Debates of Sept. 20th, 2018

Women, Peace and Security Ambassador

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, within a motion it is not the prerogative of the House to set a budget for the executive branch of government. This is where the great debates of the day can take place. It is up to the legislature to pass the laws, but when it comes to budgetary questions, procedurally they are not allowed in the body of a motion.

That said, I certainly hope that with the support of all colleagues from all parties in the House, we would see a robust and ambitious response by the government to this motion.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, as one of the only Liberals who had the courage to stand and vote in support of a Conservative motion to declare that genocide was being perpetrated against the Yazidi people, I have decided to give my Liberal colleague from Etobicoke Centre's motion careful attention and scrutiny.

The motion before us today asks Parliament to address the women, peace and security agenda. For those wondering what that is, a while ago the United Nations passed resolutions to address women's challenges in conflict situations and women's potential to influence global peace and security.

However, in the motion in front of us, after we dig through the long text of the motion, I believe my Liberal colleague is trying to do two things. First, as set out in section (g) of the motion, he seeks to “work to develop a framework to implement the women, peace and security agenda domestically”. He seeks to do this in section (h) of the motion, by appointing a women, peace and security ambassador.

In evaluating my colleague's motion today, I undertook the following research. Does the Government of Canada have a plan to address the women, peace and security agenda? If yes, what is that plan? If yes, is there someone already in charge of implementing the plan? It turns out that for years, across different governments, we have tabled something called “Canada's National Action Plan” for the implementation of the UN Security Council resolutions on women, peace and security. Therefore, while we could debate its quality, we already have a plan. The government tabled its version of the document for the period of 2017 through 2022 last year.

The plan outlines a framework to implement the women, peace and security agenda domestically. Specifically, pages 8 through 17 of the plan outline what the government has already done, what my colleague is asking the government to do in section (g) of the motion. As such, section (g) is redundant, as the government's plan will stand without specific instructions from the House, which my colleague has failed to clarify in this section of his motion.

To emphasize this point, I would like to draw my colleague's attention to page 10 of the document, to the section entitled “Objectives for the Action Plan”, which outlines the government's stated objectives to “implement the women, peace and security agenda domestically.” Again, section (g) of the motion is redundant.

I would like to now discuss section (h) of the motion, which asks the government to appoint an ambassador to implement this action plan. If there is already a plan, logic would dictate that there would be someone in charge of implementing said plan. Lo and behold, I found out that there is.

Under the “Action Plan Partners” section, on page 11 of the document that I previously referenced, the government outlines the departments that would act as lead partners on this initiative. The next two pages go on to list the operating objectives of these departments with regard to implementing the women, peace and security agenda. On page 14, it specifically outlines which ministers are accountable for delivering on the implementation plan and how they would do so.

It gets even more specific on page 14. It states that the peace and stabilization operations program, or PSOPs division of Global Affairs Canada, via the Minister of Foreign Affairs, is “responsible for Canada’s implementation of the international WPS agenda and for ensuring that implementation across government is aligned with the government’s foreign policy priorities. Global Affairs Canada, through PSOPs, coordinates the whole-of-government Action Plan efforts.”

Page 15 goes even further. It outlines the structure of the governing advisory board, which states which bureaucrats who are already on staff are responsible for tabling and co-ordinating progress reports in this regard. Going even further, page 15 goes on to state that the director general of the peace and stabilization operation program will also be “Canada's National Focal Point globally for WPS implementation.” The director general of the peace and stabilization operations program, Ms. Larisa Galadza, has 63 staff within her department, and she reports to the associate deputy minister of international security, who in turn reports to the deputy minister of foreign affairs, who in turn reports to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Clearly, there are already a lot of people directly in charge of implementing the women, peace and security agenda.

A quick search of Ms. Galadza's division shows that she also has staff at the deputy director salary level who have women, peace and security in their operational title. She also has over two dozen policy specialists in her department and many senior program operational officers. I am sure they are wonderful and very highly talented staff.

Further, in 2016, the government released an announcement that allocated nearly half a billion dollars to Ms. Galadza's department. One of the objectives of the funding, issued in a news release, was “PSOPs will also coordinate the government's implementation of Canada's Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security and actively promote the role of women and youth in conflict resolution.”

The government is already spending millions of dollars on salaries and nearly half a billion dollars on programming. It has a robust organizational structure and operating plan that reports into our foreign affairs minister, a whole action plan to ostensibly deliver on what my colleague has outlined in section (h) of his motion. There is no mention of who the ambassador in section (h) of this motion would report to, how they would integrate into this already very complex and expensive operating structure, how much their expenses would be, what value they would add to achieving the framework objectives, what their travel costs would be, or how their existence would complicate the efforts of Ms. Galadza's department. I am sure she has great consternation trying to figure out how this person would ruin her life, potentially.

Further, I searched through departmental performance reports, committee testimony and civil society reports issued by the Women, Peace and Security Network, which is a group of non-governmental organizations in Canada that work together to deliver on the women, peace, and security goals. I did not find one recommendation that hiring an ambassador as outlined in section (h) of this motion would materially improve Canada's ability to implement the WPS goals, especially in the context of existing operating structures. From this we must conclude that hiring an ambassador would be a redundancy.

