44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 19, 2024 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to explain why I heartily support Bill C-66, the military justice system modernization act. The legislation now before us aims to advance culture change within the Canadian Armed Forces, the CAF, and the Department of National Defence, or DND. In particular, the legislation aims to foster a culture free from sexual misconduct, sexual abuse and misogyny, all of which are forms of gender-based violence.
Bill C-66 envisions a safe work environment for all CAF and DND employees, with supports for victims and survivors of sexual misconduct, including ready access to mechanisms of justice that are currently available to all other Canadians. The vision of Bill C-66 is aligned with “It's Time: Canada's Strategy to Prevent and Address Gender-Based Violence” and the “National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence”, which guide the Government of Canada in preventing and addressing gender-based violence.
Through my work as parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth, I have travelled the country and heard from survivors about the work that still needs to be done to ensure women veterans are heard and are represented and visible in this strategy. The whole of government must address the issue of gender-based violence, not only through the national action plan to end gender-based violence but through all departments. This is why Bill C-66 is so important. All federal departments must be part of the strategy.
In recent years, Canadians have come to understand the gravity of sexual misconduct and the effect it has on victims, survivors and their families, and on our wider society. The #MeToo movement inspired thousands of victims and survivors to tell their stories, often for the first time, and we started to see some real change.
Women were not allowed to serve in combat roles in the Canadian military until a Human Rights Tribunal decision in 1989. That was the year Heather R. Erxleben became the first woman to join an infantry unit. I have learned that at the time there was little thought or effort to accommodate the needs of women who joined the armed forces, like properly fitted uniforms and safety equipment, and an appropriate military culture.
Recently, as part of my role on the Standing Committee for Veterans Affairs, I participated in a study that led to the report “Invisible No More. The Experiences of Canadian Women Veterans”. I am going to share some of the things we heard at that committee, but I want to start with a warning, because these are stories of sexual violence. They are difficult to hear, and I imagine some of the people watching will want a moment to turn away. They might be triggered by what I am about to share.
One witness told us:
I was drugged, kidnapped and gang-raped while attending mandatory training. The last thing I remember is dozing off in class after our lunch break in the cafeteria, and waking in complete fear in an unknown location, with motel staff waking me. I was completely naked, with no identification, covered in blood and bruises, and I couldn't walk. While the military government covered up a crime, the criminals climbed the ranks.
Another witness said:
I have seen it over and over again. I have seen, on basic training, warrant officers sleeping with cadets and using it as a tool to get sex—convincing a cadet that, if they do this, they'll pass basic training....
Sexual abuse was used as a way of almost controlling...women. I spent a year, at one time, in my career as a commander hiding from senior officers. I mean that literally.
Another veteran said:
How do I tell you what it's like to be in the middle of the ocean, with no land in sight for days, or in the Gulf of Oman, or off the coast of Panama, or even 12 nautical miles off the coast of Vancouver Island, and be told that if there was an “accident”, no one would hear my screams, or sailing with people who would grab my body, manipulate me, brainwash me and use me as a sex toy?
The final quote I will share is this:
From the beginning and throughout my career of 26 years, I was subjected to misconduct by men. In the beginning, it was to make me give up, but later on it was to appropriate my body—from verbal harassment to touching to forced kissing by superiors. It was also the invasion of my private life as a way to force me to accept the unacceptable. However, I consider myself lucky: I am not one of those who was raped.
Canadians are now more aware than ever that acts of sexual misconduct have occurred far too often and been tolerated far too readily, and that the impacts are deep, powerful and persistent. Bill C-66 is a step toward ensuring the goal that all CAF members are respected and safe while they serve. Canadians have also heard about policies and practices, formal and informal, that help create a culture of secrecy and tolerance and make perpetrators feel like they can get away with their actions without any consequences.
By eliminating some of these policies and practices, Bill C-66 would put an end to this sense of impunity and help CAF and DND establish and maintain more trauma-informed, progressive, respectful and positive organizational cultures.
The effective elements of Bill C-66 are rooted in studies led by two of Canada's former Supreme Court justices. The Hon. Morris Fish completed the third independent review of the National Defence Act three years ago, and the Hon. Louise Arbour published the independent external comprehensive review of DND and CAF two years ago. Both of these landmark documents come with recommendations for improving organizational culture, particularly when it comes to sexual misconduct.
