Debates of Sept. 21st, 2018

National Defence Act

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is 2018, and as we move through the history of our country, as we move forward, so must our pieces of legislation adopt and adapt. The things we knew yesterday may be different from what we know today.

Prior to offering a more in-depth answer to that question, I would say that I do not know the piece of legislation well enough to be able to offer a knowledgeable and well thought out answer.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George for his hard work, his very important work, on behalf of those Canadians, those members of the Canadian Armed Forces, veterans, and first responders with PTSD. I really appreciate and I think all Canadians appreciate that work.

On that, the member just touched on the issue of mental health in this bill and in the Canadian Armed Forces. I wonder if he would support an NDP proposal to have an amendment to this bill to remove the offence of self-harm from the military code of service discipline so that Canadian Armed Forces members can get the help they need without the risk of receiving disciplinary action at the time when they need that help the most.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to offer my hon. colleague an answer in complete honesty. He knows how I feel with respect to self-harm and suicide and the mental health challenges faced by some of our brave men and women who put the uniform on every day in service to our country. We must be doing everything in our power to encourage them to stop suffering in silence and to come forward.

Without going into the details of the bill, because I am not well aware of it, if that would break the stigma and encourage those who are suffering, those who put the uniform on, those who see human tragedy every day to come forward and not fear persecution for doing so, I would be for that. However, again, this is not my area of expertise.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, from my review of the legislation that we are debating today, there is no statutory review within five years.

I do think that anytime we make major adjustments to a system, there should be a proper review. Does the hon. member agree with that assessment?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we should be building that into every piece of legislation because as we move forward, as we adopt, as our hon. colleague mentioned in a comment earlier on, the things that we know today we were not aware of yesterday. As we move forward, we should have a form of periodic review in every piece of legislation.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I decided to join my colleagues today in speaking to Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts. Throughout the day we have heard some wonderful speeches explaining a lot of the great good that the bill would eventually do. We are very honoured to have a lot of veterans from our Armed Forces serving as MPs who have given some wonderful insight. I want to thank them for that and also for the general nonpartisan discourse we have heard today.

I call the bill the “freaky Friday bill” because the government has basically swapped titles with a bill by the previous Conservative government. For those who are not followers of pop culture, Freaky Friday was a movie in which Lindsay Lohan and Jamie Lee Curtis played daughter-mom characters who switched bodies. It is quite interesting that the Liberal government has consistently labelled the opposition as Harper Conservatives, yet it does not hesitate to try to pass off Harper Conservative legislation as its own, as it is doing with Bill C-77. There is barely a sentence muttered by that side of the House that does not blame every problem under the sun on Harper Conservatives. It is kind of funny to be debating the Liberals' copy of the Harper Conservatives' legislation. It is too bad that the government does not copy the Harper Conservatives' commitment to victims of crime.

We are debating a bill that is almost a direct clone of a previous military justice reform bill, Bill C-71. It was introduced by the Harper government because it was simply the right thing to do. We believe that someone needed to stand up for victims of sexual misconduct and other forms of discrimination in the armed forces. It is the ultimate irony that we are debating victims' rights in this legislation on the day when question period was focused on the government giving military benefits to a murderer who never served a second in our military, but I digress.

The bill introduced today shows that the Liberals are following the good examples that our party set by keeping the items that we had in our bill, including enshrining the victims bill of rights into the National Defence Act, putting a statute of limitations of six months on summary hearing cases, and clarifying what cases should be handled by a summary hearing.

The fact that it took the Liberals three years to introduce the bill is disgraceful. It confirms the Liberals' position that victims' rights are secondary to basically everything else. It should come as no surprise, considering how long the government is taking to appoint judges to ensure that those arrested for horrific crimes are not set free due to judicial delays.

We had a a gang member suspected of committing mass murder released in Calgary as a result of the government's refusal to appoint judges. This gang member, who is suspected by the Calgary police of murdering up to 20 people in Calgary, has been set free. Moreover, another accused murderer was set free in Edmonton due to the government's inability to appoint judges. A man in Nova Scotia who broke both of his infant child's legs with a baseball bat was set free due to delays because the government will not prioritize justice.

Here we have waited three years for this legislation to be brought to the House, legislation that is almost identical to Bill C-71 by the previous government. It is not as if the Liberals had to start from scratch, yet it took them three years to bring it to the floor.

I want to look at some of the legislation brought in by the Liberals that is apparently of higher priority than victims' rights. Bill C-50, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (political financing), was brought in to address their own unethical fundraising scams. They were caught selling access to ministers, so they brought in legislation to curtail their own unethical fundraising. Of course, they probably continue to allow lobbyists to pay for direct access to the ministers. Here is a thought: Why not just act ethically and not require legislation to address their cash for access scandals, and instead prioritize this legislation for victims?

Bill C-58 would amend the Access to Information Act, but the Liberals have still have not done anything with it. Access to information is very important, but the legislation introduced by the Liberal Party watered down access and transparency. The Liberals took the time to introduce legislation that would weaken Canadians' access to information and put it as a higher priority than legislation for victims.

Earlier, the government House leader, who introduced Bill C-24, was heckling me about government priorities. Bill C-24 aimed to pay ministers of state at the same rate as ministers and changed the official title of the public works department act. That ridiculous bill basically just changed the salary of certain ministers of state to match cabinet ministers' salaries.

Legislation already existed to allow the Liberals to do that, but they had to bring in new legislation for certain unnecessary reasons. They also spent time changing the official name of Public Works to Public Services and Procurement Canada. They spent days in the House debating that bill, days in committee studying it. How is this possibly more important or a greater priority than victims' rights? It is another example of poor leadership by the Prime Minister and how he is constantly failing our troops. It is just like the used jets, taking away tax relief for troops fighting ISIS, saying that veterans are asking for too much, and doing absolutely nothing to get our troops the equipment they need in the numbers they need. The government is failing our troops.

