Debates of Nov. 27th, 2023

Canada Labour Code

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am not hearing the answer I was hoping I would hear in the member's response to my colleague's question. Is the member saying that he feels that replacement workers are a benefit to workers?

I am not understanding what his stance is, exactly, on this bill, or if he and his Conservative colleagues will be voting in favour of this bill to ensure that protections are in place to support workers, have fair working conditions and have a fair wage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have concerns about this bill, particularly from the standpoint that it would prolong and increase the number of strikes. Very rarely are there winners when there are extended strikes. Workers lose out on paycheques. There is lost productivity. There is disruption to supply chains, and there is a loss of profit for employers, which often negatively impacts workers' wages.

There are problems, potentially, with this bill. We want a bill that gets it right for employers and businesses and strikes the appropriate balance. I am not sure this legislation does that.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the speech my colleague from Alberta gave. I would ask him to reflect on how it seems like the NDP has highlighted a number of challenges it sees with this bill, although it plans to support it. We recently saw media reports that, if the Liberals do not get pharmacare done this year, it is willing to amend their confidence and supply coalition agreement.

I wonder if my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton would have any reflections on whether the NDP has any integrity left in standing up for the principles that it supposedly ran on in the last election. It certainly seems to me as though NDP members are nothing more than sellouts.

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

Madam Speaker, I would concur with the conclusion drawn by my colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot.

We have this costly coalition, which is making life less affordable for everyday Canadians, including Canadian workers. We have an NDP that has voted against the interests of everyday Canadians multiple times when it supported the Liberals' carbon tax increases. The NDP continues to prop up this costly government.

The NDP will have to answer at the next election for why it is that it has sold out and propped up this corrupt Prime Minister.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Again, I want to remind the member to be very careful with the words he uses to describe members in the House. It does not do well for the debates we are trying to have in the House of Commons.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the ruling that came from the Chair was very clear on the language that can be used and should not be used in the House.

For any member to use the term “corrupt Prime Minister”, or “corrupt” in reference to anybody in here, violates the rules the Chair has put forward in the House. I would suggest that the member needs to either retract the the comment or be properly censured until he does.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have members who seem to be weighing in before I even recognize them.

The hon. member for London—Fanshawe is rising on the same point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I would also advocate that, concerning the language used by parliamentarians in the House, hon. members need to remember the ruling that came forward from the Chair earlier.

I know that I myself have a lot of adjectives in my head that I would like to use to describe some of the folks here, but I do not use them. I am very specific about it. I try to maintain decorum, and I would hope that they would do the same.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I know one of the issues for some of my colleagues on this, and in light of the discussion that was had after question period today, is that, when it comes to the conduct and speech of members, there needs to be an equal application of the rules across party lines.

The accusations the government House leader made during question period certainly call into question whether or not those rules are being fairly applied. Therefore, when it comes to decorum in the House, it is absolutely incumbent upon all members. Certainly for my part, I will always be happy to defend the things I say and endeavour to speak the truth.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will recognize one more speaker on this point of order, and then I will make my comments.

The hon. member for Calgary Centre.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am rising in defence of my colleague as well, and I think there is a lot of evidence in the House of Commons that the Prime Minister has, we will say, misled the House. The member called somebody by a name that indicates they have misled, but he did not call any member of the House a liar, which of course is verboten in this House. Instead, he said that this person is corrupt, which means not following the rules. I appreciate where he is coming from in that respect.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That specific word is a pretty strong word. It has caused disorder in the House. I would ask the member to please withdraw his comment.

Before I give my comments, I want to remind members that the Speaker of the House will be coming back to the House. I personally have witnessed what has been happening with parliamentarians on both sides of the House, and I would remind members that we need to be more respectful of each other for Parliament to function smoothly. As the Speaker said in his previous statement, it is incumbent upon all MPs to work together and be respectful of each other in the House for us to be able to make sure Parliament works smoothly.

The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

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

Madam Speaker, I attempted to rise before you intervened to respond to the point of order.

I would submit that, by any objective standard, the Prime Minister is corrupt. He has been found guilty twice of violating the Conflict of Interest Act and intervened in an RCMP investigation into his potential criminal wrongdoing by—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There have been a number of individuals in other parties, not just the government party, who have had decisions rendered about conflicts of interest.

I will ask the hon. member to rise in the House to withdraw his comment. It is causing disorder in the House. It is an issue with decorum, and it is not a proper word to use, so I would ask the member to please withdraw his comment.

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

Madam Speaker, I know the truth hurts for the cover-up coalition, but out of respect for you as the Chair, I withdraw it.

The House resumed from November 3 consideration of the motion.

National Defence

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this concurrence debate, although I will note, of course, that it is within the usual tactics and games used by members of the official opposition. However, it is an important topic, so I am glad to speak to it tonight. I will be splitting my time with the member for Nunavut; I look forward to hearing her incredible contributions to this debate.