One of the most effective recommendations can only be adopted through legislative change, and it is recommendation 5 from the hon. Louise Arbour. It calls for a complete overhaul of the way that sexual offences listed in the Criminal Code and involving CAF personnel are investigated and prosecuted. For sexual offences committed in Canada, Bill C-66 would assign exclusive jurisdiction to civilian authorities. This change would put a much-needed distance between the chain of command and the team of investigators and prosecutors. For victims and survivors, the current lack of distance makes it very difficult for them to pursue and achieve justice.
Bill C-66 would also implement several recommendations made by former Supreme Court justice Fish, making it easier to hold offenders to account. Furthermore, Bill C-66 proposes a series of amendments to other legislation to ensure that the military justice system remains constitutional and aligns with the Criminal Code and the civilian criminal justice system. Bill C-66 is just one important element of the government's larger strategy to advance culture change within the CAF and DND.
A few months ago, the third report of the external monitor documented recent progress made toward implementing Justice Arbour's 48 recommendations, including the following: transforming the complaint system, including grievances; making improvements to enrolment and recruitment processes; creating the Canadian military college review board; doing a comprehensive review of basic training in the CAF and creating a framework to enhance education related to conduct and culture; making a 10-year plan to identify promising candidates among women and other equity-deserving groups; and creating a stronger promotion process for senior leaders to better assess character, talent and competence. Each of these accomplishments is important. The external monitor's report notes that the CAF's commitment to change seems genuine.
As my hon. colleagues recognize, systemic change often lags behind social change, and this description certainly seems apt when it comes to sexual misconduct within CAF and DND. The justice report suggests that, for a long time, DND and CAF have failed to properly investigate allegations, prosecute legitimate offences or hold perpetrators accountable. Abhorrent behaviour has been tolerated for far too long, and the confidence and trust that Canadians once had in the CAF and DND has diminished as a result.
Canadians are no longer willing to look the other way. They expect organizations to prevent and address sexual misconduct and misogyny and for elected representatives to do their part. The legislation before us would help foster culture change and ensure a more trauma-informed and safer work environment for our CAF and DND members. It would ensure accountability and support victims and survivors by providing them with the mechanisms they need to pursue justice and hold offenders to account.
I encourage all of my hon. colleagues to join me and support Bill C-66.
1483 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 5:12:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, yes, the Arbour report did clearly recommend this legislative change, but so did the Deschamps report years earlier.
This was a legislative change that was recommended almost 10 years ago and accepted by the previous government, but it sat on the current government's desk without movement for years. Here we are now, nine years into the Liberal government, in the twilight of this Parliament, trying to implement a change that should have been at least initiated close to 10 years ago.
Does the member know why the government, for which she is a spokesperson, waited so long for this legislative change?
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 5:12:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate how the member opposite noted that the previous federal government did not do anything on this. In my speech, I outlined several improvements that have already been made to help improve the culture at CAF and DND.
This is not the first step we have taken. This is not the only thing we have done. It has taken some time. We heard from Louise Arbour that it was going to take time to implement some of these recommendations, but we are working on it. We are moving. We are action-focused.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 5:13:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am very much in favour of giving sexual misconduct victims in the military the possibility of being heard in our civilian justice system. However, I hear that some victims are asking to have the option of choosing between the civilian justice system and the military justice system. I am a bit surprised, to be honest.
What does my colleague think of the possibility of letting the victims choose?
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 5:14:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, who works with me at the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
Yes, I think that it is very important for victims to have choices. I also find this situation to be surprising. I am not sure, I am not a legal expert, but I think that we should have a system for everyone and that everyone should use it.
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 5:14:48 p.m.
- Watch
Uqaqtittiji, the more I learn about this bill, the more I see how important survivors of violence in the military are.
I am sure that it is already very traumatizing to have to serve in the military, especially in today's society, globally, with all the violence that we are seeing. In particular, with survivors of abuse within the system itself, it makes me quite concerned that there are still a lot of questions that need to be answered. For example, we have been told that law enforcement in different provinces might not be equipped to deal with investigations or those kinds of things.
I wonder if the member agrees that once this gets to committee, expanding the committee to study this bill specifically with a focus on survivors will be so important that that extension is going to be necessary.
