(Return tabled)

The post Question No. 1157 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

With regard to the proposed changes to the Health of Animals Regulations Part XII – Transportation of Animals: when will the updated Transportation Regulations be released?

Gerry Ritz Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food

Mr. Speaker, updates regarding the anticipated timing for the regulatory proposal to amend Part XII of the Health of Animals Regulations can be found by consulting the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s Forward Regulatory Plan. http://inspection.gc.ca/about-the-cfia/acts-and-regulations/forward-regulatory-plan/eng/1361986810905/1361986866978

The post Question No. 1156 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

With regard to the decision to share information provided by RADARSAT-2 with the Ukrainian armed forces: (a) when was this decision made; (b) what justifications were provided for the decision; (c) who initiated discussions regarding the possibility of information sharing with the Ukrainian armed forces; (d) what are the details about all stakeholders involved in the period of consultation, indicating, if applicable, their department, institution or agency and their position; (e) were any concerns regarding the terms of the agreement with the Ukrainian armed forces, raised by (i) the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, (ii) the Department of National Defense, (iii) the Canadian Space Agency; (f) what was the length of the period of consultation and discussion prior to the decision being made; (g) were any foreign governments consulted in this decision, and, if so, which ones; (h) what are the exact terms of the agreement to provide information to the Ukrainian armed forces from RADARSAT-2, including, but not limited to, (i) the period for which Canada has agreed to provide information to the Ukrainian forces, (ii) the frequency of this information sharing, (iii) the form and extent of the information being shared with the Ukrainian armed forces, (iv) the capacity of the Ukrainian armed forces to direct the information being collected by RADARSAT-2; (i) has the decision to direct RADARSAT-2 to collect information over Ukraine had any effect on other projects involving RADARSAT-2; and (j) if the answer to (i) is in the affirmative, what are the details of the projects affected, including, (i) the name of the project, (ii) the activity of RADARSAT-2 under the terms of the project, (iii) the financial impact of the project being affected?

Paul Calandra Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and for Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) of the question, the decision to share information provided by RADARSAT-2 with the Ukrainian armed forces was made in December 2014.

With regard to part (b), the Government of Canada has demonstrated its support for Ukraine and efforts to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Specifically, the Government of Canada has taken a number of other steps to help the Ukrainian people as they work to restore political and economic stability, most notably through electoral assistance, support for economic and social development, and military training and non-lethal security supplies to Ukraine’s armed forces.

With regard to part (c), inquiries were made by the Embassy of Ukraine in Canada during the summer of 2014.

With regard to part (d), officials from the Canadian Space Agency; the Department of National Defence/Canadian Armed Forces; the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development; and the Privy Council Office participated in discussions on the possibility of sharing RADARSAT-2 imagery products with Ukraine.

With regard to part (e), the Government of Canada deliberated carefully and thoroughly before reaching its decision to share information of this nature with the Government of Ukraine. This included prioritized consideration of Canada’s defence and security needs.

With regard to part (f), extensive consultations have been held among the above listed departments since the summer of 2014.

With regard to parts (g) and (h), in processing parliamentary returns, the Government of Canada applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act. Information has been withheld on the grounds that it refers to confidential third party information as well as information that would be injurious to international relations and the defence of Canada.

With regard to parts (i) and (j), the decision to share imagery products with Ukraine has had no negative effect on Canada’s ability to use RADARSAT-2 for other purposes, including those supporting the defence and security of Canada

The post Question No. 1055 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

(Return tabled)

The post Question No. 945 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Certainly, I think it is fair to say that all the parties in opposition are very concerned that we are about to pass legislation that would fall far short of the objectives of the treaty that Canada has signed.

I am particularly concerned that there is so much in the treaty that calls for us to take leadership. We are a long way from leadership now. We are at a position where many of our allies are concerned. We have seen other countries interpreting this convention as meaning that in order not to assist in cluster munitions there must be a specific prohibition against financial investment and contributions.

Yet, we were told earlier tonight by a Conservative member that was somehow too difficult and could not be done.

We know other countries have brought in legislation much stronger than our own, countries that are also in NATO, countries that also participate with the United States. The singular failure to at least be in the middle of the pack is grievous to all of us in the opposition benches.

The post Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.

We know that clause 11 includes far too broad a carve-out. It goes well beyond protecting Canadian troops from inadvertently violating the cluster munitions treaty. If we had used the same kind of language for interoperability that is found in the Ottawa land mine convention legislation, we would not be having this long debate now. We would all be united and proud of Canada for bringing in domestic legislation which meets the letter and spirit of the cluster munitions treaty globally.

This legislation fails to do that by having too a broad a carve-out, allowing too many operational engagements between Canada and obviously our ally, the United States, which has not yet ratified and has apparently no intention of taking the steps that any civilized country should take to eliminate cluster munitions from the face of this earth.

We have been detailed about the changes. I, personally, have put forward amendments in committee. They were all defeated. I am grateful the parliamentary secretary did bring forward the amendment to remove the word “use”, but we are allowed to invest in cluster munitions and we are allowed to participate in operations involving cluster munitions. We have failed to take the steps that were within our reach.

Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, I have been here for 10 years now and I have experienced many occasions where the Conservative government, in particular, has violated the spirit and intent of an agreement.

I have been the aboriginal affairs critic for most of the time since 2006, so I can talk about the spirit and intent of treaties of first nations and how consistently that spirit and intent is violated.

When I come back to general obligations under article 1 in the convention, it closes by saying that it is also prohibited to assist, encourage or induce anyone to engage in any activities prohibited by the convention. There is a spirit and intent in article 1 of the convention that surely would make it incumbent upon the government to honour the spirit and intent of the convention by working with its allies and its partners to encourage and support them to stop the use of cluster munitions.

