Debates of May 4th, 2021

Opposition Motion—Allegations of Sexual Misconduct in the Military

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as it is my first opportunity to enter into this discussion today, I am particularly grateful the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound focused on the larger issues, which I wish we were talking about here today. I also think the hon. member for North Island—Powell River made a fantastic speech. I agree with her sentiments.

For my hon. friend from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, the Conservative motion is inappropriate and too narrowly focused on one individual and not the broader question.

I appreciate his raising of SNC-Lavalin again. We never got to the bottom of that. Cabinet intervened to stop the RCMP from fully investigating if an obstruction of justice had occurred, and some of the same questions were at play there. Why was the Prime Minister never properly briefed on the Shawcross doctrine? Why did he not understand that his then minister of justice, the hon. member for Vancouver Granville, had it right, and the various bought and paid for experts hired by SNC-Lavalin had it wrong?

Would the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound agree with me that our time would be better spent on those issues, than on this very partisan, rather mean-spirited motion we have before us today?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully disagree with the member's assertion. We need to get to the bottom of this. The hon. member brought up a number of key points and factors on other issues, other failures by the current Prime Minister and his team. Ultimately it speaks to why this motion finally needs to come forward. He needs to be held to account or he needs to make that tough decision and surround himself primarily with a chief of staff who will ensure he is properly briefed and properly prepared to do his job as Prime Minister.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his service. He probably understands better than many of us how important accountability is to the CAF. Yes, we need to come up with some long-term fixes. Some great recommendations have been ignored.

On the issue of accountability at the highest level, can he speak to that and the importance of it within our military?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is at the root of what my speech was about. It is all about being accountable. As a leader, this specific case is my greatest disappointment. I am hugely disappointed in everybody involved in this, in particular in the former chief of the defence staff. I do not understand how he felt he could be in uniform, hypocritically leading Operation Honour, while at the same time having allegations against him.

However, the failure of leadership by the Minister of National Defence, along with his lack of really wanting to be held accountable for this, is extremely frustrating, because I expected better from him. It is the same thing with the Prime Minister in this case. His team owes him the facts and all the answers. If he is not going to hold his team to account, then he is going to continue to face additional allegations and additional problems going forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, that was an important speech. I deeply respect and enjoy working with the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound in this place. I am just wondering if he could speak to something that I feel is immensely important in this debate.

The reality is that right now is that this work should be happening at committee. Katie Telford should be in front of the committee. I think it is absolutely abhorrent that the Liberals are blocking that. Let us get the work done. Could the member speak to that?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I 100% agree with what the member for North Island—Powell River has raised. I was so shocked yesterday, and “shocked” is the word to use, that the chair of the committee would cancel the committee that was going to debate this.

Having served in uniform previously, and having been in the committee room virtually, not necessarily asking questions until the last number of defence committee sessions, I am disappointed with the amount of filibustering and the lack of focus on what this issue is. This should be about getting answers. It is about figuring out the way forward and not stalling something that is so important for all the victims of sexual misconduct and harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of emotion that I take part in this debate since it is about the Canadian Armed Forces.

We have the privilege of living in a free and democratic country because there are men and women who ensure its security by serving in the armed forces and because men and women have fought in horrible wars so that we could live in a free country. My father, who will soon be 98, and millions of other people served in the Second World War. They liberated all of humanity.

In the Canadian Forces and in every army, trust needs to be instituted and real. If, by some misfortune, trust is broken, our men and women can no longer serve with as much passion and commitment because they wonder who they are working for and who they are serving. That is especially true for women who work in this setting who are victims of harassment. For them, the scars run even deeper.

Today's debate surrounds Canadians' faith in their army and the faith that members of the military must have in their leaders. We are debating this today because some serious problems have been reported at high levels of Canada's government and army. We are also trying to determine who knew what and when.

I am unfortunately referring to the scandal surrounding General Vance. He is currently at the centre of allegations of sexual harassment of women in the military. On the one hand, Canada's former chief of the defence staff failed in his duties, and on the other hand, the leader of the government said one thing only to be contradicted by his chief of staff. If we want to restore trust then we must get to the bottom of this situation.

What happened? Three years ago, on March 1, 2018, the Canadian military ombudsman informed the Minister of National Defence that allegations were made against the chief of the defence staff, General Vance. I want to emphasize the word "allegations" because this is not about rumours or hearsay. These were allegations of inappropriate conduct and sexual harassment against women in the military under his authority.

The next day, March 2, 2018, the PCO emailed the PMO with information about sexual harassment allegations against General Vance.

