House of Commons Hansard #89 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was workers.

Topics

Standing Orders of the HousePrivate Members' Business

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston.

Standing Orders of the HousePrivate Members' Business

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Madam Speaker, I want to start by offering congratulations to my colleague, my hon. friend the deputy House leader, for putting forward Motion No. 38. She occupies the post of deputy House leader, which I occupied for the nine-year period between 2006 and 2015. Today, I will be drawing a little upon that experience in my comments.

My hon. colleague's long history of scientific research is well documented. As evidence of the timeliness of her concern, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that it was nearly 20 years ago that she published her book, Hunting the 1918 Flu, warning that we might need to prepare for the next time a similarly deadly virus stalked the globe. That turned out to be a very prescient book indeed.

Motion No. 38 would amend the Standing Orders to create a new House standing committee on science and research, which would take effect permanently at the beginning of the 44th Parliament. Specifically, Motion No. 38 would amend Standing Order 104(2), which lists the standing committees, or permanent committees, of the House. It would add a 25th committee to the list of 24 committees already therein.

In principle, I support the creation of such a committee, and the real question is why none has ever existed thus far, given the importance of the subject matter. However, my remarks today focus not on the merits of the committee itself, but on the merits of creating this change to the Standing Orders with a simple majority vote in the House of Commons. I want to focus not on the merits of the substance of Motion No. 38, but on the merits of the process being used to change the Standing Orders with the adoption by means of a simple majority vote.

At first glance one might ask how else do we get from here to there if what is needed is a change to the Standing Orders. In a sense, this is true. We cannot have a new committee without changing the Standing Orders, and we cannot change the Standing Orders without having a vote on which majority rules.

The other side of the issue is that there is a higher standard. In addition to the formal rule that Standing Orders are to be changed by means of a simple majority vote, a convention in the process of developing is that these rules should not be changed except by the consent of the House leadership of all the recognized parties. This is not quite the same thing as requiring unanimous consent, but it is in the same neighbourhood.

It may well be true that the proposed changes to the Standing Orders contemplated in Motion No. 38 should be treated as an exception to this convention, but if so, it is necessary for us to carefully distinguish how Motion No. 38 is different in nature from other proposed changes that have required all-party consent, and therefore how Motion No. 38 may be properly distinguished from the practice laid out in the convention.

I am drawing upon the term “distinguished” from the law. A court may find itself dealing with a case that shares many features with some prior case or a set of cases. The precedence established in those prior cases ought, under normal circumstances, to apply to the case then being considered.

However, it may be that the court concludes that there are materially different facts between the present case and the ones that had previously been considered. If so, the court makes it clear that the legal reasoning used in the preceding case does not apply to the present one, and the court forms its new ruling around a different set of reasonings, which appear to the court to be more appropriate to the current circumstances.

I will return to whether or not Motion No. 38 may or may not be properly distinguished from the general run of proposed amendments to the Standing Orders. However, first, I need to explain the reason why so many of us in this place take the need for all-party consent so seriously when Standing Order changes are being contemplated.

A number of changes to the Standing Orders that have in recent years either been contemplated or actually implemented have had the potential to change the power relations between the players in the House. Sometimes the decision has been for the rules to go into effect immediately, with the clear goal of increasing the ability of the government to control the legislative agenda or to strip away the power of the opposition to delay or challenge legislation.

There have been notable occasions on which the current government has been willing to move forward using its majority as a lever to change the Standing Orders without all-party consensus. My party and I have fought against this with all our might, and I am very proud of our record in this regard.

In March 1, 2017, the government proposed sweeping changes to the Standing Orders, which would have had the effect of altering the balance of power in the House. This was done by way of a government motion at the procedure and House affairs committee, to endorse a pre-written discussion paper, implementing a set of changes that would have greatly limited the procedural tools at the disposal of opposition parties.

The government's plan was to use its majority on the Procedure and House Affairs Committee that caused the proposals in the [Technical difficulty—Editor] paper to be endorsed in a party-line vote at that committee and then have the House vote concurrence [Technical difficulty—Editor] in the committee's report. My response, as the lead member of the Conservative Party on the committee, was to propose an amendment to the motion and then, with the capable assistance of some other [Technical difficulty—Editor] MPs, debate the motion in a de facto filibuster [Technical difficulty—Editor]. This remains the longest filibuster in Canadian history and makes the point that there are many here who believe deeply that any change to the Standing Orders that alters the power relations between [Technical difficulty—Editor] parties or, for that matter, any other set of power arrangements within the House of Commons, including those between party leaders and backbenchers, ought to be decided by means of all-party consensus.

In a minority government such as the present one, the use of force majeure is not [Technical difficulty—Editor] in the same way. In the present Parliament, we have seen more widespread use of all-party consensus [Technical difficulty—Editor] than was the case in the past. The mechanism seeking all-party consent has been used for [Technical difficulty—Editor] the numerous temporary adjustments to the Standing Orders adopted in the course of the 43rd Parliament that allow us to meet in a hybrid fashion, to alter the seating plan for reasons of personal safety and to suspend the [Technical difficulty—Editor], among other things. These changes have all been negotiated by the House leaders of the various [Technical difficulty—Editor] behind closed doors.

I do not know how things work in the other parties, but in the case of my party, the House leader [Technical difficulty—Editor] have explained to our caucus at our regular caucus meetings what changes were being contemplated and have tried to ensure [Technical difficulty—Editor] change to the relevant Standing Orders take place without a mandate in the form of an internal party caucus [Technical difficulty—Editor]. This has made the negotiations slower than might have seemed ideal, but the arrangements that we have developed [Technical difficulty—Editor] more inclusive than what existed at the start of the pandemic.

