Debates of April 30th, 2018

Oil Tanker Moratorium Act

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion, the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the vote be deferred until tomorrow, Tuesday, May 1, 2018, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Accordingly, the recorded division stands deferred until tomorrow, Tuesday, May 1, 2018, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if you were to canvass the House, I believe you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:30 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Indigenous Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the 30th time on behalf of the Nuu-chah-nulth on their right to catch and sell fish. A week and a half ago, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Mary Humphries found that Canada had failed to justify its infringement of the rights of the Nuu-chah-nulth people. The judge found that Canada, in large part, had not justified how it addressed, or failed to address, the aboriginal right since its declaration. This means that Canada has not lived up to its constitutional obligations. Canada has wrongly applied regulations and policies to the first nation that unreasonably restrict its rights and has not fulfilled its obligation to provide allocations that allow for the exercise of the right in a viable fishery.

In paragraph 1771, she said:

Nevertheless, in my view, the plaintiffs have obtained a large measure of the relief they sought before Garson J. That is, the prima facie infringements she found to exist within the legislative, regulatory and policy regime have in large part not been justified. Accommodations have been offered, some appropriate, some inadequate.

She identified ministerial stonewalling. The judge found that the Minister of Fisheries stymied or stonewalled negotiations by failing to provide a negotiating mandate to those local officials. She noted that there was “the lack of a meaningful mandate from Ottawa” and pointed out that local DFO managers' “attempts to move forward were stymied by the Minister”. This is in paragraph 665.

The following quote is typical of many in the judgment. Paragraph 798 states:

Overall, however, Canada through DFO has the responsibility to represent the honour of the Crown. The lack of a mandate and Ottawa's stonewalling of suggestions for advancing the development of a right-based fishery are significant factors in the failure of the process to move forward. Ottawa failed to allow the Regional staff to engage meaningfully and wholeheartedly in the Negotiations, at least until the Supreme Court of Canada refused leave the second time. As the plaintiffs repeatedly pointed out, there is no evidence before the court of any engagement by Ottawa staff on this fishery, other than the occasional signature on a Briefing Note, and reference to one meeting with a ministerial assistant which was not coordinated with local managers.

This has not changed, despite two and a half years of a Liberal government and unfulfilled promises of the recognition of rights and a new relationship. Canada needs to change its approach now to implement the right. If the Liberals wanted to carry on the mandate of the Harper government, I congratulate them, because they just did that.

The ministers need to champion the term sheet with cabinet. The one thing the minister has done since coming into office is appoint Joe Wild to lead a reconciliation table with the nations to develop an agreed upon approach to implementing the right. Through that process, federal and Nuu-chah-nulth negotiators have come to a term sheet whereby they have set out a model that will allow the implementation of this right and the broader reconciliation of the nations' fishing interests with Canada. That agreed upon approach has been stuck or stymied at the cabinet level for many months now.

Almost two years ago, in a meeting with the Nuu-chah-nulth nations in Ottawa, in June 2016, the three responsible ministers, fisheries, justice, and crown indigenous relations, promised action on this file for the nations, yet the agreed upon term sheet has been stalled in cabinet. Will these three ministers champion the term sheet and ensure that it gets the necessary cabinet support to fulfill the government's commitments to the Nuu-chah-nulth?

Instead of trying to narrow the aboriginal right, why does the government not focus on living up to its commitments and support these indigenous fishing communities in rebuilding their local fishing economies and culture? The nations need real fishing opportunities that support their aboriginal right to a commercial fishery. The piecemeal approach, like the licences offered earlier this year, is not going to achieve that, and it certainly is not going to achieve true reconciliation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, a renewed nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous people based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership is a top priority for our government. The federal government remains committed to the consultation and negotiation process, supporting the implementation of the rights of the five Nuu-chah-nulth first nations.

