House of Commons Hansard #407 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was farmers.

Topics

Question No. 2318Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC

With regard to federal funding in the constituency of Trois-Rivières, between April 2016 and January 2019: (a) what applications for funding have been received, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they applied for funding, (iv) date of the application, (v) amount applied for, (vi) whether funding has been approved or not, (vii) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; (b) what funds, grants, loans, and loan guarantees has the government issued through its various departments and agencies in the constituency of Trois-Rivières that did not require a direct application from the applicant, including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved; and (c) what projects have been funded in the constituency of Trois-Rivières by organizations tasked with sub-granting government funds (e.g. Community Foundations of Canada), including for each the (i) name of the organization, (ii) department, (iii) program and sub-program under which they received funding, (iv) total amount of funding, if funding was approved?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 2319Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK

With regard to reports by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and the Auditor General of Canada, and their recommendations to correct deficiencies in the Firearms Interest Police (FIP) database: (a) what is the status of the implementation of the recommendations of the Privacy Commissioner and Auditor General; (b) how are persons notified that they have been flagged in the FIP database; (c) how can persons flagged in the FIP Database access their records; (d) how can persons flagged in the FIP Database appeal to correct their records; and (e) what evidence is there that the FIP database has been an effective gun control measure?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 2320Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK

With regard to paragraph 10.29 of the Auditor General's 2002 Report to Parliament, which outlines unreported costs that would be incurred by the government: what is the total amount for each of these unreported costs since 1995?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 2321Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK

With regard to firearms policy: has the government analyzed the benefits of gun ownership, and, if so, what are the details of such an analysis, including whether the government has analyzed the topics cited in the Library of Parliament, Parliamentary Research Branch paper entitled “The Benefits of Gun Ownership”, prepared by Lyne Casavant, Political and Social Affairs Division, and Antony G. Jackson, Economic Division, dated April 2, 2004, namely (i) self-defensive use of firearms (i.e. firearms use to defend persons from human and animal attacks (wilderness survival); firearms use to defend homes and property from theft and robbery; victims of attempted homicide and assaults are less likely to be injured if they defend themselves with a gun than if they offer no resistance or use any other weapon to protect themselves; and robberies and thefts are less likely to be successfully completed if the victim is seen to be in possession of a firearm), (ii) deterrence to criminals and crime, (iii) economic benefits of firearms ownership (i.e. sustenance hunting; sport hunting (big game, small game, migratory birds); wildlife management and conservation; sport shooting — recreational, olympic and international competitions; gun clubs and shooting ranges; gun shows; predator control; hunting licence sales; firearms and ammunition sales; tourism — Canadian and foreign hunters; guiding and outfitting; gun collecting; gunsmithing; firearms and ammunition manufacturing; firearms importing and exporting; firearms museums; sporting goods sales, manufacturing and related goods; recreational vehicle manufacturing, sales and service; movie and television productions; historical re-enactments; and employment for Canadians in all of the above), (iv) family relationships and character development (i.e. turning around juvenile delinquents — reducing youth crime; sport open to all cultures and the handicapped; and to bring people and families together), (v) environmental benefits (i.e. wildlife habitat protection and conservation), (vi) firearms and aboriginal hunting rights (i.e. Aboriginal communities, business and employment; guiding and outfitting), (vii) firearms in war, defence of country and sovereignty (i.e. military manufacturing, imports and exports; Cadets, Arctic Rangers, Reserves, Coast Guard; military training, Army, Navy, Air Force; and fighting terrorism), (viii) gun owners available to assist police in emergencies, (ix) firearms and Canada's history, heritage and culture (i.e. historical re-enactments; museums; and antique firearms and ammunition collecting), (x) protecting Charter rights, freedoms and democracy (i.e. ultimate defence against government tyranny; protection of property rights; and right to life and security of the person)?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 2322Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK

With regard to the continuous-eligibility screening of firearms licence holders and the Firearms Interest Police (FIP) database, for the year 2017: (a) how many FIP events were matched to a person with a firearms license; (b) how many FIP events were matched to a person without a firearms license; (c) what was the average time it took to initiate an investigation of a FIP event; (d) what was the average time it took to complete the investigation of a FIP event; (e) how many FIP events that resulted in firearms being removed from possession of the licensed gun owner; (f) how many FIP events that resulted in firearms being removed from possession of a person without a firearms license; (g) what was the average time it took from reporting of the FIP event to the firearms being removed from the possession of the licensed gun owner; and (h) what was the average time it took from reporting of the FIP event to the firearms being removed from the possession of the person without a firearms license?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Is that agreed?