A similar process was [Technical difficulty—Editor] used in the 42nd Parliament to deal with my own proposal to amend the Standing Orders so as to elect the Speaker by preferential [Technical difficulty—Editor]. I mention this in part to make the point that the emerging consensus of all-party consent [Technical difficulty—Editor] that precedes a change of government. A convention is not truly a convention until it has survived a change [Technical difficulty—Editor] and continues to operate now that all players have changed their positions. The committee [Technical difficulty—Editor] my proposed motion, and its report neither endorsed nor rejected the proposal. It was really a way of communicating to the House the committee's view that each party ought to allow its own members a free vote on that proposed change to the Standing Orders. A free vote followed. Some members of each party voted against, some [Technical difficulty—Editor] and the result was a change. The point is that the process itself was the product of a [Technical difficulty—Editor].

The purpose of the foregoing comments has been to clearly articulate the emerging convention regarding the requirement to seek and obtain the consent of all [Technical difficulty—Editor] in the Commons before making changes to the Standing Orders. To allow an apparent exception to this rule [Technical difficulty—Editor] articulating why this particular case is different and why it is permissible to move forward on a simple up-down [Technical difficulty—Editor] would have the effect of weakening that convention by showing a willingness to casually set it aside. What is needed, and what I hope I am providing here, is a clear distinction between motions that [Technical difficulty—Editor] to amend the Standing Orders in ways that affect power relations and those that do not.

I turn to the final presentation. It is my view that Motion No. 38 may be properly distinguished from the kinds of [Technical difficulty—Editor] amendments to the Standing Orders that have given rise to the convention. Motion No. 38 is materially very [Technical difficulty—Editor] from the kinds of proposed amendments to the Standing Orders that have given rise to the convention. It does not change [Technical difficulty—Editor] the House of Commons operates and it does not alter power arrangements among the various players in the House. For example, it does [Technical difficulty—Editor] the number of members at the standing committees, it does not change how members are selected for those committees or how the committees [Technical difficulty—Editor] or how chairs and vice-chairs are elected, including for the new committee.

Additionally, Motion No. 38 [Technical difficulty—Editor] into effect during the life of the current Parliament, which means we cannot be certain which party will be in power and which ones will be in opposition, the placing of a Rawlsian veil of ignorance between ourselves and the answer to [Technical difficulty—Editor]: Who will be in a position to populate this committee, and will the governing party have a majority on the committee or [Technical difficulty—Editor]? The Rawlsian veil of ignorance that exists helps to ensure that this change to the Standing Orders does [Technical difficulty—Editor] predictably shift power in one direction or another.

For this reason, I state confidently that I support Motion No. 38, and also that my commitment remains to the emerging convention of all-party consensus with regard to any changes that would have the potential [Technical difficulty—Editor] power relations between the government—

Standing Orders of the HousePrivate Members' Business

6 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

We are having issues with the connection. It breaks up quite a bit. I am having trouble hearing what the member is saying.

Perhaps the member could go back to saying why he would support the motion.

Standing Orders of the HousePrivate Members' Business

6 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Madam Speaker, I will be very brief.

I support Motion No. 38, and my commitment remains intact to the emerging convention of all-party consensus with regard to any changes that could have the potential to affect power relations between the government party and other parties.

Standing Orders of the HousePrivate Members' Business

6 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Madam Speaker, I have to say that it is with some reluctance that I rise today because I am fortunate enough to do so as vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

I believe that science and research are very important, and I often talk about this in committee. However, my colleague from Etobicoke North moved this motion and I—

Standing Orders of the HousePrivate Members' Business

6 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but could he place his microphone further from his mouth and lower it slightly? It is causing an echo.

The interpreters confirm that it is working better.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

Standing Orders of the HousePrivate Members' Business

6 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Madam Speaker, I was saying that Motion No. 38 moved by my colleague from Etobicoke North was important. I do not entirely agree with her that we missed opportunities to talk about science and research over the past year. Particularly in the context of COVID-19, there were several studies that raised these issues. However, I do see that we are having a hard time scheduling the many topics and witnesses we are interested in.

In that sense, creating a committee devoted to science and research could be very useful. The Bloc Québécois might serve as an example. I am the critic for matters related to the regional economy, industry, entrepreneurship and access to high-speed Internet, but my colleague from Jonquière is responsible for research and science. We share the work and team up quite a bit on all manner of topics, including vaccines, research, Synchronex, college centres for technology transfer, and the Industrial Waste Technology Centre. Our meetings with the academic community also allow us to reflect on how to do research and work as a team.

Regardless of whether this science and research committee is created, science, research and development will always be matters that I will raise at the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, even if the research aspect is removed. I believe that building an industry requires research and development, and that is why it is important to invest in these sectors. I want to point out that I see a definite increase in the industry department's interest in investing in science since the change in ministers. It may be a coincidence, but we can sense that there is greater interest.

Motion No. 38 proposes to split the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology in two effective from the beginning of the next Parliament. A new standing committee on science and research would study all matters relating to science and research, including any reports of the chief science advisor, and a new standing committee on industry and technology would address the rest of the topics studied by the current committee.

At first glance, the Bloc Québécois likes this motion. It is in line with the high priority that the Bloc Québécois attaches to science and research. The member for Jonquière is our critic for that file. The new committee will provide a scientific platform for the chief science advisor and will enable parliamentarians to access the best advice from government scientists. The committee will also protect them from any governments that are anti-science. The motion also lays out, quite broadly, the matters the committee will consider, which will look a bit like the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology's mandate. All those aspects look good.

I would also like to mention our COVID-19 recovery plan, which we tabled in September. The word “research” appears in that document 17 times. It is truly fundamental. When we talk about taking action, we do it through research. It is the same thing for our budget requests. We were very clear: investing in research and development, in Quebec's research centres, particularly those in the regions, and in colleges and universities will help us better support our SMEs. The co-operative work being done in that regard is very important.

Motion No. 38 will provide a platform for our chief science advisor and alleviate the workload of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, but the committee can still count on me to continue to make connections between science and research and industrial development.

However, the Bloc Québécois would like to share a few caveats. A science and research committee must not be used as a pretext for interfering in scientific work, which must be kept at arm's length from the policy process. In many cases, basic research is done in universities, and maintaining the independence of universities is absolutely essential.

