House of Commons Hansard #114 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was gba.

Topics

Extension of Sitting Hours in JuneRoutine Proceedings

6:05 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, I have been privileged to be in the House for 13 years. The hon. member is correct that it is absolutely routine every June to extend the hours so we can get important business done. That has happened under majority and minority Conservative and Liberal governments.

The previous questioner talked about wasting time. My question to my hon. colleague is this. If we are so concerned about wasting time and getting the government's important business done, why did he take 20 minutes of valuable House time to explain the simple motion to extend the sitting hours?

Extension of Sitting Hours in JuneRoutine Proceedings

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, I can tell the member that the feelings I often express are not mine and mine alone. Whether they are from my colleagues or constituents in Winnipeg, I think there are points that need to be made. If we can make those points and that helps shape the tone of the debate or causes additional legislation to pass, I would like to see that. I would like to think that my contributions will add value to what is being done inside the House of Commons. I am naive enough to believe that there are times when my contributions do add value. I realize there are other times where I could have said something a bit better or a little stronger, or possibly even toned it down somewhat. However, I understand the member's message.

Extension of Sitting Hours in JuneRoutine Proceedings

6:10 p.m.

Bloc

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees, because we are hard-working and we have done a good job. As for my files, I can say that we have worked on supply management, the aerospace industry, vaccines that must be distributed worldwide and the export of green technologies. I think we need to give ourselves time to continue our good work before the summer break.

Extension of Sitting Hours in JuneRoutine Proceedings

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, I value the comment. I, like a majority of members inside the House of Commons, want to be able to sit these extra hours to ensure that we can contribute more to the debate on a wide selection of the very important issues I referenced, such as the environment with respect to net zero, the budget, the support of the Bloc to get Bill C-10 out of committee, which is so critically important, or the importance of the Bill C-6 legislation or Bill C-19. There is so much that is there that we can, through these additional hours, allow for more direct input from political entities in our respective parties and the individual opinions that members might want to express on the floor that reflect the concerns of their party or their constituents. At the end of the day, what we really want to be able to do is provide Canadians the types of supports they need to get out of this pandemic and at the same time—

Extension of Sitting Hours in JuneRoutine Proceedings

6:10 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Unfortunately, the hon. member's time is up.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

Extension of Sitting Hours in JuneRoutine Proceedings

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the chief whip of the official opposition in the House of Commons.

Let us be clear from the start. We have no problem with extending work hours at this time of the year, as in fact our standing orders provide.

However, we are extremely concerned about the motion introduced by the government and voted on a few moments ago, because we know that facilities are limited, given the current pandemic situation. A lot of technical efforts are being made and government officials have made generous offers to co-operate with us, and we greatly appreciate that. However, when we get to this time of year, there is a kind of bottleneck. That is why we have to strike a very fair and reasonable balance between extending the work hours in the House of Commons and keeping parliamentary committees running. That is where there is a disconnect with the motion put forward by the government.

I would remind members that the House of Commons is part of Parliament, and as its very name suggests, Parliament is a place for parley, in other words, for discussion. We in the official opposition discuss things with our counterparts on the government side and with the other opposition parties. I would never, ever go into the details of those discussions. However, one thing is certain and indisputable, that is, that we had honest, good-faith discussions with our counterparts and could not come to an agreement. That is the point.

As we saw, when my colleague, the chief whip of the official opposition, asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons a very specific question, that good man, whom I like and respect a great deal, was unable to give anything even remotely resembling the merest hint of an answer. As parliamentarians, we cannot give carte blanche in terms of which committees will survive this proposal and which will not.

It should be immediately obvious why we have some very serious concerns about the lack of clarity on the parliamentary committees. We need only look at this government's track record over the past few months in terms of parliamentary work.

However, it was funny to hear my Liberal colleague for Winnipeg North talk about everything being in limbo because of Conservative opposition members, that their tactic on a daily basis is to delay, delay, delay, and that there is a filibuster each and every step of the way on each and every bill. This is anything but true.

When we talk about filibustering, I think that the king of filibustering is the Liberal Party of Canada, especially in this session, and there is a record of that. I do not think that the member for Winnipeg North and his colleagues would be very proud of what they have done in committee.

Let us look at what the Liberals have been doing in parliamentary committees over the past few months. They were the ones who accused us earlier of filibustering, as in talking for hours and hours in order to waste time rather than get to the bottom of things.

