Alistair MacGregor

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate his question because it really goes to the crux of the issue. Saudi Arabia and Iran are two opposite ends of the pole in the Middle East and both are competing for influence. However, we should not forget that while Iran is trying to further its influence in the region, Saudi Arabia is too, through some means of which ordinary Canadians may not be so proud.

With the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and the fact that there are so many, I do not see the rationale behind exporting more arms to a country that is just going to keep on inflaming the fights going on there. At the very least, there should be an oversight committee to study these issues in-depth and focus with laser-like precision on our exports to Saudi Arabia. If Canadians saw the witness testimony on that, a lot of them would be quite illuminated as to how our country is really doing business in the region.

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am more than happy to respond to those points.

First, with respect to the member's statements about the committee work, the Standing Committee on International Trade has so many files to look at, such as softwood lumber. Our trade is so multi-faceted. Yes, the committee might have a bit of time to look at global arms, and so on, but that will be just one study. Because of the allegations of abuse in our global arms exports, we need a committee that looks at it as just one issue.

With respect to the workers in the member's home riding, the New Democrats are always going to stand with workers. However, I reckon that if he were to ask the workers if they would be comfortable with their exports going to a regime that is responsible for human rights abuses, they would say no. We are proud to support those workers and the work they do, but we need an oversight committee to ensure our exports are going to proper countries. I think the workers in his riding would agree. I hope he has the chance to ask them that.

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by thanking the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie for her incredible work on this issue, and for bringing this issue in today's motion as part of our opposition day.

The motion comes at a very important and crucial time for Canada. Over the last number of years we have seen some cracks appearing in the government's narrative that all is well and all is under control with respect to our arms exports.

I want to read the first four main points of the motion for the constituents of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, and indeed all Canadians, so that it is clear what the motion is about. It states:

...(i) Canadian arms exports have nearly doubled over the past decade, and that Canada is now the second-largest exporter of arms to the Middle East, (ii) Canadians expect a high standard from their government when it comes to protecting human rights abroad, (iii) Canadians are concerned by arms sales to countries with a record of human rights abuses, including Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Sudan, (iv) there is a need for Canadians, through Parliament, to oversee current and future arms sales...

Those are the facts.

I am most troubled, because we have heard that the Liberal government will not support the motion, which means it is basically against parliamentary oversight and more accountability. It is not putting its money where its mouth is. It is just a lot more talk from the Liberal side, with no real action on this front. That is a real disappointment.

I will enjoy bringing this to light time and time again. As we approach 2019, we will have a whole textbook full of examples of the Liberals saying one thing and doing another.

Every Canadian has a right to know what the government is doing with respect to the business of arms deals. I do not believe it should be a secret. Canada is selling arms to countries with terrible human rights. I want to be clear. This is not a normal export. This is not about whether one supports the defence industry or not. We are not saying that we should be stopping our arms exports. We simply want to know if the arms go to countries that have a real accountability mechanism, and whether we can track those arms after they have been sold to those countries. After that it seems to be a big black hole.

These are not normal exports. They are designed with one purpose in mind. They are military grade weapons and hardware. Let us be frank about this. They are designed to kill other people, or put down unrest or enhance security. For that reason alone, we need more control over how they are being used.

The oversight that we need to establish for our arms exports is not an unprecedented change. We have had a few members in the NDP raise this. The United Kingdom, which is one of the biggest arms exporters in the world, has a parliamentary oversight committee that was set up many years ago. Some members have argued that the NDP by advocating for this committee is somehow going against our own defence industry. Would those members use that same argument against the British? Would they say that the British are against their own arms industry because they want to have more accountability and oversight? It does not make sense.

We need the tools to look at exactly how this export regime is working. The British committee examines all aspects of arms deals, from licensing to broader policy issues.

Because of the government's history of not being forthcoming with information like that, we have to look to the fact that the government is ultimately accountable to Parliament. Of course the appropriate ministers have to stand in the House and explain themselves. However, that often comes with a lot of effort from the opposition side. Also, if the government is lucky enough to hold a majority in the House, it can quite easily dictate how it releases that information.

