Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 60 of 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.
View Tom Kmiec Profile
CPC (AB)
View Tom Kmiec Profile
2021-06-14 18:59 [p.8374]
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be joining the debate on this bill once again, at a different stage. I am pleased that my colleague from Saskatoon—Grasswood has moved an amendment, so I am going to speak directly to it. It is about sending Bill C-10 back to committee.
Members know that he has had a 40-year career in broadcasting, which is probably longer than that of any other member in our caucus. We actually featured him in something called “member spotlight” at a caucus meeting, noting his 40-year career using different clips from different videos of his time in sports broadcasting and with CTV as well.
I will be splitting my time with the member for Saskatoon—University, another one of our colleagues from Saskatchewan who will be adding to this debate.
I first spoke to this bill on February 5. I warned Canadians then that the contents of the bill were going to attack free speech, were calling into question the difference between users and programming, and were trying to jam the Internet age into a broadcasting act that was meant for before the 1990s, for a totally different time before Internet, Wi-Fi, cellphones and everything else.
At the time, I brought up the example of content creators in my riding. A few of them run YouTube channels. They run very successful businesses. Since I am splitting my time with a member from Saskatchewan and the member who spoke before me is from Saskatchewan as well, I want to bring up one of my favourite Instagram TV shows. It is called Leroy and Leroy. I hope the members from Saskatchewan know these two. There is always something to do, and indeed there is. It is a fantastic online content.
One of the latest very funny videos has a sign in the middle of what seems to me like nowhere, and I apologize to all the members from the Saskatchewan caucus for saying this. It is a parking sign in the middle of nowhere, and these two gentlemen turn around and show us that there is nothing there. It is unclear why there is a sign that allows people to park. I assume they can park if they want to.
They are content creators, and they will fall within the ambit of Bill C-10 and its changes to the Broadcasting Act. All of their programming will. It is not them as users, but them as programming providers, as if they were the CBC, as if they were a show like Kim's Convenience or one equivalent to it. They are incredibly funny comedians. It is great content they are producing.
Every expert I have heard, including those from OpenMedia, Michael Geist, Peter Menzies and other former commissioners, has said the exact same thing: YouTube creators, people on IGTV and all others online who are running shops, creating content and trying to get noticed by perhaps one of the large broadcasters are going to fall within the ambit of this legislation. I warned Canadians on February 5 that this was going to happen, and now it is happening.
The minister completely botched the sale job on this legislation, from the time it was before the committee to the time it got to the committee. The member who spoke before me spoke about the fact that he was unable to explain in 15 minutes, on a national TV broadcast, what the bill was about because the bill is all over the place. As I said, the bill tries to jam together the Internet era, the different content creators and the total democracy that now exists. Anybody can create content and anybody can provide it. The middle man is gone now. Anybody can go out there and entertain others, make music for others, give acting classes or provide a how-to for fixing a Jeep. Everything is out there. However, now all of it will perhaps fall within the ambit of this piece of legislation.
We have gotten to the point now where the government is trying to ram it through the House of Commons before the June sitting days are done, because it has recognized that it has botched the management of the House calendar as well. This is entirely the Liberals' fault. There was no reason to rush this through. If they did not like the fact that members of Parliament wanted to provide amendments and hear from more witnesses at the committee, they should have allocated more time. The Liberals should have run the calendar appropriately to avoid situations like the one today. Now they find themselves trying to ram the bill through using undemocratic measures, hoisting it out of committee to ram it through half finished and sending it over to the Senate side. I shudder to think what senators will think of this bill, incomplete as it is.
There is a great Yiddish proverb for this, and members will know that I find Yiddish a charming language and use it very often. It goes, “From fortune to misfortune is but a step; from misfortune to fortune is a long way.” In the case of the minister, every time he has spoken to the bill he has further confused Canadians or made them fear even more for their liberty of expression and for their ability to communicate with others freely and post their opinions and thoughts online without having the government potentially interfere with them through the CRTC.
It is an open question how the CRTC is going to apply and use these powers. It is that uncertainty that is driving so much fear and so much public attention to this bill. This is one of the bills on which I have received the most emails and correspondence and phone calls in my five and a half years in Parliament now.
The member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, who spoke before me, said this was the worst piece of legislation he has ever worked on. I disagree with him. There is a lot of competition for that title coming from the government side, so I am going to disagree with him.
The great misfortune of the minister is that he has been trying to sell a bill that does not match with his words. He has been talking about anti-hate speech legislation. He has been talking about taxing the big web giants and online content providers. As the member for Lethbridge, who spoke before me, mentioned, that is already covered. That is already coming in July. There is already legislation in the books. There is new legislation the minister is going to add, so he keeps confusing the issue, much to his own misfortune, and it is going to affect the fortunes of Canadians. It is going to affect small-time content creators like the creators of Leroy and Leroy, whom I mentioned, and budding comedians, musicians and artists out there who are just trying to provide a service and trying to advertise for themselves using social media platforms.
It is really unfortunate that we find ourselves in a situation now, in the end days of the session in June, where the government feels the urge to just ram this through, push it through as fast as it can with as few eyes as possible on it.
I am just aghast that the Bloc is helping the Liberals along, that the Bloc is helping the most centralizing, free-spending, abusing-of-federal-spending-power government there is and has been in the last 40 years. It is worse than the Chrétien government and worse than the Martin government in its centralization of power in Ottawa. The Bloc is supporting them.
I will repeat that.
It is shameful to see that the Bloc Québécois supports putting an end to the debate on Bill C‑10, forcing a vote and sending the bill to the Senate. The Bloc is helping the most centralizing government we have had in the past 30 or 40 years, one that is worse than the Chrétien and Martin governments.
It is unbelievable. The separatists are helping the Liberals. I just cannot believe that we were brought to this situation, under the guise of getting through a piece of legislation that is so defective in its content.
I have always been a believer, and I have said it many times in this House, that when the government gets it wrong and it cannot be fixed at committee, we should just send it back and make the government redo the work. There is no harm in having the justice department and the heritage department sit down once again and draft a piece of legislation that this House could support. They could just send it back. There are thousands of civil servants whose sole job is to pre-draft legislation based on stakeholder consultation, based on the feedback that they are supposed to get. That is what they exist to do. Many of them are still working from home, so they could take on this task and bring it back in the fall session. Of course, if we do not have a fall session, they will not have it. Perhaps the government is thinking of toppling itself and ensuring that it can run in an election on the free-spending budget that it had in 2021.
However, now we find ourselves again in a situation where, in the span of just a few days, we are going to rush a bill through to the Senate that is incomplete, that would attack freedom of speech and that would not protect content creators. It would protect them as users, but it would not protect any of their content. What is the point of saying “I have free speech” if I cannot say anything online lest I anger the CRTC, lest I anger people? I do not know who they are. I do not know what rules they create. The very basis of our democracy is supposed to be that we know what the rules are so we can abide by them. We do not know what the rules will be. We do not know what the CRTC will like. I truly hope, if future CRTC commissioners are listening, that they will spare Leroy and Leroy.
This is a great amendment from my colleague. We have to vote for the amendment and against Bill C-10.
View Tracy Gray Profile
CPC (BC)
View Tracy Gray Profile
2021-06-14 20:57 [p.8389]
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
What could be more fitting for a bill that could limit the free speech of Canadians across the country and what they can see online, than a government trying to use tactics to limit debate in Parliament? I have heard, loud and clear, from my constituents in Kelowna—Lake Country, and we have heard, loud and clear, from experts from coast to coast to coast how poor Bill C-10 is.
Canadians do not want this deeply flawed, speech-limiting, online-viewing-limiting legislation. It is truly shocking that the government would attempt on more than one occasion to limit debate on a bill that has been so divisive. The government keeps raising the bar on what divides us. If the Liberals cannot even tolerate dissenting views in committee and in this House, how are Canadians supposed to expect them to act differently and respect their views online should this legislation come into force?
Back in May, I addressed this chamber through Statements by Members, outlining the overwhelming opposition to this troubling bill from my constituents in Kelowna—Lake Country. I outlined how hundreds, and by now hundreds more, have written me with their valid and real concerns. Residents in Kelowna—Lake Country have strong reservations about the government's attempted overreach to regulate individual Canadian Internet users and what they can hear and see online, concerns shared by University of Ottawa professor Michael Geist. Dr. Geist is not just some newcomer to the field. He is the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law. Not only could he be considered an expert, he is a vocal and non-partisan critic who has been fighting for the rights of Canadians by speaking out against this dangerous legislation.
Dr. Geist has outlined how, despite the empty words on the part of government claiming otherwise, this legislation, “represent[s] an exceptionally heavy-handed regulatory approach where a government-appointed regulator decides what individual user generated content is prioritized”. Dr. Geist has also called the recent manoeuvring by the Liberals at the heritage committee to effectively cover this legislation in a dark cloud of secrecy “disturbing”, when the committee began to vote on undisclosed amendments without any debate or discussion.
All of this came on the heels of the Liberals' teaming up with the Bloc earlier this month to severely limit debate by using an archaic parliamentary process, manoeuvres that have not been seen in over 20 years in this House. The Liberals may claim that this legislation is to modernize the Broadcasting Act, but that has not stopped them from using procedures to ram Bill C-10 through Parliament without proper debate or discussion. We heard in debate today, from my colleague the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, how 40% of Bill C-10 was not even discussed or debated at the heritage committee with respect to other recommendations.
The voices of my constituents will not be silenced. Residents of my riding in Kelowna—Lake Country from all walks of life have written to me ever since the introduction of this draconian bill, stating, “Censoring free speech or shutting down debate is not acceptable.”
Another wrote that, “People should be able to speak freely on all platforms”.
One wrote that, “It is shocking that the current government has the audacity to even propose something as limiting to free speech as Bill C-10”.
Further comments were also expressed: “We must not tolerate this kind of censorship of free speech in a free country”; and, “Bill C-10 is the most appalling assault on free speech we have seen from any democratic government”.
I agree with my constituents of Kelowna—Lake Country, and that is why I am here today.
This legislation is an unacceptable attempt by the Liberals to target the freedoms of individual Internet users in Canada. It raises significant concerns about the ability to preserve net neutrality, which is an important principle that ensures free flow of content and that no content on the Internet is favoured over another. Net neutrality is basically the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications, regardless of their source and without favouring or blocking particular products or websites.
The bill before us would give the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, CRTC, absolute control with no clear parameters. Furthermore, this legislation would give sweeping powers to the CRTC to regulate the Internet, including individual users with no clear guidelines for how that power would be used.
What are Canadian creators saying about this proposed legislation?
Well, J.J. McCullough, a well-known Canadian YouTuber, recently wrote an opinion piece in The Washington Post. Mr. McCullough has nearly 300,000 followers on YouTube and, by his own research, he says that this makes him the “1,483rd most popular Canadian YouTuber”. I would say that provides a pretty clear picture of the success that Canadian content creators have online. He goes on to note that there are “...well over 100 Canadian YouTubers with subscriber counts surpassing 3 million — a combined audience larger than the population of Indonesia”. He mentions how well Canadian YouTubers have done without this legislation. Mr. McCullough also notes with real concern that “If Bill C-10 passes, satisfying the needs of audiences — the formula that has produced countless Canadian YouTube success stories...may soon take a back seat to satisfying government regulators”.
His trepidation is justified, as the Liberals rejected an exemption to individual users who upload videos to social media and even took it a step further by promising to introduce a new amendment to regulate apps. We have also heard that digital first creators have not been consulted. It is smoke and mirrors to say that Bill C-10 is about charging big Internet companies to get tax dollars.
On Bill C-10, Conservatives propose to protect individual users and small players in the market by exempting streaming services and social media users with lower revenues. The Liberals rejected this common-sense compromise. The minister ignores these concerns despite the stated purpose of the bill being to promote Canadian content and support, not burden, Canadian creators. However, if history is any indication, the minister does not care about factual and thoughtful points such as these. His party only cares about shutting down debate so its members do not have to listen to the mounting evidence against this proposed legislation.
It is not just the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country, Canadian content creators or Dr. Geist who are speaking out against Bill C-10. A former commissioner of the CRTC has said in an interview that 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”. This was from a former CRTC commissioner, and if anyone can speak on how the CRTC could interpret its new powers, he would be the one to ask.
The government claims that Bill C-10 is a priority and that is why it is using the tactics that it has chosen to employ. My Conservative colleagues and I will not apologize for doing whatever is necessary to defend the right to free speech and free viewing of the content of Canadians.
I think it is important that we examine exactly what has taken place in this Parliament leading up to this moment. We must not forget that it was the Liberals who prorogued Parliament to escape scrutiny for their ethical scandals. When it is something they want, they will ram it through in any way they can using procedures like the one we recently saw around Bill C-10, which we have not seen used in the House for over 20 years. There were amendments at committee that were never even read and debated. The Liberals had four years as a majority government and have been in power in this Parliament for almost two more.
We will be back here in September as, after all, the Liberals definitely do not want an election, right? So, I will not apologize for standing up for Kelowna—Lake Country and I will not apologize for standing for free speech and for net neutrality. This is deeply flawed legislation that should be deeply troubling, and it is troubling to the core to each and every one of us to consider here today.
View Eric Duncan Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise for the second time in the chamber to debate Bill C-10. I had the opportunity to debate it back in December at second reading.
I will be splitting my time with the member for Carleton.
Bill C-10 will be remembered as an iconic piece of legislation if it is passed, but not for the reasons the government would want. We have seen over the course of the last seven months a terrible rollout, terrible communication and a terrible committee process. As a result, we are in the House of Commons in person and virtually across the country going until midnight or later because of the desperation of the government trying to ram this legislation through.
I will state tonight that on all the issues we have dealt with on Parliament Hill, in the House of Commons, I have heard from constituents the most on this issue and a lack of trust for the government's actions on Bill C-10. The actions that we have seen take place at committee over the course of the last couple of weeks has only exacerbated those concerns even more.
Comments were made earlier about how the Minister of Canadian Heritage had handled this portfolio. I listened with interest earlier tonight when he spoke about how proud he was of this bill, how proud he was of the consultations that were held not only by himself, but by his predecessor to bring forward this legislation. We should ask why we find ourselves in this situation. There will be university professors teaching political science students in years to come, using Bill C-10 as an example of what not to do to build public confidence on an issue and have a bill successfully pass through Parliament.
If the consultations by the previous minister and the current minister were so well done, why did the government introduce a bill that, when it got to committee, and at one point I lost track, over 100 amendments were proposed, many from the industry and stakeholders. If they consulted and listened so well, why were they not included in the first place? The minister was on CTV's Question Period, as a prime example, and CBC's Power & Politics. His interviews were absolutely disastrous.
People ask why that matters in terms of legislation and policy. If the minister responsible for the bill cannot even give a decent performance in defending the merits of the bill, certain sections and concerns, that should tell us something. Not only were those media appearances terrible in explaining and trying to justify Bill C-10, on Monday morning the Prime Minister's Office had to issue retractions, saying that he did not mean that and it needed to be clarified. When that happens, it shows us what is happening with Bill C-10.
We are here tonight, and it is an absolute embarrassment for the government. I listened with interest to my other opposition colleagues from the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. They said that the government had done a terrible job with the legislation, that it did not consult properly, that it should have done it sooner, but they would back the government up to ensure the bill was passed. It does not matter how bad the bill is or what is not in it, they want to pass the bill to say they checked off a box.
Many of my colleagues spoke tonight about problems and concerns with the legislation. I want to elaborate and be specific. I want to take part of my time tonight to focus on an organization that is not very popular in the country these days, and for good reason: the CRTC.
In this updated legislation, the government and opposition parties have ganged up to take out the part that regulates individual content. The CRTC would have the power to take down content by individuals, and we would have no way of knowing if there were other amendments.
I want to thank a Canadian who I did not know of, but we have heard a lot about him in the debate on Bill C-10, and that is Michael Geist. I am kind of jealous of him. He has about 87,000 followers on Twitter now and has been an eminent voice, talking about the concerns with Bill C-10. If the government is so proud of its work and the bill before us, I want to read two tweets from Mr. Geist. He is a law professor and Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa. I would suggest he is an expert who is probably pretty well versed on this subject.
He has been following committees for weeks and weeks on end, many of those committee meetings being filibustered by the government. He has said two things.
He said, “The committee just passed a Liberal amendment to Bill C-10 that has never been made public. Committee is just reading amendment numbers with no information provided. Chair says he cannot given any details. Literally secret law making.”
He followed that up in frustration right afterward, “Having spent hours watching Bill C-10 committee hearings, I’m out. MPs are voting on amendments that have never been made public, no experts to ask, no discussion, no debate. This is what Liberals, NDP and Bloc voted for. This is not how laws are supposed to be made in Canada.”
I will agree with the NDP and the Bloc Québécois. The government has had six years to get this right. There is not an MP in the House who believes the Broadcasting Act of 1991 is still relevant in today's day and age. Back in the day when that law was passed, I was four years old. I was not watching it too attentively when it was passed under a previous government. To show members how outdated it is, I will do this again. Bryan Adams was topping the charts. Whitney Houston, Madonna, Boyz II Men and Vanilla Ice were some of the other names and, as my colleague from Kingston and the Islands says, we could only listen to them by radio back in 1991.
There is no denying that we need to update the Broadcasting Act, but I go back to the arguments that are technical and important. If this bill is so well-organized and if this bill is so wonderful, why has the government resorted to shutting down committee, ramming the legislation through and putting in amendments when we do not even know what they are. The government was mocking us earlier when we were raising our concerns and frustrations about the bill and the process. I have specified the role of the CRTC and I will get into that in a moment. However, it is hard to know what is in the final bill, because there is a gag order by the minister. I do not even know what the status of some of those parts and pieces are. That speaks volumes to this.
I want to take some time to speak about the CRTC. I have seen this before, and there is a perfect example. My colleague from Carleton is in the chamber and will speak to this after me. He asked the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry a couple of weeks ago about the recent CRTC decision by the chair, Ian Scott, on wholesale internet rates in the country. The CRTC reversed its commitment to lower ISP rates around the country. It was a huge controversy with huge frustration.
