Randeep Sarai

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, November 1st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, today I am speaking about C-29, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016, and other measures.

We are putting into action our promise to Canadians to help build a stronger and more prosperous middle class. This is what we have done over the past year, and it is what we will continue to do, not only over the next year but for the long term.

The government has an ambitious plan to better the middle class, and with that, the entire country. We have received support around the world on the steps we have taken, from the Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, the OECD, and the IMF managing director, Ms. Lagarde, who cites Canada as a role model for its ability to mobilize all possible levers to generate growth.

This is possible because our government has taken measure of the situation by listening to Canadians in tough economic times. We have not hesitated to take action either. Since July 1, Canadians families can receive up to $6,400 per year for a child under six, and $5,400 per year for a child aged six to 17. Nine out of 10 families have seen their benefits increase by $2,300, on average.

That is why I am proud to return to Surrey and speak with my friends, neighbours, and colleagues about how budget 2016 will positively affect their lives. Surrey Centre is home to young families who are keen on making their homes and lives in Surrey, and as a national government we have a duty and responsibility to support them when and where we can. The new Canada child benefit is our government's response to this. We are putting forward a more generous, simpler, and income-tested benefit that benefits more Canadian families than ever before.

It is with a vision to the long term for our country that this second budget implementation bill would amend the Old Age Security Act. It would restore to 65 the age of eligibility for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. In this way, Canadians would have thousands of dollars more when they retire at the age of 65. Better yet, the 2016 budget would increase the amount to the guaranteed income supplement, which targets the most vulnerable seniors, providing up to $947 more per year.

With this second budget 2016 implementation bill before us today, we are delivering on the promise, set out in budget 2016, to support senior couples who must live apart for reasons beyond their control. If one member is located in a long-term care centre and find themselves suddenly faced with new and unexpected expenses, we are putting forward a proposal that ensures that they receive high benefits, based on the individual incomes of each individual. Again, the government is true to its promise of fairness to seniors and allowing them to retire with the dignity that they so deserve.

Our plan stimulates growth by giving more financial leeway to those who need it: middle-class families and seniors. Canadians also need to feel supported and protected as consumers. The federal government is showing leadership with the bill, as it would strengthen the framework that protects consumers who use financial products and services. We want to ensure that Canada's financial sector is capable of adapting to an aging population in an age of globalization, while still innovating and using the emerging technologies that challenge existing business models.

These new measures would include: first, improving access to basic banking services; second, imposing limits with respect to certain commercial practices; and third, finally improving disclosure of information to help consumers make better and more informed decisions.

Canadians also expect that financial institutions in this country have the means and resources to ensure that the integrity of our tax system is maintained. It is to ensure that everyone pays their fair share of taxes, and when I say everyone, I also include multinationals that operate in many jurisdictions. That is why our government is committing to working with our G20 partners to develop and implement an international plan to fight tax evasion and tax avoidance. It is a plan that will enhance our current measures and adopt new ones.

One of the key instruments behind our government's plan on cracking down on tax evasion is to help support the G20 and OECD declarations on tax evasion. This is an instrument that will force major companies to report on their activities in each jurisdiction in which they operate as well as the nature of these activities. This will also allow Revenue Canada to have a global view of these large multinational corporations. This is the first in the fight on tax evasion.

I should also add that the 2016 budget provides another important measure to counter tax evasion, allowing Canada to be part of the global standard for the automatic exchange of information, which was developed by the OECD. When this law is passed and these new measures are applied, Canadian financial institutions can and will identify accounts held by non-residents and will have to report these accounts to Revenue Canada.

Meanwhile, foreign financial institutions will collect more information on accounts held by foreigners, including Canadians. There are more than 100 countries and jurisdictions, including the Cook Islands, which just last week became the 106th jurisdiction to join the most powerful international instrument against offshore tax evasion and avoidance.

This government is putting forward a plan that is based on fairness. It would provide Canadians with an optimistic view of the future. We are working to ensure that Canada continues to move forward and lead the international community, particularly with the implementation of our bold economic policies that put a focus on growing the middle class to ensure the prosperity of our country.

