Debates of Feb. 25th, 2019

Opposition Motion—Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his contribution to this debate.

Indeed, it was an omnibus budget implementation bill. This provision had absolutely nothing to do with the budget. The member is quite right. If the Liberal government was so proud of standing up for jobs, as it claims today, it would have been proud to say so, but that was not at all the case.

I will not quote subsection 175.32(3) of the bill again, since I have already done so three times this week, but I will quote the fourth paragraph of page 30 of the Liberal election platform, which deals with prorogation and omnibus bills:

We will not resort to legislative tricks to avoid scrutiny.

The Liberals also said they would not use omnibus bills, yet that is exactly what they did. Not only have they broken their election promises, but they also mocked Canadians' intelligence, tyring to make them believe that they could do anything. That is not the case. If they want Canadians to get the truth, they will vote in favour of our motion and allow the Prime Minister to appear before the parliamentary committee.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before resuming debate, I must remind the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley that I will be forced to interrupt him in about three minutes.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to comment on this very important debate. We should all take some lesson in this. There is no satisfaction in a day on which the allegations against a sitting Prime Minister becomes so intense and important that the House of Commons seeks to call that Prime Minister under oath before a committee.

We are talking about incredibly serious allegations, about a Prime Minister's story that has changed almost on a daily basis, the story of very well-connected executives being able to lobby a government 50 times in less than a couple of years in order to get the federal laws changed to allow them a plea deal in a criminal investigation, in a criminal case, in which they have been found guilty of bribery and fraud and the constant pressuring of the former attorney general, which may have gotten her fired for resisting.

For my Liberal colleagues to say that there is nothing to see here because the company did not yet get its plea deal, that it has not yet been successful, the attempt of that obstruction of justice is also a crime punishable by up to 10 years in jail.

I will quote somebody I think the Liberals might be interested in hearing from:

It's really frustrating to see the level of mistrust and disgust that Canadians are having towards Parliament, towards the prime minister right now. It's time the prime minister showed some leadership and actually came clean on everything he knew, and the only way we're going to be able to do that, unfortunately, is if everybody testifies under oath.

Who said that? The current Prime Minister. He believed that Prime Minister Harper needed to testify under oath because of a changing story, because the allegations in the Duffy-Wright affair were so significant that Canadians needed to understand that. The Liberals now say that they are different, that when corruption happens with the Liberals, they should not be held to the same standard as everybody else. That is exactly how the sponsorship scandal was born, bred and executed.

We are talking about power. The Liberals can continue to heckle, but voices will be heard. We are talking about a very powerful man, perhaps the most powerful man in Canada, the Prime Minister. He is using his solicitor-client privilege not to allow the former attorney general to speak her full truth, which she asked for just last week in the House of Commons. She wrote to the justice committee today. She says that until the Prime Minister is able to waive that privilege, she is unable to fully testify and explain what happened. The one who has the power to allow this indigenous woman, this indigenous leader to speak fully is the Prime Minister of Canada, the only person who has that power.

For someone who professed to Canadians that he would be different, that he believed in transparency, that he believed in the rule of law, the only person who could allow the full story to come to light is the Prime Minister. The irony must be rich for those Liberals, who have talked about transparency, reconciliation and being better than they have been in the past, to watch this whole scandal slowly and terribly unfold in front of their very eyes. We have a woman sitting in the House seeking to speak and a Prime Minister refusing to allow her to do so. If he has a good story to tell, then he can come in front of committee under oath and tell it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 6:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #995

Business of Supply

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion defeated.

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

Canadian Heritage

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to follow up on a question I posed for the Minister of Canadian Heritage about journalists and media workers who were here in Ottawa at the time with a clear message to the Liberals: Journalism is in a crisis.

Government inaction is why newspapers and media outlets are closing and why journalists are losing their jobs. We all know there is so much that can be done to save local news and the government has the regulatory tools necessary to support journalists and media workers. It just needs to use them. One of those tools is the ability to have web giants such as Netflix, Facebook and Google pay their fair share in Canada. They are exempt from Canadian content contributions and this is causing a long, slow drain on the resources that are necessary to keep our local news strong and supported.

