Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 30 of 958
View Yves Perron Profile
BQ (QC)
View Yves Perron Profile
2021-06-22 11:30 [p.8947]
Madam Speaker, before I start my speech, I seek unanimous consent to split my time with the hon. member for Shefford.
View Carol Hughes Profile
NDP (ON)
Does the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé have the unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
View James Cumming Profile
CPC (AB)
View James Cumming Profile
2021-06-22 12:31 [p.8957]
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Essex.
Before I get started on the budget, this may be the last time I get to appear in front of you, Mr. Speaker, given that there seems to be a lot of chatter about an election. I want to take this time to thank you for your service to your country and say what a pleasure it has been to be able to serve with you. I wish you the very best in everything that you do into the future.
I am standing here again on a budget bill. Although much of this budget was important because it helped families and businesses ensure that they had some kind of income so they could manage through this crisis, it is also important that we talk about how it will potentially burden the future of many families and younger people as we have amassed this enormous debt.
This February, I was appointed as the shadow minister for COVID-19 economic recovery. It has been an incredible honour to serve in this role, because it has given me the opportunity to go across the country virtually and look at the economic impacts COVID has had on every sector, every region and every demographic of the country.
A strong economic recovery should be inclusive to all demographics, sectors and regions, ensuring that all persons and all areas of the country thrive and that we have specific objectives with measurable strategies for every sector to ensure that nobody gets left behind. It is impossible to implement a cookie-cutter plan, which is pretty much what I see in the Liberal budget. We will not get a full recovery unless we look at every economic sector to make sure it is successful.
The budget outlined how the federal Liberals proposed to rebuild the Canadian economy in a way that will bring Canadians along. This is another example of a lot of talk without a clear, precise, strategic and thoughtful action by the government.
If the government was actually interested in bringing all Canadians along, it would have laid out outcomes for job creation, growth and prosperity in this country's agricultural sector, maybe the energy sector, the forestry sector and the natural resources sector, just to name a few. There are millions of Canadians who work in these sectors. It is time that the government at least got honest about what it is trying to accomplish. Quite frankly, it seems like we are stuck in this never-ending cycle of spending more to achieve less. It is all talk and no action.
I hearken back to when I first had the opportunity to get involved as a contributor to the economy. I was able to buy into a business when I was 21 years old. I look back at those times and how I looked at the world as my oyster, that I would be able to do something, build something, grow something. Sadly, I do not hear that from youth anymore. I do not see that in this budget, which does not necessarily set people up for success.
A bunch of stats have come out of this budget, like the largest debt and deficit we have seen in the history of our country, and yet very little to show for it. We are certainly not moving forward. In fact, I often think we are moving backwards. It is important that we look at a few stats. Canada fell out of the top 10 ranking of the most competitive economies. We have fallen near the bottom of our peer group on innovation, ranking 17th, as stated by the World Intellectual Property Organization.
Canada ranks 11th among G7 countries, among 29 industrial countries, with a debt-to-GDP ratio of 33%, and Canada fell to 25th out of 29 countries. In other words, Canada has the fifth-highest level of total indebtedness. No other country experienced such a pronounced decline in its debt ranking. The debt-to-GDP ratio will rise from 31% last year to 56% this year. The Bank of Canada projects business investments to grow at 0.8% over the next two years, failing to recover to 2019 levels until 2023.
Consumption and government spending will represent about 80% of economic growth over the next two years, while investment and exports will be next to zero. An important industry like mineral fuels accounted for 22% of our country's exports, the number one exported product, which is something we should not forget about. We still have the third-largest proven oil reserves in the world and are the third-largest exporter of oil.
Just as the government continued to do since 2015, it has ignored the Canadian natural resource industry. There is virtually no mention of the energy sector, which is Canada's number one export. By ignoring the strength of Canada's resource, forestry and agriculture sectors, among others, the government has failed to recognize the impact these sectors would have on our battered economy. The world wants and needs more of our natural resources, so we should be thinking about expanding our market share, not hastening its decline. At the very least, we should be trying to develop policies that make sure we have an active role in these sectors.
There is an entire chapter in the budget dedicated to environmental initiatives aimed at net-zero emissions by 2050, which includes $18 billion in spending, but with dubious assumptions about the impact on economic growth. Rather than supporting a proven catalyst for economic growth like the natural resource sector to accelerate Canadians' recovery and get Canadians back to work, the Prime Minister has decided to continue the abandonment of this industry and hedge our future on uncertain technologies.
Conservatives are not opposed to developing and enhancing Canada's environmental-oriented sector. In fact I, along with the Conservative Party, highly encourage Canadian market participants in this sector to continue to grow and create more jobs and revenue while making sufficient contributions to the nation's ecological sustainability. I am proud of our industry. Our industry has been doing fantastic work and is a leader in the world. We should be proud of that and stand up for it. As we continue to combat this pandemic and the economic damage it would cause, we must unleash and utilize the capabilities of all profitable revenue streams. That includes green technologies and natural resources.
There are some vague references in the budget to growing green jobs and retraining the workforce for new jobs. It is very vague. Where and in which sectors are these jobs going to be created, and by when? Words are great, but actions speak louder. In the province I come from, people want to know, if they will be trained into a green job, where that job will be, what kind of income they will get and how they are going to be able to support their families in that new role. We have heard lots about retraining for these jobs that do not exist yet, but the need for tradespeople only happens if something is approved and built in this country.
What is it going to take? If the economy is going to grow, it has to be private sector-driven. The high cost of doing business in Canada, the red tape and the over-regulation make it almost impossible for small business owners. That has to change. There has been a real and visible impact on Canada's capacity to attract foreign investment. We need to be able to tell people they are welcome in this country and their investments are welcome. The perceived risk around investing in Canada's energy sector has to change.
What does the future look like? What is the trajectory? What does the country look like? We see inflation now. The target was 2% and it is running at about 3.6%. It is very concerning for people who are trying to live on a budget. My biggest fear for the country is that this budget will continue to invest massive sums of money into under-tested, under-productive schemes that fit the government's political agenda. The title is “A Recovery Plan for Jobs, Growth and Resilience”, but the federal government's budget contains very few details on specifics and a lack of measurables, and it really does not say how it is going to execute on this plan.
I am concerned this budget is far from resilient and far from sustainable. If it were resilience that the government was after, it would be asking itself how this federal spending is going to position the country for post-pandemic success. We need to ensure that any spending helps with productivity in this country and ensures we have long-term sustainability. The well-being of our people and our economy cannot afford to be stuck in this never-ending cycle of the government's scheme of throwing money into the wind and hoping something sticks.
The most important focus for our country right now needs to be investment and commitment to ensuring Canadians get back to work. That is why the Conservative Party of Canada would implement the Canada recovery plan, a plan that would recover the hundreds of thousands of jobs in the hardest-hit sectors. Canadians deserve strong leadership, inclusive leadership and a robust plan for not only recovery, but prosperity for many years to come.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the good people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola. Let me inform you, Mr. Speaker, that you will have a much more enlightened speaker because I plan on sharing my time with the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, who, I am sure, will do a fantastic job.
From a parliamentary perspective, we live in dangerous times. I say that because I would like to take us all back to 2015 and a comment that this Prime Minister shared with Canadians. “[W]e are committed to delivering real change in the way that government works”, said the Prime Minister. He followed up with, “It means setting a higher bar for openness and transparency, something needed if this House is to regain the confidence and trust of Canadians.”
When we look at the actions of this Prime Minister today, it is profoundly obvious that this PM had absolutely zero intention of honouring those words to Canadians. In fact, as is so often the case with this Prime Minister, it is all just words. The actions are always at odds with reality. Look at where we are here with this omnibus budget bill from a Prime Minister who had promised he would not use omnibus budget bills, promised he would not use prorogation, and promised he would deliver a balanced budget, cast in stone, in 2019. He also promised openness by default.
I could go on and on, but we are not here today to debate the character of this Prime Minister. We are here to debate the omnibus budget bill, Bill C-30, a bill that the finance minister has repeatedly stated, if it were not to pass, would be the single greatest threat facing Canadians. Honestly, the finance minister said that multiple times in question period. Here we have a government that tells us we do not need a budget for over two years, and suddenly not having a budget is the greatest economic threat facing Canadians. What unbelievable arrogance that is.
In reality, this budget is really about furthering the Liberals' electoral chances. I would submit it that does not do so. It is not in the long-term best interests of Canadians. However, in my view, this is a Prime Minister who will always place his needs and those of his powerful friends and insiders ahead of the needs of everyday Canadians.
People should not just take my word for it, but read very carefully the many criticisms of this budget bill. They come from prominent people not accustomed to criticizing Liberal government budget bills: Parliamentary Budget Officer, Yves Giroux; former Bank of Canada governors, both David Dodge and Mark Carney; and even former senior Liberal adviser Robert Asselin. They have all provided well-articulated concerns over this budget. To summarize them, ultimately this bill proposes to spend money that the government does not have to spend and, according to these critics and many other experts, does not not need to spend.
However, that is what this Prime Minister does. He believes he can spend his way out of any problem or circumstance, but that in itself creates problems. Let us look at our communities' local downtown. If they are anything like the communities in my riding, there are increasingly more help-wanted signs out there. A huge number of small and medium-sized business owners have said they cannot get people to work.
I am going to share something with this place. Recently, my Summerland office was contacted by a woman, and we will call her “Nathalie”. Nathalie is very concerned about her brother, whom we will call “Doug”. Doug has a trade. Unlike some trades, Doug got very busy during the pandemic. Last fall, Doug decided to quit his job so he could collect the CERB. Granted the system was not supposed to work that way, but it was, by design, set up so people like Doug absolutely could quit their job and still collect it. At the time, Doug told his family it was just for the winter months and he would go back to work in the spring. Over the winter months, Doug began drinking. His drinking led to the loss of his place. The family now says Doug lives in a recreational vehicle. He collects the Canada recovery benefit and spends most of the time drinking. Doug now refuses to return to the workplace. Doug's position is that he paid the government EI and taxes for years and now he is owed this money, and not working while he is collecting benefits is his way of getting even with the government.
I am not suggesting for a moment that everyone collecting benefits is in Doug's situation, but speaking with many who work with individuals in addiction and recovered, many will share privately just how damaging the CRB has been and how it has derailed many recovering addicts. The problem remains that the Liberal government has absolutely no exit plan that ultimately will help people like Doug return to the workforce.
Indeed, according to the Prime Minister, people like Doug do not exist. Some will say if only employers paid more, we would not have this problem. However, in Doug's case, he had a trade that provided net take-home pay of $60,000. Doug can make much more money returning to work, however, the $2,000 a month he collects now is enough money that Doug can choose not to work.
I come back to all those help-wanted signs. A local small business owner told me his small business could survive the pandemic, but he was less sure it could survive the government assistance programs like CRB. I am not raising this to be partisan, I am raising this because this budget by design extends all of these benefits into September and it does this by design because the Prime Minister wants to go into an election where everyone is still getting paid those benefits. He wants to use the payment of these benefits as an election issue. That is ultimately what the bill proposes; that and massive amounts of spending that even former Liberals and friendly experts have said is excessive and largely unnecessary.
However, when it comes to winning power, we know that the Prime Minister is capable of basically anything. We know from his many promises in 2015, he will say basically anything. We know from his governance, from prorogation to multiple Liberal filibusters, to being found in contempt of Parliament, he is capable of doing anything to remain in power. Indeed, Bill C-30 is just another example of this.
Is there seriously a person in this place who does not believe that Canada needs an exit plan to get Canadians back into the workforce? I am starting to think that maybe there are some who believe we can continue on this current path that the Parliamentary Budget Office has repeatedly told us is not sustainable. Do we listen? Bill C-30 suggests we are not listening. Indeed, even raising these issues is rarely done.
We all know that there are people like Doug out there who are struggling. This budget fails people like Doug. This budget fails the many small business owners who need Doug back in the workplace. Let us hope that he can rejoin the workforce. His sister Nathalie blames the government programs. She pointed out EI, as one example, never used to work this way. She asked how long can the government continue to pay people benefits that they do not qualify for. It is a fair question, yet I do not hear any member of the Liberal government ask this question.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer has raised it. Various ministers have promised to address it, but when the opposition has raised it, they never do. We all know that the EI system ultimately has to be sustainable and currently it is not sustainable. The government has no plan to address this. This should trouble all of us because ultimately we need to defend the integrity of the programs that Canadians depend on. We are collectively failing to do that.
It is just not responsible. This is ultimately what troubles me so greatly about Bill C-30. It is great for a Prime Minister trying to stay in power, however, it maximizes short-term political gain for long-term pain that will be felt by future generations of Canadians.
Somehow in this place, we have drifted away from long-term thinking, of building a foundation for the success and prosperity of future generations of Canada. Worse, we have seen this movie before, as it was the former Liberal governments that made some very difficult and unpopular decisions, but necessary decisions. Many of what I refer to as traditional Liberals, at least in my riding, wonder where the Liberal Party has gone.
Before I close, I will leave with one final note. When the finance minister introduced this budget, she told us that we must “build a more resilient Canada; better, more fair, more prosperous, and more innovative”.
We should all ask ourselves who has been governing this country for the past five years to have made Canada so unresilient, so unfair, so unprosperous and so lacking in innovation. We all know the answer to the question. This budget bill, Bill C-30, simply offers more of the same.
View James Bezan Profile
CPC (MB)
Mr. Speaker, I hope this is the final time I will have to address the House virtually. I look forward to being in Ottawa next week and hope very much that we will be back to normal sessions come the fall.
I will be splitting my time with the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.
I just have to say that this is a rare measure that we are requesting of all members of the House of Commons to censure the Minister of National Defence. The last time anyone was censured in the House was back in 2002, and it has come to this point, because the Minister of National Defence has refused to do the honourable thing and resign, and the Prime Minister has refused to do the right thing and fire the Minister of National Defence. Essentially, that leaves it up to us in the House of Commons to censure the minister going forward, until the voters of Vancouver South have an opportunity to express their displeasure in the upcoming federal election.
I also just want to say to the Speaker, who has stepped into the chair, knowing that he has announced that he will not be running in the next federal election, how much I have appreciated his strength in the chair and his friendship over the years as we served together. I wish him all the best in his future endeavours, enjoying more time with his family.
When we look at this motion, we have to look at the litany of misleading comments made by the Minister of National Defence over his tenure since 2015. I think all of us are all too familiar with the travesty of the wrongful accusations and the decision by the minister to go on a witch hunt to stop the procurement of the Asterix for the Royal Canadian Navy, and how he threw retired Vice-Admiral Mark Norman under the bus. We know that through 2017 and into 2018, this escalated to a ridiculous level and ended up in the courts. The case, of course, was thrown out by the judge, because there just was not any evidence for it. It was an unnecessary attack on the honourable service and great reputation of a strong military leader, Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.
However, we have to go back to the very beginning of the minister's tenure and look at what happened with his politically motivated withdrawal of our CF-18s from the fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. The minister was over there meeting with the Government of Iraq, as well as Kurdish officials in Erbil, and he told CBC on December 21, 2015, that he had not had one discussion about withdrawing our CF-18s from the fight. However, an access to information request on the record of a wire message in reference to the Minister of National Defence's meeting with the Iraqi minister of defence on December 20, 2015, just the day before he made that statement, says, “the Iraqi Minister of Defence was clearly focused on Canada's decision to withdraw its CF18 fighter jets from the coalition air strikes, asking [our Minister of National Defence] to reconsider this decision on numerous occasions”. That was the very first step in the minister's very misleading comments to the media and to Canadians.
We should not be surprised, because we also know that the minister, back in July 2015 when he was running to be a member of Parliament for the first time, claimed on a local B.C. program, Conversations That Matter, that he was the architect of Operation Medusa in Afghanistan. He reiterated that in April 2017, when he was at a conference in New Delhi on conflict prevention and peace keeping in a changing world. He again said that he was the architect of Operation Medusa.
Of course, he was a major back then and had numerous members in the command chain above him who were making the decisions, and there is no doubt that he provided great input and intelligence into how Operation Medusa was conducted, but to claim that he was more than the team is something that is not well regarded within the Canadian Armed Forces or by veterans across this country, and the minister had to apologize.
We also saw the minister take a shot at me back in 2017 over the cuts to tax-free allowances for forces members serving in Operation Impact while stationed in Kuwait at Camp Arifjan at that time. He claimed that it was the Conservative government that had taken away the tax-free allowance. I was able to get up on a question of privilege to point out that the initial assessments were made under the current Liberal government, and those cuts were made by this minister to hardship pay that was in effect back in 2014-15. Again, there was a finding that he misled the House.
Now, the most egregious of all of this, and the one that is really rocking our Canadian Armed Forces right now, is, of course, the crisis of sexual misconduct. I will point out and ask the question: What do the Somalia affair, the decade of darkness and the crisis of sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces today have in common? It all comes down to weak Liberal leadership.
We know that when the news broke that retired General Jonathan Vance, the former chief of the defence staff, had issues of sexual misconduct raised in March 2018, the Minister of National Defence said at committee on February 19 of this year that he was “as shocked as everyone else at the allegations that were made public two weeks ago”. He was surprised to learn about these allegations, but then at the defence committee on March 3, 2021, the former ombudsman for national defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, Gary Walbourne, said at committee that “I personally met with [the minister] to address an allegation of inappropriate sexual behaviour within the senior ranks of the Canadian Armed Forces, specifically, against the chief of the defence staff, and to discuss my concerns about this allegation. This meeting happened on March 1, 2018.” That was three years before the story became news, when the minister was briefed by Gary Walbourne.
Gary Walbourne went on to say at committee that:
I did tell the minister what the allegation was. I reached into my pocket to show him the evidence I was holding, and he pushed back from the table and said, “No.” I don't think we exchanged another word.
The minister refused the evidence, and we know that, at the defence committee on March 12, 2021, he then admitted that, “I did meet with Mr. Walbourne”. The ombudsman brought up the concerns, but “He did not give me any details”, is what the minister was claiming. Yet, if we look at all of the information that flowed between the minister's chief of staff, Zita Astravas at the time, up into the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office on March 2, 2018, it all talked about this being a matter of sexual misconduct, which they actually described as “sexual harassment”. Elder Marques, Michael Wernick and Katie Telford, the chief of staff to the Prime Minister, all knew that this was an issue of sexual misconduct.
Therefore, as the minister continues to dodge this and refuses to do the honourable thing and resign, and as long as the Prime Minister continues to back this inept behaviour by the Minister of National Defence and refuses to fire him, it falls upon us as the House of Commons to censure this minister since he has consistently and repeatedly misled the House.
I call upon all members of the House of Commons in all parties to censure this minister for his continued casual relationship with the truth.
View Andréanne Larouche Profile
BQ (QC)
View Andréanne Larouche Profile
2021-06-17 11:34 [p.8645]
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Pierre‑Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.
It is with great frustration that I rise today to speak to the motion that was introduced on this Conservative Party opposition day:
That, given that the Minister of National Defence has clearly lost the respect of members of the Canadian Armed Forces, including those at the highest ranks, for, amongst other things, (i) misleading Canadians on the withdrawal of fighter jets in the fight against ISIS, (ii) misleading Canadians about his service record, (iii) presiding over the wrongful accusation and dismissal of Vice-Admiral Norman, (iv) engaging in a cover-up of sexual misconduct allegations in the Canadian Armed Forces, the House formally censure the Minister of National Defence to express the disappointment of the House of Commons in his conduct.