Splitting the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology should not create a silo where research and science are isolated from the rest of society. During the committee's study of vaccine manufacturing, we saw that basic research, applied research, pre-market evaluation, meaning clinical trials, and vaccine manufacturing are all links in the same chain. We would not want one committee studying the first steps and another studying the rest without communicating with one another.

A good policy has to cover and support all stages of production, or it is doomed to fail. Perhaps a science and research subcommittee that studies the scientific aspects and then reports to the Committee on Industry, Science and Technology with a broader vision of the applications and consequences would provide insight on that, but that is not what we are talking about right now.

We would be very happy if the member who moved Motion No. 38 is open to such a change. We plan to follow the debate closely, in the hope that the member has heard our concerns and is willing to be flexible and open to these good ideas. I reiterate that we support the idea behind the motion. We will likely support the motion even if it is not amended. I believe it is important.

This was mentioned briefly, but I would like to talk about the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology and its mandate. This committee may be one of the most underestimated House committees. The committee studies topics such as business assistance, industrial policy, regional development, scientific research, domestic trade, competition, the effective operation of the marketplace, telecommunications, the functioning of federally regulated businesses, and tourism. That is a lot, and we realize that. Science can get lost in the fray.

Since the fall, the committee has undertaken studies on several topics: mobile and Internet coverage in the regions, which obviously involves a scientific component; vaccine manufacturing and research; the aerospace industry; foreign investment; the Canada Investment Act, which we discussed briefly in the House of Commons today; regulations that affect businesses; and the acquisition of Shaw by Rogers. Our scrutiny of our institutions is always productive.

However, we have to acknowledge that the list of topics that the committee turned down is even longer. Nearly every economic sector wanted the committee to address their specific circumstances. The committee was only able to study a few aspects, including the economic aspects of the so-called green recovery, which might turn out to be quite the opposite. In fact, that is the topic we are examining right now. Personally, I want the academic community to be present, and I plan to invite academics as witnesses to add the research and science aspect to our economic recovery. Then there is regional development, something the Bloc Québécois is interested in.

Except for the study of vaccine manufacturing capacity, which included scientific research, the industry committee did not really discuss science per se. We need to acknowledge that as well. Research comes up much more frequently than science.

Splitting the committee in two and assigning the topics of science and research to a new committee could help reduce the committee's backlog. It is a good idea at first glance.

However, it is important to support research. In the interest of taking a more scientific approach, I will give some statistics.

In Canada, Quebec alone accounts for 40% of exports with a high research and development component. Conversely, Canada is one of the OECD countries with the lowest research and development intensity, which means that our economy is not very innovative. It would be important for this initiative to improve this state of affairs, though not at the expense of the provinces and Quebec.

The societies that that rely on a green economy and innovation will have sustainable prosperity. We must ramp up scientific research and development. If creating a science and research committee does that, we will come out ahead.

The federal government supports research in different ways: through the research it conducts itself, through the research grants it provides, through the granting agencies, through the work of the National Research Council's research centres, through its industrial policy, and through the support it provides for research and development activities, especially those carried out by businesses. All these activities are important.

As we saw in our work on vaccines, scientific innovation is a chain in which every link is important. It begins with basic research on structure and molecules. I think it is important to mention this. If we split this up, we might lose certain aspects. Applied research allows us to reproduce the vaccines that come out of clinical trials. One witness even talked about research being translational, because it allows us to go from one stage to the next, from discovery to production. This brings us to the final step, namely production based on the scientific research. If a link is missing, the vaccine will not see the light of day. It is therefore important to see the big picture, to support research and innovation at every stage and to approach government programs accordingly.

I will close with a final point on two principles.

We must ensure equity, whether in the aerospace sector, artificial intelligence, information technology or transportation components. Quebec accounts for 40% of Canadian exports, as I mentioned.

Canada is much less innovative because its economy relies on foreign subsidiaries. Federal policy is designed to compensate for Canada's backward thinking rather than support Quebec's advanced thinking, which is taking the world by storm.

There are also 100 NRC research centres, including 50 centres in Ontario compared to nine in Quebec. Quebec is responsible for 40% of technology exports, and yet it has only 9% of federal research centres. It goes without saying that we are concerned. The same is true for super clusters—

Standing Orders of the HousePrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up.

In addition, I would request that he speak a little more slowly the next time. The interpreters are having a hard time keeping up.

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

Standing Orders of the HousePrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

NDP

Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC

Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak to Motion No. 38 today, which has been brought forward by the member for Etobicoke North. It calls for the creation of a new standing committee in the House of Commons, the science and research committee. I know the strong interest and deep concern that the member has for science and research. She is a scientist herself, and I had the pleasure of accompanying her to a G7 meeting on science in Italy when she was Canada's minister of science.

Science is important. Its impacts are pervasive in society, from cellphones to sewage treatments, from vaccines to velcro and from athletics to architecture. It is everywhere. Sometimes I think we forget that it is there, like not seeing the forest for the trees. We forget how much we depend on it for everything. Society in general takes it for granted, and politicians take it for granted too. In recent years, we have been seeing a steady rise in disinformation, especially on social media, about climate, the pandemic and vaccines. There is clearly a place for more support to science so that it can give us the facts on a myriad of subjects.

I am very pleased to see this motion before us today, and I am very pleased to say that I fully support it and the NDP will be supporting it.

Right now, when issues centred on science come to the House of Commons, they are studied in the industry committee, and because of that, the very few studies the committee undertakes that are directly related to science are focused on how science can directly help industry. I would like to emphasize that even though science is such an important topic, we almost never study it directly in any committee here. There is nothing that talks about what the federal government can do to stimulate basic science, nothing that talks about how we can make participation in science more inclusive and nothing that talks about how we could better use science in our policy development. I could go on and on.

For full disclosure, I come from a science background as well. I am a biologist. I worked at the University of B.C. for 17 years or so, and after that I was a consultant for 20 years before ending up here as an MP. I entered politics because I felt that we needed more scientific voices in Parliament. That feeling was especially strong during the last Conservative government, the Harper years. I personally saw my colleagues who worked as scientists in the federal civil service being muzzled and not allowed to speak about their work.

