Debates of Nov. 16th, 2020

Judges Act

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to be here this evening. First, I would like to commend and thank my colleague from Peace River—Westlock for his excellent speech. I was impressed by the pipeline construction I saw when I had the opportunity and the pleasure to visit his riding. Perhaps we could find a new use for pipelines. We could send maple syrup from the beautiful riding of Mégantic—L'Érable to his riding via pipeline in the spring and then Mégantic—L'Érable could get delicious honey from his riding the same way in the fall. That would be an excellent opportunity for trade between our two ridings.

It is with honour and enthusiasm that I rise today at third reading of Bill C-3, which is also known as the just act. I hope it will help women who are victims of sexual assault to regain some trust in the justice system and encourage them to come forward when they are assaulted.

I would like to remind members that this is the third time that the House has tried to pass the just act. We must give its original author, the Hon. Rona Ambrose, all the credit for bringing before the House the serious issue of the lack of training of some judges who hear sexual assault cases.

When introducing the just bill, which was private member's Bill C-337 at the time, my hon. colleague Ms. Ambrose said:

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand in the House to introduce a bill to address the need to build more confidence in our judicial system when it comes to the handling of cases involving sexual assault and sexual violence. Too often, those involved in these cases come away with the feeling they have experienced not just a judgment on their case but a judgment on their character.

On another occasion, she gave more detail to explain why women are afraid to file a complaint. She talked about what survivors go through in the justice system and the repercussions it has on them:

We have people who have backgrounds in corporate law, and oil and gas law who are overseeing some of these trials. That's not good enough. They need to have the training in criminal law and particularly in these kinds of cases, I believe. We know from research that's conclusive now that these kinds of crimes and this kind of trauma, especially at a young age, have a massive impact on girls and women. We know that women who experience violence are at least twice as likely to suffer from mental health issues, and they deal with these issues for the rest of their lives.

Clearly, the justice system is frightening for women who are victims of sexual assault. The statistics are clear: too few women report the assault, even fewer go to trial, and an infinitely small number of those trials end in convictions.

As I mentioned in my speech at second reading of Bill C-3, the numbers do not lie: 83% of sexual assaults go unreported. Of the remaining 17% of cases, one in five gets dropped, while the other four are subjected to intense scrutiny, leaving the victims caught in the middle of a difficult and stressful process that unfortunately has only a small chance of success. In three out of four cases, the proceedings are stayed, and just one in five will go to court. One in 10 cases ends in a conviction resulting in a fine or jail time.

Can we seriously ask women who are victims of sexual assault, especially women from disadvantaged, racialized or indigenous communities, to trust a system that finds it so difficult to recognize the crimes committed against them and punish those responsible?

Let me talk about a study I read. The topic of this action research study was “Female victims of violence and the criminal justice system: experiences, obstacles and potential solutions”. This study was conducted by several groups in Quebec and uncovered several reasons for this harsh reality.

The women interviewed for this study revealed the reasons they were fearful of the justice system. These include a lack of trust and the fear of not being believed; the perception that the safety of victims cannot be guaranteed throughout the process; and the influence of comments made by justice system stakeholders and the women's friends and families, who, according to studies, express doubts about the women's ability to navigate the justice system.

From the outset, the women are clearly told that they may not be able to see the process through and that it will be very difficult. In short, many obstacles are placed in their way from the beginning.

Some of the other reasons that came up include the need to take care of themselves first and to manage everyday life in the wake of sexual violence; the anticipation of the consequences of the legal process on the women and those around them; a lack of information on the legal process; and the fact that women know that assailants or perpetrators of sexual violence will get fairly lenient sentences.

The study went even further. Women who had gone through the justice system spoke about the obstacles and issues they had faced, such as the dearth of knowledge about female victims of violence; the continued existence of bias; being made to feel guilty by people within the justice system; the feeling that violence against women is minimized because of the very common legal procedure of sentence bargaining, during which the Crown and the defence negotiate sentencing; a perception that the accused has more rights than the victim; and lengthy delays.

I encourage my colleagues to read this study. They can contact my office or just google it. This study helped me better understand what women face after experiencing sexual violence.

Bill C-3 is not a magic wand that will change everything all at once, nor will it single-handedly change the statistics, but I think judges are the cornerstone of our justice system. Canadian judges must have all the tools they need to deal with every possible situation. If we give judges access to sexual violence training and require new judges to take the training, the entire justice system will clearly be better off. I sincerely believe it is high time Canada took action on this issue.