In fact, 80% of the advertising has migrated over to these digital platforms and this type of advertising has taken significant revenues out of the pockets of our local journalists and reporters and the ability for the ad buys in traditional media to support the very important work that they do. Other countries have taken the necessary steps to have these web giants pay their fair share when operating in their countries, including in the European Union, in Sweden and recently in New Zealand. Why have we not taken these same steps here in Canada?

We also need to keep our small-market newspapers strong. I represent small towns in my beautiful riding of Essex and I know how hard our local reporters are working. I would like to give a special shout-out to some of those who I see out working extremely hard all around the county: Shelby Wye at the Harrow News; Sylene Argent at the Essex Free Press; Matt Weingarden at the Lakeshore News; Ron Giofu at the River Town Times in Amherstburg; Nelson Santos at the Kingsville Reporter, who is also the mayor of Kingsville; and the LaSalle Post.

The Windsor Star also serves our area, but extreme cuts have left it with a skeleton of the once-vibrant newsroom it had. I know many reporters, like the brilliant Julie Kotsis-Wilder, who have watched their paper become a shadow of what it once was due to these cuts. That creates tremendous pressure on journalists because it is very difficult for them to do their work when there is so much pressure for them to produce content. We are starting to see that stories are not able to be told because there simply are not the reporters there to go out and cover those stories.

CBC Windsor and CTV Windsor also have reporters who are running around our county trying to tell all of our stories, radio reporters, like Adelle Loiselle at Blackburn News and Rob Hindi at AM800, just to name a few. The stories they tell are the stories of our lives and so important to keep our communities connected and thriving. In particular in rural ridings, this is very critical. Often we have that large hub of news media in the nearest city, but for small towns this is the way they stay connected. They see what each other's children are doing. They talk about the important things that are happening in the town. The five municipalities I represent, extremely active municipalities, need their stories to be told and they need people to be able to access them.

It is becoming more and more difficult to tell these stories when the web giants are getting massive advertising dollars and a free ride on our system. I want to quote Jake Moore, who is the Unifor media chair. He was here in Ottawa at that time. He said:

It’s time for the government to address the massive shift in advertising and subscription revenues now going to American media tech giants such as Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google, while Canada’s cultural sector suffers....

Internet companies in Canada should be matching the financial contributions that cable TV companies make to the Canada Media Fund and the independent local TV news fund. New Democrats will continue to stand up for media, for workers and for journalists at a time when free press could not be more critical. When will the Liberals get the courage needed to act?

[Andy Fillmore, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to continue the debate on the issue raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Essex.

The government recognizes that a reliable, local and dynamic ecosystem of news media is one of the pillars of democracy and that any government support of news media must not interfere with journalistic independence.

To this end, in its fall economic statement, the government announced three new initiatives in support of journalism, including two tax credits and a fiscal measure to encourage charitable donations to not-for-profit news organizations. The government also confirmed its $50-million initiative over five years to support local journalism in underserved communities.

The government will continue to consider any proposal likely to improve how Canadians access reliable local news.

Canadians expect to be able to benefit from an open and innovative Internet and to have access to high-quality Canadian content in an ever-expanding digital world.

New technology, like streaming services, has changed the way Canadians discover, access and consume content. Now more than ever, Canadians go online. To keep up with these changes, our legislative framework needs to be modernized so that Canadian creators, consumers and broadcasters can adapt and thrive in a changing environment.

In June 2018, as committed to in budget 2018, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development and the Minister of Canadian Heritage announced the launch of a review of the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act. The Radiocommunication Act will also be reviewed.

The review will update and modernize the legislative framework in a balanced way that takes into account the realities of Canadian consumers, creators and broadcasters.

The review will examine how to best support the creation, production and distribution of Canadian content in both English and French. It will also focus on updating and modernizing the broadcasting system by determining how all stakeholders are reflected within it and can contribute to it.

It is important to find a way to support the continued creation and production of Canadian content.

Our legislation will be based on the very simple principle that those who participate in the system contribute to the system.

