James Bezan

[Preclearance Act, 2016, February 22nd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, one of the questions the government will have to answer when we get the bill to committee is whether the rights of permanent residents, and all Canadians for that matter, will be protected in pre-clearance.

This is where the study will be need to really drill down on the legality on the charter rights of all Canadians, whether they are citizens, landed immigrants or permanent residents, so they can have full access to all charter rights.

This is where it comes down to the exemptions under the Criminal Code being offered to U.S. border agents. We really need to study that in more detail, but overall the bill meets the need of what Canada wants, which is more pre-clearance operations across the country so our airline companies, our railways, those who do business, those who tour around, have the opportunity to leave for more destinations. This is good for Canada and it is good for business with the United States.

[Preclearance Act, 2016, February 22nd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, the bill will be critical to trade down the road. It is important to the movement of people between our two great nations, Canada and the United States. Everything we can do to facilitate that is in our best interest.

There is rhetoric about re-opening NAFTA, about which all of us should be concerned. However, this legislation is a signal to the Americans, a signal to the U.S. administration in Washington, that we want to continue to do business, we want to continue those close relationships between Canada and the United States in the best interests of both our countries.

[Preclearance Act, 2016, February 22nd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Red Deer—Lacombe.

It is great to speak to Bill C-23, the preclearance act, 2016. It is nice to see that the Liberals are following through on a Conservative initiative, which was to expand pre-clearance. It really is a tribute to the very productive relationship prime minister Stephen Harper had with former president Barack Obama, when they signed the beyond the border agreement. We know Bill C-23 fulfills one of the requirements of that beyond the border agreement.

Already, Canadians have been able to benefit from pre-clearance and facilitate trade, tourism, and the movement of business people back and forth across our great border. We can add an additional number of airports and railway stations beyond the eight airports we currently have in Canada where pre-clearance already takes place.

Last year alone, 12 million Canadians went through pre-clearance when travelling to the United States. This is significant. Our airlines want this. More airports and train stations want to capitalize on this. We look forward to having a fulsome debate on the legislation in the House, but also having appropriate hearings at committee to ensure the bill addresses the needs of all stakeholder groups, that all the concerns regarding some of the extra powers being granted to U.S. border agents at pre-clearance stations are addressed, such as detention authority, and that other concerns around refugees and immigration are thoroughly sought out.

At this stage, the Conservatives will be supporting the bill to get it to committee. It will hear from experts and stakeholder groups, and, ultimately, to see whether amendments are required or whether the bill addresses the concerns being raised.

Currently, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, and Halifax airports have already benefited for years from pre-clearance. That goes back to an agreement signed in 2001, the Agreement on Air Transport Preclearance Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States. The legislation was updated in 2012. Things continue to change and evolve, so now it is again time to expand, and it will happen in four different parts.

It is important to note that Québec City Jean Lesage International Airport, Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport on the island, Montreal Central Station, and the Rocky Mountaineer will be added to the legislation, all places that can utilize the pre-clearance program. We often talk to stakeholder groups at the airports and train companies to ensure any concerns they have as to costs, because they have to bear out those costs, will be more than compensated for by increasing ticket fares and ensuring they get the extra volume of business by having pre-clearance.

There are four parts to Bill C-23. Part one is United States pre-clearance officers conducting the pre-clearance of Canadian travellers here. Part two would allow Canadian officers in the U.S. to conduct pre-clearance. Part three, which I have heard concerns about from constituents in my riding, is that American border services officers will be given exemptions from criminal liability by an amendment to the Criminal Code. There are concerns around that and how they will use those powers in the pre-clearance areas that will be dedicated to the United States in Canada. Part four would make consequential amendments to the Customs Act and repeal the existing pre-clearance act.

Canadians should remember that we have a special relationship with the United States. Currently only six countries have this pre-clearance arrangement and 15 airports around the world have U.S. border guards conducting pre-clearance in those countries. Out of those 15 airports, eight of them are in Canada.

We do have a special relationship. By expanding this because of the relationship between Canada and the United States, and the negotiations between former prime minister Stephen Harper and former president Barack Obama under the beyond the border initiative, we are moving forward.

I know the Minister of Public Safety has alluded to the fact that this pre-clearance may be expanded to include cargo traffic and shipments of containers and other commodities, so we can move quicker in ensuring that our trade relationship with the United States continues to expand.

As we know, $2.4 billion of goods cross the border between Canada and the United States every day. Canada is the Americans' largest customer, buying over $338 billion worth of goods and services in 2015. That is an amazing number and we have to protect it

For my riding of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, Manitoba, the United States is a critical partner. It is critical from the standpoint of moving our goods and services, and of moving vehicles and transportation equipment. Winnipeg has a couple of bus companies that move their buses back and forth over the border all the time. New Flyer Industries actually builds parts of its buses in North Dakota, and parts in Winnipeg. The buses move back and forth over the border numerous times.

We have Versatile tractors and its tractors are in demand in the United States. Plus, we use a lot of minerals and natural resources, chemical products, and electronic equipment that go back and forth all the time.