To ensure a better understanding of sexual assault cases, a new law concerning judges' education just came into force in August 2020. Judges will be required to attend specific training provided by a judicial training institute. Amnesty International and SOS Viol, a victim support organization, have called this a major victory, saying: “This new law is a positive and important step in the right direction. It addresses one of our main concerns in the fight against rape and sexual violence in Belgium: the many gaps in the training of those on the front lines, particularly in the judiciary.”

In France, the training course on sexual violence created in 2016 is five days long and addresses relevant issues pertaining to this specific type of violence.

In England and Wales, a tracking system was implemented that requires Crown Court judges to take a specialized training course before being able to hear sexual violence cases.

After all these years of waiting and all of the opportunities that we have had to pass Ms. Ambrose's bill, it is time to finally take action and pass this bill so that it becomes a reality.

However, I heard the questions that were raised throughout today's debate and I know that this bill will apply only to judges appointed by the federal government.

Although it is an area of provincial jurisdiction, I want to say a few words about training for Quebec court judges because they are responsible for the majority of the province's sexual violence cases. The Quebec Court has a six-page training program, which provides a very good summary. The Quebec Court and the Quebec Judicial Council are responsible for this continuing education, which is an ethical obligation for these two institutions.

The Judicial Code of Ethics states that judges have an ethical obligation to acquire and foster the knowledge and skills they need to carry out their judicial functions. However, I had to read through until the fourth page of the document to learn that the Court of Quebec is working on a special project to give judges specialized training on preparing rulings. However, there is no mention of training on sexual violence there.

The very last page mentions training on the rule of law and also on the society in which these rules are applied. I quote:

With respect to sexual offences, the training deals primarily with the evolution of jurisprudence and legislation regarding the notion of “consent”, the admissibility of means of defence and the tests for ensuring that myths or stereotypes do not influence the assessment of the credibility of complainants.

Once again, the training is not mandatory—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The hon. member's time has expired. We will now move on to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague referred to a study he consulted that demonstrates how certain myths and stereotypes are sometimes perpetuated in the justice system. That is what I took away from it. As I said earlier, it would be good for judges to get away from these outdated cultural constructs.

I do not want to dwell on this too much, but to continue my reflection, I have to wonder whether certain members would not benefit from this kind of training. I am thinking about Bill C-6. As a reminder, that is the bill on conversion therapy. Certain members had some reservations.

I would like to hear from my colleague on that. Does he think certain members should take that training in order to better understand the realities facing sexual minorities?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my two daughters, my wife and all the women of Mégantic—L'Érable, Quebec and Canada, I would say that it is of the utmost importance to support Bill C-3. I hope it will receive royal assent as quickly as possible. I am also in favour of Bill C-6, which I will support without any hesitation.

However, what I am thinking about the most right now is the fact that this is the third time that Parliament has tried to adopt the Hon. Rona Ambrose's bill. This is not the time to be playing politics. It is time that we moved forward.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, some of the debate today has focused on the inclusion of language related to systemic racism and the importance of education and training for judges, including training specifically on systemic racism.

I am wondering if the member supports that inclusion and, if so, why he thinks it is important to have it in the bill.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

That is already in the bill. My colleague is well aware of that because the committee proposed amendments to the bill and thus the changes are already included.

As I mentioned, there are problems of sexual violence, especially in racialized, underprivileged and indigenous communities. It is important that any form of sexual violence be well understood by judges. That is the initial objective of Bill C-3, and I support it 100%.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, judges shape society, so it is important that judges understand the society within which they work and, indeed, the society in which those people who appear before them in court live, work and breathe. I am thinking of accused people and witnesses, of course, but I am thinking particularly of victims.

Sadly, that has not always been the case in the Canadian court system, and this is especially true in sexual assault proceedings. There have been instances where victims have felt mistreated, disrespected and not treated with the dignity they deserve as human beings, and that is not acceptable.

The result is that many people do not bother to report cases of sexual assault. According to Statistics Canada, 95% of sexual assault cases are never reported. Fully two-thirds of sexual assault victims surveyed by the justice department say they have no confidence in Canada's court system.

One of my constituents, Lia, wrote a very thoughtful email to me, and I will highlight a couple of sentences from it. She said, “For far too long, survivors of sexual assault have had to deal with a justice system that does not treat them with the dignity they deserve. Many victims of sexual assault decide not to file a complaint because they are afraid of being mistreated and humiliated. That is why most sexual assaults committed in Canada are not reported to the police.... This must change. Survivors of sexual assault have the right to be treated with respect and dignity.” Sadly, that has not always been the case in the Canadian court system. I agree with Lia that this must change.

