Wayne Easter

[Public Safety, May 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, on March 31, I asked the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness about neglecting to ensure that Canada's laws are maintained by the Canada Border Services Agency. I referred to a directive by a director general who stated, in part, “...export examinations...including outbound smuggling of narcotics...should not be undertaken”.

Imagine, a directive from the agency under the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to not look for narcotics.

I asked if the minister could come clean and explain how this directive was put out there and if he was going to maintain Canada's laws. The question I posed to the minister on March 31 has yet to be answered, although the minister had ample opportunity to answer the question. I see his parliamentary secretary and I hope she will answer that question tonight.

I will go back to the quotation, which is in a document dated June 29, 2012. It was to the regional directors general from Maureen Tracy, director general, border programs, and the subject was “Export Program Examination Priorities”. I will read the quote, which is very worrisome.

Given the significant role the CBSA plays in the GC export community and the limited number of resources available for export examinations; other commodities, including outbound smuggling of narcotics, unless there is an intelligence lookout, should not be undertaken.

That is a directive to not look for narcotics coming from an agency that the minister is responsible for. There can be no more serious an issue related to the minister's file than that of ensuring our borders are secured and that illegal narcotics are intercepted.

When I asked the minister on March 27 if he accepted responsibility for this directive, which instructs CBSA officers not to take proactive action with respect to the interception of narcotics, the minister stated that he would get back to me.

I repeated the question on March 31, and on that occasion the minister again failed to respond as to whether he was aware of the instructions given, and if so, what action, if any, did he take to have that order rescinded.

When I asked at the public safety committee on May 1 to respond to the memo circulated within CBSA, the minister again failed to respond as to whether he was familiar with the memo, had in fact approved it, and if the contents of the memo with respect to ordering CBSA officers not to take proactive initiatives related to narcotic smuggling remained in effect.

On that occasion, the minister responded by pointing to the efforts of CBSA in intercepting contraband tobacco. The memo did not say “tobacco”. The memo talked about narcotics.

Does the minister know what is going on in his department? He has had three opportunities to respond now. I would hope tonight that the parliamentary secretary on his behalf responds, and responds directly.

The memo is out there asking that narcotics not be looked for in a serious manner unless there is almost an emergency. Does it remain in effect? Is CBSA doing its job?

[Fair Elections Act, May 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the leader of the Green Party. I think she hit the nail on the head with her last comment, “This is a dark day for democracy”, in terms of the possible passage of Bill C-23.

The member outlined a number of examples in her remarks, and I would add to that with two areas that the Conservative government has undermined. Canada at one time was seen as a model to strive for in terms of how we held elections, Elections Canada, and so on. The same thing with Statistics Canada; we used to be seen as one of the best in the world, but under the current government, we are seen as one of the worst.

I have two questions for the member. One, given how seriously Bill C-23 undermines our ability to police elections and investigate foul play, does it make it possible for a government to either buy or steal an election? Two, should we be calling for United Nations observers in Canada for the next election?

[Fair Elections Act, May 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, great remarks they were by the member for Winnipeg North outlining fairly strong criticism of Bill C-23, misnamed the fair elections act. It is the foundation, really, of how we elect people in our country. It is a bill that really should be opposed.

I have two questions for the member. Would he explain the importance of having a free vote on Bill C-23? That has been talked about by quite a number of players, and I wonder if he could expand on that. Could he also expand on the government's decision not to compel witnesses? That will certainly impact the ability of Elections Canada to do its job.

If he could answer those two questions, it would be helpful.

[Correctional Service of Canada, May 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has now been told by the Auditor General as well as by the Correctional Investigator that double-bunking presents a serious risk to prison staff as well as to inmates. In its own report, prepared in 2012, CSC warned it would be challenged to meet reduction targets on violent incidents and assaults, and double-bunking was the problem.

Why does the minister continue to create an explosive environment in prisons, putting correctional staff and inmates at risk?

[National Defence, May 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, there were not a lot of answers to the question I asked.

Nobody is questioning the need for CSEC in security matters. What we are questioning is whether Canadians are in effect being spied on. We have the issue of CSEC, which used metadata at airports, which we are talking about tonight. We have the admission now of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness that the RCMP, CSIS, and the Canada Border Services Agency were, in fact, involved in the gathering of information in those 1.2 million requests that the Privacy Commissioner released. We also know that earlier in the year, the Canada Border Services Agency was involved in about 1,800 requests. Is it being done illegally?