It is no secret that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the motion. The Bloc Québécois has already asked for the resignation of the Minister of National Defence because of his ongoing failure to address sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. I was with our leader, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, and my colleague from Rivière‑du‑Nord at the press conference where we asked for his resignation.
The censure proposed by the motion does not get rid of this minister, who did not take sexual misconduct allegations in the Canadian Armed Forces seriously. As set out in the motion, the minister committed a number of mistakes, although the most serious is protecting General Vance and attempting to cover up his bungling, including failing to implement the recommendations of the 2015 Deschamps report.
As the critic for status of women and gender equality, I will start by addressing these issues in my speech. I am very sensitive to these issues, and I will speak with due respect for the victims who testified at the Standing Committee on National Defence and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I will then address a few other scandals that have rocked the Canadian Armed Forces. I will close with some suggestions to help improve trust in the armed forces.
First, while the Minister of National Defence was supposed to implement the 2015 Deschamps report, it appears that he has done nothing and that he even tried to bury General Vance’s file. I cannot believe that I am still here going over the entire unfortunate story.
Former justice Marie Deschamps released a scathing report on March 27, 2015, concerning what she considered widespread sexual misconduct in the armed forces and the sexist culture that turned a blind eye to such misconduct. The report had been commissioned in the wake of accusations against Warrant Officer André Gagnon, who sexually assaulted a subordinate, Corporal Stéphanie Raymond, in December 2011. Corporal Raymond appeared before the committee, testifying to the harm she has suffered.
Corporal Raymond filed a complaint against Warrant Officer Gagnon in 2012, but her chain of command turned against her, and she was eventually dismissed for misconduct in 2013. Warrant Officer Gagnon was acquitted in 2014, but, in 2021, after Corporal Raymond appealed the ruling, he finally pleaded guilty.
Corporal Raymond’s situation, and the accusations she brought against the armed forces, led to former justice Marie Deschamps’ report. The report contained 10 recommendations, the most important of which was to make the complaint reporting system independent of the armed forces and of the Department of National Defence. That was in 2015, and, although we are now in 2021, nothing has been done.
When she testified before the Standing Committee on National Defence in February 2021, Marie Deschamps said that very little had been done since the release of her report in 2015 and that little had really changed. She repeated these statements before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women last March.
I will nevertheless take the time to point out that these allegations are not new, and that they began under the Conservative government, since it was in April 2015 that Jonathan Vance was named as the future chief of the defence staff. Allegations of sexual misconduct had been raised against him shortly before his appointment. A few months later, in July 2015, the former minister of veterans affairs and current leader of the opposition asked his chief of staff to talk to Ray Novak about another allegation against General Vance. This allegation involved an inappropriate relationship.
General Vance denied all misconduct, and the investigations went nowhere, since there was no evidence. The military police apparently also investigated the case. On July 17, 2015, General Vance was appointed chief of the defence staff, and one of his first policies was to roll out Operation Honour, which sought to put an end to sexual misconduct. That takes guts.
How is it possible that General Vance, who was the subject of very serious allegations, was appointed, given his role and his mandate as chief of the defence staff, as the person in charge of doing something against sexual misconduct?
In fact, the very same day that General Vance become chief of the defence staff, the military police decided to drop the investigation against the man who had now become their boss. That is quite the coincidence.
The operation, which was abandoned by the current chief of defence staff, had moderate impact, but it obviously had no effect on the senior officers who were above all that. In short, the Conservatives decided to appoint someone against whom accusations had been made when he was the boss of the Canadian Armed Forces, when they knew that his mandate would be to address sexual misconduct in the forces.
Now let us look at some of the allegations under the Liberal government.
On March 1, 2018, then ombudsman Gary Walbourne met privately with the Minister of National Defence. Walbourne attempted to discuss a case of sexual misconduct involving Vance. The victim did not want to go any further in the process because she was afraid of reprisals, preventing the ombudsman from going forward. However, the ombudsman, who had credible evidence against Vance, wanted to show it to the minister, who categorically refused to even look at it.
The ombudsman wanted the minister to intervene to protect the victim, since she was Vance's subordinate and he could wipe out her career with the snap of a finger. The minister was unreceptive and hostile. Apparently, he categorically refused to look at Walbourne's evidence and left the meeting abruptly. The minister then referred the case to the Privy Council Office. After that, Walbourne tried to talk to the minister 12 times, but the minister refused to meet with him, and Walbourne retired a few months later.
The Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office exchanged emails about the situation. After that, the situation deteriorated and other facts came to light. The scandal was made public in February 2021, when Global News reported accusations of misconduct against Vance, including his relationship with a subordinate and obscene emails exchanged in 2012 with a much younger servicewoman. The woman who had been in a relationship with Vance publicly stated that she had been threatened by Vance on several occasions. Vance believed himself to be untouchable. He said that he controlled the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service.
The standing committee on national defence decided to investigate the allegations against Vance. The Minister of Defence appeared before the committee a few times and contradicted himself. Moreover, the Liberals did not hesitate to obstruct the investigation to prevent Liberal employees Zita Astravas and Elder Marques from being called to testify. I was personally there when I was a substitute member of the committee. It was a sad time.
From Elder Marques' testimony, we know that everyone around the Prime Minister was aware of the situation, but the Prime Minister himself continues to deny any knowledge of it. When other employees were called by the House, the Liberals sent the Minister of Defence instead. They said that they did not want their employees to testify.
The Liberals willingly turned a blind eye to the allegations. The Liberals decided to ignore the issue, while the minister flatly refused to meet with the former ombudsman 12 times and would not even look at the evidence, claiming he did not want to interfere in the investigation.
The Prime Minister's entourage knew that there had been allegations against Vance, even if the Prime Minister himself did not have all the details. Everyone around him suspected that these allegations involved sexual misconduct. There were actually emails that mentioned sexual misconduct directly. The Minister of Defence even said that the nature of the accusations against Vance did not matter and what mattered was to take action. Well, the Liberals did absolutely nothing. They did not even implement Justice Deschamps’s main recommendation, namely to make the complaint process completely independent of the military to receive all complaints of sexual misconduct.
The facts speak for themselves. As of today, four generals have had complaints of misconduct brought against them. In 2021, six years after Justice Deschamps’s report was released, the Liberals decided to appoint former justice Louise Arbour to conduct another investigation into how to improve the system. That should have been done in 2015, not in 2021. The minister never took the situation seriously. Only when he had his back to the wall did he decide to do something, but only to save his own skin, after pressure from the opposition parties in the House and the committee investigations.
To add insult to injury, the second-in-command of the Canadian Armed Forces, Lieutenant-General Mike Rouleau, decided to play golf with former general Vance, despite the fact that Vance is under investigation by the military police and the military police is under Lieutenant-General Rouleau’s command. This incident led to Rouleau’s resignation and brought to light the federal government’s failure to implement an independent system to handle cases of sexual misconduct. The Liberals have done nothing since 2015 and that inaction has consequences, as this incident shows.
Since my time is running out, I will not have time to talk about everything I would have liked to address in my speech. I have been studying this case in the Standing Committee on the Status of Women and the Standing Committee on National Defence for months now. There is so much going on.
In closing, the Liberals claim that they are unaware of the nature of the allegations against Vance, with the Minister of Defence even saying that the nature of the allegations does not matter. All these events have further eroded the public’s and women’s confidence and harmed diversity, in particular. We must consider the victims. The Liberals and their Minister of Defence failed to act to restore confidence in the armed forces.
One last thing: We may think none of this really touches us, but the father of a former military member recently admitted to me that his daughter had to resign when she became pregnant. Her superior officer, with whom she had had a relationship, asked her to have an abortion to keep the matter quiet. She refused, and was asked to resign. This is still happening in 2021. We must act for the sake of the victims.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
View Heather McPherson Profile
2021-06-17 12:06 [p.8650]
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.
I am honoured today to speak to this motion. I am the granddaughter of Bert McCoy. He was a gunner in the Royal Canadian Air Force who always lived a very large life, including being shot down over Belgium during the Second World War. He spent two years in the underground trying to fight his way back to my grandmother and my mother in Canada. An interesting part about this story is that he had to escape from some German soldiers, and speaking French saved his life. I sometimes think that the reason I fight so hard for Franco-Albertans is that French saved the life of my grandfather.
He was a magnificent man, and I am proud to stand today in his honour, but I have to say that how we protect and stand up for the women and men who defend this country defines us as parliamentarians. It is one of our most fundamental duties.
We ask members of the armed forces to risk their lives, to be away from loved ones, and to defend all of us and others around the world. There can be no more important thing than those women and men knowing that we have their backs. Women and men have lost confidence that this minister has their backs. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces have heard the minister mislead them. They have heard the minister mislead parliamentarians, the media and Canadians.
I do not want to be harsh on any member of the House. I understand that we all have very difficult jobs, and I honestly believe that almost all members want to do what is best for Canadians, but the minister has acted in a way that requires a response.
In 2016, the minister quashed an inquiry into Canadian transfers of detainees to local custody in Afghanistan, where they faced torture. An inquiry would have revealed why the transfers were not stopped and why these war crimes were never reported. In making this decision, the minister was in an apparent conflict of interest. He served as an intelligence officer in Afghanistan at the time of the transfers and would have had knowledge of the torture of detainees. No public inquiry was ever conducted into Canada's role and responsibility with regard to the transfer of Afghan detainees. More recently, the minister turned a blind eye to evidence of war crimes committed by Iraqi troops being trained by Canadians as part of Operation Impact.
In 2017, the minister claimed to be the architect of Operation Medusa. This was not true. He exaggerated his role, which of course is an affront to those members who fought in Afghanistan. Honour means telling the truth. Honour means not taking credit for the work done by others. The minister stole honour that was not his.
Despite the minister's poor record, this is not just an issue with the Minister of National Defence. The focus on the Minister of National Defence is necessary, and I will support this motion, but I want to outline why I believe the inexcusable actions by the government, in relation to its support for members of the Canadian Armed Forces, are not the issue of just one minister. In fact, this is not the issue of just one party. There is an insidious and dangerous reality that goes farther than one minister.
The Prime Minister has failed the women and men in uniform. The Liberal government has failed the women and men in uniform. There is a pattern of looking the other way. There is a pattern of not doing the work that needs to be done to meet our international obligations to report war crimes and torture. As always, the failures of many do not affect the government. They affect our brave servicewomen and men in this country, and they affect those who need our help around the world.
One of the most shocking failures was the inability to protect women in the military from sexual harassment and violence.
The government has been in power for six years, and in those six years there have been 581 sexual assaults in the military, with 221 incidents of sexual harassment logged. This abject failure to protect women is a stain on our country.
Women are tired of being told to be patient. They are tired of being told their concerns have been heard and then nothing changes. As important as the Liberals say the issue is, the Prime Minister did not even include an explicit mention of dealing with sexual misconduct in the 2015, 2019 or 2021 mandate letters to the minister.
The Prime Minister did not care.
I spoke earlier today about a survivor who called my office because she did not trust her member of Parliament. She did not know where to turn, so she phoned my office. I spoke to her for over an hour about her concerns that her anonymity and safety would be compromised, and that for her having a career in the Canadian Armed Forces was now impossible.
This is a woman who has served our country, and she does not even feel safe telling the government about the concerns she has as a survivor of sexual harassment within the military. I did not know what to say to her. I did not know how to help her. I did not know how to relieve her concerns. I did not know what to do, because I do not have confidence that the government cares about sexual harassment survivors. I do not have confidence that the Conservative government, when it was in power, had the best interests of women in our military at heart.
Can members imagine being a survivor, and being brave and strong enough to come forward with that story of survival, and then finding out that General Vance was golfing with the people who were investigating him? The old boys' club nonsense that she is trying to stop and prevent, because she wants to make our military better, results in them going for a golf game. How old boys' club is that? How inexcusable.
These women do not get action. They get another inquiry. The minister must answer for this, but more importantly the Prime Minister must answer for this.
As I said, my confidence in the government has failed, but I do not believe the Conservative government acted better. I am sad to say the Conservative government under Stephen Harper, with Jason Kenney as the minister of defence, bears the same guilt. Jason Kenney knew General Vance was accused of sexual harassment, and unbelievably he appointed the general to lead Operation Honour. In what world is it reasonable to have somebody accused or suspected of sexual harassment be in charge of the investigation into sexual harassment? The absurdity is shocking to me.
While I am disappointed in the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence and the Liberal government, I find it incredibly rich that the Conservatives have the gall to stand in this place and not acknowledge the role their government has played in harming the women of our Canadian Armed Forces.
There is enough blame to go around. Government after government has failed women in this country. They have created a toxic work environment where women cannot work safely in our military. Is anyone surprised that enrolment is low? Can anyone be surprised that women do not flock to participate in our military?
In conclusion, I will support this motion because the minister needs to answer for his actions, but I want to reiterate that the Prime Minister, the minister, the government and the opposition bear the burden of knowing they have not protected women in this country.
View Cheryl Gallant Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill. As the strong, proud and ready member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I am honoured to represent Garrison Petawawa.
Today's motion is about the legacy of the Canadian Armed Forces during the current defence minister's tenure. He needs to step aside, since he is not prepared to admit each time he failed to uphold his oath of office to the Canadian people. He was under the direct supervision of the Prime Minister. There is no room in the Prime Minister's Office or the Department of National Defence for sexism, misogyny, racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, discrimination, harassment or any other conduct that prevents the institution and the whole of government from being a truly welcoming and inclusive organization.
Canadians understand that a culture change, starting with the Prime Minister, is required to remove his culture of toxic masculinity behaviour to create an environment where everyone is respected, valued and can feel safe to contribute to the best of their abilities. As the member of Parliament for Garrison Petawawa, I know that respect is precious. If the Minister of National Defence has any respect for the members of the Canadian Armed Forces, he would have resigned a long time ago.
I have worked very hard to earn the respect of our women and men in uniform. They are heroes. This was in the 2018 briefing note to the chain of command, up to the Minister of National Defence, the individual at the top who claims ignorance of war crimes:
We remain uncertain whether appropriate action was effectively taken...I am an ethical man and I believe in our moral doctrine and the LOAC (Law of Armed Conflict). I am bothered by the fact that my assigned duties allowed me to train and enable people who in my mind were criminals.
These soldiers are also my constituents. I have a direct responsibility in calling out this dereliction of duty on the part of the Prime Minister. I acknowledge the trust they placed in me when they acted with a conscience. I will always have the backs of the women and men in uniform.
On behalf of the people of Canada and on behalf of our Conservative government-in-waiting, I thank the soldiers who first raised the issue of war crimes, and then continue to raise these concerns. They have the gratitude and full support of the Conservatives, even if the Liberal Party continues to slough them off and act vindictively towards the soldiers who reported what they saw.
It is obvious to those who care about things like international treaties and the law of armed conflict that the Minister of National Defence has many lessons to learn. He needs to take lessons from the official opposition when it comes to serving his country. The minister claims no politician should ever start investigations. How quickly he forgot his own advice when it came to an hon. naval officer, like Vice-Admiral Mark Norman. What the Prime Minister ordered, however, was not an investigation against Mark Norman, it was a witch hunt that ended badly for the Prime Minister and his minister.
While I am proud and ready to defend the honour and reputations of the women and men who serve as the members of the Canadian Armed Forces, I cannot say the same about the current Minister of National Defence. The reputation has been maligned by the government of our country. The lack of leadership and direction from the Prime Minister has created many casualties.
First is the Minister of National Defence. The motion put forward by the leader of my party says it all. Seeing the Minister of National Defence reduced to repeating mindless talking points is sad, when he had a strong role model sitting next to him, the former minister of justice, the MP for Vancouver Granville. As a principled woman, she knew when it was time to stand up and act honourably.
The next casualties of the Prime Minister's lack of leadership are the women in uniform who have been victims of sexual misconduct under his watch, and the double standard on the way women and men are treated by the so-called, let me grope for his self-label, “feminist Prime Minister”.
Let us talk about the female officer who was charged, convicted, fined and removed from her post. Her treatment was in direct contrast to the treatment afforded to Lieutenant-General Christopher Coates who, while serving as deputy commander of NORAD, had a consensual relationship with a civilian woman serving with the U.S. military in Colorado Springs.
He was allowed to continue his post before being transferred home last summer to take over the military's joint operations command. Coates was due to be transferred to the senior NATO post in Naples, Italy, until news of the affair became public. Now, ignoring the family relationship between Coates and DND deputy minister Jody Thomas, this example of the double standard women in uniform face every day from the government is appalling. We can add that to the casualty list on sexual misconduct.
The Prime Minister's own chief of staff, Katie Telford, did nothing to rein in the problem of the Prime Minister's toxic masculinity and seriously address the problem of the sexual misconduct crisis in the military. That makes her part of the problem and she should have resigned her position when her complicity was exposed.
The next casualties of the lack of leadership and direction by the Prime Minister and his Minister of National Defence are all the serving women in the Canadian Armed Forces. From the highest-ranking general to those who are still around, to the newly enlisted, who should be eager to serve their country, but who are now demoralized by the actions of the Prime Minister.
There are also fine individuals like Mark Norman and former armed forces ombudsman, Gary Walbourne. I am a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence. We invited Gary to come to our committee. He stated for the record he met the defence minister in 2018 to discuss an allegation of sexual misconduct against former chief of the defence staff, Jonathan Vance.
When he offered to show the minister proof of the allegation, former armed forces ombudsman Walbourne stated the government pushed him away and refused to review the evidence. “The only thing I ever wanted the minister to do was his job,” he is quoted as saying at the time that this happened. He then observed that “doing nothing wasn't the response I was looking for”. Doing nothing is the legacy of the defence minister and the government. This is now a government-wide scandal.
The next casualties in the DND scandal are the MP for Kanata—Carleton and the MP for Ottawa West—Nepean. The endless filibustering of the Standing Committee on National Defence will not go unnoticed by voters. They also had a role model like the member who had also left the Liberal caucus who used to sit beside them in the government caucus. To retired general Andrew Leslie, the former member of Parliament for Orléans, who resigned rather than being reduced to a mindless government cheerleader, I thank him for his service to this country.
The last point I will now deal with is the myth that some elements of the bought media repeat is that the military fared okay while the member for Vancouver South has been sitting in the defence minister's chair. Under the defence minister's time, though the government may have committed spending more money on the military in real dollars, it is all promised spending. The devil is always in the details. My constituents clearly remember the decade of darkness when Liberals slashed budgets, starting with disbanding the Canadian Airborne Regiment.
For spending to actually happen, soldiers have to rely on a future elected Conservative government. Of the purchases that have actually been delivered so far, they are mired in controversy. Who is Adam Coates again? By all tests, the Minister of National Defence has failed Canadians.
View Raquel Dancho Profile
CPC (MB)
View Raquel Dancho Profile
2021-06-17 13:38 [p.8661]
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Calgary Shepard.
Normally when I rise in the House, I am very pleased to put words on the record about all the issues we talk about here, but today I rise with extreme frustration and disappointment concerning the sexual misconduct in the Canadian military, the lack of results from the Liberal government and the failure of the defence minister to take this issue seriously.
