Leona Alleslev

[Foreign Affairs, June 13th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, what about the safety of Canadians? Human rights and the rule of law are under attack in Hong Kong. Proposed changes to the extradition law would allow China to extradite anyone in Hong Kong to the mainland, including Canadians. Peaceful protestors against these changes are met with tear gas and rubber bullets. There are 300,000 Canadians living in Hong Kong, and another half million Canadians with relatives there.

In the midst of this chaos, can the government inform us if it is issuing any advisories to Canadians currently in Hong Kong?

[Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, June 13th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, the most important question at this moment is around the exact roles of Parliament and of debate in this House of Commons. It sounds like the government House leader is trying to convince us that because we have known about it, because it was available to the public and because it has been on the table, we in the House of Commons have absolutely no role, so we do not need to have a debate in the House of Commons. That is egregious.

Eighty per cent of Canada's GDP is trade; 70% of that trade is with the United States, and this is the most significant trade agreement we have with the United States. It is not a free trade agreement; it is a managed trade agreement. It is now compromising our sovereignty, and this bill is going to give unlimited access to the Prime Minister to do whatever he wants and further undermine the role and responsibility of this House of Commons.

We are in a majority situation; members do not always have the opportunity to vote the government down, but we do have the opportunity to debate in this House. The more the Liberals constrain us, the more they undermine Parliament and everything about this deal.

[Foreign Affairs, June 12th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister is serious, he needs to do something. With less than a week until the G20 summit, the Prime Minister continues to abandon Canadians by failing to ask for a meeting with the Chinese president. Canadians suffer in Chinese prisons, the farmers are facing financial harm, while tens of thousands protest in the streets of Hong Kong and in cities across Canada over dystopian Chinese extradition law.

Will the Prime Minister finally decide to meet with the Chinese president? Why is he showing such weakness in the face of China?

[National Defence, June 11th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the charges may have been dropped in the Vice-Admiral Norman affair, but justice has yet to be served.

Under the Queen's Regulations and Orders of the National Defence Act, now that his name has been cleared, Vice-Admiral Norman should have been honourably returned to his position as vice-chief of the defence staff. However, that has not happened.

When will the Minister of National Defence do his job, uphold the law and order the chief of the defence staff to reinstate Mark Norman as our Canadian Armed Forces second in command?

[Customs Tariff, June 10th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, this is not an insignificant bill. This is a bill that has leapfrogged over a whole bunch of legislation that has been on the books for quite some time and was introduced as a topic not more than two weeks ago. This legislation would significantly affect workers and companies in the steel industry after a time when we have already experienced punishing steel and aluminum tariffs.

For the Liberals to rush to put something forward, something that involves a very complex issue and will have a significant impact, is just another excuse for them not to do their homework and not allow the House to explore and debate the details and nature of the bill.

By removing the two-year moratorium on implementing the safeguards, we would not be giving companies time to prepare, yet we cannot even have a debate about that. By not arguing what the safeguards are going to be and surprising everyone with them, we do not have the opportunity in the House of Commons to have a debate about them.

The bill does not take into account regional disparities and how Newfoundland, Quebec and B.C. will be be affected by this legislation, yet we in the House cannot have a debate about that.

The bill also does not look at what the definition of “surge” above average and historical content is going to be.

If the House is here to ensure that significant legislation is fully and openly debated, we need to have the time and ability to have that conversation. Closure, particularly on legislation that has not even been discussed over a three-year period, is abhorrent. It is not what this Parliament is here to do. It significantly jeopardizes the ability to execute on this bill and ensures that we will not get the right solution for this country.

I would like to understand exactly what the government is doing in this respect by shutting us down, preventing us from having a debate and jeopardizing our steel industry in Canada.

[National Security Act, 2017, June 7th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to have the opportunity to speak to such an important bill today.

Yesterday marked the 75th anniversary of D-Day, a very important turning point in the Second World War and one where Canada was overwhelmingly able to contribute and further the cause of peace and security in the world.