What has gone wrong?

The Canadian criminal justice system is based on many centuries of common law tradition coming out of England. It is a legal structure built around an adversarial system where the Crown advances a rigorous prosecution and the defence an equally rigorous defence. The accused always has the presumption of innocence in their favour, so the hurdle for the Crown prosecutor to overcome is a very high one. That is the system we have adopted, and that is what we say is best for society.

However, the result is that victims are often treated very badly, in their opinion. The accused has the right to meet their accuser in court and to subject the evidence to rigorous cross-examination, which will often involve drawing the victim's reputation into question. Sometimes, despite the prosecution's best efforts, the accused person is not convicted and, unfortunately, the victim's reputation is left in tatters.

The risk associated with our criminal law system is far from perfect as it is, but we say it is the best way to conduct criminal trials because it is more important that innocent people are not convicted than it is that guilty people are left to go free. However, the sad result is that in many sexual assault cases it is the victims who are revictimized in the process, and that is not acceptable.

The bill before us is about the education and training of judges, and it is very timely. It is about rebalancing the right of the accused to have a fair trial with the right of the victim to be treated with dignity and respect. It is about ensuring that trust is maintained in our justice system, which is important not only for the victim but for all of society, and that survivors of sexual assault are treated respectfully. It is about judges being equipped with the knowledge and skills they need to run fair trials. Ultimately, the bill is all about maintaining that the administration of justice is not brought into disrepute by poorly run trials. We need educated judges.

All parties in the House agree on this, so why are we debating it? Well, there is a little thing called “judicial independence”. It is a little thing, but it is fundamental to the way our society operates. Politicians do not tell judges what to do. Judges need to be independent. We set laws, but we do not tell judges how to run their courts and how to make decisions. That is up to them. This is so fundamental to our judicial system and our western democracy. Sadly, it seems that some elected officials have not learned that lesson.

From the sounds of it, everybody in this House is in agreement that this bill should become law. That is not true of all people. There are some academics and jurists who say the bill is going in the wrong direction and is undermining judicial independence. What about that? With Bill C-3, are we stepping over the line of judicial independence? When we consider that question there are a couple of things to keep in mind.

First, not every lawyer who is appointed to a superior court will have had experience in their careers up to that point with actually working in the criminal justice system, and certainly not with any sexual assault proceedings. Some will have practised in other fields, such as commercial law, tax law, intellectual property law or, like I did, corporate law.

Therefore, I would submit it is important and completely appropriate that judges should undergo special education in the field, as is stated in Bill C-3, including, “instruction in evidentiary prohibitions, principles of consent”, which is so fundamental to sexual assault law, “and the conduct of sexual assault proceedings”. I could not agree with that more.

Another thing to keep in mind when we are talking about whether or not this bill steps over the line of judicial independence is that other countries, and some of the previous speakers have alluded to this, require their judges to have special training before they become judges. They have to go to judge school. We have not done that here in Canada. We say that if one has practised law for 10 years, regardless of whatever field it is in, he or she is now qualified to become a judge. That is why it is so important that we have the special education for judges.

One more thing we should keep in mind when we ask whether Bill C-3 is stepping over the judicial independence line, is that the bill states it is the Canadian Judicial Council, which is run by judges for judges, that is the organization that will decide what the content of the courses is and how they are to be connected. Therefore, this bill does not tell judges what to do or how to decide cases. It does not tell them to have a higher rate of conviction. It simply tells judges to get themselves educated because that is what society expects of them. It is certainly what victims expect.

If we hope that more victims will report cases of sexual assault, which I think is fundamental to our court system working properly, then I think we need to do whatever we can to build that confidence back into the minds of the Canadian public that our court system is fair to victims of sexual assault.

The bill also talks about the requirement that judges in sexual assault proceedings must give written reasons. Does that go too far? I would submit that it does not because the victim, the accused and their lawyers should have the right to review the reasoning of the judge, how he or she came to that decision.

Also, I would say the requirement that judges should give written reasons will inevitably result in more guarded and well-considered language when judges write up their decisions. That is good for everyone involved, including the victim, the accused, all of Canadian society and, importantly, the credibility of our criminal justice system.

When we weigh the risk to judicial independence introduced by Bill C-3, which I think is a very small risk for the reasons stated, against the risk of our courts being disrespected, which is a real and present danger, most Canadians will support the purpose of intent of Bill C-3. That is why I thank the people who have written to me, including Lia, encouraging me to vote in favour of this bill.

