Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 37
View Niki Ashton Profile
NDP (MB)
Madam Speaker, I present two petitions today in the pursuit of justice for Dylan Paradis, Andrew Dockrell and Daniel Waldenberger-Bulmer, rail workers killed on the job in British Columbia in 2019. The tragic circumstances of that night were made even worse by the botched company investigation that followed. Their families, rail workers and working people deserve justice and change.
Today's CBC News story makes clear the grotesque level of complicity between the government, the TSB and CP Rail. It is clear the current system is designed to protect corporate interests, not the safety of workers and the public interest. Railways cannot be allowed to police themselves. TSB investigators, like Don Crawford, must be able to do their jobs independently from meddling from private companies. They must be properly protected from interference.
The two petitions presented today are signed by hundreds of Canadians. The first one calls on the government to launch an inquiry into the causes and consequences of Canada's private railway self-investigations and bring this grave injustice to light.
The second petition calls for Transportation Safety Board investigators to be granted the authority to refer potential criminal violations to proper independent police forces and to protect them as eligible whistle-blowers under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. This is all in the pursuit of justice.
View Bruce Stanton Profile
CPC (ON)

Question No. 575--
Ms. Lianne Rood:
With regard to providing the COVID-19 vaccine to Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members serving abroad: (a) what specific measures are in place to ensure that CAF members serving abroad receive the vaccine; and (b) what is the timeline for when the (i) first dose, (ii) second dose (if applicable), of the vaccine has been or will be administered, broken down by the name of vaccine manufacturer (Pfizer, Moderna, etc.) and the country where CAF members are serving in?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 576--
Ms. Lianne Rood:
With regard to the 2021-22 Main Estimates and the amount of $53,132,349 listed under the Department of Finance, for "Debt payments on behalf of poor countries to International Organizations" pursuant to section 18(1) of the Economic Recovery Act: (a) what are the details of the payments to be made under this item, including the (i) name of international organizations receiving payments, (ii) amount, (iii) country for which debt payment is made on behalf of; and (b) what are the details of all payments made through this or similar items in all main and supplementary estimates since 2016, including the (i) name of international organizations receiving payments, (ii) amount, (iii) country for which debt payment is made on behalf of?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 577--
Ms. Lianne Rood:
With regard to the national vaccine management information technology platform (NVMIP): (a) what are the functionalities of the NVMIP; (b) which provinces and territories are currently using the NVMIP; and (c) what are the details the government has related to the usage of NVMIP by the provinces and territories, including (i) the date each province or territory began to use the NVMIP, (ii) which functionalities of NVMIP are each province or territory is using, (iii) the date each province or territory began using each of NVMIP's functionalities?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 578--
Ms. Louise Chabot:
With regard to federal spending in the constituency of Thérèse-De Blainville, in each fiscal year since 2019-20, inclusively: what are the details of all grants and contributions and all loans to any organization, group, business or municipality, broken down by the (i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality in which the recipient is located, (iii) date the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (v) department or agency that provided the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 579--
Ms. Louise Chabot:
With regard to resolving complaint files associated with the Phoenix pay system: (a) what is the total number of tickets or claims pending; (b) of the claims in (a), how many have been waiting to be resolved for (i) 6 to 12 months, (ii) 12 to 24 months, (iii) over 24 months; (c) of the claims in (a), how many are from citizens residing (i) in Quebec, (ii) in the constituency of Thérèse-De Blainville; (d) of the claims in (a), how many have been identified as priorities by complaint resolution directorates; and (e) of the claims in (d), how many were in the category (i) 1, missing pay, (ii) 2, leave of absence or layoff, (iii) 3, promotion, secondment or acting position?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 580--
Mr. Tim Uppal:
With regard to the Prime Minister's comments in the Chamber on March 23, 2021, that "We will continue to ground our decisions based in science and evidence": what specific science or evidence does the government have that proves that quarantining at a hotel is safer than quarantining at home?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 581--
Mr. Tim Uppal:
With regard to allegations of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces and the actions of the Minister of National Defence, since November 4, 2015: (a) how many reports of alleged sexual misconduct were brought to the attention, either formally or informally, of the (i) Minister of National Defence, (ii) Office of the Minister of National Defence, broken down by year; and (b) for each instance in (a), what specific action, if any, was taken?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 582--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to the government's decision to extend the interval between certain COVID-19 vaccines by up to 105 days: (a) what assessment has the government made on the impact of this decision of those who are suffering from cancer; and (b) what is the government's response to concerns raised by a study from King's College London and the Francis Crick Institute, which found that delays in administering the second dose of more than 21 days leave cancer patients vulnerable to COVID-19?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 583--
