SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 256 - Nov/27/23

Nov/27/23 6:32:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am rising in defence of my colleague as well, and I think there is a lot of evidence in the House of Commons that the Prime Minister has, we will say, misled the House. The member called somebody by a name that indicates they have misled, but he did not call any member of the House a liar, which of course is verboten in this House. Instead, he said that this person is corrupt, which means not following the rules. I appreciate where he is coming from in that respect.

93 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/27/23 6:32:43 p.m.
Watch

That specific word is a pretty strong word. It has caused disorder in the House. I would ask the member to please withdraw his comment. Before I give my comments, I want to remind members that the Speaker of the House will be coming back to the House. I personally have witnessed what has been happening with parliamentarians on both sides of the House, and I would remind members that we need to be more respectful of each other for Parliament to function smoothly. As the Speaker said in his previous statement, it is incumbent upon all MPs to work together and be respectful of each other in the House for us to be able to make sure Parliament works smoothly. The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

129 words

Respectful

Mr. Michael Cooper

Nov/27/23 6:33:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I attempted to rise before you intervened to respond to the point of order. I would submit that, by any objective standard, the Prime Minister is corrupt. He has been found guilty twice of violating the Conflict of Interest Act and intervened in an RCMP investigation into his potential criminal wrongdoing by—

55 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/27/23 6:34:16 p.m.
Watch

There have been a number of individuals in other parties, not just the government party, who have had decisions rendered about conflicts of interest. I will ask the hon. member to rise in the House to withdraw his comment. It is causing disorder in the House. It is an issue with decorum, and it is not a proper word to use, so I would ask the member to please withdraw his comment.

72 words

Mr. Michael Cooper

Nov/27/23 6:34:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know the truth hurts for the cover-up coalition, but out of respect for you as the Chair, I withdraw it.

