Debates of Sept. 29th, 2022

Protection of Freedom of Conscience Act

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of Bill C-230, presented in this House by my friend and my colleague, the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek. The bill we are debating today is worth more than a casual dismissal, as I have heard done in this debate by so many.

The bill, if supported, would provide the protections for charter rights of medical professionals who object to providing or participating in medical assistance in dying, which is something that many Canadians are concerned are not there. This is not a debate about medically assisted dying, on which my own convictions are based on a deeply held personal experience and one I would not wish on anyone in this House.

It is also insulting to hear that some members in this House think that it is exercise in politics. This is a debate that is often used in the simplification of applying a litmus test to carelessly sift people into buckets based on how they see a very complex societal issue, to which some so easily assign a check mark or an X. I also support a woman's right to choose. I always have. I always will. I support the LGBT community and its rights, and not as a check mark but as someone who is a proud member of it.

Canadians have varied opinions on MAID based on deeply held personal circumstances, beliefs and experience. One member in this House said, before opposing these important provisions in the bill, which aims to codify them in law, that he did not see the need for them.

However, I do want to reiterate and emphasize some points that are important to this conversation and should be important to members of this House and Canadians alike. Medical assistance in dying is a deeply held moral and conscientious issue that has legal and ethical questions beyond a simple difference of opinion. We know that from the debates in this House. The medical professionals have a duty to do what is in the best interests of their patients and provide them with the best advice on how to move forward with their care. I will say that this is personal and I will say that I went through it. In this case of medical assistance in dying, there are professional and ethical considerations that should be weighed with the highest degree of importance and a caution that touches on the deep moral convictions that I do not believe have been adequately addressed in the current context of our laws.

That said, this bill aims to add two new offences to the Criminal Code. It does not pronounce on whether conscience-rights protections are somehow up for debate. They are not, despite some members' suggesting that this bill would aim to do things that it would not do.

I do believe that it is important to state, for my colleague and those before her who brought this to the House in a piece of legislation, what it actually says and not fall into an issue that we are not debating today. One, the bill would make it an offence to intimidate a medical practitioner for the purpose of compelling them to take part directly or indirectly in the provision of medical assistance in dying. Two, it also would make it an offence to dismiss or refuse to employ the medical practitioner on that same basis. The debate suggests that the provisions in the Criminal Code already do this, and that is simply not the case.

While the Criminal Code does not compel a medical professional to provide MAID, there is nothing in the Criminal Code that specifically protects medical professionals when they are pressured or coerced into participating in or advising on medical assistance in dying.

Not wanting to discuss this does not make the conversation go away. The bill is a direct response to disability rights groups and groups who are calling for these provisions and who understand first-hand that it is a problem. This bill is a direct response to the first nations groups who have called for this and understand that it is a problem. This bill is a direct response to legal experts. It is a response to mental health professionals who understand that this is a problem. Therefore, saying that it is not a problem does not make it not a problem.

This bill would make certain that medical professionals who choose not to take part in or to refer a patient for assisted suicide or medical assistance in dying would never be forced or coerced to violate their charter rights.

The Ontario Medical Association specifically called for an amendment like this in the bill passed by the government, to provide greater conscience protections for medical professionals, acknowledging that although the current clause in the government's bill, “for greater certainty”, exists, it does not actually do the thing it is supposed to do, which is protect freedom. It cannot be enforced. That is the problem that this bill, which was brought to this floor for debate by my colleague, would correct.

This bill addresses the gap and would close it by establishing two spelled-out and very targeted offences. Stakeholders are calling on those additional safeguards, and any discussion of answering this call should not be callously dismissed. It should be thoughtfully considered on behalf of all Canadians, and certainly those who have asked for provisions like this.

Members opposite have stated throughout the debate a jurisdictional argument, and that it somehow infringes on provincial jurisdiction. It is hard to see it as anything but political when one argues that conscience rights legislation somehow interferes with jurisdiction while simultaneously believing that the legalization of medical assistance in dying does not do the same thing.

To go back to the code for a second and the notion that existing provisions in the Criminal Code already produce satisfactory protections, if that were the case, this bill would not be necessary. However, I believe that notion ought to be challenged, because it is simply not the case. The evidence from those affected should trump the dismissal of evidence from politicians claiming it to be trivial, or worse, not even acknowledged.