Three years later, the whole thing was exposed when a media outlet broke the story. The Prime Minister's initial statement to the House was that he found out about it on television. I am not calling the Prime Minister a liar, but he claimed he was not aware of it. That was the first version of the facts.

Later, he said people in his office were aware an investigation was under way. That was the second, modified version of the facts. Last week, the Prime Minister told the House that nobody in his office was aware that it was a sexual harassment complaint. The facts do not add up.

The Prime Minister said nobody in his office was aware of it, but an email dated March 2, 2018, confirms that his chief of staff was aware of the allegations of sexual harassment. It has to be one or the other. We cannot believe the Prime Minister if we believe the chief of staff, and we cannot believe the emails about the chief of staff if we believe the Prime Minister.

I have a lot of respect for the member for Papineau, who is also the leader of our government. I say “our government” because we are all Canadian citizens, and he is currently the head of the government. However, the facts do not add up. The versions do not add up. The evidence is there, but it is not consistent with what he said. The current government has been in office for six years. Not only did General Vance stay on the job even though he has been under investigation for three years, but he was also given a raise and his mandate was renewed. That is what the government decided to do about cases of sexual assault against women in the military.

Since that came to light, we have also seen a completely unacceptable cover-up by the Liberals and some of their co-conspirators. We will talk about that later. At the Standing Committee on National Defence, we have seen a lot of what is known as filibustering, which means that people talk for an excessive amount of time to prevent specific action from being taken.

I have been in politics for 13 years as member of the Quebec National Assembly and as a member of the House of Commons. In those 13 years, I do not remember seeing a committee chair suspend a meeting 13 minutes before the committee was scheduled to sit. Perhaps that has happened before, but if so, I do not remember it. Unfortunately, yesterday, we saw that happen when the Liberal member for Kanata—Carleton, the chair of the Standing Committee on National Defence, decided to cancel the committee meeting that was scheduled. That is unacceptable.

Also, last week, we saw the government very proudly announce that it would launch an inquiry to find out what is happening in the Canadian Forces with respect to cases of harassment. That work has already been done. Six years ago, our government launched an inquiry led by a Supreme Court justice. Her report, which she presented very confidently six years ago, in March 2015, revealed the devastating situation within the Canadian military and called on governments to take action. Six years later, what action has the government taken? None at all, but last week, it decided to redo the work that the committee had done six years ago. That is an admission of impotence. In fact, this plan was completely condemned by everyone. All observers said that the government's approach made no sense.

Today, our motion asks for the dismissal of the Prime Minister's chief of staff. It is essential that we be able to have confidence in our authorities and in our military leadership. Our defence staff has been particularly shaken by this situation. In my riding, there are thousands of soldiers stationed at the Valcartier military base who have spoken to me about this and who do not like what they see, but who want to get to the bottom of this.

On the one hand, the Prime Minister says that no one knew about it, but on the other hand, we have an email that says just the opposite. When the committee wants the Prime Minister's chief of staff to appear and testify, the committee gets shut down to prevent that.

Canadians deserve very clear answers, which is why the deputy opposition leader raised a question of privilege last week on whether the Prime Minister misled the House. The Chair is currently examining the question.

My counterpart on the government side, my friend, the hon. member for Honoré-Mercier, vigorously defended his government for over 50 minutes yesterday. I do not begrudge him the time. However, the Liberals are always quick to criticize us for talking so much and say that we waste time. I am not saying he wasted our time. I am glad that he took the opportunity to speak. That is fine; that is what debate is for.

We also heard the member for Rivière-du-Nord say that the Bloc Québécois supports this inquiry and that it is important to get to the bottom of this. Those are the last kind words I will speak about my esteemed colleagues in the Bloc Québécois.

In this matter, they were on the wrong side of history twice. On April 12, 2021, at the Standing Committee on National Defence, the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères voted with the Liberals to end the parliamentary investigation under way at committee. We can understand why the Liberals would not want an investigation. It is not dignified, it is not noble, but we can understand. Then, on April 12, 2021, the Bloc Québécois worked with the Liberals to prevent the parliamentary committee from considering this very important issue. It is disappointing.

We also understand that on February 9, 2021, again at the Standing Committee on National Defence, it was the member for Lac-Saint-Jean who co-operated with the Liberals to reduce the proposed number of days from five to three and who opposed inviting Zita Astravas, the Minister of National Defence's chief of staff, from testifying. If we want to get to the bottom of this, why did the Bloc Québécois support the Liberals twice at the parliamentary committee, once to put a lid on the issue and another time to reduce the time allotted for the investigation and to prevent someone who perhaps had something interesting to say from testifying? This is disappointing, coming from the Bloc Québécois. It is disappointing that they offered to collaborate with the government.