First of all, this was a really important report to put forward. I am so grateful to all the witnesses who came before us, the members of the armed forces who spoke to this report, the academics, the community leaders, the policy-makers, the analysts from the Library of Parliament, our committee clerk and the interpreters. We are truly lucky in this place to have such an incredible group of people to work with and whom we can hear from to create better legislation and better policy within the government. I appreciate those workers and all the evidence provided by the participants. After hearing the recommendations and reflections from the committee, we worked on the study to look into Russia's threat to Canada's Arctic, China's threat to Canada's Arctic, the security of the Canadian Arctic archipelago and the security of the Northwest Passage and NORAD modernization.

This report's recommendations strayed from the mandate a bit. Sadly, we ignored one of the largest points and most imminent threats to our Arctic, which is climate change. According to the report:

The committee was reminded by Dr. P. Whitney Lackenbauer that we must distinguish “between threats passing through or over the Arctic rather than threats to or in the Arctic”.

The committee did not quite get that in terms of the recommendations, which is a real shame.

The committee's recommendations focused heavily on “potential threats to North America passing through the Arctic, at the expense of centering threats to the Arctic itself.” The warming rate of the Arctic's oceans:

...is up to seven times faster than the global average. The United Nations estimates that by 2050, up to 70 percent of Arctic infrastructure will be at risk from loss of permafrost. This is a direct threat against both the Canadian Armed Forces and Arctic communities....

With climate change, we have already seen the number of voyages in Canadian Arctic waters triple in the last three decades. New sea lanes are being opened by melting ice, which will cause increased fishing, transportation, tourism and research activity in the area. Further, the loss of permafrost is also increasing the viability of access to the Arctic's massive oil reserves, natural gas and precious minerals.

This threat to Arctic security was discussed at length throughout the committee by top officials. We heard from the chief of the defence staff, General Wayne Eyre, who stated that there was a challenge in “making that infrastructure durable and sustainable into the future with the changing circumstances related to climate change.” Vice-Admiral Topshee, the commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, told us about the important holistic approach necessary to deal with the increase in traffic. He said that the CAF is working with territorial governments and indigenous partners to build Canada's capacity, from unauthorized vessel detection to search and rescue.

In the same study, we heard from the national security and intelligence adviser, Jody Thomas, that more than 40% of Canada's territory and over 75% of its national coastlines are Arctic. She stated:

The Arctic is fundamental to Canada's identity and its sovereignty....

Rapid and enduring climate change is making the region more accessible for navigation. New commercial and military technologies are connecting the North to the rest of the world and eroding the region's historical isolation from geopolitical affairs.

We took all this into account. We heard it as part of the testimony, which, of course, was rooted in the context that the increased activity caused by climate change is highly disruptive. It is a problem. It is the major threat.

It is very alarming that, within those recommendations, we did not actually see recommendations calling to address climate change. Certainly, I tried to bring that forward, to have the consideration of climate change as the existential threat to Arctic security be known. Sadly, we do not see those recommendations in the report. It is truly a mystery, but maybe not a mystery for anyone who has heard arguments from the official opposition's side. However, I will leave it there.

It is imperative that the federal government treats climate change as a national security threat, as outlined by all these officials and academics. This summer alone, 45.7 million acres of forest in Canada burned and released the equivalent of 1.7 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions.

Additionally, indigenous peoples in Arctic communities need to be central to what we are talking about in terms of Arctic security. The impacts of climate change are felt first and foremost in the Arctic. Indigenous people are often on the front lines as first responders, and all government spending on the Arctic security question has to reflect this truth. As the report notes, “As part of Arctic security, we must see investments in the north help northerners access safe housing, clean drinking water, fresh food and healthcare.”

It is easy to fall into the escalating calls for the militarization of the Arctic, but I believe this is a disconnect from what the committee heard from witnesses. We heard that the best Arctic security policy is an investment in the communities themselves and in their people.

One clear message heard at committee was the need to invest in the Canadian Rangers to address the threats to the Arctic. We heard from Calvin Pedersen, a fourth-generation Canadian Ranger, about his work in monitoring vessel traffic in the northwest. The report notes, “The Canadian Rangers are essential to meeting the security needs to address the impact of climate change and increased economic activity in the Arctic.”

We also heard from Dr. Peter Kikkert, who said:

The Rangers wear lots of hats, so they’re often volunteers on the ground search and rescue teams in their communities. They’re often members of the Coast Guard auxiliary units that go out to do marine searches.... The training that is given to Rangers is not always just used in an official capacity, but is often used to bolster the search and rescue system on a voluntary basis.

The report goes on: “Investments in the Canadian Rangers will increase our domain awareness, increase the CAF’s operational capabilities, and will bolster search and rescue capacity.” There were some good recommendations, especially recommendations 21 to 25, as part of this report, and I hope the government will act upon them very quickly. They include a change to the way rangers have faced mistreatment from successive governments. Often, rangers are expected to continue service while being undercompensated for equipment usage, and they are slowly and inadequately reimbursed for damaged equipment. They also lack funding for administrative supports.

Just last week, I questioned the Minister of National Defence about this, because in the study, witnesses clearly called for the equipment usage rate to be tied to inflation. I did not get the answer I wanted, but I never really do from the minister, unfortunately. I hope that will change. I hope he will take the recommendations from this report seriously.