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 5:16:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is a very smart question. Absolutely, the focus should be getting this study to committee as soon as possible so that it can become legislation as soon as possible.
I am a little concerned about any delays that may happen. I do not want to see any overextension. I want to see a committee look at this study, make any improvements that are possible and necessary, and get it passed in this House of Commons as soon as possible.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak in the House.
I am going to split my time with the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington.
I support Bill C-66. I support the principle of the bill. This is a legislative change that is needed to implement a recommendation that was made to the previous government in March 2015, which was only a few months before the House rose in 2015. The present government was elected in the election that followed. This government came into office with the Deschamps report freshly in hand, and did absolutely nothing to make this legislative change happen until this year. Last March, six months ago, the Liberals tabled the bill before us, and here we are this week, finally attempting to make the legislative change needed to implement this important recommendation.
The approach on this legislative change for moving the investigation and prosecution of sexual misconduct from military justice to civilian justice is exactly the same approach as everything else that this government does when it comes to the Canadian Armed Forces. Just like everything else, we see delay in the implementation.
We have, right now, ships resting out at sea. We also have fighter jets that have still not been delivered, which is another thing that, nine years ago, the Liberals could have made a decision on. We would have the fighter jets by now, but after years and years of delay, we do not have them.
We are lucky to have one submarine in the water for maybe a few dozen days of the year. The submarines we have were cast-offs from the British navy from decades ago. This government has been in power for nine years and has done nothing to procure new submarines. Yes, the government has the word “submarines” in its defence policy update, but that is not the same as actually taking concrete actions to procure and build submarines, and have submarines delivered. We also had testimony at the defence committee about the incredibly small number of tanks that are available, even for training, never mind deployment.
On offshore patrol aircraft, the government recently, finally, signed a contract to replace the 40-year-old aircraft that are very close to the end of their operational lives. Also, we do not possess air defence systems. The previous minister of defence did announce, and accepted extraordinary credit for promising, an air defence system to be sent to Ukraine almost two years ago now. It was actually announced to a television audience that it was en route to Ukraine. However, we subsequently learned that not only was it not en route to Ukraine, but there was not even a contract signed to procure it. In fact, it has not even been produced. This is, again, the culture of delay and neglect of this government.
We hear at defence committee that information technology lacking. As well, base housing is in deplorable condition with houses falling apart and a 7,000-unit backlog for people wanting to access base housing. The barracks are in horrific, unsanitary conditions. Health care is also lacking for military families.
New transport and refuelling aircraft are beginning to be procured without a hangar to place them or even a commitment for where they will be based. Howitzers and artillery pieces are entirely lacking, as well as shells. This government let a production line mothball in the threat environment that was emerging, and now Canada and its allies desperately need artillery shells. We do not have the production. The Liberals have, for a year and a half, been dithering without firm contracts to industry or being able to send a firm enough signal to industry for industry to make the investments necessary to get our production lines up and running for artillery shells, and 2,500 a month is nothing. It is less than the Ukrainian army would fire before lunchtime on a given day, if they had the equipment ready.
That is the nature of contemporary threats that we have. Artillery matters. If the present conflicts in the world have taught us anything, it is that these equipment pieces and their ammunition supplies are critical.
With respect to training, 10,000 members of the Canadian Armed Forces do not have adequate training to be deployed. These men and women want to be trained. They want to be up to deployable levels. They want to do missions. Ten thousand members are under-trained and there are 16,000 vacancies. Even the defence committee chair, earlier in this debate, talked about the inability of the Canadian Armed Forces to adequately take in people. Thousands of people are applying to join the forces, and it does not have the capacity to take people in. There are 16,000 vacant positions in the Canadian Armed Forces.
This bill is addressing the well-known and well-documented problem with sexual misconduct in the military, which is a factor in recruitment and retention and certainly a factor in morale. I travelled this past summer to Latvia with the defence committee, where I met some of our troops who are deployed on a critically important mission. These people are the best. I met a 19-year-old private who has more responsibility than I can imagine any young person being given. This very young man was responsible for training and for helping allied soldiers improve and get up to the best of their ability to execute their roles in Latvia. He is a 19-year-old man from northern British Columbia. I met a young lieutenant. She was a platoon commander there. Again, she was a very young woman with extraordinary responsibility for the defence of allied territory. These people are the best and they deserve protection. They deserve access to justice when sexual misconduct happens.
