James Bezan

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-22, legislation about which we, as the official opposition, have a lot of apprehension.

I would like to refer to the earlier speeches of my colleague from Durham and my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, clearly articulating some of the shortfalls in Bill C-22.

As someone who has been here for over 12 years, as a parliamentarian who has nothing but the greatest respect for this chamber and this institution, I believe Parliament has a key role to play in providing oversight to all sorts of government agencies, which include our security and intelligence agencies. Unfortunately, the bill of goods that is being presented in Bill C-22 falls far short of giving proper parliamentary oversight.

As has already been alluded to, there is a concern already, before the committee has been struck and before the legislation has passed and properly studied at committee, that a chair of the committee has already been named, the member for Ottawa South.

I suppose we should not be too surprised about that, knowing that the Prime Minister's BFF, Gerald Butts, and his chief of staff, Katie Telford, used to work for former premier Dalton McGuinty, the brother of the member for Ottawa South. That is a connection that a lot of people have made, one that we know is of concern about whether this committee will have true independence and be able to function the way we expect parliamentary committees to function.

We have looked at this, debated it, and have had conversations already about what our other Five Eyes partners are doing in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. This function has been missing in Canada over the years.

One of those reasons is that we have, within the Canadian system, ombudsmen and commissioners who oversee most of the intelligence agencies, like Communications Security Establishment Canada, CSEC, that operates under National Defence. As a former parliamentary secretary to the minister of national defence, I am well aware of the activities of the organization. As the defence critic, I still appreciate the role the commissioner plays in being independent and reviewing all the activities that are undertaken to ensure CSEC stays on point, the same thing that happens with CSIS. When there are issues, they report it immediately to Parliament. We get the information we need to make a decision as parliamentarians.

What we see in Bill C-22 is not a committee of Parliament. It does not mirror what is happening in the United Kingdom or in Australia, where the committee is appointed by Parliament and the committee functions as a parliamentary committee. What we are seeing here is something that is actually working out of the Prime Minister's office. That is what is being proposed.

If we look at the United Kingdom, and we always want to go back the mother of Westminster Parliament in London, it established its committee back in 1994, and it has worked incredibly well. Politics was left at the door. It works in collaboration. It looks over the operational and security measures that agencies are taking within the government. In 2013, parliament even expanded that committee's role. It is important that this is done because the committee reports back to parliament. It is not beholden to the prime minister, it is not beholden to any minister of the crown.

Australia also has a parliamentary joint committee. Again, it was set up by parliament, and it oversees six different security agencies. Again, we see this as being the proper way to do it, in that parliament has control of the committee.

I know there is some concern when we look at the history of this place. Probably its recent history is when we established the special committee on Afghan detainees, the transfer of those detainees, how those individuals were treated by the Canadian Armed Forces, and what happened to them after they left.

First, we were looking at having an all-party committee, but the NDP of the day decided not to participate on a committee, because it would have to be done in secret, and information gleaned through that process could not be used in the public domain. Therefore, they took a pass on sitting on the committee, and so just the Liberals and Conservatives sat on that committee and went through thousands and thousands of unredacted documents to try to determine whether or not there was any abuse, until they determined there was not.

I can see why the Liberals are up here speaking in favour of Bill C-22, but I think they are somewhat confused. If we look at their promises in the last election campaign, we see on page 31, on national security oversight, it says that:

We will deliver stronger national security oversight.

At present, Parliament does not have oversight of our national security agencies, making Canada the sole nation among our Five Eyes allies whose elected officials cannot scrutinize security operations. This leaves the public uninformed and unrepresented on critical issues.

The key word here is “Parliament”; it does not have oversight. What the bill before us would do is create an all-party committee, but it is not a parliamentary committee.

The Red Book from the last federal campaign for the Liberals, on parliamentary committees, says that they will “...strengthen Parliamentary committees so that they can better scrutinize legislation”. It also brought forward great ideas, such as making sure that they have non-partisan research, and that they would have committee chairs elected by secret ballot. They talked about having ministers and parliamentary secretaries removed from committee and not able to vote on committee.

Therefore, everybody assumed that we would review parliamentary committees, make them more independent, and allow members of Parliament to work and elect chairs, and that it would happen with the national security oversight. I can see how members from the Liberal caucus would be confused, because the two of them went one right after the other and they just assumed that they were going to have a true parliamentary committee.

