Debates of May 15th, 2019

Officers of Parliament

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking colleagues both in the first hour and specifically today.

My friend for Beauport—Limoilou was very generous in his remarks. He was very kind with regard to my time here. I am reminded that there is an axiom in politics that I am finding to be absolutely accurate, which is that one is never more loved than when one first gets here and when one leaves. It is the stuff in between that tends to be a little rocky.

I want to thank my good friend and caucus colleague for Trois-Rivières for his remarks and also for taking the time to care enough about this issue to work with me to ensure that we have wording that, quite frankly, stands the best chance of passing.

Finally, I want to thank my colleague from Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook for his remarks. I appreciate his taking the time to make those remarks.

Here is where I am on this. I originally had a motion that sort of spoke to the principle. My goal, if it carried, was that it would lay the groundwork for the next parliament to pick up that torch and run with it. We then went through the tragedy of the untimely death of Michael Ferguson, who was a phenomenal Canadian and an amazing agent of Parliament. I thought this could be in his memory, because he was one of those, as far as I know, along with all the other agents of Parliament, who signed a document recommending this change. The government likes to brag about the quality of appointments, but these very appointments recommended the very change that is in front of us right now. We cannot say that they are high-quality people with great advice and then ignore them.

There has been a movement in the last few months in particular and over the last year, especially among new members, which I am not. The new members who came in wanted to reform this place. In large part, they wanted to make sure of the relevance of ordinary MPs, meaning those who are not in a leadership capacity or ministers of the Crown. They would become more meaningful, and being here would have a purpose.

There are people working in the background now. We now have a democracy caucus. There are cross-party discussions. There are proposals in front of the House and in front of PROC to consider further changes. It is not easy. It is complicated.

The beauty of this motion and this matter is that the power to hire the agents of Parliament is already ours. We do not have to change a single law. All we have to do is follow a different procedure. If a majority of members in the House, never mind government caucuses, ministers or whips, stand up and say yes to this motion, we will have struck the single biggest blow against keeping backbenchers from playing a meaningful role. It is one vote.

Will the process be completed in this term? No, but I would hope that it would at least get started. More importantly, it would send a message to the next parliament and those after it, which is that in this Parliament, we cared enough about our work to stand up to our own leadership and say that we are members of Parliament, and we will oversee the hiring of our own agents. That is what this is about. It is about us standing up in the majority and saying that enough is enough. These are our agents and our process, and we are now standing up and taking ownership of it, and from this day forward, all agents of Parliament will be hired by Parliament and not by the executive.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 29, before the time provided for Private Members' Business.

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

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, it took two years for it to sink in, but the Liberals eventually realized that family reunification on the basis of the luck of the draw was fundamentally unfair. Unfortunately, after scrapping that colossal failure, it was right back to the Conservative plan to force families to engage in a race against the clock to submit an application in order to be considered for the parents and grandparents family reunification program.

While the government claims to have streamlined the process by putting it online, it actually added another layer. The Conservatives forced families to race to submit their full applications to sponsor their loved ones. The Liberals are forcing families to race to submit an interest to sponsor form. Then later, if they are lucky enough, they will get to do the actual application. As predicted, this approach was also a giant failure.

After setting an entirely arbitrary cap of 27,000 submissions for the 20,000 sponsorship spots, the government opened up the website to receive the forms. It took less than 10 minutes for the cap to be hit. Eleven minutes after it was opened, IRCC tweeted that the limit had been reached and the application process was shut down.

I cannot truly imagine the heartbreak and frustration for the families that continue to be shut out of the process. First, it was pure luck; now it is a race against the clock. Thousands of families have once again been left out in the cold. I have heard crushing stories from constituents about how this process was not at all fair. Some constituents reported never even being able to open the form before it closed. That is despite, in some cases, taking the day off work to be at home and at the computer the moment the portal opened and even paying to upgrade their Internet speed just for this moment.

I also heard from constituents stories of opening the application, completing it and then, because the form said they had 10 minutes to complete it, going back and double-checking to make sure they filled everything out correctly. While they were double-checking their information, they were booted from the portal, and they lost the race. They were punished because they were trying to make sure their form was correct. How is that fair?