This bill is a step in the right direction to rebalance the interests of the accused to a fair trial and the complainant to respect and dignity. As a Conservative, I am proud that this bill was initiated on this side of the House by our former colleague Rona Ambrose. I thank the Hon. Rona Ambrose for introducing this.

I have a quote here from Ms. Ambrose, which I think is really interesting. She said:

...like me, many Canadians would be surprised to learn that a lawyer does not need any experience in the sensitivities of sexual assault cases to become a judge overseeing these types of challenging trials.

As I said earlier, this might be the first sexual assault case that a judge has ever heard or been involved in, in a criminal law setting, much less in a sexual assault proceeding. The judge, prior to becoming a judge, might have been a tax lawyer or dealt with intellectual property law.

I am a little less surprised than most Canadians about this gap in judges' education. In this debate, we have talked about new judges who have little or no experience in sexual assault proceedings. That creates challenges, obviously. However, at the other end of the spectrum are judges who, as lawyers, practised solely in the field of criminal law, maybe even specializing in sexual assault cases and, when they become judges, have a first case of complex commercial law.

I think there is something missing in judges' education. That is where I am going with this. Bill C-3 is a step in the right direction. The field of law is so broad that not even the smartest, most educated and well-intentioned judge could know it all.

As a lawyer, I must undergo continuing professional development every year in order to maintain my practice licence. I would submit that the same should apply to judges, and maybe even more so to judges because they are societal influencers. They need to understand the society within which they work.

I am confident that our judiciary, in consultation with appropriate stakeholder groups, will develop an effective, responsible, continuing education program for judges, and that judges will respond favourably to Bill C-3. I will be voting in favour of this bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We have about three minutes or so remaining for questions and comments. Of course, the full 10 minutes could be taken if the House chooses to get back to that, when it gets back to the bill in front of the House. For now, we will go to questions and comments, the hon. member for Fleetwood—Port Kells.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that this bill is focusing in on a very necessary aspect of our justice system, and that great injustices have been done.

However, I want to ask the hon. member if he feels that, incrementally, we should be thinking of the same process for judges when it comes to dealing with indigenous people, who tend to be overrepresented in terms of the severity of the sentences handed out and in terms of imprisonment, etc., or Black people. There are a number of different categories of people who appear in court and who appear to be treated badly. I am wondering how the member would want to see those issues approached.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question. Judges influence society; therefore, they must understand the society within which they work and within which the people who appear before them in court live.

Sadly, indigenous people are overrepresented in our court system and in our prisons. I think it would be very important for judges to get training in understanding some of these societal influences to a much greater degree than they do right now.

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech and his support of this very important bill. I want to give my personal thanks to the Hon. Rona Ambrose for the work that she did in the last Parliament. Now we are dealing with this again in this Parliament.

I have an organization in my riding, SACE, the Sexual Assault Centre of Edmonton, that has been desperately waiting for this legislation to be passed. How frustrating does the member think it was for this bill to have been delayed again by the proroguing of Parliament?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation should have happened a long time ago. This must be done quickly.

Ninety-five percent of people who experience sexual assault do not even report it, because they do not have confidence in the judicial system. It needs to be fixed. It is a high priority. It should have been done a long time ago.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Canada Revenue Agency

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I welcome the opportunity to demonstrate to Canadians why, aside from all the scandals, they should not be trusting the Prime Minister or his party.

Let me be very clear. I support helping Canadians who are struggling with the unprecedented events of our time, such as the COVID pandemic. The federal government's promised one-time payment for Canadians living with disabilities who are struggling through this pandemic is one such support, even though it is only being delivered now after months of meaningless clichés from the Prime Minister. I do not support a government that uses an extraordinary event like a health pandemic to erode the democratic rights of Canadians.

Unfortunately for Canadians, this abuse of democracy was happening before the pandemic by ignoring the will of Parliament and not bringing forth the necessary regulations to implement Bill C-462, An Act restricting the fees charged by promoters of the disability tax credit. Canadians living with disabilities have been taken advantage of. Rather than receiving their full benefit of this special one-time payment, some Canadians living with disabilities are poised to lose a portion of it. The abuse of middlemen charging fees to access government programs is becoming so rampant under the Liberal government that an RCMP anti-fraud analyst was recently quoted by the CBC, saying that he wonders whether or not the time has come to start “regulating the promotion of access to government services where people are making money off people trying to access these services that are otherwise free to access”.