I remember one big webinar in 2012, a global webinar before COVID made that a cool thing, about a report on the state of Canada's birds. This groundbreaking report had been written almost entirely by two brilliant Environment Canada scientists using data gathered from thousands of volunteer citizen scientists. I was working for Bird Studies Canada at the time and helped design, promote and operate those continent-wide data-gathering programs. At the webinar, the two federal scientists were allowed to give a short prevetted overview of the findings on the population trends of hundreds of bird species, and then the government media person opened it up to questions, pointing out that the authors would not be allowed to answer those questions. I had to step in and field media questions even though I had not done the analyses or written the report. It was ridiculous, and there are many more examples of that sort of situation with government scientists not being allowed to explain the findings of their research.

There was also the infamous case of DFO research libraries being closed and their books being thrown into dumpsters. One of my former colleagues, Dr. Jeff Hutchings, a fisheries biologist from Dalhousie University, wrote an important paper on the ecology of the northern cod in 1993. A lot of the information he used came from grey literature survey reports that he found in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans library in St. John's. He found them by looking at every report on the shelf in that part of the library. The Harper government claimed that all those reports were digitized before being thrown out, but it is clear that they were not. Dr. Hutchings tells me that he could not write that report today. That important historical information has been lost and cannot be found in any PDF.

I am happy to say that I think things have improved somewhat and that the present government takes science more seriously than the previous government did. I will point out that the member for Etobicoke North created the chief science advisor position, whose mandate it is to advise cabinet on scientific matters. That is a step in the right direction, but what we really need is a truly independent parliamentary science officer, just as we have a Parliamentary Budget Officer. It would be an office that all parliamentarians, MPs and senators, not just the cabinet, could turn to for unbiased scientific advice, just as we can ask the PBO to assess the financial aspects of various programs or proposals. My former colleague Kennedy Stewart, now the mayor of Vancouver, put that proposal forward in previous Parliaments, but unfortunately it was never taken up.

The federal government puts a lot of money directly into science and research, over $4 billion from what I can determine, so it is incumbent upon us in the House to know how that money is spent, how it could perhaps be better used or how it perhaps should be increased.

In 2017, the Naylor report on fundamental science was tabled by the member for Etobicoke North. I was then the NDP critic for post-secondary education, and I heard very positive reviews from university representatives. The Naylor report made 10 main recommendations to increase and coordinate funding to basic research. Four years later, only one of those recommendations has been fully completed, six are partially addressed or still in progress and three have not been done at all. Therefore, a study on the implementation of the Naylor report would be very illuminating, just the kind of thing a standing committee on science and research could take on.

Another useful study would be one on inclusion in Canada's research sector. I am afraid I am only too typical of the standard Canadian scientist, an older white male. We have been hearing for years how we have to encourage women and girls to enter the sciences. When I taught an ecology course at UBC one or two decades ago, we had a very high proportion of female students, but that was not the situation across the board in other fields of studies such as engineering and physics. That situation has been improving. Many women are entering those fields, but for many years there has also been a systemic bias against women in science and research, and many were frustrated by the lack of success and advancement or in obtaining research grants. Thankfully, even that phenomenon seems to be getting better and the trajectory is definitely toward gender equity.

This past year, we have heard a lot and learned a lot from the Black Lives Matter movement and the more general barriers facing racialized people in our society. I have been very inspired by the stories I have seen in the media and online about young Black scientists and indigenous scientists who talk about the struggles they face in a field where no one looks like them. Their persistence and passion for science is really an example for all of us. Therefore, inclusion in science and research is another critical issue that a standing committee could study.

To have any intelligent debate, indeed to have a functional democracy, we have to agree among ourselves on basic facts, but often those standard baselines are hard to find.

In the natural resources committee in the previous Parliament, we did a study on how we should have an independent, unbiased, timely, comprehensive source of energy data in Canada. Some of that was being done by the National Energy Board at the time, but it was anything but comprehensive, timely or unbiased. I felt we should have a completely independent agency similar to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Even a dedicated part of Statistics Canada would be better than what we have now. However, two or three years later, as far as I know, nothing has been accomplished along those lines. Therefore, a dedicated science committee could look at all aspects of public data availability in Canada.

I will finish with a quote from Timothy Caulfield from the faculty of law at the University of Alberta. In 2017, he said in The Globe and Mail, “We need more science. We need better science. We need trustworthy science. We need agenda-free science.

The House of Commons in particular and Canada in general would benefit greatly from a standing committee focused on science and research, and I will be supporting this motion.

Standing Orders of the HousePrivate Members' Business

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kate Young Liberal London West, ON

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise virtually in the House of Commons today in support of private member's motion, Motion No. 38, brought forward by my great friend and hon. colleague, the MP for Etobicoke North. This motion would create a permanent standing committee on science and research.

I had the pleasure of serving as the parliamentary secretary to science, working alongside the former minister, and I can say that it was the most rewarding time I have had as a member of Parliament.

Growing up in London, Ontario, I was keenly aware of the amazing research that has been done at Western University over the years. Sir Frederick Banting was working at Western 100 years ago when his research for a lecture inspired his idea that provided the key to discovering insulin. Dr. Vladimir Hachinski, the distinguished professor of neurology at Western, transformed the understanding, diagnosis and prevention of the two greatest threats to the brain: stroke and dementia. Dr. Cal Stiller was Canada's major voice in organ transplantation during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. He championed innovation in health and biomedical research and pioneered multi-organ transplantation.

These are just a few of the many laureates that are honoured in Canada's medical hall of fame based in London, and that is not even mentioning some of the stars in the science and research world today, like Ravi Menon, the pioneer in the use of MRI for brain imaging, or the applied research under way at Fanshawe College. Suffice it to say that I think members can understand why I am so passionate about this as a parliamentarian.