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—International TradeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON

moved:

That, given the Prime Minister has weakened Canada’s international reputation during his disastrous trip to India and his capitulation to Donald Trump during NAFTA negotiations;

and given he continues to do so with his handling of the canola trade crisis with China;

the House call on the government to cancel its investment in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and immediately:

(a) appoint an ambassador to China;

(b) increase the cap and interest-free portion of the Advanced Payment Program; and

(c) launch a complaint at the World Trade Organization.

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are very proud to bring this debate to the floor today because, as Canadians have seen in the last three years, and as our allies, trading partners, long-time friends, and emerging partners around the world have seen, the rhetoric of the Prime Minister may be that Canada is back, but the reality has been anything but. When John Manley, a former Liberal prime minister, says that Canada has never been so alone in the world, we know that Liberal foreign policy has brought us to our nadir in world influence.

This crisis with China, and particularly the crisis with our canola producers, has resulted in a billion dollars in losses already. While many of my caucus colleagues will speak to that, I want to speak to the wider foreign policy failures of the current Liberal government, which are particularly due to the Prime Minister.

This motion will recommend the following: that we send an ambassador to China right away, that we bring world trade movement on the canola issue, and that the Prime Minister take action. It has been three months since Canada has had an ambassador to China, and our citizens and exporters are at risk.

The Canadians who are watching this debate and have seen the crisis with China that began late last year know that Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig are in prison with lights on 24-7, being questioned and abused. We know that Mr. Schellenberg and another Canadian yesterday had death sentences brought down on them. We know that thousands of Canadians have questions about travel to China, their visa status and their work status. There are hundreds of thousands of Canadians in China, Hong Kong included, but there has been literally no action by the Prime Minister.

It is not just China. This is what Canadians need to know. The failure of the Prime Minister, on a foreign policy level, is truly astounding. Let us go through some of the countries.

There is China, of course. There is Saudi Arabia, where a mistranslated tweet in Arabic has led to fewer physicians in our teaching hospitals and millions of dollars lost by all major universities in Canada. That came from a tweet, the kind of Twitter diplomacy that even long-time diplomats criticize heavily.

I cannot go any further without mentioning the India state visit. Not only did that set our relationship back and result in tariffs being imposed on lentils by the Indian government, but our relationship with an emerging Commonwealth partner is at its lowest point. The Prime Minister's gaffe-prone trip, where he invited a former criminal who had tried to assassinate an Indian official, has been the subject matter of global international ridicule, but more importantly it has hurt an important and emerging relationship with a key power like India.

In the Philippines, a faux pas by the Prime Minister led to Bell Helicopter in Montreal losing a helicopter order just because he had fumbled another relationship.

With respect to Japan, we know that last week the Prime Minister embarrassed Prime Minister Abe by referring to Japan twice as China. This was not only embarrassing but really catastrophic, because we are already repairing a relationship with Japan after the Prime Minister stood up world leaders in Vietnam at the trans-Pacific partnership leaders' meeting for a meeting with a Facebook executive.

I wish I were joking, but when we have Japan, Australia and New Zealand, some of our closest allies, the latter two being in the Five Eyes, producing international headlines ridiculing the Prime Minister of Canada because of his conduct, we know how bad it is getting. It is not just happening with challenging countries whose values we do not share, such as China and Saudi Arabia; some of our closest allies are asking what has happened to Canada.

The list continues. We have the United Kingdom and Belgium, where the Prime Minister stood up the royal family. There is Italy, where the Prime Minister compared ISIS fighters returning to Canada to Italian immigrants returning to Montreal after the war.

I wish I were kidding, but the bumbling son of a former Prime Minister, for whom a lot of people cut some slack for these gaffes, is hurting our international reputation. He is hurting citizens and exporters. Taken together, it is probably the biggest failure of the current government.