Polling among Canadian shows that people are against selling weapons and negotiating arms deals with countries that are serial human rights abusers. If we had this committee, we could be doing what the U.K. is doing right now, and reviewing the exports to Saudi Arabia in particular. The evidence is that our military-grade weaponry and hardware are being used in Yemen, and also to put down political dissent.

The fact that our exports have gone up so much to the Middle East, which, frankly, is a powder keg right now with so many conflicts going on there, I do not see why the Liberal government would be against this type of oversight. Back in the day we used to sell mostly to our fellow NATO allies. Those absolutely are countries with which we can do business. However, when it comes to ones with questionable human rights, that is where we need to have far more oversight.

The reason for a new committee that would specifically look at arms exports is because arms exports do not fit into any one simple category, and this needs to be clearly explained for the government side. For example, arms exports could rightfully be brought up at the committees on international trade, or defence, or foreign affairs, or labour and human rights. They all have stakes in this one issue. Therefore, it is prudent that we set up just one committee so we can look at those multi-faceted issues.

Saudi Arabia has been mentioned a lot in this debate. It is the world's second-largest buyer of military equipment from our country. We have been told by the Conservatives, and now the Liberals, that Canada has strong export rules, and that we are supposed to prohibit sales to countries whose governments have a persistent record of serious violations of human rights of their citizens unless it can be demonstrated that there is no reasonable risk that the goods might be used against the civilian population. I would submit to the House that this certainly is not the case with Saudi Arabia.

We have also heard questions from my hon. friends on this side, because there is a lot of secrecy about the arms deal that was done with the military government in place in Thailand. Of course, Thailand has been experiencing an amount of unrest.

The other thing is that this summer Canadians were treated to the news story that the government had weakened its arms export policy. We do not control or track the use of arms exports overseas, so there is no way of telling how they are being used.

I appreciate that we are going to eventually sign-on to the arms trade treaty, but we still do not have a timeline. Of course, officials from Global Affairs Canada have suggested that the expected treaty will not raise the current standards for Canadian arms exports.

We heard about the Streit Group in the news and how some of its machinery ended up going to Sudan. This is the problem with these arms companies when they have bases of operation in many different countries. They might have a base in Canada, but if, like the Streit Group, which has operations in the United Arab Emirates, it kind of muddies the water and becomes harder for us to track them down. Therefore, if we have a committee whose sole purpose is to examine these issues, we can focus with laser-like precision on this issue.

In 2012, the Streit Group was accused of violating international law by selling armoured vehicles to Libya. The UN has been involved in that and has brought this to light.

Saudi Arabia certainly has a very large record of human rights abuses. We know that Canadian-made tactical equipment was used by Saudi forces in raids against dissidents. We have seen evidence of military gear with the made-in-Canada stamp, and so on.

We need this parliamentary oversight for our arms exports before we are treated to more bad news. I do not think we can wait for the legislation for the arms trade treaty to come forward.

This is very much like the national security committee that is being proposed. We need to have a multi-party standing committee with the ability to summon witnesses, really review some of our export rules and any treaties that are coming about, and with laser-like focus, spend the time on that.

I appreciate the chance to stand in favour of this motion. I certainly hope some members will come to their senses and see to it. It really is in the best interest of our country.

[Democratic Reform, September 29th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, this week, the Chief Electoral Officer recommended limiting the length of election campaigns.

It just so happens that I have introduced a bill that would cap the election period at 46 days. In the last election, Stephen Harper doubled spending limits by extending the election to 11 long weeks. This cost the taxpayer $440 million. Canadians want to remove the influence of money and attack ads from our elections.

Will the Liberals support my bill to limit the length of elections?

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 27th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, we have seen in previous examples, most notably with northern gateway, that CSIS was complicit in providing information to oil companies about suspected activists and environmental protesters, so there is a very real threat.

The bill could address that particular problem only if the oversight committee is allowed to have real teeth and real investigative powers. That means not allowing a minister to just shut something down because he or she thinks it is “injurious to national security”.

That is such broad-ranging terminology. Could someone on the Liberal side please define that for me?

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 27th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, absolutely, “smoke and mirrors” is very apt terminology for this practice.

It is incumbent on us, here in the opposition, to play our job properly during the proceedings on the bill, not only by pointing out the deficiencies of the bill, but also by not letting the Liberal government off the hook. I know that the Liberal government will say to the Canadian public that it has provided oversight in Bill C-22 and that its job is done.

