Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 24
View Cheryl Gallant Profile
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.
As the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate regarding the Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement, or CUSMA, which will replace the North American Free Trade Agreement that was negotiated by a previous Conservative government.
To paraphrase comments previously made by my Conservative colleagues, the good news is that, after rigorous debate in Parliament and at committee, Canada will continue to have a trade agreement with our largest trading partner. The bad news is that it was negotiated by the Liberal government, which made concession after concession to the United States and Mexico.
The United States is our greatest ally and our largest trading partner. The NAFTA deal that was negotiated by the Conservatives was good for Canada, with $2 billion a day in trade crossing our border, which represents 75% of Canadian exports. The U.S. direct investment in Canada was over $400 billion, which is huge.
Since NAFTA was first implemented, over five million jobs have been created, and total trilateral trade has quadrupled to $1.2 trillion. Conservative trade deals have done a good job creating jobs for Canadians.
The Conservative Party of Canada is the party of free trade. An election was fought over free trade. Luckily for Canadians, the Conservatives won that election. It was under former prime minister Brian Mulroney that the first Canada-U.S. free trade agreement was signed. Then it was under former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper that Canada signed a record number of trade agreements, providing Canadian businesses with unprecedented access to markets around the world.
The Conservative Party is the party of free trade. We have long supported free trade and will continue to support a free trade agreement with the United States, our largest trading partner, and Mexico.
On February 25, I had the honour of presenting a private member's bill, Bill C-222, an act to amend the Expropriation Act with respect to protection of private property. There has been a disturbing trend in Canada toward what is referred to as regulatory, de facto or constructive taking of private property. This happens when government uses its statutory powers to regulate or restrict the property rights of an owner without acquiring title to the land being adversely affected. The landowner feels the impact of the regulation as if the land has been expropriated.
In the United States, the fifth amendment of the American constitution protects private property rights. In Canada, government acquisition of land without the owner's consent is not subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Private property rights were excluded from the Canadian Constitution when it was repatriated in 1982.
In Canada, landowners' rights are found in the expropriation legislation. The government must follow the law as to what land may be expropriated and must observe procedures set out in the legislation. In Canada the government can strictly regulate land, limiting its value and what a landowner can and cannot do with it without triggering the procedures in the legislation.
A de facto regulatory taking means a property owner is not entitled to compensation unless the restrictions of the owner's rights are such that they should be properly regarded within the meaning of the Expropriation Act.
I introduced Bill C-222 to provide some protections from the government taking people's property without compensation. It would appear that CUSMA addresses the issue raised by my private member's bill, Bill C-222. Canadian common law on de facto expropriation suffers from what some jurists refer to as external incoherence.
The present context of CUSMA decries the possibility that the rights of foreign investors in Canadian property are afforded more protection than the rights of Canadian property owners of Canadian property. The source of this incoherence is article 1110 of the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, which has been carried over into CUSMA under article 14.8 on expropriation and compensation.
Article 14.8 in the new agreement provides:
1. No Party shall expropriate or nationalize a covered investment either directly or indirectly through measures equivalent to expropriation or nationalization (expropriation), except:
(a) for a public purpose;
(b) in a non-discriminatory manner;
(c) on payment of prompt, adequate, and effective compensation in accordance with paragraphs 2, 3, and 4; and
(d) in accordance with due process of law.
2. Compensation shall:
(a) be paid without delay;
(b) be equivalent to the fair market value of the expropriated investment immediately before the expropriation took place (the date of expropriation);
(c) not reflect any change in value occurring because the intended expropriation had become known earlier; and
(d) be fully realizable and freely transferable.
3. If the fair market value is denominated in a freely usable currency, the compensation paid shall be no less than the fair market value on the date of expropriation, plus interest at a commercially reasonable rate for that currency, accrued from the date of expropriation until the date of payment.
4. If the fair market value is denominated in a currency that is not freely usable, the compensation paid—converted into the currency of payment at the market rate of exchange prevailing on the date of payment—shall be no less than:
(a) the fair market value on the date of expropriation, converted into a freely usable currency at the market rate of exchange prevailing on that date; plus
(b) interest, at a commercially reasonable rate for that freely usable currency, accrued from the date of expropriation until the date of payment.
5. For greater certainty, whether an action or series of actions by a Party constitutes an expropriation shall be determined in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article and Annex 14-B (Expropriation).
The language used here was rolled over from the 1992 NAFTA and it refers to the indirect nationalizing or expropriating of a measure as being tantamount to nationalization or expropriation. The language clearly exists to ensure that compensation will be owed for both de jure and de facto expropriation by the expropriating country.
