Debates of April 29th, 2019

Foreign Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, it grieves me to need to rise in this House today to speak about the rising tide of anti-Christian violence.

On January 31, I asked the minister about the government's response to a terrorist attack on a church in the Philippines. Canada has strong connections with the Philippines, strengthened by the large Filipino diaspora community here in Canada. We share in their grief, and we hope to see the government work to support the Philippines in its ongoing efforts to combat extremism, while seeking to ensure that happens in a way that respects fundamental human rights as well.

Since that day in January, we have unfortunately seen much more anti-Christian violence, and more violence targeting other faith communities at prayer in their houses of worship on sacred days. Today we had statements on the terrible terrorist attack in Sri Lanka, with hundreds of Christians targeted and killed in churches. Some people did not want to use the word “Christians” when they spoke about this attack, and instead spoke of those who were being targeted as Easter worshippers.

Let us just be clear: Christians do not worship Easter. Some of the tributes to victims of violence drew a contrast between the message of Jesus on the one hand, and the violence of the attackers on the other. This contrast is important, but it is not the full story. Easter is not just about the message of Jesus; it is about the person of Jesus and the hope that we have through his resurrection that victims of violence and persecution today will also enjoy the resurrection of the dead.

lt is this knowledge of the resurrection of the dead that inspires Christians to lovingly risk and give their lives for truth and justice. The message of Christ would be totally unintelligible apart from the resurrection of the dead. lt is because of the crucifixion and resurrection that Christians also seek to forgive their persecutors. We believe that Christ died to redeem all who accept his offer of forgiveness, including the most heinous and violent criminals. This affects how Christians relate to their persecution and to their persecutors.

Historically, we do not have an unblemished record, but when we embrace the teachings of Christ, we have a path to solving deep-seated communal tensions. Often violence gets worse and worse within communities, because violence begets reprisal. We must work to put a stop to that violence by forgiving instead of by responding in kind, insisting on the protection of the innocent while seeking reconciliation and peace between communities. People of all communities must seek to participate in this work. However, I note in this context in particular, the way in which this idea of forgiveness and reconciliation in the context of the events of Easter is what drives Christians to be involved in this work.

We hear of instances of violence against Christians, Muslims, and Jews in countries where the media is able to identify and cover these events. However, let us not forget, as well, the destruction of houses of worship and the persecution of believers in authoritarian nations where often these stories cannot be told. The persecution of Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and other believers in the People's Republic of China, a place where it has been state policy to mandate the physical destruction of houses of worship, like the Golden Lampstand Church or Larung Gar, must not be forgotten. ln fact, the perpetrator of the terrible shooting in New Zealand claimed to identify closely with the political values of the Chinese regime. On his own testimony, we have every reason to believe that China's state policy of anti-Muslim persecution was an inspiration to this killer.

Let me conclude with this. Easter, the day chosen for this most recent anti-Christian violence, is when we celebrate the resurrection of Christ, who was innocent and yet gave his life for the guilty. This understanding is core to Christian belief in terms of its implications for how we treat our persecutors. The forgiveness of sins and the resurrection of the dead can be the basis for greater peace and harmony. lt is a message that all, whether Christian or not, can draw strength and inspiration from during these difficult times.

[Andrew Leslie, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the attacks on a Roman Catholic cathedral in Jolo, the Philippines, were appalling and despicable attacks that claimed the lives of 20 people and left many more injured. This was a terrible act of violence and hatred, and the Government of Canada strongly condemns it, as it does all such occurrences. Such atrocities call on us to do more and to do better in communicating and helping, by reaching out a helping hand to counter hate and violent extremism.

Canada is engaged with the Philippines and other partners in the region to help address this issue by funding numerous initiatives to build greater regional institutional capacity to tackle extremism and terrorism. For example, Canada is working with Interpol on a regional counterterrorism maritime security program, which seeks to strengthen front-line institutional capacity in the region to combat terrorism, piracy and armed robbery. We have also partnered with the United Nations on a variety of projects focused on building regional capacity to combat terrorism and radicalization in Southeast Asia.

We all know of the incredibly tragic attack in Christchurch, New Zealand. Both the prime ministers of New Zealand and Canada called on world leaders to unite in the fight against hate and violent extremism, so eloquently mentioned by the hon. member opposite. Sadly, a week ago, we were yet again reminded of the scourge of hate and violent extremism when worshippers were targeted in coordinated bombings in Sri Lanka on April 21. Many of the victims of that attack were Christians who were targeted at prayer in church on one of the holiest days on the Christian calendar. Canada condemns these vicious attacks, and we mourn with the families and loved ones of those killed. In particular, our hearts are with the diaspora community in Canada, those who have suffered such tragedies in a variety of nations around the world, and who gathered to grieve in churches, mosques and synagogues across Canada.