[National Defence, May 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the question I asked in February remains as important today as it was when asked. The use of CSEC to intercept some passengers transiting our major airports for WiFi communications or any other communications constitutes a form of unwarranted surveillance.

I also referenced the 2012-13 annual report of the CSE commissioner, whose mandate is to provide oversight of CSE. In that report, at page 20, the commissioner stated the following with respect to the issue of whether CSE was operating within the law as the minister claims it did in response to my question on February 3. The commissioner stated:

I had no concern with respect to the majority of the CSEC activities...However, a small number of records suggested the possibility that some activities may have been directed at Canadians, contrary to law...I was unable to reach a definitive conclusion about compliance or non-compliance with the law.

It is interesting that the Minister of National Defence has failed to address this situation, which flatly contradicts the statement he made to the House on February 3. He said at that point, that report, meaning the 2012-13 report, referring to the commissioner, highlighted that all reviewed CSEC activities were authorized and carried out in accordance with the law. As I just quoted, the commissioner actually said “contrary to law”.

What the minister said is factually wrong. I hope the minister or the parliamentary secretary will correct that misleading statement this evening.

In testimony before the Senate National Security and Defence Committee on February 3, the chief of CSEC, John Foster, stated that CSEC was “specifically required to protect the privacy of Canadians”. However, he also stated that given the nature in the cyber and telecommunications environment, CSEC “may risk the incidental interception of private communications of Canadians”. How often that occurs was not elaborated on. However, Mr. Foster did make a statement that was of concern, and it goes to the heart of the question I asked the Minister of National Defence on February 3. Did the minister, under the provisions of section 273.65 of the National Defence Act, give any authorization to CSEC to conduct surveillance operations which could result in the monitoring of communications of Canadians within Canada or of individuals transiting our country?

Given these revelations and the fact the Minister of Public Safety just this week admitted that the agencies under his mandate were in fact involved in telecommunications surveillance in excess of 1.2 million times in a single year, I have to ask the minister to be clear. Did the minister authorize the surveillance of Canadians under section 273.65 of the National Defence Act?

[Business of Supply, May 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, no, we are not saying the opposite. What we are doing is in the typical Liberal way. We believe in taking a broader approach that would have a positive result in many more areas. To just go with a moratorium in one sector could cause unforeseen consequences. Our motion would basically provide the action and the review. It would enhance the program. At the end of the day, it should enhance the Canadian economy and ensure there are more jobs and more spinoffs for Canadians who so rightly need those jobs.

[Business of Supply, May 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has his wires crossed with respect to what the member for Markham—Unionville really said. The member did not say that temporary foreign workers should have permanent residence in this country. What he was talking about is the reality of the world. Some temporary foreign workers eventually do apply for permanent residence in the country, and that is their right, in most cases, and on this the minister and I would agree, I am sure.

I gave the example of the Ontario horticultural industry earlier. Foreign workers come in when the greenhouses are operating and leave when the final harvest is over in the fall. Those folks come here, do good work, enhance our economic growth, and leverage other jobs for Canadians in other sectors of that supply chain, if I can call it that. They come in March and probably go back to their home country in November. They leave some of their wages here in Canada, but they enhance their own economy and their own families' health at home.

I have one last point to make. The minister said we do not need a study but, rather, we need action. I emphasized before and I will emphasize again that both can happen at the same time. The Auditor General could do a good review, to enhance the program even better in the future, but action can be taken now.

[Business of Supply, May 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

I am pleased to speak to this opposition day motion. I will read part of it so we are clear what we are talking about. It states:

That the House recognize that the current Temporary Foreign Worker Program is broken, and call on the government to implement measures to significantly reduce the intake of Temporary Foreign Workers over time and return the program back to its original purpose...

There are five measures outlined in our opposition day motion. One is that there be a full review of the program by the Auditor General. The other extremely important area that I want to mention is a tightening of the labour market opinion approval process to ensure that only businesses with legitimate needs are able to access the program.

I have listed two of the important points, but there are five in the motion and all should be endorsed by the government side.

I would like to point out that I listened closely to the minister's remarks and I do appreciate the fact that the minister himself entered the debate. That is something we do not see enough of for many of the debates in this place. On the first point in our motion, a full review of the program by the Auditor General, the minister seemed to be quite reluctant to support that part of the motion by saying that we do not need study, that we really need action. The government can take action. It can take action immediately in a number of areas. It can follow through on the five points in the motion while the study of the Auditor General is taking place.