We have talked a lot about culture and culture change in the military. Part of the culture change that needs to happen is overcoming the culture of secrecy, the culture of cover-up. That culture has permeated to the very top levels. We saw the former minister of defence covering up the sexual misconduct of the former chief of the defence staff. We have seen this type of behaviour at the highest levels. We have heard testimony at the defence committee from victims of sexual assault who say that they cannot access justice; not just because of the issue around the lack of access to civilian systems, which this bill would ultimately change, but the inability to get information that they need to file a complaint. The reflexive secrecy around even members of the Canadian Armed Forces accessing their own information is a big part of the problem, and this bill would not fix that, so there is a long way to go in ensuring justice for members of the Canadian Armed Force who are victims of sexual misconduct.
As has been pointed out in this debate as well, it is not like civilian access to justice for sexual assault victims is assured, and far from it. We have seen under the current government an erosion of effective law enforcement and justice for victims. We see crime levels that we have not seen in decades. We have seen an acceleration of crime. We have seen a lack of urgency in appointing judges so that assault victims can access justice and this bill would not change that. Yes, this bill is important. Yes, it should go to committee. However, it should not skip any of the legislative steps.
We need a robust committee study on this. We need to make sure we get it right, that all the victims are heard from and the details of this bill are correct.
1296 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 5:27:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite, in his speech, acknowledging the importance of the bill and his indication that he intends to support it. We wholeheartedly agree. We think this bill is important. Let us get it to committee. Let us get on with the work that needs to be done.
I heard a long litigation of all his previous grievances with respect to the government, but he indicated his personal support for members of the military. How would he reconcile that with the fact that, when a vote came before the House to provide money to give members of the Canadian Armed Forces a pay raise, he voted against it? Deeds speak, and your words are betrayed by your actions. How would you reconcile that?
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 5:27:54 p.m.
- Watch
I want to remind the hon. minister that he needs to address questions and comments through the Chair and not directly to the member.
The hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 5:28:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I voted against confidence in the government. When the estimates were presented, Conservatives voted every chance we had to bring down the government.
The estimates he speaks of, which we voted against, contained a cut to the military budget. I will not take any lessons from him on who supports the military. The government has failed the military every step of the way and continues to do so, notwithstanding this bill.
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague rambled a bit at times, but he kept coming back to the subject at hand, which is Bill C-66. That is better than nothing.
I would like to draw his attention to one aspect. I understand that the Conservatives are prepared to support the bill so that it can at least go to committee. That is more or less our position as well. We will take a closer look and see how we can work together to improve it.
In the current version of the act, subsection 18.5(4) states that, “[t]he Provost Marshal shall ensure that instructions and guidelines...are available to the public.” Apparently, that is no longer included in this bill.
Does my colleague agree that this opens the door to potential abuses?
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 5:29:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member brought up a good point. This is why we have legislative processes. This is why the bill needs a thorough study at committee.
While the passage of this bill is urgent, given the length of time the government has caused delay in creating this legislative change, it still cannot be rushed. It has to be done right so we make sure the bill best serves victims and the members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 5:29:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is an important bill, and we have seen for far too long the reality of women serving our country who are being put in positions that are incredibly unjust, in a system that really continues to press silence upon them. I hear what the member is saying about his concerns, about how long it has taken. I share those concerns. It would have been nice to see a lot of things happen a lot faster.
In this process, when this bill gets to committee, will it be a priority of the Conservatives to get this done as quickly as possible, knowing that it has to be done well, so we can see people in the service fully protected in a new and important way?
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 5:30:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am actually no longer a member of the defence committee, but my colleagues who remain there always prioritize important work to ensure the best for our troops, and they will take that approach. They will ensure this bill is examined correctly, and identify if there are any issues and if amendments are required.
We had an intervention a moment ago about some of the details of this bill. I fully expect my Conservative colleagues on that committee will do their jobs, do the jobs they were elected to do, and ensure this bill is done right and returned as expeditiously as it can be, while not neglecting their duty to examine the legislation.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in my previous role, I had the great privilege of sitting on the national defence committee, and I dealt with a great many issues related to our Canadian Armed Forces, from housing to procurement, access to medical care and supports, recruitment retention and closing the commitment capability gap. I was honoured to get a near first-hand account of many of the issues the DND and the CAF were facing every single day.
