Debates of March 26th, 2018

Canada-India Relations

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has been some time since I rose in adjournment proceedings in the House, but it is perhaps appropriate that I rise today for the late show dealing with Canada-India relations, because that really has seized this chamber for the last month following the Prime Minister's, one might now say, ill-fated tour to India, because the consequences have been deep for the Canada-India relationship. The consequences to the Prime Minister's and government's reputation have also been deeply scarred. Specifically, it is because of what we are now saying are the cover-up and conspiracy theories related to the Atwal India affair, and in the time I have, I will briefly remind Canadians what that is.

In a trip that was already being labelled as a “slow-moving train wreck” by the international press because of the Prime Minister's constant focus on photo ops where he wore attire that was more suitable to formal Indian weddings, he was being mocked for not taking seriously the trip and had a very light agenda on his trip. The trip went from bad to very bad when a former attempted assassin, someone who had been convicted of the attempted murder of an Indian politician on Canadian soil, showed up at high-profile events hosted by Canada's High Commissioner in India with the Prime Minister, featuring the Prime Minister's spouse and members of the cabinet. This person was in the event and that caused what I have said is the biggest diplomatic incident in generations, if not of all time.

Why do I say “all time”? It is because not only did the MP for Surrey Centre admit responsibility for inviting Jaspal Atwal to those events. He said that Mr. Atwal asked him, he sent the name into the Prime Minister's Office or the centre, and he was approved. However, on the trip, a story was written by CBC on February 22 entitled “Rogue Indian political elements may be trying to make Canada look weak on Sikh extremism”. In that article, the reporter said, “A senior government official with knowledge of the prime minister's security protocols is suggesting rogue political elements in India may have orchestrated the embarrassing invitation of a would-be political assassin to a formal dinner with [the Prime Minister].” The story went on to say, “The official said questions should be asked of the Indian government about how Jaspal Atwal...suddenly surfaced during [the] visit”.

This story was written by the CBC after that reporter and several other members of the press gallery following the trip were given a briefing. That senior official, revealed in the story later on, we knew was Daniel Jean, the national security adviser. When that official is saying “questions should be asked” to journalists, it is clear that an official of the Canadian government was put out a day or two after damaging world headlines to do damage control on the Prime Minister's trip. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Public Safety, and others have stood in the House and repeated this conspiracy theory.

We have one member of Parliament of the Liberal government acknowledging that they did the invitation to Mr. Atwal, yet the Prime Minister and the public safety minister suggested that it was a rogue Indian conspiracy theory. Today, the Prime Minister suggests that the opposition cannot be given the same briefing as journalists, because that would be classified.

Therefore, with such accusations levelled by the Canadian government through the Prime Minister at the Indian government, what measures are being taken to repair this profound damage with our friends in India?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Conservatives are going to try to keep milking this one mistaken invitation for all it's worth, but this is getting to the level of being completely ridiculous.

I will tell the hon. member what he has been told now many times. The invitation should never have been issued. The member for Surrey Centre has acknowledged that he passed along a couple of dozen names and that the name of Mr. Atwal should not have been included. The member has taken responsibility for this mistake. When the government became aware of the invitation, it was rescinded.

Any attempt to use this situation to try, for partisan purposes, to impugn the reputation of a distinguished, non-partisan national security official who has served this country with honour for decades is very unfortunate.

If there were any lingering doubts as to whether the Conservatives are actually interested in examining the facts, they have surely been dispelled by now.

The Leader of the Opposition has been offered a classified briefing from our non-partisan professional public service and he has not accepted. it. While the Conservatives remain more interested in political gamesmanship, I will remind them of what was actually accomplished during the Prime Minister's trip to India.

During the trip, the Prime Minister was delighted to announce an investment of over $1 billion shared between Canadian and Indian businesses. These investments will help create nearly 6,000 well-paying jobs for middle-class Canadians.

The two prime ministers announced plans to finalize an arrangement this year to facilitate the export of Canadian pulses to India. This is a critical announcement for Canadian farmers, and it is why the chair of Pulse Canada's board of directors said, “It is clear to me that we can count on the Prime Minister to be in our corner.”

The trip resulted in significant announcements related to clean energy and environmental protection, combatting gender-based violence and empowering women and girls, working together to combat terrorism and radicalization, and enhancing people-to-people ties between our two countries.

Canada and India have a long-standing bilateral relationship based on a mutual commitment to democracy, a shared tradition of pluralism, and strong interpersonal connections.

