly look forward to debating his private member's motion.

This is a complex issue that requires a comprehensive response. This includes evaluating all available actions and policy tools. That is why we are working with our domestic and international partners to find solutions throughout the life of plastics. This includes making plastic design and production more sustainable; improving collection, management systems and infrastructure; adopting a more sustainable lifestyle, including through education; improving our understanding of this issue and solutions through research and innovation; and finally, taking action to remove the plastic litter that is already covering the world's shorelines and waterways.

We look forward to continuing to mobilize international and national action on this issue and I certainly look forward to working with my hon. colleague on the other side of the House.

International Trade

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, from the beginning, we have been saying that the agreement the Liberals signed is bad for our farmers, bad for our SMEs and bad for Quebec.

The federal government is not listening to its Quebec counterparts right now. The government does not seem to understand all the losses it will be inflicting on our dairy farmers, for example, who will have to be compensated following the recent trade deals signed by Canada.

According to the Quebec government, Ottawa needs to compensate farmers who will bear the brunt of its three new trade deals, namely the brand-new United States-Mexico-Canada agreement, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, which could come into force soon, and the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, which has been in force for a year now.

The government thinks it only needs to provide compensation for two agreements, namely NAFTA 2.0 and the CPTPP. It feels that it has already compensated for the impact of the third agreement, the one with Europe. That is what the Liberal government seems to be saying. The fact is that the support in question is inadequate and has failed to offset the effect of allowing the Europeans to flood the Canadian market with an additional 17,700 tonnes of cheese.

For our dairy farmers, losing 10% to 12% of the market to foreign farmers will cost them the equivalent of a month's salary every year. Yes, an entire month.

While in my riding, I met Fabien Fontaine, the CEO of Délimax. He told me that, in recent years, government cuts to agricultural insurance programs, transatlantic trade agreements and required changes to animal husbandry practices have severely undermined the financial viability of veal production and processing operations in Quebec.

The transatlantic trade agreement now allows European veal producers to send us their goods without paying the nearly 30% tariff they used to be subject to even though they do not have to follow the same rules governing the use of certain products. Furthermore, for the past 20 years, the European veal industry has enjoyed generous subsidies to upgrade its veal production facilities, but we have not.

In my last speech in the House, I asked the government to keep its promise about the measures it will be taking to compensate farmers.

Last week, farmers learned that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food invited them to two working groups with a mandate to estimate the financial impact of recent trade agreements and determine how to compensate them fully and fairly. I should point out that the government promised solutions before Christmas.

However, these working groups will not be looking at the agreement with Europe or the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. The minister seems to think that the matter of compensation for the European agreement has already been settled.

Quebec's new Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, André Lamontagne, does not seem to share that opinion.

Last week, he said he hopes that these task forces also take into account the economic losses caused by the trade agreement with the Europeans.

I add my voice to his because Quebec's new Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, André Lamontagne, also represents a good portion of my riding. The riding Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot includes the Maskoutains and Acton RCMs that we share. I therefore add my voice to his and ask the government if it will adequately compensate producers.

[Jean-Claude Poissant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for her important question.

The Government of Canada strongly supports the supply management system, farmers, their families and producers.

The NDP says one thing in the House, but behind closed doors it admits that this agreement protects Canadian jobs. The leader of the NDP celebrated the agreement at an event in Ottawa last Tuesday evening. The NDP member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who is also the NDP's Quebec lieutenant, described the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement as the best possible agreement. The NDP privately admits that this is a good agreement because it knows that it protects the millions of Canadian jobs that were in jeopardy.

Canada's supply managed sectors are essential to ensuring our country's prosperity and growth. As the saying goes, if you ate today, thank a farmer. The dairy, egg and poultry industries combined create several thousand jobs in our country and generate $32 billion in economic activity.

Canada's dairy industry, one of the largest segments of the Canadian agrifood sector, generates farm gate sales of $6.5 billion, processing sales of $14 billion, and more than 40,000 jobs.

The USMCA preserves and maintains Canada's supply management system and its three pillars, namely production control, the pricing mechanism and import control. Our government preserved and maintained the supply management system when it negotiated CETA and the CPTPP, and when it renegotiated NAFTA.

We have announced new working groups consisting of producers and processors in the dairy, poultry and egg industries. The working groups will bring together representatives from Canadian dairy organizations and associations, regional representatives and senior officials from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. They will develop mitigation strategies to fully and fairly support producers and processors and help them adapt to the United States—Mexico—Canada agreement.

Supply-managed industries can count on the full support of our government. Our commitment has never wavered.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I speak for the citizens of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot in the House. What I am hearing in my riding is that dairy, poultry, egg and beef producers are worried. The entire agri-food chain is worried because every percentage of market share given up in an international agreement has a direct effect on our family farms.

What upsets producers even more is that these international agreements are being signed with countries where there is no reciprocity in standards and where environmental standards and approved products are not the same. They feel that they will suffer losses and compete against foreign producers, both European and American, who receive subsidies and support from their government.

Many things are said in the House, but every percentage of market share is a threat to producers.

[Jean-Claude Poissant, Liberal, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to something the NDP member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie said. He told the Canadian negotiators that he wanted to congratulate everyone in the room for the tremendous job they did. He added that the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement was the best possible deal and that it would protect workers across the country.

We agree. The deal meets expectations in terms of stability, growth, maintaining employment and protecting thousands of Canadian jobs. Our government takes a balanced approach to trade. We are defending the supply management system just as we promised we would.

Strong dairy, poultry and egg industries and a competitive agricultural sector are vital to ensuring Canada's prosperity, creating good jobs, growing the middle class and providing high-quality goods to Canadian consumers.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan 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 6:35 p.m.)