While these are all incredibly important issues, they desperately need the immediate and full attention of the government. There was one in particular that stuck with me, an issue that my colleague on the status of women committee has seen and studied far too often: violence against women.
In this session alone, the committee has studied violence against indigenous women in the context of resource development and inter-partner violence, and we are currently in the middle of a study on coercive behaviour. In fact, in the last Parliament, I studied the very issue that led to today's legislation, which is sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces.
Having sat on these two committees at length, so far the intersection of national defence and violence against women is an issue that I, along with my colleagues, am acutely aware of and uniquely positioned to speak to. Sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces is particularly close to my heart, as I have the honour of representing the brave woman who first brought the issue into the public sphere 26 long years ago by appearing on the front cover of Maclean's magazine.
Dawn McIlmoyle appeared with the words “Rape in the military” emblazoned on the front page beside her photo. I honestly believe that the discourse we are having at several committees at the highest level in the Canadian political process would not be happening today if it were not for individuals such as Dawn, as well as the litany of other survivors who have courageously chosen to come forward with their stories.
To each and every single one of them, I am so sorry that their government has failed them time and time again, but now we thank them for bravely sharing their experiences with us. We as legislators need to hear it. We as legislators need to act on it. There is so much we need to do.
While Bill C-66 is a start that I look forward to perhaps studying in that committee, if they will have me, it is a very limited start, and there is a Herculean amount of legislative and cultural changes in the CAF, particularly in leadership, that need to happen to properly address this crisis. On this last point, I want to make something very clear. It will take years to change this culture.
I have had the pleasure of speaking with General Eyre on many occasions, as well as many other members of the CAF, from flag officers to privates, and I have received nothing but the utmost assurances that they are taking the issue very seriously. I have never doubted any of them for a second, but all of us sitting in this room are not fools. They are not going to allow a CAF member who could be a liability to the matter to speak to someone sitting on the national defence committee. This is why the entire public relations branch exists.
I trust the new chief of the defence staff, General Carignan, will take this matter extremely seriously. It is up to us to ensure that she and her team, as well as the Department of National Defence, have the tools at their disposal to get the job done.
I would like to highlight exactly what I mean when I say Bill C-66 is limited in scope. I think the best way to do this is to read into the record the testimony that someone far more knowledgeable on this matter than I had to say on April 17 of this year at the national defence committee.
On that day, Patrick White, a witness who came forward to committee, shared his own sexual harassment story within the CAF as it related to access to information, a key point of contention in properly addressing misconduct in the armed forces. He spoke of the grievance process, the very method through which this entire process starts. It is massively flawed. One of his many salient points is as follows:
The grievance system, as it stands, requires individuals like me and others to spend our limited part-time, our free time, to fight a system that is paid and employed full-time to fight back. That's the challenge I have. I am not an expert on military regulation, military law, etc., but they have access to all of those resources. They also have access to legal advice on those issues. Members don't. What annoys me more than anything is when senior members who have never been affected in the way some of us have flippantly say, “If you don't like it, grieve it,” knowing full well that they've never had to go through those processes, or maybe they did in a minor way and had success.
Unfortunately, Bill C-66 would not amend the grievance section of the National Defence Act in any way, shape or form. It addresses a very specific element of a crisis that is caked in generations of institutional rot, flippant indifference and outright arrogance in the Canadian Armed Forces, National Defence and Parliament. In that same committee meeting was Gary Walbourne, a former national defence ombudsman. He actually had to go to war with the government, so to speak, to get the information he needed to do his job. He said this:
We're talking about people who have been put in positions of authority. There are guidelines on what they're supposed to do. They're well written.... However, it is funny that the farther you get up the ladder, the thinner the air gets—I'm sure that's what happens—and the blood rushes to their heads or their egos.
We have a system in place.... It's circumvented by people in the system.
How do we change the culture? I'll go back to this again: We have to start rewarding proper behaviour and punishing bad behaviour. Why do we promote people when they do the wrong thing? Others come forward and offer themselves up, saying, “Listen, guys, this is what's going wrong. Can we get a little help here?” These people are turned on.