The Prime Minister, along with six ministers and 14 members of Parliament, visited India to deepen those ties and make progress on important issues in the interest of all Canadians, and all the Conservatives can focus on is one invitation that was issued in error and was immediately rescinded.

If the Leader of the Opposition believes he needs more information on the subject, he should accept the briefing he has been offered.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary recited the greatest hits of the lines we have been hearing from the government in the last few weeks, but he highlighted the conundrum they are in. The hon. member said it is all about one mistaken invitation. He seems to believe the one version of events, that the member for Surrey Centre is responsible for the entire affair, that Jaspal Atwal asked him if he could attend and the Liberal MP invited him, and that is why he showed up.

If that seems to be what the member believes, why then the briefing on February 22 from the national security adviser where he said, and I will repeat from the news story the CBC wrote:

The official said questions should be asked of the Indian government about how Jaspal Atwal...suddenly surfaced....

Why is the Prime Minister's Office putting out a counter-narrative to the simple invitation that the member seems to believe? The Prime Minister still clings to this, and said that we cannot hear about it because it is classified.

What does that member believe? Does he believe his own talking points or would he like to get to the truth and hear from Mr. Jean himself?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition members say they want the facts about this matter, but now their leader has been offered a full briefing, and he is not taking it. I think that makes their motivation pretty darn clear.

The invitation to Mr. Atwal was issued in error. The invitation was rescinded as soon as the mistake was discovered. However, the Conservatives see a partisan political opportunity here, so they have spent the last few weeks trying to sully the reputation of a distinguished, non-partisan, career civil servant. They engaged in a 24-hour stunt of a voting marathon during which they voted against things like funding for the RCMP and funding for border security, and refused a briefing on the very subject they claim to want to know more about.

Their leader should accept the offer.

National Defence

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to to rise on a question that I asked on November 20, 2017 regarding another pay cut to the members of our Armed Forces, which is being forced upon them by the Liberal government. The Prime Minister is prepared to take care of his billionaire friends, vacation on their islands, go on junkets in India, cut the benefits and tax credits available to people suffering from diabetes. He has already cut the danger pay for our troops who were serving in Operation Impact and fighting ISIS. With the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister, we do not see a government that has shown any appreciation or respect for the brave men and women who serve us in the Canadian Armed Forces. The question I raised on November 20 is why they would cut the special allowances that are paid to members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

A lot of members of the Canadian Armed Forces take many years to hone their skills. They become special operations forces soldiers. They move up from infantry to CSOR, the Canadian Special Operations Regiment. They sometimes become a commando in JTF2, or maybe they specialize and become a technician in search and rescue. I can tell members that the SAR tech guys who are stationed in Winnipeg at 435 Squadron are some of the best in the world.

In the line of duty, whether they are fighter pilots, submariners, SAR techs, or members of CSOR or JTF2, they have honed these skills and put a lot of effort into it, often taking cuts in their rank to become members of elite squadrons. When they are members of these elite units, they often get injured, both physically and invisibly. What the government is now doing is that if they cannot be repaired, cannot recover from the injury they sustained in the workplace, in their service to this country, they could lose their special allowance.

We are not talking nickels and dimes, but rather up to $22,000 a year. A lot of military families bank on their loved ones becoming a part of these elite crews within the Canadian Armed Forces, and that they will enjoy the extra pay that comes with that service. Therefore, when a callous government, with a heartless policy, steps forward to say that if they cannot service within six months of that injury they will lose that benefit, that is a huge pay cut. I see the member for Durham nodding, who has served in the Canadian Armed Forces and understands this all too well. If one wants these members to step forward with their operational stress injuries like PTSD, then government should treat them better. However, they are being thrown to the curb by the Liberals because they cannot get well enough fast enough.

In the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States, they allow members up to a year to recover rather than throwing them out of the unit and cutting their pay. They know how much money they have invested in people like fighter pilots, commanders, special operations forces soldiers, submariners, and the SAR techs. They know what they have invested in these individuals, and getting them healthy is more important than cutting their pay. However, with respect to the Liberals, balancing the books—although I do not know if they ever balance their books—stealing from Paul to pay Peter, or stealing from our troops to pay the Prime Minister's buddies, if we want to use that analogy, is more important to them than standing and supporting our troops.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for raising the issue of military pay and benefits during the adjournment debate, because this gives me an opportunity to set the record straight.

I want to make it very clear that there have been no cuts to our military personnel's pay or benefits. The member opposite is referring to changes made to the administration of monthly allowances. These allowances are paid to men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces who are exposed to dangers and harsh conditions that other members usually do not experience. They apply to unique specialized roles played by members participating in special operations, paratroopers, rescue specialists, and those on land or sea duty for extended periods.