The review by the Auditor General should not be used, in my opinion, as an excuse not to support the motion because, as we all know, the Auditor General does very good investigations and thorough reports and possibly some other measures might come out of that kind of review. Therefore, I would encourage the minister to drop his opposition to that particular clause and go ahead with the measures. The Auditor General doing a review does not prevent the government from taking action now.

There are a couple of key points I want to make with respect to the government's handling of the temporary foreign worker program. The Conservatives have completely mismanaged the program, basically allowing it to be used to replace, not complement, Canadian workers. We now admit to our country almost as many temporary workers as permanent residents, drastically shifting Canada's immigration system away from its long-standing tradition of welcoming new citizens from around the world.

The Conservatives are fabricating outrage about problems with the temporary foreign worker program. I found the minister's remarks interesting, especially during the question and answer period. Some of his statements previously were ones of outrage, and today he is encouraging balance, which we have long called for.

The fact of the matter is, the number of temporary foreign workers has increased 140% between 2005 and 2012, from 141,000 to 338,000. Our concern is, as the leader said when he spoke earlier this morning, used incorrectly, as a result of the Conservative government changes to the program, it really has the effect of, in some sectors, driving down wages and leaving some Canadians without jobs. That is what the leader said this morning and I think he is absolutely right in that assessment.

I certainly recognize that the temporary foreign worker program is important, but it has to be in balance.

It can be an extremely important element in terms of our economy and, if handled correctly, can enhance economic growth and create jobs through the total supply chain. This is especially important in the agriculture sector. I know that from time to time in this House, there is a response from the government side when an MP has gone across and asked for the minister to look into granting a temporary foreign worker. In some cases, it is necessary, and the agricultural sector is one of those areas. It is extremely important, and I want to give some examples.

This spring I have worked with the department to try to assist the tourism industry in granting a temporary worker, three of them in fact. It was for a tour company in Prince Edward Island that specializes in tours to Green Gables, and I would encourage members to come down and visit our tourism industry and do that tour as well. However, there is one thing about the Japanese; they are really impressed with the story of Anne by Lucy Maude Montgomery, Anne of Green Gables. They idolize that story. Because 2014 is the celebration of 150 years in P.E.I., there are lots of tours coming from Japan. The fact of the matter is that, because Lucy Maude Montgomery's story of Anne of Green Gables is taught in Japanese institutions, the Japanese often know more about the story than we do. The tourists speak Japanese, and we do not have a lot of Japanese-speaking tour guides in Prince Edward Island, although we have some. This company needed temporary foreign workers, and the process was slow. They needed them by May 1 and finally we got it done on April 29 and the tour guides are there.

What those three workers who came in really do is enhance other economic opportunity, because the buses are moving, the restaurants are open, the travel agents are creating economy, and the island's tourism industry thrives a little better as a result. In that instance, it was necessary to be able to bring in those temporary foreign workers.

There are lots of examples in the agriculture industry in Ontario. For whatever reason, Canadians are not as willing to work in some of the horticulture labour-intensive industries. They do work throughout that agriculture industry, whether in the management side or in the processing and grading side, but there are cases in Ontario where foreign workers do come in April and work in the greenhouses. Then they switch to transplanting some of those horticultural crops. Then they may go to harvesting in the early stages, and they may go from farm to farm, and they have been doing this for 20 years. It works well when handled with balance. Those workers really enhance our fruit and vegetable industry within the province of Ontario. They add to the economy by ensuring that there is a farm sector and a processing sector operating effectively; that we are exporting some of those products; and that we are putting that food on store shelves for consumers in this country. They are important in that regard.

For my last point, I would come back again to the fact that action can occur. The Auditor General can do his review, and action can occur while that review is taking place. I would encourage the government to support this motion, and show where this place can come together to do the right thing.

[Petitions, May 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a large group of Canadians calling upon the Government of Canada to review thoroughly and change the policy on blood and organ donation in Canada. The bottom line is that they ask that the Government of Canada return the right of any healthy Canadian to give the gift of blood, bone marrow, and organs to those in need no matter the race, religion, or sexual preference of a person. The right to give blood or donate organs is universal in any healthy man or woman.