The scope of article 14.8 is indeed wide. “Measure” includes any law, regulation, procedure, requirement or practice, and the definition of “investment” is so expansive that it cannot be included here. Moreover, there is no allowance, as there is in Canadian common law, for express statutory language to extinguish the right of compensation.
How the previous NAFTA article 1110 has been treated in arbitration among the parties of NAFTA, Canada, the United States and Mexico, has, or at least should have, bearing on expropriation law in Canada generally. This is particularly so given NAFTA's, now CUSMA's, constitution-like status as a document that cannot be amended without the consent of all signatories.
The NAFTA expropriation case that has received the most attention from Canadian legal scholars is probably The United Mexican States v. Metalclad Corporation. In that case, Metalclad had received approval from the federal government of Mexico to operate a landfill in the municipality of Guadalcazar and began to construct the landfill on that basis. Mid-construction, Guadalcazar informed Metalclad that it would require a municipal permit and must cease construction pending its issuance. More than a year later, Guadalcazar finally made its decision: permit denied.
The governor of San Luis Potosi, the state in which Guadalcazar is situated, further declared Metalclad's land to be a natural area for the protection of rare cacti. The federal government took no saving action. In its decision, the tribunal stated, “these measures, together with the representations of the Mexican federal authorities”, on which Metalclad relied, “and the absence of a timely, orderly or substantive basis for the denial of the construction permit, amounted to an indirect” or de facto “expropriation.”
The tribunal's belief in the far-ranging scope of article 1110 is evident. As outlined in its decision, expropriation in NAFTA, and now CUSMA, includes not only “the open, deliberate and acknowledged takings of property” but also the “covert or incidental interference with the use of property which has the effect of depriving the owner, in whole or in significant part, of the use or reasonably-to-be-expected economic benefit of property.”
Where the ratification of CUSMA will leave expropriation law and Canadian property rights in the future is uncertain. Time will tell whether or not the law will continue to afford foreign investors more protection than Canadians. This is one example of why a detailed analysis of CUSMA is so important for Canadians to understand what is being signed.
View Cheryl Gallant Profile
Mr. Speaker, CUSMA validates my private member's bill, Bill C-222. It naturally follows that Bill C-4 also supports the same principles found in Bill C-222. That is why I am supporting this CUSMA agreement.
View Cheryl Gallant Profile
Mr. Speaker, the issue of Huawei involves matters of national security, and I believe in ranking the security of Canada and the defence of Canada as paramount.
I look forward to broad support for Bill C-222 from my colleagues and government members on the basis of consistency between article 14 of CUSMA and the articulation of private property rights in private member's Bill C-222. This is in addition to other sound legislative reasons for supporting Bill C-222.
View Cheryl Gallant Profile
Mr. Speaker, my colleague makes a very good point. Dairy producers tell me that at the very least there has to be some form of compensation for what they specifically have given up.
After negotiating CETA successfully, we had in place a compensation program that was ready to go. Then the election occurred in 2015. The Liberals took over, and they denied compensation to dairy farmers. Furthermore, we have to get permission from the United States before we sign any further trade agreements.
View Cheryl Gallant Profile
Mr. Speaker, what I support most is the fact that CUSMA justifies Bill C-222. In terms of anything the member just described, I would want to make sure that the property rights of Canadians are at least equal to what is being given to foreigners who own property in Canada.
View Cheryl Gallant Profile
Madam Speaker, I am really pleased that my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby drew attention to the fact that insurance companies are now using climate change as a reason to increase premiums. In fact, they are going to capitalize off that.
My question pertains to a subject that my colleague from Malpeque and I were discussing in Toronto at the PDAC meeting. I has to do with clean, new, emission-free energy. It is actually a modification of an existing type of energy. I am referring to small modular reactors and microreactors. They could be used in the Arctic instead of diesel fuel. The member for Malpeque was saying that it would take a lot of trucks off the road if we could install a microreactor or small modular reactor at his french fry plant.
Since the member who just spoke would like to see a clean, emission-free environment, would he be willing to ensure that small modular reactors and microreactors will come to market very soon?
View Cheryl Gallant Profile
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Edmonton Griesbach.
As the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the motion put forward by my hon. colleague from the eastern Ontario riding of Carleton.
This motion is about lost opportunity. The finance minister has squandered the healthy treasury that was left to him by the previous Conservative government and the balanced budget that came with our prudent management of public finances. A balanced budget is not an aspirational goal for the next century. It is something that Canadians expect in this decade or before.
