Debates of April 26th, 2021

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member started his speech by talking about the government's desire to take on debt right now because of low interest rates. That is not entirely true. The reason why governments are okay with taking on and having deficits is because as long as they are growing their economy at a pace that outpaces that debt, it is realistic to take it on.

Members do not need to take my word for it. They can ask Brian Mulroney or Stephen Harper. Out of the 16 years that they were in government, they ran deficits 14 of the 16 years. In fact, the Conservatives' own plan says that it will take them 10 years to get back to balanced budgets. This is the current Conservative leader saying that he will run deficits for 10 years.

On spending, the member is absolutely correct. It is all happening right now because it is to help Canadians get through this. Therefore, on the other end of this, as soon as it is over, the deficits are going to drop considerably. Why do the Conservatives need 10 years to bring it back to a balanced budget then?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where to start with that. Has the member even looked at the chart that shows the deficit projections? The government will never balance a budget. There is no plan anywhere to come even close to it. The Liberals' plan, which is contained in this budget, hopes that they might get below 50% debt-to-GDP by the end of its projections. That is if nothing goes wrong between now and 2026.

That is a government that has broken through every fiscal anchor it came up with, right from the promise it made in 2015. The debt-to-GDP ratio was rising even before COVID. There is no credibility from the government on any fiscal anchor or any attempt to have a long-term plan.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for focusing on government priorities and spending. What does he think about wasting $18 billion on the Trans Mountain expansion project and another $18 billion in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry when we are in a climate crisis and we know that we need to transition? Does he think that money would be better spent on that transition to a clean energy economy?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Government of Canada had to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline to get it built is a spectacular failure of policy on the part of the federal government. The federal government chased the private project builder, which was going to build the pipeline with private money, out of the country. I agree that this is a failure of the federal government. That pipeline should have been built privately and be up and running, getting our products to market, generating revenue that we could then use to fund programs that are important to Canadians.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Calgary Rocky Ridge for his very accurate speech of this complete failure on the part of the government in so many different areas with respect to the budget. One area that our province of Alberta has been hit particularly by is the government's anti-energy policies over the last six years.

In the budget, there was almost no mention of the oil and gas sector. Could my friend speak to that?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is incredibly disappointing that in 730 pages of the budget the Liberals could not discuss an industry that contributes so much to the Confederation. It is as if the government thinks that the primary industries and export industries that fund services in Canada are not important enough for substantial mention in a 730-page budget document. It is very disappointing to my constituents, so many of whom have struggled with unemployment since the Liberal government came to office in 2015.

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business has complained that I complain too much about how the government spends like there is no tomorrow. I am here again to do just that. After all, having seen the recent budget, how could I not. Let me point out a few points beforehand.

Budget 2021 proposes overspending by $143 billion, enough to sign up every Canadian for nearly $4,000 in extra debt, an equal albeit an unwanted opportunity for each man, woman, child and senior. A deficit of $143 billion for one year is already an unfathomably large number. To put that into perspective, 143 billion years ago, not even time existed. Cosmologists say that our universe and the time that goes with it only came into being about 14 billion years ago.

Let us pull ourselves back from fantasy and to reality, a reality where the Liberal government says to the average Canadian that the government knows best how to spend Canadians' money. A whole-of-government approach from cradle to grave might be a valid and perhaps worthy discussion in this chamber when our nation is drowning in budgetary surpluses.

However, when we are looking at the immediate future, figuring out how to get the millions of struggling Canadians back on their feet, it is clearly not the time for introducing utopian, socialistic, imagineered and unproven projects. We owe that to our future generations when we are deciding to subject them to the evermore massive debt burdens to not surrender to our reckless binge spending desires on their credit card.

Instead of this reasonable and responsible approach, we see an effort to blindly push forward policy to grow the state and the state's control over our lives. To paraphrase Khrushchev, we will be fed small doses of socialism until we finally wake up and find we already have communism. I, for one, will fight to keep that from happening, and as a parent, I would say parents know better than politicians what is best for their families. Canadian families do not need an Ottawa-knows-best, one-size-fits-all child care system. For those who support this idea and do not share my concerns, be prepared to be let down.