Our previous Conservative government focused on restoring victims to their rightful place at the heart of our justice system. It is why we introduced Bill C-71, which mirrored the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights that was adopted by Parliament, to ensure that those same rights were incorporated into military law. It was the result of several years of work and took into account the hundreds of submissions and consultations held with victims and groups concerned with victims' rights.

We have seen what the Liberal government has done for our troops and veterans over the last three years, so we are not going to hold our breath that it is will actually move forward with the legislation here.

This can be seen from the Liberals' consistent commitment to progress on a variety of items. For example, they set-up studies and ignore the findings, introduce legislation and then wash their hands of the issue.

I would like to talk about the government's beloved wordplay exercise “what I say and what I mean”. The government specifically says “investment” rather than “spend”, so it can completely sidestep any responsibility for action because, technically, introducing a bill on an issue is an investment, an investment in time and news releases.

We note there are very few instances of the government actually putting spending in place for any given investment opportunity. In cases where legislation is introduced, we see few instances of achieved results. The government's “Strong, Secure, Engaged” plan for our troops is a prime example. It touts its record investments, but experts agree that the likelihood of its being executed is slim to none.

According to a report published by Dave Perry at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, there is a significant gap between spending allocations and capital spending. Perry writes:

As a percentage increase relative to 2016/2017, the capital projections in SSE would see spending increase by 98 per cent in the policy’s first year, 106 per cent in its second, 172 per cent in its sixth and by 315 per cent by 2024/2025.

These increases in spending are not comparable to any other time in Canadian history except the Korean War. We have pie in the sky ideas from the government on what it is going to do, but when it comes to actually doing it, our troops are left empty-handed. Suffice it to say, while the intentions behind this bill are sound, the likelihood of the government's actioning them is slim.

I would like to go through a couple of other things the government has on the go, things like “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, as I mentioned; Phoenix, and of course we know where that is; Trans Mountain, with billions of dollars being spend on a pipeline that is not getting built; and the veterans hiring act. We actually met in committee yesterday and discussed why the government was not moving on that. We just received a shrug from the Liberal members and witnesses. Other items include infrastructure and electoral reform. Again and again, we see the government making commitments it does not follow through on. There is also the issue of fighter jets, buying old jets from Australia so it does not have to take the political hit for buying the F-35 in an election year. It is going to take the government longer to procure sleeping bags for our troops than it takes our NATO allies to run open competitions for their new fighter jets.

While being similar in a number of ways with the Conservative government's previous bill, Bill C-77 is different in some key ways. That is why this side of the House would like to see it further discussed and debated at committee. As with any legislation, especially as it pertains to our troops, we should ensure that due diligence is done, that our concerns about certain areas are discussed, and that the bill is discussed with experts and officials at committee. Conservatives very much support enshrining victims' rights in the military justice system. It is why we introduced Bill C-71 in the previous Parliament.

Victims' rights are important. This legislation is important. Here is to hoping it does not get added to the government's long list of items on its mandate tracker as “under way with challenges”.

[Serge Cormier, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to set the record straight. In his speech, my colleague talked about making justice a priority, so let us focus on that.

We know that the Conservatives introduced their bill right before the last election. If that bill was such a priority to them, why did they wait until right before the election to introduce it?

They had 10 years to bring forward that kind of legislation, but they did not. They could have done something in the budget for the Department of National Defence. As we know, however, they were too busy cutting funding to that department.

Our bill is quite different than their bill, because it includes a provision for special consideration for the sentencing of indigenous peoples in the military justice system. Another provision is for harsher penalties for misconduct and service offences related to discrimination against the LGBTQ community.

Does the member support the provisions regarding indigenous peoples and LGBTQ communities?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to perhaps invite the parliamentary secretary to grab Doc Brown and Marty McFly, get into his DeLorean, and go back to the future, because we are not debating what went on years ago. We are debating the Liberal government's inability to prioritize victims' rights. When we ask the Liberals why it has taken them three years to bring this legislation forward, their argument is to blame Harper. The main part of Bill C-24 was to change the title of Public Works to Public Services and Procurement. Why is that a higher priority to the member opposite than victims' rights? Why is it more important to them to put all of this minutia ahead of our troops?

I think the member needs to take a serious look at the inaction of his government and realize that we need to look at this issue now and not spend time focusing on the past.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by my hon. colleague from Edmonton West. NDP members have commented during the debate that even with the changes made in this bill, it will still be an offence under military justice to commit self-harm, and those who come forward seeking help within the military might in fact be subject to discipline. Therefore, we are looking for an opportunity during committee to offer amendments that would ensure that the real needs of the military personnel and their mental health are met, and that they get those services instead of being penalized. I am curious what my hon. colleague thinks about those kinds of changes to this bill.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that question came up previously from the member for Victoria, and other members of the NDP.

I think it is a very important issue that needs to be discussed. I fully support calling witnesses at committee. I fully support calling veterans who have dealt with this issue, and other experts so we can hear first-hand of the importance of this. I fully support its being discussed at committee, and I hope it will be looked at in a very fulsome manner.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst asked our colleague from Edmonton West an excellent question earlier, but we have not had an answer.

In case he did not understand the question, I will repeat it: does he agree with the provisions of Bill C-77?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, seeing that Bill C-77 basically copies the Harper Conservatives' bill, of course I support most of it.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate and to follow my friend from Edmonton on Bill C-77. It is about military justice and some consequential amendments to other acts.

I want to say that the previous speaker from Edmonton is a huge supporter of our troops and we will be talking a lot about the Canadian Armed Forces one on one in the coming days because of that support within his family for our armed services. He answered a very simple question at the end in a way which certainly the Liberals would not recognize in the House that, yes, Bill C-77 is very similar to the Harper government's Bill C-71.