We can also never forget about the food industry, the beverage industry, and the agriculture industry and how important that trade is to Manitoba and indeed all of Canada.

The pre-clearance of passengers is important to our tourism industry. Over 20,000 jobs in Manitoba are tied to the tourism industry. We are talking about a total of $1.6 billion worth of tourism in Manitoba every year, and 6% of that comes into the Interlake region. People come up for hunting, fishing, and enjoying our beautiful lakes, like Lake Winnipeg and Lake Manitoba. Those visitors come here because it is easy to come and it is affordable. Therefore, 6% of all tourism spending happens in Manitoba and 12% of the visitors come to the Interlake region where I live, and we are very proud of that. It is critical to our economy and to employment opportunities.

As I mentioned earlier, there are concerns about some portions of the bill, including the exemptions being provided to the United States border guards under the Criminal Code. There are some concerns over how Canadians who may enter into a pre-clearance area may have difficulty returning if they change their mind or get rejected by the U.S. border services. Are there proper provisions to deal with things like strip searching? Are there proper refugee protection claims, and for flagpoling, which happens at most border crossing, where permanent residents who need to leave the country to renew their permanent residency can often drive to the border and do what is called flagpoling, where they turn around, come back in, and reapply at the Canadian border office?

That may not be possible through pre-clearance facilities. It needs to be looked at by the committee, and we expect that to happen.

Ultimately, the rights of law-abiding Canadians and the safety of law-abiding Canadians have to be protected under Bill C-23. The one thing we want to see studied at committee is how Bill C-23 will come together with Liberal policies and what has recently happened, such as the legalization of marijuana, which the government is intent on doing.

Matthew Harvey received a lifetime ban from the United States because he admitted to a U.S. border guard that he had smoked pot. If he can get a lifetime ban for that, how much is that going to affect other Canadians who are now going to be facing similar questions, knowing the Liberal government wants to legalize marijuana in this country?

[Foreign Affairs, February 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, although I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's comments, I would like to remind him that Canada's experience in UN peacekeeping missions in Africa in recent history, like Rwanda and Somalia, have been terrible. There are reasons why so many of our NATO partners are no longer participating in UN missions. The command structures have continually fallen apart, populations are still left on their own to protect themselves, and the rule of law is always abandoned.

What comes back is that we are not getting transparency from the Liberal government. Just like Operation Impact in Iraq, we are not getting the right technical briefings. The minister said that he would tell us what was going to happen before the end of 2016. Here we are at the end of February, and still no details.

We have to ensure that before our troops are deployed on this mission, he comes into this chamber for a full debate and a vote to ensure our troops know that Parliament stands behind them. I demand the government do just that.

[Foreign Affairs, February 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today on a question that I originally put to the Minister of National Defence on November 16 last year to talk about the peacekeeping mission and specifically to raise concern over the danger in this mission and the number of heavy weapons that the militants, whether they be ISIS terrorists, Boko Haram, al Shabaab, or even separatist forces that are fighting against the UN peacekeepers in west Africa have access to.

November 16 was just after Remembrance Day. We witnessed the Minister of National Defence use Remembrance Day as a platform to explain that he was going to extend the mission for our UN peacekeeping troops in Canada to be in Mali or be someplace in Africa for up to three years. Remembrance Day is not the time to be making those types of policy announcements. Remembrance Day is the day we commemorate those who have served this country and the many who have fallen in defending our rights and our values and fighting all sorts of atrocities, oppression and tyrants around the world.

The Prime Minister wants us to be back in the peacekeeping theatre because he is trying to get a seat for himself at the UN Security Council.

I have to make sure that everyone is aware that the Mali mission, where it is rumoured Canadian troops are going to be stationed, is the deadliest mission for UN peacekeepers anywhere in the world. Over 100 peacekeepers have already died since 2012 in Mali. That is not counting the number of troops that have been killed that are there as part of the French forces which are not part of the UN peacekeeping mission, or the Germans, who are part of the European mission. In 2016 alone, 26 UN peacekeepers died. The Mali mission represents only 15% of the entire UN peacekeeping troops around the world, yet the Mali mission represents 90% of the death rate. That is unacceptable.

The Minister of National Defence has said that he would be laying out the UN peace operations that Canada was going to be involved in by the end of 2016. Here we are almost two months into 2017 and the Liberals are still waffling and dithering, and delaying this announcement.

The question that I raised back on November 16 was in reference to a report that was put together by the Conflict Armament Research group, which is based out of the United Kingdom and France. It was able to identify a pile of weapons that had previously been in Libya but were now in the hands of ISIS terrorists as well as militants in Mali. We are talking about Russian-manufactured surface-to-air missiles, man-portable air defence systems, MANPADS, Polish assault rifles, Belgian- and French-manufactured mortar rounds, 60 millimetre and 81 millimetre, which do a pile of damage, and ammunition that was found in Burkina Faso and the Ivory Coast. Chinese-type assault rifles that were manufactured only in 2011 were seen all throughout west Africa. This makes it incredibly dangerous for our troops that have to be stationed in the UN mission in Mali.