I have heard it from small Internet service providers in my riding. I want to give credit to Birket Foster of Storm Internet in Chesterville who has spoken about this. The CRTC is singlehandedly spiking the cost of Internet affordability in the country. I asked the minister about it. He said that was the CRTC and that he was working hard and trying, but it was the CRTC. The same thing is going to happen with this legislation.
We see vague definitions like Internet regulation, what it means for users and all this chaos and confusion. The government is handing over, it is kicking the can down the road to the arm's-length CRTC to make decisions based on vague wording and poor legislation. Then what happens is that the Liberals will say that it is not them, that it is the independent CRTC. I have said this before in the chamber and I will say it again. It is our job to get the details right. We all support Canadian content. With the Internet and the tools available to us, we do not need to protect Canadian content as much as we need to let it flourish.
I believe in our Canadian artists. We have seen examples through YouTube. We have seen numerous creators across the country use those platforms, make a living and elevate Canadian content. My constituents do not want to search something on YouTube based on what the government thinks they should see. They want to do it based on algorithms that show what other Canadians and other people who are interested in like-minded subjects see. We have seen the success that this can happen.
The government's approach is wrong. The Liberals know it is wrong. That is why they are going through a secretive committee process and trying to ram this through before the summer. Canadians are getting more and more concerned by the day on this.
I appreciate the opportunity to, once again, put on the record my strong opposition to the bill and to this process.
View Mel Arnold Profile
CPC (BC)
View Mel Arnold Profile
2021-06-14 22:21 [p.8401]
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and, from what I am seeing from the current government, possibly a privilege to be able to rise and speak to Bill C-10. I rise representing the good people of North Okanagan—Shuswap.
I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.
Bill C-10 is the Liberal government's attempt to have the online streaming giants contribute their fair share to Canadian content and the retention of Canadian culture, but it has gone terribly wrong. World wars have been fought to protect our rights and freedom of speech, and we must never let those rights and freedoms be eroded. Freedom of expression must always be protected.
How did this bill go so terribly wrong? When the minister and the current government introduced Bill C-10 last November, the Minister of Canadian Heritage told the House that the bill's amendments to the Broadcasting Act were aimed at benefiting Canadian artists and musicians by forcing web giants to increase investments in Canadian content. That is something I think we all agree on. This initial commitment seemed reasonable, especially considering the need for our Broadcasting Act to be modernized in light of the major changes in where and how we now source music, television and film entertainment.
A couple of weeks later, the minister told the House that Bill C-10 was aimed at film, television and music-streaming services, like Netflix and Spotify, and that the government was committed to introducing another bill aimed at social media platforms, like Facebook and so on. At that time, the minister also stated that user-generated content would not be subject to new regulations.
Despite these assurances, the bill's progression took a sudden turn on April 23, when the Liberal members at committee suddenly amended the bill to extend its powers to the regulation of user-generated content on social media platforms. A bill originally presented as essential to protecting and ensuring continued Canadian content suddenly became a government bill seeking to regulate what Canadians say and share on social media. Smart phone apps were also added to the purview of the proposed regulations.
These amendments prompted strong reactions from my Conservative colleagues and me, but they also sparked a strong reaction from social media experts and Canadians. I have heard more from my constituents in North Okanagan—Shuswap about their concerns regarding the freedoms they could lose through this amendment and this bill than about any other topic in recent history. That is how concerned Canadians are for their freedom of expression.
What we see all around the world, and here in Canada today, is that social media has rapidly become the central platform used by citizens to express their rejections or protests against injustices, including those of government. The proposals of Bill C-10 open the door for the federal government and its regulatory agency, the CRTC, to undermine our ability to continue exercising our critical democratic freedom of expression. After 14 months of living with pandemic restrictions, many Canadians isolated at home and relying on social media for information, connectivity and entertainment, I strongly question why the government has chosen this time to radically change how Canadians can use social media.
I would also like to speak tonight about unintended consequences. It is something we have seen far too much of recently from the government, the unintended consequences of poorly drafted legislation. The case I want to tie into this debate tonight is the poorly drafted legislation in the government's Cannabis Act, Bill C-45, and how it is now having an impact on my constituents in North Okanagan—Shuswap.
I have now heard from constituents who are no longer able to get residential home insurance. Why? Because of poorly crafted and passed legislation. It has been disastrous for these constituents.
One man living on disability and trying to do things by the book was paying $1,000 for his home insurance. That bill then went up to $4,000 per year, then $5,500, then $6,500 and now more than $7,000 per year for a man living on disability. Why? Because he grows cannabis under a medical licence, but he grows more than four plants. Four plants is the maximum allowed under the government legislation. His insurance company has basically raised his rates to the point where he has to almost mortgage his insurance payments because the legislation has made it too costly for him to get insurance and pay for it up front.
He is not the only one. Another couple contacted me. They each have medical cannabis licences. Because the two of them grow more than the four permitted plants, they cannot find insurance.
This is just one example of how the government has failed to look at unintended consequences.
I will also tie in some of the experiences I have had on other committees in dealing with unexplained, non-scientific decisions of the government. It may seem unrelated to this, but I am trying to point out that this legislation is poorly drafted and should be taken back or at least have the proper time spent at committee to correct it.
Tying this to the fisheries committee, there was a regulation regarding the prawn harvesters in B.C., that had been in place for about 50 years. Everyone was operating under those rules. All of a sudden, the government decided it was going to reinterpret those regulations. Basically, it was going to shut down a huge portion of the spot prawn harvesters in British Columbia, simply by a reinterpretation of the regulation that had been in place for 50 years. There was no explanation, no working with the stakeholders to try to figure this out for the future. It threw the whole system into disarray because of unintended consequences of an decision that had not been researched or had any background.
I sat in on the heritage committee last week when it was going through the amendments, those that could be talked about. I tried to bring forward some of these issues about unintended consequences and the Liberal members on the committee tried to shut me down. They tried to censor what should have been my freedom of expression at that committee, pointing out the errors that the government continued to make. The member for Calgary Nose Hill was also in the committee at that time and witnessed how that took place. She may tie that session at the committee into her speech momentarily.
It was interesting to see how quickly the government seemed to want to censor Canadians, especially us parliamentarians by shutting down the debate at the committee stage of this bill to the point where amendments could not even be read aloud by the chair. They simply had to be listed by number and then voted on. Nobody could discuss what the amendment would do, the benefits or disadvantages of it, none of that. All of this was shut down by the government, trying to censor debate on this bill. Now the Liberals have limited the time we will have to debate it in the House, and it is a shame. Something as serious as freedom of expression deserves full and uncensored debate.
View Greg McLean Profile
CPC (AB)
View Greg McLean Profile
2021-06-14 23:19 [p.8409]
Madam Speaker, I am splitting my time tonight with my hon. colleague for Langley—Aldergrove.
It is my honour to address the House this evening and to address another faulty bill being pushed through Parliament by the Liberal government: Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. To begin, let us look at the title of this bill, which says “to make related and consequential amendments”. They are consequential in that they have consequences.
In this case, it is safe to say that this bill, if passed as written and subsequently amended at committee by the government, will have serious consequences for Canadians. We could have a discussion about net neutrality, which Canadians have enjoyed largely in their online consumption choices these past decades. This bill would, in fact, seek to upend the very nature of what Canadians can do on the web. Of course that is not the intent. No, it could not be. It has merely been written that way, and amended and partially changed through a process Canadians became aware of through the efforts of stalwart parliamentarians: my colleagues in the Conservative Party in the House of Commons and the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. They identified the intrusion in not only the use of the Internet for uploads and downloads, and the overreach in regulating this activity, but the consequences it would have on the very notion of freedom of speech, one of the rights Canadians have enjoyed—
View Gerald Soroka Profile
CPC (AB)
View Gerald Soroka Profile
2021-06-14 23:52 [p.8413]
Madam Speaker, tonight I will be splitting my time with the member for Regina—Lewvan.
On February 5, I spoke to Bill C-10 before it was referred to the heritage committee on February 16. Here I am speaking to Bill C-10 again, a few months later, now that the bill has returned from committee. Most times when a bill returns from committee, we see a couple of amendments here and there to fine-tune it before passing it along to the Senate, but with BIll C-10, it is not a vew changes here and there. This bill is completely different than its previous form.
What is even more abnormal about this is the fact that so many of the amendments came from the Liberals, the ones who introduced the bill in the first place. The government owes it to Canadians to explain why so many amendments were introduced after the fact and why it is pulling every trick in the book to try to push legislation through without proper debate and while ignoring legitimate concerns.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage is using tactics to make people believe that Conservatives are anticulture and standing in the way of Bill C-10, when in fact, many experts who testified at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage agree this bill is flawed and needs further review.
Protecting Canadian content is important for Canadians, but what good do rules around Canadian content do, if Canadian content is not properly defined. The minister recently demonstrated in committee that even he does not know what classic Canadian movies actually count as protected Canadian content under this legislation.
Over the past month I have received countless emails and phone calls from constituents in fear of the government's legislation. They want to know what they can do to stop it. One man even said to me that this legislation embodies the same police-state-like control he emigrated to Canada to escape.
The question I get most often is, “Why?” Why does this legislation contain an amendment giving the CRTC this much power. Why is the government trying to push this through so quickly? Why does the government think it has a mandate to police the Internet?
Conservatives recognize that the Broadcasting Act is in need of updates. No one is arguing against that. When Conservatives raise legitimate questions about user-generated content being affected by this legislation, instead of providing answers, the minister diminishes our concern and proceeds with his carefully scripted paragraph about why the Broadcasting Act needs to be updated, even though we are already agreeing that it needs to be done.
I have to point out the irony in the fact that we are being censored here in the House of Commons on a debate regarding censorship. Instead of allowing Bill C-10 to go through full and proper review, the Liberals moved a time allocation motion to shut down debate on Bill C-10 early, and effectively censored our debate on censorship.
Here we are, around midnight, mid-June, speaking for the last time to a bill that would have the power to limit our freedoms and could change the way Canadians are able to use the Internet. The government imposing time allocation on this bill, which is fundamentally flawed, is wrong because it attacks freedom of expression. The minister is attacking our freedom of expression as parliamentarians, who are just trying to do their jobs. Instead of telling us Conservatives that we are preventing work from moving forward and that we are anticulture, the government members should be explaining to Canadians how they can possibly justify this time allocation motion, when the committee still has many amendments to review. This is deeply concerning to not only me, but also to many Canadians.
I also want to talk about the precedent legislation like this could create for the future. In a society that values freedom of speech and freedom of expression, Bill C-10 would leave the door open to a massive abuse of power concerning the rights of Canadians.
It is not enough for the minister to stand in the House of Commons and claim this bill is not meant to target ordinary Canadians. Words spoken by the minister mean nothing if they do not coincide with the wording of the actual legislation.
The amendment regarding user-generated content aside, Bill C-10 creates a regulatory mess of a streaming and broadcasting industry in Canada. There are real harms that could come with this legislation as it currently stands. This bill is far broader than many Canadians realize, and certainly broader than the minister has claimed. This has led to a lack of understanding of the consequences of the bill as it relates to the general public.
With so many amendments being brought forward in such a short timeframe, it is hard for the public to keep up and stay informed. One thing we must always remember as parliamentarians is that we work for the people. It is our duty to keep our constituents informed and to seek their input on legislative matters. With this amendment being added, and this legislation being rushed through the legislative process so quickly, I fear many members will not have adequate time to properly inform and consult their constituents on this issue.
It is with extreme disappointment that I am speaking on this legislation tonight, knowing that so many voices have been silenced and important dialogue on this bill will not be heard. The government claims that limitations are integrated into this bill, so that it is not too overreaching.
The minister said in the House of Commons, “user-generated content, news content and video games would not be subject to the new regulations. Furthermore, entities would need to reach a significant economic threshold before any regulation could be imposed.”
This claim made by the minister is false, as there is no specific economic threshold that is established by the bill, which means that all Internet streaming services carried in Canada, whether domestic or foreign owned, are subject to Canadian regulation. That would mean if someone has Canadian subscribers, this law would, regardless of where the service provider is located, apply to them.
The limitations the minister is referring to are that the bill gives the CRTC the power to exempt services from regulation. It also leaves it entirely up to the CRTC to establish thresholds for regulations once the bill is enacted. This is dangerous, and while I have confidence in the work that the good people working for the CRTC do, it is our duty to legislate, not the CRTC's, and that means properly defining the term “significant economic threshold”.
Bill C-10 now has over 120 amendments, of which about a quarter were put forward by the government itself, even though it wrote the bill. My Conservative colleagues at the heritage committee did everything they could to fix the problems with Bill C-10 in the time they had. My colleagues say that in review stage, the work at committee was going well and progress was being made. That is until the Liberals decided to bring forward an amendment to include social media.
This amendment was so large it changed the scope of the bill entirely. It was at that point people, including experts, former CRTC commissioners and thousands of Canadians across the country, starting raising objections.
As I wrap up my speech, I am thinking of all the flaws contained in this bill and worry for the future of freedom of expression. While I do not suspect this bill was brought forward with malicious intentions, the wording in this legislation could set a terrible precedent.
It is okay for the government to admit when it is wrong and when it has gone too far. Now is the time for the government to acknowledge that it needs to take a step back, re-evaluate and correct the course.
View Nelly Shin Profile
CPC (BC)
View Nelly Shin Profile
2021-06-15 0:28 [p.8418]
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
I would like to present today's speech based on the perspective I bring from my previous profession as an artist.
Being a professional artist, whether a composer or writer, is an extremely difficult vocation to pursue, attain and sustain. There is a huge gap between those who have talent but have not been able to get their big break, and those who have found stardom. Secure gigs as staff writers or contracts to long-term projects are limited and competitive, and most artists pursue other careers to pay their bills.
As a composer, I have been around creative people most of my life. Artists are dreamers with a lot of discipline with their art and tireless hope to find their rainbow's end. They give their best performances whether for a three-member audience at an open mike or at an outdoor concert with hundreds of listeners. Artists do not tire of doing their best and following their dreams, because they are driven by the love of creating and the dream of sharing their work with a captive audience. For most artists, it is a labour of love.
A talented artist gets their big break when they are discovered by a large enough following that will help their career become sustainable. That is why songwriters want their music to eventually make its way to radio, television and film, and writers want their stories on TV and the big screen. However, anyone who has navigated the entertainment industry knows that there are gatekeepers who ensure media platforms give precedence to major players and minimal opportunity to the small players. They also base their content on market reach and capital.
At the end of the day, we call them the arts, but they are a business that uses the arts for capital. I am speaking neither for nor against this. There is room for commerce and art to contribute to economic prosperity together. What I am concerned about is the inequity of opportunity when industry gatekeepers determine the culture of a nation because of their mass reach. It is not a level playing field for artists who have a lot of talent and simply want to express themselves without having to succumb to the matrix for marketability that large corporations define.
Broadcasters and artists continue to have a symbiotic relationship, but not all artists are welcome to participate in this symbiotic relationship. Having CanCon regulation is a good thing to the extent that it safeguards Canadian content, but in practice CanCon is applied by corporations to Canadians who have already found their success to a large degree and who fit the marketability matrix. Fortunately, with or without CanCon, Canadians artists are still rising to the top and I am pleased by the diversity of content that broadcasters are tapping into today. There has been progress.
The digital world turned the entertainment industry upside down. It allowed independents to enter the arena without having to pass through gatekeepers. With fewer CD and DVD sales, big-name entertainment corporations and independents turned to download sales, but download sales were hurt by pirated content. With the shift to online streaming, the revenue source for creative content producers has become fluid with the prominence of Internet usage. Now Canadian broadcasters are also threatened by foreign players, as foreign content enters the Canadian digital market.
In response, the government may have thought to update the Broadcasting Act by increasing discoverability for artists and levelling the competition for broadcasters, and voila: here is Bill C-10. Originally, Bill C-10 was supposed to level the playing field by regulating large online streaming services, such as Disney+, Netflix and Amazon, to meet Canadian content requirements, just as for Canadian radio and television stations.
Through the Broadcasting Act, the CRTC is given power to issue broadcast licences to allow radio and TV stations to operate, and to regulate broadcasting while meeting conditions on the kinds of programming they can air and community standards. A portion of their programs, often 20% to 40%, is allotted to be Canadian content, and broadcasters can also be mandated to pay licence fees and contributions to the Canada media fund: a federal agency that subsidizes Canadian television and film.
The update that Bill C-10 proposes is a new category of web media called “online undertakings”, which would give the CRTC the same power to regulate the web that it has for traditional TV and radio stations without having to apply for licences. It seems simple and straightforward, but there is a glitch that could turn this seemingly benevolent piece of legislation into a Trojan horse.
Bill C-10 defines web media as “an undertaking for the transmission or retransmission of programs over the Internet for reception by the public by means of broadcasting receiving apparatus”. This definition is so vague that it could include everything from Amazon Prime to anyone with a website or a podcast. Programs under the Broadcasting Act are defined to include images, audio or a combination, of which written text is not predominant. This would refer to podcasts, photos, videos and memes, but not the written content on news articles and posts. It could include everything from a multimillion dollar film produced for Netflix to a 15-second pet video on TikTok.
I was shocked to learn that, while Conservative heritage committee members proposed an amendment to Bill C-10 to set some safeguards to limit regulations to online undertakings with more than $50 million a year in revenue and 250,000 subscribers in Canada, which would apply only to large streaming services, the Liberals rejected it. That means that not only was the government aiming at big companies but also that broadcasting is now being used to control everyday Canadians.
Section 2.1 and section 4.1 were two exemptions in Bill C-10 for social media. Section 2.1 refers to users who upload onto social media platforms. Thus, the user would not be subject to conditions like Canadian content requirements or contributions to the Canada Media Fund, which the CRTC would impose.
That exemption remains on Bill C-10, but section 4.1 was taken out of the bill. It dealt with the programs that users upload on social media, indicating that the CRTC and the Broadcasting Act could not regulate programs that only consist of user-uploaded programs, but the Liberals removed that section in the bill.