Mr. Bob Saroya:
With regard to accounts locked by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) between March 13, 2021, and March 22, 2021, over concerns that usernames and passwords may have been hacked: (a) how many accounts were locked; (b) what was the average number of days impacted accounts were locked; (c) did the CRA notify each account holder in (a) that their account would be locked, and, if so, how were they contacted; (d) on what date did the CRA become aware that usernames and passwords may have been hacked; (e) how did the CRA become aware of the hacking; (f) is any recourse or compensation available to individuals whose information has been compromised as a result of their CRA information being hacked, and, if so, how do they access such recourse or compensation; and (g) have any specific measures been taken since March 13, 2021, to ensure the future safety of information shared online with the CRA, and, if so, what are the details of each measure, including the date of implementation?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 584--
Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay:
With regard to federal spending in the constituency of Papineau, in each fiscal year since 2018-19, inclusively: what are the details of all grants and contributions and all loans to any organization, group, business or municipality, broken down by the (i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality in which the recipient is located, (iii) date the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (v) department or agency that provided the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 585--
Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay:
With regard to federal spending in the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, in each fiscal year since 2018-19, inclusively: what are the details of all grants and contributions and all loans to any organization, group, business or municipality, broken down by the (i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality in which the recipient is located, (iii) date the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (v) department or agency that provided the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 587--
Mr. James Cumming:
With regard to government advertisements launched on Facebook since March 13, 2020: (a) how many advertisements have been launched by month and what were the corresponding campaigns for each (e.g. employment insurance, citizenship services, tax credits, grants, etc.); (b) for how long was each advertisement active online; (c) what were the insights for the advertisements launched, broken down by each advertisement, including the (i) number of people reached, (ii) percentage of women and men reached, (iii) age­group ranges reached, (iv) federal, provincial, or municipal regions targeted, including postal codes, if applicable; and (d) how many staff are provided with or have access to the Facebook advertisement data collected from each campaign, broken down by ministerial exempt and departmental staff?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 588--
Mr. Kerry Diotte:
With regard to accommodating the work from home environment for government employees since September 23, 2020: (a) what is the total amount spent on furniture, equipment, including IT equipment, and services, including home Internet reimbursement; (b) of the purchases in (a), what is the breakdown per department by (i) date of purchase, (ii) object code it was purchased under, (iii) type of furniture, equipment or services, (iv) final cost of furniture, equipment or services; (c) what were the costs incurred for delivery of items in (a); and (d) were subscriptions purchased during this period, and, if so, what were the (i) subscriptions for, (ii) costs associated for these subscriptions?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-432-575 Provision of the COVID-19 v ...8555-432-576 Debt payments on behalf of ...8555-432-577 National vaccine management ...8555-432-578 Federal spending in the con ...8555-432-579 Complaints related to the P ...8555-432-580 Quarantines at a hotel8555-432-581 Sexual misconduct in the Ca ...8555-432-582 COVID-19 vaccines8555-432-583 Locked accounts at the Cana ...8555-432-584 Federal spending in the con ...8555-432-585 Federal spending in the con ... ...Show all topics
View Pam Damoff Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take my time today to put some important issues on the record for the House, the most important of which is ensuring that survivors of sexual misconduct, harassment or assault must feel comfortable coming forward. They must be supported when coming forward.
Eliminating all forms of misconduct and abuses of power, and creating a safe work environment for everyone on the defence team must be our collective priority. Survivors must be at the centre of all that we do. While our government has always made this a top priority, as we have learned, survivors still do not feel safe coming forward.
I am also deeply troubled by the fact the Conservatives are once again ignoring facts and playing political games with a sensitive issue, so let me take the time to lay out the facts.
In 2018, the former national defence ombudsman Gary Walbourne met with the Minister of National Defence. This meeting was a normal meeting with staff, but at the end he asked to speak privately with the minister. He then told the minister he had evidence of misconduct against the former chief of the defence staff.