I encourage all members to vote for the bill.

[Birthday Congratulations, October 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, in 1983, Inspector Baltej Singh Dhillon came to Canada from Malaysia and settled in Surrey.

A few years later, he volunteered with the RCMP as a block watch student and soon after he applied to join the RCMP, but was to choose between service to his country or wearing his turban. He was confused. Faith or career?

Little did he know that it would spark a nationwide debate. We were fearful that Canadians might lose the very symbols that helped define Canadiana, defined who we were, who we wanted to be, and what we were to the world.

Instead, the fact that he was allowed to wear a turban and be a Mountie became Canada's identity and brand. He never felt he was a trailblazer. Nor did he feel as though he was anyone special. For him he was “Baltej Dhillon, regimental number 42848.”

On behalf of myself and all those in the House, I wish Baltej a happy 50th birthday.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad I am filling the member's shoes in this seat. He is a member of Parliament for my former area of residence, and I am glad I am following in good footsteps.

When it comes to the censorship issue, I believe the only thing that would be censored would be classified information, particularly with respect to intelligence agents and informants. As we have been advised, even the Minister of Public Safety does not want to know the names of informants. I think that is integral to maintaining the sanctity of the relationship with informants. It is critical in our system, and if I were on that committee, I would not want to know those names for their sake and their operational safety.

When it comes to some of the responsibilities to appoint the chair and the ability of the Prime Minister to stop an investigation from happening, we must take this legislation as something that is going to grow and be revised from time to time, if we see it as ineffective and not achieving its mandate. However, in its current form, it will be very adequate. It will govern itself and the fact that there are parliamentarians who will know they were blocked on this will in itself be a great deterrent. However, if it—

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

Mr. Speaker, what I have found troubling is the security agencies in countries like India and Pakistan and others, which have western democratic systems, that are working in the silos of the ministry on their own. These countries have used these agencies as political tools to advance their own political agenda, and the agencies have been unfettered. No one there has had any oversight. In fact, a critique of one of their own retired senior intelligence officers was that one of the problems with those agencies was that they have no parliamentary oversight.

I am not troubled when I know that ministers, in particular the Prime Minister, may at certain times have to block these reports, because even if he or she blocks them, a committee of parliamentarians will know that the reports have been blocked. They will be able to go public and say they were blocked without jeopardizing any investigation. Therefore, this power will not be used very lightly and I am comfortable for our national security interests and our ongoing operations that the power may reside in the Government of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to the proposed legislation before us today to deliver on the commitment we made to Canadians to improve the scrutiny and review of the national security and intelligence activities of the Government of Canada. It is in answer to what Canadians wanted and what was reflected when I knocked on doors in my riding of Surrey Centre.

As members have heard, Bill C-22 would allow for the establishment of a national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians, a multi-partisan committee that would examine and report on the government's national security and intelligence activities, an area that many Canadians feel is far too opaque.

This important bill is a key component of our ambitious national security agenda, one that is focused on achieving the dual objectives of keeping Canadians safe and safeguarding the rights and freedoms we all enjoy as Canadians. As I will explain today, the work of the committee will be vital in helping us achieve both of those objectives.

In terms of structure, the proposed committee would be a statutory entity whose members would be drawn from the ranks of current parliamentarians across party lines. It would be composed of nine members, which includes seven members of Parliament, with a maximum of four being from the governing party, and two from the Senate.

Given the nature of its mandate, the committee would be granted unprecedented access to classified material. A dedicated, professional, and independent secretariat would support the work of the committee to ensure it has the tools and resources it needs to carry out its work.

The next element I want to touch upon is the proposed mandate of the committee. Indeed, one of the ways in which we would ensure that the committee is effective is by giving it a broad mandate. It would have the ability to review the full range of national security activities in all departments and agencies across the Government of Canada. That is a key tenet of the bill and is crucial to what we are trying to achieve.

