Randall Garrison

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, again, I am glad to hear the minister is taking action on this question. I also am glad to hear we can agree on the obvious, that Canadian troops need support when they are doing difficult and dangerous work. However, again, I would like to see us at some point in the House grapple with those larger issues. Therefore, I have a specific question for the minister about the defence policy review, which he says would tackle some of these questions.

Will that review be presented either to the House of Commons defence committee or to the House for debate?

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am tempted, now that we have agreement on this motion to ask to see the clock at 5:30, but I think there are some other things we could discuss on this important topic of support to our troops, or we could, perhaps at some point in this Parliament, talk about the new defence strategy, whether it will be presented to Parliament or whether we will get a chance to debate it.

However, what I am going to ask the minister about is something that came up at a veterans forum that was hosted on March 2 at the Royal Canadian Legion Branch No. 91, in Langford, by the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and myself, and attended by our veterans critic, the member for London—Fanshawe. My question is about transition. After they come home from having been on dangerous missions abroad and they decide to leave the forces, there is a big gap that happens between leaving the forces and actually being able to collect their pensions, which leaves many members of our forces with no income for literally months on end.

I am hoping that in the upcoming budget the minister has made provisions for adequate staffing so we can end problems like this that occur when members have come home, after serving their country so well, and end up in a situation where they have no income while they wait for their pensions.

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am always concerned when we get to a point where we are politicizing the treatment of people in our troops. I am sure that, despite the differences that are being expressed, all members of this House believe that we need to provide the troops the support, the training, and the equipment they need to do the difficult and dangerous work we ask them to do every day on our behalf.

However, I have to say that I always take a bit of pleasure in seeing the Liberals and Conservatives debating who did the worse job on this. The point has to be not who did the worse job but whether we will provide not just the danger pay in the field but the supports the troops need when they get back, the supports the families need when people return home with PTSD, the supports our veterans deserve, and the supports in making that transition to civilian life. Therefore, while the Conservatives may call out the Liberals on this particular point, there is a lot for all of us to answer for in the way we treat the members of the Canadian Armed Forces who serve us so well.

[Preclearance Act, 2016, February 24th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the point the members on the other side seem to be missing is that pre-clearance works just fine without these new powers for the American officials to use in Canada. These would include carrying firearms, detention, and conducting strip searches.

Why on earth do we need to add new powers in order to keep pre-clearance operating? There seems to be no justification for that, other than it must have been the price the U.S. demanded for the expanded agreement.

[National Defence, February 24th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, Canada must be a force for stability in this increasingly dangerous world by acting as a counterweight to the erratic and disruptive foreign policy of President Trump. Canada has already recommitted to NATO as an alliance that guarantees the defence of all its members, by offering to lead the NATO mission in Latvia, thus blunting Trump's assertion that the Baltic States are not defensible.

Canada should oppose Trump's cavalier remarks about proliferation of nuclear weapons and other advanced weapons systems by refusing to participate in the U.S. ballistic missile defence program. Our joining would risk setting off an arms race in advanced offensive missile capability as a response.

The New Democrats believe our troops should have the support, training, and equipment they need to do the difficult and dangerous work we ask them to do every day. We hope the Liberals will keep their promise of an increase in defence spending in the upcoming budget, and of allocating enough capital spending to sustain the national shipbuilding strategy.

Only with a well-trained and well-equipped military can Canada continue to play an independent role in the world in promoting peace and security.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments on this, but I simply do not understand his position, and he incorrectly portrays the NDP position. We are not opposed to expanding pre-clearance, we are simply asking the question, when pre-clearance has functioned all this time, without granting what I would call extreme powers to the officials in the United States, why do we need those extra powers? Why do we need to say that American agents can detain Canadians? Why do we need to say that they can carry firearms? This has been working perfectly well without these provisions.

When the member says that they operate under Canadian law, that is simply not true. They do not apply Canadian law. They have no training in Canadian law. They know virtually nothing about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Simply saying that is true does not make it so.

Why do we need these new expanded powers for American officials at the border, especially at a time when gay and lesbian Canadians and Muslim Canadians are having a difficult time getting into the United States?

[Human Rights, February 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, almost a year ago, I stood with the government and celebrated the introduction of Bill C-16, which would extend the same rights and protections enjoyed by other Canadians to those in the trans community. Now this government bill stands stalled in the Senate. It has been over six years since this legislation was first passed in this House, but still transgender Canadians are told to wait even longer, to go on waiting for their rights.

What are the Liberals doing to get Bill C-16 passed into law? Has the minister communicated the urgency of this bill to senators, or will they let trans rights die in the Senate for a third time?

[Petitions, February 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present e-petition 608. This petition calls on the cabinet to exercise its authority under the Canada Evidence Act to designate the Military Police Complaints Commission as one of the bodies permitted uncensored access to documents. This issue is particularly important, given the Military Police Complaints Commission's ongoing investigation into the role of the Canadian Forces in the alleged abuse of Afghan detainees.

Access to uncensored documents in this investigation is especially important as the Minister of National Defence has refused to authorize an independent inquiry into the issue of complicity in the torture of Afghan detainees, which was a decision taken despite the apparent conflict of interest arising out of the minister's own potential role as a key witness in any such inquiry.

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 8th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I will start by thanking the member for Essex for that amazing critique of the trade deal. She has raised a number of concerns that are widespread, in my riding as well, one being the impact of this deal on prescription drugs.

I also want to talk about what people generally call supply management, which I have been hoping to get people to think of as food security. Would the member agree with me that one of the possible impacts of this trade agreement would be the undermining of Canadian production, which makes sure that we have Canadian producers producing the food we need, and also makes sure that we have producers who produce the high standards of food that Canadians have learned to expect in our market?

[Statistics Act, February 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, again and again I heard the Conservatives refer to the protection of privacy with the 92-year rule for the disclosure of data, that it is not like it is going to be published.

I come from a family that had various twists and turns. My mother spent years of her retirement trying to trace our family history and one of the important sources for that information was the census. I wonder if the Conservatives have really thought about the impacts on families in the future who want to resource their origins and find out where they came from. The census has certainly been an important part of that.

Again, I do not understand how, after 92 years, it would affect anybody's privacy, but it may, in fact, affect the ability of future descendants to find out where they came from and who they are as Canadians.