Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 60 of 4041
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2020-02-20 10:09 [p.1288]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition to defend wild Pacific salmon. It is a key issue for my constituents in Saanich—Gulf Islands. Indeed, they are clamouring for the House of Commons to act using the precautionary principle.
They have waited quite a long time for action based on the report that was originally commissioned by previous prime minister Stephen Harper: the commission of inquiry into the collapse of Fraser River sockeye in 2009.
There were 75 recommendations that stemmed from Mr. Justice Bruce Cohen's inquiry. They remain to be implemented. The petitioners ask for the recommendations of the Cohen commission to protect wild salmon to be implemented urgently.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2020-02-20 11:09 [p.1296]
Madam Speaker, I recognize that the hon. minister has had extensive dealings with the Wet'suwet'en peoples and with the nation-to-nation relationship that applies to band councils and hereditary chiefs. I wonder if she could comment on claims made in the opposition motion, which I find to be factually incorrect, making claims about a majority of this and a majority of that. Personally, I do not think anyone in this place can make those claims. I wonder if the hon. minister knows differently.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2020-02-20 12:07 [p.1305]
Madam Speaker, the hon. member made an excellent speech and it covered a lot of really good points.
The Conservative motion states that every elected band council on the Coastal GasLink route supports this. Only five of the six Wet'suwet'en first nations actually signed on to the benefits agreement. The media give the idea that the majority of the hereditary chiefs are behind this, but that is not the case. They say that the vast majority of Wet'suwet'en people support this project, as well. I am looking at media links. I am looking at information. There are a lot of unknowns in this situation.
What does the hon. member think of this motion as it stands? Where are the facts? Where did the Conservatives get these numbers? Even in the media reporting, nobody is completely sure how many people in Wet'suwet'en territory support this project or oppose it.
There is a lot of information about the elected chiefs being torn about this and that they signed on to this agreement because of the cash, even though they do not really support it.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2020-02-20 12:42 [p.1310]
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from West Nova has offended deeply a sense of democracy and allyship that exists across the country. I respect the member enormously, but I have to make it clear that young people, people my age, seniors who stand in solidarity with indigenous peoples are no different, having no big connection. All the Canadians who stood up against apartheid, what was their connection? Whites walked with Martin Luther King. Did they have no connection? Did they have no right to be moved? Did they have no right to speak up against injustice when the groups that faced injustice were almost entirely, and usually vulnerable, and the minority?
Those who stand in allyship should not be condemned, as they have been by the motion today by the Conservatives. I ask my friend from West Nova to think again.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2020-02-20 13:17 [p.1314]
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The language that was just used was unparliamentary and incendiary. I just double-checked the meaning of “insurrection”. It means “a violent uprising.” Everything taking place is non-violent. It may be illegal, depending on perspective, but I ask the hon. member to withdraw that word.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2020-02-20 14:01 [p.1320]
Mr. Speaker, the 2019 pacific salmon season was a disaster.
Pacific salmon are facing an unprecedented crisis. British Columbia is in real danger of losing its most iconic fish. Countless runs are endangered, including the Nanaimo River runs. I have heard from first nations leaders, commercial fishermen, sports fishermen and advocacy groups on this issue.
The government needs to take urgent action and restore an adequate budget for salmon stock assessments, commit more resources to the DFO's salmon enhancement program, increase the salmon conservation stamp fee on fishing licences, legislate the move to closed-containment salmon farms immediately and provide emergency relief packages for commercial fishers and first nations.
There is still time to save the Pacific salmon, but we must act now before it is too late.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2020-02-20 15:11 [p.1333]
Mr. Speaker, that is a hard act to follow.
Underpinning all the propaganda from Coastal GasLink and other LNG boosters is the claim that shipping our LNG overseas will be good for the climate crisis and will reduce greenhouse gases overall. Unfortunately, that claim is not true.
I would ask the minister if he is aware of recent studies that show a dangerous spike in greenhouse gas methane emissions as a result of fracking and that fracked gas has the same carbon footprint as coal.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2020-02-20 15:16 [p.1334]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you seek it, I hope you will find unanimous consent of the House to adopt the following motion: That given the unanimous declaration of the House on February 22, 2007, to condemn all forms of human trafficking and slavery, this House: (a) encourage Canadians to raise awareness of the magnitude of modern-day slavery in Canada and abroad and to take steps to combat human trafficking; and (b) to recognize February 22 as national human trafficking awareness day.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2020-02-19 15:41 [p.1259]
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today with a petition. It is an e-petition, which strangely now omits the addresses of the people. I would love to know where the petitioners were from, but I am proud to present their petition.
It calls on the government to name the overdose crisis what it is in this country, a public health emergency, and to take the kinds of steps that are required based on evidence. The petitioners are concerned that we take a comprehensive, multi-faceted approach; recognize that the opioid crisis is primarily a health issue, not a criminal issue; and that we should listen to experts and front-line workers and decriminalize drugs in Canada.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2020-02-19 15:45 [p.1260]
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions today.
The first petition is calling on the House of Commons to create a citizens' assembly on electoral reform and require the citizens' assembly to complete its work within 12 months and adopt any recommended changes to our electoral system before the next federal election.
An Angus Reid poll found that 85% respondents supported the citizens' assembly to deliberate on electoral reform and deal with the distorted results from our recent federal election. For example, one Green Party MP represents 378,000 voters and one Liberal MP represents 37,000 voters.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2020-02-19 15:46 [p.1260]
Madam Speaker, the second petition I want to table to today is regarding Falun Gong adherents. The petitioners are asking that we pass a resolution to establish measures to stop the Chinese Communist regime's crime of systematically murdering Falun Gong practitioners for their organs, amend Canadian legislation to combat forced organ harvesting and publicly call for an end to persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2020-02-19 16:15 [p.1265]
Madam Speaker, I welcome seeing Bill C-5 renamed and back in this place. As we all recall, the bill was proposed initially as a private member's bill by the former interim leader of the Conservative party, Rona Ambrose. I am sure I am not alone, in a non-partisan sense, in saying we miss her in this place.