Some 20 different agencies and departments are involved, albeit to varying degrees, in national security and intelligence activities. The committee would be able to look at all of this work to gain a full picture of what government agencies and departments are doing in national security and intelligence matters.

In terms of this mandate, the model and vision go even further than those that exist in most countries in the world where a similar type of committee currently exists. The committee would have the authority to self-initiate reviews of the legislative, regulatory, policy, financial, and administrative frameworks for national security in Canada; in other words, it would be able to look at the matters it wants to look at. Its goal would be to ensure the effectiveness of the framework, as well as its respect for Canadian values.

Beyond this power to look at the national security framework, it would also be empowered to review specific national security and intelligence operations, notably including those that are still ongoing. Understandably, this power would not be entirely unfettered. The appropriate minister for a department or agency may refuse to provide information if the information constitutes special operational information and the provision of information would be injurious to national security. This is a necessary provision to ensure the integrity of our national security operations, which can be highly sensitive. However, committee members would be able to bring pressure to bear on the government of the day by telling Canadians if they have uncovered something problematic, without discussing the specifics.

We also know that the Prime Minister or minister would not want to be the one defending his or her position to block an inquiry unless it is absolutely necessary. Therefore, I feel that this on its own would be an adequate deterrent to prevent the unnecessary blocks to inquiries.

Our government is incredibly proud of this bill because it would fill a gap in the national security accountability framework in our country, an assessment with which I know many members of this House would agree.

I would note that it is a shortcoming that several past and present parliamentarians have tried to address with other legislative proposals in the past. We certainly look forward to hearing any input from them, and indeed all members, throughout this legislative process.

At the same time, there may be some who would say that the review and accountability already exist when it comes to national security. It is true, of course, that a number of review bodies already provide a review function for their own specific organization, as the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission does for the RCMP and the Security and Intelligence Review Committee does for CSIS.

However, at a time when departments and agencies have been granted new mandates and new powers to disclose national security related information to each other, it is incumbent on parliamentarians to be able to meaningfully review Canada's overarching national security framework, as well as the operations of our national security agencies, so that we can make informed decisions about our laws and the effective use of our resources in protecting our national security.

Thankfully, Canada's security agencies have not been abused by the ministers or governments that run them, but in countries where there is an absence of parliamentary oversight, the security and intelligence review agencies have become political tools for the powers that govern them. Therefore, the prudent thing to do is to create a parliamentary oversight committee prior to such events occurring here in Canada.

That is also why we will be encouraging the new committee to co-operate and collaborate with existing review bodies, to avoid overlap and build on the great work that has already been done. For example, receiving copies of the reports that the review bodies draft would be beneficial for the committee for a number of reasons, including avoiding inadvertent duplication of effort, keeping abreast of potential areas of concern, and being able to follow up with its own reviews when deemed necessary. It is important to note, however, that the existing review bodies would remain autonomous institutions with distinct mandates, and such collaboration, while desirable, would be voluntary.

In terms of reporting, the committee would be required to prepare a minimum of one annual report. After the appropriate vetting to safeguard classified information, that report would be tabled in Parliament. It would also have latitude to issue other reports on any topics it deemed urgent and in the public interest.

On that note, I suggest that when the committee is struck, it be a committee that ensures that Canadians from all walks of life, races, creeds, cultures, and minority groups be protected and included.

Canadians must have faith in our security operations that are designed to protect us from the very real threats that we face in 2016. That said, it is important to maintain the dignity and the trust in the government departments and agencies whose mandates include security, and the bill before this House does exactly that.

At the helms of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies are Canada's best and brightest. Canadians are proud of the hard work and sacrifice they make to protect our country. However, it is common when organizations work in silos that the big picture may be omitted.

Retired Justice John Major once said that it was a cascading series of errors in response to the early interactions between the RCMP and the newly created security agency, CSIS, that resulted in a security breach. We have come a long way since and have made significant improvements in that relationship, and the bill represents the next step in that progress.