These allowances, which our soldiers receive on top of their pay, are incentives intended to keep them motivated. Last summer, most of these allowances were increased by 5.1%. In addition to this increase, the policy was revised to ensure that those who are no longer on such duty due to injury or illness stop receiving the allowance. The changes were made as a result of an in-depth audit of allowances that was conducted to resolve ambiguities, complaints, and other concerns.

We realize that this change may have an impact on some members of our military. This is why they will have a six-month grace period to transition to the normal pay rate. We are not making any budget cuts. This is a matter of fairness for those who are regularly exposed to more risks and dangers as a result of the unique, specialized aspects of their jobs.

Our priority is to help those who are ill or injured recover. This is why we committed to offering them the best care and support there is, through our new defence policy entitled, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”. I must point out that this policy makes our men and women in uniform a priority, but the Conservatives voted against funding this policy last week.

Our government is investing $198 million, through our defence policy, to implement the total health and wellness strategy. This strategy will also offer an expanded range of health and wellness services and programs. We will also add at least 200 new health care personnel. We are firmly committed to improving the care and treatments offered to members of our military who experience health issues during their careers.

To help our ill or injured members recover, our government is actively working to create a new transition group. This new group will provide flexible support adapted to members who are recovering from illness or injury, as well as to those who are permanently leaving the forces.

We are also committed to showing more flexibility in meeting the needs of our members, so that those who want to serve their country can continue to do so, regardless of their illness, since our military personnel is our most precious resource.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, Canadians should never believe the Liberals. When they say it was an administrative decision, I can say that it took the Minister of National Defence and the President of the Treasury Board to sign off on the policy to take away the special allowances from the brave men and women who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces who are ill and injured.

We can never believe the Liberals when they say that they care, when they are stigmatizing those who are dealing with mental illness. They are making sure that if they try to come forward with mental health issues, they will have the added stress of having their pay cut, with the removal their special allowances.

On this side of the House, we will always stand in support of the brave men and women who serve us in uniform. The Liberals, on the other hand, are using them as pawns in the politics they are playing right now in trying to get a seat on the UN Security Council. They have no problem and no conscience when it comes to cutting the pay of the brave men and women who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces.

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the adjournment debate on the pay and benefits of our military members, I would like to reiterate that out government is not making any cuts to the pay and benefits of our military personnel. Last summer, we announced that pay and monthly allowances would increase significantly. We know that our men and women in uniform and their families make tremendous sacrfices for our country.

In return, our government's budgets provide for appropriate compensation for members of the Canadian Armed Forces and make their well-being a priority, as set out in our defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”.

The question is why did the Conservatives decide to vote against the well-being of our troops last Thursday. The truth is that this is an issue of fairness and that we need to focus on what is important.

That is why our government is also working to help our ill and injured soldiers recover.

The Environment

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to rise tonight at adjournment proceedings to revisit a question I asked on November 20, 2017. It was related to an event that has since passed, which was the Emmanuel Macron climate leaders summit that was held in Paris.

However, let me move on to the point I want to raise tonight, which relates to the Prime Minister's answer to me, which was entirely favourable. What he said was, “I know that by working together, we will achieve our international commitments as laid out in the Paris agreement.” What I want to revisit this evening with the House is what we are to understand our international commitments to be, as laid out in the Paris Agreement.

What I find in the day-to-day press and conversations in this place is a conflating of the current target for carbon reductions that the Government of Canada is using as our current goal, as though it were absolutely consistent with the Paris Agreement. Now, of course the current target to which the new Liberal government, which is not that new but the Liberal government since 2015, has ascribed to is the target of 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. The government knows well that target predates the Paris Agreement being negotiated, because it was negotiated in December 2015 and this is the Government of Canada's target from May 2015. It was tabled by former Conservative environment minister Leona Aglukkaq.

At the time, it was decried as one of the weakest targets in the industrialized world. In fact, our current Minister of Environment and Climate Change described it at one point as being the floor, and that we would certainly do better than that. It was less than 12 months later that the floor became the ceiling, and this is now our target.

However, to understand why it really matters to pay attention to the Paris Agreement, we have to look at where Canada did show leadership, and that was in advancing our target for all countries globally. We must ensure that our reductions of greenhouse gases are sufficiently aggressive to hold global average temperature to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, and certainly below two degrees. In looking at why 1.5 degrees matters, it matters critically and urgently, and I say this in no way as an exaggeration or hyperbole. It matters for the survival of human civilization.