For decades, Liberal governments have been promising a government regulated child care system but have not delivered. This promise will be no different than the promises to introduce electoral reform or holding off Canada's carbon emission, having the budget balance itself or planting two billion trees. I bet that if money did grow on trees, we might finally see the government start planting those trees. It is no wonder the Liberals have not updated the “promises kept” page on their website since 2016.

What do they have to show besides making people feel let down? With budget 2021, unemployed Canadians hoping to see an atmosphere for new job creation and economic opportunities for their families are going to feel let down. Workers who have had their wages cut and hours slashed, workers in industries like forestry, tourism and hospitality or work within the B.C. fisheries industry who have lost jobs and were hoping to see a plan to reopen the economy are going to feel let down. Families that cannot afford more taxes, that are struggling to save more money for their children’s education or to buy a home are going to feel let down.

Additionally, they will suffer from the inflationary effect of pumping hundreds of billions into the economy. Costs will go up, interest rates will go up and we will see the social spending dry up. When that happens, feeling let down may be overshadowed by more imminent threats such as staying afloat.

Budget 2021 is not stimulus spending focused on creating jobs but spending on Liberal partisan priorities. What has been proposed is a reimagined Canadian economy that dabbles in risky economic ideas, like abandoning Canada’s world-renowned and sustainable natural resource industries, leaving our economy in a precarious position.

We must approach COVID emergency spending with a lens of compassion, recognizing that what we do now will have lasting effects on the lives of countless Canadians. Acting responsibly now will save them from suffering later in the medium and longer term. Unfortunately, this budget does nothing to secure long-term prosperity for Canadians, and when I say “unfortunately”, I mean it.

Conservatives do not want to see Canadians let down. Yes, we critique the government for spending too much and we critique it for spending not enough, but this is obviously not a contradiction. Surely even the Liberal members can see how the government is spending too much on its pet projects and not enough on what matters to ordinary Canadians.

Conservatives represent the real people this government has lost touch with. We give voice to their concerns and align with their priorities, which I emphasize include putting food on the table and keeping resources like gas and electricity affordable so that people can continue to drop off and pick up their kids from soccer or hockey games once the pandemic is over. We need to focus on keeping families safe and keeping Canadians gainfully employed.

My home province of British Columbia is in the middle of an opioid epidemic, which occupies merely half a page among the 725 pages of the Liberal budget. It does not do much to enhance opioid addiction treatments. The Liberals have failed to deliver a comprehensive, recovery-oriented plan to tackle Canada's addiction crisis. This is an area of life and death where help is needed. This is a priority.

Conservatives had been advocating for mental health supports long before this budget was introduced. Many Canadians are facing mental health challenges as a direct result of the pandemic. Many wonder why budget 2021 has not provided much-needed support for provinces to tackle mental health issues or other direct COVID-19 consequences. These are two areas that could be greatly expanded. Canada would benefit from seeing comprehensive approaches taken to these issues and seeing them treated as priorities now and going forward.

Like the George Massey tunnel replacement project in Richmond, Canada's infrastructure is in desperate need of reinvigoration, but new spending on ideological Liberal vanity projects does nothing for it or for projects like the SkyTrain extension or further diking in low-lying, populated urban areas such as Richmond. These are real, on-the-ground priorities. B.C. is a priority.

I believe that Canadians can be confident that the Conservatives know what their priorities are. With a Conservative recovery plan, we will secure their future by recovering millions of jobs and introducing policies that result in better wages and help struggling small businesses get back on their feet. We must show progress in safely reopening the Pacific cruise routes, classical tourism and associated industries, which employ, by the way, tens of thousands of B.C. residents directly or indirectly.

Canada's Conservatives kept Canada from being dragged into the pits of despair and brought us out of the last recession. Canadians who are worried about their future know that we will do it again.