It its decision in the Ahousaht justification trial, dated April 19, 2018, the British Columbia Supreme Court clarified the nature and scope of the right of the five Nuu-chah-nulth bands on the west coast of Vancouver Island as a small-scale, artisanal, local, multi-species fishery to be conducted in a nine-nautical-mile strip from shore, using small, low-cost boats with limited technology and restricted catching power and aimed at a wide participation.

The decision also found that Fisheries and Oceans Canada has taken useful steps in some fisheries to accommodate the five Nuu-chah-nulth first nations' rights. However, the court also noted that improvements still need to be made.

In particular, the court found that DFO's Pacific salmon allocation policy was not justified in according priority to the recreational fishery over the five nations' aboriginal commercial fishery. As an immediate step, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced on the day of the decision that Fisheries and Oceans Canada is undertaking a review of the Pacific salmon allocation policy in collaboration with indigenous groups and with all stakeholders.

As well, just a few weeks ago, the minister was pleased to offer additional licences and quota for groundfish, salmon, and shellfish to the five nations.

Court decisions help inform the broader process, which seeks to provide stability and predictability around the management of fisheries and of ocean resources.

As the minister has stated on previous occasions, the department is committed to reconciliation and to advancing our relationship with the five Nuu-chah-nulth nations to accommodate their fishing rights. In fact, it is the government's intention to continue to work with these first nations through negotiations designed to bring clarity to the reconciliation of the first nations' aboriginal rights.

The matters that are the subject of negotiations are inherently complex. At the request of the five Nuu-chah-nulth first nations, a new negotiation process was launched in March 2017 with Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs leading Canada's participation.

In addition, a former regional director general for DFO Pacific region was brought in to help facilitate discussions. The five first nations and federal officials have completed a framework agreement that has provided a common understanding of our respective views and is assisting us in finding mutually agreeable resolutions to the outstanding issues.

I can assure that this government is committed to continuing to work with the first nations through the current consultation and negotiation process to implement the rights of the five Nuu-chah-nulth first nations.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is clear in the judgment that government lawyers attacked the rights of every single species of the Nuu-chah-nulth that they brought forward in the court case. This is not the mandate of reconciliation. This is not how one treats their best friend, attacking them at every opportunity, coming to the table empty-handed, stymying negotiations. That is not reconciliation.

If the government suggests that the term sheet needs to be reconsidered or re-examined in any way as a result of the court decision, it should be noted that all three ministers at the June 2016 meeting specifically assured the nations that the positions being taken in court in the legal arguments that were filed that week do not represent the views of the ministers. Are they now reneging on that assurance?

Joe Wild told the nations point-blank that the reconciliation process and the term sheet are not dependent on the court decision. This is consistent with the ministers' assurances given in June 2016. Is Canada now betraying that commitment as well?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a renewed nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership is a top priority for our government.

The British Columbia Supreme Court released its decision on April 19, 2018, a decision that brings some helpful clarification to the scope and nature of the rights of the five Nuu-chah-nulth nations. This is an important decision for both parties.

Our government remains committed to the consultation and negotiation process and to implementing the rights of the five Nuu-chah-nulth first nations. At the request of the five Nuu-chah-nulth first nations, a new negotiation process was launched in March 2017. Through this process, the five first nations and federal officials have completed a framework agreement that will guide the negotiation of a reconciliation agreement.

These reconciliation negotiations are without prejudice and are intended to assist the parties in more freely presenting their interests and exploring potential solutions. The matters that are the subject of negotiations are inherently complex, but I can assure that this government continues to be committed to working with the first nations through the current consultations and negotiation process to accommodate and implement their rights.

Employment Insurance

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

Mr. Speaker, on November 27, 2017, I rose in the House to ask a question about employment insurance sickness benefits. Right now, when workers become ill, they are entitled to 15 weeks of EI benefits. As I pointed out on November 27, 15 weeks is not enough, especially for someone is struggling with serious health problems.

More than one-third of claimants could use more than the 15 weeks provided under this program. At the end of 2016, the Prime Minister himself and the minister responsible for this file seemed to agree that this period should be extended. However, more than one year later, nothing has changed. This is unacceptable. The government must keep its promise and get started on this reform, which is widely supported by Canadians.