It may even matter for the survival of the species that we achieve an equilibrium of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere such that we can adapt to those changes in climate change that we can no longer avoid. It is a question of odds. The odds matter. We are now almost in a game of Russian roulette. If we lose 1.5 degrees as our goal, if it goes to two, or worse to three or four, we are increasing the odds with every increase in global warming of catastrophic events such as, for instance, losing the western Antarctic ice sheet.

Because it sits on land instead of the melting ice in our Arctic, which does not affect sea level rise, if we lose the western Antarctic ice sheet, that has an impact of an eight-metre sea level rise in Canada. That is information from the University of Toronto's study called the GRACE project under Professor Dick Peltier. That is a huge impact. We have to do everything in our power to hold our temperature to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius. Worse risks are if we lose all the permafrost in our Arctic, if it all melts, that releases four times more greenhouse gases than everything since before the industrial revolution. That could effect human extinction.

I ask to hon. government to please consider what our Paris target is, and how we are going to meet it.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member alluded to, the initial question actually related to the One World summit, but the question is a little different, and I am happy to address the question the member has posed.

This government was elected on a platform that included a significant commitment to addressing the issue of climate change. Many who ran for the Liberal Party, as ran for other parties, certainly the Green Party, did so in large measure because they were committed to addressing the issue of climate change. I for one ran in large measure because of a commitment about addressing climate change.

Once elected, the government played a constructive role in the context of the development of the Paris Agreement. The hon. member was in Paris with theMinister of Environment and Climate Change for those conversations. Subsequent to that, we worked with the provinces and territories in the federal architecture that is Canada to come up with a plan that would allow us to have visibility about how we actually address this matter and meet the targets to which we had committed under the Paris Agreement.

As the hon. member mentioned, the target that was established had been established under the previous government, but the previous government had established a target with absolutely no plan in place to actually meet that target. As the hon. member knows very well, many of the changes that are required for us to make substantive progress toward achieving emission reductions require major changes in the way we conduct industrial practice, whether that is phasing out of coal, changing the nature of the transportation system to move toward more electric vehicles or other kinds of alternative vehicles, or bringing in new building codes that over time will affect the energy efficiency of not just new buildings but retrofits of existing buildings. Those are all things that take time to thoughtfully develop and then they take time to thoughtfully implement. The government was in a position where it had 12 years to actually work through and implement a process that would allow us to have visibility on meeting our target.

This government is very much committed to addressing climate change. We are committed to achieving the targets we established under Paris. To the extent we are making progress in that direction, we are open, as the minister has said on many occasions, to ratcheting up our level of commitment over time. However, let us be clear. In Canada, governments have histories of establishing targets with absolutely no plan and no actions to meet them. This government has taken the exact opposite perspective, which is to say we need a target, but we actually need a plan. We need to show Canadians that this is something we actually can do, and that we work step-wise to show progress on this critical issue. As the hon. member has talked about, it is something that is not only in the interest of Canadians but is in the interest of all citizens of our planet.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the critical question here is time. We heard the parliamentary secretary say the government may ratchet up our commitment over time. We are running out of time. That is our most precious and vanishing commodity.

I have watched the debates on climate in our country over decades, and procrastination has been the order of the day. However, it is not correct to say there was never a plan. The government of the Right Hon. Paul Martin had a plan that would have taken us very close to Kyoto. It was brought forward in 2005, and was replete with measures that the current government could implement. There were things like eco-energy retrofit for housing, and programs to encourage the purchase of low-emission vehicles, either electric or hybrid. We are not seeing the government even dust off the 2005 budget of a previous Liberal government that was very close to reaching Kyoto targets, had the Conservatives not been elected and cancelled all those plans.

My point is, it is 2018. I still see no plan. I do not see a carbon budget, and I do not see the kind of action that is required.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my hon. colleague, I clearly have a different perspective on that.

If one reads the pan-Canadian framework, there are measures relating to the transition toward energy efficiency in vehicles, but also a longer-term transition toward lower emission or zero emission vehicles. There are provisions relating to new building codes for new buildings, and also retrofit building codes, to ensure we actually are reducing GHG emission levels that come from buildings. There are provisions relating to the accelerated phase-out of coal. There are provisions relating to the development of a low-carbon fuel standard, which will lower the emissions intensity of the fuels we are actually using.

There is an enormous number of measures that will help us in a step-wise way to get to our targets. There is clear visibility outlined in the pan-Canadian framework as to how we will do that. Implementation of a climate plan has never been done in the history of Canada, and we will do it.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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 7:43 p.m.)