24 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Nov/27/23 6:35:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this concurrence debate, although I will note, of course, that it is within the usual tactics and games used by members of the official opposition. However, it is an important topic, so I am glad to speak to it tonight. I will be splitting my time with the member for Nunavut; I look forward to hearing her incredible contributions to this debate. First of all, this was a really important report to put forward. I am so grateful to all the witnesses who came before us, the members of the armed forces who spoke to this report, the academics, the community leaders, the policy-makers, the analysts from the Library of Parliament, our committee clerk and the interpreters. We are truly lucky in this place to have such an incredible group of people to work with and whom we can hear from to create better legislation and better policy within the government. I appreciate those workers and all the evidence provided by the participants. After hearing the recommendations and reflections from the committee, we worked on the study to look into Russia's threat to Canada's Arctic, China's threat to Canada's Arctic, the security of the Canadian Arctic archipelago and the security of the Northwest Passage and NORAD modernization. This report's recommendations strayed from the mandate a bit. Sadly, we ignored one of the largest points and most imminent threats to our Arctic, which is climate change. According to the report: The committee was reminded by Dr. P. Whitney Lackenbauer that we must distinguish “between threats passing through or over the Arctic rather than threats to or in the Arctic”. The committee did not quite get that in terms of the recommendations, which is a real shame. The committee's recommendations focused heavily on “potential threats to North America passing through the Arctic, at the expense of centering threats to the Arctic itself.” The warming rate of the Arctic's oceans: ...is up to seven times faster than the global average. The United Nations estimates that by 2050, up to 70 percent of Arctic infrastructure will be at risk from loss of permafrost. This is a direct threat against both the Canadian Armed Forces and Arctic communities.... With climate change, we have already seen the number of voyages in Canadian Arctic waters triple in the last three decades. New sea lanes are being opened by melting ice, which will cause increased fishing, transportation, tourism and research activity in the area. Further, the loss of permafrost is also increasing the viability of access to the Arctic's massive oil reserves, natural gas and precious minerals. This threat to Arctic security was discussed at length throughout the committee by top officials. We heard from the chief of the defence staff, General Wayne Eyre, who stated that there was a challenge in “making that infrastructure durable and sustainable into the future with the changing circumstances related to climate change.” Vice-Admiral Topshee, the commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, told us about the important holistic approach necessary to deal with the increase in traffic. He said that the CAF is working with territorial governments and indigenous partners to build Canada's capacity, from unauthorized vessel detection to search and rescue. In the same study, we heard from the national security and intelligence adviser, Jody Thomas, that more than 40% of Canada's territory and over 75% of its national coastlines are Arctic. She stated: The Arctic is fundamental to Canada's identity and its sovereignty.... Rapid and enduring climate change is making the region more accessible for navigation. New commercial and military technologies are connecting the North to the rest of the world and eroding the region's historical isolation from geopolitical affairs. We took all this into account. We heard it as part of the testimony, which, of course, was rooted in the context that the increased activity caused by climate change is highly disruptive. It is a problem. It is the major threat. It is very alarming that, within those recommendations, we did not actually see recommendations calling to address climate change. Certainly, I tried to bring that forward, to have the consideration of climate change as the existential threat to Arctic security be known. Sadly, we do not see those recommendations in the report. It is truly a mystery, but maybe not a mystery for anyone who has heard arguments from the official opposition's side. However, I will leave it there. It is imperative that the federal government treats climate change as a national security threat, as outlined by all these officials and academics. This summer alone, 45.7 million acres of forest in Canada burned and released the equivalent of 1.7 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions. Additionally, indigenous peoples in Arctic communities need to be central to what we are talking about in terms of Arctic security. The impacts of climate change are felt first and foremost in the Arctic. Indigenous people are often on the front lines as first responders, and all government spending on the Arctic security question has to reflect this truth. As the report notes, “As part of Arctic security, we must see investments in the north help northerners access safe housing, clean drinking water, fresh food and healthcare.” It is easy to fall into the escalating calls for the militarization of the Arctic, but I believe this is a disconnect from what the committee heard from witnesses. We heard that the best Arctic security policy is an investment in the communities themselves and in their people. One clear message heard at committee was the need to invest in the Canadian Rangers to address the threats to the Arctic. We heard from Calvin Pedersen, a fourth-generation Canadian Ranger, about his work in monitoring vessel traffic in the northwest. The report notes, “The Canadian Rangers are essential to meeting the security needs to address the impact of climate change and increased economic activity in the Arctic.” We also heard from Dr. Peter Kikkert, who said: The Rangers wear lots of hats, so they’re often volunteers on the ground search and rescue teams in their communities. They’re often members of the Coast Guard auxiliary units that go out to do marine searches.... The training that is given to Rangers is not always just used in an official capacity, but is often used to bolster the search and rescue system on a voluntary basis. The report goes on: “Investments in the Canadian Rangers will increase our domain awareness, increase the CAF’s operational capabilities, and will bolster search and rescue capacity.” There were some good recommendations, especially recommendations 21 to 25, as part of this report, and I hope the government will act upon them very quickly. They include a change to the way rangers have faced mistreatment from successive governments. Often, rangers are expected to continue service while being undercompensated for equipment usage, and they are slowly and inadequately reimbursed for damaged equipment. They also lack funding for administrative supports. Just last week, I questioned the Minister of National Defence about this, because in the study, witnesses clearly called for the equipment usage rate to be tied to inflation. I did not get the answer I wanted, but I never really do from the minister, unfortunately. I hope that will change. I hope he will take the recommendations from this report seriously. In addition to that support, the defence ombudsman reported that rangers lack adequate access to the health care, housing and basic infrastructure needed to do that work. We keep hearing the same messages over and over again. We need the government to hear them. The report notes, “As the need for Canadian Rangers increases, we must act immediately to solve these concerns.” In addition to the permanent Arctic search and rescue round table that has been called for, the committee received a written submission that called for the need to build up community resilience. This brings me to recommendation 13 of the report. The report says: [I] wish the language in the recommendations went further to mandate the Government to prioritize investments that serve Indigenous peoples and Arctic communities. As we expect more and more from Arctic communities, Canada’s history of neglect and harm must be reconciled with meaningful investments. In prioritizing the backlog of NORAD modernization and the backlog of infrastructure gaps in the Arctic, we can address [a lot of the] shared needs. The government has a clear opportunity here, and it needs to “use funding allocated for NORAD modernization to address the infrastructure and service gaps in the Arctic. We must give greater attention to the water crisis, housing crisis, and health care crisis in Arctic communities”. I also want to address a recommendation that I agree with in this report, which is recommendation 3. In witness testimony for this study, General Wayne Eyre stated, “I think policies related to ballistic missile offence are becoming less and less relevant.” The recommendation reads, “That the Government of Canada reconsider its longstanding policy with respect to the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defence program.” I am 100% against that. We heard from Dr. Adam Lajeunesse, who stated: Arctic security and defence are very important, and we need to make serious investments, but we need to zero in on what exactly the threat environment is. What I have argued is that we are not seeing, and are not likely to see, a great power threat to the Arctic.... I'm arguing that it would be a waste of money and an inefficient use of our resources to build the Arctic defences in such a way as to gear them towards Russia or China. Again, he pointed back to the existential threat. This all points back to the inappropriate and disappointing wedge in a conversation of our study that refused to put those recommendations forward, in terms of climate change. I—

