Debates of May 30th, 2022

Health

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, for months now, my Conservative colleagues and I have risen in the House to ask the government to lift the federal mandates. Since February, the government has voted down three different opposition motions, and maybe four today, calling for a plan to end federal mandates, including just this afternoon. When I asked a question on May 5 about federal mandates and federal public servants, I was told that the government “followed advice from public health experts” and that when “circumstances change, we adjust these measures”.

I will remind members of the House that Canada’s chief public health officer was saying back in February that all existing public health measures needed to be “re-evaluated” so that we can “get back to some normalcy”. Countries such as the United Kingdom, Spain and Denmark have removed restrictions and mandates, yet here in Canada, four million Canadians are still not able to take a domestic flight, travel by train to see loved ones and just do what they please.

Canadians who are able to travel are living a nightmare with delays at border crossings and airports. Planes are sitting on runways hours on end as travellers have to deal with slow processing times due to glitches and delays with the ArriveCAN app. The Liberal government’s outdated COVID-19 protocols and continued use of this app are not only causing extreme delays and missed connections, but hurting the aviation and tourism industries, the very industries that were hit first and the hardest when the pandemic struck.

Recently, I surveyed my constituents about the ArriveCAN app and over 80% say it should not remain in use. I hear on a daily basis about how federal restrictions and mandates are causing travel delays, which are hurting businesses in my riding now and will continue to hurt businesses as people are choosing to yet again delay travel plans for not wanting to deal with airport headaches. Why is the government persisting with its political theatre, which is having severely negative impacts on the well-being of Canadians who are just trying to live their lives?

When the vaccine mandate for federal public servants was implemented, it was said there would be a review after six months. It has now been seven months and the review has not taken place. How long does a review take?

To conclude, the government has repeatedly refused to provide evidence that supports the continued enforcement of these mandates, which leads us to simply believe these are punitive and vindictive measures aimed at dividing Canadians. Why is it that Canadians can pack themselves into a sporting arena and go to restaurants, movies, live theatre and music concerts, but the very small number of unvaccinated federal public servants are still not allowed to return to work? Why are unvaccinated Canadians still not able to travel, and why is the Liberal government not able to explain why?

I will end on a very quick note. On Saturday, I attended the May Day festivities at Bradner Hall. It was the first time in three years it had the event. When I was there, like many of my constituents and people who live in the Fraser Valley, I met someone who worked at one of the federally regulated trading facilities at one of our ports. I asked the community member if the federal government had ever imposed a vaccine mandate at a federal port. He said no, the government did not enforce its own policies at federal ports. The answer is really quite simple. The government did not impose its own mandates at federally regulated ports because it knew the impact it would have on the flow of goods in our country.

Here again is another example of the hypocrisy of the Liberal government as it relates to mandates. There is one set of rules for travellers, another set of rules for public servants and another set of rules for people working at ports. Why can the government not just lift the mandates, let people live their lives and provide some consistency? Our economy needs it and Canadians need it.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, we are fortunate in Canada to have a world-class public service. Whether on the front lines of our communities, from a home office, from a laboratory or in many other workplaces, federal public servants across the country continue to provide Canadians with the critical services they rely on and have not wavered since the start of the pandemic. Indeed, the federal public service is an incredibly diverse workplace.

As the employer of the federal public service, the government is responsible for creating safe working conditions for public servants no matter where they work.

An employer has an obligation to protect its employees. That is why, as the country's largest employer, we led by example to better protect the health and safety of public servants during the COVID‑19 pandemic. That included mandatory vaccination.

Last October, we implemented a policy requiring that all public employees of the core public administration, including the RCMP, be vaccinated. This requirement applies to all employees, whether they are working remotely or working on site. It also applies to contractors who require federal access to federal government work sites.

Employees who have to travel to a federal workplace need assurances that every possible measure has been taken to ensure their health and safety. A fully vaccinated workforce not only makes workplaces safer, but also enhances the safety of the communities in which these public servants live and work. Vaccination also builds better protection for Canadians who access government services in person, including the most vulnerable members of our communities.