There will be no free rides.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, as we speak, there is a conversation happening across our country about how critical independent media is. The fact of the matter is that papers are closing. We have had papers that are over a century old close. We have had hundreds of reporters, hundreds of journalists, lose their jobs. We need urgent action.

To be quite honest, the initiatives that the Liberals brought forward are not enough on their own to get us back to the place where we were. I recognize that things are shifting, media workers and journalists recognize that, but there are some concrete steps that need to be taken by the government.

One is tax incentives for Canadian advertisers to keep their media spends within Canada. Two is that the web giants pay their fair share. Why do they continue to get a free pass? Yes, we have shifted onto these platforms, but they need to pay their fair share. Three is matching the financial contributions that cable TV companies have made to the Canada Media Fund.

These are three critical important steps that the government could take in the upcoming budget.

[Andy Fillmore]

Madam Speaker, the review of the Telecommunications Act and the Broadcasting Act will be led by a panel of external experts made up of Janet Yale, Peter S. Grant, Hank Intven, Marina Pavlovic, Monique Simard, Monica Song and Pierre Trudel. They all have extensive knowledge and expertise in this area.

Infrastructure

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

Madam Speaker, in October 2018, I asked whether we were going to incur any penalties for the construction delays on the Champlain Bridge. These delays prove that P3s are not actually more effective.

I am not sure why, but at the time, the parliamentary secretary's answer was about safety. Today, I would therefore like to talk about sustainable infrastructure.

On February 12, 2019, I was in the village of Saint-Dominique in my riding, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, where I held a press conference calling on the federal government to include criteria to promote sustainable infrastructure when awarding contracts.

I then had a discussion with the owners of a local family business, father and son Jacques and Frédéric Sylvestre, as well as project manager David Jodoin and R&D director Jean Dubrueil.

I was pleased to learn that this business from my riding supplied the concrete for the Champlain Bridge. Since it hopes to do the same for the REM and can guarantee its concrete for 125 years, I keep repeating that investing in sustainable infrastructure will pay off down the road. I do not understand why sustainability criteria are not taken into account when tenders are put out for federal government contracts.

A few weeks ago, the Liberals said that they were in infrastructure mode. It was high time. It is also time for them to be in sustainable infrastructure mode so that all the taxpayers' money is invested in high-quality, long-lasting infrastructure with little environmental impact. It is time for sustainable development to be included in requests for proposals.

It is important to acknowledge individual initiatives from companies in Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. Roller-compacted concrete by the Saint-Dominique quarry is a perfect example of sustainable innovation. Infrastructure developed with rolled concrete is an example of an innovative process that everyone should be on board with, including the federal government.

From now on, we must design and build all our infrastructure based on sustainable performance criteria for the lifetime of the infrastructure and that includes the environmental, economic, and social cost, as much as it includes the cost of maintenance, restoration, or partial replacement as needed.

Recently at the Standing Committee on Transport, I asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Yves Giroux, about including a sustainability criterion in federal government requests for proposals. He said:

In your example, this would ensure funding for projects that, at first glance, are a little more expensive but are more cost effective.

In light of this response, the NDP believes that the money required to build sustainable facilities must not be considered only as expenses. This money should be considered as sustainable investments that have significant economic spinoffs, that are environmentally sound and that minimize negative consequences for our communities.

Like my NDP colleague from Hochelaga, I think that we should ensure that the sustainable development criterion is applied when affordable and community housing is being built. Social housing is important for low-income Canadians. If the housing were to be built with sustainable materials, the upkeep would be cheaper and, again, it would undeniably be good for the environment.

In conclusion, the NDP and I believe that sustainable economic development is the future of infrastructure, public transit and social housing. It is clear that in the long term, a sustainable project makes financial and environmental sense.

[Marco Mendicino, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, our priority is to get the Samuel de Champlain Bridge built without compromising the safety and security of the workers or the quality of the work.

We have made significant progress on this new bridge, and its structure is now basically complete. In December, the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities joined workers on the bridge deck to celebrate this milestone and to announce that the new structure will be called the Samuel de Champlain Bridge.

The next steps will be the permanent finishing work, including waterproofing and paving, which will begin in the spring when the necessary weather conditions permit it.