I want to acknowledge the hundreds of my constituents in Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot who wrote me to demand an extended EI sickness benefits period. Unfortunately, the NDP is not the government party. The Liberal Party is, and it does not seem prepared to take action to help sick workers face their illnesses with dignity. It is 2018, and it is no longer acceptable that in a country like ours, workers are short of solutions and money when their illnesses and treatments keep them off work for more than the current 15-week period. This 15-week limit on EI sickness benefits dates back to 1971 and in no way reflects the realities of today's society.

People with cancer have greater chances of surviving than they did nearly 50 years ago. Therefore, it is time we changed the legislation to reflect today's reality. According to the Public Health Agency of Canada, the five-year survival rates for cancer have improved, going from 25% in the 1940s to 60% today. It is unconscionable and unacceptable for this government to stand by as people who are sick struggle to make ends meet while coping with a personal tragedy.

Since 2009, there have been seven different bills to extend EI sickness benefits beyond the 15-week period, and some of these bills made it to second reading. However, no government has followed through on this essential reform. This makes no sense, especially since, under the existing legislation, caregivers have access to up to 26 weeks, or even as much as 35 weeks, of benefits to care for a sick child. Meanwhile, the patients themselves get just 15 weeks of benefits.

Last year, about 345,000 Canadian workers required these emergency benefits. Employment insurance covers just 55% of a person's wages. For men, the average benefit is $438 a week, and for women, the average benefit paid is just $368 a week. This is less than minimum wage, and we will not take it anymore. Now is the time to completely overhaul EI sickness benefits, as the NDP called for during the last federal election campaign.

We believe that sickness benefits should urgently be extended from 15 weeks to 45 weeks. The benefits should also be more accessible, so that sick workers never end up struggling with both financial problems and unbearable stress. In conclusion, I repeat that all Canadians are in agreement on this.

When will the federal government do something?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that my hon. colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, has spoken in the House about employment insurance sickness benefits in Canada, and it is always a pleasure to answer her question.

I am sincerely grateful for the question, because this adjournment debate gives me the chance to once more correct certain statements that have been made about the program. Speaking to the House about EI sickness benefits, she accused the government of remaining unmoved by this situation.

I suggest that we look at the actual facts. EI sickness benefits are an important support measure for Canadians who have had to leave their job due to injury or illness.

In 2016-17, the EI program received over 379,000 sickness benefit claims and paid out about $1.6 billion. Is that enough? Recent data certainly suggests that the available coverage is sufficient in the majority of cases. We observed that on average, recipients claimed only 10 weeks of benefits of the maximum entitlement of 15 weeks.

However, we are aware that some recipients need more than 15 weeks to recover before they are able to return to work. The House can rest assured that we are keeping a close eye on this situation.

I would like to remind my colleague that EI benefits are not the only support measures in place in the event of a long-term disability or illness. EI sickness benefits supplement a wide range of support measures for Canadians living with long-term sickness or disability. Other examples include benefits provided by employers as part of group insurance plans, private insurance, and long-term disability benefits available under the Canada pension plan as well as provincial and territorial programs.

Our government's priority has always been to make the El system more adaptable, fairer, more flexible, more inclusive, and more accessible. Plus, with the budget implementation bill, we are proposing to make permanent the default rule of the working while on claim pilot project.

The project helps claimants stay connected to the labour market by allowing them to earn some additional income while on claim. Those receiving maternity or sickness benefits, whose benefits are currently reduced dollar for dollar during a benefit period, would also be eligible for the program. This would also help sickness benefits claimants prepare to return to work by giving them the flexibility they need to better meet their needs.

We have also significantly improved the system by putting measures in place to better support family caregivers. The new EI benefit that we created provides up to 15 weeks of benefits to eligible caregivers to offer support to an adult family member who is critically ill or. An eligible family caregiver is a family member or anyone that the critically ill or injured party considers as a member of their family. This benefit replaces the benefit for parents of critically ill children and will continue to provide a maximum of 35 weeks of benefits.