The Conservative motion on the table today rightfully calls for the resignation of the defence minister because of his record on this issue, and because of the men and women in our Canadian Armed Forces who have been sexually exploited and who he has let down.
I listened intently to the minister's speech today in response to our motion. I was waiting and hoping that he would express regret for his record on failing to address sexual misconduct in the military, but he did not. There was no personal acknowledgement that he had thus far failed to send a clear message to the most powerful men in our military, who report to him, that this behaviour will not be tolerated and that this culture is no longer acceptable.
The minister has been in charge of our military for over six years, yet in that time, and especially in the last five months, we have seen eight senior ranking military officials resign in disgrace over allegations of sexual misconduct under his watch. In the five months since the scandal concerning General Vance broke, who at the time was the head of our military, it has only gotten worse.
Most recently, Canadians learned that the man who has authority over the investigation of sexual misconduct went golfing with the man accused of that misconduct. After five months of headlines, they thought it would be okay to go golfing together, which is the clearest violation of conflict of interest that I have ever heard of.
When I saw that headline the other day about the golfing scandal, it truly sickened me to know how little has really changed after the last five months of repeated headlines and conversations about this scandal. I cannot imagine how that headline was received by the men and women in the military who have been raped, abused and mistreated by their superiors, and for them to know that nothing has changed.
This was after the minister answered dozens and dozens of questions in the House, in committee and from reporters on this issue since it broke in February. Time and time again, he has said that he is essentially proud of his progress on this issue, with that disclaimer of, “Oh, there's much more work to do, but don't worry, we'll get to it”.
Well, the fact that the man in charge of the investigation thought it would be acceptable to go golfing with his buddy, the man accused of the misconduct, is all the information I need to know about how this Liberal minister clearly failed to pass on the message he has so proudly shared in the House of Commons with members from all parties. He is happy to say the words to reporters, to the opposition and to his voters, but he is, apparently, incapable with following through, being a leader and laying down the law. He is the head of our military. The buck stops with the Liberal Minister of Defence.
When it comes to this culture of old boys' club men protecting each other from accountability for demeaning and disrespecting women in our military, the minister has demonstrated that he does not have the ability to follow through on his words. Otherwise, the golfing scandal would have never happened. That is why we are asking for his resignation today.
I want to speak for a moment about what it is like for the thousands of women in uniform who have served our country, and the millions more women in Canada who have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace. I say women, but of course, we know that men also experience this. In fact, 30% of the sexual misconduct complaints in our military are from men, so it is important that we do not forget them. However, I can only speak from a female perspective, and that is what I will be doing today.
I will use the example of the email that General Vance sent to his junior officer, whom he far outranked, because not only does it show what he thinks is acceptable behaviour, but it speaks perfectly to the broader issue of the power imbalances in the workplace when sexual relations are brought into it.
A junior ranking military official met General Vance at a function, and he offered her mentorship and career advice if she ever needed it. It is pretty exciting as a young, aspiring career woman to get an offer of mentorship by a superior, especially an older man, which is very valuable.
We live in a man's world, so we cannot put a price on that career advice, and I can imagine she was quite excited for the opportunity. However, when she emailed him for that career advice, he concluded his reply with, “Or...we could throw caution to the wind and escape to a clothing optional island in the Carribean...I hear the beer is good there... Cheers, JV”
Now, I do not know this woman, but I do know how she must have felt reading that email. She was probably excited to see the email pop up in her inbox, to see what he was going to say, but she opened it only to see that he was propositioning her for sex.
Make no mistake, this happens all the time, but when it happens, when one gets a message like that, whether it is in person, a text, an email or a phone call, a woman instantly gets a pit in her stomach. It is like a vice grip. Her heart starts beating. She may start to sweat. She is sickened with anxiety and dread because she knows in that instant that everything has changed for her, but not for him.
I am not sure whether his comment was flippant or deliberate, and I am not sure which one is worse, but with it General Vance changed the entire dynamic of that relationship. Why is that? These types of relations are against the rules in the military, which he would have well known. If these were unwanted advances, which clearly they were, now the junior member had to deal with an ordeal that she did not ask for.
Now it is a situation that she is going to stress over. She is going to lose sleep over it and try to navigate it without damaging her career. This woman had to figure out how to push back and say she was not interested without damaging his ego. All women in this chamber will know that when a man makes advances they do not want there is that nervous laughter: “Ha, ha, so funny. Get your hand off me”. I think all the women in this chamber have probably experienced that at some point or another.
Every woman I know certainly has had to deal with this at some point in her career, and it is particularly insidious when it is at the workplace. Perhaps there is an aggressive drunk at a bar. We know the feeling of dread and of having to try our best to let these men down gently so we do not hurt their egos. Make no mistake, I have met thousands of men who are amazing allies to women, but I have come across those insidious men in my career and in my life.
A woman knows that if she does not tread carefully, verbal abuse can ensue or perhaps violence. It can affect her career if her name comes up for a promotion, for example, or for a new posting or new opportunity, and the old boys are talking about who they are going to pick for that promotion or that new posting. She knows that if she hurts a man's ego with her response, it might affect the reference he would give her when her name comes up. Let us be real here. That is what is going on. That is what women have to deal with when unwanted sexual advances come their way from male superiors in the workplace, and this happens all the time.
It is particularly insidious at work because it affects a woman's career. Everything that she put work into is at stake in that ridiculous moment when someone thoughtlessly says something to her. General Vance did that to this servicewoman. He might not have given it a second thought, but if that is the case, that is how detached from reality he really is. That is how drunk on power he and his fellow high-ranking military officers really are. They have no idea what it is like for the women they do these things to.
We know this kind of behaviour is just the tip of the iceberg. It is symbolic of a greater problem. Women have been sexually abused, raped and harassed day in and day out in our military, all while trying to do their jobs, keep their heads down and advance their careers like everybody else.
There are land mines like this everywhere for women as they rise up the ranks in their careers. I know it. I have lived it, just like millions of other women. I am not unique, but it is real and it happens every single day.
What is most disappointing is that the Liberal government was elected twice on its feminist promises and credentials, yet here we are six years later with no feminist change seen in our military. The defence minister has spoken at length about this, yet nothing has happened. The scandals just keep rolling out. Every day there is a new headline. These men thought that going golfing during an ongoing sexual misconduct investigation was somehow acceptable just a few days ago. That is the minister's record on this issue. That is why we are calling for him to resign.
Before I conclude, I have two quick things to say. I want to seriously thank the Conservative members on the defence committee for their dedication and their tireless effort. I am very proud to serve alongside them. They have been tireless in their pursuit of justice for the women and men who have been mistreated in our military.
To the men and women in our military who have suffered through this hell, and I do not choose that word lightly, I say we are with them. We have their backs and we will not stop until there is a reckoning in our Canadian military.
I will conclude with a message to women Liberal MPs in the House. I know that they are all proud feminists, but now is the time to walk the talk. If they are going to go door to door in the next election and tout their feminist credentials, they have to stand up for women when it counts. It counts today.
The minister has failed the women in our military. He has failed to stand up for them. He has failed to fulfill his duty and hold these powerful men accountable. He has failed to send the message that it is not okay to go golfing with the accused when an investigation is going on. There is no way around it. There is no other way they can try to spin it. That is the reality.
I know that in their hearts the Liberal members, particularly the women, know what I am saying is correct. The minister might be a nice guy, but that is not the point. He clearly cannot fulfill his duty.
In conclusion, the current minister has proved he cannot defend women who have been sexually harassed, raped and abused. The women in our military only need seven Liberal MPs to abstain or, better yet, vote for his resignation. He could still be an MP, but he should not have control over changing the culture in our military after he has let us down as women so profoundly. I would ask seven Liberal MPs to please consider this and do the right thing.
View Francesco Sorbara Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my wonderful friend and colleague, the member for Ottawa West—Nepean.
I rise today to talk about our government's commitment to supporting the Canadian Armed Forces and the crucial role it plays in keeping Canadians safe, and supporting stability and security around the world.
The previous Conservative government did everything it could to take Canada out of global affairs. Its philosophy is clear: It believes the world needs less Canada. Our Liberal government believes the opposite. We know the world needs more Canada.
When we were elected in 2015, our Prime Minister was crystal clear to our friends, allies and partners around the world. After 10 years of disinterest in foreign policy and disengagement under the previous government, Canada was back, multilateralism was back, diplomacy was back and engagement was back.
Around the globe, including at the recent NATO and G7 summits, Canada's leadership and contributions to global security are saluted by our partners and friends. Canada's international reputation as a force for good is in large part thanks to the sacrifices and hard work of the women and men of our Canadian Armed Forces. Since 2015, the capabilities of the Canadian Armed Forces have been on full display in several expeditionary operations.
In the Middle East, the Canadian Armed Forces have worked to bring peace and stability on a number of operations in recent years. On Operation Artemis, they worked to counter terrorism and disrupt illicit drug trafficking in the maritime domain.
While deployed, the HMCS Calgary shattered two of the maritime forces combined all-time records for the largest heroin seizure of three metric tonnes and the most seizures by any ship on a single deployment, with 17 seizures.
Working with traditional and non-traditional partners under Combined Task Force 150, the Canadian Armed Forces have increased security in the Red Sea, the gulfs of Aden and Oman, and the Indian Ocean. What is more is that Canada has led the CTF 155 times since 2008. This included our most current command of the task force when it had considerable success in interdicting narcotics that help fund terrorist activities.
Canadian Armed Forces members also contributed to Operation Calumet, Canada's support to the Multinational Force and Observers' independent peacekeeping operation in the Sinai Peninsula, in an area many Canadians know well thanks to the engagement and continued legacy of former Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson in the region.
Canadians may be most familiar with the work our Canadian Armed Forces have done as part of Operation Impact, which includes its contributions to NATO's capacity-building mission, NATO Mission Iraq. On that mission, the Canadian Armed Forces have worked to build the military capabilities of Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon, and set the conditions for their long-term success. Here too Canada assumed a leadership role for NATO Mission Iraq between 2018 and 2020.
As a founding member of NATO under Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent, our commitment to NATO is strong and ironclad, unlike the Conservatives, who cut NATO contributions by $100 million and allowed military spending to reach an all-time low, dropping below 1% of GDP in 2013. Of course, these ideological cuts, which ignored the needs of our military, were aimed squarely at undermining Canada's history of multilateral engagement, all in a failed Conservative attempt to balance the budget on the backs of our Canadian Armed Forces.
Thankfully, our government has returned Canada to its proud tradition of engagement. Just this past March, the Government of Canada announced the extension of Operation Impact until March 2022, so Canada's important work on NATO Mission Iraq will continue.
As members of the House are aware, eastern Europe has suffered significant instability in the past several years. Here too the Canadian Armed Forces have contributed significantly.
On Operation Reassurance, it has contributed to NATO's assurance and deterrence measures to reinforce NATO's collective defence. In recent years, there have been a combined total of up to 850 Canadian Armed Forces members deployed on the operation, making it Canada's largest current international military operation. Canada has assumed several leadership roles, as the framework nation of an enhanced force present in Latvia or by regularly leading standing NATO maritime groups.
In Ukraine, on Operation Unifier, the Canadian Armed Forces support the country's security forces. They have assisted with training and capacity building, while co-operating with the U.S. and other allies to ensure Ukraine's sovereignty, security and stability.
Closer to home, members of our armed forces have delivered significant successes as part of Operation Caribbe, where they have participated in the U.S.-led enhanced counter-narcotics operations in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean. They have worked to suppress drug trafficking in international waters where they have seized dozens of tonnes of cocaine.
While we are proud of what the Canadian Armed Forces accomplishes around the world, there is perhaps no more important role they have fulfilled than assisting Canadians in their times of need.
In the past several years, the Canadian Armed Forces have been called upon, on numerous occasions, to do so as part of domestic operations. The Canadian Armed Forces are called upon to assist in search and rescue operations, natural disasters and any other emergency where only their expertise can adequately support Canadians.
Search and rescue crews are on standby 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They cover over 18 million square kilometres of land and sea and launch hundreds of times each year to respond to search and rescue emergencies. Since 2015, CF SAR techs have launched more than 4,200 times to save Canadian lives. Highly trained CAF members also stand ready to respond to natural disaster wherever and whenever required.
Over the past few years, the role of the Canadian Armed Forces in domestic disaster response has increased significantly. That is because climate change has resulted in more extreme weather, which, in turn, has produced more severe storms and natural disasters. While the Conservatives continue to deny that climate change is real, our government is engaged directly with vulnerable communities across Canada and our Canadian Armed Forces are working with Canadians to provide relief from the very real impacts of climate change.
CAF support to Canadians during these events is called Operation Lentus, and I think we can all agree that Canadians are fortunate to have such a dedicated and skilled military to support them when their need arises.
The winter before last, CAF deployed to Newfoundland and Labrador after major snowstorms led to emergencies.
In 2019, the CAF supported Nova Scotia with its response in the aftermath of Hurricane Dorian, and Ontario with the evacuation of first nations communities when they were at risk of smoke from forest fires in Manitoba.
When wildfires ravaged parts of British Columbia and Manitoba in 2018, again, the armed forces were there to bring aid to remote communities and help prevent the spread or reignition of fires. That year, Canadian Armed Forces also assisted provincial partners in their responses to four other natural disasters across Canada, including floods, forest fires and winter storms.
In total, the Canadian Armed Forces have deployed in support of Operation Lentus 18 times since 2015, and remain prepared to do so again whenever necessary.
The CAF efforts that will stick out most prominently in the minds of Canadians are likely those related to the global COVID pandemic.
In February 2020, Canadian Armed Forces members helped bring people home in the face of the growing threat of coronavirus, repatriating Canadians from around the world. As part of Operation Globe, they helped return 870 people to Canada to quarantine safely.
By April, thousands of CAF members were assigned to Operation Laser, the mission to support the government's response to COVID-19. Through the operation, the CAF have assisted the federal, provincial and territorial governments through 60 requests for assistance.
During the first wave of COVID, the number of CAF members poised to assist all over the country peaked at more than 9,000 troops. Among them were approximately 1,700 personnel who worked tirelessly to help manage COVID outbreaks and protect vulnerable Canadians in 54 long-term care facilities, 47 in Quebec and seven in Ontario.
I wish to thank the Canadian Armed Forces members who came to my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge and who assisted the residents at the long-term care facility at Woodbridge Vista. We are forever thankful and grateful for their service, not only there but across the country. They do it day in and day out, very quietly and with such professionalism and a spirit that truly reflects the best of our country.
View Alex Ruff Profile
CPC (ON)
View Alex Ruff Profile
2021-06-17 16:26 [p.8689]
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.
I am actually very torn to be speaking today. As most members in the House know, I spent 25 years in the military. I am actually speaking from a level of disappointment. I am not going to attack the minister's record of service. In fact, I respect his record of service, both as a police officer in British Columbia and as a reservist with our Canadian Armed Forces. He has done three tours in Afghanistan. If I had to go back out on military operations in the future, I would trust him to be beside me.
There is a lot of talk here about politicians and civilian oversight, which nobody in the military would ever disagree with. We need that. We live in a democracy. However, and I hate to burst the bubble of some of my colleagues, the rank and file of the military do not really care too much about us in the House of Commons. They respect what we do, but they serve the country. They are not serving us: They serve all Canadians.
One serving member, as they followed some of this unfortunate situation with the sexual misconduct allegations and the state of the Department of National Defence and the military right now, said this just drives it home. They think they are political pawns for the government and that all decisions are being made based on keeping votes versus what is right.
For the rest of my speech, I am going to speak about the leadership and accountability of this minister, or lack thereof, since he became the Minister of National Defence.
In times of crisis, militaries rely on leaders to provide focus on the priorities that matter. They bring energy and determination and demand that standards are met. In a democracy, militaries are led by elected officials who must set the tone, give direction and follow up on that direction.
None of this has happened, in the last three years in particular. Platitudes and evasion of accountability are the exact opposite of what is expected, and indeed what is demanded. Leaders must not only lead, they must be seen to lead. They seek and accept accountability in themselves and others. Canadians expect more. Canadian Armed Forces members need more.
The solution is not to express surprise and disgust, but to actually provide detailed, specific expectations, a path to meet those expectations and consequences when those expectations are not met. Accountability starts and stops with the Minister of National Defence.
I am going to focus on three of the sexual misconduct allegations currently ongoing within the Canadian Armed Forces. Let us talk about the former chief of the defence staff, General Vance, going back to 2018. I have discussed with the minister in the past my own frustration with and disappointment in the current Prime Minister for his interference in the independence of our judiciary and our prosecution system tied to the SNC-Lavalin affair.
In this case, the minister says it is not up to politicians to interfere in an investigation. I would totally agree. However, as the CDS and the ombudsman report to the Minister of National Defence, he is at the top of their chain of command. He is clearly accountable for the performance of the Chief of the Defence Staff and he is the steward of the Canadian Armed Forces.
When he was duly informed of a potential breach of Op Honour, an allegation of sexual misconduct by the former chief of the defence staff, the minister failed to take appropriate action. He could have initiated an investigation, or at least ensured one was initiated by the appropriate authorities. However, once he was made aware of that breach, he actually became complicit in allowing the breach to continue by not taking that appropriate action.
Had the minister still been a serving member within the Canadian Armed Forces, he could have been held accountable for failing to act. The minister knows this, and knows that it is the honourable thing to step down.
Further, as a former police officer, he knows that initiating an investigation or demanding that one be conducted is not tantamount to interference. Interference with an investigation can only occur if one has been initiated. The minister, as a former police officer, cannot argue that he was unaware of that fact.
Now I will talk about Admiral McDonald. During testimony at the defence committee, Lieutenant-Commander Trotter talked about how he attempted to report the allegations against Admiral McDonald. He was eventually placed in contact with the chief of staff to the department assistant. This is an office that supports the Minister of National Defence, but reports directly to the deputy minister. These DND staff mishandled this complaint, initially suggesting that Lieutenant-Commander Trotter report the incident to the sexual misconduct response centre, which has no mandate to handle sexual misconduct complaints. Trotter was then referred to the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, but only after the military police liaison officer to the SMRC was brought into the discussion.
This incident further reinforces my point that even now, three years after the minister was first made aware of allegations of shortfalls within the department, under his lack of leadership the department is still incapable of properly handling a sexual misconduct complaint when it involves higher ranks. This is clear evidence of sustained and systematic failure within the department.
More recently we heard about General Fortin. I am not going to get into the details because the only information I have is what has been made available to the public. However, what has been reported in the media suggests that DND and the Canadian Armed Forces are not even following their own policies involving General Fortin. He was directed to step aside and take leave when he was accused of historical allegations of misconduct. From the media reporting, General Fortin is now attempting to deal with this in court because the department and the military failed to follow the removal from command process that was established in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
This is a mess. Based on the public information available from General Fortin's lawyer, it has been suggested that senior Liberal leaders are directly engaged in these decisions affecting the employment of the Canadian Armed Forces senior leadership. Of the first two examples, the minister is refusing to take action on one under the auspices of not interfering, yet the Liberals are not following the proper processes on the other and are actually interfering in a potential sexual misconduct allegation.