We can look at the Standing Committee of Procedure and House Affairs where the Liberals had filibustered for 73 hours.

The Liberals filibustered for 73 hours, preventing the committee from doing its work. Why?

It is because we wanted to get to the bottom of things and allow witnesses to appear and explain why the government prorogued Parliament. The Liberals filibustered for 73 hours to prevent witnesses from testifying. Now they are the ones accusing us of being the bad guys holding up the works. It is ludicrous.

However, it does not end there.

We can look at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics where the Liberals filibustered for 43 hours. Why? It was to block getting to the truth about the WE Charity scandal.

There is a common thread in all this, however. When we want to get accurate information on Liberal scandals, they filibuster. They are very unhappy about that and accuse us of wanting to delay parliamentary work, when we are just doing our job.

These are concrete examples, but it does not end there. At the Standing Committee on Finance, the Liberals filibustered for 35 hours, once again to prevent parliamentarians from getting to the bottom of the WE Charity scandal.

At the Standing Committee on National Defence, the Liberals filibustered for over 16 hours. The committee chair, who is a member of the government party, unilaterally suspended the meetings 23 times.

This is starting to really add up: 63 hours at one committee, 43 hours at another, 35 hours at a third, 16 hours at a fourth. I have not even mentioned the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, where the Liberals filibustered for 10 hours, between February and April, on the study we wanted to conduct on the COVAX facility, which was created by rich countries to provide poor countries with access to vaccines. Sadly, members will recall that Canada, a rich country, helped itself to the supply for poor countries because it did not have the vaccines that the Prime Minister had announced at his December dog and pony show. That is the reality.

I hear government members accusing us of being the bad guys and filibustering, when they are the ones who filibustered for 63 hours at one committee, 43 hours at another, 35 hours at the Standing Committee on Finance, 16 hours at the Standing Committee on National Defence, and 10 hours at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs.

In light of the Liberals' dismal parliamentary record, we feel it is perfectly valid to want to be sure of what is planned for the committees before we give the government carte blanche to extend the committee and House sittings. However, the government refuses to tell us its plans and instead demands a free hand. We think this is unacceptable.

I heard my colleague from Winnipeg North explaining the status of some bills, so we will take a look at that assessment.

He talked about Bill C-3, regarding judges, which is modelled on a bill originally introduced by the Hon. Rona Ambrose. We are very proud of that legislation, but the Liberal government used the strongest weapon in its arsenal to delay its passage or concurrence, namely prorogation.

Let us not forget that last summer, when the Liberal government was in a real jam over the WE scandal, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics met day after day in July and again in August. The official opposition members strenuously challenged the government's moral authority, because it had adopted a despicable strategy for dealing with this scandal.

What did the government do when it was in trouble? It prorogued Parliament. This was the worst thing it could do to slow down the work of parliamentarians. Once Parliament is prorogued, everything goes back to square one. That is what happened with Bill C-3.

What about Bill C-11? I heard the member for Winnipeg North say how important this legislation is, and he is absolutely right. I even remember the member and Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry calling out the Conservatives on Twitter in February, accusing us of delaying Bill C-11 and saying that it was awful.

I quite like the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, who is the minister responsible. I have a lot of respect and regard for him, but when I saw that on Twitter, I found myself thinking that I had not seen Bill C-11 in a long time. When I checked, I saw that the last time the government had brought Bill C-11 forward in the House was on November 24, 2020. The bill then sat around for three months, through November, December, January and February, before the government brought it forward again. However, the government went after us in February, claiming that we were delaying it. That is completely absurd.

The member also mentioned Bill C-14, on the economic statement, since there was no budget. The government accused us and is still accusing us of filibustering it, when two-thirds of the official opposition members did not even speak on it.

I am proud to be the House Leader of the Official Opposition. Our caucus has 120 members who duly represent eight Canadian provinces and regions in the House of Commons. We are the only truly national party. I am very proud of the calibre of people I work with, and that is why, when they ask to speak, I am happy to add them to the political debate. However, it is utterly ludicrous to accuse us of filibustering when two-thirds of our caucus did not even speak.

That is why the motion, as currently presented, is unacceptable to us. We are ready and willing to work longer hours as long as the parliamentary work in the House of Commons can be done without compromising the work of the committees, but that is absolutely not the case with this motion.