The Liberals only use the name “Harper” when they have to hide from their failures. They are trying to project that everything going wrong now with the pipelines, with their own abysmal record of putting a murderer ahead of veterans at veterans affairs, is somehow Harper's fault. They say that everything is Harper's fault. There is never accountability on that side of the House. I hope they go back to their ridings this weekend and reflect on that. They have been in government for three years pretty much and they should start taking ownership for their failures.

This bill is so similar to Bill C-71 that we certainly want to see it go forward. We want to see the impacts. There really are only a few small differences between Bill C-71 from the Conservative government and Bill C-77. I should explain to people who are following this debate why Bill C-71 did not pass. It was introduced late in the fourth year of the term and did not receive royal assent.

Essentially, there are only three changes. There are some changes with respect to the impact of the Gladue decision in respect to the sentencing of indigenous peoples. We will have to see how that application goes with military justice because certainly all Canadians, regardless of background, choose to join the Canadian Armed Forces and therefore adopt their ethos and code, the code of conduct expected in the military justice system and the National Defence Act.

I would like to also compliment the Canadian Armed Forces, which in the last 10 years through the aboriginal learning opportunity year, the ALOY, at the Royal Military College and a number of recruiting initiatives, are trying to make sure that first nations see themselves more in the Canadian Armed Forces and important institutions like that.

I am very proud of the fact that when I spoke in the U.S. Capitol building on the recognition of the First Special Service Force, the Devil's Brigade, the first special operations unit where Canadians and Americans served alongside each other, the only veteran I mentioned individually by name was aboriginal veteran Tommy Prince, the “prince of the regiment”, as he was known for unbelievable bravery and cunning while he was part of the Devil's Brigade.

While I am on that note, this is how we should approach the modern age. Rather than stripping names off buildings like the Langevin Block, let us put people up today. Let us highlight people like Tommy Prince. Our most accomplished sniper of the last war was an aboriginal Canadian from the Muskoka area in Ontario. The member from that area has talked about him quite a bit. We should highlight people that were overlooked in history rather than remove or erase people who are here from our history. However, that is a diversion.

The other two differences are some changes to absolute discharge provisions between the last bill and this bill and some terminology changes. Instead of a “summary trial” it will be a “summary hearing” and those sorts of things. That is why, as my friend from Edmonton said, of course we want to see this bill go through. This was one of the bills to really bring the military justice system and the National Defence Act in line with modern Criminal Code amendments. That was a huge accomplishment from the Conservative government. Once again, we will not hear the Liberals talking about this, but when it comes to putting victims at the front of our justice system and modernizing our Criminal Code to make sure that it addresses cyberbullying and changes in technology, we were always trying to do that to make sure that the victim was not forgotten in the criminal justice system.

While I am speaking on national defence, which everyone in this House knows is very personal for me, I think the most formative years of my life were the 12 years I served in the Canadian Armed Forces. I left it having taken more from that experience than I had to give for my country. I left without any serious injury. I left before the Afghanistan war. I know people who were injured and killed in that conflict.

Therefore, I feel a sense of responsibility as a Canadian and as a parliamentarian to make sure that our Canadian Armed Forces and our veterans are supported. That is why we are talking justice and we are talking the military.

It is an affront to the military, to veterans and to our justice system that the Prime Minister of Canada stood in the House and defended a convicted murderer receiving treatment.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

No, he did not.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Some people are saying he did not. They should talk to their Prime Minister, because he is wrong and the minister is wrong. If they feel that ministers cannot ensure their own policies are being followed then they are abdicating their leadership for our country and they should resign. This is an affront to Canadians.

Constable Campbell wore two uniforms of service. She was a police officer in Nova Scotia and she volunteered as a firefighter. Christopher Garnier did not wear a uniform. He was is an adult and committed a horrendous crime: murder and desecration of the remains.

Having been minister and having spent my entire adult life either in uniform or supporting our troops through a variety of charities, some of which I was helpful in starting, there is no program in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island for which this person would qualify. Someone pressured the system. Someone made a mistake, and the minister is allowing that to continue. At the same time, we are receiving reports from the department that waiting times are back up. We have a situation.

I would like the member who is heckling me to reflect on this. Their government is having wait times go up for veterans to access PTSD treatment while they are funding, inappropriately and immorally, the treatment of someone who killed someone in uniform.

I hope some of the media are watching this. There are none in the gallery. Had that happened under the last government there would have been 24-hour coverage. The PSAC public sector union would have been outraged and would have been having press conferences. This level of disrespect and incompetence appears to be accepted.

This is from a minister, whom I have tried to work with. I have said good things about him in the House. However, time after time we are disappointed. They are shelving a report on how well service dogs would help our veterans. Then when the minister takes meetings with advocates or talks to the media about it he admits he has not even read the report. He is mailing it in. That is not what our veterans deserve. That is not what we expect when a member of the House is given the honour to join the government as either a parliamentary secretary or a minister. They read the reports. They understand the file. They are not just a TV host trying to make people feel good. They have to understand what they are doing, and I have seen nothing but failure from the minister.

We are talking about the military. These people are recruited out of high school generally, or out of training or college. They serve our country for a number of years, or for a career, and then retire as a veteran. Our country has an obligation from the first time we speak to them about serving until the end of their lives. What I hear from veterans and Veterans Affairs employees in Prince Edward Island, who find this Garnier decision horrendous, is the government will not even acknowledge the profound absurdity of making veterans who are hurt wait behind someone who has PTSD because he killed someone. He has never been in uniform. He is an adult.

I know all the programs at Veterans Affairs and outside. This was a mistake, and it is morally reprehensible. We are going to be here every day talking about this until they do the right thing. The heckling shows just how disconnected the Liberal MPs are from Canadians, from veterans and from Canadians who many not have served but want to make sure they are helping our vets.