I can assure my colleague that we will keep working at this.

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

Mr. Speaker, two-thirds now represents a majority, and we know for sure that one-third of the people need more than 15 weeks. The problem is that those people do not have access to other income. I said it before, and I will say it again, the Prime Minister himself made this promise on Montreal's Téléjournal, and people believed he would extend the 15 weeks. Those people are hopeful, and they are still waiting.

The government keeps marketing itself as progressive. Now it is time to prove it and do everything it can to make life better for sick workers once and for all. Marie-Hélène Dubé is still collecting signatures.

My question again is this: when will the government keep these promises?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we will keep making the necessary changes to the employment insurance system to better align it with the realities of the 21st-century job market. EI will continue to play a pivotal role in making sure families that are experiencing major job-related struggles can count on an adequate income. That certainly includes employment insurance sickness benefits, which provide essential support to those who can no longer work because of injury or illness. Families need to know they can count on a fair and equitable employment insurance system.

Foreign Investment

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on this adjournment proceeding today to follow up on a question I had on February 2, and it concerns the Aecon purchase by CCCC. I know that the parliamentary secretary is going to be attentively looking for his notes to be able to answer this one.

There has been a lot of activity since I brought up the question. The government did one thing correct, which is that it went to a secondary review, a more in-depth review, to allow national security officials to look at this proposed purchase by a state-owned Chinese company. It was the Conservative opposition that pressed the government to do it, and, to the government's credit, it listened to us.

Brian Tobin and Michael Wilson have written an editorial in The Globe and Mail entitled “Why the Aecon sale is a good deal for Canada”. My concern is that the article says it is going to be a partnership, but it is nothing of the sort. In fact, Aecon is going to be purchased by a state-owned Chinese company run by the Government of China, the People's Republic of China.

The article goes on to reference a good example of what can happen if foreign direct investment from state-owned China-based companies invest. It uses Australia's John Holland Group. It says that “More Australians work for John Holland today than before the transaction was completed and there have been no issues with compliance or adherence to local or national laws..”. Now we know that is not true. It is simply absolutely not true.

I love Yiddish proverbs and I use them quite often, such as “You don't have to be wise to be lucky.” The government is in luck. The Australian government made all the mistakes with the exact same company, which is now offering to have a partnership with Aecon, and it did the same exact mistakes with the John Holland Group. We know this because there is a $1.2 billion children's hospital that is being built in Australia, and it has a litany of problems, including a roof made of asbestos that was purchased in the People's Republic of China and brought to Australia. They have problems with lead in the water and substandard construction. We are lucky. Australia made all the mistakes when it approved the purchase of John Holland Group, a very large construction company in Australia, to a state-owned company from China, which is the same one now offering to purchase Aecon.

Brian Tobin and Michael Wilson stand to benefit greatly from this purchase. As it so happens, Mr. Tobin is chairman of Aecon and the vice-president of BMO Capital. One of Aecon's financial advisers is Mr. Wilson. Therefore, of course they have a vested interest in ensuring that this company is purchased by this China-based, state-owned enterprise that does not have the best interest of Canadians at heart. In fact, it has the best interest of the People's Republic of China, specifically the Communist Party of China in mind.

I have a few questions for the parliamentary secretary, and he can pick which ones he wants to answer.

I would like to know what standard the Government of Canada is going to use to judge this foreign direct investment from the state-owned enterprise, in light of what is going on with the John Holland Group in Australia. What mechanisms will the Government of Canada use to hold this particular state-owned China-based company accountable for any type of undertakings it has with the federal government?

I should mention as well that the parliamentary secretary cannot say that this is still under review and he cannot provide further details, because The Globe and Mail, in an article published April 25, 2018 by Robert Fife and Steven Chase, said, “Federal Officials have already told The Globe and Mail that a Chinese-state owned Aecon would not be allowed to bid on building and operating the $4.9-billion Gordie Howe bridge that will connect Windsor and Detroit.”

