Debates of Sept. 18th, 2018

Second Reading

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

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

I hope nothing will happen to the cultural exemption. I would remind the hon. member that we already had trade agreements that included a cultural exemption with 80% of the signatory countries of the TPP. Before the TPP, there was talk of negotiating an agreement with Japan. If we add that to the list of countries with which we already had an agreement, we would not be far from 100%. Every agreement already included a cultural exemption, so I hope that the government is not going back on that. That would be the last straw, because the government is already going back on supply management.

What is more, since we already had agreements, this one does not really benefit the middle class and Quebec businesses. So says the C.D. Howe Institute. Instead, this is a major setback for our farmers and our land use model, a system that works. It is a clear setback for Quebec since our farmers are being sacrificed for next to nothing in return.

[Simon Marcil, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for his speech. We are all familiar with this government's tendency to get involved in conflicts of interest, much like its predecessor. That is why I suspect it has other reasons for wanting the ratify the TPP quickly. I have a two-part question for my colleague.

First, does he really think that adding the word “progressive” to the name of the agreement is a sign of social progress?

Second, who does he think stands to benefit financially when the Liberals rush passage of this agreement, as they did with cannabis legalization?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I answer my colleague's questions, I have more to say to the member opposite. The U.S. is the cultural threat here. Vietnam is not a threat to Quebec's culture and identity. The Americans are the reason for the cultural exemption.

Who is lining their pockets? Not us. The C.D. Howe Institute says we will not benefit much. Ontario and the western provinces will, but not us. Once again, English Canada's interests take precedence in the House of Commons. The two big parties think this is a good deal for their gang, so they are running with it. Too bad for Quebeckers and what they want. That is what happens when we let our neighbours make decisions for us: we keep losing ground. That needs to change now.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are hearing concerns from indigenous peoples around the lack of consultation on the CPTPP. I just received a message from Brenda Sayers of the Hupacasath First Nation on the west coast of Vancouver Island. She says:

It is disheartening that the CPTPP is being fast-tracked without consideration for, or consultation with First Nations whose rights will be grossly undermined under several different chapters of the trade agreement. The Liberal government has promised reconciliation with First Nations and yet when presented with real opportunities, they have not only failed to follow through on this promise, but having given hope to a people whose only request is justice and fair treatment; they have made a mockery of a long broken relationship.

Maybe my friend could speak about his feelings on whether the government has really taken a path to reconciliation in this trade agreement.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague.

My colleague from Mirabel will support the amendment. I am sure of it.

I would like to propose the following amendment to the amendment, which I am sure will be seconded by my colleague from Mirabel: That the amendment be amended by adding after the words “jobs in Canada” the following: especially in the agricultural sector, as this agreement creates a significant breach in supply management by offering 3.25% of the dairy market to foreign producers, despite the unanimous motion adopted in the House on February 7, 2018, that this House call on the government to ensure that there is no breach in supply management in the new Trans-Pacific Partnership.

That is my amendment to the amendment.

I fully agree with my colleague's comments on our relationship and reconciliation with first nations.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I see that the hon. member for Joliette has proposed an amendment to an amendment during the period for questions and comments. Unfortunately, that is not permissible. Hon. members are to propose amendments or amendments to amendments during their speeches.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in the House. I start by acknowledging we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin peoples.

The trans-Pacific partnership agreement has had a convoluted and somewhat rocky road. I think we would all admit that. I would like to take a bit of time to go through its history and then take as much time as possible, given that it is abbreviated now that we are down to only 10-minute speaking segments and time allocation has already been applied, on why it is completely anti-democratic to have investor-state provisions included in agreements, particularly the one currently before us.

I would like to adopt and support the submissions of the hon. member for Essex. The trade critic for the New Democratic Party has put forward clear arguments. So has the MP for Vancouver Kingsway. I agree with all I have heard from them. This allows me to concentrate on investor-state provisions rather than delve into the different sector-by-sector problems with the TPP.

Going back to where it started, the TPP was well under way in negotiation under the previous Conservative government of Stephen Harper. It knew the TPP was under way and Canada did not have a seat at the table. Therefore, there are a number of reasons the agreement is lopsided against certain Canadian sectors. It has to do with the fact we joined late. We were aggressive with trying to be in. Some will remember that even during the 2015 election, when a government is supposed to have no more than a caretaker role, the former minister of trade was working hard to try to get this deal done. That was inappropriate, given that the writ had already dropped, but he certainly did work hard to achieve the TPP.