Some of these families have now been trying to sponsor their loved ones for five years or more. Despite their efforts, because of these unfair application systems, they have not even been able to get the process started. Every year, they get shut out. That is wrong.

This process is only made worse by the treatment that my constituents receive when they try to call IRCC to get the information on applications and processes. The Auditor General just released a report stating that 70% of calls to IRCC are blocked from reaching an agent. That is 1.2 million calls per year being denied the ability to speak to an agent. When will the government pick up the phone and listen to Canadians? They are demanding a fair system to reunite with their loved ones. Why will the Liberal government not listen?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, a number of years ago, I was the immigration critic for the Liberal Party of Canada. I can tell members that I was at the table when the Conservative Party made the decision to actually cancel the program of being able to sponsor parents and grandparents. They had brought the system to where there were seven- or eight-year waiting periods for someone to be able to sponsor a parent. They actually shut it down. Then when they did decide to reopen it a year and a half or two years later, they put in a cap of 5,000.

This government does not need to be lectured by the New Democrats on the important issue of immigration and how it is that we believe we need to, wherever we can, allow for the reuniting of families, especially parents and grandparents. I am very familiar with the issue.

One of the initiatives we need to recognize is that we increased the number of applicants from 5,000 to 20,000, fourfold in the last three years. That is a significant achievement. Whether the NDP wants to choose to recognize that is completely irrelevant. The fact is that we understand it. This is a program whereby not only have we increased the numbers but we have seen substantial reduction in the amount of time it takes to process the sponsoring of a parent or grandparent.

We continue to reinforce the importance of the super visa, a visa that allows for those individuals who are not able to get their parents into the system, to get that 10-year visa whereby they can come and be here in Canada in blocks of two years at a time.

We do not need to be lectured by Johnny-come-lately New Democrats as to what should be happening on immigration. It is an issue that we follow very closely, and we have a proactive minister who is constantly working with many different stakeholders. Just the other day, in fact, I was approached by the minister, as I know the minister has approached many individuals looking at ways in which we can further advance the way we reunite families through immigration.

As a government, we have hit record numbers of immigrants with a great mix from economic immigrants to businesses to family reunifications, and so forth. This government takes the immigration file to heart, and we are very serious about that file.

We will continue to be diligent. We will continue as a caucus. We have a very proactive caucus. Members of Parliament from all regions of the country in our caucus recognize the true value of immigration, and we will continue to work and strive to improve the system. This is something that, from the Prime Minister to the minister of immigration, constantly not only raises and challenges our members on the government benches but encourages members of the opposition. I am sure they also bring issues to the attention of the department, because we recognize that there are ways we can actually improve. We will strive to make the system even better than we have in the last more than three and a half years.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal government members can pat themselves on the back all they want. All they need to do is talk to their constituents to know what the problem is.

Guess what. I even have government members phoning me in my office asking us to help them escalate an immigration case. Why? It is because 1.2 million people cannot even get through to IRCC to get an update on what is going on with their files. That is from the Auditor General, who has reported this. People cannot get through to the government to advance the issues about their parents and grandparents.

Members should talk to families who have not been able to get their applications through and see whether they feel as good as this member does about the great job that the government is doing. The government needs to get on with it.

If the member truly believes that the government is doing a good job, then he should listen to Canadians and listen to his constituents.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, again, I will take no lecture or lessons from the member opposite. In my constituency, the caseload is more than 400 files a month dealing with immigration. There is no issue in terms of members of Parliament being able to represent their constituents and make the calls that are necessary to ensure that an individual is, in fact, getting the attention that is necessary for the specific file.

If members are being challenged in terms of making that connection and if they or their office is unable to do so, I highly recommend they get in touch with the ministry of immigration. I am not aware of that. I know that MPs who put their resources into it and are prepared to assist their constituents on the immigration file, do have and are provided the opportunity to make that very important contact with immigration Canada services.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madame Speaker, we are in the dying days of this Parliament. We have talked a lot about immigration policy and the Liberal government's allowing the abuse of Canada's asylum system. That is really the core of Canada's immigration system.