1687 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/27/23 6:46:30 p.m.
Watch

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

13 words

Mr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC)

Nov/27/23 6:46:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, obviously, this is a very important topic that we are debating tonight. The member made a number of key observations. I thank her for her commitment on the committee. Recommendation 5, in particular, talks about the risks from malign foreign actors, specifically in the Arctic. It can address the challenges as the Arctic opens up more. That scares me more than almost anything. I am less worried about Russian intrusions into the Arctic. I am more worried about Russian businesses, Chinese businesses and other foreign state actors challenging our natural resources, our critical minerals and, in particular, how it even impacts our indigenous population, our Inuit in the north. Could the member expand a bit more on what the committee found out in terms of what actions need to be taken by the government to address this critical and important need?

143 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen

Nov/27/23 6:47:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would note that they are not “our” indigenous people. I warn the member about that language; it is very important. General Wayne Eyre specifically stated, right at the get-go of the study, “I see no real threat today to our territorial sovereignty; nor do I see one in the near future". Yes, we have to be aware of what is going on in the world. Yes, we have to be concerned, but, critically, what gives access to critical minerals, to the Northwest Passage, to communities in the north and to all of that is climate change. The opening up of the passage and of the seaways is the existential threat, and we are not doing anything to address that adequately.

127 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Nov/27/23 6:48:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her terrific work on national defence, on sovereignty issues. She has been incredibly stellar in standing up, particularly, for women and men in the service, on behalf of the Canadian Forces. She has done a remarkable job of ensuring that we have policies and working hard to ensure that the women and men in uniform are actually respected by governments. We have seen, of course, how badly the Conservative government treated veterans. We have seen some of that reflected in the current government. What are the critical things that need to happen in order to ensure that, at all times, men and women in the service are treated with the respect they deserve?

120 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen

Nov/27/23 6:49:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, ultimately, the men and women in uniform are a workforce that we rely upon with everything that we have, and they put themselves in the line of danger. They are there when people need them, domestically and internationally. We need to ensure that they are safe. We need to ensure that they have the best equipment. We need to ensure that they have the safest workplaces. That includes a lot of the things that were mentioned in the report but that I mention again, which people within the Arctic need as well. They need housing, health care and safe supports, and they need to know that the workplace they are going into is not one of disrespect. There is a lot going on that the government needs to invest in. Again, it comes back to people. It always comes back to people.

144 words

Mr. Alex Ruff

Nov/27/23 6:50:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am going to give the member another chance to really answer my question, which is about the recommendation and “developing a strategy for critical infrastructure investments and protecting Canadian interests from malign foreign actors” and whether the committee had additional information on that. With respect to people, I just want to re-emphasize the importance of our rangers and our Canadian Forces personnel, currently 8,000 understrength in our reserves, 8,000 understrength in our regular force and 10,000 under in trained effective strength. The government needs to do more for our personnel in the Canadian Armed Forces.

104 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen

Nov/27/23 6:51:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, absolutely, and I think that this ties in to a lot of the things that I just answered before with my hon. colleague for New Westminster—Burnaby. Of course, the question of how we treat our people as workers, how we treat them on the front lines, how we treat the men and women who volunteer as Canadian rangers and our search and rescue, is all very important, and the investment in the people who are doing that incredible work is a key component of what I was trying to bring forward today.