We know that the incoming U.S. president pulled out. That had a very substantial impact on the economic reach of the agreement. With the U.S. out, it looked like the TPP was dead. However, bad trade deals never die, they rise again, and this one came back without the United States and now with 11 countries in the trade pact.

It is important for Canadians to know that we already have trade agreements, within NAFTA, with Mexico. Therefore, that means we are agreeing to new agreements with nine new nations. When we talk about the Pacific region, I think a lot of Canadians would assume this includes the big economic players. When we hear TPP, the trans-Pacific partnership, or now as it is styled, the comprehensive and progressive TPP, or CPTPP, one would assume it would include China and Indonesia. However, large economic players in Asia are out of the agreement, other than the big one, which are Japan, as well as Malaysia, and of course Australia and New Zealand. There are smaller economic countries, such as Peru and Vietnam, as well as Singapore, which is significant but relatively small in terms of trade.

We have a cobbled together agreement that we now are rushing to pass. We were promised that we would not rush through trade deals in this place, that we would have full debate. I gather the committee has been told that it has to rush as well. Therefore, this trade agreement will not be adequately debated. That is now a foregone conclusion because of time allocation.

In the six and a half minutes remaining to me, let me explain why I submit to the House that investor-state dispute resolution sections do not belong in any agreement. They do not belong in trade agreements. They in fact have nothing to do with trade. They are often conflated and confused with trade dispute resolution agreements. Therefore, in the case of NAFTA, which, by the way, was the source of these investor dispute resolution systems, chapter 11 in NAFTA had never been requested before. They were not understood. They were not even understood by the people who negotiated NAFTA.

What we have under NAFTA is chapter 19, which deals with how one sorts out disputes over tariffs and unfair trade decision. We are used to those. That is appropriately a trade dispute resolution provision. One needs those if one has a trade deal. What we do not need is this bogus, anti-democratic investor-state provision, which arose in chapter 11 of NAFTA. What does it mean? On paper, when people first read NAFTA, including in all the fights over adopting NAFTA, none of the anti-NAFTA groups ever noticed chapter 11. No one talked about it; it was a sleeper.

What chapter 11 seemed to say was common sense. If someone had invested in a country and the asset that was built was expropriated, such as when Fidel Castro took over Cuba, the expropriation of assets would require compensation, which is the international norm already. It looked like chapter 11 was about that. We found out that was not what the chapter was capable of doing in the Ethyl Corporation case, when Ethyl Corporation of Richmond, Virginia brought the first chapter 11 case again Canada.

It should be noted that as of now, Canada is the most sued industrialized country under these investor-state agreements and we have lost repeatedly. We have lost, but it was not as if we did something that was a subversion of our trade, not as if we treated some country that we promised we would give it friendly treatment and it was a duplicitous action in pursuit of a trade benefit. No, we have lost when we were trying to protect public health and the environment.

Let us look at Ethyl Corporation. In that instance, the former minister of environment, Sheila Copps, heard of the efforts of groups like the one I was executive director of, Sierra Club Canada. We worked hard to get rid of a toxic gasoline additive called MMT, which is manganese based. We were joined in that effort, believe it or not, by the car makers. The car makers said that MMT gunked up the engines and compromised the catalytic converters. In other words, it increased pollution in a way that could void their warranties.

Therefore, the auto manufacturers, the environmental groups and a number of health groups, with evidence from neurotoxicologist Dr. Donna Mergler of the University of Quebec in Montreal, said that this stuff increased manganism in the human population, in other words tremors that looked a lot like Parkinson's, and at the same time threatened to void the warranties of cars. The minister of the environment brought forward a law which was passed in Parliament. The law said that we would get rid of MMT in gasoline.

It is important to know that at this point the United States Environmental Protection Agency had refused to register MMT, because its advice was that this stuff was bad for the environment, bad for human health and we should not use it. Therefore, Canada banned it.