As the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities announced on October 25, 2018, the Samuel de Champlain Bridge will be open to traffic by June 2019 at the latest.

We continue to work closely with our private partner, Signature on the Saint Lawrence, or SSL, to ensure that the bridge is completed to the highest possible standards. At the same time, we are responsibly managing public funds and respecting the terms and conditions of the contract with SSL.

With regard to the contract with SSL and the penalties, the minister clearly indicated that there would be consequences.

We are currently negotiating certain elements with SSL, and we will communicate the results with the public in an open and transparent manner.

When people are in Montreal, they will see that this signature project is taking shape. We recognize the hard work and determination of all workers to complete the construction of this signature bridge for the greater Montreal area, which will serve bridge users for generations to come.

We thank all those who worked on the project. We look forward to the opening of the bridge, which will take place later this year.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend all those who worked on the magnificent Samuel de Champlain Bridge. I must admit that it looks very nice.

Two infrastructure and communities ministers appeared before the committee in the past year. With regard to the Champlain Bridge, I asked both of them how the world still has pyramids and why we cannot build a bridge that lasts more than 50 years.

I sincerely hope that the Samuel de Champlain Bridge will last more than 100 years. We need sustainable infrastructure, and I encourage the government to include sustainability criteria in all calls for tenders.

[Marco Mendicino]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her remarks.

It is the Government of Canada's priority to deliver a bridge that is safe for Canadians and one that will endure for many years to come. Like my colleague, I hope it will endure for as long as the pyramids have stood.

It is our responsibility to make sure that we build a bridge that will be as safe as it is spectacular, and we are doing just that.

We have worked closely with our private partner, SSL, through this project, and the progress we have made to date is obvious to all who pass by the construction site.

The Samuel de Champlain bridge will be open to traffic as soon as possible, by June 2019 at the latest, and the existing bridge will remain in use until then.

We will continue to work closely with SSL to ensure a quality, toll-free, new Champlain bridge without compromising the safety of workers and the public and while ensuring sound management of taxpayers' money.

Foreign Affairs

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, Londoners remain haunted by the indecision and lack of clarity on the part of the government surrounding the Saudi LAV contract at General Dynamics. While some believe it comes down to a choice between sustainable jobs and respect for human rights, I believe there is a third alternative.

Instead of his typical spin, why does the Prime Minister not research his commitments under the contract, determine whether financial penalties exist, calculate the number of vehicles remaining to be shipped and on what platforms the LAVs are built. The Prime Minister must be clear as to what protections he will provide to Canadian workers and the community caught in this mess, which was created by his Liberal government and the previous Conservative government.

None of this is the fault of workers, and workers should not suffer in the fallout. The Prime Minister should be able to find alternative reliable customers for the contract. Canada plans to buy military trucks from the United States, so why not call upon General Dynamics to fill this $2-billion order instead?

Our military is not properly equipped for foreign and domestic missions. The government can change that by purchasing any remaining LAVs for our military and selling or leasing the surplus to countries engaged in peacekeeping. Bulgaria, for instance, is in need of the kind of world-class vehicles produced by General Dynamics.

If there are any substantial financial penalties imposed by the Saudis, the Prime Minister can invoke the Magnitsky act and target Saudi assets to minimize reprisals or recoup the lost funds. The Prime Minister also has the ability to create a transition fund for General Dynamics workers and others affected by this contract.

Southwestern Ontario needs a manufacturing strategy that will return people to work and restore abandoned factories to full production. Canada lags far behind the rest of the industrial world, with no substantive digital high-tech communications strategy. The government must make investments in technology, innovation and training for workers to be competitive in the world market.

My community of London, Ontario, has the high-tech manufacturing infrastructure to advance a manufacturing strategy, one that is long overdue, and the intellectual infrastructure of Fanshawe College and Western University to support it.

The government's lack of leadership has created anxiety and uncertainty for Londoners, workers and their families at General Dynamics, and the satellite industry of suppliers providing General Dynamics with goods and services. It is long past time for the Liberals to announce a clear plan to protect the jobs and futures of our workers and the broader community. Canadians deserve workable federal action now.