Being the parliamentary secretary to this important portfolio made me understand the depth of Canada's scientific and research community. What this experience made me realize is that science and research must be celebrated, promoted and supported, and if we have learned anything from the COVID-19 pandemic, it is that science must be respected and believed for all of us to be safe and healthy.

It was once said that the good thing about science is that it is true whether or not one believes in it. We must bear this in mind as we are challenged to understand the world we live in. We need guidance and we need knowledge, and as parliamentarians, we need to ask questions of scientists and researchers to find solutions to the problems that confront us.

The goal of the minister of science was to unmuzzle scientists, to make them realize that their voices were being heard. I am pleased to say that during my time as PS to science, the government restored respect in the science community and made the largest investment in science research in our country's history. I am not for a second taking any credit for this important step. I was simply at the right place at the right time.

As a government, and under the leadership of our minister of science, we delivered in budget 2018 great news for science with the announcement of the largest increase in new funding for fundamental research through the granting councils in Canadian history with an investment of $925 million over five years. We also put money into the Canada Foundation for Innovation to cover the cost of running research labs and buying equipment for the Canada research chairs program to support the country's top professors, money to support fast-breaking research, and investments to collect data on government-funded researchers and to improve equality and diversity in academia.

It was apparent then and still is today that science and research play an important part in moving Canada forward, but it does not happen overnight. We need governments that have a long-term vision and that recognize that scientists need long-term support to be successful.

We also need to encourage our next generation to choose STEM or STEAM, as it is quite often referred to today. We need to bring young girls and women into the fold and make them believe that their future career choices can be science, technology, engineering and math, and, of course, the arts are important, too.

I was especially pleased when it was announced that we were investing $5.9 million over five years to Let's Talk Science, which is located in my riding of London West. With this funding, Let's Talk Science will educate young people on climate change through hands-on activities, projects, events and digital resources. Let's Talk Science is helping youth learn to take risks and develop the persistence to find innovative solutions to real-world problems.

The world is a better place when our young people are encouraged to be curious and pursue their passion for science. As parliamentarians, we must do the same, so I would like to read what Motion No. 38 is calling on this House to do.

It states:

(i) recognize that science and research are of critical importance to all Canadians, including, but not limited to, improving the health of Canadians, improving the environment, driving innovation and economic growth, and improving the quality of life of Canadians, (ii) recognize that science and research are more important than ever, as the economic, environmental and social challenges we face are greater, (iii) affirm its commitment to science, research and evidence-informed decision-making

How can we not agree with the motion? By agreeing with it, we need to make sure science and research get the attention they deserve by giving parliamentarians a chance to meet with people in the science community and hear what they have to say. I cannot say this more clearly: At no time in our history have science and research been more important. COVID-19 has done what few natural or people-made disasters have ever done. It has literally and figuratively stopped us in our tracks.

I know I am not allowed to use the member's name in the House, so I will refer to her again as the MP for Etobicoke North. Many people are unaware that she was the first scientist to become the minister of science in Canada, and prior to entering politics, she served on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an organization that won the Nobel Prize in 2007. However, it is her work on the influenza pandemic of 1918 that is so interesting, especially in light of COVID-19. She published a book in 2003 about her expedition to uncover the cause of the flu epidemic. The book is entitled Hunting the 1918 Flu: One Scientist's Search for a Killer Virus.

After 100 years of research, we are still learning. We are learning what works to eradicate viruses like COVID and how to stop them before they spread. We cannot let it happen again. As parliamentarians, it is our responsibility to make sure it does not. It is our responsibility to ask the big questions and challenge the assumptions. This standing committee would give us a venue to do just that.

One of the first decisions the member for Etobicoke North made as the minister of science was to reinstate the position of the government chief science advisor. Dr. Mona Nemer has been working with her G7 counterparts to launch a new global partnership to fight pandemics. Dr. Nemer has had the opportunity to appear before a number of committees, but a stand-alone committee dealing solely with science and research could rely on her expertise on a more regular basis. She could be called upon to navigate some of the challenges we face, including the so-called brain drain, early career research, stem cell research and the ongoing issue of women in research who are not taken seriously.

In 2018, the minister of science drew a line in the sand for universities in this country: Hire more women, people with diverse backgrounds, indigenous people and people with disabilities as Canada research chairs or be prepared to face funding cuts. Some considered this heavy-handed, but it was necessary to move the dial.

Canadian science grows stronger as our research community better reflects the diversity of background, experience and perspective of Canadians themselves. If we are to remain competitive, Canada simply must have more diversity in senior academic roles and in those coveted research chairs. This is but one issue that a permanent standing committee on science and research could take a closer look at and delve into, with witnesses who could tell us first-hand about their experiences and push us as a government to make better public policy and make government science fully available to the public.

Every day, we are confronted with problems that need scientists and researchers to help solve. It is time for parliamentarians to take a closer look at this and vote in favour of establishing a permanent standing committee on science and research.

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

Canada Revenue AgencyAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, my constituent, a busker, applied for the Canada recovery benefit. He submitted his annual income tax return for the last two years along with his City of Vancouver street vendor permit as proof of income and employment. CRA did not accept these and wanted to see receipts and bank statements indicating deposits made. It is, in my opinion, unreasonable to expect buskers and street musicians to provide receipts and regular bank deposit for their small amount of cash income.

That was almost six months ago and today, I am happy to report that after this intense advocacy, which included a letter to the minister, questions in question period and countless calls to CRA agents, the government finally accepted my constituent's original proof of income documents, which were his income tax returns and the City of Vancouver street vendor permit, as valid proof of employment and income to qualify for the CRB.

I am sharing this in the House of Commons today so that others can be aware of this important win for my constituent. If people are faced with a similar issue, I urge them to contact their member of Parliament to try to get the matter resolved.

As we are talking about CRA, related to CRA, I have written to the government to request an extension of the income tax filing deadline for older adults age 60-plus who receive their guaranteed income supplement. Last year, the federal government publicly announced that seniors receiving GIS would be able to keep their GIS payments, without interruption, if they filed their taxes by October 1, which helped many seniors. I hope the same measures can be taken again this year to support seniors during this ongoing pandemic where we are well into the third wave with new variants.

