David Lametti

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will defer on the hon. member's question to the Minister of National Defence and the Associate Minister of National Defence, and I do undertake to have conversations with them in this regard.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are currently in Iraq and Syria. Their courage and their skill have made it possible for us to articulate a broader policy to help everyone in the region.

I would like to focus my remarks on three broad themes: first, our mandate; second, the nature of the team play, so to speak, in the mission; and third, some thoughts about leadership. I will use some sports metaphors not because this is not a serious issue but because we are trying to understand the nature of team play. It is often useful. I have been a teacher for 20 years at the university level, so I understand that sometimes, in order to make what we are doing clear to Canadians from different walks of life, it is useful to take analogies and metaphors from other areas, and that is precisely what I will do.

First, as regards our mandate, Liberals were clear during the course of the election campaign that we would withdraw our fighter jets from Iraq and that we would review our role generally in the fight against Daesh, and that is precisely what we are doing. We were clear as well on our condemnation of Daesh and everything it stands for and everything it is trying to accomplish, and that we would stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies come hell or high water—at the risk of being a little crude—and that is precisely what we are doing. In this reformulation of the mission, we are fulfilling our mandate; and in focusing on humanitarian aid, training, and intelligence gathering, we are providing the necessary means to help win this battle, as this battle has now evolved.

I am going to use some sports metaphors now, but it is to clarify in terms that all Canadians can understand.

I was a soccer coach for many years, and I have played hockey all of my life. I was a coach and manager, and I was responsible for selecting players. I therefore have a lot of experience in formulating team strategies and assessing players' strengths and weaknesses. It is very important that I tell Canadians that I have that experience so that they know exactly what we are doing with our mission against Daesh.

When I was the associate dean of my law faculty, people joked that I was a full-time soccer coach and part-time law professor. Every player on a team has a role to play, and every player has strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes roles change, depending on the circumstances. It is important to always consider how the circumstances change on the field and over the course of a season.

I will give a few examples. I had a player named Benjamin on my team. During the winter season, he was my top scorer in a seven-on-seven league. During the summer, the team's needs changed and he switched positions to centre fullback, a very important position for the team. We lost our best scorer from the winter season, but that is the sort of thing that a coach has to do from time to time after assessing the team's strengths and weaknesses and the circumstances.

There was also Benoît, who was another great scorer. When our goalie was injured, Benoît had to take his place. Sometimes you do what you have to do.

I will now give an example that everyone will be able to relate to. Every four years, when it comes time to form the Canadian Olympic hockey team, top scorers from the NHL are sometimes asked to play defence. It is not necessarily because they are not as good as other players. Sometimes they are better at playing offence than other first- or second-line players. However, they also have other strengths that make them better able to play defence.

We win often enough. All of that to say that this is a winning strategy. The context also changes. We cannot ignore the context and what is going on in Iraq and Syria.

Here is another example. I put together a team focused on controlling the ball. One day, I got to the field and saw that the grass had not been cut. It was 10 centimetres long. I immediately told my players that our style of play would not work in these conditions and that we would kick the ball far and run to catch up with it. It worked well. We quickly picked up two or three goals and won the game.

Sometimes you have to take a look at the field, analyze what is going on, and then make a decision.

That is exactly what is happening here with our mission against Daesh. Not everyone can be a goal scorer, even if they are so talented. Not everyone will be the primary defender, even if they may be the best defender on the team. It is just the way it is. The team has to be filled. Different roles have to be played.

When I asked the hon. member a question a moment ago, about whether or not he knew of other allies who were putting more effort into the humanitarian mission, into the intelligence-gathering mission, he was unable to answer.

We are doing this, not because we are weak, not because we do not have a role, not because we are not leaders within this action against Daesh; we are doing it precisely because we are leaders, can fulfill this role, and have seen the conditions on the ground change over the past number of months. We know that what is needed is intelligence gathering, training of local fighters, humanitarian aid, and diplomacy.

Make no mistake: this battle is going to be won ultimately by local fighters who are taking back territory. We are helping to train them. Yes, air strikes help. However, now we need people to perform a very necessary role of training and continuing to train local fighters in order to position ourselves for a final victory.

It is not a unidimensional mission. Sometimes it is, frankly, quite bizarre to hear the members opposite focus on air strikes, as if this were the only way to win, and not taking into account the capacities of the coalition where we are very strong on air strikes.

Let me give one other example, a little more academic. The 19th century economist David Ricardo gave us the laws of comparative advantage, on which our international trade mission is effectively based. It may be, according to Ricardo's observations on comparative advantage, that a country can have the best pilots and have the best training, humanitarian, diplomatic, and intelligence-gathering capacities, and still be asked to use that second set of qualities, simply because it fits better with the rest of the picture, in terms of the whole strategy for winning this battle against Daesh.

Our allies are not confused. Our allies have developed this policy with us, and it is a comprehensive one.

I now want to talk a little about leadership. Leadership can sometimes take different forms. Our leadership must be broad and wide-ranging, and we must remain aware of changes, which is exactly what we are doing.