Then, of course, there is the United States. Anyone would have known the new administration would be a challenge in renegotiating NAFTA, an agreement that Conservatives brought, where the U.S. and Canada had a trade agreement before Mexico was added. The virtue signalling of the Prime Minister by bringing in non-trade issues that were related to his own brand made it complicated to make deals on auto, softwood and agricultural products. In the end, Mexico secured a deal and Canada was told to take it or leave it.

I should say that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

Literally, there is almost no relationship on the world stage that has not been diminished as a result of the Prime Minister and the Liberal government. It has been noticed. A headline in the National Post was “Earth to Trudeau—Fidel Castro was a brutal dictator, not a benevolent, grizzled uncle”. Who wrote that? It was Michael Den Tandt, who was later offered a job by the Liberal government, much like James Cudmore after writing negative things about the Norman case. Mr. Den Tandt is planning to run in Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, where he will be resoundingly defeated by Afghan war veteran Alex Ruff, who is the Conservative candidate there.

Let us see what a former ambassador to China from Canada said about the Prime Minister's approach to China. The headline in The Globe and Mail was “Trudeau’s embrace of China exposes his naïveté”.

Opposition Motion—International TradeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I let it slide the first time, believing that the member had accidentally mentioned the Prime Minister by name. This is the second article in which he has made reference to the Prime Minister by name, and I would ask him to refrain from doing so.

Opposition Motion—International TradeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

The hon. member for Durham has heard the comments and I trust he will ensure that he refers to members in the House by their ridings or positions.

Opposition Motion—International TradeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON

I agree, Madam Speaker, and I apologize. In my rhetoric and passion, I let these headlines get the better of me.

Let us look at foreign policy. Canada historically has leveraged its national and shared interests with another country in order to advance values that maybe the other country does not share, values like human rights and respect for the rule of law. We use trade, economic relations, aid and development to leverage a relationship to have an influence in other areas, such as peace, security and human rights. That is the Canadian tradition and it has been Liberal and Conservative throughout our history, until the current Prime Minister, who puts his own brand or, in the case of India, his own electoral prospects in Canada ahead of our national interests and those of our exporters.

Do we think India will be taking some of our excess canola? Do we think the UAE or Saudi Arabia will be taking our excess canola, as, I would add, it has in the past? No. Canada has fewer options because the Prime Minister has allowed our reputation to be diminished on the world stage. It is one of the biggest reasons Canada, our people and our country need a change of government in October.

We balance interests and values. Sometimes they are aligned, as I mentioned, such as with Australia and New Zealand, whose values and interests we share, and it is easy. Diplomacy is truly an art when we do not share the values and we leverage trade and economic interest to be able to have an impact elsewhere. The Prime Minister has done it the opposite way. He puts his brand and his own electoral prospects ahead of the national interest, and our exporters are paying.

Let us look at China, which has brought us to this opposition day motion. We know the Prime Minister's much-ridiculed pre-election 2015 statement about his admiration for the basic dictatorship, but that underlined the naïveté that former ambassador Mulroney highlighted. Right off the bat, the Prime Minister established two foreign policy goals. He wanted a UN Security Council seat, and that election is not going well when we look at the list of countries upset with us, and he wanted a free trade agreement with China. To do this, the Prime Minister green-lighted a number of takeovers, including a security company called Norsat, which had contracts with the Pentagon. There was not even a security review of that contract.

We need to get back to basics. We need an ambassador who is not a hand-picked Liberal insider like Mr. McCallum. That is why Conservatives brought this debate today.

Opposition Motion—International TradeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, if I were to pick and choose, I would reflect on Stephen Harper travelling to India and paying an extra million dollars to have a limousine go with him. I guess it was because there were no cars or vehicles in India. It was not well received back in India. Furthermore, when Stephen Harper made a trip to China, he made a commitment to bring back a panda, or something of that nature.

At the end of the day, the proof is in the pudding. We have seen an increase in the number of jobs from coast to coast to coast, in excess of 900,000 jobs. One of the reasons for that is the hard work that this government has invested in international trade. We have seen more trade agreements signed by this government than in 10 years of Stephen Harper. Conservatives can say what they will, but that is a fact and the reality.

Why not recognize that this government has done more for external trade opportunities than any other government in the last four decades? That is the reality.