With so many Canadians in need, with their taxes going up and our deficits rising, we cannot afford to expand government without being able to explain to taxpayers why we are doing so. Given my colleague has presented nothing to suggest that hiring an ambassador would advance the WPS agenda more effectively than Ms. Galadza's department is already doing, I find it hard to make a case in this regard.

In fact, I suspect that, if the government is wed to spending even more taxpayer dollars on this issue, it would be more effective to allocate the same amount of money that would go toward hiring an ambassador, their staff and their travel costs to non-governmental organizations, for example, Nadia Murad's organization. Moreover, the tax dollars we would spend on hiring a redundant ambassador could also be used to do things to materially support women in need here in Canada. We cannot continue to support costly symbolic gestures, especially given that there are many Canadians who cannot make ends meet and want accountability from us in this place for how we spend their hard-earned money.

Again, I remember that my colleague stood with me when none of his Liberal colleagues did in declaring the Yazidi genocide here in this place. I would suggest, in the spirit of collegiality and in the spirit of being prudent with taxpayer dollars, that we study whether the existing structure to deliver on the WPS objectives is working before we add another layer of redundant bureaucracy to it, and study the objectives themselves before overlaying more operational costs to the achievement of said goals.

For example, I would like to see the following objectives added to Canada's WPS goals: ensure that Canadian citizens who join ISIS and commit sexual violence are prosecuted to the full extent of the law; support UN goodwill ambassador Nadia Murad's case at the International Criminal Court to prosecute perpetrators of sexual slavery; ensure that victims of sexualized violence are prioritized in Canada's refugee selection; recommend sanctions against countries that will not prosecute their soldiers who commit sexual violence during war; fight sex trafficking actively and report on the prevalence of international sex trafficking rings in Canada; report on Canada's progress in implementing the recommendations of the UN Secretary General relating to women, peace and security; and implement a mechanism for early-warning detection that war-related sexualized violence is likely to occur.

I appreciate my colleague's determination, but this is a motion with no substance and a lot of redundancy.

Therefore, I move, seconded by the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, that the motion be amended as follows: in paragraph (g), deleting the words “and work to develop a framework to implement the Women, Peace and Security agenda domestically”; and in paragraph (h), deleting all the words after “throughout the world by” and replacing them with the following: “recommend that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs study the progress the government has made on achieving the objectives outlined in the document entitled 'Canada's National Action Plan 2017-2022' for the implementation of the UN Security Council resolution on women, peace and security, and the adequacy of the objectives and operating structure found within said document”.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty to inform hon. members that pursuant to Standing Order 93(3), no amendment may be proposed to a private member's motion or to the motion for second reading of a private member's bill unless the sponsor of the item indicates his or her consent.

Therefore, I ask the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre if he consents to this amendment being moved.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 93(3), the amendment cannot be moved at this time.

Resuming date, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, the security of women and the security of the state are deeply intertwined. A 2009 resolution of the Security Council stressed the particular impact that armed conflict has on women, children, refugees and internally displaced persons, as well as other vulnerable civilians, including persons with disabilities and older persons. The United Nations and international aid agencies say women are among the most heavily impacted victims of war. Tens of thousands suffer from sexual violence, rape and lack of access to life-saving health care.

Amnesty International says that women and girls are uniquely and disproportionately affected by armed conflict. Women bear the brunt of war and represent the vast majority of casualties resulting from war. Rape and sexual violence target women and girls and are routinely used not only to terrorize women but also as a strategic tool of war and instrument of genocide. Systemic rape is often used as a weapon of war in ethnic cleansing, and in addition to rape, girls and women are often subject to forced prostitution and trafficking during times of war, sometimes with the complicity of governments and military authorities.

In all countries, everywhere in the world, sexual violation of women erodes the fabric of society in ways that few weapons can. This is the moral challenge to our country and to our government. Some 603 million women live in countries where domestic violence is not yet considered a crime. In many countries, there is repression, the silencing of abuse, and the mistreatment and imprisonment of women and human rights defenders. Are we exporting weapons to these countries?

Former New Democrat leader Stephen Lewis, in a very powerful speech, said, “We’re not supposed to be sending armaments to countries that have a ‘persistent record of serious violations of the human rights of their citizens’. Saudi Arabia is the embodiment of the meaning of the word 'violations'.” He went on to describe the irony of having a prime minister who unselfconsciously calls himself a feminist and yet is selling weapons to a regime “steeped in misogyny”.

There is some good news, though. UN Women noted this year that “When women are included in peace processes there is a 20 per cent increase in the probability of an agreement lasting at least 2 years, and a 35 per cent increase in the probability of an agreement lasting at least 15 years.” That, again, is the link between women being the victims of war and the antidote to war, preventing it and keeping the peace. This is particularly through the women, peace and security agenda of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325.