The minister did not ask for any specifics or details on the nature of the allegations, as was the right thing to do. Instead, he followed a process, the proper process. He immediately had his staff reach out to both the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office. They took the allegation and reached out to the former ombudsman to get details to be able to look into the allegation, but the ombudsman did not have the approval of the complainant to share that information.
Michael Wernick, former clerk of the Privy Council, stated at the national defence committee that, therefore, an impasse was reached and no further action was taken. No further action was taken on an allegation the former ombudsman said was not actionable.
Let us go through the process that was taken right before General Vance's appointment as the new chief of the defence staff in 2015, under a Conservative government. The minister at the time was made aware of an allegation or rumour. He shared it with his chief of staff, who then shared it with the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office, including the former prime minister's chief of staff. The former prime minister's chief of staff then ensured that the matter was looked into.
Does that sound familiar? It was the same process. The leader of the official opposition thought it was serious enough that he had his staff reach out to the Prime Minister's Office, and he has assured this House and Canadians that the matter was looked into.
Let us explore that, shall we? We heard testimony from Ray Novak, former chief of staff to former prime minister Stephen Harper, that the Conservatives had the national security advisor investigate these rumours. How did he investigate? He went directly to General Vance and asked him about the rumours.
That is wholly inappropriate when someone comes forward with an allegation. I cannot believe the the national security advisor would go directly to the person who was being investigated, but he did. General Vance gave assurances that there was nothing there. That is how the Conservatives dealt with it. That is it, and that is all.
We do not know if there was any follow-up. We do not know if it was looked into, but the leader of the official opposition assures us it was looked into. That is shocking, considering all we have heard with regard to the former national security advisor looking into the rumour by asking General Vance his opinion. That is not an appropriate process. Frankly, it is disconcerting that the former Conservative government took the accused General Vance's word for it, especially considering there was already an active investigation into him being conducted by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, or the CFNIS.
I would like to remind my hon. colleagues of the very troubling news we learned last week. The CFNIS was actively investigating General Vance in 2015. More specifically, it was investigating General Vance right up until July 17, 2015. Do colleagues know what also happened on July 17, 2015? General Vance was appointed as the new chief of the defence staff.
We then learned through an ATIP request that the commanding officer in charge of the investigation was facing pressure to wrap the investigation up. Pressure from whom exactly? Was it the former minister of national defence, the former prime minister, the former parliamentary secretary to the minister of national defence or the current leader of the official opposition?
Surely, we can all agree that politicians should not be involved in investigations, so exerting pressure on an investigation to conclude would be completely inappropriate and, perhaps illegal, yet we still have not received a definitive answer from the Conservatives on who was giving that pressure. No one has answered. No one has provided details.
Could the leader of the official opposition finally give us an answer? So far, the Leader of the Opposition has provided absolutely no details. He has just stated that the way he handled it in 2015 was the proper way and the right way.
However, let us continue with the troubling news from last week because not only was the investigation facing pressure and then abruptly ended, but the investigation was actually officially closed on July 21, 2015, which was four days after General Vance was appointed. Why was the investigation closed four days after he was appointed? Why was it not closed before he was appointed? Why did the Conservative government appoint General Vance in 2015 when an active investigation by the CFNIS was still ongoing?
All of this is incredibly troubling. We not only have rumours that were not investigated properly, but we also have a chief of the defence staff rushed through appointment, even though there was an active investigation ongoing. All of this was because the Conservatives wanted to appoint him before the 2015 election, which was called only a few short weeks later.
Now, the only thing we have heard from Conservative politicians are concerns about the process our government followed, the one that ensured the highest ranking civil service was aware and engaged on the issue, the one that went as far as it could before the former ombudsman stated that he could not provide the information because the complainant had not signed off on it. It is the same process the Conservatives followed in 2015.
The Conservatives say those rumours were acted upon in 2015. What action was different from those we took? They would say that the national security advisor was involved.
Well, the national security advisor in 2018, Daniel Jean, stated that he would not know of the details or be involved in the investigation at that point because there were not enough details to investigate. In fact, he said:
...I wish to indicate that these 2018 allegations were never brought to my attention.