We can look to the comments and rhetoric that have come from the government in the past. I listened earlier to the member for Malpeque. He has been in this place for a long time and has made some comments about wanting to have parliamentary oversight. He said, when he was speaking in the House in the last Parliament, “The key point here is that I really cannot understand the government's unwillingness to look at proper parliamentary oversight”. The key word is “parliamentary”.

He said later that “I'm strongly advocating oversight, parliamentary oversight”. This was in the debate on Bill C-51 and one of the demands.

Also, the member for Vancouver Quadra brought forward Bill C-622, which was about trying to establish legislation to provide more security agency oversight through Parliament.

Therefore, I can see why there is confusion among Canadians. I can see why there is confusion among Liberals when they have actually always talked about parliamentary oversight, but what we are seeing today is that this process in Bill C-22 is all about having more control by the Prime Minister's Office.

I have the bill in front of me here, and I have read it carefully just so I can raise my concerns and the reason I have these concerns about the way this committee is being established. If we look at subclause 4(3) of Bill C-22, we see it says clearly that:

The Committee is not a committee of either House of Parliament or of both Houses.

Therefore, we are not talking about a committee of Parliament. It has no responsibility to Parliament. As a matter of fact, the extra remuneration that has been awarded to the chair and committee members will come from general coffers and not through parliamentary budgets.

The bill goes on to say in subclause 5(1) that:

The members of the Committee are to be appointed by the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, to hold office during pleasure until the dissolution of Parliament following their appointment.

Well, parliamentary committees are established through whips assigning people onto committees, and chairs are elected by the committee, but not in this case. In this case, the Prime Minister will appoint every single member of the committee.

On the Senate side, it says that the Prime Minister will consult with a member of the Senate and then appoint those members. We have senators who are independent, and those members who are independent, of course, are appointed to the Senate on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, so they are beholden to the Prime Minister, and now the Prime Minister will appoint those independently Prime Minister-appointed senators to the committee. So definitely those senators, up to two members on the committee from the Senate, will act in the interests of the Prime Minister. Then members of other parties will be appointed by the Prime Minister after he has talked to the leader of that party.

That in itself clearly documents the shortcomings in Bill C-22. I encourage caucus members in the Liberal Party to read through it, to clearly understand that the bill of goods they sold Canadians in the last election was false. To make the point, in subclause 12(1), it says:

Despite any other law, no member or former member of the Committee may claim immunity based on parliamentary privilege in a proceeding against them in relation to a contravention of subsection 11(1) or of a provision of the Security of Information Act....

Here in Parliament we have immunity and true freedom of speech. That is removed from the committee, making the point that this may be a committee that has parliamentarians on it, but the committee is not part of this institution; it is part of the Prime Minister's Office.

Then we go to the information that the committee can use, and we continue to see that there are restrictions placed on the committee, on the information it gleans. There are actually seven exemptions keeping the committee from really doing its work of ensuring that intelligence agencies are taking our national security seriously and of protecting the rights and freedoms of individual Canadians.

We have to wonder whether or not the people of Canada, when they elected the government, fully understood that they were not going to get what they really deserve, which is true parliamentary oversight. There are exceptions. Members are appointed by the Prime Minister. Ministers have the right to refuse to give information of any department, so if there is any department that the committee wants to investigate, the minister can refuse that information. Even before it is out of the gate, it is already handcuffed. It is bound, gagged, and completely beholden to the PMO.

The other thing I have trouble with is that the committee chair has a vote on all proceedings. We see that only occasionally in our parliamentary process, on special joint legislative committees where a chair has a vote on policies, debates, and motions at committee and can also cast a vote to break a tie. It has been suggested here that the chair of the committee gets to vote, plus gets to cast a ballot to break a tie on all votes. Essentially even though Liberals are saying there are going to be four Liberals as it sits today on the committee, there are actually five because the chair has two votes.

In clause 21, it says the report is not presented to Parliament. The committee writes a report that is presented to the Prime Minister and to the minister or ministers whom it impacts. They get to vet all the reports. How is that freedom of speech? How is that our ability as parliamentarians to do our job if, when the committee reaches a decision, it still gets vetted by the PMO and vetted by the affected minister. That is beyond the pale of proper parliamentary procedure and democracy.

Not only do they vet it, but it actually says right in the legislation in subclause 21(5) that the chair of the committee will get direction from the Prime Minister or from the minister on how to properly write the report if they are not happy with what is in it.

It states that “the Prime Minister may direct the Committee to submit to the Prime Minister a revised version of the annual or special report that does not contain that information” about which they are concerned.

There are some major political gains and games that will be played in this process, and it is something that needs to be seriously looked at for amendment if Canadians are going to have faith in this process.

