House of Commons Hansard #27 of the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was impact.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Documents on Economic DownturnsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Opposition Motion—Documents on Economic DownturnsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

All those opposed will please say nay.

Opposition Motion—Documents on Economic DownturnsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Opposition Motion—Documents on Economic DownturnsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

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

Vote #19

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

March 9th, 2020 / 6:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from February 28 consideration of the motion.

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(17), the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar relating to the business of supply.

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

Vote #20

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I declare the motion carried. Therefore the study of the motion to concur in the supplementary estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020, and interim supply for the fiscal year ending on March 31, 2021, scheduled for later this day is postponed to a later date.

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

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Mr. Speaker, as you know, marine pollution is increasingly becoming an urgent global problem, impacting marine animals, millions of seabirds and even salmon on the west coast of British Columbia.

We had a spill on the west coast of British Columbia four years ago where 35 shipping containers spilled. The Government of Canada had no action plan to address this problem. In fact, those marine cargo shipment containers spread all up and down the coast and it was left up to local people to deal with this difficult challenge.

We know we are shipping plastic and debris to the Philippines and it has become a diplomatic problem for us. Finally, after our pressure, that pollution and that waste was shipped back to us. We know that in Malaysia, they are concerned about the first world shipping their problem to developing nations.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

6:55 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but there seems to be people in here who believe that the House is not sitting. Contrary to that, the House continues to sit at this moment for the late show, and I would ask members to take their conversations outside.

Once again, I ask members to exit the lobby if they are not staying in here for the business we are hosting right now.

The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

6:55 p.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Madam Speaker, we know that we are facing a global crisis right now when it comes to marine plastic pollution and the impact it is having on our oceans. Right now we are seeing over eight million tonnes of plastic pollution entering our oceans every year globally. This plastic pollution is killing hundreds of thousands of marine animals and millions of seabirds. It is a huge problem not just globally, but certainly here at home as well. When we talk about the state of our oceans and our duty to protect them, it is for the species that do not have a voice.

There was a spill off the west coast of British Columbia four years ago. Thirty-five large shipping containers spilled into our waters and the Government of Canada was nowhere to be seen. It fell on the backs of local communities and local stakeholder groups like Clayoquot CleanUp, which is now called the Coastal Restoration Society, and Surfrider Pacific Rim, to take on the challenge of cleaning up the marine debris that spread throughout our coast.

We are also hearing about our garbage ending up in places like the Philippines. Members may recall the Philippines declared war on Canada because of the government's inability to deal with a problem and it grew into a diplomatic relationship issue. The Philippines did not want our garbage and it sat in a harbour there for several years. We are hearing that our garbage is ending up in Malaysia. Children are living in plastic garbage slums, and it is our plastic and our garbage. It is disgraceful and embarrassing for all Canadians. Children should not be living among our garbage in developing nations. It needs to stop. It can stop.

The Government of Canada has signed a part of the Basel Convention whereby it has to get permission from developing countries to stop shipping its garbage to developing nations. What we want is the government to not even seek permission, but to actually stop shipping our garbage to developing nations. It needs to stop. It is the responsible thing to do.

I do want to applaud the government for hearing our voices and feeling the pressure from us calling on the government to take on this huge issue. We worked with the government and the Minister of Environment when he was the parliamentary secretary. He came to Victoria for a meeting with me and the former member for Victoria, Murray Rankin. We met with the University of Victoria environmental offsetter, who had produced a report on the seven ways to address marine plastic pollution. The government did encapsulate some of those recommendations. It has taken some action when it comes to dealing with ghost and derelict fishing gear.

The government has talked a great bunch about single-use plastics, but we still have not seen any action or commitments. Despite the fact that nations and jurisdictions around the world have taken action, this is still falling on the backs of local governments and provincial governments.

The environment and the species in our environment cannot wait any longer. We are calling on the government to make an announcement about its single-use plastic commitments and to commit to dealing with industrial-use plastics.

I look forward to hearing from the parliamentary secretary. I look forward to continuing to work with the government on dealing with this urgent matter.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

6:55 p.m.

Vaudreuil—Soulanges Québec

Liberal

Peter Schiefke LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change

Madam Speaker, it has been a pleasure discussing this with my hon. colleague on numerous occasions. He is working hard on this matter, and I appreciate that greatly.