In summary, section 2.1 regulates speakers, while section 4.1 regulates speech. With the deletion of 4.1, the CRTC can regulate the content uploaded on social media and also regulate the social media platforms that allow users to publish content, just as it regulates content licensed on regular traditional stations.
The Liberals keep telling Conservatives that 2.1 will safeguard users, but the absence of 4.1 removes a safeguard from content. Bill C-10 has expanded the powers of the CRTC and the Broadcasting Act to provide grounds for the CRTC to adopt regulations requiring social media sites such as YouTube to remove content it considers offensive and discoverability regulations that would make them alter the algorithms to determine which videos are seen, more or less. Violations for these regulations could be very high for the individual and the corporation. These are the details of concern. I take issue on the infringement of personal freedoms and freedom of expression of Canadians. Even the B.C. Library Trustees Association is saying it needs clause 4.1 back. These are librarians and libraries.
As I mentioned earlier in my speech, the gap between artists and their audience is discoverability, but if the discoverability is regulated through controlled algorithms, then it creates yet another barrier for artists. Why should the CRTC define what listeners should discover instead of allowing audiences to determine that for themselves? Why is the government trying to bring a barrier between artists and their audiences?
The minister keeps saying they want Canadians to tell their stories, but why is there a gap in the bill that would allow someone or an entity to determine which stories are to be discoverable? Artists have already faced an industry that was dominated by large companies to determine what was worthy of discovering and promoting through broadcasting giants, so why should the CRTC be given access to gatekeep discoverability?
The minister says he wants to protect the languages of minorities, but the minister should know that much of ethnic programming is created by underfunded, independent producers who never see any advertising money because it goes straight to the network. Where is the support these independent grassroots producers need? Again, the small players are left behind.
The minister says artists have said Conservatives are not supportive of them, but who is the minister speaking with? I do not think he has the numbers of small players on speed dial. Were they consulted for this bill? If any artist thinks that Conservatives are not supportive of artists, it is because the Liberals have created this wedge by refusing to reinstate 4.1. They are forcing Conservatives to bow for democracy, and we are the only ones who seem to be doing that. The Liberals have created a custody battle that I do not want to be a part of.
I want to support content, and I want to support our broadcasters, but why does it have to be a battle between choosing between them and democracy? We put forward a motion at committee calling for new charter statements to be provided, but the Liberals voted to shut it down.
I cannot help but wonder if the Liberals have an agenda for omitting 4.1. Artists who are still striving to find a rainbow are discriminated against and exploited. They face financial instability for following their hearts. Most will never get fully compensated for the investments they have made in their careers.
If the Liberals had simply fixed 4.1, I would not have my suspicions. The fact that they have not done something so simple with something that was originally there, makes me come to the conclusion that they are playing political games against Conservatives, at the expense of struggling artists.
View Mario Simard Profile
BQ (QC)
View Mario Simard Profile
2021-06-10 13:35 [p.8213]
Madam Speaker, did I hear my colleague from La Prairie say that he would be sharing his time with me?
View Alain Therrien Profile
BQ (QC)
View Alain Therrien Profile
2021-06-10 13:35 [p.8213]
Madam Speaker, I am very sorry. My hon. colleague from Jonquière is absolutely right. I mentioned it, but I used my inner voice. I was unable to speak because my lips were zipped. It happens sometimes and I am very sorry.
You are very kind, Madam Speaker, to give us a chance to share our time. You will not regret it because the member for Jonquière is a great orator. You will be impressed by what he has to say.
Now, for the matter at hand. That reduced the amount of time we would have liked to have in the House. Of course, we must understand that these are extraordinary circumstances. In addition to the pandemic, which is complicating the work that we do in the House and in committee because of limited resources, there is something else going on. I will give my colleagues the scoop. They will be impressed by what I know. We are in a minority Parliament. No one seems surprised to hear that, I see.
This means that an election can happen at any time. Some may expect, and I say so with due regard, that elections may perhaps be called in August, September or October. Over the weekend, the Prime Minister appeared on different television stations. It is as though the Liberals are getting ready. It is as though he had put on his running shoes. It may not mean that he is going to call an election, but it might be about that. Now, we are going to prepare for an election.
There are lots of irons in the fire. A lot of documents are on the table and they just need a little push to be passed. In some cases, it represents the fruit of almost one year's labour. Some bills have been waiting for a long time, and we must try to pass them so we can say that our efforts bore fruit. That is always rewarding.
The Liberals recently told us that they have priorities, including Bill C‑6, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to conversion therapy, Bill C‑10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts, Bill C‑12, Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act, Bill C‑19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act with regard to the COVID‑19 response, and Bill C‑30, budget implementation act, 2021, no. 1. Those are the government's absolute priorities.
The Liberals also have two other priorities that they would like to refer to committee. I will not speak at length about them, but I am talking about Bills C‑21 and C‑22. We need to move these bills along.
For reasons it has already given, the Bloc Québécois absolutely wants Bill C‑10 to be passed by Parliament and the Senate, because that is what the cultural sector wants.
Madam Speaker, you know Quebec as well as anyone. You are the member for Brossard—Saint-Lambert, and there are surely artists in your riding who have called and asked you to help get this bill passed because Quebec's cultural vitality depends on it.
Quebec's culture is very important; it is the soul of a nation. This bill must be passed. Quebeckers are calling for it, the Quebec National Assembly has unanimously called for it, and my colleagues know that Quebec's cultural sector is waiting for this bill. We want to be able to accomplish this goal we have been working so hard on.
Unfortunately, we must face the fact that the Liberal Party is in power. I have been in Parliament for a year and a half. I was expecting to be impressed. I thought it would be impressive to see 338 members of Parliament capably and efficiently managing a huge country. As I watched the Liberals manage their legislative agenda I was disappointed on more than one occasion, and even very disappointed at times. They did not seem to want to get anything done. It never seemed as though they were taking things seriously.
For example, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs worked very hard on Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act regarding the COVID-19 response. We held 11 meetings and heard from 20 experts at all levels, and we finished drafting the report after the Liberals had introduced the bill.
If I were a sensitive guy, I might have thought I had done all that work for nothing. It might have hurt my feelings. Think of how much work went into coming up with solutions to help the government draft a smart bill. Instead, the government chose to introduce its bill before the committee had even completed its study, without even looking at what we had to say. To top it off, the government waited another three months to bring it up for debate, and that debate lasted just four hours.
Then it decided to move time allocation because the matter was suddenly so urgent despite the fact that the government spent just four hours on it over the course of five months, choosing instead to engage in three months' worth of obstruction at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which wanted to move the bill forward but was working on prorogation and had asked the Prime Minister to appear.
Once the obstruction was over, we asked if we could carry on with our work, but the government accused us of delaying the committee's work when it was actually the Liberals who stalled things. Once again, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs had to get to work on Bill C‑19 at the last minute.
That is how the government is managing its legislative agenda, and I could go on about that for hours. On Bill C‑10, the committee wanted the ministers to appear but the government stalled, forcing the committee to wait and obstructing the committee's work. When we were finally able to begin, we were like excited puppies waiting for visitors, but the government said we were too late. However, it is the government that has created the problem we are facing today. We are being squeezed like lemons, and the government thinks that if the committee members are not studying an issue, there is something wrong with them. This is what happens when the legislative agenda is not managed properly.
Nevertheless, the Bloc Québécois will support this motion because we want to move things forward for Quebec.
View Gérard Deltell Profile
CPC (QC)
View Gérard Deltell Profile
2021-06-09 18:13 [p.8176]
Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the chief whip of the official opposition in the House of Commons.
Let us be clear from the start. We have no problem with extending work hours at this time of the year, as in fact our standing orders provide.
However, we are extremely concerned about the motion introduced by the government and voted on a few moments ago, because we know that facilities are limited, given the current pandemic situation. A lot of technical efforts are being made and government officials have made generous offers to co-operate with us, and we greatly appreciate that. However, when we get to this time of year, there is a kind of bottleneck. That is why we have to strike a very fair and reasonable balance between extending the work hours in the House of Commons and keeping parliamentary committees running. That is where there is a disconnect with the motion put forward by the government.
I would remind members that the House of Commons is part of Parliament, and as its very name suggests, Parliament is a place for parley, in other words, for discussion. We in the official opposition discuss things with our counterparts on the government side and with the other opposition parties. I would never, ever go into the details of those discussions. However, one thing is certain and indisputable, that is, that we had honest, good-faith discussions with our counterparts and could not come to an agreement. That is the point.
As we saw, when my colleague, the chief whip of the official opposition, asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons a very specific question, that good man, whom I like and respect a great deal, was unable to give anything even remotely resembling the merest hint of an answer. As parliamentarians, we cannot give carte blanche in terms of which committees will survive this proposal and which will not.
It should be immediately obvious why we have some very serious concerns about the lack of clarity on the parliamentary committees. We need only look at this government's track record over the past few months in terms of parliamentary work.
However, it was funny to hear my Liberal colleague for Winnipeg North talk about everything being in limbo because of Conservative opposition members, that their tactic on a daily basis is to delay, delay, delay, and that there is a filibuster each and every step of the way on each and every bill. This is anything but true.
When we talk about filibustering, I think that the king of filibustering is the Liberal Party of Canada, especially in this session, and there is a record of that. I do not think that the member for Winnipeg North and his colleagues would be very proud of what they have done in committee.
Let us look at what the Liberals have been doing in parliamentary committees over the past few months. They were the ones who accused us earlier of filibustering, as in talking for hours and hours in order to waste time rather than get to the bottom of things.
We can look at the Standing Committee of Procedure and House Affairs where the Liberals had filibustered for 73 hours.
The Liberals filibustered for 73 hours, preventing the committee from doing its work. Why?
It is because we wanted to get to the bottom of things and allow witnesses to appear and explain why the government prorogued Parliament. The Liberals filibustered for 73 hours to prevent witnesses from testifying. Now they are the ones accusing us of being the bad guys holding up the works. It is ludicrous.
However, it does not end there.
We can look at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics where the Liberals filibustered for 43 hours. Why? It was to block getting to the truth about the WE Charity scandal.
There is a common thread in all this, however. When we want to get accurate information on Liberal scandals, they filibuster. They are very unhappy about that and accuse us of wanting to delay parliamentary work, when we are just doing our job.
These are concrete examples, but it does not end there. At the Standing Committee on Finance, the Liberals filibustered for 35 hours, once again to prevent parliamentarians from getting to the bottom of the WE Charity scandal.
At the Standing Committee on National Defence, the Liberals filibustered for over 16 hours. The committee chair, who is a member of the government party, unilaterally suspended the meetings 23 times.
This is starting to really add up: 63 hours at one committee, 43 hours at another, 35 hours at a third, 16 hours at a fourth. I have not even mentioned the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, where the Liberals filibustered for 10 hours, between February and April, on the study we wanted to conduct on the COVAX facility, which was created by rich countries to provide poor countries with access to vaccines. Sadly, members will recall that Canada, a rich country, helped itself to the supply for poor countries because it did not have the vaccines that the Prime Minister had announced at his December dog and pony show. That is the reality.
I hear government members accusing us of being the bad guys and filibustering, when they are the ones who filibustered for 63 hours at one committee, 43 hours at another, 35 hours at the Standing Committee on Finance, 16 hours at the Standing Committee on National Defence, and 10 hours at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs.
In light of the Liberals' dismal parliamentary record, we feel it is perfectly valid to want to be sure of what is planned for the committees before we give the government carte blanche to extend the committee and House sittings. However, the government refuses to tell us its plans and instead demands a free hand. We think this is unacceptable.
I heard my colleague from Winnipeg North explaining the status of some bills, so we will take a look at that assessment.
He talked about Bill C-3, regarding judges, which is modelled on a bill originally introduced by the Hon. Rona Ambrose. We are very proud of that legislation, but the Liberal government used the strongest weapon in its arsenal to delay its passage or concurrence, namely prorogation.
Let us not forget that last summer, when the Liberal government was in a real jam over the WE scandal, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics met day after day in July and again in August. The official opposition members strenuously challenged the government's moral authority, because it had adopted a despicable strategy for dealing with this scandal.
What did the government do when it was in trouble? It prorogued Parliament. This was the worst thing it could do to slow down the work of parliamentarians. Once Parliament is prorogued, everything goes back to square one. That is what happened with Bill C-3.
What about Bill C-11? I heard the member for Winnipeg North say how important this legislation is, and he is absolutely right. I even remember the member and Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry calling out the Conservatives on Twitter in February, accusing us of delaying Bill C-11 and saying that it was awful.
I quite like the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, who is the minister responsible. I have a lot of respect and regard for him, but when I saw that on Twitter, I found myself thinking that I had not seen Bill C-11 in a long time. When I checked, I saw that the last time the government had brought Bill C-11 forward in the House was on November 24, 2020. The bill then sat around for three months, through November, December, January and February, before the government brought it forward again. However, the government went after us in February, claiming that we were delaying it. That is completely absurd.
The member also mentioned Bill C-14, on the economic statement, since there was no budget. The government accused us and is still accusing us of filibustering it, when two-thirds of the official opposition members did not even speak on it.
I am proud to be the House Leader of the Official Opposition. Our caucus has 120 members who duly represent eight Canadian provinces and regions in the House of Commons. We are the only truly national party. I am very proud of the calibre of people I work with, and that is why, when they ask to speak, I am happy to add them to the political debate. However, it is utterly ludicrous to accuse us of filibustering when two-thirds of our caucus did not even speak.
That is why the motion, as currently presented, is unacceptable to us. We are ready and willing to work longer hours as long as the parliamentary work in the House of Commons can be done without compromising the work of the committees, but that is absolutely not the case with this motion.
View Brad Vis Profile
CPC (BC)
moved:
That, given that,
(i) the cost of housing continues to rise out of reach of Canadians,
(ii) current government policy has failed to provide sufficient housing supply,
the House call on the government to:
(a) examine a temporary freeze on home purchases by non-resident foreign buyers who are squeezing Canadians out of the housing market;
(b) replace the government's failed First-Time Home Buyer Incentive with meaningful action to help first-time homebuyers;
(c) strengthen law enforcement tools to halt money laundering;
(d) implement tax incentives focused on increasing the supply of purpose-built market rental housing units; and
(e) overhaul its housing policy to substantively increase housing supply.
He said: Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable.
In the Building the Future Together report, Canadians told the government that the most important outcome from the national housing strategy would be “an increase in the supply of housing that they can afford and that meets their needs.”
At a time when many expected the cost of real estate to drop, prices skyrocketed to stratospheric levels, leaving young Canadians, new immigrants and those seeking to enter the housing market with a general feeling of hopelessness as their dream of home ownership slipped away.
I table this motion today because housing is farther out of reach than ever before, and we find ourselves in an affordability crisis across the housing continuum. I will be using my time to speak to each aspect of the motion and to address the integrity measures, demand policies and supply deficit in our housing system. This crisis is multi-faceted and there are no easy solutions, but the status quo is not okay.
My first point addresses Canada's foreign buyer issue. We need to calmly, openly and comprehensively talk about the very real and at times negative role foreign buyers play in Canada's residential real estate markets. We know the actions of foreign speculators and investors are increasing home prices for regular Canadians.
Dr. Josh Gordon's report, “Reconnecting the Housing Market to the Labour Market: Foreign Ownership and Housing Affordability in Urban Canada”, has found that the decoupling of housing prices from local incomes can occur, and arguably is occurring in Vancouver and Toronto especially, when there is substantial foreign ownership in the market. This is defined as “the use of untaxed foreign income and wealth for housing purchases”.
While he makes good use of the data at hand, in my conversations with Dr. Gordon it became clear that the available data is insufficient. CMHC, StatsCan, and provinces and territories need to be collecting better data for this reason. For instance, a CMHC study found that in 2016-17, one in five new Vancouver condos was owned by non-residents, but we need more current and more comprehensive data. Housing in Canada must be for Canadians, first and foremost.
If we do not have the data, we cannot achieve this objective. The government's own parliamentary secretary for housing publicly admits that our system works better for foreign investors than for Canadians trying to find homes. However, the government's solution is a proposed 1% annual tax. It has not even begun consultations on this yet, and the exemptions are already longer than my arm.
Will the government commit to a meaningful disincentive to foreign buying of Canadian real estate? Why not a 10% tax? Better yet, the government should do what this motion calls for and freeze the flow of foreign money into our residential real estate sector until the supply deficit has been met and Canadians can afford homes in their own country.
People are losing faith in the institutions that are supposed to protect their interests. When the pandemic ends, and before foreign investors come back to our markets in force, we need to know who is purchasing homes and the sources of the funds they are using. UBC Professor Paul Kershaw of Generation Squeeze has suggested harnessing foreign investment for the types of housing Canada needs, such as co-operatives and affordable purpose-built rentals.
Point number two addresses first-time home buyers. We must ensure that there is a pathway for hard-working Canadians to achieve home ownership, but this dream is quickly moving out of reach for the middle class. Home ownership should not be based on being born to wealthy parents. It should be based on hard work and a fair system.
Habitat for Humanity recently shared that “home ownership matters for every social determinant of health”. Home ownership lifts families and helps them build bright futures for themselves.
The Liberal government, unfortunately, is absent on this issue. Its first-time homebuyer incentive program is a failure. Its original objective was to help 200,000 Canadians over three years. We are now in year two, and it has helped approximately 10,600 families. How on Earth can the government consider this program successful?
Why does it not look at extending amortization periods and mortgage terms to reduce monthly payments and provide more security for both lenders and borrowers, or help young families save for down payments through tax incentives?
What about adjusting mortgage qualification criteria in favour of first-time home buyers rather than investors, or expanding some of the initiatives from the private sector, including new shared equity programs?