Let us stay down on earth with our budgets, away from grandiose and intangible, undeliverable promises. If the government keeps spending as it is, there will be no bright tomorrow for our future generations. Canadians deserve a government that brings hope and confidence in the future. I intend to work with my Conservative colleagues to deliver them such a government.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech and his very passionate comments.

I am interested to know what the member thinks about the recent report on the 2021 best countries, where Canada has taken first place. Canada jumped two spots over the last year and it beat out 78 other countries for first place, including Japan, Germany, Switzerland and Australia. I would like to think that our government, since 2015, has been a major component of how happy Canadians are.

Could the member comment on how he voted on the CERB? Did he support the CERB? We are trying to take on the debt and not put it on the average small business owner and household. Did the member support the CERB?

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Vimy for asking me this repeated Liberal question.

To start, if we are to amortize Canada's younger generation's future we could always spend more. If money can solve all the problems and we can engage in reckless spending as the Liberals have been doing, then we can actually raise our ranking here today, in this moment, but our future generations are going to be in a dire situation.

For the member to ask me questions respecting the CERB and CEWS, in my speech I am trying to address that there is a priority. Just as an idea, the Liberals could for example push out CEWS first and freeze the jobs that are in trouble and therefore have fewer Canadians on CERB, so when the businesses are returning, they would—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We will need to leave that there and get on with some additional questions.

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Steveston—Richmond East. I have the good fortune of serving with him on the Subcommittee on International Human Rights. It is a pleasure to work with him.

I noticed that he talked about an election budget in his speech. I could not agree with him more. The Liberals are about as subtle as a fire truck. They plan to send a $500 cheque to seniors aged 75 and over in August, just before the election they hope to hold in the fall.

That is a problem because only seniors aged 75 and older will get a cheque, while seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 will not get anything. I am getting calls at my office from people who are angry, but oddly enough those calls are not only from seniors between the ages of 65 and 74. Seniors aged 75 and over are calling because they are angry that their cousins or brothers or sisters are not getting anything even though they are also seniors.

I want to know what my colleague thinks about the Liberals' approach, which creates two classes of seniors and second-class citizens.

[Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I too enjoyed participating in the Subcommittee on International Human Rights with my fellow member.

I am speechless. I do not know how to answer a question that the Liberals have put in place. However, drawing from my experience, knowing that the Liberal Party enjoys playing class struggles in politics, perhaps the Liberals' research finds that they have more potential to get votes from people aged 75 and above. I do not know. Perhaps the member would want to consult the Liberal side.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to have the last word.

I want to take these last few minutes to talk about veterans in this budget. There are over 15,000 veterans waiting for their disability claims to be processed. Last year we know that the Parliamentary Budget Officer did an in-depth review of this wait time, and I want to be clear: it is up to two years for some of our veterans.

The feedback was very simple. The just-over 300 people who VAC has hired temporarily need to be put in place permanently. To address this backlog, even more need to be hired very rapidly. We are already behind. With the government opposing the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report, I am not sure when these veterans are actually going to see the resources they rightly deserve delivered to them. The budget does list $29 million for VAC to hire permanent case workers, but this is a reannouncement of money set aside in budget 2018.

Now we have the budget offering veterans yet another program to fill in the gap. The veterans I hear from are very clear. They are tired of new programs. What they want is simple: one case worker who stays with them. They want to call that one person who knows their file and understands their situation, their family and the situation they are in, so they do not have to keep repeating themselves, starting over from the beginning.

This budget would provide $140 million for this program to fill in the gap, but I have a lot of questions. Will this new program simply be available to everyone who is stuck on the backlog of the disability claim? If it can do that, why can they not just approve the original claim and make the actual resources available, instead of another patchwork program? Are we just going to see another program that has to be applied for and takes a really long time to process, putting people on another list, waiting?

