Debates of May 1st, 2019

(Return tabled)

Question No. 2316

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

With regard to project recommendations submitted by regional development agencies to the Office of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development since November 2015: (a) how many project recommendations were submitted to the Office of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, broken down by (i) year, (ii) project name, (iii) financial value, (iv) province, (v) constituency; (b) of the project recommendations listed in (a), which recommendations were approved by the Office of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, broken down by (i) year, (ii) province, (iii) federal constituency; and (c) of the recommendations listed in (a), which recommendations were not approved by the Office of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, broken down by (i) year, (ii) province, (iii) federal constituency?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 2317

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

With regard to funding for the continued in-depth assessment of VIA Rail's high-frequency rail proposal for the Toronto-Quebec City corridor, including funding allocated in Budget 2016: what are the total expenditures, broken down by (i) year, (ii) ministerial portfolio, (iii) supplier, (iv) public opinion research?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 2318

[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. 2319

[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. 2320

[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. 2321

[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. 2322

[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 Return

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions for Papers

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary 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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—International Trade

[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”.

[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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, 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.

[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.