I wonder about openness to amendments. One came to mind recently when I had constituents asking in town hall meetings about a decision of an Immigration and Refugee Board adjudicator, a Ms. Randhawa. Her decision was appalling, and it was overturned in the Federal Court of Appeal. It occurs to me that perhaps we need to expand the range of training. In this particular case, the IRB adjudicator refused a request for refugee status because the adjudicator found it not credible that the woman who feared returning to her home country for fear of violent attack by an intimate partner had kept a child of rape, and therefore, the adjudicator said, it could not have really been rape. It is very upsetting to imagine that we have adjudicators with life-and-death control over people seeking protection in Canada.
I wonder if the hon. parliamentary secretary could indicate whether we might be able to expand the scope of training to people who deal with refugee claimants.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2020-02-19 16:46 [p.1270]
Madam Speaker, I offer congratulations to the hon. member for Calgary Skyview on her first speech.
I put a similar suggestion forward in my question to the parliamentary secretary about people within the Immigration and Refugee Board. The hon. member has raised an excellent point about people on parole boards. However, the government has structured the bill around judicial discretion and the Judges Act.
I think we really have to ask the government to consider it, because at the amendment stage before committee, we will not have the scope to bring in other legislation and other bills. At this early stage, there is so much support for the bill as written and concern that it should extend beyond judges to others who make basically life-and-death decisions, as the hon. member's question so rightly points out, without adequate understanding of the context, the risks and so on.
I am hoping that we might find a way through this at this early stage of looking at Bill C-5 to broaden it beyond the federal Judges Act to include other categories of adjudicators, such as parole boards and immigration review boards. My sense is that when we go to committee for clause by clause, amendments such as the ones we are discussing here will be ruled out of order, as beyond the scope of the bill. However, the government could still change it.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2020-02-19 17:01 [p.1272]
Madam Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague.
Considering the consensus and support this bill has, is there any way we could pass it faster?
I doubt I will hear anyone say anything against this bill's objective throughout this debate.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2020-02-19 17:02 [p.1272]
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering if it is the will of the House at this hour to deem that the bill has achieved second reading, third reading and report stage. We could send it to the Senate as currently drafted and move to a different bill to deal with the immigration review board, the Parole Board and the other issues that are probably outside the scope of this bill.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2020-02-19 17:18 [p.1274]
Madam Speaker, I wanted to speak to something related to this bill. On Vancouver Island we have the Victoria Sexual Assault Centre and clinic. I just wanted to take this opportunity, with so many members in the House concerned with this issue, to highlight that this facility is so significant and should be replicated in communities across Canada.
It is the only facility where there is a rapid response team for sexual assault victims, whether they are women or trans people who are affected by sexual assault, and it has a clinic facility that saves our health care system and reduces costs. It has a perfectly equipped, private room designed to allow police to do perfect recordings of interviews, with proper camera work and proper recording devices, and collect forensic evidence in a comfortable setting that feels like home. The clinic feels like home.
I just cannot say enough about how impressed I am by the work of the Victoria Sexual Assault Centre and clinic, and I do not know if my hon. colleague has had a chance to tour it. I would recommend it.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2020-02-18 10:16 [p.1119]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present an online petition gathering steam. The petitioners are calling on this House to reject the proposal for a very large expansion, with over 14,000 hectares of wetlands to be lost. Petitioners note that if the expansion goes ahead, it would produce 260,000 barrels of bitumen a day and substantially increase greenhouse gases, blowing through our Paris targets. The petitioners call on this House assembled to reject Teck's Frontier mine and halt any existing or planned construction.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2020-02-18 10:18 [p.1119]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from voters on Vancouver Island who oppose the purchase of the Trans Mountain pipeline and do not want that pipeline to be expanded. The price tag for that pipeline has gone from $5.6 billion to $12.6 billion. The environmental destruction involved, and the way it will undermine our climate targets, is not acceptable to the petitioners and they would like to see plans for the pipeline expansion to be halted.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2020-02-18 10:22 [p.1120]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say very briefly that we agree with the requests submitted by the NDP and the Bloc Québécois.
This is obviously a matter of an emergency situation. We also want to make it very clear that we will always stand in solidarity with the Wet'suwet'en.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2020-02-18 11:36 [p.1130]
Madam Speaker, I thank all my colleagues for giving me this opportunity to speak about this emergency situation that confronts us all with the reality of injustice and the challenge of reconciliation.
This is a very important debate and this is a very important moment. During the constituency week when I was home in my riding, we discussed the blockades, the inconvenience, what it means for settler culture Canadians to face inconvenience when indigenous people have had their land, children and culture stolen from them, and efforts to annihilate who they are as people. We have to weigh our inconvenience against the challenge of the moment. One of my constituents, Priscilla, said that we should focus on the opportunity of such a rich conversation.
Listening to some of the words of my colleagues, the leader of the official opposition reminded me of something. On May 4, 1877, General Oliver Otis Howard spoke of the frustrations he felt in dealing with the Nez Perce and their chiefs as they discussed what mattered to them. He stated that, “Twenty times over I hear that the earth is your mother. I want to hear it no more, but come to business at once.” This is not simple and it will not end overnight because it is based on a century and a half of injustice, oppression and colonialism.
It is also based on the reality that since 1997, the Wet'suwet'en have had every reason to believe that based on a Supreme Court of Canada decision, the federal government would come and talk about the title for the Wet'suwet'en, which could be 22,000 square kilometres, and about what it means that the Supreme Court of Canada has said that their title and indigenous form of government, which predates Canada by thousands of years, has status in Canadian law.
We must not ever set out the notion that there is a rule of law on one side and indigenous people on the other. Indigenous people have the law on their side. When the leader of the official opposition referred to “a small group of radical activists”, perhaps he meant the nine judges of the Supreme Court of Canada. They are the ones who said that title is title is title and that indigenous title is collective and intergenerational. Acknowledging that will explain why we stand in solidarity with the Wet'suwet'en hereditary leadership.
My colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith went up on January 19 and met with the hereditary leadership of Wet'suwet'en. The Green Party has been trying to appeal to the federal government from the beginning to not let the RCMP arrest people. The huge encampment cost Canada a whole year of a remote location of RCMP detachment encampment on the edge of Wet'suwet'en territory. It is very remote. My colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith went up there and found that they had offered an alternative route. This was acknowledged in the injunction case that granted an injunction to Coastal GasLink. The Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs had offered another location that would avoid the Kweese trail, but according to the court, Coastal GasLink unilaterally rejected the alternative.