Another important gap in the budget is that there is absolutely nothing to deal with the “marriage after 60” clause. The gold-digger clause was created in the early 1900s to prevent women from marrying older veterans and getting their pensions when they died. The reality is that this has always been unfair and very sexist. Many veterans live well into their 80s or more, and their loving partners care for them. I think most Canadians support love when it happens, and we should respect that. We now know that some veterans are living in poverty because they married after 60 and are giving up part of their current pension to put aside for the future. Why are we punishing veterans for getting married at any age?

I want to remind everyone in the House that the RCMP is included in this. Recently I spoke with the RCMP's veterans association and heard loud and clear that this issue is urgent and needs to be dealt with now, so I hope this gets on the Order Paper for the minister very quickly, and I want to thank members for allowing me these very few minutes to talk about how underserved our veterans are, and how the government needs to do so much better.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It being 6:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of Ways and Means Motion No. 2.

The question is on the motion.

Now, in the usual way, if a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request either a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise in their place now and indicate so to the Chair.

I see the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not see anyone else jumping up to do it, so I will.

I would request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Accordingly, call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #96

The Budget

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

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

International Development

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, ensuring that vaccines are available for all vulnerable people around the world is one of the greatest challenges facing humanity today. I do not want to be an alarmist or want this to be seen as a partisan attack. Rather, I am speaking from my heart in the most urgent way I can to say that we, as human beings, are facing an existential, ethical, moral and intellectual threat. I am deeply afraid that the Liberal government is making the wrong choice to protect Canadians and the world.

As we all know, we are in the midst of the third wave of the COVID-19 global health pandemic. COVID-19 has killed close to three million people so far worldwide. Countries have had their economies crippled and their health care systems demolished. Of course, we have spent countless hours in the House debating the impacts on our economy and the measures we need to take to address those impacts.

What we have not addressed, and what the government refuses to address, is Canada's critical role in combatting COVID-19 around the world. This is a global pandemic that will require a global solution. It will require that wealthy countries do what they can to protect the health and well-being of citizens and the economy. Perhaps more importantly, it will require that wealthy countries such as Canada recognize this and work to help citizens in every country to ensure we can all recover from COVID-19. That is simply not happening in Canada with the current government.

Instead, we know the government is refusing to support a proposal to the World Trade Organization that would waive certain intellectual property rights and allow low-income countries to manufacture their own vaccines and medicines to combat COVID-19. While millions suffer and die, variants develop and the global economy crashes, the government delays and deflects. It has been over six months since the intellectual property waiver proposal was first made to the World Trade Organization by NDN South Africa. Over those six months, the government has delayed providing a concrete response, instead asking questions for which it already has the answers and tiptoeing around its refusal to support the measures.

We do not have the luxury of time. While the government is delaying and taking the side of big pharma, ensuring record multibillion-dollar profits for these companies, the virus is evolving. It does not care whether one lives in a low-income or high-income country. It does not care about big pharma's profits. It will continue to spread around the world and continue to evolve as long as we fail to recognize that this is a global crisis that requires a global response.

This is the proverbial tip of the iceberg. We are in a global race between vaccines and variants right now, and the variants are winning. The intellectual property waiver is not just about giving poor countries the tools they need to combat COVID-19 for their own citizens. It is also about protecting Canadians. Our health, well-being and economy depend on defeating COVID-19.

Canadians are not asking the government to protect big pharma. Canadians are asking the government to protect them. When will the government sign on in support of the intellectual property waiver at the WTO?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague opposite from Edmonton Strathcona for this opportunity to deliver my first remarks as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development.

The Government of Canada is committed to a comprehensive global response to COVID-19 that leverages the entire multilateral system in supporting the research, development, manufacture and distribution of safe and effective COVID-19 diagnostics, equipment, therapeutics and vaccines.

With respect to the proposed COVID-19-related waiver from certain provisions of the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, TRIPS, Canada has not rejected the proposed waiver and is working with an range of WTO members to seek to understand the specific nature and scope of any concrete intellectual property, challenges experienced by WTO members related to or arriving from the TRIPS agreement such that concrete and census-based solutions can be found.