I need to know from the parliamentary secretary if there are other projects that Aecon will not be able to build should this deal go through. If there is the Gordie Howe project that will not be approved, and we see the example of the John Holland Group in Australia with this completely botched construction of a children's hospital, why should this deal go through?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the comments made by the hon. member for Calgary Shepard regarding foreign investment in Canada. I will do so in French because I know that the member's French is excellent and he will have no trouble understanding what I am saying.

Our government welcomes foreign investment, which is beneficial for Canadians and our economy. We recognize the important role it plays in our country. That is why Canada has a broad framework in place to promote trade and investment. The Investment Canada Act is a key part of that framework. Under the act, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development must examine and approve foreign investments of significance before they can be finalized. The net benefit review threshold is $1 billion if the investor's country of origin is a member of the World Trade Organization and $1.5 billion if Canada has a trade agreement with the country of origin. If the investor is a state-owned enterprise, the net benefit review threshold is lower. For 2018, it is set at $398 million.

At the same time, all foreign investment in Canada, regardless of value or origin, is subject to a national security review under the Investment Canada Act. This measure ensures that potential investments do not pose any threat to Canada's national security.

When an investment is subject to a review under the act, investors must supply substantial and detailed information about themselves, their ownership structure, and the extent to which they may be owned or influenced by foreign states. They are also required to provide information on the sources of funding for the investment and details about the investor's plans for the Canadian business being acquired.

This information is required to allow for a careful and thorough review of the investment to ensure its likely net economic benefit to Canada and to ensure that it will not harm national security. For every net benefit review, the minister must take into account the six factors set out in section 20 of the act. The minister approves an investment only when he is satisfied that the investment is likely to be of overall economic benefit to Canada.

These factors include the following: the effect of the investment on the level and nature of economic activity in Canada, particularly on employment; the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the Canadian business; the compatibility of the investment with national industrial, economic, and cultural policies; and the contribution of the investment to Canada's ability to compete in world markets.

Decisions made under the Investment Canada Act regarding the potential approval of foreign investments are not taken lightly. Every decision requires a careful and thorough review, as well as a rigorous examination of the possible economic impact of the investment. The review process under the act for potential national security implications is also extremely thorough and is based on evidence and careful analyses.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech, but he did not answer my question.

First, I will explain what was lacking in his response. I did say “You don't have to be wise to be lucky”. In fact, we are in luck because Australia made all the mistakes that we can avoid making with the same state-owned Chinese company. We now have a definitive date for the decision because these companies have stated that the contract will be cancelled in July if they cannot obtain the Government of Canada's approval for the acquisition.

I have here the PerthNow Sunday Times newspaper, which talks about the culture of fear surrounding the contract managed by the John Holland Group, the company that belongs to the same China-based company that is trying to buy the Aecon Group Inc. in Canada. It speaks about a culture of fear, and goes on to mention all the mistakes made in this $1.2 billion contract. In that particular case, the state government is suing for an additional $300 million because of construction problems that were not fixed before taking possession of this hospital, including a roof made of asbestos that was manufactured in China and shipped to Australia.

My question for the parliamentary secretary is perfectly straightforward. I would like to know when the Liberals are going to make this decision. When are they going to make this decision and announce it to the Canadian public? What rules are they going to apply to this company if they say yes to China Communications Construction Co., the CCCC, which is based in China?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

Naturally, we are going to follow a process. As I said earlier, reviews carried out under the act, including net benefit assessments and national security reviews, are always careful and thorough.

Due to the act's confidentiality provisions, I cannot comment on the specifics of reviews being conducted at this time. However, I can assure my colleague that in all cases that are reviewed under the act, the minister performs a rigorous review of the relevant information. The minister does not make a decision on the net benefit until he or she is satisfied that the acquisition is to the net benefit of Canada and will not be injurious to Canada's national security.

[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 6:51 p.m.)