Debates of Sept. 24th, 2018

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Bill Blair, Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, under Canadian law, all people coming into this country seeking asylum are entitled to due process. When all of those processes have been exhausted and they are deemed ineligible, they are subject to removal by the CBSA. The people that the member opposite is referring to are still engaged in that process, and when those processes are complete, the law will take effect.

Indigenous Affairs

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, discussion is a two-way street. Testimony given by members of indigenous communities about the Trans Mountain expansion project show that the discussion was not a true dialogue, but rather a monologue in front of a row of officials. Discussing means sharing. It does not just mean sitting down and taking notes while yearning for the meeting to be over.

Does the government realize that it has a constitutional duty to meaningfully consult indigenous peoples?

[Amarjeet Sohi, Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, there is no relationship more important to our government than the relationship with indigenous peoples. I started reaching out to indigenous leaders before the decision by the federal court, and I have continued to do so. We believe that we will engage with them in a meaningful two-way dialogue and listen to their concerns very, very carefully in order to move forward on this project in the right way.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a big difference between what the government is saying and what it is doing.

Over the weekend, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard acknowledged that the government had failed to adequately consult indigenous communities that would be affected by the pipeline. I congratulate him on finally reaching the same conclusion as the Federal Court of Appeal.

The problem is that without the court's intervention, the government would not have respected either the voice or the will of indigenous communities. The government says it is going to hold consultations, but in reality, it has already made the decision to force through the Trans Mountain expansion.

Is the government going to keep ploughing ahead with total disregard for its responsibilities to indigenous communities?

[Amarjeet Sohi, Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect us to work hard to make sure that we are expanding our resource market beyond the U.S. market. They also expect us to follow the highest standard possible engaging in indigenous consultations, as well as respecting and protecting the environment. That is exactly what we have been doing, and that is the course we will follow in making sure that we are moving forward on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion in the right way.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to Trans Mountain, the Minister of Natural Resources said that the Liberals should have engaged in “meaningful dialogue” with indigenous peoples. He is right. He should have, and they did not.

The indigenous communities confirmed that there was not a meaningful two-way discussion, and the courts agree. Now, this weekend, we hear that there is no guarantee that all concerns raised by indigenous people will be addressed. How is that meaningful consultation?

Why are the Liberals satisfied with the bare minimum when it comes to their most important relationship?

[Amarjeet Sohi, Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the hon. member to look at the court ruling. The court has acknowledge that we put a framework in place that was sound and that we engaged in good faith with the indigenous peoples, and we will continue to do so. We have instructed the NEB to take steps to initiate the inclusion of marine shipping and the impact of that on the environment in the review it will undertake over the next 22 weeks, and we will be announcing our next steps shortly.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I encourage the member to read the decision, where it is very clear that it was only note-takers, not decision-makers. When it comes to actually having consultation, it is imperative that we finally see a two-way discussion, which in meaningful consultation happens. In fact, when you say that the pipeline will be built on the one hand and on the other hand you say that you are going to have meaningful consultation, it is not only misleading, but absolutely insulting. The courtrooms confirmed that the Liberals' consultation process was completely faulty. Indigenous people need to meet with decision-makers, not note-takers. It is common sense.

How can the Liberals think that redoing the same process will have a different result?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The use of “you” in that question perhaps could be interpreted to mean “one”, or it could mean “you” as if the people across the way. I would ask members to be cautious and to direct their comments to the Chair.

The hon. Minister of Natural Resources.

[Amarjeet Sohi, Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, as I stated earlier, there is no relationship more important to this government than the relationship with indigenous peoples, and that is exactly what we have been developing. We put a very strong framework in place, which the court acknowledged was a sound framework. Yes, we fell short on the implementation of that framework and we have committed to do better, and we will do better. We will engage with indigenous peoples in a meaningful two-way dialogue and listen to their concerns and offer accommodation where accommodation is possible. That is the only way to move forward.

Veterans Affairs

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when asked why veterans cannot access benefits meant for them, the minister told veterans, “When you prepay at the pump, you put in 80 bucks, you don’t fill it up, you get that credit back.”

There is one guy out there who has no trouble accessing funds meant for veterans, Christopher Garnier, a murderer who never served a day in his life and went straight to the front of the line.