You absolutely have a fundamental flaw here, but it's not with your policies. Your policies need updating, sure they do, and you need to adjust a few, add a few things to them and bring in a few more nuances and codicils there, but what we have to get at is the behaviour of the people currently sitting in the seats.
Mr. Walbourne is extremely clear: We do not have a policy problem; we have a people problem. We cannot fix our policy problem if we do not fix the people problem. Any framework set up by any legislation will just fall victim to the same institutional cancer. Every single policy framework in DND and CAF related to justice for victims and survivors has fallen victim to it since women first entered our armed forces, and, quite frankly, this cancer festered for decades beforehand.
Again, to quote committee witness Patrick White:
If I could leave the committee with one final point to think about, it's that if you really want to get to culture change and solve these issues, you need to look at every single aspect of the system and understand how it feeds back in. That includes the honours and recognition system, the promotion system, the grievance system and the military police system—all of it—but with a central view of what the effect would be on these sorts of things that we get to.
Correcting the colossal problem starts with us. It comes through our willingness to, first, actually address the change and, second, strengthen, entrench and enforce legislation and policy that holds public officials accountable, including people in the Canadian Armed Forces, public servants and us, as legislators. While Bill C-66 does address some very specific issues in the CAF, there is still no single 35-page bill that will solve a crisis that was 50 years in the making. Bill C-66 needs to be the first of a suite of legislation brought forward in this place to fix this crisis in the CAF, and it needs to continue past the Liberal government, whenever that may be, into the next, whatever it may be. It also needs continued support from all parties involved. Without that willingness to move forward, men, women and marginalized Canadians will continue to be victimized, not only in our armed forces but also in our public service and society at large.
I would like to end by addressing the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces, both current and former.
To those who are victims, to those who are survivors, we have failed them. We know we have, but change is coming because of what they have told us. The vast majority of armed forces members recognize there is a problem, but they feel helpless because of a broken system that punishes speaking out or drawing attention to inappropriate behaviour. To them, I say to stay strong. I am not here to admonish them.
Finally, to those who are a part of this problem, they are complicit. This goes for everyone from the new recruit right up to the flag officer, those who think they are entitled to another person's agency because “that is just how it goes here” and those who continuously look away because they believe the individual is a really good guy. If what I have said today upsets them, good. I want them to be upset. I want them to lie awake every night and worry that the system that has enabled and protected their behaviour for generations will collapse and expose them for what they are. They have no place in the Canadian Armed Forces, and they never have.
1736 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, given that all members in the House have spoken in favour of the legislation before us, would there be unanimous consent to allow Bill C-66 to be sent to committee?
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 5:42:39 p.m.
- Watch
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: No.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 5:43:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure for me to rise in this House on behalf of those I represent in Winnipeg South Centre.
I want to thank my colleague across the way, the member for Winnipeg Centre, who is also a neighbour of mine. Our constituencies border each another. I know that the member for Winnipeg Centre comes to work every day with a genuine desire to advocate for those she serves. In many instances, those she serves are among the most impoverished in our city and our country.
During my years as an educator, as a teacher and principal in particular, I learned a lot about the various things that are required for kids and their families to live a successful and healthy life. In particular, I recall a program in the Seven Oaks School Division, of which I was an employee for a number of years, located in the northwest part of the city of Winnipeg, that sought to give families and their kids a leg-up. At that time, we took some grant money that had been given to us through a partnership with the province and provided cash to those in need. Usually it was single mothers with kids at home living in some precarious situations by virtue of poverty, intergenerational trauma and other obstacles that daily life presents. We gave them cash on a monthly basis, and they invested it in the basic necessities of life, which included food, books, transportation and other things that would make life easier, healthier and more comfortable for them and their children.
On that note, I want to say that I am extremely proud of the investments that the federal government is making in a national school food program. I understand that there are some significant conversations happening on that and progress is under way with my home province of Manitoba. A collaboration between our two levels of government is going to leverage existing funding to help make sure that kids in need in the province get the type of nutritious and healthy food they need to succeed. Going back to the program in my former school division, what we saw was that people were happier and healthier, and they had the boost and leg-up that they needed.