Why do I bring that up? This is a piece of legislation respecting national security matters and one that we must take very seriously, given the nature of the threats that are facing not only Canada here at home, but the world, at this point.

For the first time in many years, we are seeing the rise of great powers. We are seeing an increase in the number of threats that are facing our country, and those threats are not coming only in terms of troops on the ground or weapons or guns being fired. Those threats are coming from what we call non-traditional or asymmetric threats. We can be sitting at home and we find that information manipulation, cyber-threats and online instigating of violence are having a significant contribution on people who would want to commit these acts.

We must be vigilant. Democracy is fragile. Those men who sacrificed their lives 70 years ago for what we have today must be honoured. How do we honour them? Yes, we remember the incredible sacrifice they made, but we have also been entrusted with preserving the security and the values for which our nation stands going forward.

What are those values? Those values are safeguarding the freedom of individual liberty, the principles of democracy and the rule of law. Every time any one of those things is eroded, we must stand and be counted to ensure that we do honour their memory and we remember what exactly they fought for and what we must also fight for into the future.

What would Bill C-59 actually do? Bill C-59 is trying to make it appear that the Liberal government takes national security threats seriously. In a world of increasing threats, the government wants to show that it is doing something. Unfortunately, it is more about show than actual reality.

Significant parts of the bill take existing legislation and muddy the waters. They make it weaker. They make the wording so that it is more difficult to execute on. Instead of giving money to the areas that will further pointy-end national security efforts, the government is putting money into more bureaucracy and more red tape and ensuring that nothing actually gets done.

This is highly disconcerting. If Canadians do not understand what the threats are, and if our national security agencies and our law enforcement people have less ability, less legislation, weaker and more confusing legislation and more bureaucracy to execute on making sure we are safe and secure, then what exactly are we trying to accomplish?

That is one of the more fundamental reasons why Conservative members cannot support the bill. It is a lot of bureaucracy. It is a lot of smoke and mirrors. It is an attempt to make it look like the Liberals are taking national security seriously, when in fact it compounds the problem and confuses the issue.

The Liberals have combined it all into one organization, the national security and intelligence review agency, and we are not able to see what that organization is going to do and what its mandate will be.

[Foreign Affairs, June 7th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, there is no progress. The Prime Minister continues to destroy Canada's relationship with China, as tensions continue to escalate. Canadian farmers are struggling as China has stopped imports of canola and is restricting soy and pork shipments, while two Canadians are suffering in a Chinese prison and another one faces the death penalty. Now the Prime Minister is only considering engaging directly with China in three weeks, and that is if the Chinese agree to it.

Why is the Prime Minister showing such weakness in the face of China?

[International Trade, May 31st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government could not hang on to what we had before, and we are not out of the woods yet.

The full lifting of U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs is pure fiction. The Prime Minister's new NAFTA deal allows the U.S. to re-implement punishing tariffs any time Trump feels an unfair market surge.

The Prime Minister is desperate for us to believe he got a good deal, but can he tell us one thing that is better in this new NAFTA?

[International Trade, May 31st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, if NAFTA 2.0 is a good deal for Canada, what does the Prime Minister consider a bad deal?

Canadians know this is a worse deal and that it also compromises our sovereignty. Canada now has to ask permission from the U.S. to negotiate a new trade deal and we have to report to the U.S. when we change our monetary policy.

The Prime Minister has paid too high a price. With this bill, he will have free rein to give more away. Will he admit that he has failed Canadians?

[Justice, May 30th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the government still has a responsibility to Canadians. The Prime Minister promised that he would be transparent by default, and that sunshine is the best disinfectant.

The political interference in the Vice-Admiral Norman case has been disgustingly covered up and Canadians deserve to know the truth. Yesterday, the Liberals voted against releasing an unredacted version of the 60-page document that the disgraced former clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick, sent to the Prime Minister.

What is the Prime Minister hiding? Why will he not tell Canadians the truth?