Debates of June 11th, 2018

International Trade

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise just a little after midnight to return to an important issue I have had occasion to raise in the House and at committee. It has to do with the provisions of the trans-Pacific partnership deal, particularly chapter 12, and the potential effects of that chapter for Canadian tradespeople.

Chapter 12 of the TPP is about entry into Canada for temporary foreign workers. Unfortunately, it recreates some of the worst abuses of the temporary foreign worker program that we saw under previous Liberal and Conservative governments. The Liberals have said they want to the program. However, on the one hand, they say they are trying to fix, On the one hand, through the trans-Pacific partnership, they are actually reinstating it.

Often when I have raised this issue, I have been drowned in platitudes by the government. I thought it might be useful to refer to the text to try and orient the debate on the real concern. It is a concern we have heard loud and clear from building trade unions, which have a lot of experience in interpreting these kinds of documents, whether they are collective agreements or other policies that have a direct impact on workers.

The provisions we are particularly concerned about have to do with the number of categories under which we believe workers can enter Canada to perform trades work and if they meet the spirit of the agreement or not. We have certainly seen instances before where companies bring in workers in defiance of the spirit of agreements for temporary workers.

However, the TPP is very clear. For these categories of workers it states, “Canada shall grant temporary entry and provide a work permit or work authorisation to”, in this case professionals and technicians, “and will not:

(a) require labour certification tests or other procedures of similar intent as a condition for temporary entry; or (b) impose or maintain any numerical restriction relating to temporary entry.

Members of the building trades have been very clear, to us on this side of the House, and they have made similar arguments to members of government, that this essentially means that there will not be any ability to have any kind of meaningful skills testing or to ensure that the workers who are brought in meet Canadian standards. There is also not going to be any attempt to canvas the Canadian labour market to ensure there are not qualified Canadians looking for that work.

I am coming back to that issue. If we look at agreements like the trans-Pacific partnership, and we have seen it in other trade agreements, when big business wants something in the agreement, it gets it, and it gets it in the legal wording of the text. Those are the types of assurances it gets and it knows it can go to court, whether to a real court, a national court, or an international trade tribunal established under the auspices of whatever agreement it is, and get satisfaction if those rules are broken.

However, when it comes to workers, there is no guarantee for workers in these agreements. When it comes to workers, it is always, “Trust us. We're going to set up a little program” or “We'll have some regulations.” However, that will depend completely on the government of the day. There are no real assurances that the government will have any meaningful enforcement mechanism when it comes to this. There is no reassurance that it will be able to track these workers once they are in the country and ensure they perform work in accordance with this deal.

Therefore, why is the government willing to put assurances in these deals for big corporations and not for workers?

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Elmwood—Transcona for raising the CPTPP tonight. There has never been a better time to diversify our trade. Our government has been hard at work opening new markets for our Canadian exporters.

Last year we ratified and implement CETA, an ambitious new trade agreement with the European Union, opening up access for Canadian businesses and workers to sell their products and services to a market of over 500 million people with government procurement alone of over $3.3 trillion.

The CPTPP continues this ambitious effort to expand and diversify our trade. This agreement will benefit Canadians and the Canadian economy for years and decades to come. It opens up access to a Pacific trading bloc of 500 million people, with a combined GDP of $13.5 trillion.

Canada's commitment in this agreement helps to support investment and growth in Canada and supports the businesses and livelihoods of Canadians doing work here and abroad. Our government has been consulting with Canadians, including with tradespeople and skilled workers to ensure that the CPTPP provides Canadian businesses with improved access to CPTPP markets while at the same time not compromising our domestic labour market.

The agreement's chapter on temporary entry facilitates labour mobility and provides reciprocal access, for example, to certain highly skilled professionals and technicians, including certain skilled trades into certain CPTPP markets.

As the member will also know, there are key safeguards written into the text of chapter 12. Our government is committed to protecting the integrity of our domestic labour market. We continue to work with our building trades, among others, to ensure that our implementation of this agreement respects that commitment.

For the category of professionals and technicians that the member raised, the agreement includes a wage requirement. There is an education requirement. There is an experience requirement. All domestic requirements, including licensing and certification, continue to apply. It is all written there in the text.

This government's goal is to set a higher bar for openness and transparency. We have delivered on this promise.

On February 20, we made public the final text of the CPTPP. We have also published the government's economic modelling on the estimated economic and commercial benefits of the CPTPP for Canada. Canada's economy stands to gain $4.2 billion by 2040 as a result. As the member is also aware, the hon. Minister of International Trade tabled the CPTPP treaty with all binding side instruments in the House of Commons on May 22.