Let us not forget that, on March 10, 2020, Bloc and Liberal MPs voted together, hand in hand, to prevent the Ethics Commissioner from testifying at the ethics committee on the “Trudeau II report”. The Bloc Québécois, hand in hand with the Liberals, muzzled the Ethics Commissioner to stop him from testifying.

That is why the Conservatives want to get to the bottom of things and want this motion to be adopted.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague.

I would like to take this opportunity to explain how a committee works. First there is a work plan and decisions to make on the urgency to act and there are also proceedings leading up to the vote. I think it is a bit of a shame when we rely only on the result of the vote because sometimes we get endless explanations on why a person voted yes or no.

I would like my colleague to tell me how asking the Prime Minister to fire his chief of staff for failing to inform him will change anything.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I always appreciate her support in the House. That is why I am surprised that, as a woman and a proud representative for her constituents, she went along with her party's decision to work with the Liberals on not one, but two separate occasions.

The first occasion was when they kiboshed the investigation at the Standing Committee on National Defence and reduced the number of days allocated to hearing testimony. The second was when they refused to allow a witness to share her version of the events. That witness is not some nobody. It is the Minister of National Defence's chief of staff.

That said, it is her decision, just like it was her party's decision to vote with the Liberals to prevent the Ethics Commissioner from testifying. That is part of their record.

We need to be able to have confidence in our officials, which is why it is so important to get the facts straight when the Prime Minister says one thing and his chief of staff very clearly says the opposite.

I am sure that my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle was outraged to see the Liberals cancel the parliamentary committee's meeting yesterday. I am sure that she, like me, would have liked this woman to testify before the committee. The Liberals do not want that.

Who are we supposed to believe, the Prime Minister or his chief of staff?

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives say that this is an actionable item, that this is something that will help the government take that action to get results for women in the armed forces. Of course, we disagree with their motives and how they are doing it, but certainly we agree that action is necessary on this issue.

One of the things I have heard repeatedly, and that we have put forward repeatedly, is the need for the ombudsman to report to Parliament, to be more transparent in that regard, instead of what we have seen in terms of the problems of him reporting directly to the Minister of National Defence. Would my hon. colleague agree that it would be a really good step forward and an action that could be taken immediately by this House?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her participation in this very important debate.

We need to be frank and open with the reality. We need to know the truth. This is why the ombudsman's help would be welcome. However, we had a report that was published six years ago, which gave all Canadians, no matter which party we are, a road map to address this terrific issue of the fact that women in the army suffer sexual misconduct, especially in the highest ranks of the army. This is why we welcome each and every one to give us some advice. Let me remind members that six years ago we had the road map and the government failed to follow the road map.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to note that the Prime Minister is the one who used to say “sunshine is the best disinfectant” and that the Liberals would not resort to parliamentary games. Again, this motion is about accountability. Could my colleague, the House leader, talk about why we felt it was important for this motion to be put forward and for the Prime Minister to be held to account?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay all my respects to my colleague from Kamloops, British Columbia, for whom I have a lot of respect. I am sad that she will not renew her mandate, but I wish her the best for the future, because she serves so well here in the House of Commons.

It is quite important to have confidence in our leader, so when we have the government leader, the Prime Minister of Canada, saying something here in the House of Commons but on the other hand we have the exact contrary of that, black on white, written directly to the chief of staff, we need clarity on that.

We just asked yesterday for the chief of staff to testify in the committee and the Liberal government decided to shut down the committee. This is awful. We need leadership. We need accountability to this Parliament.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with the member for Hochelaga.

Every member of the defence team is entitled to be treated with respect and dignity in the workplace. It is also the responsibility of every member of the defence team, regardless of rank, position or title, even the top brass, to treat those around them with dignity and respect. We know now that this expectation is not enough.

Without rapid, decisive action, without strict enforcement and without accountability, sexual misconduct and harassment within the defence team will never be truly eliminated. We need to take a long, hard look at where our policies and initiatives failed. We have to learn from those we failed. We have to listen to them and make changes that really take our people and their needs and diverse backgrounds into account.

Last week, the Minister of National Defence launched an independent, external, comprehensive review of his department and the Canadian Armed Forces. I appreciate this opportunity to share details about this review with the House, including its aim, how it will be conducted and what it means for the defence team.

There is a pressing need for accountability and review at every level of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence, not only from individual to individual and rank to rank, but also at the organizational level, by reviewing the policies and practices of the defence team and evaluating their efficacy at eradicating sexual misconduct and harassment.