We will not allow that to stand. There is still a lot more to be done.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 27th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, yes, I would go back to the parts of my speech where I talked about the committee basically going around in circles because the information it would be seeking might be “injurious to national security”. That just takes away from the purpose of the committee. How can it provide effective oversight if the minister could at any time claim that something is injurious to national security? If the committee then complains about it, the Prime Minister could withhold that information in the final report. We will just be going around in circles. That is not parliamentary oversight.

I will start with that as a very real amendment that needs to be made to the bill.

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, September 27th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I would also like to congratulate my friend, colleague, and neighbour from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for a fantastic presentation and all of his work in the previous Parliament as the NDP's public safety critic.

There are three main points I want to outline as part of my speech on Bill C-22. First, I want to outline the fact that I think the overall intention of this bill is crucial to protect the safety and rights of all Canadians. Good oversight not only builds public trust, but it makes our security services much more effective.

I would also like to note that Canadians expect a watchdog with teeth. This committee must have full access to classified information. It must have adequate resources and the independence to go along with it.

My third point is that the government is going to have to work hard to earn Canadians' trust after its support for Bill C-51 in the previous Parliament. This trust starts with a strong committee, but it must be earned by fulfilling the promise to repeal the problematic elements of Bill C-51.

The idea of creating more parliamentary oversight has been around for some time. I want to outline and underline that this is not a uniquely Liberal idea. In fact, it has been around as a recommendation for the past 35 years. Despite that, I am glad to see that the Liberals have come forward with Bill C-22. There have been previous Liberal governments that have altogether ignored this recommendation.

There are certainly some things in this bill that I do want to take a look at. It is important that we use public money responsibly, that we protect sensitive information, but that we also stop abuses of power in their tracks. If we can come together as parliamentarians to build a robust oversight committee, we can bring in the real accountability that Canadians expect.

We can protect Canadians while ensuring that they trust that their rights are not jeopardized by a rampant security state. Indeed, the national security green paper, 2016, by the Government of Canada noted on page 9 that:

...effective accountability mechanisms are key to maintaining the public's trust in these agencies. Accountability mechanisms provide assurance that agencies act responsibly, strictly within the law and with respect for Canadians' rights and freedoms.

We can look at the historical significance of this issue, and compare Bill C-22 with what is going on in other jurisdictions. We know that our allies in France, Britain, Germany, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand all have similar bodies in place. It is about time that Canada stepped up to the plate, because for far too long we have been lacking in this very necessary oversight measure.

The change is very long overdue. We have seen abuses in previous years with the RCMP, going back to the 1970s. Of course, we here in the NDP know all about the RCMP spying that went on with the great Tommy Douglas, because of his link to left-wing causes and groups. This should serve as a reminder to all parliamentarians that the abuses of state can occur and have occurred. That is why oversight is needed. We need to make sure these kinds of things do not happen again in a free, open, and democratic society.

The McDonald commission was a royal commission used to investigate these unlawful activities of the RCMP. Of course it was also implicated in the illegal opening of mail and surveilling of members of other political parties as well, not just Tommy Douglas.

A part of that commission's report recommended the creation of CSIS, a civilian agency without law enforcement powers, but of course that was altered when we saw Bill C-51 come in.

The main recommendation that I wanted to point to today was that oversight committee of parliamentarians. I really think that Canada should be at the cutting edge of dealing with oversight in security apparatus. I am going to support this bill, but I hope that when it reaches committee it will be rigorously compared to models in other jurisdictions. I think there are some much-needed amendments.

For example, in Belgium, they allow their oversight body to seize documents and launch criminal investigations into wrongdoing by security officials. That body has real teeth. Even the United States, our closest ally and neighbour, allows its oversight committees almost real-time access to covert operations. If those parliamentarians in the United States Congress can have the oversight, why can we not as well?

My friend from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke went in detail over the most egregious examples of what was wrong with Bill C-51, but one of the recommendations in the McDonald Commission was to have a civilian intelligence force without law enforcement capabilities. Those waters were muddied by the Liberals and Conservatives when they allowed CSIS the disruption element. The real confusing part is that the definition of unlawful activities is open to interpretation.