Again I come back to the government. When is it going to release the details? Is it going to be putting our troops into harm's way under a UN mission with convoluted chains of command and heavily bureaucratic systems that make it impossible to do the actual job of peacekeeping?

[Foreign Affairs, February 21st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, for months Ukraine has been calling on the Liberals to extend Canada's military training mission beyond its March deadline.

With escalating Russian aggression, our Ukrainian allies are concerned that the Liberals have turned their backs on them again. The Liberals have already cancelled life-saving satellite images, they have refused to provide the final signature on a defence co-operation agreement with Ukraine, and they backed down on a campaign promise to put sanctions on corrupt Russian officials. Operation Unifier must be extended.

Why are the Liberals not standing shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine in its fight against Putin's proxies?

[National Defence, February 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, stationed in Kuwait, Canada currently has one refuelling aircraft, two surveillance aircraft, and over 300 aircrew. Canadians have conducted over 3,000 sorties over top of ISIS territory. In 2014, a Jordanian pilot was captured and burned to death by ISIS.

Even though Canadian aircrews are contributing to air strikes against ISIS on a daily basis, the Liberals are cancelling their danger pay. Will the defence minister show some leadership, do what is right for our troops and their families, and reverse this cold-hearted decision?

[National Defence, February 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the parliamentary secretary would not just regurgitate the talking points from the minister's office, and actually tell us what our troops are doing. We know that our troops are no longer training. We support our troops 100%.

We are proud of the work they are doing, especially the Special Operations Forces on the ground today, as well as the air combat mission that is taking place based out of Kuwait. Of course, the Liberals are cutting back the danger pay and benefits that are provided to our troops in Kuwait.

The Prime Minister said, when he was in opposition, that the Liberal Party could not support any military mission where the arguments to support it are not represented in an open and transparent manner. He demanded that of the prime minister of the day, Stephen Harper, and yet he is not providing those facts.

We know that our troops are accompanying the Kurdish peshmerga and the Iraqi security forces into Mosul, but there have been no technical briefings about how they are doing and what the safety factor is. We know that they are pushed right up to the Tigris River, without any details, which Canadians expect. Opposition members are trying to hold the government to account. If the Liberals want to be effective on this mission, they have to be open and transparent.

[National Defence, February 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise two nights in a row for the late show, along with my friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. I will give him a chance to reiterate his comments from last night. I understand the answer was provided to the October 26 debate, in which I first raised this question, to the question I raised yesterday, which was October 27. Today's question is about the transparency of the government as it relates to what our troops are doing in Iraq.

So far, the government has put a veil of secrecy around what our troops are doing in Operation Impact in Iraq. It really does play to this overall level of control that we have not witnessed of the government in controlling the flow of information about our military back to Canadians and Parliament, so that we can do our job as opposition and hold the government to account, which is a fundamental role of making sure that our parliamentary democracy works.

I know the parliamentary secretary last night wanted to talk about all the technical briefings the government has done. In less than a year and a half, when the Conservatives were government back in 2014-15, 19 technical briefings were held on what the troops were doing and what the air force was doing in the combat mission against ISIS in support of our allies, including the Kurds and the Iraqi security forces. Canadians were able to see the benefit of our troops being in theatre.

There have only been four technical briefings in a year and a half, since the government came to power. We appreciate those technical briefings when they happen, but we were also told at the last technical briefing that took place that for operational security reasons, the government is no longer going to be sharing this information.

We know for a fact that this mission, which was an air combat mission, was expanded into a training mission. The Liberals pulled our CF-18s out of the fight against ISIS. We were supportive of having more boots on the ground to do the advise and assist, the command and control, and the training to work with our Kurdish peshmerga partners and Iraqi security forces, among other allies, in getting rid of ISIS. As we witness today, it is paying off in multitudes by pushing ISIS out of Mosul and Iraq.

We know that our troops are doing more. Images have come from the front line showing Canadian troops, not in an advise and assist role anymore but actually providing cover by using anti-tank weaponry to stop any attacks coming at the peshmerga or Iraqi positions as they are pushing ISIS out of Mosul. All of these images are getting posted through other media means, whether it is social media, Iraqi television, or other foreign media sources. Canadians expect more transparency from the government, not a veil of secrecy, not the iron fist over the dome of silence, to tell Canadians what a great job our troops are doing and the risks that they are taking.

It is important that the Liberal government share the facts with Canadians so that we know what our troops are doing and whether we can hold the government to account.

[National Defence, February 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, Ukraine needs actual weapons, not platitudes.

The Liberals are doubling down and cutting danger pay for our troops who are in the fight against ISIS, which is causing additional stress to their families at home. This is the same government which admitted that the mission was getting more dangerous after it pulled our CF-18s from the fight.

When our party was in government, we instructed the military to continue to provide full benefits to our troops who were in Afghanistan. Will the Liberals finally do the right thing and restore full danger pay to our troops and their families?