In my home province of Manitoba, in the 1970s there was an experiment. It was in the city of Dauphin, in northern Manitoba. It was undertaken, constructed and implemented by a woman named Dr. Evelyn Forget, who I am very proud to say is a constituent of mine. I remember that during my by-election just last year, when I knocked on her door and we started talking about basic minimum income, she said that I ought to be thinking about it and gave me some ideas. I asked her if she knew that there was a project in Dauphin in the 1970s and she said, “Yes. I wrote it.” It was fascinating for me to have the opportunity to talk to a constituent with such a high degree of expertise and first-hand knowledge of this important issue.
Since then, I have had some very interesting conversations with Dr. Forget and other members of my constituency, who have articulated their desire to see me support the piece of legislation put forward by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre. Interestingly, when I read about the program in Dauphin in the 1970s and looked at similar programs implemented as recently as a few months ago in the province of Ontario, I could see some very interesting stories emerging that painted a picture of the ways in which a form of basic minimum income could be of benefit to Canadians.
If the bill is able to pass through this stage of debate to then lend itself to further discussion at committee, it is worthy of our support. It would be of merit for us to have a longer conversation about this legislation. In our parliamentary system, the committee stage, where we hear from witnesses and experts who give us guidance on whether it makes sense for us to move forward, is an appropriate place for this legislation to further explore the merits or disadvantages of a basic minimum income.
When the time comes to vote on the legislation, I will be lending my support to it. I do have questions and concerns, particularly as they pertain to cost, fairness and distribution. However, as I noted a moment ago, I trust that a thorough review at the committee stage of the proposed policies that are listed in this legislation will help us answer questions and let members decide at that point whether on its merits, the legislation deserves to go to the next stage.
I am going to keep my remarks more brief today than perhaps I would otherwise. I will conclude by again thanking my colleague and neighbour in Winnipeg for putting forward this legislation and enabling us to have an important discussion in this place about how we can support one another. I look forward to following the remarks to come from other colleagues as we decide whether to allow the legislation to advance to the next stage.
869 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a great privilege to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the residents of Calgary Shepard. Over the past two years, constituents have written to me on multiple occasions, both for and against a universal basic income, and specifically on the legislation before us as well as what I will call its partner legislation, which is in the Senate.
It is very confusing when the bills have almost the same number, and sometimes people get them confused. It is very difficult to understand when we are sent a bill number in the subject line but it is not explained whether it is S or C and I am left trying to figure out which legislation it is. I am always looking to respond, but sometimes I get it wrong, and then there is a conversation back and forth.
I have taken the time to read the legislation over, and I want to give the member who sponsored it the benefit of going through each section on the merits of the content. I will be voting against the bill, so I want to explain section by section why that is.
Clause 3 is on the national framework. This is the part that a lot of constituents have told me they have concerns about. There are those people who support it as well, but on the balance, my constituents want me to vote against it. It would create a national framework for the implementation of a guaranteed livable basic income program throughout Canada for any person over the age of 17, and then it goes on to include temporary workers, permanent residents and refugee claimants.
It does not say “successful claimants”. It does not have the classification of protected persons. It does not refer to international students. It uses the wording “temporary workers”, which, when one reads it over, could mean a series of different things.
The bill also does not have a royal recommendation. It does not seek to spend any money. Therefore when I was responding to constituents, I noted for them that the bill does not have a budget, an amount, assigned to it, which is one of the reasons I would vote against it right away, because it would create a framework legislation. I generally do not support framework legislation. I have on a few occasions when I thought it would not be an imposition of huge new costs.
Subclause 3(2) has a consultation provision. Generally I like these types of consultation requirements with provincial, territorial and indigenous governments. I think they are more than reasonable. I come from the province of Alberta, where there is a requirement for the provincial government to consult, especially, for example, with Métis Settlements General Councils, or MSGCs. So far, I think Alberta is the only provincial government where it is a requirement; legislation affecting MSGCs cannot be changed without their consent. I think it is one of the first, if I am not wrong, among provincial governments, and I think it is a good idea generally.
Now I will move on to the content, which is subclause 3(3). It says that the framework must include four different types of provisions in it. For example, “guaranteed livable basic income program does not result in a decrease in services or benefits meant to meet an individual’s exceptional needs related to health or disability.” Of course this would not be universal, which in my view would be equal treatment for all, exactly the same.