The third point is money laundering in Canada. Yet another failure of Canada is our inability to address money laundering. The reason terms like the “Vancouver model” and “snow-washing” exist is because our nation is a global case study in how not to stop money laundering. Not only are our laws and regulations ineffective, but we poorly enforce the ones we have. Report after report shows that Canada largely fails to successfully convict money launderers. Almost three-quarters of people accused go free, a 2019 Global News investigation found. The Toronto Star found that 86% of charges laid for laundering the proceeds of crime were withdrawn or stayed. B.C.'s Attorney General shockingly found years ago that Ottawa had assigned precisely zero RCMP officers to fight money laundering in B.C. That only changed after January of this year.
At the finance committee, Transparency International highlighted that the 2016 release of the Panama papers showcased Canada's global reputation as a desirable place for dirty cash. Five years later it found that nothing had changed.
The government needs to implement recommendations from the numerous experts who have explored this issue. These include Peter German's “Dirty Money” reports parts 1 and 2, the Expert Panel on Combatting Money Laundering in B.C. Real Estate and the ongoing Cullen commission of inquiry into money laundering in B.C.
The fourth point is purpose-built rentals. Purpose-built rental construction has not kept pace with demand. Quite simply, there are no incentives for developers to build rental units in Canada and this needs to change. Much of Canada's current rental housing stock was built in the 1970s and 1980s through the multiple unit residential building program, or MURB. It was not a grant or a loan program, but a tax incentive program that unlocked the private capital of Canadians and directed it to rental housing. According to the Library of Parliament, MURB is estimated to have led to the construction of 195,000 units of rental housing at the lowest estimate. Studies have indicated that number could be as high as 344,000 units. It did all of this for the comparably low cost of $1.8 billion in forgone revenue, and that is in today's dollars.
The government is spending $70 billion on the national housing strategy, including provincial money, for 125,000 units. At some level, the federal Liberals know this is the way to go, hence the rental construction financing initiative, but this still ties developers to the federal bureaucratic process, which is slow. The Rental Construction Financing Initiative, RCFI, has quietly become the largest single funding envelope of the national housing strategy. Now at $25.75 billion, it promises to deliver 71,000 units of housing in approximately 10 years. This is not a great comparison with MURB's 195,000 units for $2 billion.
CMHC's new CEO, Romy Bowers, shared with the HUMA committee that the private sector is the only way we will meet Canada's housing needs. I agree. There are additional tools that could unshackle contractors as well. For instance, why not waive the GST for the construction of purpose-built market rental housing, or allow those with aging rental stock to defer the capital gain when selling provided the money is reinvested in rental housing? Increasing the nationwide stock of purpose-built market rental units serves to better everyone along the housing continuum. Canadians have never had more disposable income. Why not direct that to a social policy that could do some good?
The fifth point is increasing supply. We know Canada has a housing supply shortage. According to a recent Scotiabank report, Canada has the lowest number of housing units per 1,000 residents of any G7 country. Experts have been saying this for years, and COVID illustrated it better than anything else. Now many but not all of the policy levers to increase housing supply rest with provincial and municipal governments. Yes, red tape at these levels is a problem, but the federal government should incent the removal of restrictive zoning and NIMBYist bylaws by making any infrastructure investment conditional on their removal. Of course, any infrastructure funds must be accounted for transparently, unlike the current government's haphazard approach condemned by the Auditor General in report 9—
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2021-06-08 12:06 [p.8083]
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my friend, the hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.
The housing issue is a major cause of concern. Like food and clothing, housing is an essential need. Any self-respecting society must at least be able to ensure that every individual has access to housing.
The cost of housing must also be reasonable. These concerns are shared by virtually every country, city and village in the world. No place in the world seems to be immune to rental and real estate market disruptions, despite the fact that we do not live like Jack London’s People of the Abyss.
When a problem arises, solutions appear to be varied and complex, and several crises have shown that, when the situation gets out of hand, it can be serious and long-lived, causing much suffering. We need to take this very seriously, we need to be concerned about the housing shortage and skyrocketing rents, and we have to take strong and concrete action right now.
It has become difficult to access not only affordable housing, but home ownership as well. People’s ability to become homeowners must be protected at all costs. On this, I would like to refer to Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century. In this book, Piketty stresses the historical importance of the emergence of the middle class. Higher income levels allowed the middle class to build up a little capital, which largely manifested in the purchase of property. It was a real revolution, and we must preserve our gains.
Preserving the ability of the working class to become homeowners is a crucial issue for anyone who wants to live in a society where wealth is not over-concentrated. Today, though, how can a person who earns $45,000 a year, the median salary in Quebec, buy a $690,000 house, the median price of a home in Montreal?
Even a $385,000 house is virtually out of reach. Still, that is the median price of a house in the most affordable area, the north shore of Montreal. Even with two salaries it is very difficult to afford buying, even a condo.
We are witnessing an alignment between income and real estate and rent prices. Prices of real estate are rising, making it a good investment for people who can afford it. However, rising real estate costs reduce home ownership opportunities for the less fortunate, which is eroding the middle class. The situation is leading us away from the type of society we want.
Skyrocketing real estate prices have led to a boom in rental costs. Individuals and families are spending far too large a percentage of their income on housing. As a general rule, housing costs should not exceed one third of income, and ideally they should account for about a quarter. Unfortunately, this is less and less the case. We are now at the point where this basic need is becoming less and less affordable.
Let me give two examples. Today, if I want to rent a small apartment in Montreal, I will have to pay $1,200 a month. This is 30% higher than in 2019, and three and a half times more than I was paying when I was in university about 20 years ago. Obviously, salaries have not increased by 30% since the beginning of the pandemic, and they have not tripled in the past 20 years. The upshot is that many individuals and families are devoting a much larger proportion of their income to housing. The corollary is that they have to cut down on other costs. First they cut out the little extras and treats, but they soon find themselves having to choose which basic needs to forgo. That is the point that regular folks have reached, and it is not acceptable.
My second example concerns Saint-Jean-de-Matha. About 15 years ago, I went to see a small house for sale on a nice lot right in the middle of town. The house was really cute. The seller, a friend of mine, was embarrassed to ask for $34,000 because he had bought the house from another friend a few years earlier for $25,000. That is how things are in Saint-Jean-de-Matha: everyone knows each other, and everyone is friends with one another. He ended up selling his house for $30,000 because he could not bring himself to price it at full market value. Today, that house or its equivalent would sell for at least $150,000. However, salaries have not increased 500% in the past 15 years. The price will probably even continue to rise, because $150,000 is well below the median house price on the north shore, never mind in Montreal proper.
In recent decades, there has been an overall increase in residential real estate prices and rents. Of course, all this has gotten worse since the beginning of the pandemic. It is not all that surprising, since people spent more on housing during the pandemic. There were fewer places to spend money, and people wanted to spend the lockdown in a bigger place with more space. However, this latest surge in prices is highlighting a problem that has existed for decades. There are several factors involved, and there is no simple solution for stabilizing the market. Low interest rates played a role. Mortgage payments are monthly. When interest rates fall, people can buy a more expensive home and keep the same monthly payment. That makes sense.
However, when interest rates begin to rise again, then they are in trouble. That is why I agree with the new measure that requires people to demonstrate their ability to pay a higher interest rate before they obtain financing. That should help bring the market to a more acceptable level.
Obviously, the issue of foreign investors is troubling. The promise to grant citizenship to a person who comes and buys a $500,000 condo has always been a bad idea. The goal was to attract capital, but it caused real estate prices to climb and reduced the number of available housing units, since these condos usually sit empty. This sucks the life out of the downtown cores, because there are not as many people living there. We need to revise this policy, and I am not certain that the 1% tax will help.
We are having the same type of problem with foreign money laundering in real estate, which is causing prices to shoot up and reducing the number of housing units available. We need to address this problem as well, since it is unacceptable and extremely detrimental.
We also have to tackle the issue of Airbnb and other sharing platforms. The prospect of renting one's home to a tourist is appealing, but it becomes problematic when many homes are rented to tourists and are no longer used to house people. That exacerbates scarcity and drives up rent. That has to change.
The government plays an essential role in the social housing supply. When it plays its role well, it supports low-income individuals and families and indirectly helps keep prices more realistic across the market. Unfortunately, Ottawa has been neglecting that role for nearly 30 years. New investments are still nowhere near historical levels, and that has consequences. When Ottawa chose to cut funding for social housing, it was well aware that its decision would lead to misery and distress, and it knew full well that its actions would contribute to the problems we are having today.
I welcome the new funding for social housing and homelessness. It is a step in the right direction, but it is not nearly enough. Actual dollar amounts may have increased, but Ottawa has in fact reduced its funding as a percentage of GDP. We need the government to keep up, not gradually fall behind. I also condemn the lack of predictability and the unjustified delays in transferring the money to Quebec.
The Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain, or FRAPRU, points out the importance of specifically targeting social housing.
Whether it is co-operative, non-profit or public, social housing protects tenants from exorbitant rent increases, repossessions and renovictions.
We must also remember the whole issue of housing for first nations people, especially in urban areas. That is very important.
Let us also consider that with such an increase in housing prices and rent, we should expect an increase in residential construction, because an increase in the housing stock will help rebalance market forces. We must figure out how to juggle the land shortage and the issue of urban sprawl, while bearing in mind concerns about climate change. This increase is also held back by the availability of resources. Building housing takes time, and we are currently seeing that the construction sector cannot meet demand. As a result, prices are increasing, especially for building materials.
I would like to remind my colleagues that Quebec and the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over housing. Since housing needs vary considerably depending on the socio-demographic context, the provincial and municipal governments are in a better position to assess and identify their residents' needs, since they are closer to local issues. They are asking the federal government to increase funding for social housing and to immediately transfer the necessary funds to Quebec and the provinces, no strings attached.
In conclusion, I would like to remind members how important it is to have a healthy real estate market. The well-being of regular people and the less fortunate depends on it. That is the type of society we want to live in. We must also watch out for real estate bubbles. Think about the bubble in Tokyo in the 1990s, when the land value of downtown Tokyo surpassed the value of the entire state of California, or the subprime crisis in the U.S. When these bubbles burst, there are always terrible consequences, and we need to avoid them at all costs.
View Alexandre Boulerice Profile
NDP (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the fantastic member for Vancouver East.
Like the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, I was shocked to see that the Conservative motion is about housing. It is rare that we hear them talk about this subject. So much the better if their motion talks about housing because it is a real subject, a real issue and a real problem.
Does the motion present real solutions? That is another matter, and we can talk about it later.
Housing is a critical issue that affects thousands of people in Montreal, Quebec and across Canada. Obviously, my speech is going to focus on Montreal because that is where my riding is located. There is a real housing crisis in my riding. It is not the only place in Quebec that has been affected by the crisis, but it is one of the places that has been hardest hit by it.
The vacancy rate is approximately 1%, which is extremely low. That means that people do not have a lot of choices. Sometimes they are even forced to stay where they are because there are no other options available. Some housing units are dangerous and can jeopardize the health of their occupants. I will come back to that later.
As I was saying, the vacancy rate is really low. The delay regarding the Canada-Quebec agreement exacerbated the crisis. The federal government waited three years before releasing the funds and getting out the shovels and bricks to start real housing projects. Unfortunately, Quebec has been the last in line when it comes to housing.
The vacancy rate puts intense pressure on both the rental market and on home ownership. People are paying ridiculously high prices for housing. In Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, 74% of residents are renters. I recently saw a two-bedroom apartment going for $1,750 a month. A two-bedroom apartment cannot house a big family. Furthermore, I wonder what kind of job someone needs to have to be able to pay $1,750 a month. The average income is around $40,000 or $45,000 a year. Rent is, on average, $1,200 or $1,300. This puts a lot of pressure on workers, on the middle class and, obviously, the less fortunate.
Why is housing so important? It is because there are a few things we can do to help improve people's lives.
People need better working conditions. If someone earns more and inflation is not too high, they can increase their purchasing power. Higher wages are therefore a good thing.
The government can also use fiscal tools, such as taxes, to redistribute wealth and achieve greater equality within our society. One of the best ways to fight poverty and reduce inequality is to tackle the biggest expense for individuals, families and households. That biggest expense is rent.
Let us tackle that problem so we can really help people and lift them out of poverty. Maybe that just means giving them a little bit of a leg up to help improve their quality of life so they can take a vacation or go to a restaurant or the movies. When those activities are allowed, of course, but we all agree that it is coming.
Everyone knows that if a person spends more than 30% of their income on rent, they will end up poor and vulnerable. Right now, 20% of people spend more than 50% of their income on rent. In other words, one in five people spends more than half their paycheque on rent. That is outrageous. About 3,000 households or 6,000 to 7,000 people in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie are in that situation. That is a lot of people.
As I said off the top, I was happy to read the Conservatives' motion. Then I started combing through it for a couple of words that turned out not to be there: “affordable” and “social”. The motion says nothing about affordable or social housing even though social housing in particular is the best way to help people get decent housing that is within their means. It is possible to create housing that costs people no more than 25% of their income, of their pay.
That makes a huge difference. It helps people in a tangible way. However, the Conservatives have disregarded this and have not included it among the options on the table, even if it is the best tool we have to help people and give them decent housing.
The Liberals occasionally talk about social housing, but they do not invest enough in it.
The Liberal plan, of which they are so proud, is to create 160,000 affordable or social housing units. I will get to what affordability means. The Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness says that there is an urgent need to build 300,000 housing units in Canada. The plan in question, of which the Liberals are so proud, barely manages to offer half of what is needed to meet the needs of the population. Personally, I would not pat myself on the back as much as they do.
The NDP wants to go farther, faster. We want to make the kind of effort that has not been seen since the Second World War and build 500,000 new affordable social housing units in the next 10 years.
When we use the word “affordable”, we must consider certain criteria and be mindful of the definition. I will get right to the issue of affordability. As a matter of fact, depending on the definition, it can refer to some completely absurd situations. If our only criteria is that these units are rented 5% cheaper than the market average, which is exploding and reaching outrageous and ridiculous prices, we end up with housing that is considered “affordable”, but for which people need to have an outrageously high salary and an outrageously low standard of living.
According to the Liberal definition, in Ottawa, a unit that rents for $2,750 a month is considered affordable. The Liberal government thinks this is affordable for the poor and the middle class. I cannot wait to go door to door on this issue.
We need to be able to build housing outside the logic of the market. That is why the NDP puts so much emphasis on building social housing and co-operative housing, which is another way to deal with the housing problem. This goes beyond the single perspective of real estate developers, profits and business objectives. There is obviously room for a lucrative private real estate market. There is also nothing wrong with helping people get a better deal in the market and helping young families get into home ownership.
However, we must be able to keep a part of our real estate market outside the regular market. This would reflect the principles of public service, co-operation and mutual aid, and it would include housing co-operatives, for example, which are common in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. These are great places to live, where people learn about co-operation, living together, sharing and local democracy. We have to continue to push in that direction.
We need to recognize that housing is a fundamental right and part of human dignity. For years now, the NDP has been introducing bills and fighting to have housing recognized as a right. That would make all the difference.
Speaking of making a difference, the federal government could still make a difference with investments and funding. I talked about 500,000 affordable social housing units, but there are also a lot of other things, such as working with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the CMHC, to make it easier for young families to access home ownership and to encourage the creation and maintenance of the co-op housing I was talking about.
We must also use federal land. There is federal land that is not being used and could be sold to private developers to build various projects. Why not set aside and use these federal lands to ensure that social housing is built, for example in the riding of Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, in Montreal, where there are some very interesting sites? They should be set aside for social housing.
Locally, in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, there is the issue of “renovictions”, when people are forced to leave their dwelling because of renovations. This does not fall under federal jurisdiction, but we must work with the provinces to come up with solutions.
As for housing safety and environmental health, I joined a protest near my office started by people who were unable to move out of their dwelling even though it contained mould and was dangerous for the occupants.
The La Petite Patrie housing committee is working extremely hard with regard to the construction of social housing close to the Bellechasse sector. The Rosemont housing committee is also working to have other properties designated entirely as community housing when new projects are built, which is interesting.
With regard to the former Centre de services scolaire de Montréal or CSDM building on Sherbrooke Street, the Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain, or FRAPRU, is asking that it be reserved for social housing.
I think that is an excellent idea and something we should consider.
View Kenny Chiu Profile
CPC (BC)
View Kenny Chiu Profile
2021-06-08 13:10 [p.8093]
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Shepard.
I am the father of two young adult daughters who, in the not-so-distant future, with their effort and determination, like countless other young Canadians, will be entering the home-buying market. Similar to countless other young Canadians, my daughters are living at home, watching the never-ending stream of media reports saying housing in Canada is entirely unaffordable. Young Canadians looking to enter the market cannot do so on their own, nor should they bear the expectation that they should at this time, especially in my home city of Richmond. Even with hard work and saving up for a down payment, the reality is that many will still require parental support, something I will likely be blessed to be able to give my daughters, but something that is not available to everyone.
We see Canadians faced with a sudden expectation adjustment, one reminiscent of our Prime Minister's comment that this generation could be the first generation in many decades to be worse off than their parents. I, for one, would like to point out that the rampant, reckless spending and deficit spending prior to or after the pandemic and the types of policies being implemented by his government will pretty much guarantee that outcome.
The reality is that much-anticipated tax expansion and government programs will not address the affordable housing shortage or the underlying causes of our housing crisis. To the contrary, the tax burden imposed by reckless spending over the past six years, even excluding pandemic relief, will tie the hands of future governments and prevent them from tackling other housing priorities such as homelessness and poverty.
Home prices have skyrocketed over this past COVID year and the dream of home ownership is becoming more distant for Canadians to attain. The national average home price was a record $678,000 in February 2021, up 25% from the same month last year. In my home city of Richmond, single detached home prices are up 20% in the past year, averaging at $1.5 million, far above the rest of the country. I find it ridiculous and ironic that Canada, with the world's second-largest land mass and sparse population, has to suffer such a housing crisis. The difficulties Canadians face are certainly exacerbated by the government's mismanagement of supply in our housing markets. Its incompetence is not limited to only home ownership.