When will the minister revoke veterans benefits for this killer?

[Seamus O'Regan, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I share the outrage of the hon. member and many members of the House.

I cannot comment on the specifics of this case because it also involves a veteran. This case involves a veteran whose privacy I must protect.

I have asked officials to go back to find out what happened and to come back to me.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I would ask hon. members to listen to the answers, whether they like them or not, and wait for their turn to speak, which will come eventually, I am sure.

The hon. member for Brantford—Brant.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, he killed officer Catherine Campbell. He put her in a compost bin, and he dumped her under a bridge.

He has never worn the uniform, yet she wore two uniforms, one as a police officer and one as a volunteer firefighter.

By his lawyer's own admission, Christopher Garnier developed his PTSD from strangling her to death.

When will the minister take charge of his department and revoke veterans benefits for this killer?

[Seamus O'Regan, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I will return when my officials have come back and told me exactly how this happened.

[Richard Martel, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, CPC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that I am thinking of everyone in the Gatineau and Ottawa region affected by Friday's events.

Last week, the Minister of Veterans Affairs said that he had asked for the Christopher Garnier case to be reviewed. Can the minister tell us today that he will stop Mr. Garnier from receiving assistance from a fund reserved for our brave veterans?

I remind members that Mr. Garnier is not a veteran; he is a criminal.

[Seamus O'Regan, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, we are all keeping officer Campbell's family in our hearts. For privacy reasons, we cannot comment on this case. However, the minister has asked the department to investigate and find out how the decision was made.

[Richard Martel, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, CPC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Veterans Affairs claims to be outraged by this situation. Canadians are outraged by this situation. The victim's family is living in anguish and does not understand. Nevertheless, the minister has not done a thing.

The Prime Minister is the one who calls the shots. He can put an end to all of this. When will he?

[Seamus O'Regan, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, for privacy reasons, we cannot comment on this case. However, the minister has asked the department to investigate and find out how the decision was made.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in 2010 it was discovered that serial killer Clifford Olson was receiving OAS payments. The Conservatives saw how outrageous that was and immediately took steps to stop it.

That same year, Karla Homolka almost got a pardon. Again, the Conservatives saw how outrageous that was and stopped it.

Fast forward to today, we have learned that convicted murder Chris Garnier, who is not a veteran, is getting veterans benefits. What do the Liberals do? They sit on their hands and do absolutely nothing. When will the minister do the right thing and stop these payments?

[Seamus O'Regan, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on the details of this case because, of course, a veteran is involved. I should not have to remind the members opposite that their sharing of personal medical information of veterans for political gain is doubly the reason that we must protect veterans' personal information.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has the ability and the authority to stop payments from going to a convicted murderer who is not a veteran. We are not asking for information; we are asking for action. Why is it that the Liberals are always able to defend the so-called rights of the Chris Garniers, the Omar Khadrs, and the returning ISIS terrorists of this world, but have excuse after excuse for doing nothing for veterans, and doing nothing to defend their ability to get support? When will the Liberals take action—not information, but action?

[Seamus O'Regan, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, as I have stated in the House before, at the centre of this case is a veteran. I will not back down from protecting the rights of a veteran and a veteran's family and their right to privacy in this case. I have asked my officials to go back to find out how the decision was made and to get back to me.

The Environment

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Sarah Alderman, a researcher at the University of Guelph, found that even short exposure to diluted bitumen can be deadly to young salmon, a critical species to B.C.'s economy, tourism and fishing industry. Canadians know that when it comes to oil spills, the question is not if, but when. They also know the decision to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline could be devastating, since the Liberals have no plan in place to clean up a toxic diluted bitumen oil spill on our coast. When will the government protect our wild salmon and abandon its disastrous plan to expand the Trans Mountain pipeline?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, this government has recognized the importance of ensuring environmental sustainability in the context of all of the decisions we have made.

In the context of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, we have made significant investments in spill prevention through the oceans protection plan. This bill responds. We have done an enormous amount in addressing all of the various concerns associated with the pipeline from an environmental perspective. At the end of the day, we understand that the environment and the economy must go together, and they are doing so in this case.