I ask the House to monitor and scrutinize this legislation as necessary in the years ahead. As parliamentarians, it is our job to ensure that the legislation is up to date and that it is always in the best interests of Canadians.

We look forward to engaging in constructive and thoughtful debate with members on all sides of the House on this and other issues related to improving our national security.

[Business of Supply, June 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, we already have great regulations in Canada in the meat sector, which is federally inspected. I do not believe we need the health inspections that some provinces place upon each other.

I am a believer that trade barriers must be lifted on products, especially within Canada, a country with some of the best standards for its food supply of any country in the world. They should be streamlined so products can cross the borders between Quebec and Ontario, as well as western Canada. That should be the foremost priority of the government. I trust our government will take that into consideration and ensure that these barriers are lifted as soon as possible.

[Business of Supply, June 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it would be much more helpful if we allow the legal action take its course, which is going on in Comeau. We do not need to interfere in that respect. If we work within that process, it would be a lot better, as opposed to interfering and creating a roadblock in that process.

In the interim, it would provide some leverage for the minister and the Prime Minister to work with their counterparts in the provinces to iron out a lot of those differences and come up with solutions, rather than antagonize provincial counterparts.

[Business of Supply, June 14th, 2016]

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. Canadians have a constitutional right to trade with other provinces, however, it is the approach that we take.

The previous government never had a first ministers meeting in the last eight years. It showed that the Conservatives did not want to work with the provinces.

It is this government that made it a mandate, and started with that to work with the provinces. Rather than antagonize them, we work in collaboration with them. Rather than take them into lawsuits, we work with them.

The lawsuit itself will take its course, and we will see the results at the end. However, there are certain jurisdictions that we need to respect. We need to negotiate and work out those trade barriers rather than simply go to the Supreme Court to mandate them.

[Business of Supply, June 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola for raising this important issue before the House.

I am pleased to rise to speak to the significant benefits that internal trade brings to Canada's agriculture and food industries. We are talking about a sector that drives over $60 billion of Canada's exports, generates over $108 billion, accounts for almost 7% of Canada's GDP, and creates jobs for over 2.3 million Canadians.

We are talking about an incredibly productive and innovative industry. Canadian farmers today can produce twice as much output compared to 1961 with the same level of input. On the other hand, with the value chain, the Canadian food processing sector has doubled its sales in the span of two decades to over $100 billion. Science and technological innovation are a big reason for these leaps in productivity and efficiency.

Advancement in genomics and biotechnology are helping to drive productivity and competitiveness in the agriculture sector in many ways, including increasing yields of crops and animals, strengthening disease and pest resistance, and reducing inputs like fertilizers and herbicides. Technology is allowing us to develop new varieties of crops, which are better for consumers, more efficient to grow, and more adaptable to our changing environment.

I want to remind the hon. members that the government is absolutely pro-trade. The Government of Canada supports trade as a way to open markets to Canadian agriculture and food producers, to grow Canadian farm businesses, create good-paying jobs for Canadians, and provide choice and lower prices to Canadian consumers.

Canada is a trading nation. Canada has always depended heavily on international trade and investment for its economic well-being. We live in a vast country with a relatively small population, and we enjoy a high standard of living. We sell our products and services abroad, which helps maintain a strong economy. We strive to maintain and expand access to foreign markets, since an open trade and investment environment allows companies to prosper and provide better middle-class jobs.

The government is committed to developing trade in Canada and attracting investments that create jobs in our country. In Canada, one in five jobs is generated by trade. In 2014, Canadian exports of goods and services represented just under one-third of our GDP. Canadian consumers also reap the benefits of international trade, which gives them a greater variety of goods at better prices.

Trade is equally vital to our agriculture and agrifood industry. About half of the value of Canada's agricultural production is exported. Over a third of our wheat crop is exported, two-thirds of our pork, 85% of our canola, and 90% of our pulse crops. Trade agreements help Canada's agriculture and food sector build on its stellar export performance for the good of our nation and our economy. That is why we are consulting Canadians on the trans-Pacific partnership, and moving forward on ratifying the Canada-EU comprehensive economic and trade agreement, which will open up the world's most lucrative market for food to Canada's farmers and food processors.