This bill would do just as much to protect patients as it does medical professionals, which is something that has not been talked about, by protecting the fundamentally important relationship between a physician and a patient. It would do so by ensuring the advice their physician is providing is free and clear of coercion. That should be a priority, not a land mine we cannot discuss. We should have these discussions here, because they are important and the provisions do not exist as they currently talk about in the code.

There have been laws that created unintended consequences of doctors being forced to participate in providing a patient's death, regardless of whether they believed it was in the patient's best interest or not. The current provisions cannot possibly claim that the Criminal Code already protects the conscience rights of medical professionals, not if one reads the code. The clause I mention confirms only that the Criminal Code is not the source of obligation to participate. It does not state it as an offence. It must actually articulate it as an offence in order for people to effectively deal with it as an offence and in order to enforce it. That is what we are talking about.

Without conscience rights, doctors are constrained to provide medical assistance in dying, regardless of whether it is their professional opinion or is in the best interest of the patient, regardless of their moral, ethical and personal convictions and regardless of their own beliefs. Without the necessary protections, they may be coerced and they may be intimidated, and those rights would have no value as a result.

Many of us today might be or might have been in a situation where a loved one has a difficult choice to make about their health. Why would we not want our loved ones to receive the best possible care, the most options and the best options from good doctors, based on advice that has not been coloured by possible intimidation?

Over the past years, we have seen just how much Canadians depend on our health care system and how crucial doctors and medical professionals who work in that system have been. Every Canadian has, or at least a number of Canadians have experienced or are experiencing now how important the system is, and making sure that system works is even more important.

We need to create a work environment for medical professionals that protects them, supports them, encourages them and attracts the most qualified people possible to the profession. I encourage members in this House to support the passage of this protection of freedom of conscience act. I hope those with deeply held conviction will understand what my hon. colleague is trying to achieve for patients, doctors and those wanting to see them protected.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to close the debate on my bill, the protection of freedom of conscience act.

I believe this is a straightforward piece of legislation. It would make it an offence to intimidate a medical professional to participate in medically assisted suicide, directly or indirectly, or to dismiss from employment or refuse to hire a medical professional simply because they refuse to take part in medically assisted dying.

With the removal of safeguards, the slippery slope that many predicted when medically assisted suicide was decriminalized has come to fruition. Additionally, the courts and government legislation have expanded medically assisted suicide far beyond what was conceived in the Carter decision of 2015. Now, those who promote euthanasia support medically assisted suicide for the mentally ill, with some even believing that children should be eligible. This is creating turbulent and stressful times for many in the medical field.

Given this expansion of medical assistance in dying, there is the growing concern or objection among many medical professionals, whether they support MAID or disagree with it, that they may be forced to participate, even if they do not believe that it is in a particular patient's best interest based on their expertise and knowledge of the patient's history. More and more are becoming aware of the erosion of respect for their professional judgment and the precious relationship between the health care provider and their patient.

Unlike what some are trying to portray, this bill does not relitigate the legality of MAID, nor does it seek to impede a patient's access to MAID. Rather, it seeks to protect a medical professional's charter right not to participate in medically assisted suicide when they cannot in good conscience do so.

Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically says:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

During the first hour of debate, my colleague, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, reminded us that the Supreme Court's ruling in the Carter decision was predicated on two things: “a willing patient and, as importantly, a willing physician.” He went on to note that in the decision, the Supreme Court stated the following: “we note...that a physician’s decision to participate in assisted dying is a matter of conscience and, in some cases, of religious belief”.

Protecting individuals from coercion of this nature is not foreign to the Criminal Code of Canada, as found in section 425. If Parliament can enshrine criminal penalties for employers for coercing employees not to form a union, then surely we can provide similar protection for medical professionals when dealing with conscience protections.

Throughout the pandemic, we saw just how important every doctor, nurse and medical support worker is to our system. I do not want even one of these amazing men and women to leave Canada or leave the profession because they are faced with a situation of having one of their most precious rights violated.

With Bill C-230, I have put forward comprehensive yet simple legislation that is important to medical professionals from coast to coast. I would welcome a committee's examination of it, as well as any recommendations to improve it.

In closing, it is an honour to have introduced a private member's bill of substance and consequence in this place and to have members debate it. I humbly ask all members to vote in favour of it at second reading so that it can be sent to committee for further study.