I would like to conclude with some feedback and commentary that I have received from the rank and file and recently retired members of the Canadian Armed Forces: their opinions about the current government and the lack of leadership by the minister. One said, “I had no intention of framing or hanging my certificate of service because it has the current Prime Minister's name on it. Now I think it might make a very good fire starter.” When I talk to victims and people I know who have testified at committee about sexual misconduct allegations, and I ask what they think about the Liberal filibustering going on at the defence committee, the word they use is “brutal”. A former senior military officer said, “This Minister of National Defence enjoys no confidence from any part of either the department or the Canadian Armed Forces due to his lack of leadership.”
This is why, unfortunately, Conservatives had to move this motion today calling for the minister to be censured. As my regimental slogan goes, never pass a fault.
View Iqra Khalid Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Iqra Khalid Profile
2021-06-17 16:58 [p.8693]
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands.
I want to rise in the House today to speak about the Minister of National Defence in light of this very unfair opposition motion. I want to talk about who he is as a person and what he has done to serve Canada alongside so many others.
Like so many of our friends and neighbours, the Minister of National Defence came here as an immigrant. His mother came to our country in the hopes of building a better life for the minister and his sister. His parents left India because Canada was a place where they believed they could find the opportunity and that success. They left behind their family and their community.
This story is likely familiar to you, Mr. Speaker, and to many others here in this House. It is a story of countless immigrant families from across this country. It is a story of sacrifice. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister of National Defence's father was not a politician who served for almost two decades in the provincial Legislature. Instead, the Minister of National Defence stood beside his mother as a child in the blueberry, raspberry and strawberry fields, from Richmond to Abbotsford in British Columbia. He would wake up at 5:00 a.m. and join his mother and his sister, packed in a van with 30 other field labourers, for a long day of work.
It was in these fields where the Minister of National Defence realized that racism could be met with deadly consequences. As the minister said last year in an interview with CTV, one of his co-workers, a man in his 20s, did not show up to work one day.
Later on, we found out that it was actually an attack based on race – and he was killed.
The minister has spoken many times of his experience with racism. He has worked his entire life to end this discrimination. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister of National Defence had to work in a country that was hostile, is still hostile, to Black and brown bodies. It is a fight that he has had to endure his whole life. It is a fight that he continues to endure.
In fact, the Leader of the Opposition and many others from the opposition still do not bother to pronounce the minister's name correctly. Maybe I will take a moment to say that the minister is “Sajjan,” which means honourable, respectable in Punjabi. For over six years, the Leader of the Opposition and the members opposite have had the opportunity to learn how to pronounce his name, and they have chosen not to. People who are visible minorities know what this is. These are microaggressions, and they are not mistakes. These microaggressions are racism, pure and simple.
The Minister of National Defence has devoted his life to service, service to his community, service to Vancouver and service to Canada. He served over a decade as an officer in the Vancouver police force, working in the riding that he represents today, Vancouver South. He fought against the scourge of organized crime and drug trafficking, protecting the community that he still serves and protects today.
Like thousands of other Canadians, he put up his hand and served this country in the Canadian Armed Forces. While he served in uniform, he experienced discrimination there as well. Let me quote again from the minister's interview with CTV.
I remember one person…saying to me “I let you join my military.” Just that position of power and privilege that he was throwing in my face, it just upset me so much.
Despite the racism that he has faced, he still served. He served in Bosnia. He served three tours of duty in Afghanistan.
He has been awarded numerous military medals for his service, including the Order of Military Merit, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Canadian Forces' Decoration, the South-West Asia Service Medal, the General Campaign Star, the commendation medal, the NATO service medal and the Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal. Now, the opposition has the audacity to question his service by bringing up questions about the Minister of National Defence's service in Afghanistan.
Why do we not hear from the people who actually worked with him in Afghanistan, like Colonel Chris Vernon, chief of staff to the Coalition Task Force Headquarters who led Operation Medusa? He stated:
[The minister] was a major player in the design team that put together Operation Medusa. He was able to put together an intelligence picture of the Taliban and the tribal dynamics west of Kandahar, without which we probably wouldn't have been able to mount Operation Medusa. So that's what he did. Pretty significant stuff.
Why do we not hear from Major-General David Fraser, then head of NATO regional. He described the minister as having “remarkable personal courage...often working in the face of the enemy to collect data and confirm his suspicions, and placing himself almost daily in situations of grave personal risk.” He also went on to say, “I must say that [the Minister of National Defence] is one of the most remarkable people I have worked with, and his contribution to the success of the mission and the safety of Canadian soldiers was nothing short of remarkable.”
The opposition members sit there and continue to question the minister's commitment and his service record. That is shameful. They question his work as the Minister of National Defence.
Why do we not take into account the opinion of David Perry, a senior military analyst at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute? He said, about the minister, “In terms of actual results that have been delivered for defence since he's been a minister: on that front I think it's pretty fair to say that he's done very well.” He went on to add that, “Under [his] time as defence minister the government has committed to spending more money on the military in real dollars than at any time since the Korean War.”
This opposition day motion is very troubling. It ignores the fact of the minister's service to his community, to Vancouver and to our country. I know and Canadians know that, time and again, the minister has stepped up and served his country. Despite the opposition's attempts, Canadians will remember this motion as exactly what it is: a petty, personal attack on Canada's first Minister of National Defence of colour. It is an attempt by the Conservative members to whitewash the actions the Minister of National Defence has taken to support those who serve Canada each and every day.
The members have heard my colleagues speak of our investments into the Canadian Armed Forces after a decade of darkness because of the cuts from the Harper Conservative government. Members have heard my colleagues speak of our commitment to building a more inclusive and diverse Canadian Armed Forces, and they have heard my colleagues speak about our commitment to building a Canadian Armed Forces that is free from sexual harassment and assault.
The Conservatives might stand up and say they have been champions for women and for minorities. Nothing can be further from the truth. When the Leader of the Opposition had an opportunity to stand with our friends and neighbours in the Muslim community—
View James Cumming Profile
CPC (AB)
View James Cumming Profile
2021-06-17 17:30 [p.8697]
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Calgary Skyview.
I hold in great respect the opportunity to participate in today's debate. The topic of this debate is something I hold close to my heart, as both my brother and father served our country. I witnessed first-hand the honour, integrity and respect they both held for the roles and their time in service.
My father served as an officer in the Royal Canadian Navy during World War II on HMCS Stormont in the Battle of the Atlantic. In his recollection of his experience in the navy, he stated, “True leaders lead by their actions, not by the words.” It was a virtue that he carried out throughout his entire life and was the foundation of what made him a noble leader who many respected and looked up to, me included.
My brother, who served as a pilot from 1981 to 1996, was a captain at the National Defence headquarters and also a man who led with a high degree of integrity, righteousness, honesty and the type of honourableness that gains trust from fellow comrades, as well as from citizens for whom my family had the privilege of serving.
Lastly, the riding I represent, Edmonton Centre, was previously held by the Hon. Laurie Hawn, who also served in the Canadian military with distinction. I have enormous respect for him.
I share these personal stories because they make up only a few of the individuals who have been recognized as contributors to Canada's reputation of having a noble, virtuous, principled and ethical armed forces. It is these folks who we owe great respect to, as they have upheld our entire country to a standard of righteousness, rectitude and reverence.
It is because of these noble individuals that we have been able to effortlessly create trust between the armed forces and the public, the very cohesion to create unification, wholeness and a sense of togetherness in this country. It is a cohesion that has been eroded for six straight years, and the defence minister has placed all Canadians at risk of ever trusting our armed forces again by covering up sexual misconduct allegations. This is alarming, troublesome and unacceptable. More than that, it is offensive and completely dismissive of all the individuals who have come before the minister and those who are currently serving and doing so with a high regard for themselves, their actions and the Canadians they serve. As I stand here today, I cannot help but think about the women in my life and all the women residing in Canada who have witnessed the government shamefully continue to turn a blind eye to this and neglect the previous claim of being a feminist government that empowers women.
This is not about the minister's military service. We acknowledge that he served with incredible distinction. This is about what is happening today. It is about the impacts these actions and the lack of responsibility have on all Canadians today, and will have moving forward if appropriate measures are not taken. This is about ensuring that we as a country feel immense pride in our institution that continues to serve, that all men and women feel it is a safe place where sexual allegations are taken seriously and that any further incidents of sexual misconduct will be condemned and justice will be served. This is about creating certainty for the men and women currently serving and those who are contemplating joining our armed forces so that if they ever encounter this type of harassment, their government will not turn a blind eye, like this one has continued to do for many years.
This involves all of us. All of Canada's reputation is on the line. Anyone who genuinely and sincerely cares about the credibility, stature and honour of this country and our institutions would nobly resign and refuse to be selfish by remaining in a role that is no longer held in trust by the people it is meant to serve.
If the Prime Minister continues to make the choice not to act like a leader in this serious situation and leaves this to the defence minister, who has serious allegations against him, the result will be a continued erosion of the relationship between institutions, government and public. The lack of action speaks tremendous volumes about this Prime Minister's leadership and where he stands on equity for all persons.
This is not about partisanship and it is certainly not about politics. It is about ethics, morals and the willingness to do the right thing and protect the citizens who serve and the citizens who look to their government and their institutions for protection. How can we expect our honourable armed forces to keep us safe if CAF members themselves do not feel safe in the armed forces?
It is astounding that months after we called for action and years after sexual allegations were released, the Prime Minister decided to protect his own chief of staff rather than the thousands of men and women who serve this country. That is an insult to all of us. The Prime Minister has blatantly shown us where his true values lie, and it is certainly not with our armed forces and the people who graciously and righteously choose to be of service.
We will not back down from holding leaders and all persons in government to the highest standard of honesty and integrity. The minister and the Liberals refused to be accountable for their failure on the sexual misconduct allegations made against General Vance three years ago, but they have had the opportunity in the last couple of months and weeks to clean up their actions, recover their reputation and just ask the defence minister to step down. However, instead of the Liberals spending the past few weeks figuring out how they could make this situation better and lead with more dignity and integrity, we found out that the military's second in command, the vice chief of the defence staff, and the commander of the navy went golfing with Canada's former chief of the defence staff, the retired Jonathan Vance, who remains under military police investigation for the alleged inappropriate behaviour we speak of. This is problematic given that the vice chief has oversight of the police force investigating Vance.
It is blatantly obvious that the standard of conduct that is being held by the government is shameful and embarrassing, and the minister's leadership, or lack thereof, is downright deceitful. Over two months ago, Canada's Conservatives not only continued to speak out about the government's wrongful dismissal of the allegation, but also acknowledged that no amount of words would ever recovery a situation like this one involving the defence minister, as so much trust has been broken.
This is not something that can be combed over with an apology or long words on the history of the minister's miliary service, regardless of how distinguished it is. This requires taking action and responding to the current impacts that the lack of measures has had and will continue to have. Change and reinstatement of a noble government and a noble armed forces can only come through action, the very thing missing from the minister.
This is not a partisan issue. This is certainly not a personal issue against the Minister of National Defence. This is a countrywide issue affecting all of us. How could trust be instilled by the same person and persons who lost it and by the ones who are to blame for placing the collectiveness between government, the armed forces and the broader public in discord? The faith in a just and equitable government has diminished and will continue to do so until we see notable activity.
This is why the Conservatives have laid out an accountable, actionable plan that will be implemented to tackle the issue of sexual misconduct in the armed forces. The plan will recover the trust that has been broken and reinstate the integrity lost. This plan will include an inclusive service-wide independent investigation into the sexual misconduct in the military. It involves suspending all general and flag officer promotions and salary increases while an investigation into sexual misconduct of the military is taking place. Furthermore, it will involve the introduction of policies to ensure that future complaints are made to an external independent body outside the chain of command.
Canada's Conservatives will continue to stand up for women and men in uniform and demand the Liberals end their cover-up of sexual misconduct. We cannot allow our daughters, sisters and mothers to work in unsafe environments. No one should be subjected to sexual harassment when they show up to serve our country.
I stand here to ensure that any woman or man can serve their country with honour and without compromise. I stand here on behalf of my brother and father, who served and contributed to the uncorrupted and therefore reputable armed forces. I stand here for the thousands of Canadians who so selflessly served in our armed forces and continue to serve. I stand here on behalf of the Conservative Party, but also for every single Canadian who is questioning the character that makes up the government and the morals it leads with. If the government truly believed in leading with the highest degree of integrity, ethics and equity and believed in justice for all, then the decision to censure the minister would occur without hesitation.
I will conclude with my father's words, a man who served in the Royal Canadian Navy, from his recollection of his experience in the navy: “True leaders lead by their actions, not by their words.” I stand here and appallingly question the entire government's morals and lack of action and ask it this: If the government is so willing to let this terrible example of abuse of power slide, what else will it let slide?
View Stephanie Kusie Profile
CPC (AB)
View Stephanie Kusie Profile
2021-06-17 19:01 [p.8710]
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Niagara Falls.
I mentioned in my question earlier that the reason we are here today is to discuss the estimates, specifically as they relate to transport. My message here today is about the overwhelming incompetence of the government regarding transport. The estimates here today are just a symptom of that. There have been so many instances in which the government has not delivered on the file of transport.
Regarding airlines, for months the airline sector waited for a plan from the government. I have gone through the timeline before and will attempt to go through it briefly today. On March 18, 2020, the international border closed. On March 21, Porter Airlines suspended operations. On March 23, Sunwing Airlines suspended operations. There was no plan from the government.
On April 1, Air Transat concluded repatriation operations. On April 18, Air Transat suspended flights. On April 20, Air Canada concluded repatriation operations. There was still no plan. On June 30, Air Canada announced it was discontinuing services to 30 regional routes and closed eight stations. On July 17, WestJet concluded its repatriation operations. On July 23, Air Transat restored operations. On June 24, WestJet laid off 3,333 employees through restructuring. There was still no plan.
On July 31, Air Canada posted $1.7 billion in quarterly losses. On August 14, the Government of Canada introduced flight plans. On September 1, Nav Canada increased fees by 29.5%. There was still no plan. On September 23, Air Canada announced a COVID-19 testing pilot project at Toronto Pearson Airport. On October 1, Air Canada ordered approved rapid tests. There was still no plan. On October 14, WestJet suspended routes to Atlantic Canada. On November 2, the Calgary Airport quarantine and testing projects began. There was still no plan. On November 6, Sunwing Airlines restored operations briefly, but there was still no plan.
We have seen this continue through the fall, the winter and now the spring with no plan from the government. However, promises were made. Promises were made by the Liberals on March 10, 2020. When asked what the government could do to help airlines, the Minister of Economic Development said, “What we’re looking at is how can we mitigate the impacts while making sure that we can have, still, a strong summer season, and that we can really bounce back.” We did not see anything.
On March 19, 2020, then finance minister Bill Morneau said, “We will be refining what we’ve done, we will be thinking about next steps. We are working hard with the airline sector.” Still, there was no plan. On March 20, the Prime Minister's government promised a plan to help the industry that would follow an $82 billion aid package that was announced earlier that week, yet still nothing happened.
For months we heard empty promises from the government. Devastating actions were occurring in the airline sector, yet there was no plan. Finally, when we saw not even plans, but deals with specific airlines begin to emerge as brought forward previously in the House by the member for Sarnia—Lambton, we found out the government was incapable of creating deals without taking care that there would be no executive compensation.
When I demanded a plan for the airline sector in the House several times over, I made my demands clear: support for regional routes, protection of workers and, most importantly, making sure that taxpayer funds were not used for executive bonuses. However, Air Canada, with which an agreement was negotiated, was awarded $10 million to give bonuses to executives, and the government was incapable of excluding this when it made its plan.
I wish I could say this was the only incident of government incompetence when it comes to executive bonuses. We found out, not a week later, that Nav Canada handed out $7 million in executive bonuses after laying off 700 workers and increasing airport fees by 30%.
I wish the incompetence stopped there, but it did not, and I can see why the Minister of Transport did not show his face in the House today.
I currently have five letters outstanding to the Minister of Transport. The first one is on a pleasure craft operating competency program. Changes were going to be made in the operation of pleasure craft, which was bringing stress and strain to tourist and boating operations all across the country. There was no response from the Minister of Transport on this letter. Regarding electronic logging devices, on which we have seen legislation come into place, a letter has been sent to him, and there has been no response from him.
On ballast water regulations, which are having a major effect on shipping, which is—
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2021-06-17 19:32 [p.8714]
Madam Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé, whom I affectionately refer to as my favourite MP.
On June 9, the House adopted Motion No. 69, which was moved by my colleague from Montarville. The motion presents six concrete measures to help the government take more effective action against tax evasion and tax avoidance.
This evening, I would like to remind the House of those six measures. I expect the government to take action. I would also like to remind the House that our role as legislators involves guiding the government on such motions. Since the motion was adopted, I expect concrete action to be taken. I expect the government to follow through on this.
The first measure is as follows:
amend the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations to ensure that income that Canadian corporations repatriate from their subsidiaries in tax havens ceases to be exempt from tax in Canada;
Here, the motion calls for subsection 5907(1) of the income tax regulations to be repealed.
I would note that this subsection, which was adopted behind closed doors, allows Canadian corporations to repatriate money tax-free from their subsidiaries in one of the 23 tax havens with which Canada has a tax information exchange agreement.
This measure would change things so that any income repatriated by a Canadian corporation would be taxed. There is no need for a bill to do that. The motion was adopted in the House, and the order was sent to the government. All the minister had to do was delete it from the income tax regulations, thereby revolutionizing the fight against tax evasion and tax avoidance. That is what we are asking the government to do. We are in a pandemic, and spending levels are higher than ever. The motion proposes measures that will enable to government to bring in more revenue and increase tax fairness.
The second measure is as follows:
review the concept of permanent establishment so that income reported by shell companies created abroad by Canadian taxpayers for tax purposes is taxed in Canada;
When a company registers a subsidiary or a billionaire establishes a trust abroad, that subsidiary or trust is considered a foreign national, independent from the Canadian citizen or company that created it, and its income becomes non-taxable.
In taxation jargon, these subsidiaries or trusts are referred to as permanent establishments, in other words, they have a taxable fixed place of business independent of their owner. In many cases, they are shell companies with no real activity. There is no justification for treating them differently from any other bank account and exempting the income they generate from tax.
The Standing Committee on Finance is looking into shell companies set up on the Isle of Man by KPMG. Things need to change. The motion adopted by the House contains a measure to do that. We expect the government to take action with a view to collecting additional revenue in order to offset the additional expenses arising from the pandemic.
The third measure is as follows:
require banks and other federally regulated financial institutions to disclose, in their annual reports, a list of their foreign subsidiaries and the amount of tax they would have been subject to had their income been reported in Canada;
This may surprise many people, but for years banks were required to include that in their annual reports. It used to be released and that requirement needs to be reinstated. Here, the House is calling on the government to require the banks to be transparent again. It would just take a simple directive from the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. The government can send this notification and this very simple measure could be applied very quickly because it does not require any international negotiations or any legislative or regulatory change.
In 2019, the six Bay Street banks made a record profit of $46 billion. That is a 50% increase over five years. In 2020, despite the pandemic, they made $41 billion in profits. Their profits rise, but they pay less tax because they report their most profitable activities in tax havens, where their assets keep growing.
Until the door to the use of tax havens is closed shut, consumers could at least be able to choose their financial institution in an informed manner, and taxpayers would be able to judge whether the banks deserve government assistance.
