Andrew Leslie

[Prime Minister's Trip to India, June 13th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the question of my hon. colleague vis-à-vis trade with India and the very unfortunate increase of up to 50% on specific commodities. In this case, I would like to focus our attention on peas and lentils.

This is a priority for our government. Canadian agricultural exports to India have been increasing over the past decade, which is fantastic news, from around half a billion dollars to trade in excess of $1 billion in 2016 and 2017. I would like to start by emphasizing that we are extremely disappointed and concerned with the measures put in place by the Government of India. In that context, I share my colleague's concerns.

These measures by India lack transparency and have created an unpredictable trade environment. Over the past few months, India has used several different types of measures that have negatively impacted Canada and the global pulse market.

The first relates to the fumigation requirement. Since 2004, Canada has been receiving a series of country-specific exemptions, called derogations, from India's requirement that pulses be fumigated prior to leaving Canada. Canada's position is that we can effectively meet India's plant health concerns without the need for fumigation. However, for the first time, on October 1, 2017, our country-specific derogation was not renewed. Trade with India can continue through a general derogation, which allows for agricultural products to be fumigated upon arrival, which of course is more expensive and time-consuming. The penalty for not meeting the fumigation requirements is cost-prohibitive and significantly impacts the competitiveness of our pulse sector in India. This general exemption expires on June 30, 2018.

The second measure is an increase in import duties. Since November 8, 2017, India has increased duties on dry peas to 50%, as referred to by my hon. colleague, lentils to 33%, and chickpeas to 66%. India's tariff increases are usually given without notice and are applied immediately to all shipments, including those in transit at the time of the increase.

The third measure was put in place on April 25, 2018. It is a limit on the volume of imports for pea shipments. This is not a ban on pea imports, but a limit of 100,000 tonnes allowed during a three-month period, which is applied to all countries.

These measures are designed to limit trade of foreign pulses to India and have created a lack of predictability and transparency in the global pulse market. They reflect an attempt by India to address domestic challenges, which include a bumper crop of pulses in 2017-18.

We have a deep concern with these measures, and we are taking a number of actions. Through high-level engagement, the government has expressed deep concern and disappointment with India's very restrictive policies. We take the commitment to resolve this issue seriously, and we will work with our Indian counterparts to ensure that they do the same. Of course, we have done an enormous amount of technical work to demonstrate that we have a rigorous inspection process that ensures that India's plant health concerns are met. We have also invited Indian officials to Canada in the coming months to review our grain handling system and to see for themselves that fumigation is not necessary.

On the issue of duties, although India is within its World Trade Organization rights to increase duties within certain constraints, Canada is concerned that no notification was given before implementation, and of course this impedes the free exchange of goods.

On the issue of limiting the volume of imports for pea shipments, we are reviewing whether India's—

[Ontario Provincial Election, June 8th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, last night, the people of Ontario made a choice for change.

On behalf of the Government of Canada, I congratulate the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario and the premier designate, Mr. Ford, on their election.

I rise today in the House, as well, to thank all the candidates, of every party, who had the courage and conviction to put their names forward on the ballot, and the volunteers who took time out of their busy lives to knock on doors, make calls, and get engaged in the political process. This was truly a Canadian election. I thank their families, friends, and communities for being involved in our democracy as well.

I also want to thank the outgoing premier and MPPs for their years of tireless, dedicated service to the people of Ontario.

[Foreign Affairs, June 7th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, our objective in these negotiations is to ensure that the Columbia River Treaty continues to be mutually beneficial for Canada, the United States, and the indigenous groups involved in the area. We have been working closely with British Columbia, first nations, and stakeholders to ensure that all interests are heard and articulated. We will also address the environmental issues they have raised and the interests of the first nations. The aim is to renew this agreement well into the 21st century.

We will work hard to ensure that benefits are optimized for Canada, British Columbia, first nations, and the local communities.