I also think it is important to add that this is not necessarily unusual, particularly, as I explained before, if PCO senior personnel were not able to obtain information that would have allowed and warranted the pursuit of an investigation.
We know why the NSA was not involved, but the top civil servant in Canada was. So then, what is different about what happened in 2015? If the Conservatives can stand up and explain to this House how it was different, I would be shocked, because it was not. It was the same.
Let me lay out the facts one last time. In 2015, the Conservatives followed the exact same process we did. The Conservatives appointed General Vance when there was an active investigation into him. On the rumours that the leader of the official opposition says were looked into, the only thing we know about how that was looked into is that the national security advisor went directly to General Vance and asked his opinion. Finally, there was pressure on the investigation into General Vance to conclude. This is very concerning, and the House deserves answers from the opposition leader. Canadians deserve answers, and survivors deserve answers.
I will close by saying that the process failed survivors under the Conservative government and under ours. The Prime Minister has clearly stated that this needs to improve, so survivors of sexual violence and harassment receive support and a means to come forward without fear of reprisal.
View Louise Charbonneau Profile
BQ (QC)
View Louise Charbonneau Profile
2021-05-04 16:01 [p.6636]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charlesfor his presentation.
First of all, I can say that the Bloc Quebecois will vote against this motion. It is not up to the House of Commons to manage the Prime Minister's Office. Assigning the blame for the inaction of the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister to an employee would create a dangerous precedent. Why try to assign the blame to an employee who is only following her boss' orders?
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very relevant question.
It is important to understand the situation. We know that the chief of staff was aware of the facts and that the Prime Minister says he was not aware of the facts. If the Prime Minister's chief of staff, who has an extremely important role in the Canadian government, did not tell her boss, she deserves to be severely reprimanded and, in our opinion, fired outright.
If the Prime Minister was aware, however, then the problem is altogether different. That is what we are waiting to hear from the Prime Minister.
View Cathay Wagantall Profile
CPC (SK)
View Cathay Wagantall Profile
2021-04-26 19:09 [p.6208]
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak this evening on behalf of women and men who have been victimized by sexual misconduct in the military. Each case of sexual misconduct is significant, and addressing this issue and the systemic causes behind it must be a top priority for the government.
Our women and men in uniform, as well as our veterans, entered into our military with the highest ideals of service. They understood that they were going to be asked to serve in the most difficult of situations and perhaps give up their lives. What they did not expect or deserve was conflict and assaults from within our own ranks. They deserve a fair hearing and meaningful action in response to their trauma, not half measures, lip service and shameful attempts to sweep allegations under the rug.
On March 12, I posed a question to the Minister of National Defence. I framed my question around the March 11 edition of The Fifth Estate. In the segment “Broken honour”, Sergeant Jessica Miller revealed her experiences of sexual abuse by a superior while at sea. Under the guise of Operation Honour, Jessica hoped for justice. However, it was revealed that Jessica's abuser received a mere code of conduct discipline violation, no criminal charges and a move to a posting of his choice.
Jessica Miller is only one of the victims who have come forward in an effort to expose systemic issues of sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces ranks. What is more, the lax consequences applied to Miller's perpetrator are just one example of the lack of seriousness with which they are being addressed.
We have recently come to learn that this pattern of impunity can be found all the way to the top. For three years, the Minister of National Defence knew about the sexual misconduct allegations against General Vance and did nothing to address them. I asked for a justification from the minister, but the response I received was troubling.
How can the government claim that it has “no tolerance for misconduct”? Clearly that is not the case when a perpetrator received no criminal charges and was given an alternative posting of his own choice. Where is the accountability in that?
I heard words from the member who responded that rang with excuses and indifference, like “institutional culture is complex and change takes time”. It does not have to be that way.
My colleague, the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, recently wrote about military sexual misconduct in the context of a similar situation in the U.S. Tailhook, of course, involved up to 83 women and men sexually assaulted by U.S. Navy and Marine Corps officers at an event over the course of a weekend. The U.S. military response was swift and decisive. Top brass were fired and a policy of zero tolerance was established. As my colleague wrote on the fallout from Tailhook, “There was to be no doubt that the U.S. military would be a place where women could serve equally and with pride.” My colleague wrote that this is Canada's Tailhook moment, and I wholeheartedly agree with her.