Some of the measures the government announced in its latest budget are consistent with the fourth measure, which reads as follows:
review the tax regime applicable to digital multinationals, whose operations do not depend on having a physical presence, to tax them based on where they conduct business rather than where they reside;
We see this in rich countries. There are two pieces of good news in this budget. First, the government will finally start collecting the GST on services sold by digital multinationals as of July 1, so two weeks from now. This tax change was included in the notice of ways and means that the House voted on.
It is hard to understand why Ottawa waited so long, when Quebec has been doing it for two years and it is going great, but as they say, better late than never.
Also, still on the topic of this measure, the budget announces the government's plan to tax multinational Internet companies on their activities at a rate of 3% of their sales in Canada beginning on January 1, 2022. This commitment might be merely hot air, however, since there is talk of a possible implementation after the likely date of the next election. There is speculation that it will be called in mid-August, if the polls remain comfortable for the party in power, but still, this commitment is good news. It will be really good when it happens.
During the last election campaign, which was not so long ago, the Bloc Québécois proposed such a measure and the use of the revenue generated to compensate the victims of web giants, the creators. We are talking about the artists and the media who do not receive copyright fees from the web giants that use their content. The government is not going that far, but is instead reporting this GAFAM tax in the consolidated revenue fund. Nevertheless, we applaud this measure. It is a good start.
The fifth measure is as follows:
work toward establishing a global registry of actual beneficiaries of shell companies to more effectively combat tax evasion;
This is an extremely important measure. This needs to happen. Experts told the committee that the problem was that the information was not accessible; we cannot see the information. The fifth measure adopted by the House changes that. In many cases, tax havens are opaque, and it is impossible to know who truly benefits from the companies and trusts that are set up. Often, we only know the name of the trustee that manages them or the legal or accounting firm that created them, but not the name of the person hiding behind them. Such a setup is a real boon for fraudsters who can hide their money with complete impunity.
This type of registry already exists in Luxembourg, but it is accessible only to financial institutions. These institutions do their own audits, but this type of registry must be made available to governments or tax agencies. Tax evasion and avoidance has gone on too long. We do not know who is hiding behind these companies. I am calling on the government to implement the fifth measure.
The sixth and final measure is a very important one
:use the global financial crisis caused by the pandemic to launch a strong offensive at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development against tax havens with the aim of eradicating them.
As members know, in response to the 2008-09 financial crisis, the OECD has been working hard to combat the use of tax havens. It was then that countries started to seriously go after tax havens within the OECD by launching a broad multilateral instrument on international taxation and tax base recovery called the framework on base erosion and profit shifting, better known as BEPS. Some progress has been made since the initiative was launched, but not much.
We are facing a global economic crisis, as countries took on record amounts of debt in an effort to provide income support and stabilize the economy. These efforts are absolutely warranted when they are well done and well used. However, this crisis is a reason to emphasize that everyone needs to pay their fair share and implement, once and for all, the recommendations proposed by the OECD. This is extremely important. It is a matter of justice and tax fairness.
In conclusion, I remind members that less than two weeks ago the House adopted a motion setting out these six actions. We are calling on the government to move forward. These are good solutions, and the current pandemic is the right time to implement them.
View Gerald Soroka Profile
CPC (AB)
View Gerald Soroka Profile
2021-06-17 20:58 [p.8726]
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure tonight to rise in the House to speak to the main estimates for the Department of Transport. I note that I will be splitting my time with the member for Regina—Wascana.
Since the beginning of the current session of Parliament, it has been my pleasure to sit on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. This committee is filled with a good group of parliamentarians working to get answers for Canadians on transport-related issues and to secure the future of transport in this country.
This past fall, we began a study to examine the impacts of COVID-19 on the aviation sector in Canada. We heard heart-wrenching stories from many witnesses about how much of their workforce had to be laid off. Many were struggling to put food on the table in cases where there were gaps in federal support.
What is interesting to note is that, while some companies were getting little to no support and could not secure a meeting with the minister, other companies were receiving much more support and getting meetings with the minister on a regular basis. The patchwork approach the government has been taking when it comes to getting support to Canada's aviation sector ignores all the workers in the aviation sector who have lost their jobs as a result of the government's inaction on this file. Canadians have been watching closely over the past year, and many in this sector still have not received the support they require. Hope is dying.
It is nice for aviation workers to hear from the government that help is on the way, but when is it coming? When days turn into weeks, weeks turn into months and then months turn into over a year, I can see why so many in the industry who have still not received support have lost hope. However, members should note that not all airlines are still waiting for support. Air Canada received a $5-billion package from the government in April, and shortly after, it awarded more than $10 million in bonuses to executives and managers. The Conservatives have been clear from the beginning: We must get support out the door to those who need it most, and no taxpayer money should ever be used for executive bonuses.
A couple of weeks ago, I heard from a constituent who, prior to COVID, booked a vacation for himself and his wife for their 30th anniversary. Because of travel restrictions, their vacation was put on hold and they received a travel voucher that was good for 24 months. This was all good until my constituent lost his job because of COVID and needed to access the funds that were tied up in a vacation that he and his wife never got to go on.
Many travel companies have said that passenger refunds are tied to government support. Sunwing received a temporary support package back in February and set aside money for customers, but it has not dispensed that money, as it is still in negotiations with the government regarding its full support package.
The predicament this constituent and many other Canadians in similar situations now find themselves in is that they still have no clear indications from the government about when travel restrictions will be lifted, and the end of the 24-month period for the travel voucher is coming quickly. If the government does not soon finalize the support package, customers in this situation are at risk of losing the thousands of dollars they saved for a vacation that they may never get to go on. This is just one story of how the government's inaction on this issue is costing Canadians.
On the border, as I mentioned, the government has still not provided Canadians with any sort of indication as to when the border might open. The government waited far too long to close the border. Now we are nearing the end of the pandemic, and it refuses to provide Canadians with certainty as to when we will reopen it.
I would like to thank all those who work at the CBSA and have been challenged over the past year to quickly adapt to the ever-changing rules and travel restrictions thrown at them. COVID began in March 2020, and we knew very early on that COVID was entering Canada because we left our borders open and the government repeatedly failed to take meaningful action to secure them.
The spending that is occurring in the transport budget is important, and I agree that we must provide support to the industries that were hardest hit by COVID. However, with the government, we repeatedly see money being allocated in the budget and then either not getting out the door fast enough, like all of the lapsed infrastructure spending, or getting out the door and into the wrong hands, like with the WE Charity scandal and Air Canada's executive compensation package.
An area that needs support is the tourism industry. When I talk about targeted support being needed, an area that comes to mind with a shortfall is tourism.
COVID-19 has been incredibly tough on the tourism industry. I talk with many stakeholders in my riding, and a concern I hear from them is that, while the $500 million in support the government is offering is appreciated, when stretched to companies from coast to coast to coast, this support is being spread too thin. Businesses have suffered major losses through no fault of their own. The support they need should be available to continue their operations.
It is extremely important that we fully recover the tourism industry, especially in communities that rely on the industry as a significant part of their economy. A factor we need to think about in relation to tourism recovery is the transportation of people and how easy it is for tourists to get to their destinations. In many cases, taking a bus over a flight or driving can make for a more economical vacation. With the closing of Greyhound Canada, this is leaving a gap in our transportation network.
Many Canadians across Canada who live in rural or more remote regions depend on intercity bus services to travel large distances between smaller towns and urban areas. As Greyhound continues to operate in the United States, we must recognize that the decision to close down operations in Canada will have a ripple effect on our tourism industry and will result in consumers having less choice in how they reach their vacation destinations.
Our transportation sector is of vital importance for the tens of thousands of Canadians employed in the sector. These are real people who need support and must not be treated as political pawns. For nearly a year, the government has been promising them support but repeatedly failing to deliver in a meaningful way.
To conclude, my Conservative colleagues and I are calling on the government to deliver support to our aviation sector. That means restoring Canada's regional routes, ensuring passengers receive refunds, making sure travel agent commissions are not clawed back, ensuring Nav Canada maintains adequate service levels for air traffic controls and bringing forward a comprehensive travel restart plan so that Canadians are no longer left in the dark.
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.
I am pleased to rise this evening to speak to our privilege motion, which I am going to take the time to reread for those who are watching at home. This is what we are calling for:
That the House find the Public Health Agency of Canada to be in contempt for its failure to obey the order of the House, adopted on June 2, 2021, as well as the orders of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, adopted on March 31 and May 10, 2021, and, accordingly, order its President to attend at the bar of the House, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions on the second sitting day following the adoption of this order, for the purposes of (a) receiving, on behalf of the Agency, an admonishment delivered by the Speaker; and (b) delivering up the documents ordered by the House, on June 2, 2021, to be produced, so that they may be deposited with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel under the terms of that order.
As we can see from reading this privilege motion, this is an extremely important issue for democracy and respect for the authority of the House.
Today, sadly, we are not surprised by the way this government has acted over the last five, almost six, years. However, rarely in over 150 years have such events occurred in the House of Commons. Such a profound lack of respect for the institution will go down in history, but for the wrong reasons.
I would like to come back to the issue at hand. How did we get to where we are today? First of all, this all started with a CBC news story in July 2019 reporting that two Chinese scientists had been expelled from the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, a level 4 facility. This news came as a surprise to us, but it was a bit nebulous as we were unsure, waiting for more information. Meanwhile, the COVID‑19 pandemic began, and we went into “COVID mode” all through 2020.
During that time, the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations was doing a study on Hong Kong. Later, after passing a motion I presented to the committee, it undertook a study on national security in Canada-China relations. This study included evaluating various levels and aspects of security, like defence. One of the points studied just happened to be the relationship between China and the Public Health Agency of Canada, and that is where everything began to point to the problem we face today.
On March 22, the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada, Iain Stewart, appeared before the committee, only to tell us that he would say nothing. Committee members exchanged some glances and asked the usual questions about various files, but especially about Winnipeg. The agency remained secretive and we had no way of finding out anything at all. As a result, we became suspicious and questions were asked.
Then we asked for an emergency committee meeting on March 31 and summoned the House of Commons law clerk, Philippe Dufresne, and the deputy law clerk, Michel Bédard. We asked them for advice. We asked them to explain our rights and how to exercise those rights. They explained the procedure and said it was normal for a committee like the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations to ask questions and get the documents it sends for.
At that same meeting, we moved a motion calling on the Public Health Agency of Canada to turn the required documents over to the law clerks so they could redact personal information and anything to do with national security.
Several weeks later, we got another surprise. The agency produced documents, and those documents were redacted, but not by our House of Commons law clerks. The president of the agency and his team had taken it upon themselves to decide what should be redacted.
On May 10, the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations held another meeting, which was attended by the law clerks, who are officers of the House, and the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada with his lawyer. We asked them to explain the process to us, and the law clerks once again clarified that it was their job to analyze documents provided by a government agency because they had the authority and credentials to do that analysis.
That is great, so why did they not proceed that way? At that same meeting on May 10, there was another surprise when the Liberal member for Cumberland—Colchester moved a motion calling for the documents to be provided, for the law clerks to do their job and, if that did not work, for the matter to be referred to the House of Commons. What was bound to happen did happen; once again, that did not work, and the matter was referred to House.
After the debate on the motion in the House on June 2, the House adopted an order requiring the Public Health Agency of Canada and its president to provide the documents, as requested, to the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations.
Someone, somewhere, then had the idea to send the documents to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, simply to get the job done and be able to say that the documents had been sent to a committee.
The order of the House called for the documents to be sent to the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, which has law clerks in place who can do the work. Despite that, the documents were sent to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians in an effort to have Canadians believe that this committee could do the work because it included Conservative members and now Bloc members. This was done in the hope that everyone would be happy.
However, that is an ultra-secret committee. The two Conservative members and the one Bloc member who serve on it must keep quiet for the rest of their lives about anything they might learn, see or hear. They will eventually conduct an analysis and submit a report to the Prime Minister, although he will not learn anything new, since he already has the information and knows what happened in Winnipeg, as do all government members. Sending this to the committee of parliamentarians is a charade. Three opposition members who are sworn to secrecy for the rest of their lives will know what happened, but they can never tell, so nothing will ever come of it.
It is quite obvious that this is the government's plan. This is yet another affront to the House of Commons, because that committee of parliamentarians has nothing to do with this file and because it is not a parliamentary committee like other House of Commons committees. Furthermore, this violates the order given to submit the documents to the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations.
Not only is it an affront to parliamentarians, but it is also an affront to officers of Parliament, which shocks me. Law Clerk Philippe Dufresne and Deputy Law Clerk Michel Bédard are members of the House of Commons team, just like the clerks. They are not elected members or members of the opposition. They are members of the staff who were chosen on the basis of their skills and abilities to deal with information so as to ensure that security and personal information are protected. Why would we not trust our law clerks and submit the documents to them as requested? These documents would have been processed and submitted to the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations according to the rules. Why play around with that?
This means that there is an even more serious problem and that something dangerous beyond our imagination happened between the Winnipeg lab, the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Chinese army. There is something very serious going on. The Liberals' manoeuvres are only amplifying the problem, making the situation more sensitive and creating a huge issue.
The Conservatives do not want to fearmonger. We simply want to know what happened. There are ways to talk with the opposition. We are all Canadians, no matter our political allegiances. We all have the right to know what happens here in our country.
View John Brassard Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Speaker, before I start, I want to advise you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.
I want to begin my comments by saying thank you for the ruling today. I know that the opposition requested you to deliberate over what had happened with respect to the redacted documents, and you came back with a very fair ruling that respects the democratic principles of this institution. You ruled that Parliament does in fact reign supreme and that the committees do have significant powers. It was a very respectful ruling and one that leads us to this evening and this debate.
I will remind you of what you said this afternoon as you ruled that the government breached parliamentary privileges by failing to provide the parliamentary body with secret documents that would explain the firing of two scientists at Canada's top infectious disease lab in Winnipeg.
You went further, Mr. Speaker, as you know, to say that it is up to the opposition House leader who asked for the ruling to decide on a follow-up motion that might censure the government or refer the matter for more study. That is precisely where we are this evening.
The motion that was put forward by the opposition House leader speaks to the fact that the House finds the Public Health Agency of Canada to be in contempt for its failure to obey the order of the House adopted on June 2, 2021, as well as the orders of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations adopted on March 31 and May 10.
That is a very important issue here, because there have been three orders, two by committee and one by this body, for those documents to be provided to the parliamentary law clerk and to House administration officials. The order is for the president to:
attend the Bar of the House, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions on the second sitting day following the adoption of this Order, for the purposes of (a) receiving, on behalf of the Agency, an admonishment delivered by the Speaker; and (b) delivering up the documents ordered by this House on June 2, 2021 to be produced, so that they may be deposited with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel under the terms of that Order.
For any Canadian who is watching this debate tonight, and I have sat here for most of it, it is rather disturbing to see the government trying to not provide the information that has been ordered by Parliament or by these committees. This is a systemic problem that has been going on for as long as I and many members on the opposition side have been in this Parliament. We see a government that really, despite the words of openness and transparency that the Liberals ran on in 2015, is anything but open and transparent.
What the government would prefer more than anything, especially given the time that we are in right now, would be to have an audience rather than an opposition. All parties in opposition in this House have effectively done what they are mandated to do, and that is to hold the government to account.
When the facts of this case came out, they were disturbing. I will remind the House again, for the sake of Canadians who are watching, how we got to this point. This is critically important.
There were two scientists who were dismissed in January from the Winnipeg lab after their security clearances were revoked in July 2019, and the RCMP was called in to investigate. Xiangguo Qiu, the former head of a key program at the lab, and her biologist husband, Keding Cheng, had been the focus of parliamentary debate for weeks as opposition members became aware and had sought information about this situation.
In May, Canada's spy agency had urged the removal of security clearances for the two scientists and an unknown number of Dr. Qiu's students from China relating to the Wuhan facility and other national security matters.
For months before the couple were expelled from the lab in 2019, access to information documents show that Dr. Qiu played a key role in shipping two exceptionally virulent viruses, Ebola and Henipah, to China's Wuhan Institute. When this became public, the first response from the government was that it was an issue of privacy. It even sprinkled a little racism in there as the opposition, as a result of these published reports coming out and the fact that the RCMP and Canada's spy agency were involved, tried to get answers about what was going on. Then it went into national security issues. As I said earlier, two committees of Parliament, plus this body itself, ordered the government to provide those unredacted documents to the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel so that they could be studied by, as you said, Mr. Speaker, a body that is supreme in this place, yet those documents were not provided in the manner in which they were requested.
It is somewhat disturbing that we have seen this systemic pattern, as I said earlier, of a government that has failed in many cases over the last six years to be transparent and accountable to what ultimately reigns supreme in this place, and that is Parliament. It is quite disturbing that we have come to this point.
We have seen that this is the government that ran in 2015 on the issue of transparency and accountability. Over the course of the government being in power, we have seen the WE situation. We have seen the Prime Minister charged with ethics violations and found guilty. The list of the government's violations of accountability and transparency is as long as the day. This has caused me as a parliamentarian, my constituents and Canadians in general to be extremely cynical about what the government is doing by not being transparent.
I know the government's argument and I have listened to some of the arguments tonight. The argument has been that this information would be provided to the national security committee, but as the Speaker ruled, it is not a committee of Parliament. I think it was important to make the distinction that it serves at the whim of the Prime Minister and the executive branch of the government, which, by virtue of that association, makes it unaccountable to this Parliament. The information that the committee can create and develop is only given to the Prime Minister. That means that Canadians run the risk of not having that information available to them.
We do not naively think that national security is not important. We all know that the first and primary role of government, any level of government, is to make sure that its citizens are secure. That is why, in the best interests of our national security, both the committee and Parliament itself in its order made sure that there would be processes in place to protect information.
Mr. Speaker, this motion that we are debating tonight as a result of your ruling today is a critical one to indicate to the government that it cannot just run roughshod over parliamentary authority.
There have been examples of that in the past. An example that occurred when this pandemic first started was brought up earlier tonight. One of the first pieces of legislation that the government tried to introduce was an attempt to impose unreserved, unconditional tax and spending powers that would have effectively made Parliament irrelevant until January 2022. If it were not for the opposition, all of us, and if it were not for Canadians and journalists pushing back on this power grab by the government, I would hate to think where we would be today. It is not surprising to me and it should not surprise any Canadian when the Prime Minister says that there is something about China's basic dictatorship that he likes and admires. He was not kidding. We have seen this pattern over and over again over the course of the last six years.
Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by thanking you for protecting this institution, for being the last line of defence in our democracy and for being there for Canadians.
View Stephanie Kusie Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak in this chamber. I will start by saying that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot, so I look forward to his comments at the conclusion of mine. As indicated, this current debate is regarding the concurring report from the foreign affairs committee, which condemns the imposition of sanctions by the Government of China on the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.
I will start off by saying that I am actually quite shocked that there was concurrence with this decision and with this report, because this certainly does not match the legacy of foreign affairs and foreign affairs strategy, or lack thereof, and direction from the government. From the top, it would seem that this concurrence report is about China, and, yes, it certainly is about China, so let us talk about China for a moment and its atrocities on Canada, Canadians and the world.
Of course, there is the horrible genocide of the Uighurs, and it was the member for Wellington—Halton Hills speaking up about this and taking a principled stand in the House that earned him these sanctions, but in addition to that, we have more than two years of the arbitrary incarceration of Kovrig and Spavor. That is something that we can be disgusted about, regarding the People's Republic of China.