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

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be carried on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded vote.

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

Pursuant to an order made Thursday, June 23, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 5, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

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

Indigenous Affairs

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, on May 5, I rose to ask the Prime Minister if he would take immediate action to deliver a dedicated housing strategy for indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people and end the ongoing genocide against indigenous women and girls.

The final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls cites housing and homelessness over 200 times. This is the result of colonization and decades of neglect and broken promises by successive federal governments, from Liberals to Conservatives to Liberals.

Precarious housing situations contribute to increased risk of violence, trafficking and the high number of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. Urban indigenous peoples are eight times more likely to experience homelessness compared with the general population. The national inquiry's final report calls upon governments to ensure that indigenous peoples have equitable access to basic rights, including housing, but the current government has failed to deliver a for indigenous, by indigenous urban, rural and northern housing strategy.

The Prime Minister has said over and again, “No relationship is more important to Canada than the relationship with Indigenous Peoples,” but reconciliation must be more than just words. It requires real action, commitment, listening to indigenous peoples and substantial investments. In other words, it requires action.

The Prime Minister's words ring hollow when indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people in Canada continue to disproportionately experience violence and homelessness. The $300 million over five years for the for indigenous, by indigenous urban, rural and northern housing strategy is woefully inadequate to address the urgent needs on the ground. After decades of neglect and colonization, it is a slap in the face to indigenous peoples. Ensuring access to safe, affordable and culturally appropriate housing is critical to ending this genocide against indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people.

Call to justice 4.6 calls upon the government to “immediately commence the construction of new housing and the provision of repairs for existing housing to meet the housing needs of Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people.”

Call to justice 4.7 calls upon the government to:

...support the establishment and long-term sustainable funding of Indigenous-led low-barrier shelters, safe spaces, transition homes, second-stage housing, and services for Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people who are homeless, near homeless, dealing with food insecurity, or in poverty, and who are fleeing violence or have been subjected to sexualized violence and exploitation. All governments must ensure that shelters, transitional housing, second-stage housing, and services are appropriate to cultural needs, and available wherever Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people reside.

Tomorrow is the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. Our country must reflect on our history of colonial violence and genocide. The government has a responsibility to end this violence and to stop perpetuating this colonial violence, this intergenerational trauma and this social and economic marginalization. We need action now.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for bringing up this important topic. I would also like to assure the member that the government has taken the tragic loss of indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people extremely seriously.

While budget 2021 investments continue to roll out, budget 2022 builds on these past investments to strike at the root causes and work towards eliminating violence against indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people, and to address the calls for justice.

This is a holistic approach, and this would help to build safer communities. We are investing in housing, education, mental wellness and health care, as well as economic development and employment; addressing the challenges of natural resource development and the implementation of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; and investing in the gender-based violence national action plan, the LGTBQ2+ federal action plan and the anti-racism plan.

To say that we have not taken action is not true. It is simply not true. For example, in July of this year, in collaboration with the Government of Nova Scotia, indigenous communities and organizations, our government invested over $6.5 million to support the construction of a new resilience centre in Milbrook through the green and inclusive community buildings program. This centre would provide services to women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ individuals seeking refuge and respite across Nova Scotia.

In regards to homelessness, the government recognizes that precarious housing conditions put indigenous women and girls, as well as 2SLGBTQQIA+ people at higher risks of violence. We worked with partners to co-develop the 10-year national first nations housing and related infrastructure strategy. The Assembly of First Nations Chief endorsed that strategy in December of 2018. We continue to work with the Assembly of First Nations to advance this strategy.

As of December 31, 2021, our government has supported first nations with the construction, renovation and retrofitting of 25,102 homes on reserve, of which 17,432 have been completed. To support housing in Inuit and Métis communities, $980 million has been announced by our government since 2016.

In the 2022 budget, we announced an additional $4 billion in funding for indigenous housing over seven years to accelerate work in closing indigenous housing gaps, including $2.4 billion over five years to support first nations housing on reserve, $845 million over seven years for housing in Inuit communities, $190 million over seven years for housing in Métis communities, and $565 million over five years for housing in self-governing and modern treaty first nation communities.

Lastly, through the indigenous homes innovation initiative, we are supporting creative projects led by indigenous peoples to design and build more effective, sustainable and culturally inspired living spaces, some of which will specifically support indigenous women and girls or other vulnerable populations.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Chair, the government needs to face the truth and acknowledge the reality of the ongoing genocide of indigenous women and girls in this country.