Canadians want us to address plastic pollution. We agree, and are doing our due diligence to advance the best solutions for Canada in a timely manner. The Government of Canada has made getting to zero plastic waste one of its environmental priorities. To do so, we are taking action through a comprehensive approach.

Since the motion was approved, I am very happy to report that progress has indeed been made. On February 1, we published the draft science assessment on plastic pollution for public comment. This report will guide future research and inform our decisions as we follow through on our commitment to ban harmful single-use plastic, where warranted and supported by science, as early as 2021, and take other actions to reduce plastic pollution. This is the first step in accessing our regulatory tools under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

We do not take lightly the decisions around the role government should play in the management of single-use plastics and other plastic products. The development of any regulatory measure, including which products will be targeted, will be informed by science and socio-economic considerations.

We will also continue to engage and consult with stakeholders throughout the development, management and review of potential regulations or other measures. These efforts are part of a comprehensive agenda to reduce plastic waste and pollution. We are developing a range of complementary actions, which include encouraging better product design for longer product life, recyclability and recycled content; increasing the collection of plastic waste; and making producers responsible for the waste their products generate.

We are also greening our federal operations by eliminating unnecessary single-use plastics, procuring sustainable plastic products and working toward our commitment to divert 75% of our plastic waste by 2030.

In 2018, Canada launched the Canadian Plastics Innovation Challenge to help small and medium-sized businesses find new ways to reduce plastic waste and turn waste into valuable resources. Eight challenges were completed in 2018-2019, providing over $11.8 million to 18 Canadian small and medium-sized entrepreneurs. Three finalists for 2019-2020 were announced this February. The federal leadership toward zero plastic waste initiative includes grant funding of $2.6 million for Environment and Climate Change Canada to undertake new Canadian Plastics Innovation Challenges over the next three years, beginning in fiscal year 2019-20.

We are also investing in science, innovation and deployable solutions, such as through Environment and Climate Change Canada's recently launched funding opportunities, one for advancing science and the other for targeting community-level solutions. The Government of Canada is providing grants and other supports for community activities such as shoreline cleanups, and for accelerating research on the life cycle of plastics and on the impacts of plastic pollution on humans, wildlife and the environment. This complements the investments by Fisheries and Oceans Canada to support projects that help prevent and retrieve lost fishing gear.

We have also worked with the provinces and territories and launched the Canada-wide strategy on the zero waste plastic and phase 1 action plan. We are working together to implement these commitments, including by creating a road map to address single-use plastics, guidance for consistent policies to make companies that manufacture or sell plastic products responsible for their end-of-life management, and national targets and standards for plastic products and packaging.

We are taking action. Internationally, we have garnered support from 26 governments and from 67 businesses and organizations that have endorsed the Ocean Plastics Charter, committing to take action along the life cycle of plastics.

We are committed to taking action on this issue. We have already started. We are going to get it done.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7 p.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the government and all parties in this House for supporting my motion No. 151 to tackle marine plastic pollution.

The Liberals need to take action. They need to make announcements of what they are going to ban when it comes to single-use plastics and take real action when it comes to industrial-use plastics.

My colleague from the Conservative Party from York—Simcoe tabled a bill to ban the export of certain plastics to developing countries. I applaud him for that, but all the government needs to do is tick a box at the Basel Convention to stop it now. It does not even need to wait for this bill. It is something that the government could address.

Right now, we need urgent investments for marine debris cleanups, for working with indigenous guardians and their programs, and for salmon restoration projects that could help protect our wild salmon in the salmon emergency we are in.

We look forward to working with the government, but we want to hear concrete commitments and timelines on when it is going to address these issues.

The EnvironmentAdjournment Proceedings

7 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Schiefke Liberal Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC

Madam Speaker, in regard to the movement of waste internationally, Canada is party to three international agreements that outline the requirements for exports, imports and transit of hazardous waste and hazardous recyclable materials. We take our obligations under these agreements very seriously.

In May 2019, Canada actively supported the negotiation and adoption of amendments to the Basel Convention, which my hon. colleague mentioned, to strengthen controls on the transboundary movement of plastic waste. Domestically, Canada has a comprehensive regulatory regime in place to control exports of hazardous waste and comply with international obligations. We are taking action to improve compliance with this regulatory regime through measures such as communicating requirements to Canadian companies.

We are also setting up an ad hoc committee that will work to prevent illegal waste exports. Canada respects the regulatory decisions of other countries to control waste imports, and as such seeks their consent before allowing waste exports from Canada to be shipped to those countries.