In addition, there is the banning of imports. In particular, with pulses, we saw the terrible trickle-down effect this had for our agriculture and for our farmers, but Canadians have not been alone, in terms of the effects felt from China. Schellenberg remains on death row. Taiwan has faced horror as China's next-door neighbour under constant threat, but my point here tonight is not that.
This concurrence report is not about China. This concurrence report is about the types of leaders in the world who are willing to stand up to the world's dictators and determine the direction that the world will go in. There are two types of leaders. There is the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, who I will go back to, and there is the Prime Minister, who has praised the dictatorship of China; the Prime Minister, who wrote a tearful eulogy for the passing of one of the greatest dictators Latin America has known; the Prime Minister, who has donated more than $50 million to the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank to contribute to the Belt and Road Initiative around the world that keeps developing nations captive.
That is one type of leader, the Prime Minister that this world has, but it is not the type of leader the world needs. The type of leader the world needs is the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, who said that he would wear these sanctions like a badge of honour. He went further than that. He said in the House:
The sanctions imposed on me and others have brought us together. They have backfired. I have met with elected parliamentarians who have been sanctioned in the United Kingdom, the European Union and members of national parliaments throughout Europe. The sanctions have brought us together and have brought us together in action.
He continued:
The sanctions imposed on me and others are a clumsy effort by the People's Republic of China to silence the free speech and open debate at the heart of Liberal democracies. They will work if we are silent. We cannot be silent. We cannot lose the hard-won and hard-fought-for ideals that underpin our democracies: a belief in liberty and freedom, a belief in human rights, a belief in democratic institutions and a belief in the rule of law. For if we are silent, we will let these hard-won and cherished beliefs be lost to a new ascendant model of authoritarianism, repression and fear.
I will add that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills was in good company in the last administration of the Canadian government with Harper, John Baird and my predecessor in Calgary Midnapore, Jason Kenney, because they were a government that was governed by the values of democracy, the rule of law and human rights, all of which have been lost by the current government.
I am pleased to see concurrence in this report. However, this report is not about China. It is about the types of leaders in the world who are willing to stand up for the values that will put the world forward, and one of those leaders is the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Pablo Rodriguez Profile
2021-06-15 10:45 [p.8432]
Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mont‑Royal.
I am very pleased to be participating in today's debate. It is in a way the continuation of a debate held in the House in 2006 when I was a young member of Parliament. Well, at least I was a little younger than I am now, and my hair was not quite so white. It was an important debate for me because we were preparing to vote in favour of recognizing the Quebec nation. Obviously, I voted in favour of the motion because, in my opinion, it is a simple fact.
We had had an extremely interesting debate, and I remember very clearly that the vast majority of the members present voted in favour of the motion recognizing that Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada.
My former colleague Stéphane Dion aptly summarized the conclusion of the debate. He said, “we all agree on what is basic in this, which is, for those who are Quebeckers, that we are proud to be Quebeckers and Canadians, and that other Canadians are proud to have Quebec as part of their country.” As a result, the debate in the House of Commons on the recognition that Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada was held and settled in 2006.
The Bloc Québécois may not like what I am about to say, because they would prefer an argument. We clearly recognize that French is the official language of Quebec. I will say it again: French is the official language of Quebec. We also recognize the key role that Bill 101, or the Charter of the French Language, has played in preserving and strengthening the French language in Quebec. I have always supported Bill 101. Since we wish to modernize the Official Languages Act, we understand and respect the Quebec government's desire to do the same with the Charter of the French Language.
With respect to Quebec's desire to enshrine this symbolic recognition in the province's constitution, I think I can safely say that Quebec has a certain amount of leeway that allows it to make changes, provided it is clearly stated that the suggested amendments cannot directly or indirectly modify the scope of the provisions of the Canadian Constitution. We all agree on that.
In other words, it must be stated that the Quebec government's bill does not erode other laws that protect the language rights of the English-speaking community in Quebec. Obviously, there will be several debates in Quebec's National Assembly and throughout Quebec on this very important topic. I will follow these debates with a great deal of interest.
Although it is true that symbols are important, it is also true that actions are even more important. Actions speak louder than words. The government has signalled its intention to take action to counter the decline of French across the country. In fact, our ambitions are not limited to countering the decline of French. We want to take action to encourage people to learn and use French and to foster the development of francophone communities across the country.
In the throne speech and budget 2021, we clearly stated that we are responsible for protecting and promoting the French language, not only outside Quebec, but in Quebec as well, while continuing to fully respect the rights of the English-speaking minority.
The reason I am talking about the need to protect French in Quebec is that French is in decline even in Quebec, especially in the greater Montreal area. That decline can sometimes be seen in the way people are greeted in shops and restaurants. It can be seen on some signs and heard on the street and on the radio. It can be seen in the statistics on the decline of French and rise of English, particularly in both public- and private-sector workplaces.
As a Quebecker and a Canadian, I am very concerned about the decline of French, and so is the government. I know that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Official Languages are especially concerned. Every member of the House who wants to protect a fundamental trait of our country, namely the existence of two official languages, should be concerned. Allow me to make it clear that the federal government wants to protect and promote French.
That desire to act on all fronts is written in black and white in the bill that my colleague, the Minister of Official Languages, tabled in the House. The federal government will protect French by taking action in federally regulated sectors, which include banks and communications and transportation companies. All federally regulated employers, of which there are about 18,000, will have linguistic obligations, not only in Quebec, but also in regions with a strong francophone presence outside Quebec.
Drawing inspiration from the Charter of the French Language, we will pass laws on the right to be served and to work in French in federally regulated private businesses in Quebec and in regions with a strong francophone presence across Canada. That is a significant step. We will be creating language-of-work and language-of-service rights that will foster the use of French in Quebec and across Canada. We are doing this because we recognize that we need to do more to support French and to achieve real equality between the two official languages.
To quote Aristotle, “The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.” Facts are facts, and the fact is that French is not equal to English in our country and even less so in North America. As noted in the throne speech, Canada's approximately eight million francophones are surrounded by an ocean of more than 360 million primarily anglophone inhabitants of North America. As such, it is our responsibility to take action in areas within our purview to protect that minority and ourselves.
I want to stress that the reform we are proposing would in no way curtail the rights of Quebec's anglophone minority. I do not think the Bloc Québécois or anyone else wants that. However, we do know that if the French language is to continue to thrive in Quebec—and this is even more so the case outside Quebec—precise, vigorous and ambitious measures must be instituted immediately. That is what we will do, and we will also be working on a number of fronts. For instance, we will lean on cultural institutions such as Telefilm Canada, the National Film Board of Canada, and CBC/Radio-Canada, requiring them to support French-language content.
We will adopt measures to promote francophone immigration to try to counter the very worrisome trend of declining francophone demographics in the country. We will increase French-language learning opportunities for all Canadians. We will make it official policy to appoint bilingual justices to the Supreme Court of Canada, a move the Conservatives oppose, for some reason. We will strengthen some of the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages, and much more.
The reason I mentioned jurisdiction earlier is that, as the Liberal party's Quebec's lieutenant, it is fundamental to me. Jurisdictions must be respected and that is why, whether it is the right to work in French in federally regulated businesses or the right to be informed and served in French by those same businesses, we are clearly acting within our jurisdictions. Not only are we acting clearly, but we will act clearly in our areas of jurisdiction.
At the same time, this measure we have included in our bill to modernize the Official Languages Act affords us a prime opportunity to work closely with the Quebec government. If we want the new federal system to coexist with the French-language requirements, we need to work together and we want to. That is what underpins what we are doing and that is what is written into the bill. That is also the spirit of the bill, this willingness to work with Quebec to strengthen and promote French, the language that I cherish, that we cherish and that is so beautiful. We must do more to protect it, to share it and to strengthen it.
View Richard Martel Profile
CPC (QC)
View Richard Martel Profile
2021-06-15 11:17 [p.8437]
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston.
Since the very beginning of what would become Canada, the French language has been a fundamental characteristic of our people. In 1534, when Jacques Cartier set foot on the shores of the St. Lawrence River, he did more than just discover a land unknown to Europeans, he marked the beginning of something wonderful.
As an explorer, he dreamed of achieving great things. Of course, the future held a land and a culture where amazing things would happen and where a unique people would be born. Over the years, we saw Cartier's dream develop and become the country we know today. Our history is essential. We teach it in our schools. We learn from it as part of our work, and our culture allows us to remember it.
Although things can change or evolve over time, one thing has stayed constant. One of the elements found in all the years of our country's history is the French language. It has been a driving force for our people and a source of pride. It continues to be an integral part of the identity of Canadians and Quebeckers.
The Conservative Party of Canada understands this. We also understand the unique character of Quebec beyond the French language. A Conservative government will always respect provincial jurisdiction, including the ability of any province to unilaterally amend the section of the Constitution that deals exclusively with its own internal governance. Both the British North America Act and section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982, allow the provinces to do this.
Most of them have already used this power. Quebec, Manitoba and the Atlantic provinces abolished their provincial upper houses between 1876 and 1968. Alberta and British Columbia abolished multi-member ridings. Alberta amended its constitution in 1990 to guarantee its Métis communities land title and other rights.
The province of Newfoundland used its powers to change its name to Newfoundland and Labrador in 2001. Given all these examples, it would be discriminatory to prohibit Quebec from using these same laws to do what is best for its people. As a province and as a people, we stand out in Canada and in the world, and our party has always supported this.
Provincial autonomy is important and is something that the Conservatives, unlike our Liberal colleagues, deeply respect. Members will recall that, in 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper fought to give Quebec a seat at UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. This important step was a proud moment for the province. Its natural beauty, rich history and wonderful culture are international jewels and deserve to be recognized.
Quebec is one of the many things that make Canada so unique. Internationally, Quebec makes a valuable contribution to the arts, science, technology and culture. Our solid industries, talented artists and creative students have made their way to many parts of the world. This deserved to be celebrated in 2006, as it does today. That is a good example of the Conservative Party's determination to promote Quebec globally, its pride in la belle province and its commitment to provincial autonomy.
Prime Minister Harper, in particular, defended Quebec and ensured that we were not forgotten. His motion for recognition of the Quebec nation by the federal government was a major step forward. Mr. Harper and the entire Conservative Party wanted the House to recognize that “the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada”.
That second example makes me think of our founding fathers, who shared that same vision. Thanks to the efforts of Macdonald and Cartier in the second half of the 19th century, we became a unique and magnificent country unlike any other the world over. Their work laid the foundation for our political system and ensured that the French language maintained its important status in our society when Upper Canada and Lower Canada united. Cartier himself played a pivotal role in the formation of the Great Coalition, which was one of the first steps along the path to Confederation. His presence in London, Charlottetown and Quebec City was of crucial importance, and it was largely because of him that Quebec became part of the Dominion of Canada.
Our Confederation and our provincial structure function harmoniously and in unison when the government does not overstep its bounds and respects the provinces' authority and responsibilities. That applies just as much to Quebec as it does to Alberta, Ontario and every other province and territory in our great country.
While that authority applies for all provinces, I believe it is important to single out Quebec's unique history. That deserves our special attention because French Canadians are a minority in Canada and in North America. As a proud and confident people, we have too often felt forgotten. It is time to take action and get on top of things. When we want something, we have to go get it. Nobody is going to serve up what we want on a silver platter. We have to speak up about what we want and fight to get it.
One of the Conservative Party's fundamental beliefs is that the people of this country are capable of working hard to get what they want, and I see that value reflected in today's political system. Quebec knows what it has to do to get what it wants, and that is exactly what is happening.
Even today, provincial autonomy and jurisdictions are not fully respected. When it comes to health transfers to the provinces, the Prime Minister made some promises with exceptions attached and agreed to some requests, but again only with conditions attached. The Prime Minister has never been a partner to the provinces, and he keeps interfering in provincial jurisdictions by making promises with strings attached. Federal centralization is an ongoing phenomenon that leads to complications with the provinces. It is time to stop this back and forth and properly recognize the authority of the provinces.
This is not a new issue. Quebec has always had to fight for its language, from the time French and English settlers fought hundreds of years ago until the implementation of laws like Bill 101 in Quebec. The Quebec Act, the Official Languages Act and many others were battles fought at the expense of the French language.
The 2016 census found that nearly 80% of Quebeckers speak French as their mother tongue. That is more than six million people. Despite this huge number of French Canadians, the Liberal government continues to neglect Quebec. The Liberals have had since 2015 to overhaul official languages, but they have not done so. The government needs a better understanding of the importance of provincial jurisdiction and the Quebec nation.
Today's motion has my support and the support of our party. Under section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982, Quebec and the provinces should have exclusive jurisdiction to amend their respective constitutions. It is not that Quebec wants to enshrine its nationhood in its constitution, it is that Quebec needs to preserve our heritage and our nation in a meaningful way.
Although we recognize the presence of anglophone minority groups in Quebec, the common language of the Quebec nation is French, and it should be the only official language of our province. In other words, our house is built on a French foundation. We must ensure that the foundation remains solid, and we must upgrade the structure over time to ensure its integrity.
Our history is rich and complex and goes beyond language laws, but it guides our identity and shapes our culture.
View Alexandre Boulerice Profile
NDP (QC)
Madam Speaker, I will share my time with my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby.
I am pleased to take part in the debate on this extremely interesting motion as the work of the House draws to a close.
The motion before us is quite interesting because it articulates certain facts that are well established, some of them for quite some time. This motion is therefore both political and symbolic, but it is not binding in any way. If this motion is adopted, not much will change for Quebeckers even though the notions and concepts within have gained broad consensus. It has been clear since this morning that there is consensus in the House.
I do not think there is unanimous support for the motion, and there may be some nuances and concerns. There is one thing in particular that we are concerned about, and I will get back to that. Nevertheless, I think there is broad consensus around the motion's three main points.
The motion contains three elements: the Constitution, the nation and the French language.
With respect to the Constitution, the Government of Quebec has tabled Bill 96, which proposes to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, to insert Quebec's fundamental characteristics, including the fact that Quebeckers form a nation and that French is the only official language of Quebec and thus constitutes the common language of the Quebec nation.
Specifically, these amendments would be inserted after section 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867. This proposal would allow Quebec to amend its own constitution. It could therefore amend the Quebec section of Canadian Constitution. In fact, section 45 of the Canadian Constitution provides for that; it says, and I quote:
45 Subject to section 41, the legislature of each province may exclusively make laws amending the constitution of the province.
This is also the consensus among certain experts. I will quote Benoît Pelletier, a former Quebec cabinet member who is now a law professor at the University of Ottawa. Recently, he was seriously ill with COVID‑19 and I wish him a speedy recovery and good health.
He said, “If you ask me, what the Quebec government is proposing falls under section 45, which is why I said it is constitutional and legal.”
The first point in the motion proposes a constitutional change, which is really quite innovative. This has never been done before and would have an impact on legal interpretation. That impact would not be all-encompassing, but would be certain. Quebec has the prerogative to do this.
The motion proposes to amend the Quebec section of the Constitution to state that Quebec is a nation and that French is its official language. This is part of what New Democrats have long proposed as a progressive force and corresponds to our values. This vision and direction is entirely consistent with the Sherbrooke declaration adopted by the NDP in 2005. I will quote from it, because it is directly relevant to the discussion we are having today.
The Sherbrooke declaration is clear on this matter. It states:
The New Democratic Party recognizes the national character of Québec and believes that that character can be expressed in the context of the Canadian federation.
The national character of Québec is based primarily, but not exclusively, on:
i. a primarily francophone society in which French is recognized as the language of work and the common public language.
That is extremely important. It confirms that culturally, historically, sociologically and politically, Quebec is not a province like the others. It is a nation within the federation.
That is why the NDP advocates something called asymmetrical federalism, which allows Quebec to opt out of new federal programs with financial compensation. It is offered to Quebec based on this recognition of its nationhood.
The nation was recognized more broadly by this Parliament in 2006. Once again, we are not reinventing the wheel. That said, I am very proud that we can recognize a modern, diverse, positive and inclusive Quebec nation that is open to the world. This nation makes room for newcomers, who enrich our shared culture and living space, and for influences from around the world.
In this regard, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about one of the successes of the Charter of the French Language. The third point that I wish to address, after the Constitution and the nation, is the French language.
I would remind the House that French has been the official language since 1974, when the Liberal government of Robert Bourassa passed Bill 22, or “le gros bill”, as Yvon Deschamps would say. This legislation made French the official language in a number of areas. That is when French became the language of legislation and the courts, of public administration, of public utility companies and professional orders, as well as the language of business, work and education, with some exceptions and exclusions. Bill 22 lasted about three years before it was replaced by the Charter of the French Language, also known as Bill 101.
In a Quebec that is open to the world, that welcomes people who want to come here and contribute to the development of our society and our world, one of the great successes of the Charter of the French Language and Bill 101 is, in my opinion, compulsory education in French for the children of immigrants.
I have been a member for a Montreal riding for a few years now. I have lived in Montreal for over 25 years. It is always extremely touching to see boys and girls, from all over the world, speaking to each other in French, playing in French in the schoolyard and having fun in French after school. It is a great achievement of the Quebec government and the Charter of the French Language to have been able to ensure this renewal through the newcomers who join our society and our nation.
I know many people very well who are children of Bill 101. They are people who work for the NDP, but there is also someone with whom I share my life, who works in French and for whom French is the third language. There is a history within the NDP of wanting to strengthen the French position, not only in Quebec, but also in Canada, where the French language is in an extreme minority situation. As has been pointed out several times today, francophones account for about 2% to 3% of North America's population. Not only are francophones a barely represented demographic, but they are also subjected to the cultural influence of the American giant and its cultural imperialism, which overflows its borders and has spread around the world. It is extremely important to remain very vigilant.
In 2013, we accomplished something great when our former member Alexandrine Latendresse succeeded in passing a bill requiring all officers of Parliament, like the Auditor General, to be bilingual. It was a step forward, something important that we wished to have. We have always fought for the right of Quebeckers to work in French and communicate with their employers in French. These are principles of the Charter of the French Language, that is to say the possibility for these workers, who account for about 10% of Quebec's workforce, to have the same rights as those who work for federally regulated businesses.
It is a matter of defending French, as well as a matter of equal rights for workers. We are in an absurd situation right now where a person who works at the credit union has certain language rights that someone who works at a Royal Bank or a Bank of Montreal does not. We need to fix this problem.
Recently, in 2020, I tabled a motion that received unanimous consent in the House. It aimed to recognize the decline of French, as well as the need for a plan to stop the decline and protect French across Canada.
On this third point, I would like to conclude by saying that we do not want this motion to have an adverse effect on the recognition of indigenous languages in Quebec. The National Assembly and the Quebec government have recognized the status of indigenous languages in Quebec for years. One does not preclude the other. Recognizing that French is the common and official language of Quebec should never adversely effect our recognition of indigenous languages and the fact that we want to make sure that they continue to exist and develop in Quebec.
View Darrell Samson Profile
Lib. (NS)
Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to the motion moved by the Bloc Québécois. I will be sharing my time with the member for Hochelaga.
In my speech, I will be talking about who I am and where I come from. I will, of course, also talk about the Conservatives' record, our successes as a government, the Bloc's motion and the plan to modernize the Official Languages Act.