96 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Nov/27/23 6:51:50 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I am happy to speak on behalf of Nunavummiut on this important report that my colleague, the member for London—Fanshawe, worked on. I really want to acknowledge as well the great work that she does at this committee. I have had the great honour of working with her when the announcements were made regarding NORAD improvements, and her leadership on this file is so much appreciated. It is because of her work that I have started saying that Nunavut does not just have one Nunavut MP but 25 great NDP MPs advocating for Nunavummiut. I also want to share very briefly that I remember when my dad was still alive in 1981 watching a movie, which was rare in Igloolik, because it did not get TV until much later. The community of Igloolik had chosen quite late compared to other Canadian communities to accept television, because it felt it would be a threat to Inuit culture and lifestyle. So, when we arrived in Igloolik we were quite lucky, or maybe unlucky, I do not know what the right word is, as we already had TV when we had been living in Resolute. When we arrived in Igloolik, one of the videos I remember watching vividly, because TV had not been allowed at the time, was Mary Poppins. At that time, Mary Poppins was very special to me, because it was the same year that my dad had died. However, before that, part of the reason that Mary Poppins was so special was because I was learning English and there was this foreign word “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious”. I was like, “Whoa, what a crazy English word.” It was something I did not think would have an impact on my thoughts about Arctic security and Arctic sovereignty, but here we are with me thinking back to my childhood and the work that had already been done to secure the Arctic. Before that, just to remind Canadians, Canada had the High Arctic relocatees where Inuit were forced from northern Quebec to two communities, Resolute and Grise Fiord. Actually, my dad's family helped train Inuit from northern Quebec. My dad, Joseph Idlout, is actually quite famous because he taught the Inuit from northern Quebec how to survive in the High Arctic by teaching them hunting skills. They were filmed by Doug Wilkinson, who was a famous photographer, and a lot of his photographs are in Archives Canada. One of his photos actually ended up on our currency. Members will remember the old two-dollar bill with the Inuit hunting scene. It was my grandfather and uncles on that two-dollar bill. The story behind that two-dollar bill is regarding Arctic sovereignty and security, which is why this topic is so important to me, because I have very direct personal experience with what Canada did in the name of Arctic sovereignty. I also want to read what one of the witnesses said. I should say that I was not part of this study, and so I am not sure that I will be able to answer any direct questions regarding the study, but with my experience, I might be able to answer general questions if they are posed to me. However, I did read the report, and one witness, Dr. Lackenbauer, said that “climate change is the existential threat to humanity”. This goes to show what is real in the Arctic. We know that Russia's invasion of Ukraine may have increased the level of threat in the Arctic, but I know from people I work with and people I have visited in all 25 communities that climate change is among the higher topics that are mentioned to me. They mention that elders are not able to teach as efficiently as they did regarding the environment, with the changes that they see on the snow, the ice conditions and even the wildlife and the migration patterns changing because of other external factors. For example, in Pond Inlet a couple of years ago, after Baffinland iron mines opened up Mary River Mine and increased its shipping, there was a huge decrease in narwhales, and many Inuit hunters were saying that they were robbed of their opportunity to teach their sons how to hunt narwhales because of the change in patterns that the shipping had created in the name of corporate profits. I also want to mention very quickly that, having read through the report, the recommendations I thought were particularly important to the Arctic are numbers 7, 8, 10, 13, 16, 17, 21 and 22. The reason I highlight these recommendations specifically is that they speak directly to what my colleague, the MP for London—Fanshawe, was saying about ensuring that we are doing better capacity development for indigenous peoples and for northern residents who are always living in the Arctic. When it is their environment, if those residents are not given the investments and the resources, then it will be that much harder to fight for Arctic security if there are threats coming our way. My colleague was talking about investing in the north being so important, such as in housing, training, health care and education. If these investments were to the level that they should be, I know for a fact that Arctic northerners would be better able to help ensure that the Arctic is secure and that they are able to help fight against threats that are impacting their lives. I also want to mention in my statement that as part of the work of the indigenous and northern affairs committee, we also studied Arctic security. The name of our report is “Arctic Security and Sovereignty, and the Emergency Preparedness of Indigenous Communities”. It is good to see other members of our committee here in the chamber. When we did our study on Arctic security and Arctic sovereignty, a huge portion of our conversation also related to some of what is in this report with respect to the Canadian Rangers. We also had Aivgak Pedersen as our witness, a fourth-generation Canadian Ranger and a great leader in Nunavut and Cambridge Bay. He lived in Kugluktuk at the time and has now moved to Cambridge Bay. He spoke about making sure that we actually invest in Canadian Rangers. When I was in Iqaluit recently for Remembrance Day, I had the pleasure of visiting with some of the Canadian Rangers who were at the Remembrance Day ceremonies, and they reminded me right away that as a part of my advocacy, I must also advocate for improvements in investments in Canadian Rangers. They said to me that they get beautiful uniforms and relics for rifles, and they can get reimbursements from the Canadian Armed Forces, but those reimbursements take forever. Therefore, if Canada is going to do better with respect to investing in Arctic security, a huge portion of that must be to invest in Canadian Rangers, who know the land and the environment. Investing in them would help make sure that we are keeping the Arctic secure. I want to end my statement with a quote from Mr. Aivgak Pedersen, who reported to our committee: As Canadian Rangers, we're on the ground. We live here. We are from here. We know the land.... Having local knowledge and expertise makes a huge difference. It will make a difference in saving people's lives in a timely manner.