I would like to further state that I appreciate all the work that my hon. colleague has done on this issue, and I look forward to collaborating with him further.

Government AppointmentsAdjournment Proceedings

7:05 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON

Madam Speaker, how does one become a judge in Canada? One would think individuals would take the LSAT, go to law school, get a good job, establish a career that demonstrates their ability and their merit year after year, and maybe they would be deemed fit to be appointed to the bench. Ideally, that would be the process that a young person with judicial ambitions would undertake. Under the Liberal government however, the reality is that if individuals want to become judges, they better be Liberals. If they want to expedite the process, being related to a Liberal member or being a max donor sure helps.

The Liberal record on partisan judicial appointments is horrendous and completely does away with the government's claims, “All judicial appointments follow our new, open, independent, transparent and merit-based process”. The way it works with the Liberal government is that prospective candidates are recommended by Liberal members or other members of the Liberal elite, like the wife of a currently sitting member of Parliament who sits on the Queen's Bench in Manitoba.

The prospective candidates are then checked against their score on Liberalist, a Liberal database, to make sure they are Liberal enough to make the cut and that their donation records are up to date. If the fact that a sitting judge is telling ministerial staff who should be appointed to the bench, and where, does not raise red flags, then the fact that they are being graded on their partisanship should.

It is no secret that the Liberals always put their friends before the rest of Canadians. No clearer example of this can be found than that of the President of the Queen's Privy Council, the member for Beauséjour, letting his family and friends jump the queue as we saw with clam scam, where the member awarded a lucrative fishing contract to family when he was the minister of fisheries. With that track record, it is no surprise that five of six recent judicial appointments in New Brunswick have personal connections to that member.

A neighbour, a family relative and three lawyers who helped retire debts from his unsuccessful 2008 leadership bid were all appointed to the bench in New Brunswick, again raising red flags that the Liberals' merit-based appointment process might not be so merit-based after all, and that they are indeed partisan patronage appointments.

It really comes down to ethics. We have seen that the Liberal government seems to throw ethical considerations by the wayside and step over the ethical line repeatedly. Again, it is no surprise that the Liberal appointment process is certainly not merit-based but is in fact an exercise in partisanship. That is exactly why Canadians are losing faith in public institutions that they pay for and that they expect to operate at the highest ethical level.

We have witnessed a steady degradation of the public trust over the last five years and Canadians are left with a feeling that two sets of rules exist in Canada: one for the governing class and one for those they govern. Canadians deserve to have confidence in their public institutions and deserve to have a government that upholds those institutions.

When will the Liberal government realize that very thing, and put everyday Canadians ahead of their friends?

Government AppointmentsAdjournment Proceedings

7:05 p.m.

Parkdale—High Park Ontario

Liberal

Arif Virani LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his contributions in the last Parliament in the justice committee and for raising this important issue this evening.

Devoting time to considering judicial appointments and the judicial appointment process is critically important. A high-quality superior court judiciary is essential to the fair and effective functioning of our justice system.

We on this side of the House are proud of the merit-based, diverse appointments that we have made. Since taking office, we have made 350 outstanding individuals, who reflect the face of Canada, eligible to serve on our superior courts either through direct appointments or through elevations.

As all members of this House can attest, we are fortunate in Canada to have a strong and independent judiciary. Canadians know they can turn to the courts to resolve their disputes and uphold their rights and freedoms. They know that the judges that serve them are not beholden to other branches of government nor to any powerful groups or interests in society.

However, we cannot take this for granted. Every single day we must strive to uphold the institutions and values that make it possible to live in a free, just and democratic society. Fundamental to upholding these institutions and values is working to ensure that the public has confidence in the justice system.

That very point was made by the member opposite, ensuring the public has confidence in the administration of justice. That is actually outlined in the Constitution. It is such a fundamental precept.

This includes trusting that there is a rigorous process in place to appoint judges. To bolster this trust, our government in 2016 introduced important reforms to strengthen the superior court appointments process.

What has that process resulted in? We overhauled that process and we did it deliberately. We wanted to ensure the bench reflected the Canadians who the bench serves. What we have done in elevating 357 judges, 293 who are new appointments and 64 elevations, is appoint 53% female judges. By contrast, the previous government appointed 32% women to Canada's superior courts. Of the judges appointed under our process, 3% are indigenous, 8% are racialized Canadians, 5% identify as LGBTQ2 and 33% are functioning bilingual.