Once the tariffs have been phased out, seven years after the agreement comes into effect, more than 95% of the tariff lines on agricultural products will be duty free. Eliminating duties will increase export opportunities in the European Union for Canadian producers, including exporters of agricultural and agrifood products.

Similarly, the domestic market is vital to a large number of agricultural and agrifood related products. We have seen in the news how consumers have a growing interest in local products. We also know that a strong domestic market is a great springboard for companies to compete in the global arena. Agriculture and food trade within Canada is significant. According to the latest figures, over $40 billion dollars in agricultural and agrifood products are traded between provinces. We know that number can and should grow. However, there are still some barriers to internal trade.

Agriculture is a shared jurisdiction between the provinces and territories, and this sometimes creates bottlenecks. The federal government is responsible for interprovincial and international trade, while the provinces are responsible for the production and domestic marketing of agriculture and agrifood products. For example, certain products, such as meat, must comply with federal standards to be traded between the provinces or internationally. In addition to the federal standards, the provinces may have their own rules and regulations regarding the foods produced and sold within their borders.

Depending on the product, some industries must comply with a patchwork of rules, which can impede the free movement of products from one province to another. These barriers can lead to losses or shortfalls for some segments of the agrifood sector, for example, the distilled spirits industry.

The Agreement on Internal Trade can help provinces and territories enhance interprovincial trade. The purpose of the agreement is to eliminate interprovincial barriers that impede the free movement of workers, goods, services, and investments. It is also encouraging to note that provinces themselves are collaborating to facilitate greater trade in both western and eastern Canada.

There is no doubt that the domestic market is critical to the success and growth of Canada's agriculture and agrifood sector. We need to do all we can to facilitate internal trade and remove barriers to the interprovincial movement of goods and services. This work will only be done with the collaborative approach that this government is taking.

Industry stakeholders often say that it is easier to export outside of Canada than to another province. With the conclusion of recent international trade negotiations with, for example, the European Union, there have been calls for business associations, consumer groups, and academics on the need to modernize the Agreement on Internal Trade to ensure that internal trade does not lag behind international trade liberalization, and that Canada's market should be as open internally as it is to our external trading partners. The federal government, the provinces, and the territories are now working together to renew the Agreement on Internal Trade.

We are at a time of tremendous opportunity for Canada's agriculture and agrifood sector. Agriculture exports are at record high levels. Agriculture and food is one of the top five fastest-growing export sectors of Canada. With our small population and huge production capacity, Canada is the world's leading agriculture trader on a per capita basis.

Meanwhile, global demand for food is projected to increase by 65% by 2050. Our farmers have the responsibility and the ability to feed the world. The future is bright for Canadian farmers and food processors, with growing demand for the great products we grow in Canada.

The government will work hard to open new markets for them, while working hard to strengthen agrifood trade within our borders. A better integrated internal market supports a competitive and innovative agriculture and agrifood sector. Improving internal trade will also reduce costs of production and increase productivity. It is a natural complement to Canada's intense involvement in international trade.

While the member opposite may prefer the antagonistic approach of the former government, this government recognizes that we need constructive collaboration to achieve our goals of creating a strong, more innovative economy.

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I also come from the land of B.C. bud and therefore would like to get it legalized, regulated, and licensed. However, I want to ask how we can do something with the right hand without knowing what is happening with the left.

If we decriminalize it, does the member opposite not feel that we will be allowing organized crime, gangsters, and those who are selling fentanyl-laced marijuana to sell it into the hands of children and youth? If we decriminalize it, it will still allow our children, youth, and the young population to interact with organized crime, putting their lives at risk.

The member very well knows that in her riding, as she stated earlier, deaths are very high. How can we legalize use without regulating the product and the means by which people get it in the first place?