With the CPTPP, Canadian businesses and Canadians are getting the opportunity to explore new markets and create new jobs. We are working hard to ratify this important agreement. As the Prime Minister indicated last week, the government will introduce implementing legislation this spring with the goal of ratifying the CPTPP expeditiously.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can tell from the member's answer that she has never been on the books waiting for a call for a job while knowing full well that a company imported a temporary foreign workforce in order to build a construction project in her city. If she believes there is a bunch of Canadian trades workers waiting at home for the next opportunity to build a condo tower in Brunei, she is pretty seriously mistaken.

Canadian tradespeople want to be able to get work close to home and chapter 12, for as much as she wants to extol the virtues of the TPP generally, does not have protections for workers and there are no mechanisms for the federal government to track these workers once they are in Canada. The agreement specifically prohibits them from doing any kind of real skills testing and even the wage requirements do not mean a lot if the government is not tracking that and does not have a system to ensure that the workers are being paid what they were promised.

We know that this was a notorious problem with the temporary foreign worker program. I wonder if she would like to revise her answer in light of those facts.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of International Trade told the hon. member in March, our government is engaging with Canadian labour unions and we will continue to do so because we want, and Canadians deserve, a strong agreement that works for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

I thank the member for Elmwood—Transcona for his advocacy on behalf of Canadian tradespeople, and I hope our government can count on the support of the NDP when it comes time to ratify and implement this agreement.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising tonight at adjournment proceedings, and the hour is late. The hour is late both literally and metaphorically, because I am addressing the topic of climate change, and we are literally running out of time.

I raised this question in question period on March 2. I addressed the fact that it was startling, and actually terrifying, that the Arctic was going through a thaw at that time through the month of February, that the Arctic defence as being the polar vortex appeared to have collapsed. I referred to it as being like an advancing army. Warm air from the south had occupied our Arctic, driving up temperatures 25 degrees Celsius above what is normal at that time. Of course, throughout the winter months, no sun reaches the Arctic. It is 24-hour darkness, so what was occurring that we should have a thaw in our Arctic at that time was actually a signal that what we are doing to our climate is beyond what we are experiencing in the south, where we see extreme weather events. We are actually tampering with the ability of this planet to support life.

After that question was put in question period, we had more disturbing warnings that the Gulf Stream has slowed to its lowest point since measurements began. The Gulf Stream is slowing because as the Arctic ice melts, it goes in through the currents and reaches the Atlantic Ocean areas, where the Gulf Stream is moving, but it depresses the Gulf Stream, because it is fresh water, and it floats on top and presses down on the Gulf Stream and weakens it.

We have also had worrying evidence that the Greenland ice sheet and the western Antarctic ice sheet are weakening, and both of them are on land. If either of those dislodged into the ocean, unlike the melt from the ice that floats on water I just mentioned, this would cause an acute sea-level rise. Either one of those events would result in an eight-metre sea-level rise.

What I submitted to the hon. Minister of Environment and Climate Change—I put the question to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Environment responded—is that we are in a climate emergency, but we are acting as though it is a political promise that can be handled incrementally. It is not the current Prime Minister's fault that he took office at the point that procrastination is no longer viable. Incremental change will not ensure that our children have a livable world.

There has been a lot of work done. By the way, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change said on that day, March 2, “We are all in on climate action.” I submit that although the intentions are better from the current government, there is no sign that the Liberals are all in. If we were serious, we would recognize that the current target left over from the Harper administration does not meet our Paris target. It is not even close. As things now stand, we are not on track to meet the weaker Harper target.

If we were all in on climate change, it would look like this. We would look at the carbon budget, realize there is only so much more CO₂ we can put in the atmosphere, and work globally to get every country on earth to increase ambition and put in place a tougher target.

For Canada, we would do more than carbon pricing. That is just a first step. We would eliminate subsidies to fossil fuels. We certainly would not buy a pipeline. We would divest our investments in fossil fuels in the Canada pension plan. We would eliminate all subsidies. We would use all the levers we have, including that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change has the power to regulate through part 4 of CEPA. We would do absolutely everything at our disposal, including eco-energy retrofits, to ensure that we meet the Paris target of 1.5 degrees Celsius.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her strong advocacy when it comes to climate change and taking action.

The Government of Canada is taking concrete action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, support clean growth, and build a climate-resilient infrastructure. In addition to being one of the first countries to sign and ratify the Paris Agreement, Canada is also following through on its Paris commitments by implementing a national plan to reduce its GHG emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030 and build resilience to the impacts of climate change.