I laud the role of civil society organizations around the world. They have worked very hard for this. Following this resolution passed in October 2010, the Security Council has adopted seven additional resolutions. Collectively, these resolutions include key issues. The first is participation, including strengthened women's representation, involvement and active participation in peacebuilding, conflict prevention, peace negotiations and post-conflict rebuilding; second is protection, support for preventing and responding to violence against women and sexual and gender-based violence during armed conflict; third is prevention, highlighting the importance of conflict prevention and reaffirming the important role of women in the prevention and resolution of conflict and peacebuilding; and finally is relief and recovery, including support for women's equitable participation and gender mainstreaming in all post-conflict peacebuilding and recovery processes.

The UN motion in 2010 was ultimately acted on by the Conservative government. It delivered the Canadian national action plan on women, peace and security six years late and with little support. Therefore, we are now on another iteration.

Flowing from that, in 2016, my New Democrat colleague, the member of Parliament who represents Laurier—Sainte-Marie, at the foreign affairs committee of the House of Commons, initiated a study on women, peace and security, which concluded that, “greater and more consistent leadership” was needed from Canada, including greater resourcing and comprehensive coordination at the highest levels of government. It gave rise to the motion that we are debating in the House today, which New Democrats spawned and support.

In my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, I laud the work of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. It has been holding the banner for peace and against war year after year. It is a very strong and committed peace movement in my community.

The Canadian Voice of Women for Peace urges the House in particular to:

Increase funds that go directly to women's organizations involved in building peace. We know that these organizations are crucial in both ensuring peace at the grassroots level and in fostering leaders that are capable of participating in peace negotiations. However, they are underfunded and starved for resources. From the evidence available it appears that this has not been a priority of the Canadian government to date.

One recommendation, consistent with United Nation's goals, is that 15% of all funding going to conflict affected countries have gender equality/women's empowerment goals as their principal purpose.

I thank the Canadian Voice of Women for Peace.

Because we want this motion and this movement, which is so built on the backs of so many, to succeed I am going to propose amendments in three areas, and will describe the rationale for them first before I move the motion.

First, while Canada has historically been recognized as a leader on human rights, the status has recently been slipping as the Liberals fail to follow through on their public rhetoric on human rights, women, peace and security.

Second, we want to acknowledge the importance of women's active participation in and contributions to peacekeeping and the peace-building process.

Third, the Liberals have provided no additional funding for its new commitments to women, peace and security and the proposal of an ambassador on women, peace and security. The national action plan on women, peace and security is nothing more than rhetoric without a dedicated line in the budget.

Therefore, I move the following: That the motion be amended by (a) replacing the words “Canada is a world leader” with the words “Canada has traditionally been a world leader”; (b) adding, after the words “countering violent extremism”, the words “and acknowledge that when women participate in the peace processes the chances of having lasting peace significantly increases”; and (c) adding, after the words “Action Plan reporting”,the words “and (i) encourage the government to allocate additional funding to support the new ambassador, their mandate and the full realization of Canada's national action plan on women, peace and security.”

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Accordingly it is my duty to inform hon. members that pursuant to Standing Order 93(3) no amendment may be proposed to a private member's motion or to the motion for second reading of a private member's bill unless the sponsor of the item indicates his or her consent.

I therefore ask the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre if he consents to the proposed amendment.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to the first two points, I believe we would be able to find a common ground. However, the third point talks about budgets, and I believe this would not be allowed in a motion. Therefore, at this point in time, with tremendous sympathy for the amendments proposed, I will unfortunately have to say no.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 93(3), the amendment cannot be moved at this time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Ottawa West—Nepean.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, the member for Etobicoke Centre, for introducing this important motion to establish an ambassador for women, peace and security.

This is a very special topic for me as I have first-hand experience in this area. As a Canadian woman who has served as a civilian peacekeeper in Bosnia and Kosovo and alongside the peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and as a recipient of the Governor General's Peacekeeping Service Medal, I know first-hand the positive outcomes of having more women engaged in global peacekeeping.

I am a woman. I was a peacekeeper. I was not deployed. Like so many other civilian peacekeepers, I volunteered to go. I did it because I could not stand by and watch what was happening to women and children in those countries. In Bosnia and Kosovo, sexual violence against women was used as a weapon of war. I am very proud of all the Canadian women who have served as peacekeepers, military and civilian, in some of the most dangerous and difficult corners of the world.

I am equally proud of another woman, Justice Louise Arbour, who was instrumental in making sure that rape could be considered a war crime.

In the Congo, 48 women are raped every hour. I worked directly with those women. I saw their strength and their resilience, their determination to make a better world for their daughters and sons. It is for that reason that I am so proud to be part of a government that has done so much on a feminist foreign policy and on the national action plan on women, peace and security.

Gone are the days when warlords can get together behind closed doors, divide up the spoils of war and call it a peace agreement. We know that peace agreements are more durable, in fact two-thirds less likely to fail, when women are at the table and involved in the implementation of those agreements.

In today's armed conflicts, civilians are the primary targets. Rape is used as an instrument of war, and violent extremism has added an ideological spin that attracts people from far and wide. Women and girls are often targeted and subjected to violations of human rights and humanitarian law, including sexual and gender-based violence. Children, both boys and girls, are forced to join armed groups, and the number of refugees and people displaced by armed conflicts continues to rise every day.