We know our intelligence agencies have been complicit in spying on home-based environmental groups, and we are also very concerned with Bill C-51's information-sharing regime, which dramatically loosens the strictures on how a government internally shares data. It introduces, as mentioned, the dangerously broad category of activities that undermine the security of Canada, which can include much illegal protest. This will be of very special concern to anyone who has studied the infamous Maher Arar case.

I want to underline this fact. Bill C-22 cannot be treated as window dressing. This will not absolve the Liberals for being in support of Bill C-51, and we can be sure that the NDP will be holding them to account in that regard, very publicly, I might add.

I would like to congratulate my friend from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. Yesterday he introduced Bill C-303, which would repeal Bill C-51. That is a great step. I am glad to see us living up to our election promises for once.

The Liberals can earn the trust of Canadians by voting for that legislation or otherwise living up to their electoral promises.

Going on to the problematic elements of Bill C-22, I would like to quote the national security green paper again when it mentioned that Parliament had several roles in national security matters. It holds ministers to account for the actions of the institutions for which they are responsible.

However, the structure of the bill seems to allow ministers to hold complete sway over the committee. In other words, the committee suddenly becomes accountable to the executive branch, and that is not the function of Parliament.

Allow me this opportunity to walk members through the text of Bill C-22. Under subsection 8(b), it states that if a minister determines that a review is injurious to national security, the minister can withhold information.

Under subsections 14(a) to (g), there are seven points that further limit what information the committee can have access to.

Section 16 states that the minister may refuse to provide information that is special operational information, or again, injurious to national security. Yes, that minister has to provide reasons for the decision, but, again, if we go further down the bill to section 31, it states that the minister's decision in subsection 8(b) and subsection 16.1 is final.

If the committee is somehow dissatisfied with that decision, it can write out a report, which is outlined in section 21. Again, that describes the structure of the report, but section 21 basically gives the Prime Minister, who basically probably gave the minister the authorization to withhold the information in the first place, complete authority to revise that report and redact whatever problematic elements there are, again, on the grounds of national security.

Sections 10 and 11 of the bill outline the security requirements and oaths to secrecy that the members of that committee have to take. They will be completely free and they will suffer the consequences if any information is leaked. I do not see why concerns of national security have to be withheld from a committee whose main purpose is to oversee national security. We are just going around in circles with the bill.

I would like to remind Liberal members of Parliament that there are members in the Conservative caucus who used to serve as cabinet ministers and who had access to some of the most sensitive secrets of Canada. They are still sitting in the House, but they are still bound by their oaths of secrecy. They are able to hold a secret. There is no reason why this committee membership cannot do the same.

As the legislation stands, the government can still hide things from this committee, and that is the problem. There will be absolutely no relevant oversight if the government denies access to files and witnesses. Not only will withholding information make it near impossible for the committee to do an objective job, but it will further deteriorate the trust of Canadians in our police and intelligence services.

The Prime Minister has already appointed a chair of this committee, the member for Ottawa South. Choosing the committee chair back in January despite the bill only being introduced in June is putting the cart before the horse. By appointing the member for Ottawa South as committee chair with a salary almost equal to the lower levels of the Liberal cabinet, the Prime Minister has, in a sense, made him a mini cabinet minister on the committee, accountable only to the government.

I will just end with—

[Petitions, September 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present electronic petition No. 193. I have 1,410 signatures on the petition.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to task the parliamentary budget officer to do a thorough analysis of the trans-Pacific partnership impact on jobs, copyright, our health care, and so on.

[The Environment, September 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's emissions keep climbing, year after year, and the Liberal government has yet to explain how its plan will break this trend and live up to our international obligations to combat climate change.

Furthermore, Canadians learned yesterday that the Liberal government, which was granted power on promises of change, will be keeping the same Harper government's emission targets in place.

Last month, I hosted a well-attended town hall on climate change in my riding. There was a passion and a hunger for real change on carbon emissions, and I am not referring to a political slogan turned into a hashtag for social media.

The Conservative record on climate change was abysmal and seeing the Liberals go down that same path will never be acceptable to Canadians. Every MP in the House, especially those who serve as ministers, owes it to our next generation to effectively address this greatest challenge of the 21st century.