The Liberal government has done nothing to address the rental market as an affordable option for Canadians either. Increasing supply within the rental market would be a boon for renters trying to make ends meet in increasingly unaffordable conditions. The government's ideas so far do nothing to address the real issues affecting affordability in our real estate market, namely through the lack of housing supply. To top it off, the two-years-too-late Liberal budget failed to rule out the introduction of capital gains taxes on the principal residences of Canadians. Punishing those who have a home as a way to pay for the government’s current or future excessive and poorly managed spending does not help solve the housing crisis.
The Liberals' national housing strategy has been defined by funding delays and cumbersome, difficult-to-navigate programs. It has consistently failed to get funding out of the door in a timely fashion for the projects that need it most. The national housing co-investment fund is one of the worst-offending programs, as we have heard from the member for Vancouver East.
However, members do not have to listen to me on this. Housing providers across the country have called it “cumbersome” and “complicated”, which is slightly higher praise than what the Liberals received on their first-time homebuyer initiative, a program that has proven to be a fatally flawed, dismal failure. It was intended to help 20,000 Canadians in the first six months, but has only reached 10,000 in over 18 months. It did not accomplish its primary objective of improving affordability in high-cost regions. These changes will not help prospective buyers in Victoria, Vancouver or Toronto.
When the Liberals' only solution to affordable home ownership is to take on a share of a Canadian's mortgage, and when their solution is actively discouraged by brokers, the government should realize that it is time to change direction, not double-down on poor policy. The Liberals should be helping Canadians by giving them the tools to save, lowering their taxes and creating jobs. For example, by incentivizing the use of RRSPs, Canadians could leverage their own savings to purchase a home.
Once again, the bureaucratic, Ottawa-knows-best approach is hurting our communities. It goes to prove that the Liberal government consistently misses the concerns of Canadians, such as concerns over legislative and enforcement gaps that have allowed the drug trade to launder illicit money through our real estate markets; concerns over supply, funding and support program criteria for long-term care homes; and the concern to fix the shortfalls of the national housing co-investment fund, a program that housing providers across the country have voiced their criticism of, stating that the application process is too cumbersome and the eligibility criteria too complicated.
Canadians cannot afford more inaction. Only Conservatives are focused on ensuring Canadians are not left paying the price for Liberal mismanagement. Conservatives recognize the severity of the nationwide housing affordability crisis faced by Canadians.
I believe in a bold vision for my home of Richmond, one where every family who works hard and saves responsibly can achieve home ownership. I believe that the future of housing in Canada will be built on proper management of our nation's supply. Following consultation with my colleagues, I was pleased to learn that Conservatives share a belief in a nationwide plan to get homes built as part of Canada's economic recovery.
We believe in real action, not lip service, to address the consequences of money laundering and the negative impacts it has in our society. Our plan to secure the future will prioritize the needs of Canadians before foreign investors, provide meaningful housing solutions and put families in the housing market. Conservatives have advocated and will continue to advocate for improvements to mortgage policies, to the taxation system, to combat money laundering, to increase housing supply across the continuum, and to address rampant speculation and unfair profiteering.
Canada needs a plan to get our economy back on track, but over a year into the pandemic the Liberal government, like a ship that has lost its anchor, is still operating lost at sea. In response, we Conservatives have developed Canada's recovery plan that sets a course to secure Canada's future, including the modest dream of owning a home.
View Leona Alleslev Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Edmonton Manning.
I am honoured to have the opportunity to speak to this very important opposition motion on housing. Canada does have a housing crisis. Every day, citizens from my riding and across Canada come to me with heartbreaking stories on the challenges they face in putting a roof over their head. Many tell me they can no longer afford to stay in their homes, others share that they cannot find anywhere at all to live. I hear from young families who are forced to live far from their places of work, because it is all they can find and young people who are losing hope that they will ever be able to own a house of their own.
Nearly one in 10 Canadians experience hidden homelessness. One in seven Canadian households cannot find decent housing without spending 30%, or more, of their income. In my riding, in the greater Toronto area that number is drastically worse. The average Toronto household costs over $850,000 where Canada’s average is $562,000, with many Toronto buyers taking nearly 75% of their household income to cover home ownership costs.
The blatant truth is that there is not enough housing available and the housing that is available is simply too expensive. The critical shortage of housing and the corresponding skyrocketing of housing prices is a serious problem that is getting worse, and not one that will fix itself.
Economists at the big banks have been increasingly sounding the alarm over Canada’s housing market. Big bank economists do not typically use strong language on any topic, so when they do, we must take note and treat it with the severity that it deserves. In February, economists at the National Bank highlighted the warning signs of widespread price surges, vulnerable borrowers with high debt and uninsured mortgages.
A Royal Bank economist in late March stated that a policy response was required to address a housing market that has not had an “overheating of this scope since the late 1980s.” This position was further reinforced by Bank of Montreal economists who stated that “policy-makers need to act immediately” to respond to the “housing fire” that Canada is currently living through.
Canada’s national housing affordability crisis requires a comprehensive federal government approach combined with a sense of urgency that takes concrete action to implement it. Today’s opposition day motion calls on the government to do just that.
This crisis in Canada is a complex issue, but today I would like to focus on the three main areas that I think should be considered in any federal government approach: tax structure changes, including addressing vacant and non-resident foreign ownership, rampant housing speculation and money laundering; employment and the quality, not just quantity, of jobs; and longer-term thinking around the total cost of ownership of housing, and how targeted initiatives could make housing more affordable while also achieving our national goals around environment and climate change.
What is taxed, how it is taxed, and the information and documentation that is provided in support of those taxes are important tools that a federal government could use to influence the foundations of our economy, including the housing market.
Many of the housing market issues are associated with shortages in supply, with renters being disproportionately affected. Renter households are four and a half times more likely to be in housing need, largely due to a severe shortage in rental properties. However, often the shortage is because properties are being left vacant rather than there not being enough properties. One such example is the explosion in the use of properties for short-term rentals such as Airbnbs. There are significant tax advantages that currently, perhaps inadvertently, incentivize owners of vacant properties to use them as for this purpose rather than as housing for longer-term renters.
While tourism is certainly a key component of our economy, the ability for families to secure long-term rentals for housing must also be prioritized. Perhaps if the tax structures were altered to, as a minimum, level the playing field between the two usage types, more property owners would choose to offer their properties for long-term rentals increasing the available supply.
What is also affecting the supply of shelter is the extent to which owned properties are simply being left vacant. Many of these properties are non-resident, foreign-owned. A temporary freeze on this type of ownership would be a substantive measure toward increasing the supply. Furthermore, a review of the tax conditions on properties that remain vacant for extended periods of time would also be important to look into.
The real estate market has been extensively exploited by money laundering, further compounding the problem of both the supply and the cost of housing. It is estimated that $47 billion is laundered annually across Canada with a significant portion, with some estimates as high as 68% of that being in the real estate market.
Nearly half of all real estate companies are not complying with key aspects of the FINTRAC anti-money laundering regime and Canadian authorities are failing to prosecute these financial crimes. Compliance and enforcement of Canada’s anti-money laundering must be a priority. Additionally, the introduction of beneficial ownership to increase transparency would be a significant measure that would increase the availability of housing supply and in turn reduce housing prices.
Finally, tax changes that would temper the rampant speculation in the housing market should also be explored. The purchase of properties for the sole purpose of “flipping” is contributing to the rapid price increases. Perhaps, the practice of “flipping” should be viewed in the context of a business operation and not as a principal residence.
Clearer residential requirements, including rules that disallow multiple principal residences within a certain period or time frame without supporting justification, such as a move for work, could all be important tax changes that should be considered, again to increase the housing supply and cool the drastic pricing increases.
While cost of housing may be a critical piece in the accessibility to a place Canadians can call home, it is not the only one. A steady and reliable income is as important on the path to home ownership. With over 30% of the Canadians precariously employed, addressing the housing crisis must include measures to increase not only the quantity, but also the quality, of jobs.
The last area that must be considered in addressing housing affordability is the standard and quality of available housing. The cost of a home is more than just the purchase price. It is also the annual recurring cost of heating, cooling, maintaining the house and much more. Significant technological advances offer much greater energy efficiency, lower carbon footprints and greater resilience against climate change events.
However, building codes lag far behind and government housing investments do not demand compliance with these higher standards. While a tax incentive to retrofit existing properties may be beneficial, the advantages of all-new builds meeting the highest possible standards and the corresponding contribution to home affordability should not be overlooked.
The national housing crisis must be urgently addressed. It requires real action to review detrimental tax treatments, address money laundering and rampant speculation, and support long-term environmental and sustainable thinking. Today’s opposition motion puts forward important actions that will give more people a real chance at securing a decent and affordable roof over their head, and in turn, secure Canada’s future. I urge everyone in this House to support this critical motion.
View Francesco Sorbara Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the distinguished member for Kingston and the Islands.
Before I begin my speech, I would like to pay my respects to the four Canadians who were taken from their family and friends. This absolutely breaks my heart. I know all Canadians have their thoughts with this family and with the nine-year-old boy for whom we all wish a full recovery. May light overcome such darkness, and, yes, we must root out all forms of discrimination, including Islamophobia. It needs to be called out. It needs to be condemned. At this time, we all stand shoulder to shoulder with Muslim Canadians across this country.
I am pleased to contribute to this very important debate that we are having, as this issue impacts all Canadians from coast to coast. I would like to thank the hon. member for raising the issue of housing. It is a frustrating period for many Canadians who are trying to purchase their first home. High housing costs, especially in urban centres, continue to put financial pressure on many middle-class and low-income Canadians. COVID-19 has exacerbated existing housing affordability and homelessness issues and the public health risks of substandard and crowded living quarters.
This government knows that a long-term plan for a faster-growing Canadian economy must include housing that is affordable for Canadians, especially young families. Stable housing is critical for communities and for a strong middle class. Affordable housing is also essential for economic fairness and growth.
Investments to make housing more affordable for the most vulnerable, coupled with measures to limit foreign speculation in the housing market, will help ensure that our economic recovery is an inclusive one that helps more people join the middle class.
That is why the government has a plan as part of budget 2021 to invest $2.5 billion and reallocate $1.3 billion in existing funding to speed up the construction, repair or support of 35,000 affordable housing units.
Since 2015, this government has made historic investments to increase supply and make housing more affordable. For example, under Canada's first national housing strategy, we are on track to deliver over $70 billion in investments by 2027-28 that will support the construction of up to 160,000 affordable homes and increase Canada's housing supply.
We also introduced the rapid housing initiative to address urgent housing needs for vulnerable Canadians in all regions of Canada. The $1-billion program will be expanded with an additional $1.5-billion allocation from budget 2021.
At least 25% of that money will go towards women-focused housing projects. Overall, this new funding will add a minimum of 4,500 new affordable units to Canada's housing supply, building on the 4,700 units already funded.
The funding is available to municipalities, provinces and territories, indigenous governing bodies and organizations, and non-profit organizations. Funding will be used for the construction of modular housing as well as for the acquisition of land and for converting existing buildings into affordable housing units. Most recently, the federal government announced it is aligning the minimum qualifying rate for insured mortgages with that for uninsured mortgages, subject to review and periodic adjustment, that being the greater of the borrower's mortgage contract rate plus 2%, or 5.25%. This will apply to insured mortgages approved as of June 1, 2021.
The government also recently expanded access to the first-time home buyer incentive to make sure more middle-class Canadians in Toronto, Vancouver and Victoria and cities of the like can benefit from this support. The program reduces a first-time home buyer's mortgage payments to make buying a home more affordable.
Another factor contributing to unaffordable housing prices for many Canadians in some of our biggest cities is speculative demand from foreign non-resident investors. That is why on January 1, 2022, the government will introduce Canada's first national tax on vacant and under-used residential property owned by non-resident non-Canadians. Houses should not be a passive investment vehicle for offshore money. They should be homes for Canadian families, many of whom reside in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge.
The tax will require owners other than Canadian citizens or permanent residents of Canada to file a declaration as to the current use of the property, with significant penalties for failure to file. Revenues generated through this tax will help support the government's significant investments in making housing more affordable for all Canadians.
I would like to turn back to some of the other housing measures contained in the budget. Budget 2021 proposes $600 million over seven years to renew and expand the affordable housing innovation fund. To date, this program has committed funding to support the creation of over 17,600 units, including more than 16,300 affordable housing units and units for persons with accessibility challenges. This new funding would support the creation of up to 12,700 more units.
This is an investment of $315.4 million over seven years through the Canada housing benefit to increase direct financial assistance for low-income women and children fleeing violence to help with their rent payments.
The budget also proposes $118.2 million over seven years through the federal community housing initiative, to support community housing providers that deliver long-term housing to many of our most vulnerable.
Of the $1.3 billion of previously announced funding that has been reallocated, $750 million under the national housing co-investment fund will accelerate the creation of 3,400 units and the repair of 13,700 units. Some $250 million under this program will support the construction, repair and operating costs of an estimated 560 units of transitional housing and shelter spaces for women and children fleeing violence.
We are providing $300 million through the rental construction financing initiative, which will be allocated to support the conversion of vacant commercial property into housing. This funding will target the conversion of excess commercial property space into 800 units of market-based rental housing.
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
2021-06-08 16:28 [p.8124]
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock.
We have a decision to make as to whether we want to be a property-owning democracy or a landed aristocracy. That might seem stark, and it is, but it is also true. It is 100% true if we look at the facts.
According to CMHC, for a house to be affordable it should not consume more than 30% of a family's income. Currently, in Canada, the average house would consume 50% of the average family's household income. In other words, the average house is two-thirds more expensive than the average family can presently afford. That is just the average. Across Canada, there are more extreme examples.
For example, in Toronto it takes 68% of the average family's income to own the average house. In Vancouver it is 79%, and that is 79% of pre-tax income, which means that it is mathematically impossible, not just difficult, for the average Vancouverite to own the average home. Why is that? It is because people do not have 79% of their pre-tax income left when the government is done with them. Even if they spent 100% of their post-tax income, it would not be enough. Even if they ate no food, bought no clothes and had zero recreation they would not have enough money, as average Vancouverites, to own the average home.
What is causing that? Why is it that Vancouver is the second-most expensive housing market in the world when we compare average income with average house price? Toronto is number five. Both of them are ahead of Manhattan, London, England, and San Francisco: places with more people, more money and much less land. Is it because we do not have enough land in Canada? We are the 10th-least population dense country in the world. There are more places where there is nobody than there are places where there is anybody in Canada. If we spread our population out equally across the land, there would be only one person standing on every three CFL-sized football fields. That is how much land we have in this country, yet somehow we have a housing shortage. Clearly, it is not because of a lack of land.
Could it be there is a booming economy that is driving up housing prices? Of course not. The GDP went down $120 billion last year and has not recovered.
What else is it? Is it COVID? COVID should have reduced housing prices. When CMHC testified at the finance committee at the beginning of COVID, it said that the pandemic would reduce housing prices by 14%. The Bank of Canada said it would be a disinflationary event, and it should have been. People were moving farther out into the country where per-square-foot costs are actually lower. Furthermore, their jobs were threatened so they would be less inclined to get approved for mortgages, and their earned wages were down, which means they would have less money with which to pay, which should have driven down housing prices. Instead, housing prices went up. They started going down in April 2020 before rocketing up 40% since that time.
What is the real cause? The answer is that the government is restricting supply and ballooning demand.
Let us start with supply. Here in Canada we have one of the slowest processes on Earth to get from buying land to building on it. In some jurisdictions this takes seven years. In Canada in general, it takes forever to get anything approved. In fact, out of 37 OECD nations, we are ranked number 36 for the time it takes to get a building permit for a warehouse, and it is not much different for housing.
Toronto's per-unit-of-housing cost of government is 50% higher than the average in United States municipalities. The charges alone consume almost a quarter of a million dollars in costs for every new unit of housing built in Toronto. The global cost of government for a new unit of housing in Vancouver is $600,000. That is just to pay the cost of government.
This, of course, keeps aristocratic, leafy neighbourhoods gentrified and keeps other people out. It makes the rich richer because they get to have an exclusive domain over these neighbourhoods, where no one else can build and get in. That is very good if someone already has a house as it increases their wealth, but those who are not yet in are shut out. It is as if there was a wall built around these neighbourhoods, where only the rich are allowed inside the wall and everyone else has to try to pay the gatekeeper to get in, but of course most cannot afford to do so. Therefore, the government restricts supply.
What does the government do with demand? It has pumped $356 billion of brand new, created currency into the financial system. The Bank of Canada began printing money in March of 2020, and from February of that year to February of this year the money supply grew by $354 billion. What was the size of the federal deficit? It was $354 billion, exactly the same number, so the printed money was to pay for the government's overspending.
What did that do to inflation? As we know, inflation is everywhere and always a monetary phenomenon. As the supply of money goes up, prices rise with it, and this started with housing prices. In fact, from Q1 2020 to Q1 2021, the money that went into the financial system and the mortgage system increased new mortgage borrowing by 41%. Does anyone know what the price increase was for housing between April of last year and April of this year? It was 42%. The newly created money jacked up mortgage borrowing by 41% and housing prices by 42%. Is it coincidence? Of course not. These are the simple laws of supply and demand, and they are working very well for the very rich.
For someone who owns a $10-million mansion, the increase in that person's home value, depending on which month to month is chosen, is somewhere between $3 million and $4 million. That is money that individual gets for doing absolutely nothing. For a working class person with the dream of buying a home, that dream just got more remote and more unlikely. Furthermore, landlords are about to raise people's rents because the cost of property has risen. He or she will use this, perhaps in some cases unavoidably so, to raise the rents of the people who live there. The wages of working-class people measured in the amount of real estate they can buy are down in value by 30% to 40% in just one year. Meanwhile, the wealth of the super rich is way up. Printing money raises the prices of the things that the poor must buy and that the rich already own. It is a colossal wealth transfer from the working wage earner to the wealthy asset owner.