The federal government has to step up. I am glad the federal government is stepping up. It is true that on February 5 in this place, the Prime Minister said that, “This is an issue that is entirely under provincial jurisdiction.” That is true insofar as the pipeline goes. It does not cross a provincial border, but it is massively untrue. We talk about indigenous rights, the Delgamuukw decision of 1997, the Tsilhqot'in decision of 2014. The big question to ask when first nations win in our courts is this: What is the statute of limitations on us doing anything about it?
The Wet'suwet'en have been enormously patient and the Unist'ot'en camp has been sitting there for 10 years.
It should come as no surprise to see resistance from indigenous peoples across Canada. It is clear in all the agreements.
The indigenous leadership across Canada has been saying for quite some time that if someone marches on that territory, they will respond as if someone had marched on their territory. This is an aspect of solidarity. For the solidarity of indigenous people across Canada and their allies, people like me who are settler culture Canadians recognize that this is a turning people for this country, where we actually mean what we say.
When I heard a comment from the brilliant senator and former justice Murray Sinclair from the other place, who said, as in Paul Simon in The Boxer, “For a pocket full of mumbles such are promises.” We must set aside our pocket full of mumbles. We must be serious in our intent. This is a land issue. This is a title issue. This is a justice issue. It is only very incidentally a pipeline issue.
It is now clear that we must face the reality of injustice and the great promise of reconciliation. Now is the time to say yes to indigenous peoples and to reject the notion that they are a radical group, because they are not. This is a group that is committed to the grand project of justice.
Now is the moment for Canada to face its moment of truth, justice and reconciliation.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2020-02-18 13:58 [p.1151]
Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to speak to the Wet'suwet'en situation, and the crisis that is gripping the country and about which this evening we will have an emergency debate.
The most useful thing that I can do in 60 seconds is quote from a letter that appeared in the national newspapers from one of my constituents, whom members will know. Ron Wright, Massey lecturer and author of A Short History of Progress, notes in this letter that in writing his book, Stolen Continents, he spoke of the Oka crisis and he sees parallels. He stated that:
...[like] the Mohawks, the Wet'suwet'en have never [lost] their ancient sovereignty as an independent people.
Under international law, he added, there are only two ways to lose sovereignty: by armed conquest or by signing it away in treaty. Neither is the case here. He continued:
Like the Mohawks, the Wet'suwet'en have an ancient system of self-government that predates European occupation and is still alive.
Finally, he concluded that the elected band councils set up under the Indian Act merely administer the small territories defined as reserves.
It is clear that the rule of law in this case is not muddied and only on one side. The Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs also stand with the rule of law.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2020-02-18 15:20 [p.1165]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Manicouagan. Today is the first time that I am participating in this important debate about this key motion.
I would like to thank the Bloc Québécois for giving us this opportunity to change the EI system and offer 50 weeks of benefits to those struggling with major health crises, such as cancer.
I would simply like to ask my colleague if she would like to raise any other matters, because she spoke very movingly about the consequences such crises can have on the life of every family member.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
Madam Speaker, I am curious about where the member has come up with those numbers. I have gone up north and have met with the heredity chiefs. I have spent some time in the community talking to the people.
Doing a quick search, I found that of the 300 members of the the Nak'azdli Whut'en First Nation, one of the Wet'suwet'en bands, 70% of the band voted no. The council voted 4:3 in favour of the project. The Witset band, the largest of the Wet'suwet'en group, which has a population of 5,000 members of which 2,000 are in the Witset band, 83% in a survey opposed this project.
Then we talk about the jobs. CGL admits there are only two dozen jobs for Wet'suwet'en people in this project. A lot of numbers are being thrown around. I am curious to know where the Conservatives are getting these numbers.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, this situation was completely avoidable and predictable. These protests across Canada were completely predictable. There are agreements between first nations across Canada to stand together when one nation is attacked and forced into a project against its will and down the barrel of a gun.
I was in the north. My sister worked for the OPP and she was a front-line officer at Ipperwash at the inquiry and a front-line officer in Caledonia. She would tell us that the last thing to do in these situations is to escalate action because reaction will be escalated and more problems will be caused.
When I went up north, I met with the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs and with the detachment commander in Smithers. I also met with the detachment commander at the community industry safety office and brought a hereditary chief with me. We had a dialogue. One of the things that those detachment commanders told me was that as long as negotiation was going on, there would not be enforcement. It was up to Coastal GasLink, which could have called off the enforcement of this action with dialogue from the government.
I asked the Prime Minister to meet with the hereditary chiefs and open a dialogue. I sent him a letter and talked to him personally and said that this needed to be done, and it was not and here we are.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I note parenthetically that the minister was in British Columbia but was not attempting to meet with the Wet'suwet'en because she was not able to leave Victoria. She did meet with her provincial counterpart.
We have referred many times tonight to the Coastal GasLink project as though natural gas reduces greenhouse gases globally. However, this is fracked gas. I know the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country is concerned about climate. Is he not concerned that fracked gas has the same carbon footprint as coal and worsens the climate situation?
View Jenica Atwin Profile
GP (NB)
View Jenica Atwin Profile
2020-02-18 23:36
Mr. Speaker, I agree, I want the blockades to end. I feel action is delayed and unnecessarily so. I feel there is a lot that goes into this very nuanced conversation.
I hear the member about the farmers. I am just curious as to what the member thinks about the National Farmers Union issuing a press release that is in solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en people. It is the first thing on their website.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2020-02-07 13:16 [p.1105]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Conservatives for sharing this time with me so that I can speak to this important bill. As other members have pointed out, this has been a long time coming, and it is something civil society organizations and citizens have been asking for.
CBSA officers are on the front lines at our borders and do important and valuable work. CBSA officers interact with 95 million travellers every year. It is important that the work they do is recognized and that the people who step up to do that job are respected and recognized for the work they do. My sister was a police officer in the OPP for 24 years. My uncle served in the RCMP. I spent time with them on ride-alongs and saw the work they do. I have talked with their colleagues and documented some of the work they do. Just like the folks who are here to serve and protect us as part of our parliamentary security, these are people who step up to serve and protect our communities, and it is important to respect the work they do.