We know that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its crown prince are unreliable customers who have committed human rights offences, bombed Saudi citizens, committed brutal executions and imprisoned and tortured human rights advocates. They have created a war-induced famine that threatens the starvation deaths of 14 million people in Yemen, murdered critics and discontinued diplomatic relations. They have withheld payment of $1.8 billion for the Canadian-built LAVs.

The Prime Minister and the government have indicated that they will sign the Arms Trade Treaty, which precludes Canada from selling or exporting armaments to human rights abusers. In August 2015, then Prime Minister Stephen Harper told the media that Canada must stop arms sales to regimes that flout democracy, such as Saudi Arabia.

Given our international obligations to defend human rights and plan to sign the Arms Trade Treaty, the government may be forced to cancel the LAV contract. Sadly, the Prime Minister has failed to show the leadership to deal with this problem. Saudi human rights abuses are not going to end any time soon. This controversy is not going away. The government must be proactive and provide solutions to this crisis.

[Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs), Lib.]

Madam Speaker, human rights are central to our foreign policy. As Canadians, we value our freedom, democracy and the rights guaranteed to us by our charter. However, not everyone is as fortunate. Many people are denied the right to live their lives as they wish. This can especially be the case for women around the world, who are forced to live as second-class citizens. We are using our voices as Canadians to speak up in the defence of human rights, even when it can be very difficult to do so.

Our position on human rights, including women's rights, in Saudi Arabia is very clear. It is a position that we have advocated for in public and in private since we came to office. This dialogue is critical to international diplomacy, because it establishes a common understanding about the value we place on ourselves, on our fellow citizens and on humankind.

That is also why Canada has taken such a strong stance on the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. We are gravely concerned about the involvement of the Saudi government in this extraterritorial murder. The killing of dissidents is horrific and shocking, and it cannot be allowed to go uninvestigated. Murderers cannot enjoy impunity and immunity from consequences. We have demanded a full accounting of the killing in an independent international investigation.

Canada is not alone in this matter. Under our leadership, the foreign ministers of the G7 countries have made two separate statements on Mr. Khashoggi's murder.

Canadians expect that our country's foreign policy respects our values. This is why we have committed to stronger and more vigorous arms export controls. That is why we passed Bill C-47, which will allow us to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty and also implement measures to ensure that Canadian arms exports are not used in unacceptable ways.

We have consulted on these changes with industry as well as with civil society. Canadian arms manufacturers also want to ensure that their goods are not misused abroad. The Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries supports our accession to the Arms Trade Treaty, which puts the treaty criteria, including human rights, directly into legislation. Those were the same changes that the member opposite voted against. She and her NDP colleagues voted against including human rights and gender-based violence as considerations in our arms export system.

Unlike the NDP, we live up to our principles. We are committed to supporting our strong defence industry and the important jobs that it supports. That also includes the significant investments across Canada that we make in our industries. Our government will always support Canadian workers and industries and defend their interests at home and abroad.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an arms export system that is totally inadequate. What about the millions of other victims of the Saudis?

I repeat my question of October 25. Freedom, equality, justice and peace are Canadian values. We have a deal with the Saudis that enables them to wage war, silence dissidents and harm innocent civilians, a deal signed by the Conservatives and upheld by the Liberals.

Canadians do not want to be complicit with Saudi Arabia’s war crimes. The current government has a responsibility to fundamental human rights and an absolute obligation to stand up for Canadian workers.

We need to protect our communities. If the Liberals can protect bank profits and tax haven friends, they can protect the hard-working men and women of London, because they are worth it.

What is the Liberal plan for protecting workers and their families in light of this mess?

[Pamela Goldsmith-Jones]

Madam Speaker, we strongly condemn the horrible murder of Jamal Khashoggi and are deeply concerned by reports on the participation of Saudi officials. We strongly demand and expect that Canadian arms exports be used in a way that fully respects human rights. That is why our government is committed to a stronger and more rigorous arms export system and to the Arms Trade Treaty, which contrasts completely with the member opposite.

As the Prime Minister has said, we are actively reviewing existing export permits to Saudi Arabia.