Vaccines are the best way to bring this pandemic to an end, and public servants have stepped up, with 99% of the federal core public administration attesting to being fully vaccinated. We recognize that some public servants are not able to be vaccinated, whether because of a medical contraindication, on religious grounds or on another prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. These employees can request accommodation, but this is not new.

Employers are required to ensure that they do not discriminate on a prohibited ground and, at the federal level, the Canadian Human Rights Act has been in effect since 1977.

Since that time, the public service has implemented robust processes to review accommodation requests, as evidenced by the Directive on the Duty to Accommodate and other instruments and guides.

Accommodations related to the vaccination policy continue to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the facts and circumstances that may be unique to a specific individual or workplace.

When it comes to a request for accommodation, managers are not making these decisions on their own. They are supported by experienced human resource professionals who receive policy guidance from the office of the chief human resources officer and are supported by legal and privacy advisers. I can assure the House that there has been no discernible impact on the government's operations or on the services Canadians receive every day.

From the beginning of the pandemic, we made a commitment to Canadians that we will protect their health and safety. We have in place measures to protect workers and our communities. As circumstances change, we will adjust these measures. We have always followed advice from our public health experts. We have committed to reviewing this policy every—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of points for my rebuttal.

First, the member for Hull—Aylmer mentioned that there was an obligation for federal public servants to be vaccinated if they wanted to continue working, because the government said it is the most effective way to keep people safe. However, it did not have an obligatory vaccine mandate for federal inmates, so the people it was purporting to protect still had to service a population in our federal institutions that was not vaccinated. That is hypocrisy. I know for a fact that correctional officers right now are covering their badges because they are so ashamed of the government they are working for. They are in protest about the poor services the government gave them because of the very issue I just raised.

Second, the member did not respond to my point about ports. The Government of Canada never implemented a vaccine mandate at federal ports because it knew the economic consequences that would have. It was not a public health decision at the ports; it was an economic decision.

Can the member please comment on that?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would be very pleased to repeat the point I made during my speech.

The federal government has required vaccination for the entire core public administration of the federal government.

We believe that the most fundamental responsibility of any government is to ensure the health and safety of its citizens. As the largest employer in the country, we have an obligation to ensure that public servants work in a safe and healthy environment, whether that is in an office or service centre, at the border, at home or elsewhere. A fully vaccinated workforce results in safer workplaces and safer communities across the country.

This policy is about public health, and the overwhelming majority of public servants have stepped up and have been vaccinated. Public servants are responding to the need to make sure that Canadians are safe and healthy during the pandemic, and the government will continue to protect its employees.

Housing

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am rising today on adjournment proceedings to talk to the defence minister.

I asked on May 2 about the state of housing for our military on our bases and the fact that the housing shortage in Canada was so bad that in Bay of Quinte, on our air base, CFB Trenton and 8 Wing in Trenton, we have 360 families on a waiting list for housing on the base. It is a big problem.

On the weekend, I took my children to see Top Gun 2 or Top Gun: Maverick. It is one of the greatest movies of all time, following the first one. I will tell members, there is no secret, it was really good. It is a story about the military in the U.S. and naval aviators. For me, it was very nostalgic but also a great movie to talk about the military in general. My kids absolutely felt the need for speed.

Who is not feeling the need for speed right now are military members who are waiting for housing. Right now, in Canada, we have about 8,000 military families waiting for housing on their bases.

Just to talk about how important that is, it is not only members of the military. We talk about military families and how important they are. It is also their wingmen: their spouses. The spouses, a lot of times, are finding that if they cannot find jobs, or if they are unable to fit in with the community, they also cannot find homes. What we are finding, when it comes to the military, is that we are having trouble attracting and retaining talent, and it is really a ballistic housing crisis that is forcing these people into a sorry state.

Let me just tell members that when it comes to our military, we have to look after our men and women first and foremost. We have to ensure that not only do we have good pay and good benefits for military members, but we have to also really look after the backs of the people who look after us abroad. Housing is paramount.