One in 10 indigenous women were victims of a violent crime in 2019, and between 2015 and 2020, the average homicide rate involving indigenous victims was six times higher than that of non-indigenous people.

A 22-year-old Inuit woman, Savanna Pikuyak, who came to Ottawa to become a nurse, was murdered just four days after arriving in the city. She lacked access to safe, secure, affordable housing. That is the reality. She was away from her home community.

We still do not have a for indigenous, by indigenous urban, rural and northern housing strategy. Will the government commit today, on the eve of the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation to adequately fund a for indigenous, by indigenous—

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will reiterate that this government takes the safety and well-being of indigenous women and girls, as well as 2SLGBTQQIA+ people, very seriously. We are working hard with our partners, listening to indigenous voices and creating legislation and programming across the country. The goal is to build a safer, more inclusive and culturally sensitive Canada that will help reduce violence against vulnerable groups.

This is complicated work, and I understand that the hon. member is eager to see tangible actions. However, I can assure the member that we are making important progress because of the changes that we and our partners are introducing. We are building a safer society for all Canadians.

The Environment

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, several months ago, I asked the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and other ministers if they had met with impacted communities regarding their concerns with the Nunavut Impact Review Board's recommendations on Baffinland's phase two proposal. The minister's response was, “I can assure the member...that the consideration of indigenous people and the people of the north, Inuit, will be taken into great consideration”.

After the Nunavut Impact Review Board recommended the rejection of phase two, Baffinland immediately requested a temporary increase to ship six million tonnes of iron ore. Communities had repeatedly told NIRB that the current project is already having devastating impacts on the wildlife and environment. These voices are being ignored.

The ministers must hear directly from these communities regarding the Mary River project. Even though experts have testified and the communities have spoken, these testimonies have been ignored directly by the ministers in the government.

It is my understanding that for each hearing, five impacted communities were allowed to bring five people to represent themselves. Throughout the hearings, only a small number of people were invited to testify. Those five communities are made up of 6,897 people, which is less than 1% of the populations that call the communities of Pond Inlet, Clyde River, Arctic Bay, lgloolik and Sanirajak their home. By putting limits on the voices heard, the deep, meaningful consultation required is not being done.

The legal requirements for the duty to consult require the government to accommodate indigenous peoples when there is a potential for impacts from resource development. Corporate greed of private business should not come before the rights of indigenous peoples.

The government continues to fail to protect indigenous people's right to be consulted. By deferring responsibility to NIRB, it has failed to meet its legal obligation to ensure meaningful and deep consultation.

Ministers have been refusing to meet with community members, including those from the Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization. Their culture and ability to thrive in Nunavut is a right affirmed in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. The government continues to infringe on their rights.

Like many things it has promised indigenous peoples, their rights are being violated. Has the minister and his colleagues met directly, not through NIRB's process or Baffinland, with these communities over their concerns with the duty to consult?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for her continued advocacy on behalf of her constituents.

As the member knows, on May 13, the independent, arm's length Nunavut Impact Review Board submitted its report on the Baffinland Iron Mines' Mary River phase two project. We thank it for its important work and all northern and indigenous partners for their participation in the NIRB process.

Last July, the government extended the timeline to issue a decision in collaboration with project proponents and northern and indigenous partners. No decision has been made at this time. We will take the time to review the report along with federal officials. A decision will be taken following appropriate due diligence and comprehensive analysis, including whether the duty to consult has been met or not.

I note that prior to the Nunavut Impact Review Board's recommendation, the Minister of Northern Affairs travelled to Pond Inlet, Nunavut, in August of 2021 and met with the community project proponents QIA and Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization. Furthermore, since 2018, the department, through the northern participant funding program, has approved financial support to 13 organizations involved in the phase two review, with a total funding amount of $2,089,452. This funding has helped ensure the meaningful participation of north Baffin Inuit and other interested parties in the phase two review process.

It is important to consider that there is currently a comprehensive review taking place by the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, working with partners to understand the recommendation by NIRB and to assess the duty to consult. During the decision phase, parties wanting to share their opinions on the board's recommendation should contact the president of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency.