Ethyl Corporation said that it was going to chapter 11 of NAFTA. However, before that chapter 11 case was through, the government of the day decided to settle, and we cannot say “out of court” because there are no courts involved here. These are private arbitration matters generally heard in hotel rooms. Therefore, if we are going to call a chapter 11 arbitration “out of court”, we have to insert the word “kangaroo” before the word “court” so the whole thing makes sense.

However, Ethyl Corporation got out of Canada an award of $13 million U.S., which was taken out of the A-base budget of Environment Canada. If members do not think that had a chilling affect on Environment Canada's willingness to ban dangerous chemicals that were made in the United States, then they are not looking at the facts of what has happened since then. That was the first one. By the way, what was Ethyl Corporation's investment in Canada? Did it have a plant here? No. Did it create jobs here? No. It was selling the toxic gasoline additive here, and that was enough to make it an investor. The same thing happened with S.D. Myers, which was the next case.

S.D. Myers is an Ohio-based company that runs incinerators for PCB contaminated waste. Sheila Copps, former minister of environment, banned the export of PCB contaminated waste from Canada consistent with the Basel Convention to which Canada was a signatory, but S.D. Myers sued. Guess what. It was suddenly an investor. It had expected profit from taking Canadian PCB waste and burning it in Ohio.

However, when we banned the export of PCB contaminated waste from Canada, the import of PCB contaminated waste into the U.S. was illegal under U.S. law. On that set of facts, we could not imagine that we would lose, but we lost. Canada appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal, which said that it was not significant enough of an egregious error under the rules of arbitration for us to win, and so we had to pay S.D. Myers money.

We are now awaiting Bilcon, which has asked for $580 million in damages. Canada has lost in Federal Court in our efforts to defend the good decision of a very ethical, thorough, independent, thoroughly evidence-based finding of the environmental assessment panel on Bilcon's efforts to do an open-pit quarry in Digby, Nova Scotia.

Ethyl Corporation did not go to the courts in Canada, which it could have done. By the way, that decision led to the Progressive Conservative government of Nova Scotia turning down the permit and the previous Conservative Government of Canada environment minister John Baird turning down the permit. However, Bilcon, in New Jersey, went to a secret hearing under chapter 11 of NAFTA and it won.

TPP does not have such egregious secrecy; that is the one area in which this is different. However, we pass this and we will regret it. We will have chapter 9 suits under TPP, again from Malaysia and from Japan, and we will lose because Canada generally loses. This is corrosive to democracy, and I urge us to take investor state out of the bill in front of us.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I felt like I had come into a university lecture. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands' intervention was very well researched and really ad lib for the most part, which is always good to see in the House.

I was trying to find the thread to the World Trade Organization. When we are a trading nation, having investor-state dispute mechanisms in place, either at the world trade level or in trade agreements, I understand the member to say that those should not be included in trade agreements. However, as a trading nation, what protections would she suggest we have in order to protect jobs in Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, first I submit for my hon. friend from Guelph that there is nothing about giving foreign corporations superior rights to domestic corporations that protect jobs in Canada; it is quite the opposite. I would also suggest that the World Trade Organization does not insist on investor-state dispute resolution agreements; the protection of foreign corporations to protect their expectation of profits is outside the WTO. There was an attempt to put it inside in the multilateral agreement on investment, which was rejected within the OECD. Therefore, these are independent of WTO rules.

We should never accept them unthinkingly. I suggest for all of us, with the deepest respect for my colleagues, that they are accepting investor-state dispute resolutions in trade agreements without thinking, because we have never debated them in this place properly. We should rethink them, renegotiate them and ensure that only in the case of a foreign government's seizing actual assets would we have the reason to be able to say it owes us money. We should never owe a foreign corporation money for protecting the environment in Canada, protecting jobs in Canada and protecting labour rights in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a regular line by the left and the Green Party in Canada, to suggest that these international dispute mechanisms are somehow sinister. As a lawyer in Ontario I know, and as the hon. member is a lawyer as well she would know, that a lot of regimes have mandatory mediation processes and a number of elements to take disputes out of a long-winded laborious litigation process. Therefore, in a lot of these agreements, there are agreements for disputes to be settled in a specific way. That is what contracts are for: certainty, particularly when countries have different legal standards, whether civil code or common law, and some countries do not respect the rule of law. That type of certainty is what investors expect. That is what companies expect. That is what states expect.