Extension of Sitting Hours in JuneRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, the problem is that what the member is saying does not reflect the reality of the situation.

Conservatives have been trying routinely to slow down the way this Parliament works. Look at last Friday, for example, and the antics that Conservatives were up to literally to burn a day. Today alone, they waited 15 minutes before walking out to vote after question period, and then, in the middle of tabling documents, they tabled a motion to go to Orders of the Day that they knew would never pass, but they knew would burn more time.

When the member says he comes here in good faith, he has to understand that good faith does not mean getting their way all the time. Good faith means negotiating and trying to get something out of it. What we are seeing being gotten out of this is the fact that we would not be sitting late every day. Tuesdays and Thursdays would remain the way they are so that those resources can be deployed to committees.

Extension of Sitting Hours in JuneRoutine Proceedings

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Madam Speaker, let me go back to Friday morning. There was talk of time allocation for a bill that is attacking the free speech of the people. It is very concerning to see that the government is attacking free speech with Bill C-10 and also using the tool of time allocation on that bill.

It was a big surprise, because the Conservative member who sits at that committee tabled an amendment to get back proposed section 4.1 of that bill, which was protecting the free speech of people on social media, but the party that had written this section in the first draft of the bill refused the amendment to get it back.

When we talk about free speech, I can assure the House that Conservatives will always fight for the free speech of Canadians.

Extension of Sitting Hours in JuneRoutine Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Salaberry—Suroît, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. I agree with many of the points he raised.

There is one point in particular that I would like to discuss with him. I know that committee work is important to him, and the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities will soon begin studying my bill, Bill C-265, which seeks to extend special EI sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks.

Given that time is running out and we know that this bill has the support of the majority of the House, can my colleague explain why he thinks the government is refusing to give the royal recommendation to Bill C-265?

Extension of Sitting Hours in JuneRoutine Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with what the whip of the second opposition party just pointed out, and rightly so. What we are seeing right now is that they are going to significantly extend our work time in the House. Again, we are not against increasing the amount of time that we work, speak and debate in the House of Commons, but we need to strike a balance with the other committees.

My colleague raises an important point. Yes, this bill is very important to her, and everyone who has had the privilege of introducing a private member's bill will say the same: it is very important, and they care about it, especially when they see support from all sides of the House. Bravo, I say. However, if we are going ahead with it, we have to be absolutely sure that the relevant committee is going to sit.

In the current motion, and I understand that the Bloc Québécois is going to vote for it, there is no guarantee that the committee that has to study this bill will be able to do so in the allotted time. The way it is written in the motion, there is no guarantee that all the committees will be able to do their work as they should.

Extension of Sitting Hours in JuneRoutine Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy listening to my colleague.

It is true that people are accusing the Conservatives of filibustering, and this has happened in several committees, but it is also true that the Liberals themselves are filibustering certain bills.

On March 7, the NDP proposed that we extend our evening sitting hours, but the government did not support this proposal. I know that my colleague has a lot of experience here in the House of Commons and also at the Quebec National Assembly. This government has really mismanaged its agenda.

What does my colleague think about the government's approach to our business here in Parliament?

Extension of Sitting Hours in JuneRoutine Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my New Democrat friend from B.C. for his excellent French. I agree with the member that, unfortunately, the government is in charge of managing parliamentary business and has failed miserably at the task.

Extension of Sitting Hours in JuneRoutine Proceedings

6:25 p.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB

Madam Speaker, before I get to what I see as the government's real motives, I would like to speak to why we are here. We have a government that claims it needs extra time. Why does it need extra time? I suggest, to begin with, one of the reasons would be that it prorogued Parliament. That was time that could have been used to put forward its agenda.

The government waited two years to put forward a budget, and now the budget implementation act is not passed. It seems a bit rich for it to claim that it needs extra time when it had all that time. It took two years to present a budget and prorogued Parliament during that time. I do not know if it is just me, but if Liberals did not work for a while and now want to work overtime, it seems to me they could have done it during the time they chose not to come to work. We are here partly because of prorogation.

Ironically, one of the filibusters is tied back to the prorogation itself, but we are also here because the Liberals chose to filibuster in parliamentary committees. One of them was the procedure and House affairs committee, which was trying to get to the bottom of the prorogation. Liberals on the committee filibustered for hours upon hours. It went on for weeks and weeks. It was to try to prevent the Prime Minister from having to appear at committee to answer for why he prorogued Parliament. These are some of the reasons.