Creating employment opportunities through sustainable economic development to benefit Nunavummiut and all Canadians continues to be a priority for this government. That is why our federal budgets include strong measures and create investments to support the economy in the north and strengthen Arctic and northern communities. Building on past budget investments, budget 2022 proposes to provide $15 million over five years, starting in 2022-23, to support indigenous economic development in the north. I know that the minister works closely with territorial and Inuit partners and all communities in Nunavut to make sure that their interests are protected.

It is imperative that indigenous peoples are full partners in natural resource projects. We work to strengthen the Inuit-Crown partnership through meaningful collaboration while creating a more prosperous Inuit Nunungat. Our efforts are guided by the values and principles of the Inuit Nunungat policy.

I remind the hon. member that the Government of Canada remains committed to protecting the interests of all Nunavummiut and we will do this in the spirit of reconciliation, guided by the Inuit Nunungat policy.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, the parliamentary secretary has not answered my question about whether the ministers have met directly with the impacted communities.

When I was trying to arrange meetings with the ministers and my communities, I was frequently told by the ministers that they were concerned about the conflict of interest relating to the Mary River project, explaining why they could not meet directly with the communities.

Could the parliamentary secretary please share the conflict of interest he or his party has? I am sure that the people in my riding would be interested to hear if their interests are being ignored over corporate greed.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, our government has been following the process as prescribed by the Nunavut agreement, co-developed with Inuit partners. This process provides certainty for all of those involved.

Our government supports a strong resource development sector in the north that is sustainable, creates economic opportunity for indigenous peoples and all northerners, advances reconciliation and respects the environment. The Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency continues to do its due diligence and comprehensive analysis of the recommendation on whether the duty to consult has in fact been met. Once the government receives this report, the minister will take the necessary time to review and make a decision within the legislated timeline.

I again thank the member for her continued advocacy on this important issue.

National Defence

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will begin my remarks by recognizing the freedom-loving, independent-minded and hard-working people who live in Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

Never has the threat to democracy in Canada been more in jeopardy than it is with our Prime Minister, who is quick to accuse others of being racist while he enjoys dressing up in costumes and blackface to make fun of other people's cultures and skin colours.

My question to the Prime Minister was specifically related to the amount of $15 billion dollars in the national defence budget that was unaccounted for. The 2022 departmental plan indicates its intent to spend $77 billion between 2022-23 and 2024-25. However, the corresponding numbers in budget 2022 are roughly $23 billion higher. While part of this spending pertains to new policy measures presented in budget 2022, there is no explanation for close to $15 billion.

Surely by coincidence, the Canada growth fund was announced as something in the budget document that would be “initially capitalized at $15 billion over the next five years” from the existing fiscal framework. The only $15 billion parliamentarians are aware of unaccounted for in the budget to be misappropriated is the missing $15 billion identified by the non-partisan Parliamentary Budget Officer.

The objective of the Canada growth fund, Canadians are told, is to close the large gap between what Canada is experiencing between the public and private capital now being spent each year, $15 billion to $25 billion, and the amount that is required to be siphoned from the economy, $125 billion $140 billion, if Canada is to have a net-zero Marxist economy by 2050. This same language was used recently by the defence minister when it was announced that continental defence modernization needs $3 billion from, once again, existing budget 2022 allocations. No new funding was announced for this finally acknowledged threat to Canada and the rules-based international order.

The more sanctions Canada employs against Russia, the more we draw Russia's attention to our borders. Canada’s Arctic sovereignty is at risk. The government House leader, using the usual mannered, evasive response to questions practised by the Prime Minister to irritating extremes, ignores the fact that it was the decision of the Liberal Party to disband, during the decade of darkness at national defence, Canada’s rapid response light brigade. Its role was to defend Canadian Arctic sovereignty.

When Canada lost the capabilities of the Canadian Airborne Regiment, the Liberal Party was in effect inviting other countries, such as China, to take over Canada’s far north. The fact our Arctic sovereignty is at risk was recently recognized by NATO. It is about time the federal government recognized the risk in Canada’s far north. Talk is rarely replaced by the government with action. They over-promise and underperform. It will take a Conservative government to get boots on the ground.

Let us not forget the commitments to Ukraine, which look nice when they are delivered, but come at the detriment to our capabilities. Since the start of the war in Ukraine, Canada has sent approximately $394 million U.S. in additional military aid from the Canadian military’s stock of weapons deemed available for donation, which is now largely depleted and will need to be replaced.