In addition to that support, the defence ombudsman reported that rangers lack adequate access to the health care, housing and basic infrastructure needed to do that work. We keep hearing the same messages over and over again. We need the government to hear them.

The report notes, “As the need for Canadian Rangers increases, we must act immediately to solve these concerns.” In addition to the permanent Arctic search and rescue round table that has been called for, the committee received a written submission that called for the need to build up community resilience.

This brings me to recommendation 13 of the report. The report says:

[I] wish the language in the recommendations went further to mandate the Government to prioritize investments that serve Indigenous peoples and Arctic communities. As we expect more and more from Arctic communities, Canada’s history of neglect and harm must be reconciled with meaningful investments. In prioritizing the backlog of NORAD modernization and the backlog of infrastructure gaps in the Arctic, we can address [a lot of the] shared needs.

The government has a clear opportunity here, and it needs to “use funding allocated for NORAD modernization to address the infrastructure and service gaps in the Arctic. We must give greater attention to the water crisis, housing crisis, and health care crisis in Arctic communities”.

I also want to address a recommendation that I agree with in this report, which is recommendation 3. In witness testimony for this study, General Wayne Eyre stated, “I think policies related to ballistic missile offence are becoming less and less relevant.” The recommendation reads, “That the Government of Canada reconsider its longstanding policy with respect to the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defence program.” I am 100% against that.

We heard from Dr. Adam Lajeunesse, who stated:

Arctic security and defence are very important, and we need to make serious investments, but we need to zero in on what exactly the threat environment is. What I have argued is that we are not seeing, and are not likely to see, a great power threat to the Arctic.... I'm arguing that it would be a waste of money and an inefficient use of our resources to build the Arctic defences in such a way as to gear them towards Russia or China.

Again, he pointed back to the existential threat. This all points back to the inappropriate and disappointing wedge in a conversation of our study that refused to put those recommendations forward, in terms of climate change. I—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

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

Madam Speaker, obviously, this is a very important topic that we are debating tonight. The member made a number of key observations. I thank her for her commitment on the committee.

Recommendation 5, in particular, talks about the risks from malign foreign actors, specifically in the Arctic. It can address the challenges as the Arctic opens up more. That scares me more than almost anything. I am less worried about Russian intrusions into the Arctic. I am more worried about Russian businesses, Chinese businesses and other foreign state actors challenging our natural resources, our critical minerals and, in particular, how it even impacts our indigenous population, our Inuit in the north.

Could the member expand a bit more on what the committee found out in terms of what actions need to be taken by the government to address this critical and important need?

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

Madam Speaker, I would note that they are not “our” indigenous people. I warn the member about that language; it is very important.

General Wayne Eyre specifically stated, right at the get-go of the study, “I see no real threat today to our territorial sovereignty; nor do I see one in the near future". Yes, we have to be aware of what is going on in the world. Yes, we have to be concerned, but, critically, what gives access to critical minerals, to the Northwest Passage, to communities in the north and to all of that is climate change. The opening up of the passage and of the seaways is the existential threat, and we are not doing anything to address that adequately.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her terrific work on national defence, on sovereignty issues. She has been incredibly stellar in standing up, particularly, for women and men in the service, on behalf of the Canadian Forces. She has done a remarkable job of ensuring that we have policies and working hard to ensure that the women and men in uniform are actually respected by governments.

We have seen, of course, how badly the Conservative government treated veterans. We have seen some of that reflected in the current government.

What are the critical things that need to happen in order to ensure that, at all times, men and women in the service are treated with the respect they deserve?

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

Madam Speaker, ultimately, the men and women in uniform are a workforce that we rely upon with everything that we have, and they put themselves in the line of danger. They are there when people need them, domestically and internationally. We need to ensure that they are safe. We need to ensure that they have the best equipment. We need to ensure that they have the safest workplaces. That includes a lot of the things that were mentioned in the report but that I mention again, which people within the Arctic need as well. They need housing, health care and safe supports, and they need to know that the workplace they are going into is not one of disrespect.

There is a lot going on that the government needs to invest in. Again, it comes back to people. It always comes back to people.

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to give the member another chance to really answer my question, which is about the recommendation and “developing a strategy for critical infrastructure investments and protecting Canadian interests from malign foreign actors” and whether the committee had additional information on that.

With respect to people, I just want to re-emphasize the importance of our rangers and our Canadian Forces personnel, currently 8,000 understrength in our reserves, 8,000 understrength in our regular force and 10,000 under in trained effective strength.

The government needs to do more for our personnel in the Canadian Armed Forces.

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

Madam Speaker, absolutely, and I think that this ties in to a lot of the things that I just answered before with my hon. colleague for New Westminster—Burnaby.

Of course, the question of how we treat our people as workers, how we treat them on the front lines, how we treat the men and women who volunteer as Canadian rangers and our search and rescue, is all very important, and the investment in the people who are doing that incredible work is a key component of what I was trying to bring forward today.