There were times when I was minister I said we fell short. We must own it when we have to do better. We must tell them we are listening.

We cannot suggest that privacy concerns means we cannot talk about why we are funding treatment for a murderer. That is an absence of leadership. It is an admission that they do not understand the programs and benefits available. We are speaking about military justice. If someone had been in uniform and committed that crime, that person would not get this treatment.

There are about 10 different ways to show how absurd this is, yet there is an inability to act. The same talking points get pulled out. The Liberals mention Harper a couple of times and think they can move on.

I have never seen such an incompetent government. After three years the only true accomplishment of the Liberal government under the present Prime Minister is marijuana. He made promises about electoral reform and about finances in terms of the budget, deficits and taxation. The only one, and I know it is a personal favourite for him, is marijuana.

The minister in charge of marijuana, when he was police chief in Toronto, spoke to the Scarborough Mirror and suggested even decriminalization was wrong. Now an hon. member, someone I like a great deal, is being forced to come out when doctors, physicians and everyone is upset, and cover that we are going to stumble through the legalization of something that we know causes harm.

Rather than heckling, those members should speak up. We know one who tried to speak up, the hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill. She became tired of being ignored, of being one of the 32 sheep from Atlantic Canada. She made a principled decision to come over to a side where we can talk about these things, where we can talk about ways to move the country forward, where we can talk about issues we think are important. We do not have to wait for Mr. Butts to issue us talking points from the Prime Minister's Office.

Many of those members should go home this weekend and go into a coffee shop in their ridings and ask someone sitting there about the Garnier case, ask them if it is right to make veterans wait while inappropriately and immorally serving someone who killed a woman from Nova Scotia who wore the uniform.

Many of those members need to get out of their bubbles and talk to some real people. If next week they put the talking points away and do the right thing, once the minister reads the briefings on what programs are available in this context, they will realize there is no program for a non-dependent adult who has committed a horrendous crime, who has never served a day in uniform.

A mistake was made or inappropriate pressure was applied. If they root that out, correct it, I will stand in the House and thank them for finally doing the right thing.

Perhaps it is appropriate that the heckles from the Liberals took me into this subject. It is justice-related and it is military-related. More important than that, it is government confidence-related. Canadians see that waning.

Canadians see a government approaching the final year of its mandate, a government that is lurching from crisis to crisis, whether it is NAFTA on the rocks largely due to the government's own doing, or whether it is Trans Mountain, where, because of Bill C-69 we lost energy east because the Prime Minister cancelled northern gateway. He breached the duty to consult aboriginal owners of that line, one-third equity ownership with several first nations bands. I have spoken before in the House about several chiefs who were not consulted.

The Prime Minister violated his duty to consult first nations just like he did when he violated his duty to consult the Inuit when in Washington he made changes with respect to land and water in those areas without speaking to first nations leaders and by giving a courtesy call to the premier half an hour before the announcement.

It was crisis to crisis on veterans. The crisis really began in Belleville, Ontario, when the parliamentary secretary on U.S. relations, the Minister of National Defence and the member for Kelowna—Lake Country were standing behind the Prime Minister, wearing their medals, flown in from all over the country. I was veterans minister at the time. I was trying to fix things. I was being honest that we had work to do, but we were making progress.

He flew them in and made two key promises to our veterans, the people who serve and are governed by the National Defence Act and then retire, some with injury, some without. He told them two things at that event. First, that there was going to be a return to lifetime pensions. That was a return to the Pension Act. Why do I know that? Because when I was on the edge of settling the Equitas lawsuit with veterans, the settlement had to be turned into an abeyance agreement. Why? Because they were told the Liberals were going to return to the pension.

I had developed friendships with those veterans by that time, Mark Campbell, Aaron Bedard and many others. They remain friends and always will be. They felt bad when they called me and said that they would not be able to settle, but they wanted to work with me and put the lawsuit on hold.

In that promise made to Equitas veterans was the promise to return to the Pension Act. The pension for life announcement was made a couple of days before Christmas last year. That should have been a sign that Liberals were hiding bad news, announcing it literally on Christmas eve. It was essentially a slightly tweaked version of what I had already announced. There was no return to the Pension Act. The new veterans charter is still in place.

The other promise was to never see veterans in court fighting their government. What upsets me about that is the promise the Liberals made to the Equitas veterans, that they were going to return to the Pension Act, led to an abeyance agreement. However, that abeyance agreement expired when the Liberals were in power. What did they do? They did not renew that abeyance agreement; they let it lapse. Therefore, the court case was back on and they made military veterans go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. Again, the Liberals broke their central promises.

I like the minister. I know he has served honourably. I know people from his regiment. I know people who went to staff college with him. He is likeable. He has to start stepping up. I am calling that group of veterans behind him in those photos “the broken promises battalion”. They were called out from across the country for a media event when the Prime Minister had no intention of following through or he did not know the costing and ramifications of his promise, either one of those options, saying something one has no intention of following through on or not understanding the file enough to know the cost or ramifications of implementing a return to the Pension Act. Members should remember that the Pension Act was changed by a Liberal government. Honourable Canadians running for office, none of whom were actually members of Parliament at the time but they were all veterans, and I respect their service, all flanked the Prime Minister, medals on, while the Prime Minister said those two things: a return to lifetime pensions and veterans will never have to face their government in court.

Within two years, both of those promises were broken. Now the minister is not reading reports before meeting with veterans, who are juggling a lot of issues, sometimes injuries, and serious ones. Now we see the waning confidence in the minister fade even more when, as wait times increase. Miraculously to the front of the line for PTSD treatment comes someone who is in a correctional institution for murdering someone who wore not just one but two uniforms for her community and her province.