I am a proud Acadian from Nova Scotia. I come from Isle Madame, a small island just off Cape Breton Island. Isle Madame is about 14 kilometres by 11 kilometres, and more than 97% of residents speak French.
I also want to point out that the Samson family monument in Lévis was erected in honour of brothers Jacques and Gabriel to commemorate Canada's 100th anniversary.
As members know, I grew up in a minority setting in Nova Scotia. French-language education was not guaranteed. I did all of my schooling in English because there was no French school. However, I remember my father saying in 1969 that Canada was going to change and that bilingualism and the two official languages would be part of the new Canada.
As well, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was adopted in 1982, and section 23 guarantees minority language education rights. This section has been enormously helpful for communities across Canada. Starting in 1990, francophone school boards were created in provinces across the country. In 1996, the Conseil scolaire acadien provincial was founded in Nova Scotia, and there were finally French schools across the province.
In 2005, I became the executive director of this school board, a position I held for almost 11 years before being elected as a member of Parliament. It is a remarkable and interesting fact that during those years, the number of students doubled.
In 2015, I was elected as part of the Liberal government, and I sat on the Standing Committee on Official Languages for four years.
I was also the founder and president of the Liberal caucus of official language minority communities. In addition, I was elected president of the Canadian Branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie and vice-president at the international level. Clearly, the work is still going on, not only in Canada and Quebec, but also internationally. That is very important.
Let us now talk about the Conservatives' track record. Today, the Conservatives are talking about everything that they are going to do, but one need only look back at what they accomplished during their 10 years in office to see that we need take no lessons from them in this regard.
In 2006, the Conservatives did away with the court challenges program, which we reinstated in 2017. They gutted the Translation Bureau. They reduced the number of employees so that they could give contracts to translation firms, whose quality of work is much lower than that of Translation Bureau employees.
What is more, the Conservatives did not make any additional efforts to increase francophone immigration, and the targets were not met.
When we took office, we reinstated the Mobilité francophone immigration stream. We also awarded additional points to francophone immigrants under the express entry program.
In their 10 years in office, the Conservatives never increased funding for the language communities. In contrast, we enhanced those agreements by increasing funding by $500 million over five years.
Our government has had other successes. When it comes to education, we signed the very first strategic agreement with the Fédération nationale des conseils scolaires francophones.
A year ago, we saw a complete enumeration of rights holders, who are classified into three categories. As part of the 2021 census, members of this community were able to answer questions about being rights holders.
In addition, our government has revised the official languages regulations on service delivery, adding 600 designated bilingual offices across Canada, a very significant increase. We have also partnered with the provinces to put in place a multilateral early learning and child care framework that includes an official languages clause guaranteeing linguistic minorities their fair share.
The Bloc Québécois talks about its motion as if it were going to change the world, but it forgets that there are many Quebeckers and many francophones in our party. We agree that Quebec is a nation within Canada and that French is Quebec's only official language. We already know that the only province that has both of Canada's official languages as its provincial languages is New Brunswick. The other provinces are officially English, but Quebec is French. We already recognize that, just as we recognize that Quebec has the right to amend its own constitution, within the parameters of section 133.
Our government recognizes that French is in decline. In the Speech from the Throne, we made it clear that we would not only protect French outside Quebec, but also within Quebec. Our government recognizes the importance of Quebec and its role within Canada. As the only French-speaking state in North America, Quebec has a special responsibility to promote the French language throughout Canada. The vitality of French in this country depends in part on its actions and its connection with francophones living in minority communities.
The Quebec government supports the Canadian francophonie in various ways. Our government supports francophones and French in Quebec and supports linguistic minorities across Canada. That is why I am so proud to be part of our government. I am also proud of the bill we introduced today. We will protect and promote the use of French across Canada, including Quebec. We will protect linguistic minorities. We are currently modernizing the Official Languages Act. That is very important, because we are going to ensure the vitality of our institutions and our communities.
We will ensure that bilingual justices are appointed to the Supreme Court. We will ensure that French is promoted in Quebec and across Canada. We will ensure that linguistic minorities across Canada are protected and promoted. We will ensure that francophone immigration is protected and promoted both within and outside Quebec, which will continue to be responsible for selecting and integrating immigrants within its territory.
In conclusion, we clearly recognize the two linguistic minorities in Canada. We have been there to protect and strengthen them. We will be there in the future to continue that work. We also recognize that, if we continue to work together, we can fulfill the aspirations of Quebeckers and linguistic minorities in Canada.
View Stéphane Bergeron Profile
BQ (QC)
View Stéphane Bergeron Profile
2021-06-15 13:20 [p.8454]
Madam Speaker, let me start by saying that it will be my great pleasure to share my time with my hon. colleague from Drummond.
I want to express just how honoured and moved I feel to be taking part in today's debate. This Bloc Québécois motion is about the core of who we are.
In my past life, I had the opportunity and the immense privilege to be a member of the House of Commons and the National Assembly of Quebec. My swearing in here in Ottawa was not a moment of celebration because I spent the whole time thinking about my Acadian ancestors who were deported on the grounds that they refused to pledge allegiance to Her Majesty. I was thinking about my Canadian ancestors who were not allowed to hold positions in government if they refused to swear the oath of allegiance.
When I first arrived at the National Assembly of Quebec, the swearing-in ceremony was a solemn and uplifting experience. The oath of allegiance in Quebec is the same as the one here in Ottawa, but we also pledge allegiance to Quebec's constitution and its people. Every member of the National Assembly of Quebec, no matter where they are from, what their first language is or what faith they profess, swears an oath to the constitution and people of Quebec.
To me, that makes all the difference in the world between the oath of allegiance we must swear here in the House of Commons and the oath of allegiance we swear at the National Assembly of Quebec. In the latter case, we do not need to explain to anyone, regardless of their ethnic origin, the religion they practice or their mother tongue, that Quebec is a people. It is assumed and patently clear.
Nor do we have to explain to Quebec MPs that there is a constitution of Quebec, which unlike the Constitution of Canada is not written in black and white on paper. They are constitutional conventions, I would even say constitutional traditions and a certain number of founding documents, including the Charter of the French Language, which establishes that French is the only official language of Quebec and the common language of all Quebeckers.
The purpose, in the spirit of Camille Laurin, was to ensure that in every schoolyard in Quebec, young Quebeckers speak French to one another, no matter their origin, religion or mother tongue. Quebeckers are a people.
As early as the 16th century, natives of this country were no longer called French. They were Canadians on Canadian land, and Acadians on Acadian land. Those who were born in this country were already no longer being called French.
After the conquest, a distinction was made between the English—who had just settled on the land, or more generally the British because of course there were Scots as well—and Canadians, who were descendants of the French. When the English started to identify as Canadians, descendants of the French started distinguishing themselves by referring to themselves as French Canadians and in Acadia as Acadians.
There was a pivotal moment called the Estates General of French Canada, during which Quebeckers asserted that they were not just French Canadians, because of their territory, their history and their distinct character, especially with respect to the law. Unlike the rest of Canada, Quebec uses civil law, not common law.
All these distinct characteristics meant that Quebeckers, not unlike Acadians, whose identity was forged by the absolutely horrific deportation, began to distance themselves from a French Canadian identity and embrace a Québécois identity.
People from Sri Lanka, Romania, Nigeria and Argentina found it difficult to adopt a French Canadian identity because of the history associated with that name, but it was much easier for them to identify as Quebeckers. In my previous stint as a federal MP, I debated this with some of our colleagues who were very attached to the notion of French Canadians. There was an integrative element to the change that came about in Quebec during the 1960s in the wake of the Quiet Revolution.
In the wake of the Quiet Revolution, we wanted to affirm the French character of Quebec through Bill 22, which was introduced by Robert Bourassa's government, as well as through Bill 101, which was introduced by René Lévesque's government in 1977. However, in 1982, a major change occurred, namely, the unilateral patriation of the Constitution, including the integration of a charter of rights and freedoms, which led to the invalidation of entire sections of the Charter of the French Language.
Today, we are seeing the results of that. Despite this protection, French has lost ground, even in Quebec. I commend this government for recognizing, for the very first time in the history of Parliament, that French is in decline, including in Quebec. I am willing to do that.
I am of Acadian descent and proud of it. I have always said, and I will say it again here, that the fate of Quebeckers is closely linked to that of Canada's francophone and Acadian communities and their fate is closely linked to that of Quebeckers. That is why it is extremely important for Quebec to be able to reaffirm its French character through Bill 96, which was introduced by the current government led by Premier François Legault. That bill proposes using a provision of the Constitution Act, 1982—the same Constitution that gutted entire sections of the Charter of the French language and that has led us to face the tragic fact that French is in decline in Quebec too—in order to reaffirm the fact that Quebec is a nation and that French is its official language and the common language of its members.
Now, does this mean, as in the days of the Estates General of French Canada, that Quebec wants to distance itself from the rest of French Canada? Of course not. On the contrary, I think that the more Quebec is able to affirm its French character and its distinctiveness, the more it will be able to extend its influence to all francophone and Acadian communities in Canada, and even in the United States, because I believe, and I reiterate, that our fates are intimately linked to each other.
View David Lametti Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
I was born in Ontario, in Niagara, surrounded by Franco-Ontarians. I chose to go to Quebec at the age of 25 to study civil law, and I settled there. That is where I made a career of teaching civil law in both French and English, and I had my children educated in French.
I am with the majority of Quebeckers who identify with both Quebec and Canada. This is complicated, but I would like to remind my colleagues on the other side of the House that the vast majority of Quebeckers identify not just with Quebec, obviously with pride, but also with Canada, with pride as well.
It is not every day that we have the opportunity to dwell on the procedure for amending the Constitution of Canada. My remarks will address the scope and nature of the indisputable authority of provincial legislatures to amend their provincial constitutions. I wish to make three points today.
First, since Confederation in 1867, provincial legislatures have had the authority to unilaterally amend certain aspects of their provincial constitutions.
Second, while the exercise of this constitutional amending power typically relates to the machinery of government, it can nevertheless be carried out by a provincial legislature that wishes to amend its provincial constitution by adding provisions relating to the specific nature of the province.
Third, although the procedure for unilateral amendment by provincial legislatures allows for certain adjustments to a province's constitution, those adjustments must necessarily be limited to that province.
That means one province cannot affect another by this amending procedure, nor can it affect, by this amending procedure, other provisions of the Constitution of Canada or the norms whose existence was essential to the compromise leading to Confederation.
The provincial legislatures have always had the authority to amend their own constitutions. Section 92(1) of what was then known as the British North America Act, permitted provincial legislatures to exclusively make laws in relation to the matters that included the amendment from time to time of the constitution of the province, except in regard to the office of the lieutenant-governor. That provision was repealed and replaced in 1982. The authority for the provinces to amend their own constitutions is now located in section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which provides that, subject to section 41, which deals with matters protected by unanimous consent procedure, the legislature of each province may exclusively make laws amending the constitution of the province.
As the successor to the provision under the former British North America Act, this provision has been held by the Supreme Court to be essentially equivalent in scope to its predecessor. For the legislatures to exercise the authority conferred by these unilateral amending procedures, all they need to do is legislate in the ordinary course. In short, then, we are not dealing with a new or even controversial power. Rather, it is a power as old as Confederation itself.
The constitutional amendments made under section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and under its precursor in what is now known as the Constitution Act, 1867, have generally been in connection with government institutions.
For example, provincial legislatures initially exercised this authority to adopt legislation regarding their privileges and immunities. This authority also enabled the provincial legislatures to abolish their own upper chambers. When that happened, some provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, the founding document of the Canadian Confederation, became obsolete.
For my last example, I will mention that provisions in a provincial law regarding the operation of the province's public service were deemed constitutional. There is therefore no doubt that the provincial legislatures can amend their province's constitution to a certain extent by adopting provisions regarding the operation of a provincial government body.
The instrument targeted by a constitutional amendment is important for determining the appropriate formula. That said, this factor alone must not be given undue weight. It would be impossible for a provincial legislature or for Parliament to indirectly amend the intangible provisions in the Canadian Constitution by adopting incompatible provisions in a separate piece of legislation.
The same is true for the rules of law in the provinces' constitutional texts. These provincial constitutions, along with the Canadian Constitution, are not all found within a single document labelled as the constitution. Rather, they consist of a set of texts, principles and agreements of a constitutional nature regarding the provincial governments. What matters is the nature of the amendment and the effect it will have. We would be putting form above substance if we were to only look at the title of the document being amended.
That being said, provisions enacted through the unilateral amendment procedure cannot amend the provisions of the Constitution of Canada, the supreme and entrenched law of the country. The authority that section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982, provides is limited to amending the constitution of the province. To make an amendment in relation to any provision of the Constitution of Canada that applies to one or more, but not all, provinces would require proceeding by way of the bilateral procedures set out in section 43 of the Constitution Act.
This would be the case, for instance, if a province intended to make an amendment to one of the provisions that relates to the use of English or French language within the province. It is through this procedure that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was amended to included section 16.1, which enshrines the equality of the French and English linguistic communities in the Province of New Brunswick.
An amendment may also be beyond the authority of the provincial legislatures under section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982, even though it alters the provision that bears on the operation of an organ of the government of the province. This will be the case where the provision is entrenched as being indivisibly related to the federal principle or to a fundamental term or condition of the union at Confederation. This is the case for section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
While it relates to the use of English and French in Parliament, in the legislature of Quebec and in the courts, it cannot be amended through either Parliament's unilateral amendment procedure or the provincial unilateral amendment procedure. Likewise, an amendment through the unilateral amendment procedure could not insulate provisions that conflict with the charter.
For instance, section 23 of the charter guarantees minority language educational rights to citizens of Canada. An amendment to this provision, which grants language rights to all Canadians in all of the provinces and territories, would require proceeding by way of unanimous consent procedure for amending the Constitution of Canada. This would require resolutions from the Senate, the House of Commons and the legislative assemblies of all 10 provinces.
That, however, is not what is being proposed by the bill introduced in the Quebec National Assembly. The amendment procedure relied upon in this case is the unilateral amendment procedure; because of this, the Constitution of Canada cannot be amended either directly or indirectly. The amendment may only relate to the constitution of the province. In that sense, the choice of procedure should guide our understanding of the proposal.
Keep in mind that the source of section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982, goes back to the days of Confederation. This limited authority to amend certain aspects of a province's constitution is reflected in section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which authorizes Parliament to unilaterally make certain amendments to the Constitution of Canada. These provisions recognize that Parliament and the provincial legislatures are equal partners in the Canadian constitutional structure.
While some elements of our constitutional order are, quite rightly, virtually immutable, others can still be amended in accordance with the constitutional architecture as a whole.
View Mario Beaulieu Profile
BQ (QC)
View Mario Beaulieu Profile
2021-06-15 15:27 [p.8475]
Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that I am sharing my time with the member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix.
The Government of Quebec wants to enshrine in its constitution that Quebeckers form a nation, that French is the only official language of Quebec and that it is the common language of the Quebec nation. Why? I believe Camille Laurin said it best in 1977: “By proclaiming French as Quebec's official language and by recognizing the right of all Quebeckers to use French in all facets of their lives, we are turning the language into a national public good, a common good for all Quebeckers, the best way to promote cohesion and dialogue between Quebeckers of different origins. We are giving Quebeckers a way to express their identity to the world.”
Previously, the Gendron commission had recommended that the Government of Quebec make French the shared language of all Quebeckers, a language that, being known by all, could be used as the instrument of communication in situations of contact between francophone and non-francophone Quebeckers. That is what a common language is. The point is not to enable francophones to speak French with each other. The point is to give people who speak different languages a way to communicate with each other and belong to the same public space, nation and people.
As the white paper on Bill 101 explained, that is what we see everywhere else in normal societies, including in Canada, where English is the common language outside of Quebec. In other words, French should be the common language of Quebec, as English is in Canada.
We have heard a lot of people say that Quebec was already recognized as a nation in 2006 and that the matter is settled, but it is not settled at all. Making French the only official and common language is not merely theoretical. It implies tangible measures and actions. It is the essential condition to ensure the future of French and to make it the language of integration and inclusion of newcomers.
The federal government, which, need I remind the House, is the government of the anglophone majority, has dismantled Camille Laurin's and René Lévesque's Charter of the French Language through its financing of court challenges, through its spending power, through a Constitution and through a multiculturalist charter that was imposed upon the Quebec people in 1982 because it is a minority in Canada.
The 1982 Constitution has never been signed by any Quebec government. Since the Official Languages Act 51 years ago, and before that, I can hardly talk about how much discrimination there was against francophones. The Liberal government at the time decided that Quebeckers were not part of the francophone minority and that only the anglophone minority in Quebec needed to be protected. This means that every year since then, tens and hundreds of millions of dollars have been used to anglicize municipal and Quebec public services, to over-fund English-only organizations, lobby groups and institutions.
The federal government began funding legal challenges to Bill 101 in 1978, and beginning in 1982, Alliance Quebec's legal guerrilla warfare was carried out under a Constitution that had been imposed on a minority Quebec to weaken the Charter of the French Language.
Naturally, for the francophone and Acadian communities, this was better than the overtly “ethnocidal” system that existed prior to that. However, the institutional bilingualism imposed by the Official Languages Act does not work. French-language services outside Quebec are largely deficient, even where numbers supposedly justify them.
With each census, the rate of francophone assimilation increases despite the fighting spirit of the francophone and Acadian communities. While the Quebec government is working to make French the official and common language of all citizens of all origins in Quebec, the federal government is doing the opposite. Specifically, it is telling newcomers that there is not one, but two official languages, and that they can use the language of their choice.
In Quebec, all this federal interference against French, the official and common language, is precipitating the decline in French.
A few months ago, the Liberal government suddenly recognized that French was in decline. According to Quebec, it was about time because French had been in decline for at least 30 years and the decline is only accelerating. It is not tied to immigration, but to the anglicization of allophones and, increasingly, francophones.
In the Speech from the Throne, the government recognized that Quebeckers are part of the francophone minority in Canada and North America. It is hard to believe that they did not know that. That has been the case since 1841. That is when the Act of Union was imposed to keep francophones in the minority.
The Minister of Official Languages made some nice speeches. She said that the Liberals will now defend French in Quebec. In the meantime, even within the federal public service in Quebec, the right to work in French is constantly being violated.
For example, a few weeks ago, the vice-president of the Quebec region of the Public Service Alliance of Canada told the Standing Committee on Official Languages that “systemic discrimination is deeply rooted in the federal government. It is taken for granted that English comes first and French second.”
While Quebec is rallying and its government is introducing a bill to acknowledge a national language, federal services offered in French continue to decline, no matter what the Minister of Official Languages says. We see examples of that nearly every day. Last week, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, a federal institution based in Montreal, was at the Federal Court of Appeal fighting hard to avoid complying with the right to work in French in Quebec for a public servant named André Dionne. The office has the backing of Canadian National, or CN, a Crown corporation, which is advocating for the right to work exclusively in English in areas not designated as bilingual, such as Toronto, but that right would take precedence over the right to work in French in Quebec.
Here is another example. The Prime Minister's Office recently violated the Official Languages Act by providing the Standing Committee on Health with thousands of pages of unilingual English documents on its handling of the pandemic. The Liberals agree that French is an official language, but they are against the Bloc Québécois bill requiring sufficient knowledge of French as a condition of citizenship in Quebec.