We need a wholesale change of perspective and culture within our military, and we need it now. Sexual assault and harassment go largely unreported because of fears that complaints will not be taken seriously or that victims will face repercussions. As I mentioned earlier, Jessica Miller is just one example of a service member who has voluntarily come forward, but she is an exception. As it stands, women and men are not comfortable with coming forward. It is saddening to realize that there are far more victims sitting in silence.
At the outset of Operation Honour, General Vance stated, “Any form of harmful sexual behaviour has been and always will be absolutely contrary to good order and discipline.... It is a threat to operational readiness and a threat to this institution.” Clearly Operation Honour is a misnomer when our top soldier is not a part of the solution but a part of the problem.
I hope and pray that continued exposure to this systemic issue will encourage more victims to break their silence and that this critical mass will persuade the minister to undertake wholesale reform and fire those who need to be fired.
View Anita Vandenbeld Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Anita Vandenbeld Profile
2021-04-26 19:13 [p.6209]
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville for bringing such an incredibly important issue to the floor of the House.
Let me start by stating our position in the clearest possible terms. Our government does not, and will not, accept any form of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence from anyone, regardless of rank or position.
We are committed to ensuring that survivors and affected persons have access to a range of supports, and are treated fairly and compassionately. We must take care of our people, providing them with a workplace free from harassment and discrimination. It is written into our defence policy. It is written into the minister's mandate letters, and it is my personal belief system.
Everything that we do must be informed by those with lived experiences. Sexual misconduct is harmful beyond measure. Our government has worked hard, first by responding to Justice Deschamps' report. We put measures in place focused on understanding the issue, preventing harm from occurring in the first place, addressing incidents when they happen, and providing support to survivors and those impacted.
We created the Sexual Misconduct Response Centre, completely independent from the chain of command. We launched new mandatory training and education. We partnered with Statistics Canada to conduct surveys so we could better understand the scope of the problem. We reviewed 179 old cases that had been categorized as unfounded. We created new specialized teams within our military police and our prosecution service to address sexual misconduct. We sought out expert external advice, and we implemented new programs and policies. Last year we released a preliminary cultural change strategy. All of this work was essential and foundational.
However, we have heard recent survivors, coming forward so bravely, with very traumatic and difficult stories. This is something that is heartbreaking. Those who have come forward, and those I have personally heard, have stories that have shaken me deeply. I will remember and carry them with me forever. It has to stop.
It is clear that Operation Honour has not produced the solutions we had hoped it would. It is extremely clear that we have a lot more work to do. We will learn from what has not worked and develop a deliberate plan to go forward. It must be an evergreen process, and it is urgent.
We need to make it easy and accessible for anyone, at any level and any gender, to report an incident. They need to have confidence in those reporting mechanisms. That is why we will be developing an independent reporting structure to look into all allegations. We must ensure that this kind of abuse of power, and that is what it is, an abuse of power, ends and never happens again.
As the minister and Prime Minister have stated, all options are on the table. We are listening. Eliminating all forms of misconduct, abuse of power and violence, and creating a safe work environment for everyone in the defence team has always been our top priority. We know that any organization, including the Canadian Armed Forces, must work hard to eliminate the toxic masculinity that creates an unacceptable culture.
All avenues to a safer future for the women and men serving in the Canadian Armed Forces are going to be considered in order to change that culture. We owe it to our members and to Canadians to get this right.
View Cathay Wagantall Profile
CPC (SK)
View Cathay Wagantall Profile
2021-04-26 19:18 [p.6210]
Mr. Speaker, I have addressed the deep lack of confidence our serving members, veterans and Canadians have in the Liberal government's ability to deal with the military sexual trauma pandemic taking place within our military.
In this House, I called upon the Prime Minister to extend the deadline for the CAF-DND sexual misconduct class action, currently scheduled to close on November 25. That is too soon. This is a painful experience for victims, who have to recount traumatic experiences in great detail. It is overwhelmingly difficult. Ultimately, the deadline is going to prevent victims from coming forward.
Extending the deadline, at least until those responsible are held responsible, is one measure the government could take right now, in good faith, to indicate to our service members and veterans that justice will be served.
Will the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence and the Liberal government do the right thing and remove the looming deadline on the sexual misconduct class action?