The same disability tax consultants saw big paydays when the Canada emergency response benefit was introduced. One such tax consultant started offering to apply on behalf of taxpayers for the benefit. He advertised to assist with CERB applications. This is what can be read on his website: “We have no upfront fee, you only pay us once you get your CERB payment. Due to these rough times, Canada Tax Reviews has reduced our fee from 33% to an 8% fee for this program.”

Seven years ago I introduced private member's legislation, Bill C-462, restricting the fees charged by promoters of the disability tax credit. One of the ways to receive this special one-time disability tax benefit just announced was to qualify for this. My intention in bringing that legislation before Parliament was straightforward. I wanted to see increased protection for disabled Canadians from the predatory practices of certain individuals who refer to themselves as tax credit promoters. When I found out that some individuals were being charged 20%, 30% or 40% of the tax credit, I was misled to believe that Liberal members of Parliament agreed that those kinds of charges were unfair. This is especially true when considering the purpose of the disability tax credit is to support Canadians living with serious disabilities.

Parliament voted in this tax credit in recognition of the fact that Canadians with disabilities face extra challenges. As the member of Parliament whose riding includes Garrison Petawawa, the soldiers and veterans in my community are at greater risk for a number of disabilities because of the sacrifices they have made for our country. The tax credit is of special importance to them.

In bringing forward Bill C-462, I also wanted my constituents and all other Canadians to know they could access their local member of Parliament regarding any federal tax credit without being charged a percentage of the tax credit. Seven years ago, my private member's legislation helped disabled Canadians receive unanimous support in that Parliament. Even the current Prime Minister, who at that time was an opposition MP on the WE Charity speaker circuit, voted in support of my legislation. What happened?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has taken strong, immediate and effective action to protect Canadians and the economy from the impacts of the global COVID-19 pandemic. On March 25, 2020, the Government of Canada announced the Canada emergency response benefit, CERB, a taxable benefit of $2,000 per month for eligible workers whose income and employment were affected by COVID-19.

When it first launched the CERB, the CRA focused on providing emergency payments quickly to the millions of Canadians who were affected by the pandemic. To achieve this, the CRA has witnessed an unprecedented mobilization of its resources to build on past successes.

The CRA has collaborated with financial industry stakeholders to implement direct deposit for businesses to facilitate issuing of CEWS payments.

On April 27, the first bank successfully transmitted direct deposit information for businesses to CRA. The Canada emergency response benefit, which was administered by the Canada Revenue Agency and Service Canada, has since provided critical financial support to over eight million Canadians. Canadians from all walks of life and employment backgrounds have been negatively affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

For this reason, the CERB was designed to apply to a wide variety of individuals, their only commonality being their inability to work because of COVID-19. Some categories of individuals who were eligible for the CERB are those who lost their jobs or had their hours reduced because of COVID-19, as well as those unable to work because they were caring for a dependant whose care was disrupted by the pandemic. Additionally, the CERB covered not only traditionally employed, but also contract workers and self-employed persons not otherwise eligible for employment insurance.

As the pandemic situation progressed, some adjustments were made to the CERB eligibility criteria to allow Canadians to take on part-time work. This allowed Canadian businesses to rehire workers on a part-time basis to ensure that Canadians could continue to put food on the table, pay their rent or mortgage, and support their families.

During the implementation of the CERB, as well as other emergency benefits like the Canada emergency wage subsidy, the government sought to get money into the hands of Canadians who were in need as quickly as possible, via direct deposit or cheque. Payments were made within 10 days in most cases.

Canadians were able to apply for the CERB through an easy web portal, an automated telephone line or a toll-free number. The CERB officially ended on September 26, 2020, but Canadians can still retroactively apply for the CERB until December 2, 2020.

The CERB, I am proud to announce, has now been replaced with three new benefits: the Canada recovery benefit, CRB; the Canada recovery sickness benefit, CRSB; and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit, CRCB. These new benefits are being administered by the Canada Revenue Agency and Canadians can apply online through the agency's “my account” or via a toll-free number.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will tell members what happened. There was an unfortunate change that led to a government that breaks its promises to reward its friends. Canadians are still waiting for the regulations for that legislation that was enacted seven years later. In the latest example of meaningless tropes from a government that excels in meaningless slogans, this time from the last Speech from the Throne, is something called the disability inclusion plan. If the Liberal government was actually serious about helping Canadians living with disabilities, the regulations to implement Bill C-462, an act restricting the fees charged by promoters of the disability tax credit, would be law by now and in the plan. The process to determine eligibility for government disability programs and benefits should not have been left in the hands of these tax credit vultures all these years.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak to the government's swift actions to help Canadians, including those in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge.