The review that was announced last week will play a critical role in this analysis. It has several aims. We want to know why harassment and sexual misconduct persist within the Canadian Armed Forces despite considerable, concerted efforts to eradicate them. We want to identify barriers to reporting inappropriate behaviour. We want to know if the response is adequate when reports of misconduct are made. We want this information to be used to make recommendations on preventing and eradicating harassment and sexual misconduct in our armed forces for once and for all.

The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces have chosen Louise Arbour to lead the review of the defence team's policies and culture. Madame Arbour's review will build on the report prepared by former justice Marie Deschamps, but it is not at all the same thing. Madame Deschamps's report made 10 key recommendations to address and eliminate sexual misconduct and harassment, but that was not enough.

Since then, the defence team has taken many important steps to implement Madame Deschamps's recommendations. Madame Arbour's review will build on the important work done by Madame Deschamps but will examine the issues from a broader perspective in order to help the defence team chart a path forward.

Madame Arbour's experience as a former Supreme Court justice puts her in an ideal position to carry out this review in a completely impartial manner. She will work independently from the chain of command of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence in order to remain neutral and ensure that the important work she is being asked to do will not be subject to any political influence. I think that we all agree that that would be inappropriate. Do my hon. colleagues not agree with me?

Madame Arbour's review will examine the policies, procedures and practices of the defence team. She will attempt to determine where the defence team's efforts to address and eradicate the problem of sexual misconduct and harassment are falling short. She will determine how these efforts must be strengthened and improved.

As part of her review, she will consider all relevant independent reviews concerning the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. This includes evaluating the progress made by the defence team in implementing Justice Deschamps's recommendations. This evaluation will be coordinated with the Hon. Morris J. Fish, who is overseeing the review of the National Defence Act. The reports of the Auditor General and other internal audits will also have to be taken into consideration. She will examine their findings and recommendations.

In addition to considering these existing reviews, she will also evaluate organizational practices that, if effectively re-evaluated, could help prevent incidents of sexual misconduct. These practices include the recruitment, training, performance evaluation, posting and promotion systems of the Canadian Armed Forces.

She will also evaluate the policies, procedures and practice of the military justice system dealing with harassment and sexual misconduct.

More importantly, the review will be based on the views, accounts and experiences of current and former members of the defence team. All concerned members of the defence team deserve to be heard. Those who wish to share their experiences will be invited to provide input for Madame Arbour's review. Their names will remain anonymous. Madame Arbour will conduct her review without referring to specific cases of harassment or sexual misconduct in order to protect their privacy.

Her review will focus on women and members of the LGBTQ2+ community so that the defence team gains a better understanding of their perspectives and experiences. She will work with the Advisory Panel on Systemic Racism, Discrimination, LGBTQ2 Prejudice, Gender Bias and White Supremacy to reduce any unintended duplication of efforts.

Madame Arbour will put all this testimony together to identify signs that the defence team's culture promotes silence and complicity, how fear of reprisal acts as a barrier to reporting harassment and sexual misconduct, and any indication that the defence team's policies were applied inconsistently across the organization, as in the case of political influence in the appointment of General Jonathan Vance in 2015. As a matter of fact, even though there were rumours about him being the subject of an active investigation by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, the party opposite still appointed Jonathan Vance chief of the defence staff. All these factors will inform Madame Arbour's recommendations to the minister, the deputy minister and the Chief of the defence Staff.

Accountability and transparency are key to changing the culture and eradicating sexual misconduct and harassment in the defence team. These are the guiding principles of Madame Arbour's investigation. She will provide monthly progress reports to the Minister of National Defence, as well as interim assessments and recommendations. All of these assessments will be made public, as will the draft and final review reports.

Madame Arbour's reports will include a review of the defence team's policies and procedures, the causes and effects of barriers to reporting inappropriate behaviour, and an assessment of the sexual misconduct response centre's mandate and activities, independence from the chain of command and response to reports of sexual misconduct.

Madame Arbour will also make key recommendations on the following points: preventing and eradicating harassment and sexual misconduct in the defence team, removing barriers to reporting, and establishing an external oversight body dedicated to resolving these types of incidents.

Once Madame Arbour has submitted her preliminary review to the organization, the minister, deputy minister and chief of the defence staff will have 30 days to respond to her findings and recommendations. Their responses and Madame Arbour's final review report will all be made public.

That is how we are creating the changes needed that—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question to the member is about accountability and the failure of information being passed to the Prime Minister in this case, with respect to allegations against the former chief of the defence staff.