However, there can be complaints that come forward to the media. The last time we were debating this topic as Bill C-98, there was a complaint brought forward to the media by a woman who had been mishandled by the CBSA. She had been strip-searched, felt the whole process was arbitrary, and did not have the confidence to complain to the CBSA about what had happened to her. In 2016 to 2018, there were 1,200 cases of alleged misconduct by CBSA employees. These are the things that can taint an organization that employs many people. There were 228 cases of neglect of duty, 183 cases of discreditable conduct on duty, 59 cases of harassment, 38 cases of criminal association, 25 cases of abuse of authority, seven cases of assault, five cases of intimidation, five cases of uttering threats, five cases of sexual assault and four cases of smuggling. There have been accusations of racism and other things happening at the border.
Most people do not realize that when they cross the border, they are in a legal no man's land and have very few rights. The CBSA has extensive powers to take blood and saliva samples, to access data on computers and ask for passwords, to conduct strip searches, to detain people and to arrest non-citizens. We have had 14 deaths since 2000 in CBSA detention centres, and there has been no independent review of these deaths or any potential criminal implications for any wrongdoing. It is very important to bring the CBSA into the same process that all of our other security forces have with respect to oversight bodies, so having a public complaints and review commission is really important.
There are a couple of things in this bill we would like to see adapted and changed.
The RCMP Act, under the ineligibility paragraph at subsection 45.29(2), excludes current and former members from serving on the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission. Under the act, “member” has a specific definition, and means an employee of the RCMP. Presumably, this should be amended so the current and former agents of the CBSA should also be excluded from sitting on the public complaints and review commission. It is incumbent that it be independent, because somebody who has served with the CBSA may have colleagues who are being called forward with respect to a complaint. Therefore, it needs to be completely at arm's length if we do not want this continued relationship.
When one is in these security organizations as a police officer, it is like a brotherhood or sisterhood. These people think the best of their officers, and they want to believe the best of them.
This was the case for my sister when she was in the OPP. She was at the Ipperwash Inquiry, looking into the wrongdoing of fellow officers. At first, she had trouble believing they could be involved in the wrongful death of Dudley George. In that inquiry, some of the worst behaviour of certain members of the OPP came out. It is important that it is an independent body that looks at these behaviours and reviews it properly.
Another thing we would like to see changed is some notification for people who are to be deported. There is a case of a gentleman named Richard Germaine, who is an indigenous man. He was born in California, lived his whole life in Penelakut Island, which is in the Cowichan—Malahat—Langford riding. He is married. He is a community leader.
Right before Christmas, without any warning or knowledge that his citizenship papers were in any sort of disarray so he could take some steps toward it, CBSA officials showed up at his home, they put him leg irons and took him away in front of his wife, who is a residential school survivor. This traumatized her, their children and their grandchildren. They took him in a van to a detention centre in Vancouver where he was ordered to be deported as quickly as possible. He had no idea what was happening to him.
Fortunately, he was working with an ethnobotanist at the University of Victoria. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands helped, working with the minister, to ensure Germaine was taken out of detention.
I realize that some people might cut and run with a notification, but in this case, it clearly shows that just showing up right before Christmas, putting somebody in leg irons and dragging the person away is not appropriate. That is another aspect we would like to see amended.
We share concerns about how this will be funded to ensure the public review complaints commission has adequate funds to do its work.
However, we think this is an important legislation to pass. CBSA should have the same kind of oversight that other police agencies and security agencies have in the country.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2020-02-07 13:25 [p.1106]
Madam Speaker, the commission should be completely at arm's length from the minister. When we have these processes, they should be independent and able to do their work without political interference.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2020-02-07 13:25 [p.1106]
Madam Speaker, it is very important that the people who step up to serve and protect our communities have adequate resources and that public complaints commissions like this have adequate resources.
To have people in positions of responsibility, like the CBSA, RCMP and any other police force, work extended overtime is not a good idea. We want people to be at the height of their ability to think and act, and to be reasonable. We want them to do their jobs adequately. Being sleep deprived and overworked is no way to do that.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2020-02-07 13:27 [p.1106]
Madam Speaker, I agree with the member. It is a very good idea to combine the two of them, because there would be a cost savings and there is a level of expertise already.
One thing I highlighted in my speech is that the RCMP Act, under the review process with the RCMP, says former members of the RCMP cannot be part of the commission. They cannot be part of the complaints process. The bill does not specifically say that former or current members of the CBSA cannot take part in the commission. It needs to be amended so we have the same rules for the CBSA as for the RCMP. I would like to see a level playing field between the RCMP and the CBSA and that former and current members of the CBSA are excluded from this commission.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2020-02-07 13:29 [p.1107]
Madam Speaker, yes, that is a concern for me as well. Parliamentarians should be able to review these reports.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2020-02-06 10:07 [p.994]
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here from members of my constituency who are very concerned about climate change and want to see real climate action with equality, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and a just transition for workers. They are calling on the Government of Canada to support Motion No. 1 for a made-in-Canada green new deal.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2020-02-06 10:08 [p.994]
Mr. Speaker, a petition is often timely, as news reaches us that the RCMP have begun arresting Wet'suwet'en elders. The petitioners call for the respect for Canadian constitutional law and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. They call on the government to halt all existing and planned construction of the Coastal GasLink project on Wet'suwet'en territory, ask the RCMP to dismantle the exclusion zone and stand down and move expeditiously to nation-to-nation talks between the Wet'suwet'en nation and federal and provincial governments.
The matter is urgent.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2020-02-06 10:12 [p.994]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my Bloc Québécois colleague. I think we are on the same wavelength and that, for the most part, we have similar concerns about the new NAFTA.
However, Green Party members have decided to vote in favour of ratifying the agreement because of the improvements that have been made, such as eliminating chapter 11, which gave big U.S. corporations the right to bring arbitration cases against Canada. Our country has been on the losing end of most arbitration cases related to Canadian health and environmental protection laws.
I have a question for the Bloc member. Does he agree that, without chapter 11, the new NAFTA is much better?
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2020-02-06 11:07 [p.1002]
Mr. Speaker, I apologize for interrupting, but for unanimous consent, typically it is important to ask every member in advance. Given that it would only be my objection, I just want it on the record that I will go along with this, but I would have preferred to have been consulted in advance.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2020-02-06 11:35 [p.1007]
Mr. Speaker, I am going to do my best to ask my Bloc Québecois colleague this question in French, although it is hard for me.