What do we do? Sometimes the answers are actually simple: not easy, but simple. We should open up the country to construction so we build more homes and increase supply, and we should stop printing money in order to avoid pumping helium into prices. In other words, we should start building and stop printing. It is more about what the government should stop doing than what it should start doing. It should allow people to keep the value of their dollar, to buy things that are of worth with that dollar and build things that will make their lives better. That is how we restore our property-owning democracy. It is how we go back from today's aristocracy to what Canada should be, which is a meritocracy.
View Darrell Samson Profile
Lib. (NS)
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Humber River—Black Creek.
I am very pleased to be participating in the debate and to speak about our government's efforts to fight homelessness. I am certain that all my colleagues agree that safe housing is vital for the well-being of Canadians and their families. We understand that affordable housing plays an important role in the fight against poverty and homelessness, two issues that require more than just an improvised solution. That is why we are not managing the homelessness issue on an ad hoc basis. Instead, we are developing long-term solutions to prevent and reduce these challenges.
Resolving the problem of affordable housing is of the utmost importance to Canadians. For many of us, it is easy to take our homes for granted. We sometimes forget all too readily that some Canadians are not in the same situation as we are and live in fear of losing their homes.
Poverty has significant repercussions for all aspects of our society. It tends to affect seniors, members of first nations, veterans, children of single mothers or mothers fleeing violence and people who cannot find work in their field even if they have a college or university degree. Some of these people are experiencing homelessness just because their economic, family or social situation has put them at a disadvantage since birth.
The fact is that we had to act swiftly because millions of Canadians were living in poverty and sometimes had trouble getting enough food and finding affordable housing. That is why, in 2017, the Government of Canada announced a $2.2-billion investment over 10 years through the national housing strategy. This investment will extend and expand federal homelessness programs.
In 2019, we launched Reaching Home, Canada's homelessness strategy. This program supports the objectives of the national housing strategy, aiming to help those Canadians most at risk to maintain safe, stable and affordable housing, and to eliminate chronic homelessness across Canada. Reaching Home is a community funding program that supports urban, indigenous, rural and remote communities to help them meet local needs in the fight against homelessness.
In the first six months, the program invested in 1,200 projects across Canada. It was broadened in 2020. Our government collaborated with the communities to develop and implement community projects and plans based on science that aimed for real results. This results-based approach keeps decision-making at the local level and gives communities more flexibility to respond to local priorities, including preventing homelessness, and offer programs designed to meet the needs of specific populations, like young people, indigenous peoples, and women and children who are fleeing violence.
Now, let us talk about our most recent investments in the Reaching Home strategy. Budget 2021 proposes to allocate an additional $567 million to this strategy over two years, beginning in 2022-23. This amount will complement the investment of over $299 million in this strategy that our government announced in the 2020 fall economic statement. It also complements an investment of over $400 million in additional federal funding, the purpose of which was to support the homeless services sector's response during COVID-19 in order to prevent homelessness.
The COVID-19 pandemic put a lot of pressure on Canada's homeless services sector, which had to transform its way of delivering services to prevent outbreaks among the homeless and those at risk of becoming homeless.
Our government therefore plans to allocate additional funding to the Reaching Home strategy for two more years, as of 2022-23. The goal is to help communities to continue to safely serve the homeless and prevent homelessness among at-risk Canadians until the pandemic begins to wane. I would like to add that, given the progress that we have made in our commitment to do more, the government announced that it wants to eliminate chronic homelessness in Canada.
I would now like to briefly outline some other investments our government has made to support housing and affordable housing. First of all, budget 2021 proposes to provide an additional $2.5 billion over seven years to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation beginning in 2021 and 2022. This includes $1.5 billion for the rapid housing initiative, $600 million over seven years to renew and expand the affordable housing innovation fund, $315 million over seven years through the Canada housing benefit, to increase direct financial assistance for low-income women and children fleeing violence, and $118 million over seven years through the federal community housing initiative, to support community housing providers.
Budget 2021 also proposes to advance and reallocate $1.3 billion, on a cash basis, of previously announced funding. This includes $750 million under the national housing co-investment fund to accelerate the creation of 3,400 new units and the repair of 13,700 units, $250 million under the national housing co-investment fund to support construction, repair, and operating costs, and $300 million from the rental construction financing initiative, which will be allocated to support the conversion of vacant commercial property into housing, which will also help a great deal.
I think it is clear that our government continues to do what is necessary to address homelessness. We are clearly demonstrating that we are developing and implementing long-term solutions to prevent and end chronic homelessness in Canada, once and for all.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.
It is always an honour to rise in the House, even the virtual House, on behalf of the people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley. In fact, in some ways it is even more significant to rise on their behalf in this way because, if I turn my head to the right, I can see the people of this wonderful place walking by outside my office, and it reminds me of the sacred responsibility that I have to do well by them in this place.
I have spoken to LGBTQ youth about what it was like growing up in small rural towns in northern British Columbia. Most of them who grew up in towns like Smithers, where I live, in the 1980s and 1990s say it was not a very tolerant place. Many of them left as soon as they could, off to places where they were more free to be themselves. That is changing, and that is a very good thing.
My office is half a block down from Smithers’s rainbow crosswalk, first painted in 2016. As mayor at the time, I was proud to help make the crosswalk happen, but really it was the work a woman named Anna Ziegler, who wrote to council and got the ball rolling on that initiative.
In the following years it has been repainted, and of course, in northern B.C., these things have to be repainted because of our harsh winters, and the road sand and salt that gets put down every year. In the following years the crosswalk was repainted by the fabulous leaders of the local Girl Guides patrol, who had to don Tyvek suits and respirators to survive the perils of the industrial road paint. It was quite a scene.
A couple years later, in 2018, the group Smithers Pride was formed and the community’s first community-wide pride event was held. At the time, Safeway and the BCGEU teamed up to hold a barbecue. We blocked off the street and it was a wonderful event. I thought it might be northern B.C.'s first pride event, but then I learned that the tiny village of Masset on Haida Gwaii not only has a pride event, but it has four rainbow crosswalks.
I mention all of this because the community where I live, and indeed our entire region, is becoming a place where everyone, no matter their sexuality or gender identity or expression, receives the full measure of respect, belonging, safety and rights, and it is worth celebrating.
This month is pride month, a good month to be conducting this final debate on this important bill before us. Before I talk about the bill itself, I want to recognize some of the folks who have been leading the way when it comes to making my home community a more inclusive place, especially Perry Rath, who is a teacher at Smithers Secondary School, and Brianna van Donselaar, Sophie Perodeau and Sarah Payne. I thank them for the important work they have done and continue to do.
Bill C-6 is about protecting people from a practice that has no place in our society. Let us be clear about what conversion therapy is. The definition in the bill before us calls it, “a practice, treatment or service designed to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual, to change a person’s gender identity or gender expression to cisgender or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour or non-cisgender gender expression.”
I read the Department of Justice’s charter statement on Bill C-6, and its description of the harms of conversion therapy is worth repeating here, because it underlines, I believe, why this bill is so important:
Conversion therapy has been denounced by medical and psychological professionals as being ineffective and the source of harm and potential harm. Conversion therapy has resulted, or risks resulting, in harms such as distress, anxiety, depression, stigma, shame, negative self-image, a feeling of personal failure, difficulty sustaining relationships, sexual dysfunction and having serious thoughts or plans of—or attempting—suicide. Its continued existence also harms the dignity of LGBTQ2 people by perpetuating myths and stereotypes based on sexual orientation or gender identity—in particular, that the sexual orientation or gender identity of LGBTQ2 people is undesirable and can and should be changed.
The harms of conversion therapy are clear and well established. This practice has no place in a free, tolerant society such as Canada's, and it is incumbent upon all of us as elected representatives to protect the SOGI community from these harms. Everyone in Canada should be free to love whom they love and be who they are, free from stigma, intolerance and coercion.
Bill C-6 would ban the following: causing an individual to undergo conversion therapy against their will; causing a child to undergo conversion therapy; removing a child from Canada to undergo conversion therapy abroad; receiving a financial or other material benefit from the provision of conversion therapy; and, finally, advertising and offering to provide conversion therapy.
It is clear that there are some Conservative members in this place who oppose the bill and will vote against it, and to be clear, I have met with constituents of mine who have deep misgivings. Most of these misgivings purport to be based on the notion that conversations or counsel between parents and children, or between pastors and those they counsel, could be wrongly caught up in the bill's provisions. These are fair considerations for us to discuss in the debate on this legislation.
However, I would note that the justice committee has addressed this by adding a “for greater certainty” clause that highlights what the definition of conversion therapy does not include, namely, “a practice, treatment or service that relates to the exploration and development of an integrated personal identity without favouring any particular sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression”. I believe that this should provide some peace of mind as we move forward.
There are two other important amendments I will note. Changing “against a person's will” to the phrase “without consent” utilizes wording that is much more commonly used and understood. Importantly, broadening the scope of the definition of conversion therapy to include “gender identity” and “gender expression” not only makes it consistent with the language used in other legal protections, but also allows it to address new forums of conversion therapy.
I will end my remarks today by acknowledging the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, whose work on the bill has been exemplary and who, sadly, has been the target of harassment and online hate for his work. He is a champion for the rights of the SOGI community, and his work in this place is creating a legacy of safety, inclusion and protection of fundamental rights. I thank the hon. member.
We have a decent bill in front of us that moves us forward as a country and would provide legal protection for people who deserve it. Love is love, and people deserve to simply be who they are. I will end by mentioning that I spoke about the bill to my 16-year-old daughter. I told her that Parliament was working to make conversion therapy illegal. She said, “You mean it's legal?” That is exactly what I think as well.
I wish members a happy pride month. Now let us make this law.
View Alistair MacGregor Profile
NDP (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, for sharing his time today.
At the outset, I will acknowledge the LGBTQ community in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I want to put this in the context of the privilege I have of serving as member of Parliament for this beautiful part of Vancouver Island, but also the great responsibility that comes with that. As members of Parliament, we have the power and responsibility to stand up for people in our ridings and communities and across the country who have traditionally been on the margins, who have not been recognized as equals by large parts of Canadian society, and who have been actively discriminated against in the past through our laws and policies.
That is one of the things that we members of Parliament have to do. We have to stand on this incredible stage in the House of Commons to do what we can to change this country so that everyone is equal no matter who they love or what their social background, race or origin. We have to stand up and be champions for every member of our communities. I take very seriously that responsibility and the privilege I have had over the last nearly six years in this role.
We are speaking today about the government's Bill C-6. I want to acknowledge and thank the Minister of Justice for bringing forward Bill C-6. I know he held many consultations. My NDP colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, was part of those consultations and I would like to thank him for his advocacy in the House.
The bill before us, Bill C-6, would amend the Criminal Code. It got me thinking about federal criminal law power in general, because it is a powerful tool of the federal government. We know from previous rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada that a valid criminal law power requires, number one, a prohibition; number two, a penalty; and number three, a valid criminal law purpose. Those have been traditionally listed as peace, order, security, morality and health. Those are the broad areas in which federal criminal law power can be applied.
Bill C-6 and the practice it is trying to prohibit fall very clearly under security and morality, because it is so morally wrong to force people to undergo a change from who they are. It also applies under section 7 of the charter: security of the person. Individuals are being denied security of the person by being forced to go through conversion therapy. We know this is an extremely harmful practice. We have heard testimony about how it has ruined lives. As many members who have spoken to Bill C-6 before me have said, when I speak with constituents they always express surprise that this practice is still ongoing in Canada.
Reparative or conversion therapy is a very dangerous practice that targets LGBTQ youth and seeks to change their sexual or gender identities. It has sometimes been called reparative therapy, but I hate the fact that we are even using the word “therapy”. Therapy, in my mind and I think in the minds of most Canadians, indicates a practice or some sort of counselling that is going to help someone get to a better place. This does not do that in any way. It is a range of dangerous and discredited practices that falsely claim to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity or expression and it has been found by all experts to be fraudulent and harmful. In fact, the practice has been rejected by every mainstream medical and mental health organization for decades, but because there is continuing discrimination and societal bias against LGBTQ people, some practitioners continue to conduct this practice.
We know that minors are especially vulnerable, and that being forced to undergo conversion therapy leads them to experience depression, anxiety, drug use, homelessness and, in worst cases, death by suicide. We heard powerful testimony at the justice committee from survivors of conversion therapy, even before the bill began its formal process of debate, documenting what this practice had done to their lives. The fact that it is still going on in Canada leads to a lot of shock.
To show how much the world has changed in a short time, but also the changes that we still need to see, until 1990 homosexuality was considered by the World Health Organization to be a mental disorder. Today we are in the unfortunate position where gay sex remains illegal in 68 nations around the world. In those countries homosexuality has very serious penalties, including the death penalty and complete ostracization from mainstream society.
Canada has an important role to play on the world stage to show that we accept people for who they are and that we do not judge. We also have to be a voice of moral clarity on the world stage and speak out against those harmful practices. We do that to some extent.
The societal pressure of forcing gay and trans people to become heterosexual, or to be some kind of a societal norm, has been extremely harmful. Many conversion therapy practices have been based on religion, and have included talk therapy, hypnosis and, in some cases, electrical shocks and fasting.
It is incumbent upon us in the House of Commons, as the people's elected representatives, to recognize how harmful this practice is and to make our voices heard and say, “No more.” We are going to use the full force of the federal criminal law power, make a stand and declare how harmful this practice is, and we are going to take steps to prohibit it.
Particular sections of the bill include prohibitions against forced conversion therapy, against causing a child to undergo conversion therapy, against advertising conversion therapy and against materially benefiting from conversion therapy.
I want to take a moment to address the concerns that have been raised by some of my colleagues in the House. In each of those prohibitions, we see the phrase “conversion therapy.” This bill has taken the time to provide a definition of what conversion therapy is. In response to some of the current concerns, the greater certainty clause of that definition was expanded, and it now says it does not include:
The exploration and development of an integrated personal identity without favouring any particular sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.
That means the definition does not include a practice, treatment or service that relates to those specific things. This helps provide that clarity for conversations between parents and their kids, church ministers and parishioners or people who simply want to have that conversation in a semi-formal setting. It does not in any way prohibit conversations from occurring.
In my mind at least, I believe that the concerns have been dealt with, and the harms that come from this practice warrant that this bill be passed.
In conclusion, I would like to say clearly and unequivocally that I will be supporting Bill C-6, and I hope my colleagues will join me so we can send this to the other place for royal assent in short order.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the prima facie contempt, concerning the misconduct of the Member for Pontiac committed in the presence of the House, be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
I will be sharing my time with the member for Banff—Airdrie.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I think you would find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move:
That a take-note debate, on the subject of members not seeking re-election to the 44th Parliament be held, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, on Tuesday, June 15, 2021, and that, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House:
(a) no member may speak for longer than 10 minutes and the speeches not be subject to a question and comment period, provided that members rising to speak may indicate to the Chair that they will be dividing his or her time with another member, and
(b) no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
I declare the motion carried.
View Jagmeet Singh Profile
NDP (BC)
View Jagmeet Singh Profile
2021-06-03 10:25 [p.7866]
moved:
That, given that,
(i) the discovery of the grave of 215 children at Kamloops Indian Residential School has led to an outpouring of grief and anger across Canada,
(ii) the vast majority of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action remain uncompleted, despite the clear path to justice and reconciliation that the Commission provides,
(iii) survivors, families and nations are demanding concrete action to advance real reconciliation, as opposed to just more words and symbolic gestures,
the House call on the government to:
(a) cease its belligerent and litigious approach to justice for Indigenous children by immediately dropping its appeal before the Federal Court in file numbers T-1621-19 (compensation) and T-1559-20 (Jordan's Principle for non-status First Nations kids recognized by their nations) and to recognize the government's legal obligation to fully comply with Canadian Human Rights Tribunal orders in this regard;
(b) agree to sit down with the St. Anne's residential school survivors organization Peetabeck Keway Keykaywin Association to find a just solution to the fact that survivors’ access to justice has been denied as a consequence of the actions of government lawyers in suppressing evidence at the Independent Assessment Process;
(c) accelerate the implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action, including by providing immediate funding for further investigation into the deaths and disappearances of children at residential schools in compliance with calls to action 71 to 76;
(d) provide survivors, their families, and their communities with appropriate resources to assist with the emotional, physical, spiritual, mental, and cultural trauma resulting from residential schools; and
(e) within 10 days, table a progress report on actions taken in compliance with paragraphs (a) through (d) of the present motion, and that this report be deemed to have been referred to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs for consideration upon tabling.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
I come to the House from the unceded territories of the Algonquin nation. I rise today to present our opposition day motion in this House to call on the Liberal government to do the work that it has delayed for so long.
The discovery at a former residential school in Kamloops was shocking and horrifying. It was a moment when Canadians, people across this country, came together and looked in horror at what Canada has done, and is continuing to do, to indigenous people. When 215 little kids, indigenous children, were found buried at that school, Canadians were shocked. They were shocked because this was clearly not a school. This was clearly not a place of education. This was an institution designed, clearly, to eliminate indigenous people.
In this moment, Canadians across the country have participated in memorials, placing children's shoes at various places, to reflect on what this means. What does it mean that 215 children were buried without letting their families know, that these children were stripped from their parents, stripped of their language, their identity, their sense of self, taken to an institution and then killed there? What does this leave in terms of a legacy? What does this mean about Canada? What does this mean about our country?
People are asking these questions. People are wondering how it is possible that this could happen to little kids, how this could happen to children. People are now demanding more than just condolences. The broad consensus among people is that it is not good enough for the Liberal government to just express sadness and grieving. This is an opportunity, a moment that demands action and justice. The only response to this horrific discovery is a commitment to justice today.
What I find incredibly hypocritical and, more important than me, what indigenous people and people across Canada find hypocritical is that on the one hand we have a Prime Minister who could stand in this House and at a press conference and say that he is sorry or express condolences about this horrific discovery, but in the very same breath be ordering lawyers to fight indigenous kids in court.
It is not just fighting these kids in court. These kids were the subject matter of a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal hearing, and that tribunal made very clear orders on the government, stating that they were clearly unjustly denied equal funding, and that there needs to be a remedy. The government is not just fighting indigenous kids in court; it is fighting a human rights tribunal decision that states that these kids deserve equal funding.