It continues on with a minister having the ability to refuse to provide any information. The committee can write a report about its dissatisfaction with that minister, but at the same time, has no control over whether a report would even get tabled.

There are not the checks and balances that we need to see in Bill C-22. That is why, as the official opposition, we are opposing the bill, unless some substantive changes are made.

I know that the member for Durham has tried on a number of occasions to reach out to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and our Liberal counterparts, along with the member for Victoria in the NDP caucus, to ensure that we develop a piece of legislation that everyone here would be comfortable supporting. Unfortunately, that fell on deaf ears.

This bill was tabled in the dying days of the summer session, just before the summer recess in June, so we did not have a chance to have a proper discussion on this bill, and we have only got an opportunity now to express our concerns over what is a poorly drafted piece of legislation. Canadians expect more. If parliamentary oversight is going to be provided, it had better be true parliamentary oversight and not just an extension of the Prime Minister's Office wielding its authority over parliamentarians.

Actually, I am baffled why anyone in the Liberal caucus, especially on the backbench, would want to be so tied up by the authority of the PMO. If Liberals wanted to exercise their rights and obligations as members of Parliament in the House and represent their constituents, they would be demanding that this committee become a true extension of Parliament, that it be set up the same way standing committees are set up, become part of the Standing Orders, elect its own chair, and table the reports here in the House.

We agree that the members from all parties who sit on this committee should be properly vetted. We agree that they should all take an oath to commit themselves to protecting the information they are going to see, as this is not information that should be used for partisan political purposes. This is about the security of our nation and the protection of Canadians, as well as protection of their rights and freedoms.

We also believe that the people who sit on this committee should have experience on issues of national security, national defence, and policing, so that the information they are going to look at in no way startles them or causes them to make ill-informed decisions.

We really urge the government to fix this legislation so that there can be all-party support. However, until it does, the official opposition, the Conservative Party of Canada, will oppose it since it does not reflect the promises made by the Prime Minister in the last federal election, it does not respect this institution, nor would Bill C-22, in its current form, achieve what we hoped it would achieve, proper parliamentary oversight.

[Foreign Affairs, September 21st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the consensus is clear. Distinguished general Lewis MacKenzie acknowledged that there is no peace to keep in Africa. Retired general Roméo Dallaire told the Senate that Canadian troops do not like to work for the UN. The former chief of the defence staff, Rick Hillier, said it was almost criminal to put Canadian troops under UN command.

As a decorated veteran, why is the defence minister not listening to these generals and standing up for our troops?

[Foreign Affairs, September 21st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, at the UN, the Prime Minister made it clear that he is willing to put Canadians in harm's way to achieve his political desire for a temporary seat on the UN Security Council. Missions in Africa are dangerous by their very nature. Jihadists in the region have declared that killing UN peacekeepers is their highest priority. How many Canadian lives is the Prime Minister willing to risk for his own personal aspirations and political gain?

[Food and Drugs Act, September 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, she is partially correct about the $4.3 billion. It is an annual increase by 2040, because we have to slowly reduce those tariffs. There is a timed phase-in as tariffs are reduced and eliminated. However, it does result in a huge increase.

We can sit here and argue about the small print, but the reality is that if we are not at the table, if we are not signing this deal, we are not going to have the opportunity to access all those markets.

The U.S. does not hold every card in its pocket. It may decide to walk away. If it walks away, the certification process changes. The member states that are there will still have the opportunity to move ahead with this deal.

Because it would vacate its opportunity to have preferential access to those markets, the U.S. will ultimately want to stay in when reason sets in for the presidential nominees as the selection cycle matures and Americans make their choice in November.

We need to understand that we should be leading on this, not following the United States. Right now we are distracted by politics and very ramped up, torqued rhetoric.

[Food and Drugs Act, September 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, as we just heard the member say, the TPP may not be signed. The Americans may not sign it, but that does not kill the deal. I do not think the Americans will sit on the sidelines forever after the election, if all the other member states move forward.

It is important to note that if the United States decides to become more protectionist and does not sign the TPP, it is highly likely that it will also try to renegotiate NAFTA. If that is the case, if it is going to turn into a protectionist, navel-gazing country, as we have seen from the two presidential nominees, we need to find alternative markets. That is why the TPP is so important.

The member mentioned Vietnam. Hog producers and cattle producers see the opportunities that exist in Malaysia, Vietnam, Korea, and especially Japan, which has some of the highest tariff rate quotas in the world. If we are going to reduce those tariffs and all those costs, we have to get on side and sign the TPP.