I have read economics magazines and journals on the subject, which I will refer to in a moment, and they specifically state that a UBI or a negative income tax, which famously is kind of where the idea comes from, has to be completely equal to every single person regardless of their starting point.
There is also information in paragraph 3(3)(c) that would ensure that “participation in education, training or the labour market is not required in order to qualify for a guaranteed livable basic income”, and I have questions about temporary workers being made eligible for something like this. As I said, international students are not mentioned, but international students, as of September 1 of this year, can continue to work 24 hours per week in our labour market. However, as non-participation would allow them to participate in this benefit, they are specifically excluded in subclause 3(1). I do not know whether that was intentional or not.
Paragraph 3(3)(b) would “create national standards for health and social supports that complement a guaranteed basic income program and guide the implementation of such a program in every province”. I have two major concerns with this. One is that it would be an encroachment into provincial jurisdiction. My province gets to set what programs it wants. It does not have to in any way submit to the federal government when it is purely within its own provincial jurisdiction.
Second, setting national standards would encroach on provincial health care and social supports. My province has an age for PDD programs, as do many others, and it would be an encroachment to set a national standard, even if we consult with them. Consultation does not always lead to agreements, and our Constitution is very clear that there are areas of exclusive jurisdiction.
I know that is a comment often made by Quebec members of Parliament from different political parties, but it is one I think a lot of us Albertans make as well, that we have exclusive jurisdiction in many areas and we want the federal government to stay out of them.
Paragraph 3(a) talks about what would constitute a livable basic income in “each region of Canada” without spelling out what “region” would mean. In the Constitution, Canada is separated into four regions, if we use the Senate rules: western Canada, Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada. Hopefully that is not what “region” means in this sense, because I think our state has evolved quite significantly and the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia combined now have a bigger population than the province of Quebec.
If I go on, there is a framework that is required to be tabled. There is more information on when it must be tabled and when the report must be provided to the House.
I have a Yiddish proverb, as I always do. I did forget to give one when I started speaking on Bill C-71, and I will always admonish myself for doing so. It says: He who is aware of his folly is wise.
In this instance, let us look at what is going on so we do not do something rash with our finances. We are facing a $40-billion deficit, and I wonder how we will pay for this. Jim Seeley, in my riding, wrote this great email asking a lot of questions about cost, percentages, who would be eligible, how would CPP and old age security work, just questions he was wondering about. I had to tell him I was not quite sure.
I did go and look, though, at the government's projections for future years. When does it expect to have a surplus? From a surplus, presumably, we would then look at whether we could do a universal basic income or a negative income tax. There is a $20-billion deficit in the last financial year that is forecast. The Government of Canada expects to accumulate a deficit of $157 billion by fiscal year 2028-29, and that is without any new spending announcements. That means no new public infrastructure dollars added, on top of what has already been announced, and no new procurement. There would be nothing new, nothing extra above and beyond that, and the government would still run a $20-billion deficit, so I wonder how all this would be paid for.
Finally, as I mentioned, a negative income tax has been talked about for at least the last 50 to 60 years. It was first proposed in a journal by the Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman. He is often tagged as an economist of the right, which I do not think is entirely fair to him. Now, UBI and NIT, whichever acronym we want to use, work in slightly different ways but their goal is sort of the same. He recognized that a lot of public advocates on the left were generally very enthusiastic about the ideas he explained, especially the mechanisms his concept would work on and its end goal.
Public advocates on the right were much less enthusiastic and heavily criticized him when he wrote the journal. He recollected this quite often. There is a great YouTube video I often send to constituents, for them to hear from him, the expert, on the logic of how it would work. One of the things he said about UBI, or NIT, is that there would be no other welfare programs competing at the same time. There would be fewer civil servants, who he called nannies, who would look over the spending of citizens, of how they were living their lives and what they were doing.
To go back to my Yiddish proverb, I really hope we would be careful with the public's finances. We see it reflected in the polls, but I heard it while I was door-knocking in my riding of Calgary Shepard. My constituents are worried about the public finances. They are worried about a $40-billion deficit and about $150 billion more in debt being accumulated on the credit card of the nation. That is why I will be voting against this piece of legislation.
1640 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