It is my understanding the member is a member of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. What would she do if one of her staff had evidence, information or allegations of something that would undermine our national security intelligence, but the person just did not bother reporting it to her?

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what is important is that there is an independent, external, safe process for any person who has been subjected to sexual misconduct, so the person is able to make a report in an independent and safe process outside of the political process. That is what is important here. That is what is needed, and that is what we are working on.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I salute my colleague across the way. We serve together on the ethics committee, which we have heard a lot about in the last few minutes. My colleague, with several hours of speaking time at committee, did a good job of explaining the situation.

Let us look at what is really going on. What level of urgency and importance do we need to reach before they implement a plan of action, rebrand and make sure this never happens again? The urgency is clearly very high right now. A few years ago, not a few months ago, it was at minus 10.

I would like my colleague to explain what level of urgency is needed for them to act. It is clear that the official opposition needs to move a motion demanding a dismissal.

Is the government going to act?

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. We have had a number of conversations on topics that touch on the very subject we are discussing today.

What matters is acting on the problem before us. It is not about pointing fingers and blaming anyone. It is about the urgency of the matter before us. The fact is that we have appointed Justice Arbour, who is internationally renowned for her work, and, because of the work that has already been done by Madame Deschamps, we know that she will be able to create a plan to identify the problem and implement a process that works.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, former justice Louise Arbour's competence is not at issue here. This is about the Liberal government's ability to appropriately manage the crisis of sexual misconduct in the army. This is starting to look bad. The only thing they could think of was to redo an external investigation, even though Justice Deschamps did a similar review six years ago. The Liberals have done nothing in those six years.

My question is the following. Is the government putting this off, or is it simply trying to drop a hot potato?

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his question.

Things that are very difficult to do cannot be done all at once. Madame Deschamps identified the problem. That is what we want Madame Arbour to investigate, to see what was done within the military chain of command.

Recent events have shown that there needs to be a process and that we need to determine how to make this process external. For the first time, all senior Canadian Armed Forces officers agree on the need for a process that is external to the Canadian Armed Forces.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the House for giving me the opportunity to contribute to today's debate on the efforts made by the Canadian Armed Forces to address the problem of sexual misconduct in their ranks.

Every day, members of the Canadian Armed Forces make enormous sacrifices to protect Canadians. When allegations of misconduct are made, the appropriate procedure must be followed. That is exactly what the Minister of National Defence did. In fact, he followed the same steps as the previous government in 2015.

As the former chief of staff for Stephen Harper, Ray Novak, said, when the leader of the official opposition at the time informed him of the allegations of sexual misconduct, these allegations were forwarded to the Privy Council Office for investigation.

[Technical difficulty—Editor] who are the victims of sexual misconduct do not trust the process. We must do better. That is why Madame Arbour will formulate concrete recommendations on how to implement an independent external reporting mechanism outside the chain of command.

Sexual misconduct can have devastating effects in the long term. Offering support to the people affected and ensuring their well-being must be our absolute priority.

This is also an incredibly complex social problem, and the Canadian Armed Forces know that they do not have all the answers. They need to be guided by the advice of experts in the field. The Minister of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces know that the only way to improve is to measure the progress made and to be accountable for their actions and decisions.

That is why we recently launched an independent external comprehensive review to determine exactly how and why our current culture allows such harmful behaviours and what we need to do to change this toxic culture of masculinity. That is also why budget 2021 earmarks funds to enhance support measures for those affected.

These measures include creating a new peer-to-peer support program and expanding the reach of the Sexual Misconduct Response Centre. Today I would like to talk about the exceptional work being done by the Centre under the direction of psychologist Denise Preston [Technical difficulty—Editor].

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

There seems to be an issue with the hon. parliamentary secretary’s bandwidth. I wonder whether she is using a fixed connection or a wireless one. Wireless connections sometimes cause this type of problem. If the WiFi network is not working properly, it is no better than a fixed connection.

I invite the hon. parliamentary secretary to continue, but her connection has already failed twice. Let us try again.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a wired connection, but it appears that my area has been plagued by Internet problems for the past few days. I am sorry, but I do not have a better connection than the wire plugged into my device. I am truly sorry. I will try to continue as best I can.

[Technical difficulty—Editor]

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

There appears to be a connection problem. I wonder whether we could call a technician to fix the problem. We will wait a moment until we find a solution.

For now, we will invite the next member to take the floor. We will ask a technician to call the hon. Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Transport. If we manage to fix the problem, I will ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to resume her comments on the motion before the House today.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.