[Food and Drugs Act, September 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-13. I will not read the entire name of the act because it would amend a number of different acts, but we are referring to it as a trade facilitation agreement.

This is an agreement that was concluded by the previous Conservative government, and one that really would go a long way to helping out our small and medium-sized enterprises, those businesses where the owners have always been apprehensive about engaging in exports because of all the hassles they experience dealing with customs officers, brokerage agencies, and trying to get their goods across the border.

However, this TFA, the trade facilitation agreement, would greatly simplify all customs procedures. It would cut through the red tape that so many businesses experience at the border. It would expedite the release and clearance of goods. Often we see goods get caught up in storage. If they are dealing with food products that have an expiration date, we have to ensure that these goods, especially fresh meats and fresh vegetables and fruits, get over those borders quicker. As well, we want to ensure that those imports that so many of our businesses rely on are not getting tied up in that bureaucratic red tape at the border. Essentially, this whole process would make international trade for all Canadians, specifically for our small and medium-sized enterprises, much more predictable.

We have to always remember that when the Conservatives were a government, we worked very strenuously to reduce red tape for all businesses right across the board. Bill C-13, which was negotiated by the previous Conservative government, really would go a long way in cutting back that red tape that is unfairly burdening our businesses and small enterprises, often the family-run operations, with extra paperwork and processes. Business owners do not have the time, energy, or staff to make that happen.

It is interesting to note that this was a WTO commitment. As any of us who have been involved in trade know, negotiations and dealings at the World Trade Organization are extremely slow. We often think about the wheels turning very slowly on things in Ottawa, but nothing moves slower than what we see at the WTO.

This negotiation started back in 2004, and only concluded in December 2013. It took nine years to negotiate. Those of us who were around when the Doha Round started to try to advance the WTO and expand the number of products that were going to be covered through trade under WTO, the number of countries that were going to be in the WTO, and how much tariff rate barriers were going to be reduced are glad to see that this is one part of the WTO that has successfully reached a conclusion. It is imperative upon all member states of the WTO to ratify these agreements.

It would come into force as soon as two-thirds of all the member states of WTO have signed on to the FTA. Currently, my understanding is that about 81 have signed on. It means that Canada and so many other countries need to get this ratified as quickly as possible. Back in May 2015, as a government, the member for Abbotsford, when he was minister of trade, tabled this document in the House to start this process.

Two main issues are addressed in this trade facilitation agreement: article 10.8, which deals with the treatment of goods rejected on account of their failure to meet certain health and other technical requirements; and article 11.8, which would prohibit the application of technical regulations to goods moving through a WTO member's territory from a point outside its territory to another foreign point. Therefore, these are goods in transit.

This would not impact on Canada's ability to protect the health and safety of our consumers. The goods that Canadians receive, especially food products, would still live up to our high phytosanitary and health standards. It would also not impact on how any of these goods have any impact on our environment.

As I said, this is the first time we have actually seen the WTO agreement reach any ratification level in 20 years. What we are seeing is that this would increase global merchandise anywhere from $750 billion to $1 trillion. Developed economies would see a growth of $310 billion to $580 billion per year. World export growth would increase 2.7%; that is 21 million jobs that could be produced around the world. We would like to see some of those jobs created in Canada.

We talk about trying to get through some very difficult times in our economy. As we see the energy sector continue to struggle in western Canada, as we continue to experience a sluggish economy across the country and jobs continually being shed, from one end of this country to the other, under the current government, we need to have something that gives clear direction and stimulus to the economy. One way we can do that is by approving the TFA. The other thing we can do is approve the trans-Pacific partnership, the TPP.

I am so proud of our record as the previous Conservative government. We signed trade deals with more than 46 countries. Compare that to the Liberal record, which is three countries. Now the Liberals are signing on to the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. Of course, that was negotiated by our previous government. They have an opportunity to finalize the regulatory and legislative processes to put the trans-Pacific partnership in place.

I am concerned, from what we are hearing in the opposition benches, that the government has a wait-and-see attitude when it comes to the TPP. All members of the trans-Pacific partnership are part of the WTO and are part of the TFA we are talking about, the trade facilitation agreement. The key point on TPP is that rather than wait and see what happens in the U.S. elections, we need to be more aggressive and move forward.

We are talking about major gains. The Chief Economist of Canada released a report just last week that said that if we are part of it, Canada's gains in GDP will be $4.3 billion a year. If we are not part of the TPP, our losses will be $5.3 billion a year. These are big numbers.