The opposition takes a very simplistic view of this issue. Having only one approach would be disastrous, as we saw with the United Nations Security Council a few years ago.

I am a proud Canadian, confident in our soldiers, our men and women in service, confident also in our leadership capacities and in our ability to work with our allies in order to defeat Daesh. We stand shoulder to shoulder with them.

This reformulation of our mission against Daesh is needed now; it reflects our capabilities and our capacities; it is what our allies want; and it is the best way to move forward.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech. He gave us examples of where other coalition partners have increased their air strike capacity. I would be curious whether he has any information about other coalition partners increasing their humanitarian aid, their intelligence-gathering capacities, or their international development work on the ground.

[Business of Supply, February 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, that is a question for the Prime Minister to answer, not for me.

[Business of Supply, February 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. minister for his question.

Yes, this modernized agreement between Canada and Israel is a priority for the Minister of International Trade. We are going to ratify it as soon as possible. We are working with our Israeli partners on this.

By strengthening our economic ties with Israel, we will take another step toward stabilizing Israel's economy and bringing peace to the region. It is a matter of finding permanent solutions to the challenges facing this region.

[Business of Supply, February 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question.

As a former professor, I firmly believe in the importance of freedom of speech. We must promote freedom of speech in as many places as possible. However, there are sometimes limits to freedom of speech, when it becomes a real threat to others and a means of inciting hatred. When people cross that line, curtailing freedom of speech is sometimes justified.

[Business of Supply, February 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on this motion today and take the opportunity to share with the House the important economic ties between Canada and Israel.

As we know, the Government of Canada believes the BDS movement to not only be unhelpful but also unjust. Canada is proud of its economic and commercial ties with Israel. For example, members will recall that the Prime Minister directed the Minister of International Trade in her mandate letter to prioritize the implementation of the modernized free trade agreement with Israel.

Canada and Israel share a strong, bilateral, multi-dimensional relationship that includes close political, economic, social and cultural ties. Support for Israel, especially for its right to live in peace and security alongside its neighbours, has been central to Canada's Middle East policy since 1948.

That relationship is still flourishing, as evidenced by co-operation in many areas, such as public safety, defence, trade, and investment, and by official visits on both sides.

We support Israel, but we also support the Palestinian people and their legitimate desire to live in peace, security, and justice. However, in order to achieve this, we need to remain engaged with all parties in the region at all times.

As with any friendship, as in our case with Israel, we will sometimes agree, sometimes disagree, sometimes be critical of each other, but we will remain friends. BDS will not help the Palestinian people achieve their desire for peace, security, and justice.

Therefore, with that general context being given, I will proceed to tell this House some of the more economically oriented aspects of our relationship with Israel.

Canada and Israel want improved bilateral trade and economic relations. Along the same lines, the Canada-Israel Strategic Partnership MOU seeks to strengthen and consolidate bilateral relations in a number of areas, including energy, security, international aid and development, innovation, and promotion of human rights around the world.

In order to meet the objectives set out in the strategic partnership, Canada and Israel signed a joint statement of solidarity and friendship. In addition, both countries signed memoranda of understanding on foreign ministry co-operation and on public diplomacy co-operation and a declaration of intent on enhancing trade promotion.

Various bilateral agreements support Canada’s commercial relations with Israel. These include the Canada-Israel Air Transportation Agreement (2015), a renewed and funded science and technology agreement, the Double Taxation Agreement (1977), and the Canadian Space Agency - Israeli Space Agency MOU for Space Cooperation (March 2005).

The Government of Canada is determined to provide Canadian businesses with the tools they need to succeed and compete in a global marketplace. In today's modern, knowledge-based economy, free trade agreements, or FTAs, need to go beyond reducing tariffs on goods. A 21st century agreement must take new trade challenges into account. Israel is an important economic partner for Canada within the Middle East and the North African region, with a full range of commercial opportunities, including trade, investment, science and technology, and innovation.

I have taught or lectured in Israel on two occasions, at three different institutions, in the areas of property and intellectual property. Its universities are excellent, its research and technology sector outstanding, and I can attest to the dynamism of the innovation sector in Israel, often called “start-up nation”.

In order to draw on this potential, the modernization of the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement, or CIFTA, is beneficial for Canadian businesses because it eliminates or reduces tariffs on certain goods. In addition, by eliminating a number of former trade barriers, it will open up new opportunities in the Israeli market for Canadian exporters, for example, in the agricultural and agri-food sectors, as well as the seafood sector.

On July 21, 2015, Canada and Israel announced the conclusion of an expanded and modernized CIFTA adapted to the 21st century, which reduces technical barriers, strengthens co-operation, increases transparency in regulatory matters, and reduces transaction costs for businesses.

Israel offers a wide range of technologies in areas of exports, investment, science and technology, and innovation.