The Canada Revenue Agency has developed a fast and simple application process that it uses to deliver benefits payments to Canadians within days of applying. Millions of Canadians have accessed the CERB over the past seven months and this easy-to-use system has helped support Canadians and their families at a time of significant upset and uncertainty.

In fact, as of September 28, the CRA and Service Canada have processed over 27 million applications for the CERB. Canadians can have confidence in the CRA's proven track record in providing emergency support to those who need it most. We can look at the successful roll out of the CERB as an indicator of the agency's strong capacity in this regard.

Public Services and Procurement

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of October, I asked the government about its priorities for procurement when it came to Canada's COVID response over the past year. The Minister of Public Services and Procurement responded with no direct answers. She gave up a tremendous world salad, so I am hoping we can get a bit better salade du jour today from the minister.

The issues have been going on since the spring. When I was a member of the industry committee, we talked a lot about PPE and the government's response to the pandemic and how it was handling it. Repeatedly, there was talk and a lot of instances of business owners and manufacturers looking to retool what was going on in their companies so they could help out with the pandemic and the recovery.

Honey Bee Manufacturing is a company within my riding. I had the owners get in touch with the minister's office so they could repurpose and retool what they did to help with the pandemic. The response they got from the minister and her office staff was to thank them very much, that they really appreciated they were willing to help out, but at the time they did not need them. However, if they waited, the minister's staff might tell them later on if they needed them.

Then we have companies like Novo Textiles in B.C. The owner got a nice mention from the member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam. He gave a nice reference. The company had the capacity to manufacture masks and was not given any opportunity to expand production or to contribute even more than what they were able to already do.

We started to see incidents with companies like Medicom. It is involved in the medical world, but it had no production capacity in Canada to speak of. It got a government handout. Medicom was able to set up shop and develop masks. I am not begrudging Medicom for wanting to help out or the fact that it got the contract. However, the fact is that it had to build facilities to be able to start manufacturing its product. Companies that already had the capacity to do manufacturing were told that they were good where they were, that the government would give it to another company and wait for it to build up what it had.

Then we started to see somebody like Frank Baylis. It was the same thing. He did not have any capacity at that point in time to manufacture the very ventilator that he proposed and he got a massive contract. All he had to do was prove that he had connections through another company and prove that he was a Liberal, and he got a massive contract.

Canadians are looking for this process to once again bring manufacturing back to Canada. When Brad, a constituent in my riding, had to prove that he had the capacity to manufacture face shields, he did so but he did not get the contract, which is fine. However, now Brad is sitting with over $300,000 worth of product that is not being utilized.

Then we have all these companies which won the bid that are covered by a national security exemption for masks. I could understand it for vaccines, where there are sensitive scientific processes that go into it, but for plastic face shields? Why are we hiding behind national security exemptions for things like face shields or a simple face mask?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to respond to the question from the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

The government has focused on the health and safety of Canadians since the very beginning of this pandemic. This has been our most pressing issue, and I am sure all members would agree that this is a national priority.

Public Services and Procurement Canada is responsible for purchasing the PPE and supplies that will enable us to meet our needs now and in the future as the pandemic runs its course. To do that, we have set up new supply chains with domestic and foreign manufacturers in a highly competitive global market.

Along with acquiring billions of units of PPE, including masks, N95 respirators, face shields, hand sanitizer, protective gowns and gloves, we are also negotiating with international manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies to have tests, treatments and vaccines made widely available across Canada. I note that about 80% of the total value of contracts for personal protective equipment, medical equipment and supplies have been with Canadian companies that supply and distribute PPE.

In addition, we have engaged a large number of manufacturers from across the country. This has allowed us to increase our capacity to produce many of these essential products right here in Canada. In fact, approximately 40% of the total value of contracts is going to Canadian manufacturing companies, many of which were identified through call-outs issued by PSPC and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada.

Companies such as Fluid Energy Group in Calgary, the GM plant in Oshawa and Medicom in Pointe-Claire, Quebec, are to be congratulated on their creativity and their desire to help the whole country fight COVID-19. These businesses have helped stimulate the economy by creating good jobs in their regions when good jobs were sorely needed.

To get this essential equipment into the hands of those who need it the most, PSPC has also launched a supply hub to bring together buyers and sellers of PPE and other supplies in the Canadian market. The supply hub website has been viewed more than 133,000 times by individuals from across Canada. All of this work has put Canada in a much stronger and more stable position in terms of supplies.