Why is this important? Why am I listing these statistics and putting them into the record for tonight's discussion? Because I agree with the member opposite. Canadians need to have confidence in the administration of justice, Canadians watching tonight and Canadians right across the country.

How do we ensure that confidence? We ensure that litigants who appear before our courts see themselves reflected in those courts, and that means Canadians of all backgrounds, all races, all religions, regardless of their sexual orientation, should be able to see themselves in front of that bench. We are doing that with these appointments.

To state that people better be Liberal in order to get appointed is patently false and does not denote the actual record, which is that we have appointed people who have been involved in political affiliations, political donations or political partisan activities from all major parties in the country. We are proud of that record.

We are ensuring we have a qualified bench, a meritorious bench that continues the tradition of fine judge-making in the country, which we are known for around the world.

Government AppointmentsAdjournment Proceedings

7:10 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON

Madam Speaker, it is admirable and it is laudable that the government does endeavour to have a judiciary that reflects the face of the people who are served by the judiciary.

However, it can do that without just picking Liberals. We know it is a matter of public record that the Liberals vet their appointments through their database, through their partisan database, their fundraising database, their volunteer database. That is not in the best interests of democracy. It is not in the best interests of an independent and unbiased judiciary. That is what we are talking about.

What we are looking for from the Liberals is non-partisan appointments. When are they going to put Canadians ahead of their friends?

Government AppointmentsAdjournment Proceedings

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON

Madam Speaker, what I would put for the member opposite and, indeed, to all parliamentarians is the track record of the previous government's appointments, when previous elected officials to this chamber were elevated to spots on the superior court versus what we have done.

We have put in place 17 judicial appointments committees around the country. We ensure those appointments committees are diverse with respect to their composition. There are representatives from law societies, from the superior courts themselves and from the chief justices of the various provinces. They make recommendations, “not recommended”, “recommended” or “highly recommended”.

The Minister of Justice has done exactly what the previous minister of justice did, which is only appoint from the pool of “recommended” or “highly recommended” officials. I will say what I said earlier. Are there people who have been involved in political activities through being engaged in their communities? Yes, there are. There are those who have touched all the parties in the country. That involvement is a good thing. We want fine jurists, and that is who we are appointing.

Foreign AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, I am following up on a question I asked the Prime Minister earlier in which I raised two distinct issues. I spoke a little about Canadian participation in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and I also spoke about the Prime Minister announcing four years ago that Canada was in the beginnings of extradition discussions with the Government of China. I want to follow up on and highlight both of those very important issues again. I look forward to the feedback of the government on them.

First, as I pointed out at the time, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is part of a colonial project to expand Chinese government control and influence throughout Asia. In spite of the very clear objectives, briefing documents sent to the government by the public services pointed out that this is part of a belt and road initiative, which promotes values, economic security and ideas of human rights that are contrary to Canadian values and principles.

In spite of that, the Liberal government chose to bring Canada into the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which means that we put over 400 million hard-earned taxpayer dollars into this bank. This bank is a vehicle for expanding the strategic influence of the Chinese government through which the Chinese government promotes models of governance, ideas about human rights and economic securities that are contrary to our values.

Why in the world would Canada participate in this? Why would Canadians want to see their dollars going to this type of a development bank? We have heard a couple of responses from the government on that. Sometimes we hear the government saying that this is about creating opportunities for Canadian companies, that maybe Canadian companies could get contracts with the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank if we put taxpayer money into it.

Even if that were true, I do not think that this sort of backdoor corporate subsidy through the Chinese government is a very effective way of supporting Canadian businesses. In any event, it is not true. As I was able to establish when I visited the headquarters of the AIIB in Beijing, it has an open procurement policy so Canadian companies are welcome to bid on projects whether or not Canada is a member of the bank.

The government says it is important for us to be promoting development, participating in multilateral institutions and so forth. Yes, it is important for us to be participating in multilateral institutions that reflect and promote our values, not ones that are seeking to promote strategic interests in a model of government which is contrary to our values.

It is very sad to see how the Chinese government today is replicating colonial techniques in other parts of Asia that were tragically and wrongly used against China in the 19th century, and that it is inflicting the same humiliation on other countries. I think everyone can understand that that is not right and Canada should not participate. In the exchange that took place previously in the House, the Prime Minister completely mischaracterized our participation in the AIIB.