Everything we do to undermine the convention also undermines the spirit and intent of that convention.

The post Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.

This is one of the rare times that we have seen an amendment, and it did come from the parliamentary secretary, as the member for Ottawa Centre pointed out. It was to remove the word “use”. However, we recognize—and there have been many examples in this debate—that in the wording, there is far too much latitude around Canadian engagement with the use of cluster munitions, and we could have used much tighter language for interoperability, as we did in the Ottawa land mines treaty.

My question to the hon. member for Newton—North Delta is this: does she believe that at this late date, when we are past the point of amendments, it is worth turning down Bill C-6 in the hope that Canada could implement a treaty that it has in fact ratified to meet its real objectives?

Jinny Jogindera Sims: Mr. Speaker, I have lived with the premise that it is never too late when the will is there. If the will exists on the part of the majority sitting on that side of the House, those kinds of changes could be made, this bill could be fixed, and it could be supported by every member in the House. …

The post Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The member has really cast the light for me to understand what went wrong here. I have been struggling to understand how the bill could be this bad when I believe the intentions are actually good. This goes to what the member just explained, which I had not heard before, that the course of the bill started in the wrong place. Instead of going to the Department of Foreign Affairs, it went to the Department of National Defence. That is why we have legislation before us that falls so far short of what Canadians would want of our government to end the scourge of cluster munitions.

I thank the member for that explanation. I would ask him to expand on it.

Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her engagement as well, and for the amendments she put forward, which we supported.

In fact, there is a history here. I remember talking to former Prime Minister Clark about this not too long ago. He was at committee a couple of years ago. There was a notion when it comes to international treaties on arms control, et cetera, that we do the best we can with all hands on deck, to have the best and the brightest, the most professional people advising us. This is where the government has gone down the wrong road.

The Conservatives have looked at international treaties and have seen them as perhaps barriers or as undermining our sovereignty. I note that this is an issue right now with the Europeans. The strategic partnership agreement has not been signed, and perhaps it is getting in the way of the CETA.

The government should look back at when Canada had its biggest wins on the international stage. It was when all parties, and all departments if I may, as well as experts were providing their best advice so that we came up with the best legislation for international treaties.

Make no mistake: we have differences on domestic policy; I get that. However, when it is an international treaty, we should have the best minds looking at it. When we are being critiqued by the Red Cross, by former prime ministers of Australia, we are not doing our best.

The post Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.

We had a fairly unfortunate debate on a previous occasion in this place where there was what I tend to call a dialogue of the deaf. Some MPs were claiming that because Bill C-6 was very weak, and, in my view, unacceptably weak, the current administration did not care about getting rid of cluster munitions or about the children who had been injured by them. I reject that totally. I know that the hon. member and everyone in the House do not want cluster munitions to be used.

I want to preface my question for the parliamentary secretary by saying that I accept everything he has said. This bill is supposed to implement a cluster munitions treaty, which means that Canada is on record as being opposed to the use of cluster munitions.

My questions are very specific.

First, why has the administration failed to take the steps that should have been taken in this bill, as our other allies have done, to ensure that investment in cluster munitions is specifically prohibited.

Second, when the interoperability sections were created, why was the same language not used as is in the Ottawa land mines treaty bill, which is much more restrictive and does not allow as many loopholes as does the language we find in this legislation?

David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has asked a couple of questions and hopefully I have enough time to respond to them.

One reason we do not use the term “investment” is because it is seen as too broad. The convention is written in a particular language and each country then has to put it into the language of its legal system in order to make it fully applicable. The word “investment” is not used because it is a broad term. It would be covered, as I mentioned earlier, under things such as counselling, aiding and abetting. Those are wrapped up in that. We are not permitting people to invest in cluster munitions, and I think the member opposite can be comfortable with that position.

In terms of the Ottawa convention, these are two very different treaties. One of the differences lies, in a practical sense, in the way that the munitions are used tactically in operations. This one is used in a wide variety of situations, typically planned and unplanned. If we had adopted the exact approach of the Ottawa convention, it certainly would have undermined the Canadian Forces’ ability to effectively participate in joint military operations, interoperability and those kinds of things.

We did not believe that we should risk our national security and defence interests. We think this provides a good balance. It provides the leadership that Canada insists we show to the world in wanting to get rid of these munitions. At the same time, it allows us the interoperability that we need with our partners.

The post Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I look to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case about a previous Speaker, Gib Parent, and Satnam Vaid and the Human Rights Commission. There are some very interesting comments by the Supreme Court about the nature of privilege. It is basically that in our work here, as a matter of privilege, and the court stated that we must function:

I put for the hon. minister that surely 74 limitations of debate in a period of one Parliament is not only unprecedented by a bit, but it is unprecedented by a country mile over anything that has ever taken place in this Parliament, ever since Confederation. Would the minister not agree with me that it begins to be an abuse of democracy that offends our privileges here as members to do our work on behalf of our constituents?

Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, we have to respect what it is the court has said. The court has set down a number of conditions for drug consumption sites where illegal drugs are used. It has set out conditions, and we want to ensure that they are implemented, that they are part of the law of this country. The minister actually goes further than that. She has added another 10 different considerations that should go into this; so every precaution is taken to ensure that we get it right.

I am surprised that the hon. members of the opposition do not want to have this before a committee. That too is a vital part of our parliamentary system, the committee hearings. That is the only thing I would urge her. There has been full debate on this. If they are part of a group that says there will never be enough debate on it, I accept that, but this is why we in government have to make decisions. However, I would say this for the member. Let us move forward. Let us have Canadians have their say on this important legislation.

The post Respect For Communities Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.