Easter is a time of renewal and optimism for Christians, as mentioned by my colleague, and a time to reflect on hope for the year ahead. It is appalling that the hate behind these attacks should target those celebrating this message of peace. I could not agree more, and I am sure I am joined by all members in the House when I say that the faithful should always be free to pray in peace in their houses of worship. However, the peace of those sanctuaries was desecrated in Sri Lanka, Christchurch and again this weekend at a synagogue in San Diego.

As the Minister of Foreign Affairs said earlier today, “In the wake of attacks like these, all peace-loving people must come together in sorrow, but we also must resolve, together, not to be bent or cowed by the horror of violence.” Now is the time to stand together, sharing in our loss and our pain, as well as sharing in our resolve to not be broken by these acts of terror but rather to work together to mitigate and prevent it.

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

Mr. Speaker, in following up, I would like to underline again that I think all of us in the House share a desire to work together to combat terrorism and violence and the ideologies that underline them in all their forms. Different ideologies and different violent attacks claim different kinds of ideological associations, but the underlying point is that we must be strong and firm in our opposition to terrorism, violence and hatred, and our desire to build the kind of society in which people from different faiths and ethnic backgrounds can work together, collaborate and feel sympathy for each other.

What was inspiring to me after the shooting in Christchurch was to see Christian leaders visit the mosque in my community. I am sure visitation happens the other way as well when there is violence against churches. I hope that the parliamentary secretary and I will be able to work together going forward to combat these vital issues.

[Andrew Leslie, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that I and my colleague across the way will work together in strongly condemning these heinous acts as a united Parliament, including the assaults on those at prayer during the January attacks in the Philippines, to which we referred so strongly. We will continue to work not only here in Parliament but across our nation with our allies and friends around the world to prevent terrorism and violent extremism to the best possible extent that we can. We have to do all that we can to make sure there are no more victims of the peaceful innocent and that violent extremism in all its forms does not spread further. That is a commitment that we avow.

Natural Resources

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to address a different topic. The question is about trade.

Canada is a trading nation and has been a trading nation for hundreds of years. We have some challenges. In my riding, we have some legislation that is not only hampering trade but is divisive, particularly in western Canada.

Bill C-69, for example, is a piece of legislation this government has brought forward that we find very divisive. Trade is important, but we have lots of issues in western Canada. For example, the government has never fixed the problems with Italy. Durham wheat, which we grow in my riding, is the best in the world, and we can no longer send it to Italy.

Regarding India, we grow a tremendous amount of lentils and peas in western Canada and in my area. We had the situation in India after the Prime Minister's visit, and now, with the tariffs, that trade is not a possibility.

The highest quality barley in the world, as of a year ago, is no longer traded with Saudi Arabia.

We then get to China. The issues we have with China started with officially shutting down trade in canola seed. However, there are two other parts to canola: the meal and the oil. The Chinese are refusing to offload it. There are boats in harbours sitting in China paying the demurrage fees back to the producers because they will not even unload it. Now we are hearing of more agricultural products produced in the west. We feel a lot of divisiveness in the sense of trade issues and the challenges we have.

Then we get to Bill C-69 and the tanker ban, Bill C-48, which basically says that we are not going to build pipelines anymore. Was there consultation on Bill C-48? I do not remember that one. Bill C-69 is here. Martha Hall Findlay says that it will significantly increase political interference in the regulatory process. The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association states, “It is difficult to imagine that a new major pipeline could be built in Canada under the Impact Assessment Act”.

Stephen Buffalo, president and CEO of the Indian Resource Council says, “Indigenous communities are on the verge of a major economic breakthrough, one that finally allows Indigenous people to share in Canada's economic prosperity. Bill C-69 will stop this progress in its tracks.”

We find that those two pieces of legislation, Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, are very divisive in western Canada and very much against what we are as a trading country.

[Andrew Leslie, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Canada-U.S. Relations)]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-69 is about re-establishing the balance between economic prosperity and environmental protection. It is about restoring investor certainty, rebuilding public trust and advancing indigenous reconciliation, all the while ensuring that good projects are built in a timely, responsible and transparent way. That is what we have been doing since assuming office. We have approved the Line 3 replacement project, supported Keystone XL and done the hard work necessary to ensure we move forward in the right way on the Trans Mountain expansion project.