While everyone is affected, women and men, girls and boys generally experience conflict differently. They bring different perspectives to conflict resolution and peace building. Women broaden the agenda beyond that of the warring parties. The link between their meaningful participation and durable peace agreements has been established, yet women are often excluded from those peace processes.

In recognition of the different impact of conflict on women and girls and the unique abilities they bring to prevent and recover from conflict, the United Nations Security Council has, since 2000, passed eight resolutions, starting with Security Council resolution 1325 forming the basis of the women, peace and security agenda.

Members will recall that I spoke about Security Council resolution 1325 in my maiden speech; it was that important to me. I am very proud of how far our government has come to making it a reality.

Today's motion will go even further. When I worked in Norway, the project was implemented under its gender ambassador. I saw that giving women a strong voice at the highest possible level, an ambassador, had tangible results. Taking a feminist approach to peace and security is a smart, practical solution to address hard security needs.

We must deal with the serious problems of sexual violence and conflict as well as sexual exploitation and abuse by peacekeepers and other international personnel. We must ensure that the particular needs of women and girls are met during conflict and humanitarian crises, including access to sexual and reproductive health services. Addressing these problems has direct benefits for women, including those who are courageous defenders of peace or survivors of sexual violence. It also clearly contributes to the stability and security of all.

The full breadth of the Canadian government is united in the belief that gender equality serves as a foundation for more peaceful and secure nations and communities. Canada's second national action plan for the implementation of UN Security Council resolutions on women, peace and security was launched last year.

The plan includes an increased number of federal partners, which has enabled our government to broaden its reach under the action plan to areas such as the protection of refugee women and countering violent extremism in Canada.

New commitments have increased available funding. We have launched multiple new initiatives, increasingly worked with civil society, and called upon Canadian officials at home and abroad to mobilize support for women as active agents of peace.

Canada's ambitions for change are bold, but are coupled with the understanding that lasting peace and change take time. For example, at the November 2017 Vancouver UN Peacekeeping Defence Ministerial, Canada launched the Elsie initiative for women in peace operations. It is a bold and innovative pilot project to increase the meaningful participation of women peacekeepers globally, make their work environment safer and more inclusive, and ultimately enhance the effectiveness of UN peace operations.

We believe that gender equality in UN peace operations is an important goal in itself, and that the inclusion of more military, civilian and police women peacekeepers can also have important benefits for operational effectiveness.

Throughout Canada's G7 presidency in 2018, the government has worked to promote gender equality through many different channels. It mobilized G7 members to support a G7 summit announcement in which they committed to investing nearly $3.8 billion to increase educational opportunities for women and girls in crisis and conflict situations. The G7 Women, Peace and Security Partnerships Initiative jointly launched by G7 members and eight partner countries is advancing gender equality and the rights of women in fragile and conflict-affected states. Canada also partnered with the United Kingdom and Bangladesh to launch the Women, Peace and Security Chiefs of Defence Network in order to bring about transformative cultural and institutional change in national armed forces.

Through the women's voice and leadership initiative, Canada is supporting local grassroots women's rights organizations. The new gender equality partnership with philanthropists and the private sector will bring new investments in support of women's rights.

Our government is committed to meeting its targets and investing where necessary to deliver on the objectives outlined in its renewed action plan.

Canada has a long history of advocating for and supporting gender equality, of promoting the empowerment of women and girls, of calling for the protection of their human rights, and of fighting sexual and gender-based violence, including in conflict settings.

Canada was instrumental in the adoption of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action in 1995, and in bringing the issue of sexual violence against women to the UN's attention.

In 2000, Canada formed the group of friends of women, peace and security in New York, an informal group of over 50 UN member states. This group, currently chaired by Canada, shares information and best practices, and conducts periodic joint advocacy in the UN context. Canada founded a similar group in Geneva earlier this year.

Canada will continue to play a leading advocacy role at the UN on advancing the women, peace and security agenda, and engage with key UN agencies and a wide range of member states.

Commitments were made, funds were disbursed and new programs are being implemented. However, obtaining sustainable results that fulfill the government's ambitions will require regular and honest reviews of the areas needing improvement. The Government of Canada remains fully committed to working with all stakeholders of the group of friends of women, peace and security to ensure that we make ongoing, well-considered and steady progress toward achieving our common goals. The women, girls and all those living without peace and security deserve no less.

The Government of Canada remains engaged on this important issue. We are proud of our accomplishments, but are aware that there is more that can be done to advance this issue, both globally and nationally.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to resuming debate and the hon. member for Calgary Midnapore, I will let her know that there are only about seven minutes remaining in the time for private members' business this afternoon, but of course she will have her remaining time when the House resumes business at a later occasion.

Resuming debate.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today I have the opportunity to rise to speak to the private member's motion put forward by my colleague from Etobicoke Centre on the establishment of a women, peace and security ambassador.