Canada also continues to engage WTO members on the use of existing public health flexibilities under the TRIPS agreement and as affirmed by the Doha declaration on the TRIPS agreement and public health and continues to share its own experiences in this area.

As the Doha declaration emphasizes, the TRIPS agreement is part of the wider national and international effort to address public health problems. In addition to ongoing discussions on the waiver, Canada is actively engaged in the work of the WTO Ottawa Group on the trade and health initiative, which aims to strengthen global supply chains and support the delivery of essential medicines and medical supplies around the world.

Canada is highly supportive of the access to COVID-19 tools accelerator and its vaccine's pillar, the COVAX facility. In parallel to the ongoing TRIPS waiver discussions, Canada has also encouraged the WTO director-general's efforts to enhance the WTO's role in dialogue with the pharmaceutical sector toward accelerating the production and distribution of affordable, safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines and other medical products in coordination with the World Health Organization and other relevant organizations.

The Government of Canada remains actively committed to a robust, multi-faceted and global effort to address the pandemic that draws upon all the necessary resources and tools available in the international rules-based trading framework as well as new mechanisms for global co-operation on the procurement of COVID-19 vaccines and other medicinal products.

As equitable, timely and affordable access to testing treatments and vaccines will be critical for controlling and ending this pandemic, Canada looks forward to continued engagement with all members of the international community to find solutions to these global challenges.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member says that the Liberals have not rejected the TRIPS waiver, but by delaying, by deflecting, by asking for more information that they already have, they are failing to support us. They are failing all of the people who are looking for the COVID vaccine.

Now, when the world needs Canada to step up and support global efforts, the government is failing. I am beyond frustrated. I am beyond exasperated by them. I am tired of these excuses. Over 280 European parliamentarians support the waiver. Even members of his own party, their own members of Parliament, have called upon them to support the waiver.

There are no more questions left unanswered. The government needs to do what is right. It needs to support Canadians. It needs to support our lives, our economy. It needs to stop supporting big pharma at the risk of so many people being able to get the COVID vaccine.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has long supported the ability of WTO members to use existing flexibilities under the TRIPS agreement to respond to public health emergencies and stands ready to find solutions to any concrete challenges in WTO members' responses to COVID-19-related to or arising from the TRIPS agreement and which cannot be addressed through existing TRIPS flexibilities.

Meanwhile, Canada continues to work closely with international partners like COVAX and plays a leadership role in the ongoing effort toward ensuring the timely, equitable distribution of vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics to middle and low-income countries.

National Defence

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak this evening on behalf of women and men who have been victimized by sexual misconduct in the military. Each case of sexual misconduct is significant, and addressing this issue and the systemic causes behind it must be a top priority for the government.

Our women and men in uniform, as well as our veterans, entered into our military with the highest ideals of service. They understood that they were going to be asked to serve in the most difficult of situations and perhaps give up their lives. What they did not expect or deserve was conflict and assaults from within our own ranks. They deserve a fair hearing and meaningful action in response to their trauma, not half measures, lip service and shameful attempts to sweep allegations under the rug.

On March 12, I posed a question to the Minister of National Defence. I framed my question around the March 11 edition of The Fifth Estate. In the segment “Broken honour”, Sergeant Jessica Miller revealed her experiences of sexual abuse by a superior while at sea. Under the guise of Operation Honour, Jessica hoped for justice. However, it was revealed that Jessica's abuser received a mere code of conduct discipline violation, no criminal charges and a move to a posting of his choice.

Jessica Miller is only one of the victims who have come forward in an effort to expose systemic issues of sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces ranks. What is more, the lax consequences applied to Miller's perpetrator are just one example of the lack of seriousness with which they are being addressed.

We have recently come to learn that this pattern of impunity can be found all the way to the top. For three years, the Minister of National Defence knew about the sexual misconduct allegations against General Vance and did nothing to address them. I asked for a justification from the minister, but the response I received was troubling.

How can the government claim that it has “no tolerance for misconduct”? Clearly that is not the case when a perpetrator received no criminal charges and was given an alternative posting of his own choice. Where is the accountability in that?