We know there is still more to be done, but our efforts are starting to pay off.

Let us look at the LNG Canada decision last fall to proceed with its $40-billion project on the west coast of British Columbia. It will create thousands of good jobs and generate billions of dollars in new revenue for government, all the while building the cleanest, large scale LNG facility in the world to bring Canadian natural gas to new global markets.

There are also plans for a $4.5-billion petrochemical facility in Sturgeon County.

Inter Pipeline, which is another example, is proceeding with two new facilities, valued at $3.5-billion, in Alberta's industrial heartland.

Nauticol has given its green light to develop a $2-billion methanol plant just south of Grande Prairie.

These are real investments in our energy sector, in Canadians and in Alberta. In fact, there are more than half a trillion dollars in new resource projects that have either been started or are planned over the next 10 years. In Alberta alone, that includes 102 energy projects, representing a total investment of $178 billion. That is good news.

At the same time, we have recently announced a $1.6 billion package to support workers in the energy sector and boost the industry's competitiveness. This includes a $1 billion program in commercial financial support from Export Development Canada to invest in innovative technologies.

There are another $500 million in new commercial funding from the Business Development Bank of Canada to support energy diversification, as well as $50 million from Natural Resources Canada's clean growth program that will leverage almost $900 million in new investments in oil and gas projects.

These investments reflect our confidence in Alberta and our belief in all Canadians with respect to making Canada the supplier of choice in this century of clean energy.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is this. In the last year and a half I have talked with fund development managers. They have explained how the billion dollar funds they monitor have gone to the U.S. I have constituents in my riding who own oil rigs and have all sorts of pipeline. They have gone to Texas and are not coming back. The fund managers say that they are not coming back because of the legislation they are facing, which the government can delay for 600 days. The minister can intervene at any time.

We need to appoint an ambassador to China so we can get the canola going. We could take that quarter billion dollars back from the investment bank, which is building pipelines in Asia, and build pipelines here.

We need a different approach. Bill C-69 does not work. It is divisive.

[Andrew Leslie, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ran out of time in my previous 10 minutes to complete the list of all the investments we were making in Alberta with respect to pipeline capacity, so let me continue.

Another $72 million to fund three clean-tech projects in Alberta's oil and gas sector are coming into effect over the next 18 months, investments that will help leverage more than an additional $415 million in funding from other sources. That is why we are also investing another $49 million to support petrochemical innovation in Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta.

Through budget 2019, we have proposed investing another $100 million to support the clean resource innovation network.

Alberta is receiving a great deal of federal investment to better its technology and products. Quite frankly, we are proud to be able to help.

Fisheries and Oceans

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard has taken bold action to protect chinook salmon and southern resident killer whales by closing chinook salmon fishing over a large area of the B.C. coast. This will impact hundreds of jobs in the sport, recreation, indigenous and commercial fisheries. However, he refuses to ask the salmon farming industry to accept its share of the pain to protect wild salmon.

How can the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans ask Canadians to risk their livelihoods while allowing foreign-run salmon farming companies to transfer fish infected with a virus reported to kill chinook salmon into farms throughout the southern half of British Columbia?

The minister's own scientists report that PRV can cause the red blood cells of chinook salmon to rupture en masse, causing organ failure, but the minister has chosen not to believe the science, even in the face of the collapse of most chinook salmon stocks exposed to salmon farms.

This is a repeat of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans' ignoring of DFO scientist Ransom Myers decades ago when he was warning that DFO's fishing policy was going to cause the collapse of the North Atlantic cod. Public research conducted in B.C. shows that wild salmon exposed to salmon farms are significantly more infected with PRV than wild salmon in the more northern reaches of the province, where first nations and others made sure no salmon farms were allowed, just as the current candidate for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for the NDP, Bob Chamberlin, has been asking for those farms to be removed from the east coast of Vancouver Island.

Mowi, one of the big companies operating in B.C., informed the Federal Court that it would be severely impacted if it was not allowed to grow PRV-infected fish in its farms, as all but one of its hatcheries was infected.

Section 56 of the fishery, general, regulations states that fish infected with a disease agent are prohibited from transfer into B.C. marine waters. The courts view PRV as a disease agent as a result of the research that has been published.

By not screening farm salmon for PRV, the minister ensures that he does not know if they are infected. Thus, he is issuing transfer permits in absence of information that may be critical to chinook salmon, British Columbians in the fishing industry and the southern resident killer whale.

The minister has offered his opinion that PRV is not a threat to wild salmon; however, his opinion is not above the law. The 2015 Federal Court ruling remains unacknowledged, and the 2018 decision gave the minister until June 4 to revise his policy of not screening for PRV and bring it into compliance with the law.