I am a former diplomat who spent the vast majority of my professional career representing Canada abroad consecutively and across governments of all stripes.

Canada has always stood for advancing the rights of women and girls and has certainly taken a number of actions to show the support of our great nation for them.

I will give some context as to the importance of this issue to me personally.

I was very fortunate from 2006 to 2008 to serve as the chargé d'affaires in El Salvador. El Salvador is a nation that has known war and strife. I was fortunate to be there for the 15-year celebration of peace. No one is more affected in a time of war, in a time when peace and security are lacking, than women and children. I am sure that the strife was absolutely devastating to witness at that time.

When I arrived in El Salvador as a representative of Canada 15 years after that time, El Salvador was still in the process of rebuilding. I was a part of that healing process, being there when we were working hard towards the millennium goals of the United Nations, something incredibly dear to my heart.

One of the issues that was important to us then was our work in regard to gangs and gang warfare, which was a terrible by-product of the civil war and that period of violence and strife in El Salvador.

Again, it was women and children were the most affected, and also the individuals we attempted to incorporate as part of our role as a nation in the rehabilitation of El Salvador through programs for women and children so that they would feel good about their place in society in this new era of peace and hopeful prosperity after the civil war. Children were affected, but it was certainly the women who played a pivotal role in my time there after the civil war.

In my capacity as a diplomat, I also had the opportunity to visit many prisons in El Salvador, as well as during my time in Argentina when we oversaw Paraguay. I recall going into these prisons and the individuals there who were attempting to reach out to me. As a woman, I felt a total lack of security in that environment.

I have had a career in this. This is an issue that is definitely very close to my heart.

ln the past, Canada has played a key role in establishing the foundations for a global initiative to improve the health of women and children in the world's most vulnerable regions. A particular example of this was the maternal, newborn and child health initiative, MNCH, which was Canada's contribution to the G8 Muskoka initiative and the UN global strategy for women's and children's health.

This made-in-Canada initiative was implemented by the former Conservative government, and included $2.85 billion to achieve the overall goal of increased survival of mothers, newborns and children. The initiative focused on strengthening health systems, reducing the burden of disease, and improving nutrition. This initiative was not designed as a program.

I was very fortunate to have the opportunity to travel to Africa this summer, Kenya in fact, and see the incredible results of this program, which is being implemented in Africa as we speak. The Harper government did good work with the implementation of vitamin A drops.

Certainly the health and well being of women are so deeply tied to the well-being of a nation.

Rather than being a program, it was designed as a thematic initiative with a strategic framework that was implemented through many program strategies. Real action and real results were apparent.

What my colleague across the aisle has brought forward to the House, although very honourable in spirit, is a non-binding motion, with no mandate, no costing and no deliverables. When the government of the day champions equal opportunity, women both home and abroad expect action with real results that show all of humanity moving forward together.

The presentation of this motion is rather symbolic. It is symbolic, unfortunately, of what we have come to see of the Liberal government. lt includes a lot of talk and a lot of discussion on women, women's rights protection, yet it fails to take any concrete action as it is written. For these reasons, my hon. colleague from Calgary Nose Hill proposed amendments that would take this symbolic virtue signalling to something with binding actions.

As previously mentioned, the United Nations passed resolutions to address women's challenges in conflict situations and women's potential to influence peace and security. Within my former department, many of my colleagues are working within peace and stabilization operations with a special emphasis on safety and security of women and girls in conflict zones. I, myself, was a security officer twice in my career, first at the embassy in San Salvador, El Salvador and, second, as deputy consul general at our consulate in Dallas, Texas.

This branch, a division of Global Affairs Canada, is headed by a senior government official with over 60 brilliant non-partisan public servants devoted to advancing women and security in conflict. I ask how the Liberals believe a symbolic, non-binding action will advance this cause. From this we might potentially conclude that hiring an ambassador would be redundant.

I should add that having served as the deputy head of a mission, chargé d'affaires, not once but twice, I feel I have a lot to contribute in regard to this topic. I look forward to continuing this discussion.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In fact, the hon. member for Calgary Midnapore will have approximately three minutes for her remarks when the House next gets back to debate on the question.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

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

Carbon Pricing

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in June, I had the honour of asking the last question before Parliament adjourned for the summer. I asked how the government would ensure that provinces retained the revenues from carbon pricing given that if carbon pricing were included in the renewal of equalization, it would count against each province's equalization entitlement and thereby be clawed back.

The Prime Minister did not really answer this question on that day, but the next day the government clarified that it intended to renew the existing equalization program, which of course does not include carbon pricing. So it will not be clawed back, at least for the next several years. However, I must report that many of my constituents are not thrilled with the renewal of the existing equalization program. In both Saskatchewan and Alberta, there is a widespread view that the program is taking money from taxpayers in our province while we struggle to recover from the downturn in commodity prices and transfers it to provinces currently enjoying better economic times.

There have been some proposals to modify the equalization formula. One of them is to change the way in which hydroelectricity is traded. That might be a good proposal. It would certainly change the distribution of equalization transfers between recipient provinces that have hydroelectricity and those that do not. However, it actually would not make any difference to Saskatchewan and Alberta because neither province qualifies for equalization at all given that our provinces still enjoy relatively strong per capita incomes despite the downturn in commodity prices.