A landmark achievement is the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. It is the first climate change plan in Canada's history to include collective and individual commitments by federal, provincial, and territorial governments, and to have been developed through engagement with national representatives of first nations, Inuit and Métis nations, the general public, non-governmental organizations, and businesses. The pan-Canadian framework includes more than 50 concrete measures to reduce carbon pollution, build resilience to the impacts of climate change, foster clean technology solutions, and create good jobs that contribute to a strong economy. This includes putting a price on carbon.

To support implementation of the pan-Canadian framework, the Government of Canada has announced historic investments, including the low-carbon economy fund and the investing in Canada plan, which supports projects aimed at reducing GHG emissions and generating clean growth. By investing billions of dollars in green infrastructure and public transit, including smart grids, energy-efficient buildings, and electric vehicle infrastructure, the federal government aims to help mainstream innovative, clean technologies. Furthermore, to bolster climate resiliency, the government's $2-billion disaster mitigation and adaptation fund backs large-scale national, provincial, and municipal infrastructure projects to reduce the impacts of natural disasters and extreme weather events and build resilient communities across the country.

Government leadership is critical to achieving Canada's goal for environmental and sustainable development. Introduced in 2017, the greening government strategy sets an ambitious target to reduce GHG emissions from federal operations by 80% by 2050, relative to 2005 levels. When the policies and programs within the pan-Canadian framework are fully implemented, the framework will not only allow Canada to meet its 2030 target in full, but also position Canada to set and achieve deeper reductions by 2030.

We continue to work with our partners, including provinces, territories, and indigenous people. We have been listening to Canadians from across the country. We are committed to annually reporting on Canada's greenhouse gas emission projections and issuing annual pan-Canadian framework reports to take stock of progress achieved and give direction to sustain and enhance our efforts.

We have made taking action on climate change a priority. Tackling climate change and helping our country transition to a low-carbon economy are the smart thing to do and the right thing to do. Taking action on climate change is not just the priority of the Government of Canada; it is an imperative for all of Canada. Our significant achievements since 2015 demonstrate that we are serious not only about developing a real plan to reduce our emissions, but about turning that plan into action and results.

As for the Arctic, we are working with all departments, provinces, territories, indigenous peoples, and northerners to co-develop an Arctic policy framework that recognizes and re-prioritizes federal activities in the Arctic. This framework is intended to increase partnerships and collaboration with federal government, indigenous peoples—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, here is the problem: There is no climate plan from the government; there is a climate wish list. There is a pan-Canadian framework, but it is a compilation of what provinces and territories plan to do without federal leadership. Other than the carbon pricing scheme and the promise, not yet delivered, to eliminate subsidies, the federal government is not using the levers it has at its disposal.

The target that my hon. colleague mentioned is the one left over from Harper. I repeat: It will be too little, too late. The year 2030 is too far out there for us to guarantee our children a liveable world.

I recommend that the government look at the 2017 report called “Three Years to Safeguard Our Climate”. It was signed by over 100 climate experts, led by Christiana Figueres. It is very clear. We cannot let it go past 2020 before we turn the corner, before we bring greenhouse gas emissions down. We have to do it quickly, or the chance to hit 1.5° Celsius and hold it there will be forgone and foreclosed, and our children will have an unlivable world.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the pan-Canadian framework commits to ongoing monitoring and reporting of results to ensure that policies are effective, to take stock of progress achieved, and to inform Canadians of the future national actions in accordance with the Paris Agreement.

This includes annual reporting to the Prime Minister of Canada, and to provincial and territorial premiers, external assessments and advice by experts, meaningful engagement with indigenous peoples, and a review of carbon pricing approaches in 2020 and 2022.

Foreign Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the opportunity last week to raise an important question about Iran's role fomenting violence on Israel's border, and the government's failure to point the finger in the right direction in light of the terrible loss of life that occurred at that border.

In my question, I referenced statements by the Palestinian ambassador to France, who acknowledged that “Iran is fully financing and pushing the Hamas demonstrations”.

While the West Bank is controlled by the Palestinian Authority, an organization certainly with problems, but which has expressed its commitment to peace and to a two-state solution, the Gaza strip is totally controlled by a violent terrorist group, Hamas, whose sole aim is the violent defeat and destruction of Israel.

Canada must work with the Palestinian people to support and build the capacity of a legitimate representative government, but this requires the isolation and defeat of Hamas. Although Israel is their target, the Palestinian people are Hamas's first victims. Hamas is shameless in its efforts to increase and use the suffering of the Palestinian people for its own cynical political ends.

How else do we explain its actions? In the midst of a humanitarian crisis, Hamas has repeatedly refused to allow Israel to send aid into the Gaza Strip. It blames the occupation, but there is no occupation in Gaza. It blames the blockade, while it refuses aid, and it repurposes aid and other forms of support as tools to attack Israel. Its charter is explicit that it will countenance no peace accords, that its goal is to attack, to annihilate Israel, and to continue to do so without any compromise whatsoever.