I want all of those Liberal members to go back to their ridings, speak to veterans, go to the legions, ask them what they think, come back next week and do the right thing.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we have before us today very positive legislation, which is significantly different than what the previous prime minister had brought forward. It is sound legislation. We have a minister who has done an incredible job with respect to having an overview, a national policy, consultations and everything.

Unlike the Conservatives, it did not take us 10 years to process it. This legislation has been needed for a number of years. Then the member across the way makes these personal attacks on a number of my colleagues. I am a bit surprised, given that the member was the minister who sat on his hands and did absolutely nothing, as veterans offices closed in virtually every region of our country. If there is someone who should be hiding behind the curtain when it comes to the importance of veterans issues, it might be the very member who just spoke.

We are talking about legislation that has been very well received after a significant amount of consultation.

My question for the member is very clear. The Conservatives like to filibuster on all sorts of legislation. Will they agree that it would be nice to see this legislation pass to committee, and the sooner the better?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member would have heard, before I got sidelined with the heckling from his benches, that we would like to see this go to committee. I mentioned the three slight differences between Bill C-71 and Bill C-77.

I find this most interesting, and I hope Canadians who are watching do as well. The Prime Minister stood in the House and said that this was a treatment that should be available for Mr. Garnier. Whenever we hold the Liberals to account for that, they attack. I am sorry, but I am here as an opposition member to hold them to account. That is what Canadians want us to do. If they take that as an attack, it is a sign that they are failing.

In the case of Garnier, which I got into because of heckling from the Liberal benches, nothing shows a disconnect with what Canadians expect of their government more than allowing a murderer to jump ahead of veterans.

Bill C-81—Notice of time allocation motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, though I believe we will be able to find a way forward, because it is important legislation, to ensure that we continue advancing legislation, I would like to inform you that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-81, an act to ensure a barrier-free Canada.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

I hope this notice does not need to be acted upon.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I am sure the House appreciates the notice on the part of the government House leader.

There will be seven and a half minutes remaining in the time for questions and comments for the hon. member for Durham when the House gets back to debate on question.

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Trans Mountain Pipeline Project Act

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

moved that Bill S-245, An Act to declare the Trans Mountain Pipeline Project and related works to be for the general advantage of Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great urgency for Canada that I speak today in support of Bill S-245, the Trans Mountain pipeline project act. Thousands of workers and their families from the construction, steel fabrication and manufacturing, and oil and gas sectors want the Liberals to take meaningful action to get their jobs back.

As a result of the Liberals' failure to enforce federal jurisdiction since their approval of the Trans Mountain expansion nearly two years ago and their failure in the review before that, as ruled by the Federal Court of Appeal on August 30, more than 2,000 workers were laid off. Another 5,000 more were counting on jobs about to begin in the next couple of months and several thousand expected jobs from the pipeline in the next couple of years. All of these families are now wondering about their future.

That is why I thank Senator Doug Black for introducing the bill in the other place and the 78% of senators from all regions in Canada who supported it. Getting the Trans Mountain expansion built is in the best interests of all Canadians. It would provide high-paying jobs now when Canadians need them more than ever and it would create and sustain thousands of jobs in many different sectors across Canada long into the future.

It would generate revenue, skills training and jobs in 43 indigenous communities. It would provide billions of dollars in new tax revenues to all levels of government in B.C. and Alberta, and pay for health care, pensions, schools, bridges and roads across Canada. It would move the most responsibly produced oil in the world, Canadian oil, to markets in the U.S. and the Asia Pacific.

Today, the Trans Mountain expansion is stopped. It is the culmination of an economic, investment, regulatory, jurisdictional and interprovincial crisis of confidence in Canada that has been escalating for years, perpetuated by the Liberals.

Failure is not an option. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce president Perrin Beatty said failure would send “a profoundly negative message to investors both here at home and around the world about Canada's regulatory system and our ability to get things done”.

Uncertainty caused by anti-energy policies and messages from the Liberals has already done so much damage, caused so many job losses and driven billions out of Canada. Every day of delay on the Trans Mountain expansion makes it worse. That is why all members of Parliament should support the bill.

For months, Liberals repeated they would not accept undue or “unnecessary delays” without ever defining them, that “no province can impinge on the national interest”, but never actually did anything; that “we are considering all options” which is, mind boggling, and what they are still saying, the pipeline “will be built”, but construction never actually started, despite the photo ops and press conferences.

Senator Black tabled the bill on February 15. On April 8, Kinder Morgan halted work and set a deadline for clear assurances from the Liberals that ongoing roadblocks and delays would be removed so it could proceed. On April 10, cabinet had an emergency meeting, after which ministers gave media 97 seconds of platitudes and left.

On April 16 the Prime Minister and other ministers were widely quoted saying the Liberals would introduce legislation imminently to “reassert and reinforce” federal authority over the Trans Mountain expansion. The Prime Minister failed to deliver the legislation he promised and this week he mocked the idea.

On May 22, a week before Kinder Morgan's deadline, the Senate passed Bill S-245. Between May 22 and May 31 the Bloc, the NDP and then the Liberals denied my three separate asks to get unanimous consent to expedite this bill for debate in the House so MPs could give the certainty requested by Kinder Morgan and they denied it yet again today.

Then the Liberals announced the federal government would purchase the Trans Mountain pipeline and the Minister of Finance said, “If Kinder Morgan is not interested in building the project, we think plenty of investors would be interested in taking on this project”. That was shocking in itself since Kinder Morgan had already worked for years to prepare for its $7.4-billion investment and had already spent hundreds of millions, while meeting hundreds of conditions and fighting to build it for 17 months since the Liberals' official approval; manifestly not a lack of interest.

Then, of course, the Finance Minister failed to find a single other investor or buyer, while he also promised “to guarantee the summer construction season for the workers who are counting on it, and to ensure the project is built to completion in a timely fashion”.