Canada’s United Nations standing is diminishing, as evidenced in our lost bid to Ireland in 2020 for a rotating seat on the UN Security Council. We were not invited to join the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, the soon-to-be largest free trade area in the world, nor were we asked to join the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom in AUKUS, a new defence pact aimed at containing the growing military might of China.

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

Madam Speaker, every day, Canada and our allies count on the Canadian Armed Forces to safeguard our citizens and uphold the rules-based international order that underpins global security and prosperity. As parliamentarians, we need to ensure that the talented professionals of our defence team have the resources they need to keep pace in an increasingly complex threat environment.

Here at home and across the globe, we are seeing the results of a great power competition; the effects of the pandemic on the recruitment, retention and readiness of the CAF members; and the role that climate change plays on defence and security, including in our Arctic region. We need to account for these issues and make sure that we are staying one step ahead if we are to remain strong at home, secure in North America and engaged in the world. Therefore, it is for good reason the Department of National Defence has one of the largest operating and capital budgets in government.

Budget 2022 contains a variety of new investments for our military. We have added $8 billion in new funding on top of funding already forecasted in the departmental plan and in Canada's defence policy, which, as members know, we will be updating to better reflect the evolving security environment.

The hon. member referenced in her original question a recent analysis the Parliamentary Budget Officer released in budget 2022. In the analysis, the PBO commented on the difference between the forecast of the defence spending in a graph in budget 2022 and the forecast in National Defence's most recent departmental plan. However, the budget and the departmental plan are separate documents with two different ways of presenting future spending. This approach is consistent across all departments as part of the expenditure reporting cycle to Parliament. In fact, the $15-billion difference suggested by the member opposite is not a discrepancy at all.

Federal budget 2022 outlined forecasted spending and the departmental plans outline what has been approved at any given time by the Treasury Board and Parliament. As a result, the National Defence departmental plan reflects only capital spending that has been fully approved through the Treasury Board's submission process at the time the report is prepared. The budget, on the other hand, contains future spending not yet approved by Treasury Board, hence the difference in the estimated numbers.

For large departments like DND, this difference appears exaggerated because we only access the money when we need it. In this particular case, the difference is mainly composed of forecasted capital spending and expenses related to military operations. More precisely, the largest difference between the estimated DND planned spending in the budget graph versus the departmental plan is the major SSE capital projects for which DND has not yet sought Treasury Board or parliamentary approvals for the associated supply, which means the associated funding is not in DND's reference levels.

As for CAF operations, the associated incremental funding is only assessed in-year and thus not reflected as planned spending in DND's departmental plan. That would include Operation Impact, Operation Reassurance, Operation Unifier, Operation Artemis and peace support operations.

Canadians can rest assured that the department is committed to responsible stewardship and transparent spending as we work to keep Canadians safe here at home and protect and promote Canadian interests around the world.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, on June 14, the finance minister, during testimony before the statutory committee struck to investigate the declaration of the Emergencies Act, stated her concern for the diminished standing of Canada's international reputation. Canada continues to suffer irreparable harm to our international reputation as a result of invoking the Emergencies Act in the absence of any clear and compelling reason to do so.

It gives me no comfort to report to Canadians the Prime Minister's nickname in the European capitals he hides in these days is the “Gruppenführer”, which is an obvious reference to the Kokanee grope scandal and how the Prime Minister mistreats female journalists and dismisses them because they are women.

Canada risks surrendering our nationhood as we become more and more isolated from those who can help us most when we need it.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, we continue making significant progress implementing SSE and making the investments we need to keep Canada strong and safe. Projects like our new fleet of 88 future fighters, our Arctic and offshore patrol ships and our armoured combat support vehicles are all coming to fruition.

We have been able to keep advancing initiatives even through two and a half years of global pandemic. That is because one of the defining features of our defence policy is its flexible funding model. It allows us to effectively manage our operating and capital budgets by adjusting in evolving circumstances. In fact, DND only asks for funding that can be reasonably spent in that given year and can reprofile unspent capital funds to future years.

The member opposite and all Canadians can feel confident knowing that we will continue to invest wisely and responsibly in the Canadian Armed Forces and in the safety and security of our country and its allies.

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

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28(1) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:35 p.m.)