Many GIS recipients face multiple barriers, including language, mobility and technology. That made the navigating of the systems very difficult, if not impossible, without assistance. These seniors rely on community tax clinics and community non-profit groups to assist them in filing their income taxes accurately and in a timely manner. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the barriers to tax filing already experienced by low-income seniors. Many seniors serve in community organizations that rely on volunteers who are also seniors, such as the 411 Seniors' Centre Society in my riding.

With the third wave raging on, organizations providing tax filing services for seniors are shutting down their in-person services in accordance to public health guidelines. I have been informed by the organization that it has been serving over 160 seniors per week and has almost 400 more appointments booked for the upcoming weeks. However, due to the need to temporarily shutdown in-person clinics, it will take time for the organization to move its services to remote models.

Even prior to the public health guidelines, both seniors volunteering and clients in need of support have been voicing health and safety concerns over travelling to the clinic in person. Even with services moved to remote and virtual models, there will be many seniors with technology and other barriers who will not be able to access these services in time. Ontario has also announced a four-week, province-wide shutdown and Quebec has announced special lockdowns for select cities and regions, which will no doubt impact community tax clinics in those communities as well.

From that perspective, I am asking the government to extend the tax timeline for seniors and to ensure that their GIS is not interrupted, especially during this very difficult period. I hope the government can provide this support to seniors.

Canada Revenue AgencyAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Vaughan—Woodbridge Ontario

Liberal

Francesco Sorbara LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to hear of the outcome with regard to the issue faced by one of her residents.

With respect to the assessment of eligibility for self-employed Canadians who received the Canada emergency response benefit, during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Canada Revenue Agency deployed seven emergency and economic recovery measures to support Canadians and businesses.

The Government of Canada announced the CERB on March 25, 2020, and in just 12 short days after the announcement, the CRA began distributing CERB payments to the millions of Canadians who were in need of that support.

On April 27, 2020, the CRA also deployed the Canada emergency wage subsidy, otherwise known as CEWS, to eligible businesses as part of the Government of Canada's COVID-19 economic response plan. This emergency measure was designed to help employers who had been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic to keep workers on their payroll or to bring back previously laid off employees.

The CRA has worked very hard to support Canadians, including workers and small or medium-sized businesses, through this very difficult period. It also implemented measures to preserve the integrity of Canada's tax system.

We must remember that from the outset, the CERB was designed to support employed individuals, contract workers and self-employed persons who were not deemed eligible for employment insurance. For instance, millions of Canadians were able to apply for the CERB online through My Account via an automated telephone line or by calling CRA's toll-free number. Moreover, millions of payments were made to Canadians via either direct deposit or cheque, typically within just 10 days of applying for the benefit.

The CERB eligibility criteria clearly stated a person had to either earn at least $5,000 in 2019 or over the past 12 months from self-employment income or provincial benefit payments related to maternity or paternity leave.

In the first two weeks the CERB was announced, information provided on Canada.ca and by the CRA call centre agents on eligible self-employment income was unclear. The situation may have led some self-employed Canadians to apply in good faith despite being ineligible. However, by late April, clearer information regarding CERB eligibility was posted on Canada.ca and provided to CRA's call centre agents. The Government of Canada and the CRA regretted sincerely that communications regarding the eligibility criteria may not have been clear in the first days after the CERB was launched.

I would also like to point out that the Government of Canada and the CRA's support of self-employed workers does not stop there. Just last month, on February 9, the government announced that self-employed individuals whose net self-employed income was less than $5,000 and who applied for the CERB would not be required to repay the CERB as long as their gross self-employment income was at least $5,000 and they met all other eligibility criteria.

That same day, the Government of Canada and the CRA also announced they would provide targeted interest relief to Canadians who received COVID-related income support benefits. Once individuals have filed their 2020 income tax and benefit return, they will not be required to pay interest on any outstanding income tax debt for the 2020 tax year until April 30, 2022.

Canada Revenue AgencyAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, many low-income seniors across Canada depend heavily on their GIS as a core part of their income. Any interruption to this important benefit would cause dire hardships, so I really urge the government to extend the income tax deadline for them.

Of course, seniors are not the only people experiencing problems with CRA. There is another situation being faced by my constituents, whereby they are not able to get a new T4 tax slip from CRA in time to file their taxes, and the miscalculation on their T4 is a result of the errors made by CRA on CERB payments. In one instance, one of my constituents did not even ask for CERB but received it. She returned that money and now she is being taxed for it.

This is absolutely outrageous. We need the government to do better, we need CRA to do better and we need to extend the deadline for income tax filing.

Canada Revenue AgencyAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

Liberal

Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON

Madam Speaker, I do encourage all Canadians to file their taxes by the deadline to ensure they maintain the benefits and credits they deserve and for which they have worked so hard.

The CRA is committed to maintaining a balance between making emergency funds accessible to individuals and businesses that urgently need the support, while preserving the fairness and integrity of our tax system.

In collaboration with ESDC, the CRA designed the CERB application process to be attestation based. This is similar to the approach used in tax filing, where individuals attest to information they provide when they file their taxes. The CRA may verify this information at the time of filing or at a later date.

The vast majority of Canadians are honest and well-intentioned, and the CRA has effective systems in place to ensure only eligible Canadians receive benefit payments.

I want to point out that the CRA is committed to putting people first. In accordance with its client service model and in the spirit of fairness and transparency, the CRA will continue—

Canada Revenue AgencyAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

The hon. member for Souris-Moose Mountain.

Carbon PricingAdjournment Proceedings

April 27th, 2021 / 6:40 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Madam Speaker, a while back, I asked a question about the Liberal government collecting GST on the carbon tax. In my question, I also referenced a constituent, a small business owner, who had already paid over $2,500 in GST on the carbon tax since April 2019.

The answer I received from the Minister of Finance was extremely disappointing. Instead of addressing the actual issue of GST being charged on top of the carbon tax, she started talking about Bill C-14, which was completely unrelated to the question I posed. Her flippant non-answer was insulting to many Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet while their household bills are increasing. I hope the Liberals will stop and listen to someone other than themselves.