Opposition Motion—International TradeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON

Madam Speaker, 98% of Canada's export access has been negotiated by Conservative governments. That is a fact.

What is interesting, and the member would know this because he has been here a while, is that a former Liberal deputy prime minister and former Liberal foreign affairs minister like John Manley says that Canada has never been so alone in the world. Even Liberals' own insiders are saying that the Prime Minister has taken our reputation down several notches.

I refer the member to the last speech John McCallum gave in this place. He said this:

...when China and Canada have disagreed on something, and this sometimes happens, all three prime ministers I have served have drawn on this friendship to speak respectfully but frankly to their Chinese counterparts. I know this long tradition will continue.

The Prime Minister has not picked up the phone, has not sent a minister or an envoy for over four months. Canadians are in prison and there are billions of dollars in losses. It is his failed leadership.

Opposition Motion—International TradeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON

Madam Speaker, as vice-chair of the Standing Committee on International Trade, I know that the canola issue is something we have been seized with at the committee. We had an emergency debate at the committee that the opposition parties called for. We heard from farmers about the very desperate situation they are in.

Although we see the government coming forward with some funding today, it will not resolve this issue. At the heart of this issue is the diplomacy, the differences between our countries and what has happened with the detention in our country of a Chinese citizen. This is a very deep and serious issue. I hope that the Liberals will be taking it seriously, because what they have done today is not enough. They should not be patting themselves on the back.

One thing that has been called for by the canola farmers is to launch a WTO challenge. Canada is constantly having challenges lobbed at it and we are being dragged to the WTO over multiple trade issues on a constant basis. Here we see a clear-cut case for a challenge. Does the member agree with me that we need that WTO challenge to be initiated now, because we do not know how long this dispute will go on?

Opposition Motion—International TradeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member for Essex. She likely notices that in our opposition day motion we talk about bringing that challenge to the conduct of the Chinese. We have recommended several other options, including with regard to the China-controlled Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. We have recommended envoys. We have pushed the government to take this seriously, because we saw the impact it would have on our citizens and our trade. It is a sign. Inaction by the Prime Minister is viewed as weakness.

This is why we have brought this debate. When we were in power, former minister Ritz had a market access secretariat. If there was a trade issue anywhere, he had people there and then he travelled there to get that access. Slowly, first with India on lentils, then with Italy on durum wheat and now with China on canola, we are losing market access, despite the sunny ways and photographs or, I would say, because of the sunny ways and photographs. When the Prime Minister goes to these countries and campaigns, they notice.

It is time for a serious approach and a new ambassador, but realistically, it is time for a new government.

Opposition Motion—International TradeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Durham for his excellent speech, for the very strong position he has taken and for his motion to protect Canadian canola producers.

I now want to read out the motion. It was read out once before, but I think it is important for all Canadians to be aware of today's discussion.

My colleague from Durham moved:

That, given the Prime Minister has weakened Canada’s international reputation during his disastrous trip to India and his capitulation to Donald Trump during NAFTA negotiations;

and given he continues to do so with his handling of the canola trade crisis with China;

the House call on the government to cancel its investment in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and immediately:

(a) appoint an ambassador to China;

(b) increase the cap and interest-free portion of the Advanced Payment Program; and

(c) launch a complaint at the World Trade Organization.

It is simple and easy. The government could have done something about the canola crisis a long time ago. Unfortunately this is just one more failure among many for the Liberal government when it comes to international trade and Canadian producers.

I would like to provide some context to explain why we are at this point today and why the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food today announced some initial measures to deal with the canola crisis.

It is very simple. For the past two months, the government has done absolutely nothing to help Canada's canola producers. There were three requests for an emergency debate. The first was rejected and the other two were accepted. The official opposition asked nine times for an emergency debate on the canola crisis. What happened every time? The Liberals refused to hold an emergency debate on a crisis that is affecting hundreds and thousands of Canadian producers.

The Liberal members for Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Quebec all refused to hold an emergency debate. They did not lift a finger to stand up for canola producers. We asked the House for the opportunity to debate this matter so that Canadian producers could have their voices heard in the House of Commons.