The opposition House leader laid out a number of other committees. He mentioned a committee where there were 73 hours of filibustering by the Liberals and other committees where the Liberals, the government members, filibustered for dozens and dozens of hours. It seems to me that they could have managed their time, but instead they were trying to cover up for a Prime Minister who is, frankly, corrupt. They were trying to cover up their misdeeds and incompetence. That is why we are here.

Beyond what I just said about the Liberals covering up their own incompetence, misdeeds and corruption, they are trying to ram through legislation. It is understandable that a government would try to get bills through. For example, right now Bill C-10 is before the House. It is a censorship bill. It seeks to censor everything that Canadians do on the Internet. It would censor the free speech of Canadians on platforms like Facebook, TikTok, Instagram and Twitter, places Canadians go to engage in discussions and debate. The Liberals are trying to ram through a bill that would censor all of that. It would censor Canadians' right to free speech. It is disgraceful and shameful that they would seek to do that, but that is what they are doing. They are trying to ram the bill through with a motion such as this.

Members of the opposition are here to ensure that Canadians maintain the right to their free speech. We are here to fight against the censorship that the government is trying to put in place. We will be opposing it all the way. If the Liberals manage to put it in place, Conservatives will repeal it when we form government, which I am sure will not be very far into the future.

The other motive of the Liberals is to stop committees from meeting. I will explain why that is. The effect of the motion they have put forward means that for every day there are extended sitting hours, it causes the cancellation of a couple of the parliamentary committees that meet. For Canadians who do not know, parliamentary committees play a very key role in this place in terms of studying in detail legislation that is put forward. We saw, not that long ago, mistakes that were made by the government in its legislation. When parliamentary committees take the time they need to study legislation in detail, they are able to uncover mistakes. They are able to propose amendments to that legislation to ensure that it is right, correct and does what it is intended to do in serving Canadians.

When the ability for committees to meet is removed, it also removes the ability for those kinds of things to happen, for that proper scrutiny to happen. It removes the ability for Canadians to get answers to important questions through their elected representatives, and it removes the ability to sharpen up legislation and to get to the bottom of things. In some cases, with some of the filibusters that we have seen from the Liberals, they would have been able to get to the bottom of some of the misdeeds or incompetence of the Liberal government.

By cancelling those committee meetings, which this motion would effectively do, the Liberals are covering for themselves, but they are doing that at the expense of Canadians. I will give a couple of examples. Members do not have to take my word for the effect of what this will do, because the Liberals are already trying to do it now, before the motion is even passed. They are trying to cancel committees.

They are trying to cancel a meeting of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. That meeting was to talk to under-represented groups in our society and businesses. We are talking about indigenous businesses that would have come to speak at committee about the fact that they feel under-represented in some of the programs and services that are provided by government. I find it shameful that the Liberals would want to prevent indigenous business owners from being able to speak to some of the issues they have with the government. That is what they are already trying to do, prevent indigenous business owners in this country from being able to speak about the problems they are experiencing because of the Liberal government.

We were able to prevent the Liberals from doing that. Instead, they decided they would cancel a meeting of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. New immigrants to this country, some of them possibly refugees fleeing persecution, were going to speak about the services that are provided to them in some of our smaller municipalities and outside of major cities, so those voices will be silenced by the Liberal government.

That is the effect that a motion like this has by preventing committees from doing their work. It prevents the voices of indigenous Canadians and new immigrants. That is the effect that we see from this motion. I think it is shameful that we are actually discussing this idea. It would shut down the voices of Canadians across this country and prevent new immigrants, indigenous peoples and others from having the chance to have their voices represented at committees. That is why we are fighting this motion. That is why we are fighting against this. That is what we are doing.

They also cancelled a meeting of the transport committee to avoid finalizing a report there on the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We are all well aware of the Liberal government's failures in regard to infrastructure. They are very good at making announcements and very terrible at delivering results.

Given that, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “commencing” and substituting the following:

“on Monday, June 14, 2021, and concluding on Wednesday, June 23, 2021, the House shall continue to sit on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays until 8:30 p.m.”

That way we can get business moving but not cancel very important committee meetings of this Parliament.

Extension of Sitting Hours in JuneRoutine Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Liberal

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

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments will be the next time the motion comes up for debate.