I heard words from the member who responded that rang with excuses and indifference, like “institutional culture is complex and change takes time”. It does not have to be that way.

My colleague, the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, recently wrote about military sexual misconduct in the context of a similar situation in the U.S. Tailhook, of course, involved up to 83 women and men sexually assaulted by U.S. Navy and Marine Corps officers at an event over the course of a weekend. The U.S. military response was swift and decisive. Top brass were fired and a policy of zero tolerance was established. As my colleague wrote on the fallout from Tailhook, “There was to be no doubt that the U.S. military would be a place where women could serve equally and with pride.” My colleague wrote that this is Canada's Tailhook moment, and I wholeheartedly agree with her.

We need a wholesale change of perspective and culture within our military, and we need it now. Sexual assault and harassment go largely unreported because of fears that complaints will not be taken seriously or that victims will face repercussions. As I mentioned earlier, Jessica Miller is just one example of a service member who has voluntarily come forward, but she is an exception. As it stands, women and men are not comfortable with coming forward. It is saddening to realize that there are far more victims sitting in silence.

At the outset of Operation Honour, General Vance stated, “Any form of harmful sexual behaviour has been and always will be absolutely contrary to good order and discipline.... It is a threat to operational readiness and a threat to this institution.” Clearly Operation Honour is a misnomer when our top soldier is not a part of the solution but a part of the problem.

I hope and pray that continued exposure to this systemic issue will encourage more victims to break their silence and that this critical mass will persuade the minister to undertake wholesale reform and fire those who need to be fired.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville for bringing such an incredibly important issue to the floor of the House.

Let me start by stating our position in the clearest possible terms. Our government does not, and will not, accept any form of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence from anyone, regardless of rank or position.

We are committed to ensuring that survivors and affected persons have access to a range of supports, and are treated fairly and compassionately. We must take care of our people, providing them with a workplace free from harassment and discrimination. It is written into our defence policy. It is written into the minister's mandate letters, and it is my personal belief system.

Everything that we do must be informed by those with lived experiences. Sexual misconduct is harmful beyond measure. Our government has worked hard, first by responding to Justice Deschamps' report. We put measures in place focused on understanding the issue, preventing harm from occurring in the first place, addressing incidents when they happen, and providing support to survivors and those impacted.

We created the Sexual Misconduct Response Centre, completely independent from the chain of command. We launched new mandatory training and education. We partnered with Statistics Canada to conduct surveys so we could better understand the scope of the problem. We reviewed 179 old cases that had been categorized as unfounded. We created new specialized teams within our military police and our prosecution service to address sexual misconduct. We sought out expert external advice, and we implemented new programs and policies. Last year we released a preliminary cultural change strategy. All of this work was essential and foundational.

However, we have heard recent survivors, coming forward so bravely, with very traumatic and difficult stories. This is something that is heartbreaking. Those who have come forward, and those I have personally heard, have stories that have shaken me deeply. I will remember and carry them with me forever. It has to stop.

It is clear that Operation Honour has not produced the solutions we had hoped it would. It is extremely clear that we have a lot more work to do. We will learn from what has not worked and develop a deliberate plan to go forward. It must be an evergreen process, and it is urgent.

We need to make it easy and accessible for anyone, at any level and any gender, to report an incident. They need to have confidence in those reporting mechanisms. That is why we will be developing an independent reporting structure to look into all allegations. We must ensure that this kind of abuse of power, and that is what it is, an abuse of power, ends and never happens again.

As the minister and Prime Minister have stated, all options are on the table. We are listening. Eliminating all forms of misconduct, abuse of power and violence, and creating a safe work environment for everyone in the defence team has always been our top priority. We know that any organization, including the Canadian Armed Forces, must work hard to eliminate the toxic masculinity that creates an unacceptable culture.

All avenues to a safer future for the women and men serving in the Canadian Armed Forces are going to be considered in order to change that culture. We owe it to our members and to Canadians to get this right.