I also raised the issue of extradition. Four years ago the Prime Minister announced the beginning of extradition discussions. At the time, when I asked the question in the House in the last month, the Prime Minister responded by saying that China does not meet the criteria for an extradition treaty. This is heartening because frankly it is obvious that the Chinese government does not meet the criteria for an extradition treaty. It did not four years ago, and it does not today.

I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary why is it that any discussions took place, because at the Canada-China committee our public servants confirmed that discussions did take place. When it was as obvious then as it is today that the criteria are not there, why was the door even opened? Canadians deserve an answer on that as well.

Foreign AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

7:15 p.m.

Don Valley West Ontario

Liberal

Rob Oliphant LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Madam Speaker, through you, I want to thank the hon. member for his questions, particularly regarding the extradition discussions with China.

Let me be perfectly clear. Canada is not considering an extradition agreement with China. Canadian and Chinese officials have routinely discussed legal co-operation issues, including as part of the Canada-China national security and rule of law dialogue. During previous dialogues, Canadian and Chinese officials have held discussions on many issues of mutual interest in the areas of legal co-operation and rule of law matters. This has included counterterrorism, cybersecurity, combatting transnational organized crime, and international and regional security challenges. In the course of this dialogue, China expressed its interest in exploring an extradition agreement with Canada. That is not unusual.

Canada is a popular destination for travel and immigration. As such, we are regularly approached by foreign countries interested in joining the ranks of the 80 countries with which we have bilateral extradition agreements. If a treaty with a particular country is assessed to be in Canada's interest, this can lead to a formal negotiation process and eventually a new extradition treaty could be undertaken. Other times, when Canada does not feel a treaty with a given country is necessary, is possible or is in Canada's best interest, extradition treaty proposals do not move past an exploratory phase and are not acted upon.

In accordance with our values and laws, Canada expects its extradition partners to uphold the highest standards of due process and fair treatment in their judicial and correctional systems. These are the key elements in the extradition treaty agreement.

In the case of China's expression of interest, while early discussions did take place, no decision was ever made to engage further, to the point of formal negotiations.

Nevertheless, China continues to be an important partner for Canada. China is Canada's third largest merchandise trading partner and an important market for Canadian businesses. China is an important source of foreign students and tourists, who make important contributions to the Canadian economy.

Canada and China have many differences. That is perfectly clear. However, where there are differences, we will continue to have appropriate engagement. Canada places great importance on our relations with China. We will engage continually with the Government of China in a way that is in Canada's best interest, all the while defending Canadian values and advancing our interests.

With respect to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, I would simply say that our government is a pro-business government that looks for opportunities for Canadian businesses to engage in projects around the world in every way we can. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is one such opportunity. We will continue to support Canadian businesses so they can grow, expand and create prosperity in this country.

Foreign AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

7:20 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, I have three brief points of follow-up for the parliamentary secretary.

With respect to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, I pointed out explicitly that those opportunities already existed for Canadian business because the AIIB has an open procurement policy. We still have not heard from the government as to why we joined the AIIB and spent over $400 million of taxpayer money to do so when businesses already had the opportunity to apply for contracts. Was the government unaware of the open procurement policy of the AIIB? Did it not do its due diligence at that basic level? Why did we put $400 million plus into this?

With respect to engagement, we heard some great testimony today at the Canada-China committee about how engagement is important and must be a means to an end, not an end in and of itself, that is, we engage with other countries in order to advance our values and interests, but we do not see engagement as an end in and of itself. That is very important.

On the issue of extradition, there was a joint communiqué issued that said, “The two sides determined that the short-term objectives for Canada-China cooperation on security and rule of law are to: start discussions on an Extradition Treaty and a Transfer of Offenders Treaty as well as other related matters”.

I would like to know why that joint communiqué was sent, given what the parliamentary secretary said.

Foreign AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON

Madam Speaker, let me be clear. Canada is not negotiating an extradition agreement with China. Canada is an independent sovereign nation. We recognize that China is and will continue to be a major player in international affairs. It is in Canada's best interest to engage appropriately with China. Canadians have decided who is best to engage with China as a government. Canadians have elected this government to do that. Canadians have put their trust in us to do that in a way that protects Canadian values, and in a way that assures that we will be engaged in human rights and those activities that Canadians value.

Despite our differences, we will continue to have a meaningful relationship that is in Canada's best interest and, at the same time, in the best interests of Canadian businesses.