Even so, our work is far from done. This pandemic will not go away until we have a safe and effective vaccine. Our government has therefore adopted a dynamic approach to obtaining the most promising vaccine candidates and distributing them to Canadians as quickly as possible once they are approved.

PSPC has been taking recommendations from the government's COVID-19 vaccine task force, and we have already established agreements with seven manufacturers, including Moderna and Pfizer, to secure up to 414 million doses of their vaccine candidates. Moreover, we have made agreements with companies such as Becton, Dickinson and Company and Abbott for rapid antigen tests to supplement the existing testing regime. To date, more than four million of Abbott's Panbio and ID NOW rapid tests have already been delivered to provinces and territories, and deliveries are continuing on a weekly basis.

Our government believes that, given the surge in COVID-19 cases in many regions in the country, it is more important than ever to pursue its efforts to acquire essential supplies. I can assure the House that we will continue to make a concerted effort to advance this complex work.

The government's top priority remains the health and safety of all Canadians, and we will continue to pursue the equipment and supplies that we need for fighting COVID-19 to help us build a stronger and more resilient Canada for everyone.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I was happy to hear the member opposite bring up the N95 mask, because some of the farmers in my riding are talking to me about the fact that they cannot get their preferred N95 mask with a filter built into it for when they clean out their grain bins. We are now starting to see issues with the regular supply of PPE that people outside of the medical industry use for their day-to-day lives and their livelihoods. They are having issues getting it. I talked to some of the suppliers to find out if it is just a localized issue. This issue has been stretched out for months now and has not been addressed yet.

I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary can talk about regular PPE, which people rely on for their day-to-day lives, for their livelihoods and in their places of work. What is the government doing to ensure that this PPE is still being manufactured as well so that we are not creating issues in other areas of people's lives?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I assure the House that our government is continuing to work during this exceptional period to ensure that Canadians remain healthy and safe.

We are procuring supplies for our front-line health care workers and essential businesses, including from numerous Canadian manufacturers. We are also putting in place new agreements to secure access to the most effective and efficient testing solutions.

We are thinking of the future. We made agreements to have access to the most promising vaccine candidates currently being developed in the world in order to be able to turn the page on COVID-19.

The government will continue to make it a priority to meet the challenges of this pandemic and to ensure Canadians are supported and safe.

Infrastructure

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, through you, I would like to recommend something to the parliamentary secretary.

It is the holiday season and time to shop for presents. This year, I would like to recommend a Christmas gift for him. It is a fascinating book written by a historian and available in any good book shop, especially in the Quebec City area. It is called Curieuses histoires du pont de Québec.

It begins with the opening of the Quebec Bridge in 1917. The roadway is added in 1929. In 1952, the Quebec Bridge is widened to three lanes. The book also mentions the construction of the Pierre Laporte bridge in 1970.

Perhaps my colleague will add a last chapter to this book about the painting of the Quebec Bridge. The Liberals promised and swore up and down in 2015 that it would be painted. Since then, we have described the situation in many ways: the paintbrushes are getting stiff, the paint is still in the can, taking action is a must to deal with the rust. We are running out of ways to spur the government to action.

The government is good at talking and making promises. It hired a very competent negotiator, Yvon Charest, on the Quebec Bridge purchase file. This negotiator's report was not made public, but we have learned from information leaked to the media that Mr. Charest is of the opinion that it is high time the federal government took ownership of the Quebec Bridge and implemented a maintenance plan.

Unfortunately, at this time, I do not have access to that report or any information on the implementation of the recommendations it contains. We are still waiting for the government to take real action, as it promised to do five years ago. We know that this was not the first time that the Liberals made promises they did not keep, but we would certainly like to be able to believe in Santa Claus during this holiday season.

To come back to the government's infrastructure program, the government invested huge sums of money in that program—specifically $187 billion, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Yves Giroux. However, Mr. Giroux also indicated that the government does not have a plan and that there have been delays.

We know we are in the middle of a pandemic, but in October, the government announced $10 billion in infrastructure projects. We were excited about that because we have needs. For the first time in five years, the government finally announced some funding, but we did not know where the money would be spent. Unfortunately, once again the money will be transferred to the Canada Infrastructure Bank even though the bank has not financed a single project to date and has produced no concrete results.

Time flies when one has only four minutes to cover everything, so I will wrap up by saying that there are digital, drinking water and roadway infrastructure needs. It is high time the Liberals took action because the bridge is rusting.