I am going to ask a question of my colleague opposite who ends up answering all the questions at this time of day. For the last two years, instead of addressing a really serious issue with a definitive answer or a definitive position on whether people should be allowed to enter into Canada from the United States through an illegal point of entry and then claim asylum, the Liberals have kind of just allowed this to happen. It has cost Canadian taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. There are all sorts of problems with it.

However, what is really egregious to me is that we are in the dying days of this Parliament and, all of a sudden, the Prime Minister woke up, started to look at the polls and thought that maybe he should talk about the issue. Maybe; however, he never apologized for something he did that was really serious. That is cheapening the debate on the term “racism”.

I would think that one thing all of us could agree on in this House is that racism is a serious problem in Canada. I am assuming that my colleague opposite, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, will be answering. We both grew up in Winnipeg. Racism is a serious problem in Winnipeg. There are a lot of first nations people who suffer tremendously because of racist attitudes. There are minority communities across Canada for whom we need to do more to prevent racism.

Racism is not questioning the government's policies with regard to how people enter the country and under what circumstances. Instead of doing something about the issue at the border or just even taking a policy position on it one way or the other, first it was “irregular”, then it was this and then it was that, and then it was that the safe third country agreement applies but it does not, and on and on. Instead of taking a position that the Liberals could defend either way, they just kind of spent all this money.

More importantly, the Prime Minister stood up, over and over again, and sort of labelled anybody from any political party or any Canadian as racist for asking questions about whether this was the best policy for protecting the world's most vulnerable in Canada. The immigration minister was in our hometown of Winnipeg, and stood up and said people are being “not Canadian” and got really angry and yelled proclamations. I think that is really disappointing. It cheapens the term. It prevents us from looking at issues that we could all be talking about.

It is not racist or un-Canadian to question the government, especially the current Liberal government, on policies related to how we manage the integrity of Canada's border and the potential abuse of Canada's asylum system.

I would just say this. In a hand extended in the spirit of bipartisanship, I wonder if my colleague opposite would say that perhaps that is not the best approach, calling somebody racist or un-Canadian for questioning policy related to whether somebody should be allowed to illegally enter the country and then claim asylum after having already reached the safety of upstate New York.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, maybe I could take a more holistic approach in responding to my friend's question.

If we look at Canada, every year we have target numbers that are well established with respect to the number of immigrants we would anticipate in the upcoming year. We also have separate categories. For example, there are categories that say we hope to achieve x number of provincial nominees coming from different provinces, x number of additional economic immigrants coming into our country and x number of marriages and family reunifications. I was just talking about parents and grandparents. We also recognize there will be a certain number of sponsored refugees.

These are all part of our immigration system. When we tally it all up, we are talking well over 300,000 net people coming to Canada this year. Canada is well respected around the world. There is a great demand to come to Canada. We are a country that has been built by immigration.

The member talked about racism. Racism is real and it hurts. We need to do things to try to minimize racism through cross-cultural awareness, whether it comes from individuals it should not come from or individuals who purposely intend to hurt people.

When we talk about those who are crossing the border seeking asylum, what we do not necessarily hear from the Conservative Party is this. I was the immigration critic in opposition when Stephen Harper was the prime minister. Even back then we had Americans or individuals from the United States crossing the border into Canada. The only thing that has really changed is the numbers. I suspect if we look at it more recently, some of those numbers have gone down.

Yes, there was a bump. We work with other countries, the Five Eyes countries, countries like Australia and the United States. A system is in place. Canada is held in fairly high esteem with respect to how we process asylum seekers. We have a fair process. That process has been followed the same way it was followed when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, even though at that time the number of people crossing the border was not quite as high.

Therefore, if we try to give a false impression by saying that we have never had people coming from the United States claiming asylum before, that is not true. That has been happening for many years. Yes, the numbers have changed and so forth, but the issue has been there for years. However, the Conservatives, in opposition, try to ramp up the issue, but what is the motivation for doing so?

We have a fair system. We have even seen some changes in the last budget. The budget is very much on top of the file. We have an incredible Minister of Immigration who is doing the diligence necessary to ensure the integrity of the system.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, the problem for the member opposite is that it is not just a little bump. The auditors general themselves have said that this was the highest number in history. In fact, we are close to I think 47,000 people illegally entering Canada from the United States and then claiming asylum. Now we have backlogs in our system. There probably will be a backlog of close to 100,000 caseloads at the Immigration and Refugee Board by the end of this year.