On July 31, the current Minister of Natural Resources announced the start of construction at a press conference where the head of the now government-owned Trans Mountain Corporation clarified immediately that new pipeline would not actually start getting in the ground until “early next year”. Then, on August 30, the day the $4.5-billion purchase was completed, which divested Kinder Morgan from Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the Liberals had failed to adequately consult first nations in the process they initiated, oversaw and managed, during their review of Trans Mountain's regulatory application in 2016, before they approved it, which they have assured Canadians all along would ensure the Trans Mountain expansion could be built.

As always, the Liberals are blaming everyone and everything else for all their failures.

The court decision is clear, and the context is important. In June 2014, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling on the duty to consult indigenous people on project development.

In June 2016, three months after the Liberals were elected, the approval of northern gateway was overturned by the Federal Court of Appeal. However, instead of trying to fulfill the measures in the court ruling through new consultations with first nations, especially in light of the 31 indigenous agreements supporting northern gateway worth $2 billion at stake, to enable that major, crucial export infrastructure to proceed, and to get it right for future proposals, the Prime Minister vetoed it outright and completely.

For the Trans Mountain expansion application, which along with all others had been frozen by the Liberals since January, the Minister of Natural Resources appointed a three member ministerial panel to consult with first nations on May 27, 2016, which reported back in November 2016, and the federal cabinet approved the Trans Mountain expansion in the national interest on the 30th of that month.

When multiple legal challenges and protests started immediately, the Liberals assured all Canadians that their review and approval would withstand a court challenge and they specifically cited the ruling on northern gateway as the impetus for their process that they claimed would guarantee the Trans Mountain expansion would proceed.

However, the Federal Court of Appeal said the Liberals' consultation with first nations on Trans Mountain between May and November 2016 “fell well short of the minimum requirements”. It confirms a total failure of meaningful two-way engagement while misleading participants and a failure to attempt accommodation by the Liberals with first nations. It is just the latest in a long pattern of the Liberals saying one thing and doing another.

The other major part of the ruling is the consideration of the impact of tanker traffic on orca whales. What is galling is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said he would come back to cabinet “with precise regulatory elements that will ensure that we have mitigated the effect of the noise, and things like access to prey—chinook management—and (ensure) land-based pollutants that contaminate certain bodies of water in which these whales are resident are reduced and/or eliminated”. This was at the same time as the Liberal approval of Trans Mountain.

The minister then failed to introduce any of it, denying a key defence for the Liberals' approval, because of yet another failure. The minister should have been on top of it and prepared, because the fact is the risk is not exclusive to Trans Mountain. He, himself, on September 12, said:

You have to put this in context. The noise from a container ship is no different than the noise from an oil tanker. And there are between 3,000 and 3,500 container ships that come into the Port of Vancouver. There are thousands of BC Ferries, and there are tens of thousands of recreational boaters out there. So if you are going to save these whales, the mitigation has to be much broader than a few more oil tankers. It has to relate to how we're managing shipping generally.

That is what the minister said, and he failed to do anything about it.

As of today, the Liberals have still failed to provide a comprehensive plan and even blocked the mutual requests of Conservative and NDP MPs for emergency meetings of both the natural resources and indigenous and northern affairs committees for ministers to explain their failures on the Trans Mountain review, to answer for the 4.5 billion tax dollars they spent, and to account to the pipeline's owners—all Canadians—their next steps to get the expansion back on track.

Western Canadians are angry, frustrated, and they feel betrayed by the Liberals. The majority of Canadians across the country who resoundingly support the Trans Mountain expansion are losing hope. It is no wonder why, when the Prime Minister said that Canada should phase out the oil sands and that he regrets Canada cannot get off oil tomorrow, and he defended tax dollars going to summer jobs explicitly for activists to stop the Kinder Morgan pipeline and tanker project.

What is especially disappointing is the way the Prime Minister and the Liberals' failures are sacrificing the best and national interests of Canadians to obstructionist activities initiated and funded to serve the national and competitive ambitions of other countries and Canada's competitors.

The Financial Post, the Vancouver Sun, The Globe and Mail, and multiple other media outlets have reported on a leaked document dubbed the Kinder Morgan “Action Hive Proposal”, penned by 350.org, a foreign anti-oil protest group, which outlines a strategy by an anti-energy coalition to block the Trans Mountain expansion.

The Financial Post revealed that Tides Canada “has granted $40 million to 100 Canadian anti-pipeline organizations”, which in turn fight to stop Canadian energy development and access to export markets.

In 2016, Tides Canada quietly shut down its international donation matching system that allowed U.S. donors to donate to the Canadian foundation but still receive a tax receipt for the U.S. foundation.

On September 12, it was reported that since 2014, the City of Burnaby spent $1.12 million in legal costs to fight the Trans Mountain expansion.

The only objective of these efforts is to stop the pipeline altogether through “death by delay”, using every tool in their tool box, as they said they would. It is not to achieve a reasonable, evidence-based conclusion in the broad best interests of all Canadians, and nothing will ever earn a so-called "social license" from it. This is why every MP needs to vote for this legislation, for Canada.

The purpose of Bill S-245 is to declare the Trans Mountain pipeline project and all related works to be for the general advantage of Canada, a declaratory power that has been used more than 450 times before to enable major approved infrastructure like bridges, railways and electricity. Once the power is used and affirmed by Parliament, all secondary works and everything related to the construction of the pipeline, including all local roads, bridges, power connections, the terminal and its ongoing operation and maintenance, will be in federal jurisdiction. This is important, given existing threats to attempt to restrict the volume in the expansion even if it ever gets built.

This is an important preventative measure. The City of Burnaby said that there was still possible challenges going ahead. The B.C. NDP talks about attempting to restrict that flow for future B.C. governments. Therefore, the bill would mitigate future obstructionist attempts by other levels of governments and clarify challenges and disagreements over jurisdiction, providing certainty that there would be no further successful impediments to the project's completion.