I would love the hon. member to suggest for this House that it is somehow sinister in an agreement premised upon certainty to not allow parties to have choice of forum, choice of law. These are fundamental aspects of contract law. I hate how this sort of spectre of ISDS or mandatory disputes or the disputes mechanism we set up with China is somehow sinister, when it is actually meant to overcome uncertainty and incompatibility of legal systems. Does the hon. member not suggest that companies, governments and people have the ability to forge these decisions, whether it is ISDS or other mechanisms?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that my hon. colleague from Durham fails to see that what his government did in passing the Canada—China investment treaty in secret, in cabinet, binding our country until the year 2045 to allow the People's Republic of China to bring secret arbitration cases against us with no transparency whatsoever is not sinister, or that he does not think there are some problems with that.

I am very grateful to my hon. colleague from Courtenay—Alberni for referencing the concerns of Brenda Sayers from the Hupacasath First Nation. That small first nation went all the way to court to say it was not consulted and this is dangerous to it. The first nations of this country have deep concerns because investor-state disputes can be launched based on decisions of first nations governments as well as municipal and provincial governments.

The reality of this is the hon. member for Durham is conflating once again. In the certainty of a trade deal, yes, we need to have a dispute resolution, but there is uncertainty created by saying foreign corporations have a right to challenge things that were never in the contemplation of the negotiators, to say after the fact they expected to make a big profit from this, and that now they have stopped them and that now they owe them money.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back, to be able to speak on Bill C-79 and, in particular, to be able to speak to trade.

I believe trade is part of Canada's DNA, from our beginnings with the fur trade to today, where we are a leader globally when it comes to mining, minerals and exploration. We can look at all the other sectors, be it agriculture, manufacturing, innovation and tech, and Canada is a leader.

I want to leave a statistic with the Chamber that really highlights how important trade is to Canada and how great a job we do at trade globally. We are 0.5% of Canada's population, but we do 2.5% of all global trade, five times our population. That just shows, globally, that we are a trading nation.

We look at CETA, where we were able to sign that agreement and open up another market of over 500 million people and over $20 trillion GDP in that market. Now, we look at the CPTPP and we look to Asia as another opportunity for Canada to be able to trade our great goods and services, a market of about 500 million people and $13.5 trillion GDP.

We are able to now talk about some of the benefits we will be able to experience from CPTPP if we were to sign on. Looking at our industrial and manufacturing sectors, located right in Mississauga East—Cooksville, we have Maple Leaf, a great company. They do a great deal of export. Having these tariffs stripped away from many of the countries in Asia that are part of the CPTPP that they work with will mean more jobs here in Canada and will give us greater market access.

I have heard from my constituents and the businesses in my area that this is the way forward.

Mississauga is Canada's sixth-largest city and we continue to grow, mostly through companies that are export oriented. Those export-oriented companies are producing the best jobs. Whether it be automobiles or medical devices, metals, chemicals or plastics, they are all essential components to our national economy, employing 1.7 million full-time and highly skilled Canadians, and contributing close to 11% of Canada's GDP.

Our government firmly believes that the CPTPP is the ideal agreement for Canadians and our economy. This is a high-level trade agreement that will increase Canadian exports and help us to succeed in foreign markets as a cornerstone of our government's comprehensive efforts to enhance Canada's engagement with dynamic, fast-growing and increasingly influential Asian markets. It is an important part of our commitment to diversify trade, grow our economy and strengthen our country's middle class.

Trade and investment flows between Canada and Asian economies have increased significantly since the turn of the century. From 2014 to 2016, Canada's exports of industrial and manufactured goods to the CPTPP countries accounted for an annual average of $22.4 billion. By eliminating now nearly 100% tariffs on manufactured goods, including some tariffs that are as high as 85%, a high barrier, and creating mechanisms to address non-tariff barriers to trade, the CPTPP will create opportunities for world-class Canadian businesses to increase their sales.

Once the agreement enters into force, it will enable Canadian exporters to access diverse and internationally integrated value chains. On day one of the agreement coming into force, there will be no tariffs on over 87% of industrial tariff lines, covering Canada's exports to CPTPP markets, worth an annual average of close to $20 billion over a two-year period.