An absolute vacuum of leadership exists in the Liberal Party today. Canadians have yet to hear a coherent question period response from the Prime Minister since his party lost the popular vote in the last election, which is the same arrogant approach the Prime Minister took before the election. Canadians deserve better.
Canadians are now asking whether Canada is broken. The answer I am hearing from Canadians from all walks of life is yes. The failed, divisive policies of the current government are breaking Canada apart and there is no doubt that, with the events of late, Canada is at a turning point. During a recent question period, my colleague from Alberta politely asked if the Prime Minister wanted to keep Alberta in Canada. Canadians are still waiting for an answer.
Can we move forward in this changing world of 2020, awash in manufactured fears about the weather and phony policies like carbon taxes, which do nothing to help the environment but do everything to raise taxes to reward Liberal Party favourites?
Can we overcome the economic, social and political unrest the government has created by making promises to indigenous Canadians and giving an aboriginal woman a prominent seat at the cabinet table only to purge her from the Liberal Party for standing up for the rule of law in Canada? The fired former justice minister passed the democracy test with flying colours. The Prime Minister failed Canadians miserably with his treatment of a strong woman.
Happy International Women's Day, Mr. Prime Minister.
That is a powerful message the groper sent to women and aboriginals. Actions speak louder than words. Canadians—
View Cheryl Gallant Profile
Madam Speaker, if the word appears in the list of inappropriate words, I shall retract it.
Actions speak louder than words, and Canadians are very wary of efforts to incite hatred and suspicion. Canadians are not a violent people and it is time for the Liberal Party to quit using law-abiding citizens, like firearms owners, to whip up their left-wing base. The Liberals need to stop wasting taxpayer dollars to create problems that only cause divisiveness.
Today's motion requires information paid for with taxpayer dollars to be made available to all Canadians. I can understand why the government refuses to be open and transparent with Canadians when we see where the government is paying for advice from, with what has been made available.
The former minister of the environment took the step to create the Canadian institute for climate change and handed it 20 million of our taxpayer dollars for a report supporting her view. I quote from independent analysis by the informed observer Parker Gallant, no relation, on what that $20 million in taxpayer dollars cost Canadians:
Should one read a report titled Canada’s Top Climate Change Risks issued July 2019 by the “Expert Panel” on “Climate Change Risks and Adaptation Potential”, you would probably think the “Charting our Course” report recently issued by the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices (CICC) was an update but it wasn’t! What a comparison of the two reports highlight is words spoken by the former Minister of the Environment... who said: “if you repeat it, if you say it louder, if that is your talking point, people will totally believe it”. The latest CICC report exemplifies her quote and us taxpayers have provided the CICC with $20 million to ensure we “totally believe it”!
The first report’s “Expert Panel” are part of the “Canadian Council of Academies”. The council, launched in 2002, has managed to survive on $45 million of our tax dollars for the past 18 years. They are required to produce five reports annually when directed by the Federal Government. Their report on Canada’s climate change risks came about as a result of a direction from the Treasury Board of Canada. Seven (7) individuals on CCA’s “expert panel” and “workshop participants” are a part of CICC’s “expert” group and another eight (8) of those experts at the CICC were also cited as references in the CCA’s report. One of those was Blair Feltmate, Chair of the Intact Centre at Waterloo University. Needless to say, both reports lean heavily on the insurance industries information about how “climate change” has increased insurance claims. Catastrophes are forecast in both reports and similar comparisons are made to past events blaming them on “climate change”. The latter includes the Fort McMurray wildfires with estimated insurance claims of $1.4 billion. The CBC reported on the fire stating: “Provincial wildfire investigators have established that the fire was most likely the result of “human activity.”
On page 2 of the CCA’s report they have a map of Canada and have highlighted 10 of “Canada’s Top Climate Change Risks” and one of them is: “Lower Great Lakes water levels, affecting shipping, hydropower production, and recreation”. As noted above the CCA report was published in July 2019 two years after Ontarians were told Lake Ontario had just experienced a “100-year flood”. Even worse flooding occurred in 2019 setting new records. Apparently the “experts” involved in preparing the report failed to absorb the well-publicized news at that time and said nothing about “Plan 2014”!
Plan 2014, for the benefit of Canadians who have not heard of it, is the policy of the federal government to create 26,000 hectares, or 64,000 acres, of wetland by flooding homeowners in the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence water basin, which includes the Ottawa River watershed. What happens when homeowners who are being adversely affected by catastrophic flooding dare to question the Liberal policy to flood their homes? They are viciously attacked by the Liberal government's hand-picked Liberal appointees shilling that policy.