View Anita Vandenbeld Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Anita Vandenbeld Profile
2021-04-26 19:19 [p.6210]
Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member opposite that all options are on the table. That is why budget 2021 committed over $236 million to eliminate sexual misconduct and gender-based violence in the Canadian Armed Forces, including expanding the reach of the sexual misconduct response centres and providing online and in-person peer-to-peer support.
It is clear that the measures we have taken already are not enough, and we will have more to announce in the coming weeks for the next steps. We know the solutions we have put forward have not moved fast enough, and we are listening to survivors and those impacted. Canadian Armed Forces members make enormous sacrifices to protect Canadians, and regardless of rank or gender, they have an undeniable right to be able to serve in safety. We can and we must do better, and we will.
View Paul Manly Profile
GP (BC)
View Paul Manly Profile
2021-03-25 13:53 [p.5257]
Madam Speaker, one of the things that the sexual misconduct scandal has done is trigger people. A woman in my riding spent 20 years in the military. She was raped. Her son was assaulted on the base because of her reporting. She lost her job. She lost her career, and she wants to know what the process is. Who does she report to? How do people deal with these kinds of things in the military and the police forces, when they are not taken seriously and when they see impunity in this system?
I would like to get the member's comments about how women are supposed to deal with impunity in our Canadian Armed Forces and in the RCMP. We have a legacy of this.
View Tracy Gray Profile
CPC (BC)
View Tracy Gray Profile
2021-03-25 13:54 [p.5258]
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his comments and for sharing that really sad situation. My colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound wrote an opinion piece titled, “Canadian Armed Forces needs more Eleanor Taylors—not fewer”. It goes into her situation and looks at what some of the issues are. It is a really good opinion piece that I would encourage people to read. It lays out the desperate situation that a lot of women feel. It is definitely something that needs to be worked on.
View Cathay Wagantall Profile
CPC (SK)
View Cathay Wagantall Profile
2021-03-12 12:02 [p.4982]
Madam Speaker, last night, Canadians watched on The Fifth Estate as Jessica Miller revealed her experiences of sexual abuse by a superior while at sea. Under the guise of Operation Honour, she hoped for justice. Instead, like so many others, her perpetrator received a code of conduct discipline violation, no criminal charges and a move to a posting of his choice.
The minister sat on his hands for three years after learning of sexual misconduct allegations again General Vance.
Why is the minister failing to protect women in the military?
View Anita Vandenbeld Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Anita Vandenbeld Profile
2021-03-12 12:03 [p.4982]
Madam Speaker, we know that every single woman who serves this country in the Canadian Armed Forces deserves to be safe while doing so. We have no tolerance for misconduct. It is unacceptable that anyone with these allegations of assault or harassment who comes forward would themselves be victims of bullying or threats. Though institutional culture is complex and change takes time, as I said earlier, the time for patience is over. We need to make sure that everyone who comes forward feels comfortable doing so, and I encourage them to come forward.
View Michael Barrett Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Speaker, last week we heard shocking testimony from the former military ombudsman detailing evidence presented to the minister of defence of sexual misconduct, allegedly perpetrated by Canada's top soldier. Instead of receiving the information and acting on it, the minister pushed away from the table and sent the ombudsman to the Prime Minister's department.
It is clear that the Prime Minister and his defence minister failed to take action. Instead, the government undertook a coordinated campaign to silence a whistle-blower. We ask members of our Canadian Armed Forces to serve Canada with unlimited liability. The very least that we can do is to ensure an environment that is free from sexual misconduct and that any complaints are investigated and free of reprisals.
The Prime Minister and his defence minister have failed to create an environment that has zero tolerance for sexual misconduct. They have failed to protect the members who brought their stories forward. We owe it to all members of the Canadian Forces to find out exactly how allegations of sexual misconduct were covered up by the Liberal government.
View Jagmeet Singh Profile
NDP (BC)
View Jagmeet Singh Profile
2021-03-08 14:27 [p.4665]
Mr. Speaker, it takes a lot of courage to file a complaint about sexual misconduct, but that is exactly what a woman in the Canadian Forces did. That complaint made it all the way to the desk of the Minister of Defence, but he did nothing about it.
What will the Prime Minister do to protect women in the Canadian Forces?
Results: 1 - 15 of 37 | Page: 1 of 3

1
2
3
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data