That is not all. Canadian canola producers, the Canola Council of Canada, provincial premiers and the Leader of the Opposition all had to intervene to identify measures that can be taken immediately to resolve the crisis. Members on the other side of the House apparently had no idea. The only thing they could do was wait for something to happen. That comes as no surprise from a party leader who thinks deficits disappear all by themselves. We all know the Prime Minister thinks deficits take care of themselves. A crisis involving China will not disappear on its own. If we do nothing, the crisis will go on.

On Monday, the Leader of the Opposition laid out a clear three-part plan. First, he urged the government to appoint a new ambassador to China without delay. Canadians need to know that Canada has been without an ambassador to China for three months now. Who can talk to Chinese authorities? Who has the moral authority? Who has the respect of Chinese authorities and can discuss the canola crisis? Nobody. The government fired the previous ambassador. Now we have no ambassador, and we want to resolve the crisis, but nobody is in a position to do that. This is scandalous.

The second request is to raise the cap for advance payments to $1 million and increase the interest-free portion of this program. This morning we learned that the government did that. The government decided to take action two months after the crisis began.

There is just one problem. Doing that without adopting other measures and improving trade is the equivalent of giving a credit card to someone who just lost their job without giving him the means to find a new job. That credit card bill will have to be paid one day. If the worker is not given employment, how is he supposed to pay off his credit card bill? If we do not find any alternative markets for Canadian canola, how are Canadian farmers going to repay these loans in 18 months?

This certainly needed to be done, but not without taking into account the other two aspects we discussed.

Thirdly, we are calling on the government to stand up to China by filing a complaint with the World Trade Organization, since China is violating international trade rules. It wants to be part of this great assembly of nations that hold discussions and have trading relationships, but there have to be rules.

China claimed that the canola sent by two Canadian companies, Richardson and Viterra, was substandard. However, the samples analyzed here in Canada show that that was not true. Canadian canola is the best in the world. Canadian companies that send canola to China are the best in the world. The quality is there.

If quality was not the problem, why were the exports blocked? There are all kinds of political reasons, but the Liberals do not want to talk about them. Above all, we cannot speak with China's ambassador to Canada. The Prime Minister cannot telephone his Chinese counterpart to discuss it. We are being told that we will wait for a technical solution.

Well, we have waited two months, and the drop in canola prices has cost producers $1 billion. Why? It is because the price of all Canadian canola, not just the canola exported to China, has dropped by 10%. Canola exports total $10 billion, so the loss is $1 billion. That is the reality. That is what the Liberals do not understand.

In addition, when the crisis started, farmers were getting ready to plant for the next season. The government does not care about planting. It is going to wait for the crisis to resolve itself. Farmers had to make a decision, and they had many questions. What would they plant? Would they have enough money? Would the crisis continue? Would they be able to continue exporting their canola? We also know that producers rotate their crops. If they are going to make changes, they have to make decisions well in advance. They want some guarantee of stability when the time comes to plant their fields. Unfortunately, the Liberals decided to wait, as they said the crisis would resolve itself. That is not true.

I would like to quote one of the farmers who testified in committee. Stephen Vandervalk, the vice-president of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, said:

The timing of this issue and the timing of my being here could not be worse. I should be at home seeding.... The season is short, and this issue is weighing heavily on every grain farmer.

I had the opportunity to go to Winnipeg and speak with other farmers who all told me that what matters most right now is reopening markets in China. Canola farmers do not want a handout from the government. They want to be able to sell their products. They are proud of their lands and what they produce. They also want a government that will stand up for them, not an agriculture minister who sends a letter asking to send a delegation to solve a technical issue. Everyone agrees that we need to resolve this matter, but we have been waiting for an answer from China for a month now, and we are being told that all we can do is wait for its response.

This government is incapable of standing up for canola farmers. The only thing it knows how to do is get out the cheque book, because it has no other solutions. It is doing absolutely nothing to resolve this matter, and canola farmers will not stand for it. It is time we had a prime minister who will stand up for Canadians, for Canada's canola farmers and for all farmers across the country.

This is a serious crisis. We are losing thousands of dollars, and Canada's canola farmers need government support and someone who will stand up for them. If the Liberals will not do so, unfortunately for them, on October 21, we will take their place, and we will stand up for all of Canada's canola farmers.