I know that in budget 2022, there was $8 billion slated for military spending. My specific question is this. There is $15 billion that is uncosted so far. How much of that $15 billion, not just the $8 billion, is going into housing on bases?

Really, when it comes to those families and the bases, and I have talked at length to our colonels and some of the generals for our military, the first priority is families and to ensure that when they are posted to a base, they have a slot.

The buildings are called PMQs that house families on bases. They can be for multiple families and they can be for single families. We are finding right now that because of the shortage of homes, families who have several children are being forced into single PMQs. We are finding that state to be a big problem. Additionally, because of the lack of housing, we are finding it hard to attract talent to our air bases.

Right now in Canada, we are short 10,000 military members for our Canadian Armed Forces. That is for members and reservists. The housing crisis is also having a detrimental effect on attracting those key personnel. People are choosing not to go to certain areas if they cannot afford the homes there. If people sell a home at CFB Cold Lake and move to CFB Trenton, or if they are going to Pembroke or some other base, that house they sold is maybe about $400,000 or $500,000, but they have to then afford close to $1 million to get a house on that next base. A lot of families are saying that it is just not possible for them to do that.

The answer is going to be putting money that we had for planes into people. That means ensuring that we have money that goes into that base.

As the saying goes, there are no points for second place, so for—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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

[Bryan May, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, military members and their families are our top priority and we are taking steps to ensure that they are in fact supported. We know many Canadians are deeply concerned about housing, and in many ways a life in the Canadian Armed Forces amplifies this issue.

CAF members move frequently, and when they are posted to a place where housing is more expensive, it can be extremely challenging for them and their families. This is why the Department of National Defence is improving access to housing for our members.

In 2021-22, we began allocating $40 million per year for 10 years to be invested in the DND residential housing program. Starting in 2022-23, DND has allocated an additional $15 million per year for three years. This means that in 2022-23, we will be investing $55 million in residential housing for CAF members.

This includes renovation projects to ensure the existing 11,540 housing units are functional and suitable. Some of this funding will go toward constructing new housing units at bases and wings over the next several years. In addition to improving housing access to members, the Canadian Armed Forces is offering them a number of benefits for relocation anywhere in Canada, including reimbursing legal fees and real estate fees.

If members who have to move encounter challenges selling their old houses or finding new ones, or their family needs more time to adjust, a CAF member can proceed unaccompanied to the new location and lodging will be paid for up to six months, or longer if authorized by the CAF. If the residence cannot be sold, the CAF will also cover some expenses for dual residences up to six months.

Most importantly, we are listening to our members and their families. The CAF is conducting surveys continuously during the active posting season to gather feedback on how the relocation experience can be improved.

Through budget 2022, the Department of National Defence also announced an increase of $8 billion in funding over five years for the Canadian Armed Forces on top of our planned SSE investments, and we are updating our defence policy to ensure it continues to be relevant in the evolving defence and security environment.

In February 2021, we increased military members' rates of pay to ensure alignment with the increase received by the federal public service. In addition, to ensure the post living differential allowance effectively supports CAF members and their families and addresses affordability concerns, the Department of National Defence is reviewing that policy.

We will always seek to support the people who choose to serve their country with a robust compensation and benefits framework. As part of the CAF reconstitution plan, we are making sure that we are doing everything we can to take care of our people. This involves rebuilding the CAF's effective strength, transforming defence team culture and emphasizing the physical and mental well-being of our people.

For example, through national initiatives like Seamless Canada, we are making sure CAF members and their families are not facing the challenges that come with posting out of province or territory alone. Supporting our families is central to having a strong, healthy and modern military. We are continually exploring ways to ensure CAF members and their families have what they need to live in uniform.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, those are great promises but we are not delivering. On May 5, there was an email passed around from a senior officer at a base north of Vancouver letting family members of military know that Habitat for Humanity was an option for those family members looking for housing. How bad is it that the military is offering Habitat for Humanity housing? That should be going to families that need actual housing. Our military members are being forced into that scenario.