We are asking the government to do something about the Quebec Bridge because the need is great. The bridge is an important piece of infrastructure for the Quebec City region. It is a heritage gem that has earned recognition internationally and from Canadian authorities.

My question is simple: When will the government stop making exciting announcements and actually start investing in the Quebec Bridge in particular and infrastructure in general?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis for his speech. His riding is in the greater Quebec City area.

He talked about broken promises when it comes to infrastructure. With all due respect to him, when I hear him speak, I cannot help but remember that famous photograph of him and his colleagues, all proudly wearing Nordiques jerseys and giving a thumbs up. At the time, the Conservatives promised that the Harper government would make investments in building the Vidéotron Centre. Hon. members will recall, as the people of Quebec City certainly do, that the Conservatives did not invest a single dollar, a single penny, in building the Vidéotron Centre. They had made the promise with all the theatrics that they are known for. In fact, that is what they are doing again this evening, saying things like “taking action is a must to deal with this rust”.

I have no doubt about their ability to put on a dog and pony show and their capacity for theatrics. That said, I want to reassure my colleague from Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis that in the Quebec Bridge story, the chapter on finding a lasting solution to repairing and restoring the bridge remains to be written. For a decade, the Conservatives failed to take any action and failed to find this lasting solution. That very member was around the cabinet table at the time.

We will deliver on this. We have given ourselves the means to succeed, beginning with the appointment of Yvon Charest as negotiator, for example. He has submitted his report. It is important to remember that the bridge is over 100 years old. It is an engineering marvel that allows 33,000 vehicles a day to move from one shore to the other, from the north shore to the south shore and from the south shore to the north shore of Quebec City. It is much more than a simple road link. It is a jewel of our heritage, part of the pride of Quebec City and Canada, pride that should shine all around the world.

That is why, where the Conservatives failed for 10 years, where they failed to take action for 10 years, and while they left the bridge to rust for 10 years, we have given ourselves the means to succeed by taking the politics out of this matter and brining in an extremely competent individual, Yvon Charest. His mandate was to negotiate with CN and to determine, with CN and with Quebec City, the best lasting solution for the Quebec Bridge. This included everything from transferring ownership with adequate compensation to legislation, and that is what Mr. Charest did. Infrastructure Canada is currently examining his report.

I can assure the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis that we will find a solution for the restoration and enhancement of the Quebec Bridge. We will succeed where the Conservatives failed for 10 years. One end of the bridge is in my riding. I can almost see it from my house. Of course, I would have preferred to see this matter resolved a long time ago.

We want to get this right. This matter has been mishandled too often in the past, and there is no way we are going to let it be mishandled again. We want a long-term solution that will highlight the priceless value of this heritage jewel. It is an engineering marvel, not to mention a crucial economic and transportation link for the Quebec City region.

I can also assure the member that our government will take action for the long term. Until then, the owner, Canadian National, and Quebec's ministry of transportation, the MTQ, will ensure the safety and stability of the bridge. As for enhancement, that is what we promised in 2015, and we will keep that promise.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Quebec City's other shore for his comments.

I can tell him that the Vidéotron Centre was built and is operational, whereas the Quebec Bridge has been rusting this whole time. I invite him to attend a show. I would be pleased to invite him and to share one of the two Vidéotron Centre seats I have purchased.

The day after the 2015 election, that very member said that it would be better to allocate our resources to a third link rather than to the Quebec Bridge. I have the impression that it will happen one day or another. At that time, the third link and not the Quebec Bridge was important.

In the last election, the Prime Minister himself said that he would not comment on a project that did not exist. Essentially, if I understand correctly, the member says a lot of things. He said some things this evening, he said some things in 2016, and his leader said some things before the election. We simply want the Liberals to get moving on some serious issues by maintaining this infrastructure that is essential for the community of the greater Quebec City area. They must take action.

Mr. Charest's report has been tabled. Will there be any news before Christmas?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will humbly tell my colleague that this statement from 2015 or 2016 was a mistake that I regret. Mea culpa.

My colleague should know that for the government and for me in particular, addressing the Quebec Bridge issue is very important. In 2015, when Stephen Harper went to Quebec City and jokingly feigned surprise that the Quebec Bridge was still standing, his colleague, the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, smiled and clapped at Mr. Harper's mockery of this infrastructure.

We would never do that. We have done everything necessary to succeed in addressing this matter. We want to make sure that during future election campaigns, no one will be wondering about the future of the Quebec Bridge, because we will have addressed it once and for all.