How hypocritical is it? How flagrant is this denial of justice, when on the one hand the Prime Minister and the Liberal government claim to care about indigenous kids who lost their lives in a residential school and in the same breath are fighting them in court? On top of that, this very same Prime Minister and the Liberal government are fighting residential school survivors in court.
People ask the questions, “What can we do? What can we do to move forward on reconciliation? What can we do to move forward to achieve justice for indigenous people?” One very concrete, clear step would be for the government to stop fighting indigenous people in court. That is a concrete step that it could take right now.
What has become very clear is that symbolic gestures are not good enough. We need concrete action.
I rise in the House to ask the Liberal government to do the work it has put off for far too long.
The discovery of 215 children buried at the site of the Kamloops residential school shocked the country. Families, indigenous communities and people all over the country are mourning the loss of these children.
This discovery is further proof of genocidal acts in Canada. Residential schools were designed to kill indigenous people, to kill the Indian in the child, and to take away their language, culture, traditions and, ultimately, their lives.
The survivors, families and nations demand that beyond the symbolic gestures, concrete measures be taken to move toward meaningful reconciliation.
What happened and what is happening to indigenous people can be described by no other word than one of the harshest: It is a genocide. It is clear. All of the elements of a genocide are present. The actions taken by the Canadian government have been designed to destroy a people, to eliminate a people.
In light of this discovery, in light of this clear decision by Canada to eliminate a people, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission lays out a path to justice, a real path to justice, a path that the Prime Minister committed to implementing entirely. Six years of Liberal government, six years of the Prime Minister being in power, and only a fraction of those 94 calls to action have been implemented. That is simply wrong.
We know that the government is delaying, because we see the difference in action, in priority, when the Liberals care about something. When they want something to happen, they move quickly. We saw the government move incredibly quickly, incredibly fast to deliver financial backing for banks at the beginning of this pandemic right away. There was no question, no hesitation. Massive sums of money were used to back up banks immediately without any hesitation. Where was that same commitment to indigenous people?
Commitments were made by the Prime Minister in 2015, and six years later, a fraction of those calls to action were implemented. On top of that, what people find very cynical is that while in 2019 a promise was made to ensure that any indigenous community that needed financial support for closure, to search for additional burial sites, would receive funding, two years later, nothing happened until this horrible discovery, and then the government decided to act. While it is important to act, it makes people feel very cynical about a government that makes a promise two years ago and does nothing until it is pressured by this horrific discovery.
I want to lay out, in my remaining minute and a half, what we are asking for. We are asking for the government to take concrete steps, not symbolic gestures, real steps: end the legal battles against children who are simply entitled to basic human rights and dignity, end the legal battles against survivors of residential schools, put in place an accelerated plan to deliver action on all 94 calls to action. We want to see priority given to those. We want to see supports for people who are survivors of residential schools and their communities. We want to see a progress report tabled within 10 days to see that the government is actually following up.
What we saw in Kamloops, which has shocked this entire country and left people reeling, is something that should be a moment for us to take action. It is not enough to lower the flags at half-mast. It is not enough to express condolences when the government has the power to act. In this case, action means justice for indigenous people. We have laid out the course for immediate action to walk that path.
View Dan Vandal Profile
Lib. (MB)
Mr. Speaker, I am speaking from my office in Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, the homeland of the Métis nation, Treaty 1 territory, a city that is now home to many Inuit.
I will share my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, the member for Oakville North—Burlington.
Two days ago, in the House, we all came together as parliamentarians to express our devastation, heartbreak and outrage at the discovery of the remains of 215 children who were killed while attending the Kamloops Indian Residential School.
Canadians are rightfully outraged by the finding of this burial site, but this was not shocking to indigenous people. We have long known of the lost burial sites of loved ones. It is a reminder of the consequences of colonialism for indigenous people and our communities.
Yesterday, I, along with my colleagues, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and the Minister of Indigenous Services, announced that $27 million funding would be distributed on an urgent basis. Our department has been engaging directly with indigenous communities across Canada on how best to support them in finding our lost children, including on how to access support from the federal government to do this. We continue to listen to survivors and families. We know these communities want this to be indigenous-led, based on their priorities, based on healing. Reconciliation is all about that.
This discovery has reopened the conversation on reconciliation in Canada, but let me be very clear. From day one, our government has continued to work to promote reconciliation in a tangible and respectful way. Correcting the mistakes of the past takes time and can be extremely difficult, but it is the right thing to do. Our government will keep working on this.
Reconciliation is a complex and important process where every Canadian has a role to play. Reconciliation begins with respect, listening and working in partnership. We must respect cultures, our languages, traditions and the distinct identities of others in order to move forward.
Reconciliation is at the heart of today's debate. In 2015, the Prime Minister committed to fully implementing the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada in partnership with the indigenous communities, the provinces and the territories. We remain determined to ensure that they are properly implemented.
Eighty per cent of the calls to action under federal or shared responsibility are either completed or well under way, and not all the calls to action will be easy to implement. We must not treat these calls to action as simply a checklist, but rather a true pathway to reconciliation. We must also recognize some of the calls to actions are outside of the jurisdiction of the federal government. That is why it is so important that we work in partnership with all orders of government, while always taking the lead of indigenous communities and nations in this work. It is absolutely vital to take a survivor-oriented approach to healing. We need to listen to survivors and their families when making decisions about reconciliation.
The abuse and forced assimilation have led to intergenerational trauma, which is the lasting legacy of the residential school system. By removing children from their traditional family structures and subjecting them to violence, abuse and forced assimilation into Euro-Canadian values, a cycle of abuse was created, which still affects indigenous families and communities today. It continues to affect my community, it continues to affect my friends. The abuse the children faced in residential schools is as undeniable; it is shockingly cruel. These young first nation, Inuit and Métis children deserve far more from our government; they deserved far more from Canada.
As a government, we are working to revitalize indigenous culture by empowering communities, by providing the necessary tools to indigenous people to learn about their own culture, language and traditional spiritual beliefs. Canada will provide the needed resources to support indigenous nations on their healing journey. In the coming months, our government will be working with survivors, their families, their communities and other partners to locate, identify and memorialize the missing children and their burial places.
As previously mentioned, we have provided $33.8 million to implement the TRC calls to action 72 to 76. We have funded the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation to develop and maintain the national residential school student death registry and to establish and maintain an online registry of residential school cemeteries. We are engaging with first nation indigenous communities and will continue to do this work, but it must be led by the communities themselves and they must go at their pace. We as a government will be there to support these communities in their efforts through funding, but also through survivor and family mental health support.
The mistreatment of indigenous children in all residential schools, including those who attended St. Anne’s Indian Residential School, was tragic and horrific. In order to restore confidence, rebuild trust and maintain the integrity of the process, the court has, at the request of the government, ordered that an independent, third-party review be conducted. Ninety-six percent of all claimants from the St. Anne's residential school have received compensation and are working collaboratively with the parties to obtain clarity from the courts on this matter. This third-party review will determine the additional compensation owed to survivors.
Throughout the process, Canada will provide additional resources for the survivors. We are in talks to determine the best way to provide support and we will be in contact with the St. Anne survivors' organization, including Peetabeck Keway Keykaywin, to talk about the necessary support.
We are definitely committed to reconciliation, justice and healing for the former students of St. Anne and every residential school.
I will just finish by acknowledging that this last week has been extremely difficult for many people: for Canadians, myself included. I have appreciated hearing from other members of the House over the last number of days the need to work together, to work collaboratively and to move forward on the shared path of reconciliation.
It is important that we continue to hear the stories of survivors and families, and remember those who were torn away and never returned home.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member of Parliament for Chilliwack—Hope.
I will first take a moment to share a few words on behalf of the citizens of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola. We are collectively shocked, saddened and outraged at the discovery of an unmarked gravesite for 215 children at the former indigenous residential school in Kamloops. This discovery is difficult to put into words and I would ask that we all think of the Tk'emlúps First Nation that made this deeply disturbing discovery.
I would also ask that we think of the many families in indigenous communities throughout our region that had children at the Kamloops residential school, many of whom did not return. I will take a moment to read into the record some of the comments from indigenous chiefs in British Columbia, as I believe their comments must be heard.
I made some brief remarks about Chief Harvey McLeod from the Upper Nicola Band in my region in the take-note debate, but I will read his comments in full. He stated:
We always knew that this was happening there, but it was in our own minds, we had no proof other than our own experience. We hear really horrific stories about what happened and dealing with our people that had passed on, and what they were forced to do, to bury them. And it wasn’t the grown-ups, it was the babies.
So much hurt and pain came out in a matter of seconds. Just felt for our families that all went there. We have a large number of people from this community (Upper Nicola) that went to school there. We all have different experiences but a lot of hurt and pain and shame and anger leaving there.
I went back to the two years that I attended. I know that there were incidents happening there because I went through a lot of experiences myself. I know people that just disappeared, and we assumed that they ran away and got away and are at home somewhere, but never did see them again.
We as communities and leadership will find the best way of doing this and taking care of our people. We want to all be on the same page when it comes to having the ceremony to bring our people home.
It’s going to take a lot of strength to walk with our people while they remember the hurt and pain from that school. And it will be so much better when we’re all united, working together to ensure we’re there for our citizens.
I would like to mention some words from Ellis Ross, now an MLA for Skeena and a former chief councillor for the Haisla Nation. He stated, “Here goes; normally I’d do a live video but i doubt I could hold it together for this topic/the kids found buried at a Kamloops residential school/This is reliving the trauma for survivors and is shocking for their family members and non-aboriginals alike.” “I’d like to say that you will come to terms with it or the feeling goes away but it doesn’t, not now anyway mainly because this is still fresh in the minds of survivors. It hasn’t gone away for me when i came to understand it in 2004.” “To be clear, i was sad and angry when i learned the truth because my parents wouldn’t talk about it, just in bits and pieces. I learned to live with it and used it for motivation to build a better future and 'break the cycle' (well known term with FNs).” “17 years ago, I understood what happened overall; i decided to help fix issues of today instead of my revenge ideas. This Kamloops school story brought it all back to the day i sat in our archives and broke down. Repatriation will be traumatizing but needed.”
Those are powerful words. I was deeply moved to hear them, as I am certain many members in this place are also.
So many local indigenous communities were impacted and traumatized by these institutions because that is what they were. They were not schools like members and I went to. I cannot think of a worse situation for a parent: their children being taken way from them, only to never return home. Did they run away? I cannot imagine how it would feel to not know for so many years, until one day their worst nightmare comes along when they hear about these graves. Learning of these graves only raises more questions, and they are troubling questions. In this place, we must do everything we can to help find answers to those questions and to help bring accountability to indigenous families, including those who attended the schools. I say “attended”, but in reality, it was more like they were incarcerated in those schools.
Today's opposition motion from the NDP is but our first steps in helping to provide some answers in what I expect will be a long journey.
It is important we must also consider that reconciliation will mean different things to different people. We must also recognize this because we cannot, we must not, allow the usual Ottawa one-size-fits-all approach to finding true reconciliation. It is not “first nation”; it is “first nations”. Each nation is unique and special, and it is time Ottawa started to recognize that. It is not unlike the institution in Kamloops. It and others like it were first created as a one-size-fits-all approach from Ottawa. Let us finally take a new approach that works in partnership with indigenous communities.
On that note, I will now comment on this opposition day motion.
We must be careful in this place to avoid making the mistakes of the past, and I appreciate how this motion is well intentioned. However, at least for many first nations in my community, community members are still in shock. Many are holding meetings and there are a great many discussions under way.
My point is that I have not been directly contacted by one of the first nations in my riding for guidance on this, and I highly doubt many other members have either, yet here we are with a motion deciding what we think we must do to help indigenous communities after such a traumatic and horrific discovery. Again, I appreciate the motivation of the opposition and I believe the NDP is sincere, but it has to be pointed out that we are moving on a motion without proper direction from those we are trying to help. Some would rightfully call this an Ottawa-knows-best approach. In my view, at some point we must recognize that this approach has not served our country well over the years.
I do not often agree with the Prime Minister, but recently he made a comment that I believe we should all be mindful of. His comment was:
If it were only done by ministers, if it were only done by Ottawa, to solve these challenges, it might have been done long ago, but it would have been done wrong. You cannot move forward on true reconciliation unless it is done in partnership with Indigenous communities, leaders, and individuals.
It would be very easy to play politics with this issue. It would be said that the current government has had five years to take action and that the ministers responsible have failed. The current government could say that the former government failed in 2009. We could go on and on, and eventually we would go back to 1969, when this institution in Kamloops was first taken over by the federal government of the day and ask why it did not close it then. Why was it not closed until 1978? Politicizing this issue will not provide the leadership that we, as parliamentarians, need to provide.
I believe I have made my point that we should all be concerned when we are here passing a motion without direction from indigenous communities, precisely as we are doing here. I would also add that I have heard the Prime Minister explain the reasons why his government believes the court action this opposition day motion proposes to cease is necessary.
The Prime Minister has argued that he believes it will ultimately produce a fairer outcome for the victims and their families. I do not know if the Prime Minister will continue to make that same argument. Often we rely on the courts to provide fair and equitable outcomes for challenging cases, more so when politics may interfere with that process. However, I also note that it is easy to dismiss the court actions as being a “belligerent and litigious approach to justice”, as it says in the motion, precisely as the fourth party has done here.
As I recall, it took the Prime Minister several minutes to explain why his government supported the court action and why it believed, at least at the time, that it would provide a fairer outcome. In politics, it is often said that when one is explaining, one is losing.
As I have stated, I believe the intention of the fourth party is to be sincere here. It means well, and in balance, I am keenly aware that in Canada we have literally created an indigenous law legal industry. It has been going on for decades. The lawyers certainly will profit from it. Many of the indigenous communities, in my riding at least, have not. Ultimately, it is about the people, the victims, the survivors and their families, and that is whom I am focused on.
I am prepared to support this opposition day motion. There are some cautions I have, which I have shared, but in balance, against inaction we must act, and this opposition day motion takes steps in that direction. I will be supporting it as a result.
View Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Profile
BQ (QC)
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Joliette.
It is with a great deal of emotion that I address the House today. I first want to extend my deepest and most sincere condolences to all first nations on the discovery of the remains of 215 children buried behind the Kamloops residential school. It believe that is appropriate. As a member of the Huron-Wendat nation, my thoughts are with the people who suffered too much neglect and mistreatment and whose pain I share.
This tragedy is a direct result of the violence of colonialism. In addition to defending many interests that are often self-serving, especially economic interests, the intent of colonialism, at least in the official line, is to civilize those perceived to belong to an inferior race. We can all agree that this is just plain repugnant, and that it is called cultural genocide.
Such atrocities must never happen again. As politicians, we need to offer our condolences, but that is not enough. We need to take action. Unfortunately, it is likely that this discovery is only the first of many. Other bodies may be found, not only at the site of the residential school, where not all areas have been investigated, but also in other Canadian cities. This may be just the tip of the iceberg, and we may find many other mass graves.
In fact, while the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation lists 4,118 deaths, former senator and chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada Murray Sinclair estimated that as many as 15,000 children may have died in the residential school system. This is an approximate number, and we need to investigate, because we have a duty to remember. According to an article in The Globe and Mail, however, we do not know the names of about one third of the deceased children, and the cause of death in more than half of all cases was not recorded by the government or the school. This is serious.
The report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommended erecting commemorative monuments in Ottawa and other capital cities to honour the memory of residential school survivors, as well as that of children lost to their families and communities. These monuments would honour both those who were lucky enough to survive and those who were not, and yet the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage said in December 2020 that no subsidies had yet been awarded for the construction of a national monument in the national capital region.
There has been just as little follow through on the other recommendations. That is why we support the NDP's motion before us today. It is urgent and absolutely necessary that we accelerate the implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, in particular by providing immediate funding for more in-depth investigations into the deaths and disappearance of children in residential schools.
The commission's report clearly indicates that “assisting families to learn the fate of children who died in residential schools; locating unmarked graves; and maintaining, protecting, and commemorating residential school cemeteries are vital to healing and reconciliation.” In other words, first we must know, understand, verify and investigate.
The issue is becoming increasingly urgent, since cemeteries are disappearing bit by bit, and many survivors still have no idea what happened to their loved ones. Since no one lives forever and we all eventually die, these people could pass away without ever learning the truth.
This investigation, which is absolutely necessary if we are to finally salve the open wound, requires funding. The discovery in Kamloops was financed mainly by British Columbia and not by the federal fund specifically earmarked for the purpose. The 2019 budget set aside $33.8 million over three years to fund the various actions recommended by the commission. That was a promising announcement, to be sure.
According to Global News, $27.1 million of the $33.8 million that was allocated was never spent. That is practically the whole amount. Since 2013, Ottawa has spent $3.2 million fighting a group of survivors from the St. Anne's residential school in Northern Ontario in court, which is almost as much money as it has spent on reconciliation efforts.
As members know, setting aside funds in the budget is only a statement of intent, as the allocation must also be included in a budget implementation act. The current government's 2019 budget, tabled during the last Parliament, set aside $33.8 million over three years. If we look at the Public Accounts of Canada for 2019-20, however, we can see that, although $5 million was spent on the national day for truth and reconciliation, there is not a single trace of any spending to implement the calls for action. There is nothing in the main estimates for 2019-20, 2020-21 or 2021-22. The amounts promised in 2019 were not even budgeted. What happened to that money? Why was it not released? We need an explanation. Was it an oversight? A stealth budget cut? I think that our first nations brothers and sisters have a right to know.
Just recently, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services and the Prime Minister reiterated that they were committed to implementing all of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action. They brought up the $33.8 million announced in the 2019 budget. Now, though, they have to actually budget that money. Reminding us that they announced it is fine, but now they must follow through and get things done.