It would also give a strong signal to the private sector that Canada would enforce the division of powers, jurisdictional rights and responsibilities, and stand up for Canada's national interest with real action to give certainty that when an approval and permits were granted in Canada it actually would mean something.

Some have questioned the need for this bill and said that Trans Mountain is already federal jurisdiction. As Senator Black made clear in his statements, in order to utilize the provisions that would place all of Trans Mountain's secondary works under federal jurisdiction, there must be an explicit declaration. It cannot simply be implied that a work is for the general advantage of Canada.

This has been done in legislation four times: the Detroit River Canadian Bridge Company Act of 1928; the Hudson Bay Mining declaration of 1947; the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway of 1947; and an act respecting CN Rail, which provided the amalgam of rail companies that formed CN Rail in 1955. In each of those pieces of legislation, there is an express declaration, and these are only four examples, that this work is for the general advantage of Canada. This is why Parliament needs to declare Trans Mountain to be for the general advantage of Canada, to reinforce federal jurisdiction.

The reality is that the Liberals had opportunities to pass this bill quickly this spring to avoid having to spend $4.5 billion on the Trans Mountain pipeline, which will go to build pipelines in the United States. They blocked that at every attempt. They voted against two motions this spring, calling for the Liberals to share their plan for getting Trans Mountain built. Most recently, they used their majority to block two parliamentary committees from getting the answers Canadians were demanding.

Since they formed government, the Liberals have failed to give industry the certainty they require to invest in large projects; failed to get construction going on the Trans Mountain expansion this summer, which they promised; failed to find another buyer for the existing Trans Mountain pipeline; failed to consult first nations adequately, leading to months or years of project delays, and putting all the indigenous mutual benefit agreements at risk; and failed to deliver the legislation they promised in the spring to get this pipeline built.

I hear from Canadians that they cannot trust the Liberals to deliver because their actions do not match their words, which is why the Liberals must clearly demonstrate their support for the Trans Mountain expansion today, through action, by passing this legislation. As well, they must tell Canadians the other concrete next steps they will take to get the Trans Mountain expansion built.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada, and particularly the Prime Minister, has been very clear in all regions of our country just how important the Trans Mountain project is to the nation. We have seen forward movement for a long time now. On the one hand, we have New Democrats who believe we do not need the pipelines. I am starting to believe the Conservatives are hoping it does not get off the ground so they can continue to be critical of the government. This seems to be the priority of the Conservatives.

The Prime Minister, ministers, members from Alberta as well as myself have been consistent throughout with respect to that sense of commitment, that we continue to move forward with Trans Mountain, yet the Conservatives were never able to get a pipeline built across the mountains.

Why should Canadians believe the Conservatives could do better than they did in 10 years when they were not able to do anything? We have a Prime Minister and government actually moving forward. If that meant buying, we bought.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, they blew $4.5 billion, which was not actually for the purchase of a pipeline, but the purchase of existing assets, and they have no plan for the expansion. Kinder Morgan has said very clearly that it is going to divest all its assets in Canada. What that means is that the Liberals have given $4.5 billion in Canadian tax dollars to the U.S. to build pipelines to compete with Canada as our now major energy competitor, while Canada still relies on the U.S. to be our number one energy customer.

The Liberals have to give up their narrative about the previous government, because all it does is expose their lack of a plan for the future and their inability to answer for failure after failure. Four new pipelines were built under the Conservative government. Two of those achieved improved access, one to the Asia-Pacific, the Anchor Loop by expanding access to the Trans Mountain pipeline, and another, Keystone, by getting oil to the Gulf coast. Billions of new barrels of oil are rolling through pipelines that Conservatives approved. As of right now, the Liberals have built none, and have added zero to Canada's export—

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member has spoken about her desire to get this place to declare this particular pipeline to be to the general advantage of Canada. The Prime Minister has said it will be built. I know the member shares our concern for fairness and justice in this process. I am getting questions from indigenous leaders and coastal communities, like mine in Victoria, who fear the potential environmental consequences of a catastrophic spill of diluted bitumen. I want to know how I can answer them, and perhaps the member can help me, when they ask how the Government of Canada can regulate this, make the final decision, and be the owner of this particular pipeline and pipeline project, and yet treat those people fairly. How can that work?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, 43 indigenous communities had secured mutual benefit agreements with the Trans Mountain expansion through years of work. Every indigenous community involved in those agreements supports it and wants to see it go ahead. However, this is yet another failure by the Liberals. On the same day they announced their approval of the Trans Mountain expansion, the fisheries minister at that time said he would return with a comprehensive plan to mitigate risk in the area, to better manage the habitat and feedstock of orca whales and to enhance both prevention and mitigation of additional vessels. The conclusions were clearly that the number of vessels and traffic in that area would continue to increase. There are thousands of vessels there in addition to the one tanker a day that would be added as a result of the Trans Mountain expansion.

The Liberals' other failure, to actually deliver on their promise in addition to their approval of the Trans Mountain expansion, is exactly why constituents like his are questioning this.

It is also helpful to correct the facts on the pipeline. It does not transport raw bitumen. It is actually unique as a pipeline. It is able to transport diluted bitumen instead of crude oil, and a number of other upgraded and refined petroleum products.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill S-245 at second reading and to do so as a proud Alberta MP. I am very proud of my home province and my city of Edmonton. It is a place that values hard work and entrepreneurship. In fact, if people come to my riding of Edmonton Centre, they will see on one of the buildings there a huge mural that says, “Take a risk”. There is nothing more Edmontonian that anyone could possibly do. It is a place that celebrates inclusion, a place that believes everyone should have the opportunity to succeed. The Edmonton Metropolitan Region has brought innovation and resource development to new levels, once thought impossible.