Canadian co-chair Pierre Béland is one of three recent Liberal appointees on the International Joint Commission that is overseeing Liberal flood policy. I found his comment to the volunteer president of the United Shoreline Ontario, telling her to effectively “shut up”, deeply offensive. His shallow attempt at a superficial apology, after he was called out for his comment, was even more offensive when he dismissed the concern of flood victims.
For the record, here is the response to Chairman Béland from the president of a group of flood victims trying to get a fair hearing from an insensitive government that paid $20 million, taxpayer dollars, to hear that the problem with the lower Great Lakes is “not enough water”.
“Yes, you have deeply offended...as a woman and as a mother, as a homeowner and a flood survivor, as a volunteer and as an advocate, and as a Canadian with a right to be heard and not dismissed by those in power. Thank you for your explanation justifying why I was so deserving of your response. We consider our position to be balanced and evidence-based. We are asking for balance. Your description of my bias is your own. To address your claim, we indicate that 250 is foreseeable while also explaining that nobody can predict. If you listen to the recording at both the Toronto and Kingston events this week, you will hear exactly, which is being repeated at all events, 'Plan for the worst, hope for the best.' Perhaps you might consider how shipping has an exclusive focus and hydro has an exclusive focus, both of whom are extremely well-funded, and have incredible power and access to both the IJC and the media. The shoreline is unfunded, unrepresented and absolutely exhausted from trying to desperately be heard. Your flippant, misogynistic and rude email has simply reinforced the shoreline does not have a respected nor genuine position at the table. I will resign from the USO effective May 1, under advisement that the Canadian chair of the IJC has suggested 'her' to take a break.”
Liberal appointee Béland has lost all credibility with Canadians.
View Cheryl Gallant Profile
Madam Speaker, that is not what we are debating today. His arrogance is astounding, even for a Liberal.
If Pierre Béland will not do the honourable thing and resign to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is accountable for the IJC in Parliament, will the hon. member do the right thing and remove him from the board of the International Joint Commission now, before the next flood season?
This needs to happen immediately if the Government of Canada wants any confidence in the Canadian representation on the IJC. With bad advice come bad decisions. Historians believe that a 50-year perspective is needed to analyze events. Many believe that history will not be on Canada's side in terms of the poor record of the Liberal government.
View Cheryl Gallant Profile
Madam Speaker, I am sure there is a large percentage of scientists who depend on funding for climate change who agree that it is definitely what is changing the world.
While we cannot wait for 50 years of history to judge, it is worth noting these disturbing trends. We have so many riches, both in the ground, and in the hearts and minds of Canadians. Our parents and our grandparents did not fight in two world wars for a broken country. They fought instead for a country that inspires hope and justice. Canada is at a turning point.
It is time for the government to start listening to Canadians.
View Cheryl Gallant Profile
Madam Speaker, as always, when the country's finances are in a deplorable state, as a consequence of not paying down debt when times are good, it will take another Conservative government to get our fiscal house back in order, get into a balanced budget, work hard and allow Canadians to enjoy the fruits of their hard labour.
View Cheryl Gallant Profile
Madam Speaker, I was in Australia during the fires and I know that over 200 people were charged with arson. Worse than ever is the climate of just spending away money without making sure that the money is there to pay for what Canadians need.
View Cheryl Gallant Profile
Mr. Speaker, the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces put their lives on the line to protect us every day. In the event of a pandemic, they may be on the front line as a response. They will be at a heightened risk of getting sick. They need to know we have their backs with the proper resources, resources like a functioning hospital. Construction on the hospital in Garrison Petawawa has been behind for two years. It is two years late in construction.
China built two hospitals in 10 days. How many more years will it take the Liberal government to build just one?
View Cheryl Gallant Profile
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-222, An Act to amend the Expropriation Act (protection of private property).
She said: Mr. Speaker, there has been a disturbing trend in Canada toward what is referred to as regulatory or constructive taking of private property. This happens when government uses its statutory powers to regulate or restrict the property rights of an owner without acquiring title to the land being adversely affected.
The landowner feels the impact of the regulation as if the land had been expropriated. In Canada, government acquisition of land without owner's consent is not subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Landowners' rights are found in expropriation legislation. The government must follow the law as to what land may be expropriated and must observe the procedures set out in legislation. By setting out exceptions in the Expropriation Act, my bill seeks to remove some uncertainty from the existing legislation as to whether owners can be compensated.
With this legislation, my goal is to protect the private property rights of average Canadians.
Results: 1 - 15 of 24 | Page: 1 of 2

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data