Like the Green Party, the Bloc Québecois is speaking out against Teck's oil sands project. However, I have many concerns about the agreement with China, in terms of investment protection. It contains the same thing as chapter 11 of NAFTA, which has been removed from the new NAFTA.
I am worried because we accepted the same type of agreement with China under the former Harper government and because Teck Resources has a lot of investments from China.
I am worried if we say no to Teck, we could have an investor challenge from China against Canada because of the close links between Teck Resources and the People's Republic of China.
My question is, do we have to work towards eliminating all investment agreements?
I would like to know my colleague's opinion.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2020-02-06 12:33 [p.1014]
Madam Speaker, I understand that the member has a number of problems and some of those are similar to what happens with dairy producers in my riding. I have heard from the dairy producers. We also have an aluminum industry in British Columbia. Our largest aluminum smelter is in Kitimat, the Alcan smelter. A huge LNG plant is being built, which is getting its aluminum tariff-free from China. We see problems with this issue across the country.
I understand, from the different debates here, that many MPs are not happy with part of the negotiation. We hear that the Liberals were not happy when the Conservatives were negotiating these agreements. The Conservatives are not happy with the Liberals' negotiating of these agreements.
Do you think we should have a more open and transparent process of negotiating trade agreements, so all parties can be involved and we can debate the merits of the socio-economic benefits of these agreements before we enter negotiation?
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2020-02-06 15:06 [p.1039]
Mr. Speaker, today's enforcement action in Wet'suwet'en territory was another humiliating stain on Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples. The Canadian Constitution and the United Nations recognize the rights and title of indigenous people. The Supreme Court recognizes the indigenous hereditary systems of governance. Nation-to-nation negotiations are the responsibility of the government.
Why has the government abandoned its duty and allowed the constitutional and legal rights of the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs to be violated today?
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2020-02-06 16:16 [p.1050]
Mr. Speaker, the bill is changing parts of the RCMP Act. The RCMP Act excludes current or former members of the RCMP from serving on the Public Complaints and Review Commission. “Member” under the act has a specific definition; it means an employee of the RCMP.
Does the member think that members and former members of CBSA should also be excluded from the review process so that they are not adjudicating over their former colleagues?
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2020-02-06 16:32 [p.1052]
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank members of the Conservative Party for organizing their speeches to allow me to have a portion of their time.
I am very pleased to see this bill come forward. We worked on it in the 42nd Parliament as Bill C-98 when it had a different name, but there are some concerns.
I would like to split up my time to talk about what the Canada Border Services Agency is, what it does, what the problems are and whether this bill would fix them. I will try to move quite smartly through that description.
We have in Canada national security agencies, such as the RCMP, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Communications Security Establishment, which is a bit of a different animal, and the Canada Border Services Agency. They essentially are a collection of national security intelligence agencies that work with each other. As of now, the Canada Border Services Agency is the only one that operates without either oversight or a complaints process, yet it does have extraordinary powers.
The Canada Border Services Agency's powers at the border are superior to those of the police. They have powers to arrest, detain and remove people from Canada. This is a profound power, the ability to have someone deported. I want to underscore this for members because we need to get a review of our immigration and refugee law on another occasion. This bill does not have the scope for it. The previous government under Mr. Harper changed the deportation rule from deporting people as soon as is practicable to as soon as it is possible. That has resulted in a lot of people being thrown out of Canada more quickly than I think most Canadians would find fair, and certainly with disastrous consequences on a humanitarian ground.
The CBSA authorities can prevent people from entering Canada. They can conduct interviews with refugee claimants when they have lost their first opportunity to explain why they wish asylum. They can detain refugee claimants on any number of grounds. They can issue removal orders and send a person out of Canada without an admissibility hearing. In other words, they have enormous powers. By the way, a review of the agency, which I found extremely informative, was issued in 2017 by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.
The question is whether, with all of these powers, everything is going very well. It is not perfect by any means. There are literally, as we have heard from other speakers, hundreds of complaints every year, but many of them are of a rather routine nature. They are unpleasant but they are accusations of racism and unpleasant comments.
I know that we want to thank the vast majority of members of the Canada Border Services Agency at the borders. We need them to be focused on stopping the flow of illegal drugs. We need them to stop the flow of illegal handguns. I think it would be well worthwhile as a public policy matter to stop having it be a priority to find people whose citizenship is irregular and deport them in a hurry. A lot of families are ripped apart by this and it would be much wiser to focus on those things that we know we want to stop at the border, such as drugs and guns, not necessarily people.
This brings me to one of the most tragic of many tragic stories. This one led to an inquiry. Unfortunately, it was in the form of an inquest because the woman in question died.
Her name was Lucia Vega Jimenez. She was stopped at a transit stop in Vancouver and transit police thought there was something unusual about her. It has been alleged it was her accent. It turned out that her citizenship papers were irregular. They turned her over to the Canada Border Services Agency and she was incorrectly advised. The inquest proved that she had been incorrectly advised that she had no hope of avoiding deportation and that there were no appeals. That was not correct. She hanged herself in her cell. The inquest then was able to find that there was a lot of discussion within the agency of how to cover this up, what to do if people found out. It is long overdue to have this kind of a complaints commission.
We now have another change that is worth looking at because we are in a new era of national security law. We have the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency. It has the ability to have oversight over what all the agencies do, but it does not take complaints in the same way that this complaints commission would take complaints.
The public complaints and review commission, which is renamed from the public complaints commission that only looked at the RCMP, would now take on the Canada Border Services Agency. I will be voting for this bill at second reading. I do want to see this bill get to committee.
However, the concern I have is that there are a number of excluded areas that the complaints commission cannot look into. We need to look at those and recognize that while the larger agency, the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, can give a summary and an overview of how the CBSA has been performing in these areas, people cannot make complaints in the same way.
Complaints cannot be made about the agencies in Bill C-3 that we are debating today. They cannot be made about decisions made by CBSA employees under statutory authorities. This of course includes one of the key areas where abusive behaviour has been reported and is of greatest concern, where people are detained and can die or could be deported and die in a country they should never have been sent back to: the statutory authorities under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and under the Customs Act.