The member did not answer my question, and it is really important. Racism is a serious topic. He glossed over the fact the current government had conflated that term in order to distract from its failures on this issue. I would like to give him an opportunity to acknowledge that was not the best approach. We might have differences on policy and how to manage the asylum system, but we should not cheapen the term racism to distract from what is a significant policy change.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite did not contradict what I said, because it is true. As I pointed out, individuals from the United States have been crossing Canada's borders for many years.

The member is right that at times there are bumps where we will get a huge increase, just like many years ago when Stephen Harper was the prime minister and we had a huge bump in individuals from Roma. They were coming to Canada by the hundreds, if not even by the thousands. That caused very serious issues, delays and so forth. There was another situation with Mexico.

Different times have often led to different situations where individuals come into Canada and the government of the day has had to be consistent and ensure we protect the integrity of the system. That is something this minister—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

Intergovernmental Relations

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have an anniversary to celebrate today. On May 15, 2018, the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously passed the following motion:

That the National Assembly ask the Quebec government and the federal government to implement a single tax return for Quebec taxpayers, to be filed with Revenu Québec, while preserving Quebec's fiscal autonomy.

We are very lucky to be able to talk about giving Quebeckers, who have just finished filing their taxes, the possibility to file a single tax return just like every other Canadian.

The National Assembly unanimously passed the motion on May 15, 2018, hot on the heels of the Conservative Party's general council in Saint-Hyacinthe, where the members in attendance clearly expressed their willingness to implement a single tax return. In addition, they provided other excellent recommendations, such as exempting producers of Canadian cultural content from paying GST, reviewing the safe third country agreement for tighter border control, giving provinces control over cultural matters and expanding the powers of the federal ombudsman for victims of crime.

During this event, a number of meaningful things were done for Quebec. Why? Because on this side of the House, we care about what Quebeckers want and the time they spend filing their tax returns. We want to make their lives easier, and that is what matters. That is what we intend to do by calling on the government to let Quebeckers file a single tax return.

On February 5, the opposition moved a motion in the House on a single tax return for Quebeckers. The Liberals rejected the motion, obviously. The motion said:

That, given:

(a) the House has great respect for provincial jurisdiction and trust in provincial institutions;

As an aside, that is not the case for the Liberals. When federal ministers make announcements about matters of provincial jurisdiction without their provincial counterparts, we have to wonder if they are really willing to listen to the provinces and establish partnerships with them. During election season, nothing matters anymore for the Liberals.

Continuing with the motion:

(b) the people of Quebec are burdened with completing and submitting two tax returns...

(c) the House believes in cutting red tape and reducing unnecessary paperwork to improve the everyday lives of families; therefore,

the House call on the government to work with the Government of Quebec to implement a single tax return in Quebec.

The government was quick to respond. The Prime Minister automatically slammed the door on the idea of the Government of Quebec administering a single tax return. The Premier of Quebec was obviously very disappointed. The Prime Minister stated very clearly that his government is not aligned with the Government of Quebec on the idea of a single provincial tax return.

Since then, conversations, partnerships and discussions with the Government of Quebec have gone from bad to worse. It is completely irresponsible for a federal government to not respect the provinces' jurisdiction. What is truly despicable is the government's unwillingness to respect Quebeckers' desire to file a single tax return, which is what all other Canadians in all the other provinces do.

[Deb Schulte, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, this is not the first time we have talked about this matter in the House. However, I would like to reiterate it in English.

The minister has made it clear that the transfer of administration from the federal tax system to Revenu Québec would have significant impacts on the human resources of the CRA. We need to think about the people, the people who work day after day at the CRA. Their work is essential to maintaining the integrity and fairness of our Canadian tax system.

We must take into account the potential impacts on more than 5,500 employees of the CRA who work in Quebec. These people work in 14 offices across the province, including the National Verification and Collections Centre in Shawinigan and the Jonquière Tax Centre. Let us not forget the vast majority of these jobs are permanent and well-paying. Jobs like these help stimulate the economy of various regions in Quebec.