Another proposal we have heard on equalization is from Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe. It is essentially a proposal to cut equalization in half and then use the other half of the money to increase equal per capita transfers to all provinces. I certainly support increasing equal per capita transfers to all provinces. I have advocated for improvements to the Canada health and social transfers ever since I was elected, but I do not believe Premier Moe's plan can really be presented as a reform to equalization itself. As well, I do not actually believe the underlying issue is that Alberta or Saskatchewan need equalization or should qualify for the program. The real issue is that our provinces would benefit from fiscal stabilization in the face of extremely volatile commodity prices.

The Government of Canada has had a fiscal stabilization program since 1967. However, it has never paid anything to Saskatchewan. In 2016, Alberta was able to qualify for $250 million under this program, but that was really a drop in the bucket compared with billions of dollars in lost resource royalties.

What I would like to submit to the House is that rather than arguing so much about equalization, what we might look at doing is improving and enriching the existing fiscal stabilization program so that it would provide much more robust support to those provinces vulnerable to volatile commodity prices. I hope this is something the government will look at as it formulates the 2019 federal budget.

[Sean Fraser, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague and friend from Canada's second-newest political party, the CCF for the question.

From day one, our party has been focused on helping the middle class. We have programs like the Canada child benefit, that is putting more money in the pockets of nine out of 10 Canadian families, and we have a tax cut for the middle class that raised taxes on the wealthiest 1%. Now, by putting a price on pollution, we are making life even more affordable for Canadians and more expensive for polluters.

I can confirm with my hon. colleague that the plan will involve keeping the revenues generated from putting a price on pollution in the province where those revenues are generated.

This is evidence that steps taken to protect the environment can in fact spur economic growth. It is possible to grow the economy and protect the environment at the same time.

With respect to the dividends of a price on pollution, our government's focus will remain on helping middle-class families in Canada. We know that any real plan to tackle climate change is going to involve a price on pollution. Pollution should not be free. Our plan is the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions while driving clean innovation and creating new jobs in the green economy.

According to the World Bank earlier this year, approximately 70 different jurisdictions were putting a price on pollution. We have evidence right here in Canada that putting a price on pollution works to cut emissions while maintaining economic growth. Nearly half of Canadians already live in a jurisdiction that puts a price on pollution.

B.C. has had a price on pollution for over a decade, and evidence shows it has helped cut fuel consumption and GHGs while the economy continued to experience growth. Alberta, where I used to live, has had a price on pollution for many years, and has among the highest employment rates in our entire country.

We know that Canadians are smart and innovative. Many Canadian companies are developing and implementing new technologies and solutions to cut pollution. In fact, Canadians have created over 500,000 jobs since we took office. Carbon pricing spurs innovation because the price signal it sends encourages businesses and households to be more efficient and pollute less. This government's preference has been to work with individual provinces and territories, if they are willing to take the responsible step and put forward a plan that will have a meaningful impact on emissions in their province.

Let me be clear: Canadians gave us a mandate in the 2015 election to protect the environment and grow the economy at the same time. Our plan at that time involved putting a price on pollution. The government has been consistent, saying that the revenue generated from putting a price on pollution is going to stay in those provinces.

Our approach allows for the flexibility for provinces and territories to choose the pricing system that works best for them. However, to deliver on the climate commitments we made with the provinces and territories in the pan-Canadian framework, we are going to ensure that there will be a price on carbon pollution throughout Canada.

That is why the Government of Canada is going to implement a federal pollution pricing system in provinces and territories that request it and in those that do not have a system that aligns with the federal standard.

Clean growth represents a massive economic opportunity around the world, one that the World Bank estimates will be worth $23 trillion globally between now and 2030. We want to be on the front edge of that wave.

We are taking action to ensure that the Canadian economy takes maximum advantage of this opportunity. Putting a price on pollution is a key part of this, by creating an incentive to reduce emissions and invest in innovation. Given the report that we saw in the National Post last night, we know it is going to be a net benefit for middle-class families in provinces and territories throughout Canada.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member across the way may not have come here prepared to discuss the fiscal stabilization program. It is somewhat of an arcane topic.

I will suggest two of the key problems with it. Currently, it is limited to only $60 per capita for a province that qualifies. That is a very low amount. It contrasts with the current equalization program, which amounts to about $500 per capita. I think there is room to lift that cap on the fiscal stabilization program.

A second challenge with the current formula is that to qualify for fiscal stabilization, a province needs to experience more than a 5% drop in its non-resource revenues. That happened to Alberta in 2016, but it is a fairly extreme occurrence. What I would suggest is that we might be able to have a compromise whereby we include half of natural resource revenues in the formula for the fiscal stabilization program, much as we already do for equalization.

[Sean Fraser]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to carry on the conversation, which I think will take more than the 60 seconds I have, offline with the member opposite, to discuss the ideas he may have to ensure that the revenues from putting a price on pollution are delivered in the most effective way.