It being 6:39 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

6:40 p.m.

Liberal

Yves Robillard Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

moved:

That:

(a) the House recognize that gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) is an analytical process that provides a rigorous methodology for assessing systemic inequalities, as well as a means to determine how diverse groups of women, men, and gender diverse people may experience policies, programs and initiatives; and

(b) in the opinion of the House, the government should direct the Department of National Defence to implement GBA+ to meet recruitment and retention targets for under-represented groups.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to move my public interest motion, Motion No. 58, in the House of Commons.

I am happy and proud to present this motion to my colleagues from across Canada, whether they are present in the House in person or virtually. I am also happy to present this motion to our constituents and, especially, to the members of the Canadian Armed Forces, many of whom, I think, are watching.

My motion is on an analytical tool that, in my opinion, could improve the recruitment and retention of under-represented groups in our armed forces.

Motion No. 58 calls on the government to recognize that gender-based analysis, commonly known as GBA+, is an analytical process that provides a rigorous methodology for assessing systemic inequalities, as well as a means to determine how diverse groups of women, men, and gender-diverse people may experience policies, programs and initiatives.

In today's complex security environment, a diverse military is seen as a strategic advantage. In 2017, our government released “Strong, Secure, Engaged: Canada's Defence Policy”. It recognizes that Canada's multicultural population is one of its greatest strengths and identifies several personnel modernization initiatives aimed at enhancing diversity, respect and inclusion in the CAF.

The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are committed to striving for gender equality and to building a workforce that leverages the diversity of Canadian society.

At the same time, the CAF must reflect the society it serves and uphold the values it defends. As Canada’s population has grown increasingly diverse, the Canadian Armed Forces has placed a stronger emphasis on improving its attractiveness as an employer of choice for women, first nations people, visible minorities and members of the LGBTQ2 community.

To that end, the Canadian Armed Forces has set targets for recruiting and retaining under-represented populations, recognized the benefits of diversity for operational effectiveness in its doctrines and made various commitments relating to improved diversity and inclusion.

The Department of National Defence has set the following objectives: increasing the representation of women in the CAF from 14.9% in 2016 to 25% by 2026; increasing the representation of first nations people in the CAF from 2.6% in 2016 to 3.5% by 2026; and increasing the representation of visible minorities in the CAF from 6.7% in 2016 to 11.8% by 2026.

Canada's diversity must be reflected in the CAF so that it is representative of the richness of society.

The CAF is modernizing its recruitment practices to ensure that it welcomes all applicants, but there are a number of areas where it could focus its recruitment efforts in order to achieve greater representation of women, indigenous people, visible minorities and members of the LGBTQ2 community.

These areas include new recruitment strategies, recruitment in rural, remote and indigenous communities, recruitment in urban centres, and reserve force recruitment.

As a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence, I believe that this motion is in the spirit of our government's commitment to promoting diversity and inclusion across the public service.

The objectives of gender-based analysis plus, or GBA+, also include improving the skills and competencies of analysts and developing the capacity within the public service to support and implement this commitment in government decision-making.

GBA+ provides an opportunity to deepen knowledge and examine the impact of programs, initiatives and policies on different groups of women, men and people of different gender identities. The “+” indicates that the analysis also takes account of the multiple other identity factors that define a person, including ethnic origin, religion, age and intellectual or physical disabilities.

This motion aims to encourage and support existing efforts by the CAF to implement GBA+ across the organization, including the unit level, and to promote awareness and training on GBA+ among all current members, including new recruits, and newly hired civilian staff.

It would also help develop assessment and evaluation mechanisms to regularly monitor the impact of GBA+ within and across the CAF. This will ensure efforts by the CAF to designate gender, diversity and inclusion champions, both at the unit level and across the organization, and to promote awareness of the focal points among all current members, including new recruits, and newly hired civilian staff.

It will encourage and support the development and implementation of recognizing individual initiative and leadership in the area of gender equality, diversity and inclusion within the CAF.

I am proud to be part of a feminist, progressive and inclusive government. This intent is also demonstrated by our government's decision to include this analytical tool in many decision-making processes. For example, the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and member for Peterborough—Kawartha ensured that GBA+ was considered in the government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Almost 185,000 people have completed the GBA+ online course, including federal public servants, parliamentarians and their staff, and provincial and territorial officials. Furthermore, GBA+ is now mandatory in all Treasury Board submissions, memoranda to cabinet, and departmental results frameworks and reports, and is reflected in the Cabinet Directive on Regulation.