In simple terms, the question was about charging the GST, a federal tax, on the carbon tax, another federal tax, and why top finance officials are saying that they don’t pay it, yet small businesses are paying it.

The minister’s non-answer is unfortunately a continuing trend. In September, I submitted an Order Paper question requesting the total amount of GST collected on the carbon tax since January 2017. The response I received was convoluted and did not provide any of the actual numbers requested. Instead, it pointed me to the annual report that was about to be released.

That annual report was also extremely convoluted and did not provide the breakdown of numbers I had asked for, further proving to me that the government is doing everything it can to sweep the fact that it collects GST on the carbon tax under the rug. If Liberals are so proud of the tax regime they have created, why will they not give us the numbers? In my view, they are clearly trying to hide the tax, hoping that if people do not see it, it does not happen.

Perhaps it is because they do not actually understand the numbers themselves. The whole reason I asked this question was because the top finance official who was testifying at committee did not know that GST was charged on top of the carbon tax. He answered “no” when asked the question directly. How are Canadians to trust the government has their best interests at heart when its experts do not even know how its programs work?

The constituent I mentioned also owns a small trucking company that services the oil and gas industry. She has been tracking the amount of GST she has been charged on the carbon tax just for diesel fuel alone, and she has serious concerns about the viability of her business going forward. By the time the carbon tax reaches $170 dollars per tonne in 2030, she may already have had to shut down for good. This is the case for many small business owners.

That is not what the government wants, is it? Perhaps that is another debate for another time.

The fact of the matter is that rural Canadians are being hit hard by the carbon tax and the GST that is being charged on top of it. In Saskatchewan, it is not uncommon to have to drive one or two hours just to attend a doctor’s appointment, something that the urban population typically does not have to consider. Rural Canadians pay for more fuel. In turn, they pay more carbon tax, and in turn, more GST on that carbon tax.

Another matter to consider is the weather. In Saskatchewan it can get as cold as -50°C in the winter. Heating a home gets expensive, and these costs are then compounded by the carbon tax and the GST that comes with it. Again, these are costs that are unique to those who live in areas such as the Prairies and not those who live in downtown Toronto, where it rarely dips below -10°C.

The last thing that Canadians need right now is more uncertainty about the future, and that includes the amount of taxes they are being charged, not to mention the taxes on those taxes. Contrary to what the Liberals might think, we understand that emissions need to be reduced, but we do not think that it should be done on the backs of small business owners or at the expense of our economy.

We in Saskatchewan are world leaders in carbon capture technology, but we get no credit for it, not to mention the excellent land stewardship of our farmers and ranchers, who also do not get credit—

Carbon PricingAdjournment Proceedings

6:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue.

Carbon PricingAdjournment Proceedings

6:45 p.m.

Vaughan—Woodbridge Ontario

Liberal

Francesco Sorbara LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue

Madam Speaker, one of the pillars of Canada's work to combat climate change is putting a price on carbon pollution.

A price on carbon provides Canadians with an incentive to make more environmentally sustainable choices and to invest in greener alternatives that create a cleaner economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The federal carbon pollution pricing system has two components: a regulatory system for large industry, known as the output-based pricing system; and a regulatory charge on fossil fuels, otherwise known as a fuel charge.

The latter applies in the province of Saskatchewan, which the member for Souris—Moose Mountain represents. Consumers do not pay the fuel charge directly to the federal government. Furthermore, the direct proceeds from the federal carbon pollution pricing system remain in the province or territory of origin. In the case of Saskatchewan, approximately 90% of direct proceeds from the fuel charge are returned to residents through climate action incentive payments.

The remaining fuel charge proceeds are used to support small businesses, schools, universities, municipalities and indigenous groups. Fuel producers and distributors are generally required to pay the fuel charge and, as a result, the price paid by consumers on goods and services would usually have the cost of the fuel charge embedded.

With respect to the GST-HST, it is calculated on the final amount charged for a good or service. The general rule that was adopted at the inception of the GST in 1991 is that this final amount includes other taxes, levies and charges that apply to the good or service, and that may be embedded in the final price. This includes the fuel charge as part of the federal carbon pollution pricing system.

This long-standing approach to calculating the GST-HST helps to maintain the broad-based nature of the tax and ensures that tax is applied evenly across goods and services consumed in Canada. It also simplifies the vendor's calculation of the amount of tax payable, since the vendor is not required to back out other taxes, levies or charges at the point of sale in order to determine the amount of GST-HST payable.

The Government of Canada has been clear that it should not be free to pollute in Canada. However, I want to strongly emphasize that the government is not keeping any direct proceeds from the federal carbon pollution pricing system. I know that all members are concerned about the state of small and medium-sized businesses in Canada right now. To truly support small businesses during this unprecedented time, I urge all members to come together to support the passage of Bill C-14 so that we can continue to provide targeted and meaningful investments to help Canadians who need them the most.

Carbon PricingAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

Conservative

Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Madam Speaker, as usual, that was another non-answer.

My question was about the GST on the carbon tax, which was collected and tucked away by the Liberal government. That GST is collected on top of the carbon tax. It is not refunded to the provinces. It is not refunded to the hotels. It is not refunded to the hospitals. It is not refunded to the schools.

The question was about the GST on the carbon tax. That is the amount we are asking about. It is not about the other aspect of things.

This is very disconcerting for my constituents. They know it is being collected. They know the government is taking this money. They know the government is pocketing this money. They question whether this is actually, perhaps, a wealth redistribution program, when the government is not being accountable for what the GST cost is.

A recent report by the Fraser Institute stated that if the carbon tax increased to $170 per tonne by 2030, as the Liberals decided it would, then there could be a loss of—

Carbon PricingAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue.

Carbon PricingAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

Liberal

Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON

Madam Speaker, as I have said already, the federal carbon pollution pricing system is about recognizing that pollution has a cost. It is about empowering Canadians and driving innovation.