At the end of the day, it is great that we have committed. I will admit that for CFB Trenton, there was an announcement two weeks ago for some money to build 60 new homes of the 360 we need, so that is great. That is committed money. We have had that from the government. We need action.

I am going to ask again. I know we have the funding announcement. On what date are shovels going to be in the ground to build those homes committed from the budget? Is that going to be done by the end of 2022?

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, affordable housing is at the top of many Canadians' minds, and we recognize this includes Canadian Armed Forces members. That is why we have committed to constructing more housing units for CAF members, and why there are services and benefits in place to assist personnel as they relocate.

In order to meet increased operational requirements for military housing, the Department of National Defence is working with stakeholders to align resources and acquire additional housing. The CAF is continually looking at ways to improve compensation, benefits, policies, practices and services so that we are compassionate and responsive to the needs of our members and their families.

People are at the core of our military. It is important that they have the support they need so that they can best defend Canadians at home and uphold peace around the globe. We are not only ensuring operational effectiveness this way, but we are also ensuring that CAF offers an appealing career path to help us retain the best and brightest personnel in service to Canada.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn. The House will now resolve itself into a committee of the whole to study all votes under the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023.

(House in committee of the whole to consider all votes under Department of Fisheries and Oceans in the main estimates, Mrs. Carol Hughes in the chair)

Department of Fisheries and Oceans—Main Estimates 2022-23

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The House will now resolve itself into committee of the whole to study all votes under Department of Fisheries and Oceans in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023.

Today's debate is a general one on all votes under the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The first round will begin with the official opposition, followed by the government, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party. After that, we will follow the usual proportional rotation.

Each member will be allocated 15 minutes at a time, which may be used for both debate or for posing questions. Members wishing to use this time to make a speech have a maximum of 10 minutes, which leaves at least 5 minutes for questions to the minister. When a member is recognized, he or she should indicate to the Chair how the 15-minute period will be used, in other words, how much time will be spent on the speech and how much time will be used for questions and answers.

Also, pursuant to order made earlier today, members who wish to share their time with another member shall indicate this to the Chair. The Chair will receive no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent. When the time is to be used for questions and comments, the minister's response should reflect approximately the time taken to pose the question, since this time will be counted in the time originally allotted to the member.

Pursuant to order made Thursday, May 19, 2022, the time provided for the debate tonight may be extended beyond four hours as needed to include a minimum of 16 periods of 15 minutes each. I also wish to indicate that in committee of the whole comments should be addressed to the Chair. I ask for everyone's co-operation in upholding all established standards of decorum, parliamentary language and behaviour.

We will now begin tonight's debate.

The hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Chair, who makes the final decisions at DFO?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries]

I make the decisions.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Chair, in January, at the FFAW, you said that your goal was to leave as many fish in the ocean as possible, and—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member has to address all questions to the Chair and not directly to the minister.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Chair, in January, the minister said at the FFAW that she would leave as many fish in the ocean as possible, that was her goal, and to grow as many plants as possible, and that fishermen could find another job.

Could the minister please inform this House what job she was speaking of?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Chair, I think that is a complete misconstrual of what I said. What I have said is that my goal is grow the seafood and fish industry, and for that we need to have abundant stock.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Chair, DFO executive-level positions have increased 158%, rising from 65 to 173 during the time of this government. What could possibly justify that excessive growth?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Chair, this is a department that manages a great number and complexity of issues, as well as conflicts among different stakeholders, and I am very proud of the work that my officials and the leaders do in this department.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Chair, in 2019-20, the department met 56.3% of its goals and paid out $4.6 million in bonuses to its staff. That is 94.7% of the staff receiving a bonus for 56% performance. In 2020-21, the department met only 57% of its targets. Is that what this 158% growth of executives was done to manage?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Chair, I think the member is asking questions about previous years. I was appointed in 2021, and I have had excellent service from the leaders of the department.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Chair, in 2021 the achievement was 57% under this minister's leadership. Was that success?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Chair, I do find this line of questioning a bit rich, when the previous government cut the department's budget significantly.