It cannot receive complaints about matters that could be more appropriately dealt with by other bodies, such as the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Commissioner of Official Languages, and the Privacy Commissioner.
This one is really disturbing. It cannot receive complaints on the conduct of part-time employees at detention facilities where CBSA detainees are being housed. That is particularly concerning, because it goes on to actually say that the CBSA would not even be required to investigate complaints that relate to part-time employees.
We need to look at the whole scheme of things where things can go wrong and make sure that in this legislation we fix it as much as possible.
The other matter that is added to Bill C-3 which was not there in the previous Bill C-98 is that national security matters cannot be the source of a complaint.
There is good reason for that in policy because, after all, the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency can look at the overview of what CBSA has been doing on national security matters. That is quite a different matter from saying someone cannot complain. The complaints are direct. They are personal. They deal with an actual incident. The review agency is going to look at the whole of the conduct as best as it can as an oversight agency.
I would be very interested to know if we cannot look at the CBSA in this bill and consider whether amendments would not be wise to say that any of the activities of the CBSA and its agents can come before the complaints commission. The complaints commission, if it knows of a better place, could make sure that takes place, as opposed to sending someone away, someone who has been traumatized by an episode at the border and sent away.
People may not know. Even if they are told to take the complaint somewhere, they may just stop. They may not want to go through a revolving door. The complaints commission could have a positive obligation not just to inform a person where to go but to actually take it on, organize the hearing and make sure it is started, make sure complaints are not ignored.
On the matter of national security complaints, I am very concerned about this. One of the places where the CBSA was first studied was in the context of the Arar commission of inquiry. Mr. Justice O'Connor, who was the commissioner in the Arar inquiry, commented:
The CBSA often operates in a manner similar to that of a police force. There is a significant potential for the CBSA’s activities to affect individual rights, dignity and well-being, and much of the national security activity undertaken is not disclosed to the public.
I am concerned that we not inadvertently miss an important piece of oversight, an important piece of justice to anyone who happens to be, and I certainly do not think it happens routinely, traumatized.
In my own experience, I had no idea there was a detention facility under the Vancouver airport where people are deported quite quickly, until the family of an indigenous man from Penelakut Island, not in my riding but nearby, reached out to me for help. It was in 2014. The issue was that CBSA agents had shown up at the door of his home. He is a grandfather, an indigenous man, living on Penelakut Island, whose wife was a residential school survivor. Without warning, they arrested him. They had sent him notices that he had missed. They put him in leg irons. They drove him in a van on that December night all the way to the Vancouver airport, where he was told it was hopeless and that he would be deported the next day back to the United States where he had been born. They did not say there was something called the Jay Treaty regarding indigenous rights. They just said that was it.
Fortunately, we were able to stop the deportation but it was not easy. It did give me an insight into what goes on.
I want to make sure this legislation will work. It needs amendments.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2020-02-06 16:43 [p.1054]
Mr. Speaker, it is essential that Canadians have confidence in the agencies that have extraordinary powers over them.
It was in the debate during the 41st Parliament on Bill C-51, legislation which made a major overhaul of national security law under the Harper administration, and it was very clear from legal analysts like Craig Forcese that we need to have oversight agencies, like the security intelligence review committee, but we also need to have agencies that can do on the spot, in real-time response.
What we have at this point in Canada is an improvement but the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency is at the level of oversight. We do not have that quick response that we get when we have what we have now in the complaints commission. We have a bit of this and a bit of that. We do not have a full and comprehensive system to ensure both oversight and review.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2020-02-06 16:45 [p.1054]
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Shefford and congratulate her again on getting elected.
I think that this bill fails to address the issue of cybersecurity. It is a key issue because we have agencies that we are trying to improve. However, Bill C-3 is fairly limited in scope.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2020-02-06 16:46 [p.1055]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Beauce. I congratulate him, as well.
I am really sorry that the unions were not consulted. I really do not know why they were not, but I think it is absolutely mandatory to talk to the unions, because they are affected by this bill.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2020-02-06 17:01 [p.1057]
Mr. Speaker, I think we are all keen to get the bill passed in this session, and I am pleased that it has come up early.
Is the member worried at all? I wonder if he heard my concerns earlier. We should not exclude so many aspects of our Canadian Border Services Agency activities such that rather serious incidents fall through some cracks between a review agency at a global level and the specific complaints of individual incidents. Things could fall through the cracks with so many exclusions in the bill.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2020-02-05 15:37 [p.961]
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to rise today to present a petition about the Teck Resources Frontier oil sands project.
The petitioners ask the House of Commons to take note of the enormous greenhouse gas contribution that would occur if Teck Resources Limited's Frontier mine were approved. It would produce 260,000 barrels of bitumen a day. Environment and Climate Change Canada's submission to the environmental review panel pointed out that this project would be 24% more carbon intensive than the lowest carbon intensive oil sands projects. The petitioners note that this would violate Canada's climate commitments.
The petitioners call on the House of Commons and Parliament assembled to reject Teck.
View Jenica Atwin Profile
GP (NB)
View Jenica Atwin Profile
2020-02-05 15:39 [p.961]
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition about the climate crisis.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to support Motion No. 1, a made in Canada green new deal, the first initiative before the House of Commons, which calls on Canada to take bold and rapid action to adopt socially equitable climate action to tackle the climate emergency and address worsening socio-economic and racial inequalities while at the same time ending fossil fuel subsidies, closing offshore tax havens and supporting workers impacted by the transition and creating well-paying unionized jobs in the shift to a clean and renewable energy economy.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2020-02-05 17:15 [p.975]
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Conservative side of the House for seeking greater opportunities to explore CUSMA. We feel, in the Green caucus, that we have had those opportunities and recognize that it is a done deal as far as that goes. The Trump administration is not going to reopen it.
I ask the hon. members on the other side of the House to think back to the 41st Parliament, though many members were not present at the time. The House then had zero opportunity to debate or vote on the Canada-China investment treaty, which binds this country for more than three decades to allowing the People's Republic of China to challenge any decision, by any level of government in this country, by secret tribunal. This is an egregious agreement and done in secret with zero opportunity to debate.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2020-02-04 10:10 [p.866]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from my constituents.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to support Motion No. 1, a made-in-Canada green new deal. It is the first initiative before the House of Commons that calls on Canada to take bold and rapid action to adopt social and equitable climate action to tackle the climate emergency.