Today, the Minister of Official Languages introduced her bill with great fanfare. She told us that the Liberals will recognize French as an official language of Quebec. Kudos for that, but she does not specify how. The issue is not whether French is an official language, because it has been for a long time. The issue is whether it is recognized as the only official and common language of Quebec. However, this is not the case.
Quebec wants to be solely responsible for linguistic planning in its territory. The Minister of Official Languages says no to Quebec. In fact, Bill C‑32 likely weakens Quebec's bill by blocking the application of Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses in Quebec. The Liberals say that they will protect the right to work in French in these businesses, but that is not at all the same as making French the common language of the workplace.
The Prime Minister said that he is going to support the addition to the Constitution proposed in Bill 96, but he added that it will not have any legal consequences. It is a bit like the motion that was moved in 2006 to recognize the Quebec nation within a united Canada. It comes back to what the member for Mount Royal said earlier: he agrees as long as it does not change anything. When we ask the Liberals whether the government will fund the court challenges that will arise from this addition to the Constitution, they simply do not answer.
In summary, the Liberals talk a good game, but when it comes time to take action, they do not really do anything. The Liberal government is using an old strategy that is already well known. It is recognizing the decline of French and saying that it is going to take action. That is the same old strategy the Liberals used with their election promises, the same old strategy they have been using for a very long time.
Our national poet, Félix Leclerc, summed it up very well in one of his famous songs. He said, and I quote:On the eve of the electionHe called you his son.But, of course, by the next dayHe had forgotten your name.
Long live a free, French Quebec.
View Mélanie Joly Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to rise virtually in the House today. First of all, I would like to inform you that I will be splitting my time with the member for Orléans.
I would like to begin by acknowledging that the lands on which we are gathered today are part of the unceded territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation.
I am pleased to join my colleagues to discuss the motion of the member for Beloeil—Chambly. I would like to thank all my colleagues for their interventions today.
Clearly, there is a great willingness among members to better protect and promote the French language, not only in Quebec, but also across Canada. On the issue of protecting and promoting French, I want to reassure my Bloc Québécois colleagues in the House and demonstrate that our government is indeed taking action and that it is doing everything possible to arrive at our common goal.
Earlier today, I introduced a bill to strengthen and modernize the Official Languages Act and recognize the true equality between French and English in Canada. Along with over 90 indigenous languages, our two official languages, French and English, are at the core of who we are as a country.
Our linguistic diversity brings us together, reinforces our federation and sets us apart from the rest of the world. In that sense, we can never take it for granted.
Today, as the Minister of Official Languages and in the context of this debate on the motion from the Bloc Québécois, I would like to give more details about the measures we have been taking to protect and further promote French across Canada, including Quebec.
First, I want to go back a little bit to the adoption of the Official Languages Act 50 years ago to build a state where French and English would both be central not only to our country but also to our lives. During the decades past, provincial governments even took measures to protect French, such as New Brunswick, which became constitutionally bilingual after an important constitutional process. The province of Ontario passed the French Language Services Act in 1986. As for Quebec, it proceeded to the adoption of the Charter of the French Language, which followed the recognition of French as the official language of Quebec in 1974, under Robert Bourassa.
Efforts were made to strengthen French, but also to protect our official language minority communities, for them to have access to services and education in their own language.
Since these tools were created, a lot of water has gone under the bridge. The world is changing, and our linguistic universe is affected. Globalization and the development of international trade at a dazzling speed have had the effect of imposing some languages to facilitate exchanges across borders. At the same time, digital technology, social media and online distribution platforms too often favour the use of English at the expense of French, and this has contributed even more to the erosion of the French language.
The facts are therefore clear in the eyes of our government: Our two official languages are not on an even playing field. We must do more to make sure that the Canadian francophonie remains strong and that access to our two official languages is democratized. I am thinking in particular of learning opportunities from early childhood to post-secondary education. We must also modernize our language policy. Our actions must aim at reaching true equality between our two official languages, which means we must do more to protect French, including in Quebec, which is a minority in the North American context.
Obviously, we must continue the work undertaken years ago to protect linguistic communities, more precisely official language minority communities. It is our constitutional duty. The federal government must also take full responsibility in its area of jurisdiction and use all available tools to promote and protect French. That is also our duty to francophones of Quebec and Canada. My answer to the Bloc Québécois today is that we share the same goals in that regard.
The first provision included in the reinforced Official Languages Act reflects my point since it is about the linguistic landscape of Canada. Indeed, it recognizes the dynamic nature of provincial and territorial regimes.
That is why I can assure my hon. colleagues in the Bloc Québécois that the new law also explicitly acknowledges that Quebec's official language is French.
Our bill recognizes too that Quebec has specific obligations when it comes to the use of both official languages in courts and in provincial legislatures. As I said, it is our duty as the federal government to ensure that these constitutional rights are respected.
The modernized Official Languages Act also recognizes people's right to be served and to work in French in federally regulated businesses in Quebec and in regions with a strong francophone presence all across Canada. The system we are proposing will be in sync with that of Quebec, and it will be just as robust.
We intend to take full responsibility in our area of jurisdiction and work with federally regulated private businesses to ensure that they play their role and respect their new linguistic obligations. We are proposing that these rules be phased in, by regulation, over a period of three years for federally regulated private businesses located in Quebec that have at least 25 employees, and five years for businesses located in regions with a strong francophone presence that have at least 50 employees.
This legislation aligns with our government's coordinated efforts to better protect French and our firm commitment to work entirely within our jurisdiction to ensure the rights of official language minority communities.
With regard to government institutions, we are proposing robust measures that would enable the federal government to lead by example. It is important for the Supreme Court of Canada to be bilingual. It is also important for the public service to respect its linguistic obligations, as it is Canadians' primary point of contact with the federal government.
For a language to be strong, its culture must also be strong. That is why we will protect Radio-Canada. We will give our cultural institutions, such as the National Film Board, Telefilm Canada and our national museums, the tools they need to showcase francophone cultural content. We will align our linguistic policy with our cultural policy and vice versa.
We will also work to showcase the Canadian francophonie internationally. Canada is proud to be a bilingual country where French is alive and well. Strengthening our role within the international Francophonie will enable us to further solidify our leadership among the world's francophone countries.
I also want my colleagues to know that the bill I introduced today will strengthen the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages to ensure compliance. That will help us achieve our linguistic policy objectives and give francophones in Quebec and in the rest of the country a tool and yet another ally when they need to advocate for their linguistic rights.
None of these efforts to bring about a course correction for the French language take anything away from the federal government's constitutional obligation to defend the rights of linguistic minorities, including the rights of Quebec's anglophone minority.
Our government will continue to stand by them by providing them with tools to defend their rights, such as the court challenges program, which we are proposing to strengthen in the bill.
In short, with our bill, our goal is to bring the Official Languages Act into the 21st century. It will reflect the language realities of all in Canada and provide our children with a world of possibilities.
In closing, it is clear that we have a common goal to want to strengthen and protect French in Quebec and across the country, and that we also recognize that French is the official language of Quebec. At the same time, we will continue to uphold constitutional protections for official language minority communities, including in Quebec.
View Christine Normandin Profile
BQ (QC)
View Christine Normandin Profile
2021-06-15 16:28 [p.8483]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I intend to split my time with my friend and esteemed colleague from Manicouagan, who is a very busy member.
Today, we are discussing the motion of the Bloc Québécois, and I will take the time to read it, dissect it and discuss it in detail. The choice of words it contains is not insignificant.
The first part of the motion reads as follows: “That the House agree that section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982, grants Quebec and the provinces exclusive jurisdiction to amend their respective constitutions”. Anyone who reads this part of the motion will notice that we are not trying to turn members of the House into constitutional apprentices the way we could turn them into apprentice witches. We are simply asking the House to note and to recognize the existence of a section of the Constitution Act that Quebec and the provinces can use.
It is interesting to discuss this today because we have been seeing all day that many members have tried to act like constitutional apprentices. Some have already found problems and flaws and have already tried to figure out how they could attack Quebec's desire to use this section.
Rather than welcoming this, these people are already raising issues related to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the protection of the anglophone minority, whereas the motion does not deal with those matters. These people are already raising questions about the interpretation of the Constitution and whether there is a symbolic aspect. Right off the bat, these people are already trying to undo something that has not even been enacted by the Quebec National Assembly. I think this speaks volumes about the status of French, the recognition of Quebec as a nation and the recognition of its autonomy and potential independence.
The second part of the motion asks that the House “acknowledge the will of Quebec to enshrine in its constitution that Quebeckers form a nation, that French is the only official language of Quebec and that it is also the common language of the Quebec nation”.
Again, as we have said repeatedly today, this part of the motion is not seeking anyone's permission. We are not looking for authorization from the federal government, from Parliament or from the House to do something in Quebec. We are just asking the House to acknowledge what Quebec is about to do.
What does “acknowledge” mean? It means to formally take note of information for later use. Once the House has acknowledged Quebec's will, any decision to either ignore it or fight it will at least be an informed decision.
We have to ask ourselves whether the government is actually acknowledging Quebec's will if it goes ahead with an Official Languages Act reform that dismisses what Quebec wants to see with respect to language of work. Just acknowledging something means that there is a political layer to the government's response to what Quebec wants to do, not to what Quebec is asking, but to what Quebec is going to do.
We also wonder, and this has been raised on several occasions, whether including Quebec's status as a nation and designating French as the only official and common language in the Constitution will be merely symbolic.
I would be curious to see how the Prime Minister would explain why one part of the supreme law of his country, the Constitution Act, is symbolic, but not the rest. Why would what Quebec wants be merely symbolic, but not the rest of the Constitution Act?
Once the Constitution Act recognizes French as the only common and official language of Quebec, it will be interesting to see happens the next time the courts try to butcher Bill 101. This will be fascinating to follow, as will the language of work issue, since it is part of Bill 96. That bill has not passed yet, but I think it will go smoothly.
What happens if Quebec passes this bill, the Minister of Official Languages' watered-down version of protecting the right to work in French goes forward and the Constitution recognizes Quebec's official language? That will be interesting. I think it might make headlines in a few newspapers. I was shocked this morning when I read that the minister was introducing a bill said to be basically a copy of Bill 96, but by the end of the article, I realized that that is not at all the case. Protecting the right to work in French is certainly not the same thing as making French the language of work.
I find it particularly interesting that we are debating this in the House today, as we celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Bloc Québécois. I think it is important to remember the Bloc Québécois's role in the House.
Journalists asked us the same question several times when we announced our intention to move a motion to recognize the will of the National Assembly to include the Quebec nation and the French language in the Constitution. We were asked if we would be recognizing the Constitution with this motion. We were told that if we used it, we would be recognizing it. The best answer to this question is to remember the importance of not taking things lying down. We cannot let Quebec be weakened by standing idly as we watch the train go by. This would not be in Quebec's interest. It is better to fight with the tools at hand.
At times, some members badger us about whether we are trying to make Quebec work as part of the rest of Canada. In my view, we are instead preparing Quebec for what is to come. We are ensuring that Quebec will be in the best possible position when it collectively decides to make its own decision about its future.
Speaking of the Bloc Québécois' 30th anniversary, I want to share a quote from someone who spent a little time in the party: “The politics of the worst-case scenario are the worst kind of politics.” We are not seeing calls to recognize the Constitution; I would say that we are instead seeing an unbridled show of nationalism that is cause for celebration. I am so happy to see Quebec taking a more coordinated approach to protecting the French language.
The movement to promote French is gaining ground, at a time when this is more imperative than ever. This is urgent, and I spoke about this in the House last week. A trend is starting to appear, and we need to reverse it.
The percentage of Quebeckers who speak French as a first language has dropped below 80% for the first time in more than a century, and the Office québécois de la langue française estimates that this figure could drop below 70% by 2036.
We have also noticed that young francophones tend to become anglicized. The number of people between the ages of 25 and 44 in the greater Montreal area has doubled over the past 15 years. A trend has also been observed in Quebec: Only 55% of allophones in Quebec make a language transfer to French. However, to maintain our relative weight, 90% of allophones in Quebec would have to make the transfer to French.
It is therefore imperative and urgent that something be done. We need to protect French. I think that it is good to talk about the positive aspects of strengthening and promoting French. We should not just talk about it from the perspective of the inevitable erosion of French. We need to remember that French is also a common language for newcomers so that they can share their culture and who they are with us and we can live together in a society where everyone has their place. I see it in my riding. Recent surveys carried out in Saint-Jean showed that residents want to welcome more and more newcomers. French enables us to communicate and share with them effectively.
I would like to briefly come back to the matter of the Bloc Québécois's role. With regard to this motion, the Bloc Québécois's role is simply to ensure that Quebec is the one that decides how it wants to write its language laws. That is the Bloc Québécois's role, and that is what the Bloc Québécois has been doing for the past 30 years.
On that note, I want to take this opportunity to wish our party a happy 30th anniversary. However, I must say that I am sure we will not be here for another 30 years, or at least I hope not.
View Rachael Harder Profile
CPC (AB)
View Rachael Harder Profile
2021-06-14 18:25 [p.8370]
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood.
Last week culminated in a devastating assault on democracy as MPs were forced to vote on amendments that were not made public and vote on sections of the bill without any discussion or debate. There was zero openness and zero accountability, and it was absolutely wrong.
How did we get there? Earlier in the spring the Liberals brought forward an amendment to their own bill, which removed a section that originally protected the content that individuals would post online. When that section was removed, of course it caused disarray at committee and a great discussion ensued.
That was the case because Canadians deserve to be protected. They deserve to have their voices contended for and their freedoms established. When that part of the bill was taken out, of course the Conservatives went to bat. The Liberals did not really like that very much, so they moved something called time allocation in the House of Commons, which limited debate at committee to five hours.
This meant that hundreds of pages of material was only given five hours of consideration, after which time members of the committee were forced to vote on the bill, including its amendments and subamendments. Again, those were not made public and no discussion was allowed.
It was not exactly democracy in its finest state. It was a sham, and not how good legislation is meant to be created in Canada. This is not democracy.
Once again, the bill is now in the House. Although the Liberals have not moved time allocation, they have moved to have our debating time restricted again.
From here the bill will go to the Senate where it will be discussed further. My genuine hope is that the Senate will have the opportunity to examine this bill and hear from witnesses. In particular, it is my hope that the witnesses it brings forward include creators from digital first platforms because those individuals have been left out of the conversation despite being impacted to the greatest extent.
Let me back up and explain what this bill does for a moment. There are two things. The first is, as the government argues, it levels the playing field between large streaming companies and traditional broadcasters. The second thing this bill does in fact do, however, is censor the content we place online.
With regard to levelling the playing field, the minister claims this is about getting money from web giants, but if he is concerned about GST being paid, that is already taken care of because there is already an initiative starting in July that will require companies, such as Disney+, Netflix, Spotify, Crave, etc., to start paying GST, which takes care of levelling the playing field.
However, Bill C-10 goes far beyond just levelling the playing field. It is backed up by many lobby groups that are pushing for a 30% Canadian programming expenditure requirement as a share of revenue per year. What this will do is not simply increase the cost to these large streaming companies, it will actually pass that cost down to consumers. According to experts, costs are actually expected to rise by about 50%.
Canadians already pay some of the highest rates in the world, so with Bill C-10, they can expect to be taxed even more. This of course will have a huge impact on them with respect to money coming out of their wallets. Furthermore, the bill will impact the content Canadians can post and access, which brings me to my second point on censorship.
When I talk about censorship, I talk about the government getting involved with respect to what one can and cannot see and post online. I am talking about the government putting an Internet czar in place.
Peter Menzies, the former CRTC vice-chair, stated Bill C-10, “doesn’t just infringe on free expression, it constitutes a full-blown assault upon it and, through it, the foundations of democracy.” That deserves consideration. It is quite the statement.
Bill C-10 is in fact a direct attack on section 2(b) of our charter. Under this section, Canadians have the right to speak and to be heard. Much of that speaking takes place within our new form of the public square, the Internet.
The bill before us would infringe upon the ability Canadians have to post online and to express themselves freely. Furthermore, the bill would infringe upon the rights that viewers have to access that content online, which means that the right to speak and the right to be heard will be infringed upon if the bill passes.
Let us talk about viewers for a moment. Viewers go online in order to access the content they want. They go on YouTube perhaps looking for a video on how to fix a bicycle chain, or they may want to look up information having to do with the war of 1812. They are looking for content that is going to fit their needs.
However, if the bill is passed, they would go on YouTube, and the government would determine what that need might be. The government would dictate the type of material that they would be able to access. The government would dictate this based on how “Canadian” the material is.
The government would curate what we can and cannot see by bumping things up or down in the queue, which means that the content a viewer really needs to access might be pushed back to page 27 of a YouTube search whereas, normally, right now, according to the existing algorithms, that content would probably be found on page one. The government would actually infringe upon a viewer's ability and right to access that information, because it is going to curate and determine that, no, a viewer does not want what is on page 27, but rather what the government is putting on page one. It wrong. It is dictatorial. It is anti-democratic.
Canadians know what they like. They know what they want to watch, and they know how to find it. Platforms such as YouTube are curated in such a way as to point people to more of the content they desire. When a viewer searches for content, YouTube gives it, and then it might suggest more that is similar to it. However, that would not be the case going forward. Instead, the government would steer viewers in the direction that the government wants them to go, and it will do it through the power of its Internet czar.
I will talk about creators for a moment. They are amazing. In Canada, we are punching above our weight in terms of what creators are able to produce, and I am talking about individuals who are using non-traditional platforms in order to gain an audience. They share their talent, skill and ability with the world. Ninety per cent of watch time of Canadian content comes from viewers outside of Canada. That is amazing.
I think about Justin Bieber, and about how much popularity he has gained on the world stage. He started out on YouTube, a non-traditional platform. However, under Bill C-10, Justin Bieber probably would not have risen to the top, because the algorithms that the government would impose through its Internet czar would relegate him to the bottom. Why? Well, it is because his content just would not be Canadian enough to make the cut. Again, it is wrong.
Let us also talk about diversity. This government loves to celebrate diversity, but let us talk about the indigenous digital first creators or those who are members of minority groups. Instead of being able to make a name for themselves and follow the protocols that are already in existence, they would come under government scrutiny and, again, the Internet czar would determine whether or not their content can be accessed.
Now, members might ask who the Internet czar is. It is none other than the CRTC, which is the regulatory arm of the government. Who makes up the CRTC? I can tell members that the leadership of the CRTC is made up of six white men. It would be six white men who would be determining what type of content is Canadian and what content is not.
They would be determining whether or not indigenous first creators can be accessed or not. They would be determining whether visible minority content can be accessed or not. Six white men would be making those decisions on behalf of those individuals who are putting their content out online and on behalf of Canadians who wish to access that content.
I have not seen legislation this dictatorial since my time of first being elected in 2015. It is wrong and anti-democratic, and it is altogether harmful, not only to creators, but also to the millions of viewers who use platforms such as YouTube in order to access information and engage in the public square online.
It is wrong, and I would ask for Bill C-10 to be rescinded, at the bare minimum. When it gets to the Senate, I ask that, please do the due diligence; please research well; and please hear from witnesses who have not yet been heard from, namely the artists.
Results: 1 - 30 of 958 | Page: 1 of 32

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

For more data options, please see Open Data