Debates of Nov. 30th, 2023

Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to address Bill C-354, for a number of reasons. For me personally, as I indicated in a question to the Bloc a little earlier this evening, I want to recognize Quebec and how, as a community and a province, it has evolved to what it is today.

I have had many discussions throughout my political career, going back to the mid-1980s and then in 1988 when I was elected back in the Manitoba legislature, about Canada's diversity, and in particular how Quebec really does stand out in many ways. I have worked with many politicians from Quebec over the years, whether members of Parliament or others, and one gains an appreciation for their advocacy for arts and culture.

I do not believe other provinces do not have that same sort of strength of character and diversity, but what I have seen over the years is that it is held a little closer to the heart in Quebec, and I truly appreciate that. However, I also value the diversity of my home province of Manitoba, or even the Prairie regions.

The member made reference to the Quebec French factor, if I can put it that way. Although I cannot speak French or do not necessarily have the courage to say it out loud, and I might think of it in my mind at times, I am very proud of the community of St. Boniface in Winnipeg.

My great-great-grandfather, and there might even be a third great, is from St-Pierre-Jolys, and his family went to live just outside Montreal over 100 years ago. I really do appreciate and love the French factor, or the culture, that has evolved in Quebec and will do what I can to encourage it and promote it.

I like to think there is some uniqueness we all love. I was a big Montreal Habs fan, for example. Well, today it is the Winnipeg Jets, but when I was growing up we did not have the Jets. I do not want to betray my own city. I also like poutine. Maple syrup, and I believe poutine, originate out of Quebec. Poutine is a great dish, and maybe I have it a little too often at times.

The point is we have seen so many artists come out of Quebec, and a lot of the pride that stems out of provinces ultimately leads to superstars around the world. We should do what we can to support it, which is one of the reasons I have been very supportive of other government pieces of legislation.

Having said all of that, I am also a fairly strong advocate of the role the CRTC plays. Sometimes it frustrates me. Sometimes there are things happening in Manitoba in particular, where I maybe would have liked to see more competition of sorts, but more programming to deal with the diversity of our communities. At the end of the day, I recognize it already does an extensive amount of consultation. I know provinces will often intervene with the CRTC when there are decisions being made.

When I think of the CRTC into the future, I see its role ultimately expanding. If we compare 30 years ago to today, there is now the Internet and a whole area that is fairly new. I believe the CRTC plays an important role in many forms of communication nowadays. However, when it comes to our culture and heritage, and making sure that we do what we can to promote and preserve it, I would suggest that it is important that we make sure there is a consultation that continues on.

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

The hon. member will have time to complete his speech when the bill next comes to the House.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 8 consideration of the motion.

Public Accounts

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Red Deer—Lacombe.

I think it is really important to have this debate at this particular juncture, given that Canada's ability to meet its greenhouse gas emissions targets and the heft and might of its climate strategy will come under scrutiny at the COP climate conference in the next week or so.

The report is kind of an indictment on the government's ability to undertake concrete action to implement policies, procedures and strategies that would materially reduce greenhouse gas emissions production within the government's own scope of operations. The recommendations contained herein, given the amount of public money that I am sure has been expended on the activities contained here, which were audited, should give every member of the House pause for thought and certainly some level of concern in terms of the government's ability to deliver results when it comes to climate change.

I want to use this opportunity to talk about two things. The first is the government's inability to meet Canada's climate targets, and what I think it should be doing at the junction and intersection with the activities of the government that are contained within this report. Also, I want to talk about how the government needs to look at its operations and structures on different initiatives that are purportedly designed to meet Canada's greenhouse gas emissions targets but that are not getting the job done.

A couple of weeks ago, ahead of a fairly significant vote in the House on removing the carbon tax on home heating for all Canadians, I wrote a piece entitled “Canada's carbon tax isn't working. It's time for it to go”. The subheading I used was “Monday’s vote on ‘axing the tax’ on home heating should be viewed as a critical opportunity to innovate.” The reason I put that subheading in there is that there were new reports that were showing that the government, in spite of having the carbon tax in place, was really not on its way to meeting Canada's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. At the same time, the economy, according to data we saw today, is shrinking. Canadians are having a really hard time making ends meet, and we are not meeting our targets. This should prompt the government into rethinking its approach.

The piece reads as follows:

Ahead of a Wednesday morning caucus meeting, and as winter temperatures begin to set in across the country, [the] federal Conservative Party leader...announced that his party would force a vote in the House of Commons...to extend a three-year carbon tax exemption that was announced by [the] Prime Minister...for Atlantic Canadian heating oil to all forms of home heating in every part of Canada.

The temptation for the Liberals and their NDP coalition partners will be to continue to toe the line [the Prime Minister] took...which was that no additional carve-outs on the carbon tax would be forthcoming, and vote against [this Conservative] motion.

This is what the Liberals and the NDP did. Actually, I am not sure, but the Liberals definitely voted against it. The article continues:

But that position is a mistake, both politically and morally. If the Liberals and NDP care about public support for climate policy, the inflation crisis, and their jobs, they should vote in favour of [this] motion.

Here's why.

While inflation and cost of living remain the top concerns of Canadians, a very recent survey by Leger suggested that about 70% of Canadians are worried about climate change. However, support for keeping [the Prime Minister]'s signature climate policy, the carbon tax, only registers with the support of 18% of Canadians. The reason for the vast delta between public concern for addressing climate change and support for the carbon tax is something that few Liberal intelligentsia have considered. That blind spot is now both politically biting them in the rear and is likely preventing Canada from meeting its emissions reduction targets.