In the meantime, we are going to continue to work with provinces and territories to implement our collective commitments to fight climate change and to promote clean growth as set out in the pan-Canadian framework. Our federal pollution pricing system will apply in provinces and territories that request it, and in those that do not have a system that is aligned with the federal benchmarks.

As I mentioned during my remarks, we will make every effort to ensure that the revenues generated from putting a price on pollution benefit the residents of the provinces in which the pollution is generated.

Veterans Affairs

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in the fall of 2016, as a brand new member of Parliament, the very first event I attended in Ottawa was the Party Under the Stars event at Ottawa City Hall, where veterans and their service dogs were championed.

Moving ahead to April 19, 2018, I asked this question in the House:

Mr. Speaker, leading scientific research shows that quality service dogs significantly benefit the lives of our veterans who are struggling with PTSD. However, yesterday the government announced that it would not be providing a nationwide standard for the training of these dogs.

We already know the Prime Minister has money for everyone but our veterans. Is he now saying that a national standard for the training of their service dogs is, well, also something more than he can give?

The recent Laval University study that the government has been waiting on reports that there are significant decreases in PTSD symptoms with our veterans when they have these service dogs. It improves their sleep quality, depression symptoms, feelings of safety, and self-esteem, and they have more energy and a better quality of life, which is huge.

Yesterday, in his answer to this very question put by the member for Courtenay—Alberni, the Prime Minister said that the Liberal government does not agree with or is not willing to recognize the obvious health benefits of service dogs. However, when I originally asked the Minister of Veterans Affairs about the national standards for service dogs, in his answer he did not dispute their effectiveness as the Prime Minister did yesterday. He said, “We will establish a standard for them.”

Global News has reported sources that say the government is stalling, delaying its efforts to implement the Laval University report findings until it has received additional information. The sources say the government now wants to wait for another American study showing that service dogs improve the quality of life for veterans suffering from PTSD before it makes a decision. This is despite the fact that Veterans Affairs discounted a previous American study in favour of waiting for the Laval University study.

Americans do a study, and we do not like the results, so we say we will wait for a Canadian study. The Canadian study comes out with similar conclusions to the first American study and, apparently unhappy with those results, we are now waiting on another American study.

According to a recent Global News report, there is now a two-year backlog in service dog requests. The minister said, “We will establish a standard for them.” Where is he in this process? Does he stand by what he said? Has he included the cutting-edge research from the University of Saskatchewan and the University of Regina, as he indicated he would when I brought it up in committee? Who has been invited to be involved in this process, and who is developing the standards for service dogs for our veterans across Canada?

[Stéphane Lauzon, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for raising the issue of the health and well-being of our men and women in uniform.

I could not agree more with her sentiment. This government is committed to ensuring eligible veterans and retired Royal Canadian Mounted Police members and their families have access to what they need when they need it. That includes a suite of services and supports for mental health needs, which are a priority for our government.

We know that most veterans have a smooth transition, but that some have problems. In the context of the Life After Service Studies, approximately one-third of regular force veterans reported that they were having difficulty transitioning to civilian life. Approximately 20% reported that their mental health was fragile. Of these, 16% told us that they had post-traumatic stress disorder. We know that for some people affected by post-traumatic stress a dog is much more than just a best friend. It is truly a support.

The veterans have told us that service dogs can be beneficial for some suffering with conditions like PTSD, playing an important role in helping them cope. This is why we expanded the medical expense tax credit to recognize costs for these service animals. That was an important first step.

We invested in a pilot study, which my colleague mentioned, to look at using service dogs as a safe and effective means of support for veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD.

This study is complete, and the department is currently reviewing the findings. The final report will be considered in any decisions on the policy regarding service dogs. We must be patient.

We remain committed to ensuring that Canadian veterans receive the best support possible. In the meantime, we have many other services and supports in place for those who need help now.

Veterans Affairs Canada will have a network of more than 4,000 mental health professionals and more than 11 clinics specializing in operational stress, across the country, to help those struggling with PTSD or with any operational stress-related trauma.

We are developing a centre of excellence on mental health, which will help us learn more about PTSD and other related mental health conditions.

The new centre of excellence will provide information, best practices and research results to front-line health professionals who will help ensure our women and men in uniform receive the most comprehensive and consistent care possible.

The government is committed to improving the well-being of veterans and their families. It will continue to ensure that they have access to the resources and support they need for their mental health and well-being.

Make no mistake, this government is clear in its mission to improve the overall well-being of veterans and their families. We are committed to ensuring they have access to the supports and resources they need for their mental health and wellness.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, a veteran's dog could be a real gift to him or her and actually to VAC as well, a medical assistance of sorts, a proactive preventative treatment that means fewer pharmaceuticals, less cost to the government, and a healthier veteran if we were to provide this service immediately as a priority rather than delaying its coming into place.

The Laval study clearly indicates national standards need to be established. A dog has a medical purpose and there need to be well-defined standards for what constitutes a legitimate service dog.