Including the fuel charge in the final amount of GST-HST for a good or service aligns with the long-standing approach to ensure that taxes apply evenly across goods and services consumed in Canada.

Furthermore, returning proceeds from carbon pollution pricing helps Canadians make more environmentally sustainable consumption choices, but does not change the incentive to pollute less. In fact, in the provinces where residents receive climate action incentive payments, most households receive more in payments than the total cost they face from the federal carbon pollution pricing system.

National DefenceAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

Conservative

Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Madam Speaker, my questions tonight address the failure to get an adequate response from the Minister of National Defence earlier on what steps and actions are going forward to respond to the allegations of sexual misconduct and how to root this out in the Canadian Forces.

I would like to remind everybody that when I asked the minister back in March for his opinion as to who was responsible and accountable for the failure of the allegations against the CDS being investigated, he replied, yes, he was absolutely responsible. I take the minister at his word. However, when I asked him in the House, which is why I am here tonight, what lessons the minister has personally learned from his failure to investigate and what actions he has taken to ensure the same mistakes do not happen again, unfortunately, I got a non-response.

I am sure many of my colleagues in the House know that I spent 25 years serving in the Canadian Armed Forces. So many of my former colleagues have reached out to me, especially female colleagues, who are disappointed, to say the least, in the lack of accountability and action being taken by the government to address these serious allegations and figure out the best way to ensure they never happen again.

I am going to paraphrase some of the comments that I made publicly in a national newspaper. Our country and all Canadians need an effective and well-led military to face the ever-evolving and complex global conflicts. We cannot be strong at home when leaders fail the women and men under their command, nor can we be engaged in the world without leveraging every competent, willing and capable Canadian who enrolls in the military. When we have phenomenal leaders such as Lieutenant-Colonel Eleanor Taylor retiring in disgust, not much more needs to be said. This needs to be fixed now and into the future. The Canadian Armed Forces needs more Lieutenant-Colonel Eleanor Taylors, not fewer.

I know the minister himself spent years serving Canada, both as a police officer and in uniform, and I respect him for that, but what I do not respect or am disappointed in is his lack of taking action and coming up with a plan. When a similar question was asked in question period today about what actions are being taken, the response was that the government is giving another $236 million to combat sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces, with the assumption that this is somehow taking real action. I do not accept that. Money is not going to solve the problem. This is not a money solution to stop and root out what is going on when Canadian Forces members are losing trust in the senior leadership, especially the women and men dealing with sexual misconduct and harassment. They need to have faith that when an allegation is brought forward, concrete action is being taken.

In closing, what I really want to know is what specific plans and actions the government is taking, specifically the minister. What are those lessons? I am not talking about the lessons that he has identified. Something we learn in the Canadian Armed Forces is that there is no use identifying the problem. What are the actual lessons we have learned so that we can ensure this never happens again? What has the minister personally learned?

National DefenceAdjournment Proceedings

6:55 p.m.

Ottawa West—Nepean Ontario

Liberal

Anita Vandenbeld LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Madam Speaker, I would like start by thanking the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for his military service. He knows, and I believe Canadians know, that our government has always said that we do not tolerate any form of sexual misconduct, harassment, inappropriate behaviour or abuse of power. We want it reported, we want it investigated and we want to support those who are affected by it, but more than anything we want to make sure it stops and does not happen in the first place.

No one is above the law, no matter their rank or position. No one should ever interfere with the independence of any investigation. This is essential to achieving just outcomes and it is essential to the integrity of the justice system. Allegations have always been referred to the appropriate authorities. That is what the minister and this government have always done. This is why we are taking additional steps, as the hon. member mentioned, to ensure that every CAF member feels safe coming forward and has confidence that misconduct and harassment will always be fully investigated.

We recognize the importance of following all appropriate processes when looking into such matters. That is why our government is committed to taking further action to strengthen accountability mechanisms, promote culture change in the military and end the culture of toxic masculinity, as well as to provide a safe space for survivors to report misconduct and access the services they need, including the recent announcements of peer-to-peer support and enhancing the SMRC. We are doing this by listening to the solutions and recommendations of survivors and those with lived experience.

I, personally, have been very moved by the testimonies we have heard from survivors and those who were impacted, including the one my hon. colleague mentioned. I can tell members that these stories of mostly female, but also male, survivors who have so courageously come forward are making me, the minister and our government even more determined. We have got to get this right, and that means listening to the people who are impacted and not creating programs that might have unintended consequences, as we have done in the past.

Through budget 2021, we are committing $236 million to eliminate sexual misconduct and gender-based violence in the Canadian Armed Forces. I believe this is going to make a difference. This will expand the reach of the Sexual Misconduct Response Centre, allow for more research and provide online, in-person, peer-to-peer and other supports that the survivors have been asking for.

We are putting the needs of survivors first, since they are at the centre of these cases. Any action that is taken must prioritize and align with their needs and wishes. The reporting process can be a significant source of stress for survivors. That is why there are options for support without triggering a formal investigation. One example is the sexual misconduct response centre.

Members of the Canadian Armed Forces make tremendous sacrifices to protect Canadians and, regardless of rank or gender, they have the undeniable right to serve safely.

National DefenceAdjournment Proceedings

7 p.m.

Conservative

Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Madam Speaker, unfortunately the parliamentary secretary missed the point, and unfortunately the minister chose not to respond himself, because this is who I was asking the question.

What lessons has he personally learned from his failure? He accepted responsibility for failure to investigate or for these allegations to be properly investigated, and now we are at the point where Canadian Armed Forces members, these survivors the parliamentary secretary alluded to, want to know that senior leadership can be held to account. I do not need talking points. I spent 25 years in the Canadian Armed Forces. I have people reaching out to me and explaining. Here is what I am hearing from the ranks of the Canadian Armed Forces: They do not trust the senior leadership and they do not trust the government to actually hold the people to account. The skepticism that is growing in the ranks is what is going to do long-lasting damage that we need to fix.

How is the government going to fix these allegations against our most senior leaders?