Again, we want to grow the economy. As Conservatives, we want to see more Canadians employed. If the United States, because both candidates for president seem to be anti-trade in their rhetoric at this moment in the election cycle, does not sign on to the TPP, it actually presents a greater opportunity for Canadian farmers, Canadian manufacturers, and Canadian exporters to grab a greater share. The potential to grow would be beyond $4.3 billion.

In my riding of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, beef production is by far the main economic stimulator. Hog production is as well. If we do not have access to those trans-Pacific partnership countries, we will see a major decline. Estimates by the Chief Economist himself are that beef exports could drop by two-thirds. That will be a real stab in the back for all Canadian farmers, from one end of this country to the other, but especially in western Canada. We need an opportunity, and this is the opportunity, to grow jobs and expand our economy.

If the United States becomes more protectionist because of the current nominees for president, it presents a greater opportunity for Canada in the TPP, the WTO, and other trade agreements.

I urge the Liberals to ratify the Conservative- negotiated trans-Pacific partnership. I urge them to make sure that we get Bill C-13 passed and that we continue to stand up for all of our export-based industries. If we truly believe that we are a trading nation, we have to support them by reducing tariffs and red tape. Bill C-13 does that, and so does the trans-Pacific partnership. The Liberals should get on side and get the TPP passed immediately.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 19th, 2016]

With respect to the Future Fighter Capability program at the Department of National Defence: (a) with respect to flying a mixed fleet of CF-18 Hornets and Boeing F/A Super Hornets, what are the (i) anticipated additional training costs, (ii) anticipated additional maintenance costs, (iii) total cost estimates for flying a mixed fleet of CF-18 Hornets and Boeing F-18 Super Hornets; (b) what is the anticipated life cycle of the F-18 Super Hornet; (c) who has been consulted regarding the possible purchase of the F-18 Super Hornet, and how were they consulted; (d) what is the current status of the CF-18 life extension project; (e) how much funding has been allocated to the CF-18 life extension project; (f) have any contracts or memorandums of understanding been signed for the CF-18 life extension project; (g) what is the current timeline for the Department’s study of the CF-18 life extension project; (h) what aspects of the CF-18 life extension project are being studied, and how will these aspects be measured; (i) what is the estimated cost of the study identified in (h); (j) is the cost of the study identified in (h) accounted for in the overall cost of the CF-18 replacement project; (k) how much has been spent on the CF-18 life extension project to date; (l) how much was spent on the CF-18 life extension project from November 3, 2015, to present; (m) what is the Department’s current estimated per unit cost for (i) a Boeing F-18 Super Hornet, (ii) a F-35A Lightning, (iii) a Saab Grippen, (iv) a Dassault Rafale, (v) a Eurofighter Typhoon; and (n) what rationale does the Department have for an interim purchase of F-18 Super Hornets?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 19th, 2016]

With regard to Operation IMPACT and the Canadian Armed Forces’ (CAF) support for the international coalition against ISIS: (a) who was consulted in the government’s decision to change Canada’s contribution; (b) how many Canadian troops are currently deployed, broken down by (i) location, (ii) occupation; (c) how many groups of Canadian troops, including the group size, have been deployed on or since February 8, 2016; (d) what has been the additional cost incurred as a result of withdrawing Canada’s CF-18s from theatre; (e) what is the planned cost for increasing the number of personnel on the ground; (f) have any changes been made to the force protection measures since February 8, 2016; (g) were the rules of engagement changed on or since February 8, 2016; and (h) are the support crews for the Royal Canadian Air Force’s contribution of one CC-150 Polaris, up to two CC-140 Aurora, and three CH-146 Griffon helicopters included in the total number of CAF members deployed?

[Petitions, September 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I wish to present is signed by many people from across Canada.

The petitioners are looking to the Government of Canada to maintain the listing of the Islamic State of Iran as a terrorist organization. We all know that the government of Iran is a major sponsor of terrorism around the world. We want to ensure that the Government of Canada, although it has decided to open up a diplomatic relationship with the regime, does not take it off the terrorist list both as a government but also with its Quds force as well.

[Petitions, September 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions I wish to present.

The first petition is Electronic Petition No. 195, which calls on the government to continue to enforce the immigration, refugees and citizenship act as it applies to former KGB agent Mikhail Lennikov, somebody who was in refuge in Vancouver but has since left the country. He now wants to return to Canada. Anyone who is associated with the KGB should be denied entry into Canada.