What will this mean for individual industries? Allow me to provide just a few examples for Canada's multi-billion dollar chemicals and plastics industry.

The CPTPP will provide opportunities for companies in Ontario, the hub of Canada's plastics industry, to cutting-edge mechanical facilities in Alberta with improved market access. This industry will improve its annual average of $1.1 billion in exports to the CPTPP countries by eliminating tariffs that are as high as 50%. What a difference that will make in our exports of plastics.

With respect to metals and minerals, a sector contributing nearly 600,000 jobs here in Canada and exporting $5 billion in goods to CPTPP markets, the agreement would result in the elimination of all tariffs, again some as high as 50%. As a result, highly sought-after Canadian aluminum, steel, iron, petroleum products and precious metals will become even more competitive in such markets as Japan, Australia, Malaysia and Vietnam.

Canada's information and communication technologies sector, critical to major urban centres across Canada, is also well positioned under this agreement to meet growing needs within established and developed markets in the Asia-Pacific. In addition to eliminating tariffs, the agreement will protect companies from having to divulge their proprietary information in order to sell their products in these markets.

In the auto sector, our government listened, and listened a lot, to what Canadians had to say and made their concerns a priority. As part of the negotiations, Canada has obtained bilateral cover letters from Australia and Malaysia to establish more liberal rules of origin, which will allow our automotive manufacturers to take advantage of the preferential tariff treatment in these markets without having to adjust their current production models.

We also achieved bilateral results with Japan and Malaysia on standards and regulations in the automotive sector, a key demand from industry stakeholders as these non-tariff barriers were impeding our export abilities.

These are just a few examples of areas that could benefit from the CPTPP. By making Canadian industrial and manufacturing exports more competitive, reducing the red tape that impedes access to dynamic and growing markets, this agreement would provide Canadian businesses with significant opportunities to increase profits and create new jobs.

Beyond tariff reduction, another aspect of the CPTPP that stands to benefit Canadian companies in these sectors is the area of intellectual property. The agreement's provisions on intellectual property cover virtually all areas regarding trade and IP, including copyright, patents, trademarks, geographical indication, industrial designs, domain names and enforcement. Most importantly, the protection and enforcement of IP rights will help protect Canadian innovation and investment as our businesses trade abroad. For Canadian businesses, one of the most significant barriers to trade in some markets is uncertainty over the protection of intellectual property, including whether their intellectual property rights will be respected and enforced.

Intellectual property is valuable property and this agreement establishes a clear and predictable standard on IP rights and enforcement in the Asia-Pacific region. This will allow Canadian creators, innovators and investors to conduct trade with our new CPTPP partners with the assurance that their products will be protected while benefiting from the same rules as other parties within this agreement. In turn, this will encourage investment in innovative technologies in Canada and allow Canadians to develop and market their brands in the region.

As a result, innovative Canadian companies will be better positioned to commercialize their products in both established and fast-growing Asian markets. In addition to tariff reduction and IP rules, the agreement also addresses costly and time-consuming non-tariff barriers that make it difficult for Canadian companies to enter these foreign markets. Commitments by CPTPP members to cut away that burdensome and restrictive regulatory red tape in such sectors as cosmetics, medical devices, pharmaceuticals and ICT will provide Canadian manufacturing exporters with greater certainty and predictability that the competitive benefits their products receive from tariff elimination will be fully realized.

By establishing an effective and transparent rules-based trade system in one of the world's most dynamic and growing regions, the CPTPP will lay the groundwork for exporters in our industrial and manufacturing sectors to take advantage of these opportunities. This is why I am encouraging all of my hon. colleagues to support Bill C-79 and allow for the swift implementation of this important agreement.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House because this summer I personally met with many farmers, including the younger generation of farmers. Specifically, I met Eric and Jennifer Simpson, a couple my age who have a dairy farm in Rockburn. They told me that they have lost 15% of their revenue in the last few years because of concessions in the trade agreements Canada has signed with other countries. They said that the TPP could cause further losses because an even greater concession is being negotiated and will be passed under this legislation.