Let us say that we would transfer the tax administration from the federal system to Quebec. Could Revenu Québec really absorb all of the people currently employed? I am taking the liberty to cast serious doubt on this. I will elaborate.

The Conservatives claim that there would be no job losses and that Revenu Québec could certainly hire a large number of people, especially all the people whose work relates directly to the administration of the income tax and benefit returns of Quebeckers. However, even a transfer of some personnel to Revenu Québec would leave many people out in the cold.

Premier Legault admitted it himself, that if the Government of Canada transferred its tax administration in Quebec to Revenu Québec, there would certainly be job losses. This would be a headache for these people and their families, which would perhaps have to move to another region or even another province. It would be a logistical headache since a game of musical chairs would have to be orchestrated in the field. As well, it would be a financial headache since all of that would not be without cost.

Also, let us not forget the potential impact it would have for Canadian taxpayers across the country.

Currently, the federal government, nine provinces and three territories have harmonized their definition of income and have a single tax return administrated by the federal government. This is the simplification and the savings for which Quebec is looking. Quebec has different definitions, different rules and different exemptions. For a single tax return in Quebec, a choice has to be made. Either Quebec adopts Canada's definitions or Canada adopts Quebec's definitions.

What are the Conservatives trying to achieve? What are their true intentions?

On May 6, a symposium took place, organized by academics from the Université de Sherbrooke. After a whole day of discussions, invited experts came to a strong conclusion that the issue was far more complex than it had been presented and proposed by the Conservatives. They concluded that if Quebec's aim for this proposal was to save money, then the advantage for Quebeckers would be to have one single tax return administered by the CRA, like in all other provinces in Canada.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, the fear campaign continues. Instead of putting the interests of Quebeckers first, they are finding all sorts of excuses to justify their refusal to acknowledge the will of the National Assembly.

As for the symposium in Sherbrooke, I will quote the president of the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, who said, “There is a real need to streamline the process. Taxpayers currently have to comply with two tax systems. It is a tremendous waste of time for SMEs and it undermines their competitiveness.”

That was said at the symposium my hon. colleague just mentioned.

I will also quote a union that waded into the debate on a single tax return in 2015, the Syndicat de la fonction publique et parapublique du Québec, who said, “This position is not only in the interest of SFPQ members, but of all Quebeckers.”

We are not alone. The National Assembly, the Syndicat de la fonction publique et parapublique du Québec and the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec all support a single tax return. It is the right thing to do, and only the Conservative Party will do it.

[Deb Schulte, Liberal, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me assure the House that the Government of Canada is firmly committed to working closely with Quebec to reduce the administrative burden on Quebec taxpayers so all Canadians receive the best services. Canadians across the country deserve services that are accessible and fair. This is the work we have been doing, and will continue to do, for Canadians.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn, and the House will now resolve itself into committee of the whole for the purpose of considering all votes under Department of National Defence in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020.

I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into committee of the whole.

(Consideration in committee of the whole of all votes under Department of National Defence in the main estimates, Mrs. Carol Hughes in the chair)

Department of National Defence—Main Estimates, 2019-20

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Tonight's debate is a general one on the votes under Department of National Defence. The first round will begin with the official opposition, followed by the government and the New Democratic Party. After that, we will follow the usual proportional rotation.

Each member will be allocated 15 minutes at a time, which may be used for both debate and for posing questions. Members wishing to use this time to make a speech have a maximum of 10 minutes, which leaves at least five minutes for questions to the minister.

When a member is recognized, he or she should indicate to the Chair how the 15-minute period will be used, in other words, how much time will be spent on the speech and how much time will be used for questions and answers. Members should also note that they will need the unanimous consent of the committee to split their time with another member. When the time is to be used for questions and comments, the Chair will expect that the minister's response will reflect approximately the time taken by the question, as that time counts toward the time allocated to the party.

I also wish to indicate that in committee of the whole, comments should be addressed to the Chair. I ask for everyone's co-operation in upholding all established standards of decorum, parliamentary language and behaviour.

We will now begin tonight's session.

The House is in committee of the whole, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), consideration in committee of the whole of the votes under Department of National Defence in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020.

Debate, the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.