A modernized CIFTA will enable Canadian companies to take greater advantage of these opportunities. This agreement will also support Canadian businesses and investors, deepen trade and investment linkages, and further strengthen Canada’s bilateral relationship with Israel.

This agreement creates new opportunities to further expand on the Canada-Israel economic partnership. This means that Canada and Israel are creating the right conditions for trade in our modern and knowledge-based economies. This modernized CIFTA is truly a 21st century agreement.

Accordingly, the modernized CIFTA includes provisions to address non-tariff barriers in Israel. Building on the strength of the existing Canada-Israel commercial relationship, the modernized CIFTA establishes new mechanisms under which Canada and Israel can co-operate to discuss, prevent, and resolve non-tariff barriers that could have a negative impact on exports.

Canada and Israel will complete their respective domestic processes, with the goal of having the modernized agreement in force as soon as possible, to the benefit of a stronger Canada-Israel economic partnership.

A key element of the commercial relationship is collaboration in science, technology and innovation, or STI. Bilateral STI relations are strong and based on a long history of close collaboration. Currently, a number of Canadian government organizations and some provinces are involved in collaborative research and development with Israel.

Israel has a relatively open investment environment. Foreign investors mostly enjoy equal treatment with nationals, though foreign investment is restricted in some sectors, such as defence, and requires government approval in other sectors, such as banking and insurance. Israel has robust infrastructure, a highly skilled workforce, and it benefits from its qualified industrial zone agreements with Jordan and Egypt. Israel is a rich country with advanced technology and developed agricultural and industrial sectors. Canada and Israel have well-established relationships in trade and investment, a market that offers commercial opportunities in a wide range of sectors.

Indeed, international rating agencies rate Israel as investment grade. In addition, the Canadian Trade Commissioner Service can provide on-the-ground intelligence and practical advice on the Israeli market to help Canadian businesses make better, more timely, and cost-effective decisions in order to meet their clients' objectives in that market. Similarly, Export Development Canada is a partner of choice for Canadian businesses in Israel.

In short, co-operation between our two governments and our two peoples is extensive. Our governments work closely with each other on matters relating to trade, investment, science, technology, innovation, education, and many others. Numerous initiatives along a wide spectrum of co-operation bring together an increasing number of Canadians and Israelis.

Finally, one of the underlying strengths of the Canada-Israel bilateral relationship lies in the extensive people-to-people ties. There are approximately 20,000 Canadian citizens living in Israel, and many Canadians have family in Israel.

These initiatives are proof positive against BDS. By being engaged with Israel, we will help promote peace, security, and justice for Israel and its neighbours, principally the Palestinians.

[Canada Labour Code, February 5th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, we often talk about social trust, in other words, the good faith relationship between the members of a society to advance that society. In the context of labour law, there is a good faith relationship between the employer and the employees to advance the common interests of the business. Does my colleague see the bill introduced and passed by the previous government as a negation of social trust?

[International Trade, February 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, we began consultations from the time we were elected. The important date is ratification. We will look at this treaty carefully. We will look at this treaty through Parliament and through parliamentary committees. We will continue to consult Canadians until we know we have the evidence necessary to make the right decision that will benefit not just the forestry industry, obviously, but all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to follow the hon. member for Abbotsford. Let me take a moment to salute his record as the former minister of international trade. We look forward to future collaboration with him.

Why are we here? I would rather not focus my closing remarks as they were on this day in Parliament on actual numbers but rather ask what the cost is. I am willing to grant that the previous government did its best to spend as little as possible, but that is not necessarily a good thing, particularly because it did leave us in debt anyway because it failed to balance a single budget between 2008 and 2014, but more importantly, because of the costs that this had in Canada over that period of time. Let us not forget that.

Over the past 10 years our economy has been characterized by fundamentally weak growth. Perhaps some of the gains that the hon. member for Abbotsford made acting as minister of international trade in negotiating trade agreements, which our government believes were generally good, could have been better. Had we developed our manufacturing sector, had we put money into innovation, had we put money into becoming a stronger and more diversified economy, then perhaps we would have been able to profit from those agreements much more than we have. We have done the opposite. We effectively cut infrastructure spending over that period of time in real terms and have ended up with an infrastructure deficit that cries out to be rectified. Cuts were also made to veterans affairs and social programs, including programs for social housing.

I spent the past 20 years teaching in one of the world's finest law faculties in one of Canada's finest universities. I could see the cuts to university research that the previous government undertook and the devastating impact that had on research programs in pure science, applied science, and the social sciences. That was one of the reasons I decided to put myself on leave from that tenured position in order to go into direct public service: to rectify what I saw as an incredible problem in policy that the previous government chose to follow.

Not only did the previous government cut university research for the sake of balancing budgets, but it destroyed archives, weakened research and development in this country, and put our innovation agenda way behind other countries, including countries like Scandinavia for example.

Yes, it is fine to talk about budgetary numbers, but let us not forget the costs. When it is time to reinvest in an economy, reinvest in infrastructure, reinvest in Canada's people as it is now, a government needs the courage to do it.