This is putting the next generation of farmers in a precarious position. As we know, one in eight jobs in Canada is in the agriculture and agri-food sector. We also know that our rural regions are vibrant and have strong economies thanks to agriculture. Those businesses are keeping kids in our rural schools and supporting local restaurants and other businesses that, in turn, keep people in the regions and preserve our agricultural heritage. This is just one thing that is being attacked in yet another economic agreement the Liberals are pursuing.

How can the Liberals promote a bill that will be harmful to an industry that is so crucial to our country and our rural regions?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are so proud of our agriculture and agri-food industries and sectors. Our party is the party of supply management. It is something we have always defended and will always continue to defend.

At the international trade committee, through our consultations from coast to coast to coast, we had the opportunity to hear from many farmers and all those in the supply chain in agriculture. We were able to do a deeper dive and gain a better understanding of how we can be at the table defending agriculture and defending our farmers. We will always stand with supply management.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech today, my colleague from Mississauga did a very good job of reiterating why Liberals believe so firmly in free trade. I am wondering if he can take it back a bit, more specifically to his riding. He comes from a part of the country that has experienced a lot of growth over the last number of years. It has expanded tremendously and no doubt has benefited from these relationships and trade agreements.

Can he talk a little about how he sees the impacts of trade positively impacting his riding specifically?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question pertains to my riding of Mississauga East—Cooksville and the many great businesses that do a great deal of trade right around the world. As we have heard, we punch way above our weight when it comes to trade in Canada. We have companies like Maple Leaf, which deal with agriculture and selling many of their products to many of the CPTPP countries, and also those in the manufacturing supply chain.

I know many manufacturers in my riding produce some of the products and machinery that help with mining. Many of those machines are then exported around the world to be able to do the work in various countries. This means jobs for my riding and for the ridings of all the members in this chamber. These are good, well-paying jobs. We know that export-oriented companies have some of the highest-paying jobs in our country, and that is why we have to double down on exporting and looking at diversifying our markets. This is a very important agreement in terms of enabling us to do that, to be able to reach into some emerging economies and also to have a better agreement with some very established countries like Japan, where we have a tremendous opportunity to do a great deal more business.

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

Mr. Speaker, I note my hon. colleague extolled the virtues of this agreement to expand trade. I wonder if he has any comments on the issues I presented of the deep concern of many Canadians that we are expanding the right of Malaysian, Japanese, and other corporations within this agreement to bring cases against Canada and take public funds to compensate foreign companies for things domestic companies would never have a right to claim.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, through our consultations from coast to coast to coast, we heard from many sectors. Yes, there are some sectors that had very serious concerns about ISDS. However, there were also other sectors, like financial services, the minerals industry and mining, which need to have these provisions in place to be 100% able with certainty, stability and assurances to invest in these countries and provide great-paying jobs here in Canada. These countries needed to have those assurances through an ISDS system that would work for them so those investments could be made. We want to ensure those precious Canadian dollars being invested in other parts of the world will be secure.

Justice

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform you that none of my Bloc Québécois colleagues will be attending the reception hosted by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Cuba-Canada.

This is unusual, given the deep friendship that Quebeckers and Cubans have always had. The reason we are not attending is to support Toufik Benhamiche, a Canadian citizen from Montcalm who has been held against his will in Cuba since July 7, 2017, when he was involved in an accident while on an excursion with his family.

Mr. Benhamiche has done no wrong. Even Cuba's highest court has recognized that he was a victim of a flawed judicial process.

Nothing is more important than justice, and Mr. Benhamiche, an exemplary citizen, is being deprived of it. For that reason, even though we wanted to attend tomorrow's event, we will not be going, and we invite all members of Parliament who care about justice to show solidarity for Mr. Benhamiche and his family members by not attending.

Community Champions

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month I honoured seven Coquitlam-Port Coquitlam community champions.

I started Community Champions to recognize community volunteers who work hard to make Coquitlam-Port Coquitlam the best community in Canada.

Community champions are in every community. They are our unsung heroes, like the parent who wakes up extra early to carpool the neighbourhood kids to school, the passionate coach who helps young athletes find their stride, and the fundraising superstars who collect donations to help the less fortunate.

This year's recipients are Barbara Worwood, Michael Thomas, Maria Shylov, Lawrence Schmidt, Aynsley Meldrum, Patrick McCarthy, and Laud Vidal.