[The Economy, June 4th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. These tariffs are completely unacceptable. Our government will and has taken responsive measures to defend Canada's interests after consulting with Canadians to make sure that no Canadians are adversely impacted on the detailed target list that we promulgated on our websites. These tariffs are not acceptable. They will harm U.S. workers and their industry, as well as Canadians. In fact, the U.S. has a surplus in trade with Canada vis-à-vis steel. Canada is also a safe and secure supplier of fairly traded steel and aluminum to the U.S. Members can rest assured that Canadian workers can absolutely count—

[International Trade, May 31st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That the House (a) stand with steel and aluminum workers in Saguenay, Hamilton, Sault Ste. Marie, Regina, and all across Canada; (b) agree that US action today on steel and aluminum is unacceptable, even more so because it is being done on national security grounds; and (c) and that the House is of the view that Canada should retaliate.

[International Trade, May 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, our position on supply management has been and remains clear. We have always defended supply management, and that includes during NAFTA talks. The system works extremely well for Canadians. Protecting supply management is important for Canadian consumers, our industries, and all of us. We will always defend it.

[International Trade, May 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, our position on this issue is very clear: we have always defended this system and we do so at every opportunity, including during the NAFTA negotiations.

[International Trade, May 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, to be clear, we will always defend supply management. In fact, with the exception of certain members of the official opposition, including the member for Beauce, everyone in the House believes—

[Foreign Affairs, May 28th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, Canada remains a strong defender of the rule of law and of human rights internationally.

In the Philippines, Canada takes specific and concrete action by recognizing and supporting human rights defenders, encouraging a free and open press, providing training on international laws governing human rights, and supporting the peace process in Mindanao.

We also are committed to a strong and robust arms control system that rightly takes into consideration human rights concerns. A key part of this is acceding to the Arms Trade Treaty through Bill C-47, which closes the very loopholes that my distinguished colleague is concerned about.

We encourage the NDP to support Bill C-47 at the appropriate time.

[Foreign Affairs, May 28th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by noting that Canada strongly advocates for human rights in the Philippines. In fact, the Prime Minister and the foreign affairs minister raised our concerns directly with their counterparts in the Philippines at the most recent ASEAN meeting.

We also raised our ongoing concerns at the last universal periodic review of the Philippines in 2017. This included the need for the Philippines to end extrajudicial killings, illegal arrests and detention, torture and harassment; prevent, eliminate, and end impunity for all forms of sexual violence; strengthen the protection of children's rights; and refrain from reintroducing the death penalty.

Like tens of thousands of soldiers wearing the Canadian uniform, I and many others like me have fought for human rights on behalf of Canada to protect the weak and the innocent.

While I cannot speak to the activities of the Canadian Commercial Corporation, which falls under the responsibilities of my trade colleagues, to which my hon. colleague referred, I can say that the Minister of Foreign Affairs was abundantly clear about the particular contract raised by the member during question period.

As the Minister of Foreign Affairs has said, “I will conduct an extremely rigorous human rights analysis of any potential export permit application related to this contract”—specifically the Philippines—and “I have the power to deny a permit if I feel that it poses a risk to human rights and I am prepared to do so.”

I would also like to point to a key clarification, which is also related to my colleague's comments during the debate on Bill C-47 earlier today.

Under international law, when a state accedes to a treaty, it obviously agrees formally to be legally bound to the provisions of the treaty. For Canada, this includes all federal government departments, such as Global Affairs Canada, the Department of National Defence, and crown corporations such as the Canada Commercial Corporation. This is exactly what the hon. member was talking about in terms of closing loopholes. Bill C-47 would do just that.

Acceding to the Arms Trade Treaty would ensure that the CCC is bound to the national provisions. This is a concern my hon. colleague has previously raised, and her concerns are being addressed.

I am, however, disappointed that my hon. colleague seems to have indicated that the NDP will no longer support Bill C-47, which is ironic because doing so would allow Canada to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty and close the loopholes that quite rightly concern her. If this is so, then her party will be voting against ensuring the CCC applies the very criteria for which she has indicated such a passion.

Our government is committed to the protection and promotion of human rights around the world, and we remain committed to a strong arms exports system that Canadians can have confidence in.