Strategic relationships are being developed and strengthened, and a network of GBA+ experts from across the Government of Canada is increasingly collaborating to meet common goals.

Legislation increasingly includes GBA+ and obligations to conduct intersectional analysis. For example, the new Impact Assessment Act requires that GBA+ be a factor in the assessment of designated projects.

The 2018 Gender Budgeting Act enshrined gender budgeting in federal budgetary and financial processes.

Due to the growing demand for better intersectional data, the government has responded by creating Statistics Canada's Centre for Gender, Diversity and Inclusion Statistics.

I believe this motion is necessary since, again, Canadians must be able to see themselves reflected in their armed forces. The CAF must reflect the richness and diversity of our society. It must also set an example as an employer by promoting the diversity we are so proud of as Canadians.

As many of my colleagues know, I have been dedicated to our armed forces since I first became involved with them in my youth. I hope that my colleagues in the House will grasp the importance of this motion and take the time to read and understand it so that we can move forward. Although this motion is a simple one, I believe it is necessary, because it makes use of a specific tool to addresses a complex societal concern.

I look forward to questions from my friends and colleagues. I hope that our discussions will be fruitful, especially in the interest of the Canadian Armed Forces. I am, of course, available to answer phone calls and emails to answer the questions, and even the concerns of all of my colleagues.

6:50 p.m.

Conservative

Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Madam Speaker, the member referenced the online training. As a former officer within the Canadian Armed Forces and somebody who is GBA+ trained, I have a couple of simple questions for him. Is he personally GBA+ trained, and how many Liberal members of Parliament have taken the GBA+ training?

6:50 p.m.

Liberal

Yves Robillard Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Madam Speaker, in response to this question, I would like to recall the past of GBA+, recruitment and retention.

This year, 2020-21, 493 women signed up, representing 24% of recruits, compared to 1,530 recruits who were men, representing 75.6%. Although recruitment was lower than in the previous year, 2019-20, this percentage of women recruits was the highest of all previous years. This can be attributed to the priority given to selecting women candidates for the limited capacity of basic training. Also, 349 of the members recruited are from a visible minority—

6:50 p.m.

Liberal

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

I have to give other members the chance to ask questions. The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

6:55 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I have two quick questions for him.

Based on the information we have, the armed forces have already been instructed to do this, so what is the point of this motion? I would like my colleague to clarify his thoughts on this.

In addition, do they have any technical evidence? Again, based on the information we have, there is no evidence that this system works. There is no data to prove whether it works or not.

How useful is this motion in addressing the substantive problems in the Canadian Armed Forces, specifically regarding sexual misconduct and incomplete investigations, some of which are apparently even shut down by cabinet? Does the fact that these cabinet ministers are still in their positions worry my colleague?

6:55 p.m.

Liberal

Yves Robillard Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Madam Speaker, on the subject of sexual misconduct, Canadians have heard in recent months that defence team members have been affected by sexual trauma and sexual misconduct. On behalf of those who serve their country, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces must live up to our professed values of integrity, inclusion and accountability.

We also know that the current reporting system does not meet the needs of those who have been affected by misconduct or have witnessed misconduct. That must change. We accept responsibility for our failures and continue to conduct a critical examination of lessons learned.

6:55 p.m.

NDP

Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON

Madam Speaker, I would like to repeat a bit of the question asked previously. Of course GBA+ is an important tool, and as of 2015, the government has committed to make it a part of every government department and military decision.

If it has existed already, and the member just admitted it is not really working and the government has failed on this issue, then how would his motion in particular do what the government has already failed to do?

6:55 p.m.

Liberal

Yves Robillard Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Madam Speaker, the purpose of Ms. Arbour's review is to eliminate all forms of sexual misconduct and abuse of power and create a safe work environment—

6:55 p.m.

Liberal

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

Order. The member for London—Fanshawe on a point of order.

6:55 p.m.

NDP

Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The interpreter has indicated throughout the question and answer period that interpretation cannot happen because of the sound quality.

6:55 p.m.

Liberal

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

The member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin seems to be having trouble with his Internet connection.

We will move on to the next speech while the member tries to improve the quality of his Internet connection.

We will resume debate.

The hon. member for Calgary Skyview.