I would like to congratulate the community champions for making Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam the best community in Canada.

Bob Porter

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to pay tribute to Mr. Bob Porter, who passed away last week in Medicine Hat.

Mr. Porter was a rancher, a community leader, a family man, and a member of Parliament from 1984 to 1993. He never sought fame or headlines, but did not shy away from speaking truth to power or standing up for his constituents.

Bob came from a pioneer family that settled in southern Alberta in 1883. He took the reins of the family ranch at 18 and built a strong business as a committed and dedicated steward of the land.

Bob focused on strengthening his community through volunteering with the Kinsmen, his church, the Stampede board, the stock growers, the cattle commission, the press council, the community foundation and many others. Despite how busy he was, he always made time for family.

Bob was a strong voice for farmers, speaking his mind, voting his conscience and pushing for common sense changes. He fought U.S. trade barriers. He stood up for law-abiding gun owners, and he always put the safety of Canadians first. He was a friend who offered encouragement and guidance to me as a new MP.

May we all aspire to make Canada better and leave a legacy like that of Bob Porter.

I join with my wife, my community, my riding and my colleagues in sending thoughts and prayers to Bob's family. This country could certainly use more Bob Porters.

Bagotville Cadets

[Yves Robillard, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on August 10 and 11, 2018, I had the opportunity to visit the Bagotville training camp for air, sea and army cadets.

The cadet program is free and is now one of the largest leadership programs in Canada. With its emphasis on physical fitness and citizenship, the Canadian cadet program helps young Canadians to become active and engaged members of their communities today and prepares them to become the leaders of tomorrow.

I thank these young cadets for welcoming me and for getting involved in our society. They are a great example of courage and determination.

Justice

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last evening I was made aware of the latest reprehensible action by the government against the charter rights of Canadian Abousfian Abdelrazik.

Mr. Abdelrazik was in Sudan in 2003 visiting his ailing mother when he was arrested by that country's notorious security service. A 2009 Federal Court judgment revealed that CSIS was complicit in his arrest and subsequent prolonged and unlawful detention and torture.

Finally released, Canada refused him a passport so that he could return to Canada, yet Mr. Abdelrazik was never charged or convicted of any offence. He required a Federal Court order based on a violation of his constitutionally guaranteed right to mobility to finally reunite with his family.

He filed a lawsuit exercising his right to compensation for violation of his charter rights. Nine years later and on the eve of his court hearing, the government, which claims to defend charter rights, moved to have the trial adjourned indefinitely.

Three successive governments have been complicit in these violations. I call on the government to end its obstructive tactics and provide Mr. Abdelrazik with the redress that is his basic right.

Government Performance

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a warm welcome back to you and all my colleagues in the House.

Over the summer, I knocked on many doors, held many coffee meets and greets, and attended many community events in my riding of Don Valley East. These interactions enabled me to gauge the real progress our government has made for the middle class.

Parents told me about the positive impact of the Canada child benefit they receive. In my riding alone, our investment has lifted more than 17,000 children out of poverty. This year alone, our Canada summer jobs program has enabled 230 students in my riding to gain valuable work experience while making a difference in their local communities. The students I met were thrilled with the opportunity to work and learn.

I am pleased to report that there is real progress in Don Valley East.

Gordon Young

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Gordon Young, who passed away last week at the age of 80.

Gordon's life was a life of service. He was a charter member of the Monkton Optimist Club and spent years as both a board member and a volunteer with the Galbraith Optimist Camp for Kids. He was a 4-H leader and a member of many agricultural organizations, including the Farm Safety Association, the Perth-Huron Jersey Club, the Perth County Soil and Crop Association and the Perth County Milk Producers.

He was a municipal councillor, first in the former township of Logan and later he would serve for more than a decade as councillor in the amalgamated municipality of West Perth. During our shared time together on West Perth council, I came to know Gordon for his thoughtful comments, his subtle sense of humour and his efficiency at chairing meetings. Gordon held the record for the quickest meetings at our council meetings.

To his wife Helen, his daughters Lauri and Lisa and his grandchildren, I offer my deepest condolences on their loss and our collective thanks for a life well lived.