Members may know that I grew up in Morinviille. Close members of my family and dear friends work and have worked in the oil sands, and I know first-hand the importance of resource development to people's lives and livelihoods. I agree categorically with what I hear at doors every week, the keen and deep interest in getting our resources to market and ending the $15-billion-a-year haircut that our resource products get because we have only one customer, the United States.

These are the same reasons that our government approved the Trans Mountain expansion project in the first place. We know that this project holds the potential to create thousands of good middle-class jobs, to strengthen the Canadian economy and generate billions of dollars in new revenues for all orders of government, and to ensure that we get a fair price for one of our country's most valuable resources. It would also open up new opportunities in indigenous communities across B.C. and Alberta, which support the project. There are also 43 indigenous communities that have signed mutual benefit agreements.

It is for all of these reasons and many more that we believe that the TMX project is in Canada's national interest and why we purchased its assets as a sound investment in Canada's future. The existing line will generate $300 million in earnings every year regardless of the expansion. Therefore, when legislation comes before us suggesting that, “the Trans Mountain Pipeline Project and related works [are declared] to be for the general advantage of Canada”, it is hard to disagree. We have said as much repeatedly in every part of the country, and yet it is not enough that the pipeline project expansion proceed. It must proceed in the right way, and that includes fulfilling our government's commitments to protecting the environment and renewing Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples.

The Trans Mountain expansion project is in the situation it is in today because of the failures of the previous Conservative government. We promised legislation that would move Canada forward and brings more, not less, environmental protection and respect for indigenous rights. Have the Conservatives learned that lesson? No. Despite court ruling after court ruling, they still fail to understand the importance of having strong and meaningful frameworks for pipeline approval in place. Ten years of Conservative failure to get our energy to other markets does not serve the Canadian people and does not serve the energy industry.

With Bill C-69, our government will move Canada's projects forward based on doing things the right way, and without cutting corners the way Conservatives did for a decade. When will the Conservatives learn that Canada cannot legislate its way out of its constitutional obligation to consult indigenous peoples and to protect the environment? Only they know the answer to that. On this side, we know that cutting corners has not worked in the past and will not work now or in the future.

The Federal Court of Appeal found that the government's assessment of the project left room for improvement. Potential environmental effects of marine shipping were not properly considered by the NEB, which was a result of a flawed process created by the Conservatives. It also found that while we had an acceptable framework for indigenous consultation, one that we brought forward in our interim approach to environmental assessments, the Crown did not properly execute that phase of the process.

That is why today the Minister of Natural Resources announced an important step in our path forward. He said that the government has instructed the National Energy Board to reconsider its recommendation, taking into account the effects of marine shipping related to the project. We will be directing the NEB to report within 22 weeks. During this time, the NEB will hear from Canadians and provide participant funding for indigenous and non-indigenous groups. We will present to the NEB recent government actions to protect the southern resident killer whales and to implement the oceans protection plan. We are committed to ensuring that the National Energy Board has the expertise and capacity to deliver the best advice to the government. To that end, we intend to appoint a special marine technical advisor to the National Energy Board.

Our government has been clear about its vision for resource development, a vision built on three key tenets: creating good, middle-class jobs; protecting the environment; and indigenous partnerships.

We see the Trans Mountain expansion project as part of this vision, but the vision is much bigger than that. We are committed to building a long-term energy vision for Canadians, one that transitions Canada to a clean growth economy. Canada is now a global leader in clean tech and we are poised to be a clean energy leader as well.

We have worked across sectors and across the country to build Bill C-69, with industry and environmental groups. The bill moves past the Conservative way of ignoring indigenous peoples and the environment, and proposes a modern, new way to review major resource projects and a new framework to recognize and implement indigenous rights in a spirit of respect, co-operation and collaboration.

Our vision is of more than a single pipeline. It is about creating jobs for Canadians and charting a path for Canada's long-term future, a new course that recognizes that the economy and the environment must go hand in hand.

The Federal Court of Appeal confirmed that we had made a solid start with the interim principles we introduced back in January 2016, but it said there was more work to be done. We understand that. That has been our focus since we formed government in November 2015.

That is why we not only signed the Paris Agreement on climate change, but also helped shape it as an ambitious and balanced plan for ensuring that the environment and economy are equal components of a single engine that will drive enduring prosperity.

That is why we also sat down with the provinces, territories, and indigenous peoples to draft the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change, a blueprint for reducing emissions, spurring innovation, adapting to climate change and creating good middle-class jobs across the country.

That is why we are making long-term investments in clean technology and green infrastructure. That is why we are providing unprecedented levels of support for science and basic research. That is also why we are making a historic investment to protect Canada's oceans, marine life and coastal communities.

The $1.5-billion oceans protection plan will strengthen the eyes and ears of the Canadian Coast Guard, enhance our response capabilities in the unlikely event of a spill and support innovative marine research. It will also reinforce new important partnerships with indigenous peoples. That includes the joint creation of an indigenous advisory and oversight committee to assess the safety of the TMX project throughout its life cycle.

This is in addition to our efforts to improve indigenous peoples's access to financing for economic development, professional training and business opportunities arising from the pipeline expansion. We recognize the importance of Canada's energy sector and its impact on both Canada's economy and the environment.

The Trans Mountain expansion project is a key element, part of a common-sense approach that includes the diversification of our energy markets, the improvement of environmental safety and the creation of thousands of good jobs for the middle class, including good jobs for indigenous communities.

However, we have to do this properly, by keeping our commitments to reconciliation with indigenous peoples and to environmental protection, and as part of our plan to build a better future and a better Canada for everyone. That is what I am proud to support today.

The Conservative Party can continue to attempt to mystify Canadians with bafflegab, blather and blarney. Our government will do the right thing and be respectful, rigorous and get this done in the right way.