There are two university studies going on in my province right now that could be used immediately to help come up with the answers we need. Anyone wanting to either donate or sell service dogs to our veterans needs to conform to a standard so veterans can be sure they are getting dogs from ethical providers. Unfortunately, as in all sectors of the economy, there are those in this field who would appear to want to attempt to make a lot of money if not restricted. We need to ensure that vulnerable veterans in need of this service are protected and that VAC has developed a network of certified providers, that they are available, and they are ready.

I want to know if the minister is aware of the conflict-of-interest issues that have plagued the development of a national standard for veterans service dogs and the role that has played in these veterans not receiving the care they should have right now.

[Stéphane Lauzon]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her dedication to this file, which is an issue we both hold dear.

If veterans need any kind of help when they return, we will be there. That is the message we want to get across today. We want to make sure that all veterans, all members of the Canadian Armed Forces and those of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have access to the services and support they need. We will be there.

We are now conducting the necessary studies.

We have come a long way in supporting them, and there is still work to be done. This government will never cease in its efforts to improve the lives of our veterans and their families.

The studies we are working on now include research on service dogs, and I would be happy to work on this further with my colleague.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have been asking questions about asylum seekers and Roxham Road in Quebec for months now. Quebec has asked us to be proactive. Many asylum seekers have been coming to Canada since the Prime Minister's tweet, and we need to know how to differentiate between illegal migrants, refugees and legal immigrants. Everyone seems confused about this. We are talking here about illegal migrants, those who enter Canada illegally at a breach in the border.

On television—more so on French television than on English TV—we have heard that people are flying from Haiti to the United States and then crossing into Canada at Roxham Road. That is a problem. We know that the members opposite will tell us that fewer people are doing that now. That may be true, but there are still people crossing the border illegally and that is causing problems in ridings like mine. Allow me to explain.

At the beginning of the summer, a family in my riding was reunited. An immigrant who settled in my riding 15 years ago separated from his wife and she moved to England. They are both African. This summer, he called me in a panic. He and his wife share custody of their daughter who comes to Canada every year at the end of May to spend the summer with her father. However, this year, she was denied a visa because she had had not been back to Canada for a year. That was only natural because her mother had legal custody and all the papers.

In short, at Roxham Road, I asked the following question a number of times. Given the unprecedented crisis created by this infamous tweet, does the Prime Minister think it is acceptable for people to break the law by crossing the border illegally?

[Peter Schiefke, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth) and to the Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question and for being here this evening.

As the government has stated clearly in this House many times before, we have a very robust plan in place to address this situation and guide our future actions.

Before I describe the plan in detail again, I would like to emphasize that our asylum system exists to save lives, protect people who have been displaced or persecuted, and fulfill Canada's international obligations with respect to refugees. Basically, our measures stem from a six-point plan that IRCC developed to deal with irregular migration.

First, we are operationally ready for any possible scenario, which is something I really want to emphasize in my remarks tonight. We have a robust awareness of the situation at the border across the country and are able to respond to influxes when they occur. While we have seen a notable decrease in the number of arrivals compared with the same period last year, as my hon. colleague pointed out, our ongoing contingency planning at all levels of government ensures our ongoing preparedness.

Second, we are keeping our border secure. Appropriate resources have been deployed to ensure that no individual leaves an entry point before undergoing an initial screening. People who cross our border irregularly are arrested and, like all asylum claimants, subjected to a thorough security screening.

We are also continuing to fulfill our humanitarian, legal and international obligations. People who are genuinely fleeing persecution have the right to claim asylum, and they have the right to due process. We treat asylum seekers respectfully and humanely. Those who are found to be refugees may settle in Canada, but those who do not need Canada's protection are deported.

We have proactive international engagement to deter irregular migration. We are working with key source and transit countries to deter irregular migration, as well as the U.S., which is responding directly to the concerns raised by my hon. colleague about those who are trying to circumvent our immigration system.

We also have strong engagement with provincial and municipal partners on delivery of services to asylum claimants and irregular migrants, including for temporary housing. We have made an initial $50 million available to address the housing pressures faced by provinces and municipalities and are prepared to continue collaborating with willing partners and prepared to contribute federal resources to develop shared solutions.

Finally, we have a robust outreach strategy to correct misinformation about Canada's asylum system. This includes ministers and MPs reaching out to communities in Canada and the United States so that people understand that Canada has a rules-based system. It also includes social media monitoring to correct misinformation and to deter irregular migrants before they arrive in Canada.

Our efforts are paying off, and the situation is much improved.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

We are in the inner sanctum here tonight. We are basically the only ones here, as my colleague said.

I understand the difference between someone who enters the country legally and someone who is seeking refuge in Canada. However, I am talking about illegal immigrants. We need to distinguish between the two, and that is where the problem lies. People do not understand that.

On August 25, 2018, in a letter to the Canadian Bar Association that was published in a newspaper, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship admitted that the number of refugee claimants far exceeded what the current system can handle.

The National Post noted that the letter's tone was unusually strong for the minister in question, who often describes Canada's immigration and border control system as strict and efficient. The article talks about two different realities.

I personally have been asking for quite some time—