The proposal to accelerate the implementation of the calls for action that was included in the motion tabled by our NDP colleagues has our support. My colleagues in the Bloc Québécois and I urge the government to act quickly. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights recently declared that it is essential that Canada do this work. Now we need to take the necessary steps. It is crucial.
View Alexandre Boulerice Profile
NDP (QC)
Madam Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.
My colleague will share his opinion on the important motion that my party moved today. The motion has to do with a tragic event in history, and we hope that this grim discovery will mark the last chapter in this tragedy. The remains of 215 children were discovered in Kamloops, near a former residential school. These missing boys and girls were robbed of their lives.
I have to admit that I was stunned by this discovery, as were most Quebeckers, Canadians and people around the world who read about or saw this sad story on the news. I was particularly touched by the gestures made by our fellow citizens, who placed children's shoes on the steps of some public buildings. In my opinion, that is a good way to demonstrate that those who lost their lives were human beings. They were not just a statistic. They were individuals who suffered a shocking injustice. The families endured terrible suffering because of the secrecy surrounding these disappearances, and they are still suffering today. There was a very high mortality rate in residential schools.
I would like to come back to the principle of residential schools.
In my opinion, this topic was not talked about enough in school. We were sometimes taught an idealized view of the relationship with first nations and trade with first nations. It seems as though the issue of residential schools, which were run by the Catholic Church, was glossed over because no one wanted to talk about it. However, we have a collective and historic responsibility with regard to the harm that was done to these people.
The former Kamloops residential school was one of 139 residential schools that existed in Canada for a century. Earlier, one of my colleagues pointed out that an estimated 150,000 children were ripped from their families and placed in these institutions.
I cannot imagine going about my life in a neighbourhood or a village and seeing whites and priests literally swoop in and steal all the children. It was mass kidnapping. It was cultural genocide. It is proof of deeply rooted colonialism and racism toward first nations.
I cannot imagine my children and my neighbours' children being taken away. In this case, literally every child in the village was taken away. From one day to the next, they were just gone. The goal was to kill the Indian in the child, to separate children from their roots, their culture, their language and their spirituality. The authorities tried to turn these children into carbon copies of the white settlers and Christians who ran the institutions. It was an indescribable horror. The former Kamloops residential school may just be the tip of the iceberg, unfortunately. All levels of government are going to have to work really hard and really fast to get to the bottom of what happened. We have to know what happened so that families can find closure once and for all and grieve. That is crucial.
Earlier, I said that this tragedy had attracted worldwide attention. As a matter of fact, this week, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights asked the federal government and the governments of every province and territory to take steps to initiate an investigation, carry out the necessary searches and protect documentation. If any documents are damaged, destroyed or lost, we will not be able to get to the bottom of this tragedy.
Today, everyone agrees that we need more than words. Concrete gestures need to be made. For too long now, the federal government has been either denying this problem, looking the other way or dragging its feet, which we have seen it do a lot in recent years. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission wrapped up six years ago. Of the 94 recommendations that the commission made, only 10 have been implemented. There is still an enormous amount of work ahead to take the measures that need to be taken.
I mentioned this earlier, but we as New Democrats and progressives find it extremely unfortunate, hurtful and offensive when the federal government says one thing and does the opposite. On the one hand, it is saying all the right things, expressing sorrow and apologizing, and those are all great, because they are a good first step. On the other hand, the federal government is paying lawyers to represent it in Federal Court to challenge rulings by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal dealing with the rights of indigenous children and compensation for victims of residential schools.
It is not spending small amounts. For all of its legal challenges in Federal Court, the federal government has spent a total of $9.4 million so far to dispute compensation for residential school victims and rights violations caused by the underfunding of indigenous child welfare services. It is crazy. In the St. Anne's residential school case alone, the federal government has paid lawyers $3 million to challenge the rights of residential school victims.
We believe this absolutely must change. Once again, we are faced with the sad evidence of this colonialism and systemic racism, with the discovery of these 215 children's bodies buried in secret. It is proof that the dehumanization of first nations and indigenous peoples continues, and we all have a duty to work together for reconciliation, a better agreement and better mutual understanding.
We know that is not being done. A few minutes ago, the member for Joliette cited the tragic death of Joyce Echaquan at the Joliette hospital as evidence that the first nations are enduring discrimination, institutional bias, racism and systemic racism, sometimes at risk to their own lives. It is not just a matter of being negatively perceived or misunderstood, because this affects people's health and sometimes even their life.
Throughout this entire process of reconciliation and dialogue, we have to be consistent and take meaningful action. Under Canadian colonialism, first nations peoples were ignored and hurt, subjected to cultural genocide and shunted off to parks or reserves so they would no longer be seen or heard. Occasional progress is being made, but some communities feel like there are two different worlds that do not get along and ignore each other.
Unfortunately, there is still a lot of misunderstanding and ignorance about the realities of the first nations, who were living here before the arrival of European settlers. Sometimes they are our neighbours, but we do not know much about them, and we do not understand them. I think we need to make an effort to change that.
As a columnist pointed out this week, the news from Kamloops is not really news, sadly. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission told us that nearly 3,000 children may have died in or disappeared from residential schools. Another piece of bad news is that there was a tuberculosis epidemic in 1907. Peter Henderson Bryce, the chief medical officer at the time, noted that the mortality rate in residential schools went from 24% to 42% in three years. One residential school even had a child mortality rate of 76%, higher than the mortality rate of a World War II concentration camp.
We need to conduct searches and uncover the truth. Unfortunately, I fear that we will uncover more unmarked mass graves like the one in Kamloops.
View Marc Miller Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, today I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.
Kwe. Unusakut. Tansi. Hello. Bonjour. I want to acknowledge that I am speaking today from the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.
Indigenous communities, families and friends are hurting. Emotions are high, and the pain is real. For indigenous people, the events this week may not be a surprise. It does not make it less of a shock or less painful. There is not a single community that is not grieving today. The news that came from Kamloops last week has opened up wounds that were not closed, even if people thought they were closed.
Our thoughts and actions at this time must support the communities and families in recovering the truth, so that they could continue to heal. We cannot heal without the truth, as painful as it is. It is on the hearts and minds of all Canadians, and frankly, if it is not, it should be.
Over the past week, people have shared piercing and atrocious anecdotes that really show what kind of places those facilities were, and indeed the testimonials today from members in the House certainly reinforces that. I thank them for their testimonials.
I was reminded by a faith healer friend who I rely heavily upon that, for example, the Mohawk Institute in Six Nations had an orchard and had apples, but the kids could not eat them. They were punished if they did. There were chickens, but the kids could not take the eggs because the eggs were sent to market. The only time they would get one was at Easter. Calling those places schools is to use a euphemism. They were labour camps, and people starved.
I know people are eager to get answers as to what the federal government will do, what we will do nationally and what Canada will do. Let me say this clearly, we will be there for indigenous communities that want to continue the search for the truth.
The reality is that this is something that will be dictated to us by the communities that are affected, as set forth notably in call to action 76 in the body of the Truth and Reconciliation Report. We will be there for communities. We do have to respect the privacy, space and mourning period of those communities that are collecting their thoughts and putting together their protocols as to how to honour these children. They have asked us specifically for that. We will do that, and Canadians must respect that.
Yesterday, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations announced $27 million in funding to support the ongoing NCTR and to implement calls to action 74 to 76. This will fund support for survivors, their families and communities across Canada to locate and memorialize children who died or went missing while attending residential schools.
We also have to look one another right in the eyes and face the fact that the general public either misunderstands or is ignorant of certain chapters of our history, especially the most painful ones. This truth is hard to bear, particularly for the indigenous communities affected and for the individuals and families who are reliving very painful parts of their own history or that of their parents, cousins, uncles and aunts.
As leaders, politicians and members of Parliament, it is also our role to educate and contribute to that education. In light of what we have learned this week, it is once again clear that many more truths remain to be uncovered. Explanations are needed. Too often, that explanation comes from indigenous peoples themselves. Too often, the job of educating Canadians has fallen to them, and, too often, we do not transmit that knowledge to our children. Fortunately, children are now learning about this in school, and they are telling us the harsh truth about what happened. Placing this burden on indigenous peoples is not fair. It should not be their burden to carry.
I repeat: We will be there for indigenous communities and families. We will support the search for truth and we will implement calls to action 72 to 76, among others, with an initial investment of $27 million. This funding will be distributed according to the priorities and requests of the communities themselves.
The government's role is to financially support communities in their grieving and healing process, as the wounds are still very fresh in this case. The communities will decide themselves whether they want to proceed with more extensive searches or not.
In this particular case, we spoke directly with indigenous leaders in Kamloops and the surrounding communities to offer mental health and security services, because emotions are running high, but we will respect the space they asked us to respect.
Obviously, this is painful for families who may have had uncles, aunts or cousins who disappeared and were never heard from again, but the key point here is that the Government of Canada will be there with the necessary support and funding for the communities that need it.
One of the many things being highlighted and underscored this week, in the midst of the heartache in Kamloops, is that indigenous children belong with their families and communities. Kids belong at home, where they can be with their relatives and elders; where they can learn their nation's culture, language and traditions; and where they can be given back all that was taken from, their parents and their grandparents. Bill C-92 affirms this inherent right. I would note that this basic right is one that the rest of us take for granted.
All of us share the responsibility to ensure this happens. The number of indigenous children who have been taken away in care in recent years far exceeds the number who attended residential schools. That should set in. In 2016, more than 52% of children in foster care in Canada were indigenous, and they account for 7% of the child population. The truth is that for children taken away from their community, their connections to their cultures and traditions were impacted too.
Fixing a broken system requires long-term reforms. The Government of Canada is determined to eliminate and continues to eliminate these discriminatory policies and practices against indigenous children, and we are doing it hand-in-hand with indigenous partners. The Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, which responds to calls to action, is a new way forward. Indigenous governments and communities have always been empowered to decide what is best for their children, their families and their communities, and the act provides a path for them to fully exercise and lift up that jurisdiction.
As a result of this work, led by indigenous communities, two indigenous laws are now enforced: the Wabaseemoong Independent Nations law in Ontario and the Miyo Pimatisowin Act of the Cowessess First Nation in Saskatchewan. In each of these communities, children will have greater opportunity to grow up immersed in their culture and surrounded by loved ones. They will be welcomed home.
We are moving closer to achieving our shared ultimate goal of reducing the number of indigenous children in care. Systemic reform of the child and family services system is one important step. Compensation for past harms is another.
Since the CHRT issued its first order for Canada to cease its discriminatory practices in 2016, we have been working with first nations leaders and partners to implement the tribunal's orders.
We have the same goal of fair and equitable compensation. Let me be clear that no first nations children will be denied fair and equitable compensation. Children should not be denied the products or services they need because governments cannot agree on who will pay for them. It is why, via Jordan's principle, we have funded approximately $2 billion in services, speech therapy, educational supports, medical equipment, mental health services and so much more. This is transformative and the right thing to do.
The government is not questioning or challenging the notion that first nations children who were removed from their homes, families and communities should be compensated. We are committed to providing first nations children with access to the necessary supports and services, but it is important to obtain clarity on certain limited issues, which is why we brought the judicial review forward. We need to focus on what is really important, ensuring fair and equitable compensation of first nations children affected by the child and family services program and that first nations children have access to the supports they need when they need them.
I would remind the House that there are also two competing class actions that deal essentially with the same group of children. We are, nevertheless, in discussions with the parties to the various cases, but those discussions must remain confidential out of respect.
Finally, no court case can achieve the transformative change that we need to achieve as a country.
As the recent discovery in Kamloops reminds us once again, every child in this country should have the support and services they need to thrive.
Removing a child from their family or community must be an absolute last resort. We need to do the work to change the system and ensure that every person is treated equally and fairly, without prejudice or injustice, and with respect and dignity. It is our responsibility as a government and as Canadians who want to make Canada a better place for everyone.
We cannot change the past, but we can learn from it and find ways to right some historic wrongs, to acknowledge what never should have happened and do everything we can to ensure a better future.
Meegwetch. Nakurmik. Masi cho.
View Taylor Bachrach Profile
NDP (BC)
Madam Speaker, I am joining the debate today from the unceded lands of the Wet’suwet’en people. It is an honour to be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg Centre.
Canadians have been shocked to learn the truth that indigenous people have been telling us for a long time. The validation of 215 unmarked burial sites near Kamloops has brought intense grief, despair and pain to indigenous people right across the country. My heart is with them today, especially the survivors of the residential schools that once stood in northwest B.C. at Lejac, Kitimat, Port Simpson and Lower Post. My heart is with them and their families.
I say “once stood”, but in Lower Post, a small village of the Daylu Dena just south of the B.C.-Yukon border, the residential school still stands. In fact, since the 1970s, this community has been forced to use the former residential school as its band office. I went there two winters ago and heard stories of how elders who suffered abuse in that building were forced to walk through its doors again and again to access basic services. Survivor Fred Lutz, who was the deputy chief at the time, took me to the basement and showed me the dark place behind the stairs. It is an image that will stay with me forever.
The Daylu Dena have been calling for the demolition and replacement of that building for years. It was good to hear just recently that in a few short weeks, it will finally be demolished. That is thanks to the leadership of people like Deputy Chief Harlan Schilling, former deputy chief Fred Lutz, their councils and others in their community. A new building will finally be built for the Daylu Dena. It is a long overdue step in the healing process and we have to ask ourselves why it took us so long.
I know a lot of non-indigenous people are feeling sad about the tragic discovery near Kamloops, but what I hear from indigenous people is that having us indulge in our sadness does not make the situation they face any better. What they want us to do, especially those of us in positions of power and influence, is to fight like hell for real action in this moment when people care about something they should have cared about a long time ago. That is where this motion comes from. We must act now.
How is it that six years later, so little progress has been made on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's 94 calls to action? I remember when they came out in 2015: It was the year the Liberal government took power with a majority. How is it that by last year, 2020, there had only been significant progress on a quarter of the calls to action? How is it that so few of those calls have actually been completed?
A portion of this motion would require the government to accelerate implementation of the TRC calls to action related to investigating the deaths and disappearances of children at residential schools. We have heard much about that in this debate. The indigenous people I have spoken with over the past week overwhelmingly want the truth. They want to know where the other burial sites are and how many children are there. They want to know where their loved ones are. I was infuriated to learn that in 2009, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission asked the Harper government for $1.5 million to search residential school properties. Shamefully, those funds were denied. What would indigenous communities know today if that money had been granted 12 years ago?
The call to find all the lost children echoes what I have heard from the families of women and girls who have gone missing and have been murdered along the Highway of Tears in northwest B.C. where I live. I have been honoured to work alongside Brenda and Matilda Wilson, whose beloved Ramona was found murdered along Highway 16 near Smithers in 1996. We worked together to get better public transit along that highway, but what they want more than anything is to know the truth about what happened to Ramona. Twenty-five years later, they keep encouraging the RCMP's E-PANA division to continue its investigation and not stop until they finally know what happened. The families whose children were taken from them and never came home want and deserve the truth too, which is why investing resources and expertise in the residential school investigations is vital. “Truth” comes before “reconciliation” for a reason.
The other parts of this motion are important and deserve mention too. St. Anne's Indian Residential School is a long way from where I live in northwest B.C., but its story illustrates clearly the contrast between the government's carefully scripted performative gestures and its relentless denial of basic justice. I will not pretend to know the details of the St. Anne's issue as well as the member for Timmins—James Bay does, but reading about the government's fight against survivors is nothing short of enraging.
How can the federal government explain its department withholding key person-of-interest documents that would have helped justly resolve survivors' claims? How is it that the government continues to spend millions of dollars in its effort to minimize its responsibilities as a result of the Human Rights Tribunal ruling on indigenous kids in care?
In its 2016 ruling, the tribunal was crystal clear that services for indigenous children were being underfunded, and that as a result more kids were being taken away from their families. The government is fighting that ruling in court. It is arguing that because the discrimination was systemic, individuals harmed should not be entitled to compensation. The system that facilitated this harm was designed by people, and those people worked for our government. It is both astounding and infuriating. If this motion passes, I hope the government will obey the will of Parliament and call off its lawyers. The people affected by this discrimination deserve no less.
What both the St. Anne's case and the case involving indigenous child welfare show is that Canada's shameful treatment of indigenous people continues today. As one person said, it is not a chapter in our history: it is the entire plot of the book. The people in this place have the power to change it if we have the courage.
Last weekend, my friend Dolores told me that people were gathering at Lejac. It is located west of Prince George near Fraser Lake, about two hours from where I live, so I hopped in my vehicle and I drove out. Lejac is the site of the former Lejac Residential School, to which so many indigenous kids were taken from communities stretching from Prince George to Hazelton. The former school site is situated on a hill overlooking Fraser Lake. It is part of the territory of the Nadleh people.
On New Year's Day in 1937, four Nadleh boys between eight and nine years old escaped from the Lejac school. Allen Willie, Andrew Paul, Maurice Justin, and Johnny Michael set out to walk seven miles to their Nadleh home. They were found frozen to death on the ice of the lake just a mile short of their destination. It is just one of the hundreds of stories of heartbreaking loss stemming from that place.
As I drove up to the site of the former school last weekend, I was struck by how many people had travelled on short notice to be there together that day to share their collective grief, to drum and dance, to honour the survivors still among them, and to stand in solidarity with the families of the children whose remains were found only a few days earlier. I was struck by their resilience and their strength.
Most of all, I will remember Lheidli T’enneh singer Kym Gouchie calling all the children present into the centre of the circle. She taught them the actions for a kids' song that she wrote. As she sang, they followed along, touching their toes and reaching for the sky and singing out the words, and the instructions got faster and faster and the children's laughter rose. Dozens of indigenous kids laughing and dancing on the exact same ground where that horrible school once stood was an expression of joy in a week with so much pain. I will remember that hopeful sight for a long time and it makes me more determined than ever to fight for the justice that the motion before us represents.
I urge every member in this place to vote for this. After the flags go back up and the news media moves on, let us show indigenous people that we still hear them and are willing to act.
Results: 1 - 60 of 958 | Page: 1 of 16

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

For more data options, please see Open Data