1245 words

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

Nov/27/23 7:02:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Nunavut for bringing to light the parts of this report that are very important to her. My mother was born in Chesterfield Inlet and spent most of her childhood in the Arctic. She has great memories of her time there, with two different tours through Pangnirtung. Most of the time she was there, but she was also in Cambridge Bay and Rankin Inlet, as they worked for the northern stores department of the Hudson's Bay Company. I want to ask my colleague about recommendation 5 from the report. We heard from Madeleine Redfern, former mayor of Iqaluit, at committee about making sure we know what infrastructure is out there. How can we make dual use of infrastructure for communities and the Canadian Armed Forces as we modernize NORAD and continue to make sure we have a more positive posture in the Arctic, knowing the threats we are currently facing from Russia, the PRC and other nations that want to take advantage of the great outdoors we have in Canada's north?

181 words

Ms. Lori Idlout

Nov/27/23 7:03:36 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I grew up for a portion of my life in Chesterfield Inlet as well. It is such a beautiful community. I have fond memories. Regarding the member's question on dual use infrastructure, I completely agree. I know that if Arctic security was taken more seriously, the community of Cambridge Bay, for example, which is a regional hub in the Kitikmeot region, would have a paved airport. That could be dual use infrastructure to help make sure that fighter jets can land there, if need be. At the moment, because the airport is not paved, the main airline that goes there has decided to cease jet service, only relying on ATRs, which have less capacity, resulting in more cancellations of flights, impacting medical travel appointments and impacting the cost of food. Dual use is a great way to make sure we are better investing in the Arctic.

148 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Nov/27/23 7:04:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I knew the hon. member would not disappoint. I really appreciate her taking part in this debate tonight. At the defence committee last week, we had the Minister of National Defence before us. When I was asking about following up on support for rangers, the chief of the defence staff said something I found quite disturbing. I would love the member's input on it. He said that when it comes rangers, “We've noticed that perhaps some of those traditional skills are eroding”. Could the member comment on why they believe that to be the case and how we can stop that from happening?

109 words

Ms. Lori Idlout

Nov/27/23 7:05:43 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, that is definitely a concern, and part of the reason is climate change, as I mentioned in my statement. Elders are telling us that it is harder to teach their children and grandchildren about ice conditions when winter is arriving sooner. It is harder to teach when not to go to certain ice areas because the ice is not as thick as it used to be. All those things, which were very important to our survival up to this point and remained traditional expert knowledge, are eroding. We need to expedite ensuring that we regain that knowledge so we can make sure that Inuit today are able to adjust and that we are continually adapting to our changing environment.

120 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

Nov/27/23 7:06:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to a concurrence motion. For those who are just tuning in, to understand the context of what we are doing right now, back on November 3, the government had on the Order Paper that we would continue to debate the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. However, as was becoming very consistent around that time, every time we brought forward that particular bill to be debated, Conservatives would put forward concurrence motions to basically prevent us from discussing the bill. The reason I am willing to go out on a limb to say that they were intentionally preventing us from debating that bill is not only that they had done it a number of times already, but also, and more importantly, that they were continually doing it with reports from committees that were unanimous. This was another unanimous report that came from committee. Just so the public knows, when a report is tabled in the House by the chair of the committee, there is no obligation to debate it as it is considered received. As a matter of fact, the government responded to this particular report from the committee, so there was really no need to have a debate on it. The committee report was unanimous. The government, in its introductory reply, thanked the committee, said that the majority of the committee's recommendations were in line with work already being undertaken by the government, and went on to address each and every specific recommendation in the report. On Friday, November 3, Conservatives put forward a motion to concur in this unanimous report from the committee, which had already been responded to by the government. It was just to delay and prevent us from talking about the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. Of course, at the time, none of us really understood why. We could not fathom that Conservatives would be against that piece of legislation, which was the result of a trade agreement that had been signed by President Zelenskyy and the Prime Minister. It also has the endorsement of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and had all of the important elements built within it to help Ukraine rebuild. This side of the House, and probably all parties but the Conservative Party, were under the impression that it was going to be a pretty easy debate. We thought that everybody would agree and then we would pass it. However, very early on in the debate process, the member for Cumberland—Colchester rose and referred to the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement as being woke. That was the first sign for us on this side of the House. At that point, we started asking what was going on and if it were possible that the Conservative Party of Canada does not support this very important piece of legislation.

474 words

Mr. Alex Ruff

Nov/27/23 7:10:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I am wondering about the relevance of the member's speech. The report is about Arctic sovereignty, and he is talking about procedural processes in the House of Commons.

36 words