The motion also addresses the worsening socio-economic and racial inequalities at the same time, while ending fossil fuel subsidies, closing offshore tax havens, supporting workers impacted by the transition and creating well-paying, unionize jobs in the shift to a clean and renewable energy economy.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2020-02-04 11:01 [p.874]
Madam Speaker, my thoughts go out to the family and friends of the victim here. I understand that in this case, there is some extreme misogyny. This speaks to the violence against women in society and the need to protect women, especially sex workers.
My question to the hon. member is about the process of appointment. You were talking about the politicization of these appointees. Would it not be better to depoliticize this with an expert panel that could come together to make these appointments so that this is not part of the political system?
View Jenica Atwin Profile
GP (NB)
View Jenica Atwin Profile
2020-02-04 15:08 [p.913]
Mr. Speaker, I welcome comments from the environment minister that his government expects provinces to take responsibility for their emissions.
Last week, during oral question period, the Prime Minister stated that the government's decisions are based on facts and science.
Knowing that science is conclusive to the effect that we need to drastically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions without further delay, can the minister confirm to the House that Canada supports an international emissions credit regime based on real, verifiable emissions reductions, and that hypothetical proposals, such as those proposed by New Brunswick regarding Maritime Iron, would never be allowed?
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2020-02-03 12:28 [p.805]
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the Bloc Québécois House leader.
I have a question for him. As I understand it, the new NAFTA provides more protection to the aluminum industry than the existing one. It is natural to want more, but I think the new NAFTA is better for the aluminum sector than the old NAFTA.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2020-02-03 13:17 [p.812]
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Liberal Party for sharing this speaking time with me so I can add my voice and perspective to this important debate on the new NAFTA or, as it is called now, CUSMA.
I would like to congratulate the Canadian negotiating team for getting this deal done with a U.S. administration that, at best, can be described as difficult to deal with.
This is not a perfect agreement. As parliamentarians, we are being asked to choose between the original version of NAFTA and this updated version. The original NAFTA successfully created an integrated supply chain that benefited businesses and entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, there are many flaws in the agreement that created and accelerated inequality.
For more than a decade, the Green Party has called for the renegotiation of NAFTA and the removal of problematic components. In our view, the worst part of the original agreement was the investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms and the proportionality clause, both of which have been removed in CUSMA. The investor-state provisions in NAFTA allowed foreign corporations to seek financial compensation from taxpayers through private arbitration tribunals when laws and regulations got in the way of their profits. Canada is the most-sued country under these NAFTA investor-state rules, and taxpayers have paid hundreds of millions of dollars to U.S. companies, but no Canadian company has ever successfully won compensation from the U.S. government.
For more than 10 years, I have worked to raise awareness about the serious problems created by investor-state provisions in our trade agreements. These provisions are anti-democratic and they obstruct good public policy and environmental protections, including action on climate change. I am happy to see the investor-state provisions removed from the CUSMA. This is a win. I would like to see investor-state dispute settlement provisions removed from all trade agreements and investment treaties that Canada has signed, and they should be excluded from any new agreements.
NAFTA's proportionality clause required that Canada export the same proportion of energy that it had on average in the previous three years, even in an energy crisis. Mexico did not agree to the inclusion of this clause. Canada, the coldest NAFTA country, signed away too much control of its energy sector. Fortunately, the proportionality clause was removed from the CUSMA. This is also a win.
The continued exemption of bulk water exports is encouraging, and the Canadian cultural exemption remains intact. These are wins as well.
The Green Party believes in fair and equitable trade that does not exploit lower labour, health, safety or environmental standards in other countries or result in the lowering of standards in Canada. Done right, trade can be an effective way to improve conditions for people and the planet rather than creating a race to the bottom.
Free trade agreements have allowed corporations to exploit lower wages and standards in other countries. Under NAFTA, many jobs in Canada were moved to Mexico for this reason. This hollowed out Canada's manufacturing and textile sectors and led to the loss of hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs here. When NAFTA was negotiated and signed, Canadians were promised that it would increase prosperity. In reality, NAFTA increased the wealth of the rich at the expense of working Canadians, whose wages have stagnated.
As an international human rights observer in the 1990s, I accompanied labour activists who were trying to organize workers in Guatemala's sweatshops, which produced low-cost goods for the North American market. The simple act of trying to create a union led to intimidation, violence, disappearances and murder. This was not how international trade should work. I am pleased that CUSMA would create stricter enforcement of labour standards in Mexico, would guarantee Mexican workers the rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining, and would help to strengthen the labour movement there. The agreement includes a rapid response mechanism for labour violations.
These labour standards were strengthened in the new, improved version of the agreement, thanks to a push by Democrats in the United States who were not happy with the lack of proper labour standards or enforcement in the first signed version of CUSMA.
U.S. Democrats also managed to roll back the patent extensions on biologic drugs proposed in the first version of the CUSMA agreement. This change will save Canadian consumers money and make it more affordable to create a universal pharmacare program in Canada.
Thankfully, the Canadian Parliament did not rush to ratify this first signed version of the agreement, so we can all benefit from these important changes made by U.S. Democrats.
Another area of improvement is the rules of origin. Higher levels of North American content are now required before goods can be certified as made in North America. There is a new 70% North American steel and aluminum requirement for automobiles, but while the steel content requirement guarantees that steel must be produced in North America, there is not an equal requirement for aluminum. This requirement should have been included in the agreement..
Our supply management system for dairy and poultry farmers will remain intact, but one of the drawbacks of the new agreement is that it will allow imports of dairy products from the U.S. This will undermine the economic viability of Canadian farms and will require compensation to farmers.
In addition, many dairy products in the U.S. contain a genetically modified bovine growth hormone called rBGH, which is banned in Canada. We need legislation in place to ensure that U.S. products containing rBGH are either labelled or blocked from entering this country.