If we look at the record of Hamas, it has always focused its resources and its efforts into attacking Israel. It has invested in rockets, when it could have been investing in schools, opportunity, and support for Palestinian young people. It built terror tunnels to try to attack Israel, when it could have been building infrastructure, again that the Palestinian people need.

Japan sent kites for Palestinian children to use, to have some joy in flying kites. Instead, those kites were repurposed as another tool with which to attack Israel, trying to set fire to nearby towns. The so-called “Great Return March”, organized by Hamas is typical of Hamas tactics. It mixes civilians and militants together in a violent march on Israel's border, aiming to use the Palestinian people as human shields, and thus to be able to infiltrate Israel with militants who could then carry out violent attacks.

This is tragic for the Palestinian people, but the perpetrator must be clearly identified as the Hamas terrorist group. We took issue in the opposition with the fact that the Prime Minister issued a statement about violent clashes at the border that made no mention of Hamas. I would ask, what does it mean to be a friend and ally to Israel? The government professes its friendship with Israel. The government is not much of a friend if, in the midst of a violent attack on the border, Canada fails to name the attacker and instead crafts a statement which singles out Israel for responsibility.

I would ask, how would Canada respond in a similar situation? How could Canada respond if there were a violent march on our border aimed at infiltrating our territory and attacking Canadian civilians? How would Canada respond? That is my question for the parliamentary secretary. Why this one-sided statement singling out of Israel, and not mentioning—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, the government deplores the actions of Hamas and its incitement to violence. It has been listed as a terrorist organization in this country since 2002, with very good reason. Hamas is a violent terrorist organization that uses hateful rhetoric to incite violence against Israel and the Israeli people. While Gazans struggle to feed their families, like the member said, Hamas builds tunnels and launches rockets at Israel, rather than providing for the lives of its desperate Gazans.

Hamas has been a leading cause of the miserable situation in the Gaza Strip, which has driven so much frustration and hopelessness among the Palestinians there. We condemn Hamas for continuing to focus on attacking Israel rather than providing and improving the lives of desperate Gazans. We also condemn Iran's sponsorship of terrorism abroad, including its sponsorship of Hamas and its activities. That is why Canada has listed Iran as a state supporter of terrorism under the State Immunity Act.

Canada has also listed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps under the Special Economic Measures Act. The IRGC's operations in the region, including its support of Hamas, are carried out by the IRGC Quds Force. That is why Canada lists this force as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is listed under our SEMA sanctions.

Iran's support for terrorism and that of the Assad regime in Syria has exasperated the regional conflict. We strongly believe that the Iranian authorities must uphold and respect democratic and human rights and that the Iranian people have the right to free assembly and to express themselves without facing violence and imprisonment. Our government also believes that any provocative actions by Iran toward Israel are unacceptable.

The state of Israel is a close friend and ally. We share Israel's concerns about Iran's provocative behaviour in the region, including Iran's support for Hamas, its support of Hezbollah near the border in Lebanon, and its ongoing involvement in Syria. Canada's strong support of Israel is clear. Israel has a right to live in peace, with boundaries, and to ensure its own security in the face of Iranian aggression. Following the violence in the Gaza Strip that led to the tragic loss of life and injured many people, Canadians joined many allies in calling for an independent investigation to thoroughly examine the facts on the ground. Canada's call was for an investigation into excessive use of force, violence, and any incitement.

Our position on Hamas is clear. We condemn the terrorist organization for its aggression and we agree that the role it played in inciting violence and hate must be investigated.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government, some of the time, on certain points, talks a good game on this, but some of the words it uses are slippery. It is important to identify that slipperiness and challenge it, because in any other democratic country, what would happen in a case like this is that one would trust the independent mechanisms for self-assessment that exist in that country, and yet the Liberal government threw doubt on that by implying that there was a need for an independent external investigation, something that it did not call for, at least initially, in Iran. With the Seyed-Emami case, it said Iran should investigate itself.

I want to ask the member for her comments about an independent investigation. Does she think that Israeli independent internal mechanisms are adequate for conducting the investigation the government spoke about?

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we establish the facts on what has happened in Gaza. As the government has said, Canada stands ready to assist in such an endeavour. We will work closely with our international partners and through international institutions to address this serious situation. This includes the actions of all parties.

Let us not forget that a Canadian was among the wounded, along with so many unarmed people, including civilians, members of the media, first responders, and children. We should all be united in wanting to find out as much as possible about the details involving harm against a Canadian abroad.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 29, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until later this day at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12:28 a.m.)