Why, at this time when wild salmon stocks are increasingly listed as species at risk, is the minister refusing to use and apply the precautionary principle to restore wild salmon to the benefit of all British Columbians?

The state of Washington recently began screening farm salmon for PRV, and in 2018 it halted 1.6 million infected young farm salmon from entering ocean pens in Puget Sound to protect wild salmon.

There no reason not to screen farm salmon for PRV, except to protect corporate interests. However, following the law would provide the industry with incentive to rid their livestock of this virus.

We have questions, and I hope the government can answer them.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, I will do my best.

Our government is committed to protecting the health of Canada's wild and farmed fish from aquatic animal diseases. A stringent process exists to ensure the health of cultured finfish populations prior to their transfer into the marine environment.

The applications for transfer licences are reviewed by a committee of experts from the department and the Province of British Columbia. All transfers of aquaculture fish must also comply with requirements of the national aquatic animal health program, which aims to prevent the introduction and spread of disease in Canada. It is co-delivered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Our government is re-evaluating its decision not to test for PRV prior to transferring smolts to aquaculture marine grow-out facilities under section 56 of the fishery general regulations. We will complete this review by June 4, 2019. This work is currently under way and considers the latest scientific assessments of this virus.

Our government understands that a strong, science-based approach to regulating the aquaculture industry is essential. That is why we have conducted and will continue to conduct extensive research to inform our policies and regulations. Specifically, we are actively investigating the potential impacts that PRV and other aquatic pathogens may have on various Pacific salmon species. This work will help us further improve our understanding of disease transfer risks between wild and farmed fish.

In the near future, we will also clearly outline and explain how decisions on aquaculture are made, including how the precautionary approach is applied specifically for aquaculture decision-making when there is scientific uncertainty. This directly responds to recommendations from the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, from the panel on aquaculture led by the chief science adviser, from stakeholders and from Canadians who have asked for more transparency on how aquaculture decisions are made, on the information that was used in making decisions and on how the precautionary approach was used.

The framework for aquaculture risk management will outline a stepwise process to be followed, and it includes a commitment to publishing decisions, policies and the scientific advice that was received in support of aquaculture decisions. Our government is advancing this initiative in partnership with indigenous peoples, provincial governments, the public, industry, and environmental groups.

In December 2018, the minister announced a new area-based aquaculture management pilot project. As part of that new approach, we will be working with the Province of British Columbia, first nations and industry to develop an indigenous monitoring and inspection program in the Broughton Archipelago. This program will provide opportunities for first nations to take an active role in monitoring activities for fish health, and it will support implementation of the government-to-government recommendations for the Broughton Archipelago.

The restoration of our wild Pacific salmon stocks on the west coast of Canada is an extremely important priority. Our government is committed to supporting stocks that are in decline. Canada's wild salmon policy 2018 to 2022 implementation plan is a guide to addressing a range of issues, including science, habitat, assessments and the impacts of aquaculture and predation on wild salmon. We have made and continue to make unprecedented investments to support these issues.

Our government will continue working with partners on aquaculture management and on supporting wild salmon populations—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough for coastal British Columbians. Ultimately, the behaviour of the minister is threatening wild salmon, B.C.'s coastal economy, the southern resident killer whales and the B.C. aquaculture industry as well. If there is no incentive to produce cleaner fish, the reputation of B.C. fish products in general will suffer in consumer opinion.

By refusing to follow our laws and pressure the salmon farming industry to become a clean industry, the minister is threatening Canada's reputation as a source of wholesome seafood. If the salmon farming industry is unable to rid its livestock of PRV, this is another reason for the industry's fish to be moved swiftly into closed containment tanks, where effluent can be treated. This would honour the bill that was put forward by my good friend and colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam, who has done great work regarding salmon.

The Liberals' refusal to screen farmed salmon for PRV provides short-term benefits to a foreign-owned industry while putting Canadian business at—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, we have made no such refusal. Right now we are following the direction of the court, which found issues with the policy and the decision. However, what the court did not do was grant the request of the plaintiffs to require PRV testing in the transfer of all fish. It did not order that. It did find problems with the policy and problems with the decision, which we are currently revisiting.

To be crystal clear, our DFO scientists, along with provincial and international colleagues, are conducting investigations to better understand the biology of PRV as well as other known potential pathogens in wild and farmed salmon in the Pacific Ocean. This work will further improve our understanding of disease transfer risk.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:05 p.m.)