The CUSMA agreement makes some progress on environmental protections. Countries are committed to meet their obligations on a number of multilateral environmental treaties they have signed. These agreements are all enforceable. However, what CUSMA is missing is any mention of climate change and any obligation for the three CUSMA countries to uphold their commitments under the climate accords. While the climate change targets established in Paris are binding, there are no enforcement mechanisms or penalties for countries that do not live up to their commitments.
Increasing trade in goods will accelerate climate change. One of the best ways to combat climate change is to localize our economies as much as possible. This is especially true for agricultural products. Redundant trade, such as importing products that can easily be produced locally, does not make sense.
There are other concerns with CUSMA. The agreement fails to address the decades-long softwood lumber dispute between Canada and the United States. Getting the proper agreement on softwood is critical to the health of the Canadian forest industry.
The good regulatory practices chapter is also of concern. Who decides what good regulatory practices are? Will this process involve only business and government, or will civil society organizations representing labour, consumers, and the environment be involved?
The extension of copyright from 50 years after an author's death to 75 years is an unnecessary change.
It is ironic to hear the Conservatives complaining about not having enough access during the negotiation process and having to study an agreement that is a done deal. This really speaks to the lack of a clear and transparent process for negotiating trade agreements. The process of negotiating CUSMA included briefings for an expanded group of stakeholders, going beyond just the business organizations and corporations that were consulted in the past. That is an improvement, but there is still work to do to make the trade agreement negotiation process more transparent. It is unacceptable that Canadians, and the parliamentarians who represent them, can only get involved in a debate about the merits of a trade agreement once it has been completed and signed.
Both the Liberals and Conservatives complained about the secretive nature of the negotiation process while they were in opposition. The Greens believe that we should be following the European Union model for trade negotiations. We should have an open and transparent discussion and debate about Canada's objectives before negotiations start. That debate should continue during and after negotiations are concluded. Also, a socio-economic analysis of the potential impacts and benefits of a new trade agreement should be made available to all Canadians.
For years I have spoken out loudly against the corporate free trade model, so people who know me might wonder why I intend to support the CUSMA agreement. This is not a perfect agreement, the negotiation process is flawed and we can and should do better, but this is a choice between retaining the old flawed NAFTA and ratifying this new, improved version. A step forward is preferable to the status quo.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2020-02-03 13:28 [p.814]
Madam Speaker, I appreciate that there has been expanded consultation on this agreement in particular and with CPTPP. I think that we need to continue that process and have more debate in Parliament before we enter into a process of starting a trade negotiation. For example, the Conservatives want a trade agreement with China. We have a committee right now that is looking at problems with China and the socio-economic impacts of getting into a trade negotiation with China.
I appreciate having those discussions in advance, and a more open and transparent process. I appreciate the openness that has happened and I would like to see more of it in the future.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2020-02-03 13:31 [p.815]
Madam Speaker, my apologies to the Conservatives. You may not be in favour of a trade agreement with China at this point, but you did sign the Canada-China FIPA, and I am wondering if you have regrets now about the extensive power that has been given to—
An hon. member: Do not say “you”.
Mr. Paul Manly: Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the Conservatives have regrets now about the extensive power that they have given to Chinese state-owned corporations to seek damages through this investor-state process, whereby they can take us on for environmental protections, labour standards, health and safety standards, or for opposing the purchase of retirement homes and providing substandard services to our communities and seniors. Investor-state—
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2020-02-03 13:33 [p.815]
Madam Speaker, I was given 10 minutes to speak.
I definitely think that those areas are important, crucial areas. I have four first nations in my riding, and having an indigenous lens on trade and investment is very important. Having a gender lens on trade and investment is very important as well. It was not neglect but a lack of time to cover all of the issues that I would like to speak about.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2020-02-03 15:04 [p.831]
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. Prime Minister.
The B.C. salmon season of 2019 was a complete disaster. It constituted an emergency situation for many indigenous peoples for whom salmon is a staple food of deep cultural and spiritual significance.
For the fishermen, tendermen and shore-workers, it is an economic disaster. These groups wrote and asked the government before the election for emergency salmon relief. The United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union and The Native Brotherhood of British Columbia have still had no answer.
When will salmon relief come for these communities?
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2020-02-03 15:12 [p.832]
Mr. Speaker, marine protected areas are really important to my riding as part of the 25-25-25 agenda of the Liberal government.
I have a petition to present today signed by constituents who request that the federal Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard work with all relevant government branches to simplify multilateral communication and responsibilities on the subject of marine protected areas. We want to see some of these areas protected as soon as we can.
View Elizabeth May Profile
GP (BC)
View Elizabeth May Profile
2020-02-03 15:14 [p.833]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by constituents throughout my riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands.
The petitioners are concerned about the global crisis in the threat to pollinators. We are losing bees, and the evidence, particularly from the European Union, which has taken action, is that this is largely due to the pesticides based in neonicotinoids.
The petitioners are asking that Government of Canada apply the precautionary principle, follow Europe's lead and take action to ban neonicotinoids.
View Jenica Atwin Profile
GP (NB)
View Jenica Atwin Profile
2020-02-03 15:15 [p.833]
Mr. Speaker, this petition is around reproductive justice and ensuring that the Government of New Brunswick repeal paragraph (a.1) in schedule 2 of Regulation 84-20 under the Medical Services Payment Act, creating a billing code that adequately reflects the provision of services by the provider and facility, thereby meeting the Canada Health Act's requirements of accessibility for residents of New Brunswick to publicly funded abortion services in medically and regionally appropriate settings.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2020-02-03 16:19 [p.842]
Madam Speaker, I agree. I think there have been some huge wins on this. Getting rid of investor-state is a huge win. Having foreign corporations dictate to us and challenge, in private tribunals, our laws and policies that protect the health and welfare of Canadians and our environment is an affront to democracy. I am glad to see it gone. I want to see it gone in every one of our trade and investment agreements.
I am hearing, in this debate between the Liberals and Conservatives, that when they are in opposition they do not feel like they are being heard, negotiated with or part of the dialogue on these trade agreements.
Does the member not think it is time we started to look at another process for trade agreements? If we look at the European model, it has an open dialogue and debate. It talks about what the social economic impacts of an agreement would be before negotiations start. As the negotiation goes through, there is debate. We should have that ongoing debate in Parliament. Having an open, transparent process would be helpful to all concerned.
Results: 1 - 60 of 4041 | Page: 1 of 68

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data