And that reason is that the carbon tax is failing to move consumer preferences away from high-carbon products and practices in the way [the Prime Minister] promised that it would, and Canadians know it. And in the middle of a generationally high cost of living crisis, all Canadians—even those very concerned about climate change—are unwilling to pay for a policy they consider ineffectual.

Said differently, people will only choose alternatives to driving and heating their homes with carbon-based fuel if other options exist, are available, and are affordable. Those circumstances might be partially available in other, more temperate, highly populated regions of the globe, but not so across much of Canada. So even though [the Prime Minister] is increasing the price of carbon fuel with his tax, Canadians aren't choosing to purchase alternatives because in most parts of Canada, they don't yet widely exist, or are completely unaffordable.

Even within the government's own scope of operations, that principle is clearly shown within this report.

It continues:

This concept is simple to grasp for even the most politically disconnected Canadians, particularly when they fill up their car and pay a carbon tax but have no public transit alternatives or pay a carbon-based home heating bill for six months of brutal cold with no other option.

And a decade of Liberal rule has also shown that their government isn't particularly good at getting these alternatives built—

This is very much evidenced in this report.

—which has further added to the failure of the carbon tax to shift demand for carbon fuel. Few Canadians now believe the Liberals can do things like actually build out the infrastructure needed to pull gas-powered cars off the road, for the simple fact that they’ve failed to do so after nearly a decade in government.

That is again evidenced in this report.

This was two weeks ago, but it goes on:

And this week’s serious whistleblower allegations regarding wrongdoing at a federal government agency—

This of course was SDTC.

—that was supposed to spur the development and deployment of emissions reduction technologies will undoubtedly further erode public trust in the Liberal government's capacity to provide lower cost alternatives to carbon fuels.

These facts are laid bare in recent government reports that show that even with the tax, Canada will still probably miss its 2030 emissions targets by close to 50 percent.

We are not even in the universe of getting close to meeting those emissions targets.

It continues:

There's proof of these facts in recent political trends, too. [The Prime Minister's] capitulation on the tax on heating oil should have been viewed as an inevitability by even the most lay observer—the signs have been present for months. For example, in August, a Nova Scotia provincial riding that has been a safe Liberal hold for time immemorial was flipped by provincial conservatives due mainly to the unpopularity of the federal Liberal carbon tax. Within [the Prime Minister's] federal caucus, there has also been [a lot of] dissent over the issue, likely due to the sustained, precipitous dip in polls in the traditionally safe-for-the-Liberals electoral territory that is Atlantic Canada.

These incidents followed nearly a year of high-profile messaging by my party, the Conservative Party, on these points, with “a message that was easy to grasp for millions of Canadians already grappling with increased living costs in the inflationary crisis.” It continues, “Now, that same crisis has overlaid onto the tax and means millions of Canadians face the prospect of choosing between heating and eating, never mind considering investing in expensive or”, as is the case is in most parts of Canada, “non-existent alternatives to carbon fuels.”

Again, I draw members' attention to the finance minister's very tone-deaf comments in Atlantic Canada earlier this year when she talked about how easy it was for her to get around in her downtown riding after being asked about the impacts of the carbon tax on Prince Edward Island's car-based tourism economy.

The report continues:

Further, [the Prime Minister's] late-stage, partial capitulation on removing the tax only for heating oil but not for other carbon fuel also risks creating perverse incentives like the one mentioned by the Rural Municipalities of Alberta, Bruce McLauchlin, who suggested that [the Prime Minister's] partial tax exemption may generate demand for higher emitting heating oil in certain circumstances. Keeping the tax with regional inequities also will further divide the country at a time when the federal government should be working towards unifying policy.

This report really shows that the government makes a lot of promises when it comes to climate and has not delivered. Canadians are poorer and our greenhouse gas emissions have risen. I really hope the government takes the recommendations in this report writ large, looks at them, goes back to the drawing board and develops policy that does not harm Canadians and lowers our emissions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have been very clear in terms of the price on pollution.

Could the member give a clear indication of whether she envisions a world in which the Conservative Party of Canada would ever actually support a price on pollution?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, for a carbon tax to reduce consumer reliance or get consumers to switch from a high-carbon consumer product or practice such as, let us say, filling up a gas-powered car, there has to be affordable substitute goods for them to purchase.

If the member opposite came to my riding in Calgary, he would see that the federal government has failed to build out light rail transit, for example. Light rail transit could conceivably pull 50,000 cars off the road every day, but that does not exist because the government has not been able to build these things out.

What happens is that, no matter how high the price of gas is or how much tax there is, my constituents still have to fill up their cars. Therefore, the carbon tax does not work.

It is price inelastic because there are no substitute goods. That dogmatic adherence to a pricing instrument that does not work is bad public policy and the government should abandon it.

Message from the Senate

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

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, with amendments, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

Public Accounts

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House to speak to the concurrence motion on a public accounts committee report, which concerns the greening of government buildings. I find myself concerned that the government is not really interested in the greening of our buildings, but in the greening of pockets, specifically the pockets of Liberal insiders and their appointees.

I am, of course, referring to the latest Liberal scandal, one that culminated with the head of Sustainable Development Technology Canada, SDTC, Leah Lawrence, resigning. The abrupt end to her tenure came amid severe allegations of mismanagement and corruption, directed not only at her, but also at her executive.

These allegations were brought forth by whistle-blowers who reached out to both the government and the Privy Council Office. These complaints resulted in an inquiry into the matter conducted by Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton, which I will refer to as RCGT.

It confirmed that the whistle-blower complaints were grounded in fact, finding several instances of corruption. The most damning of these allegations came in the form of unethical contributions to companies owned by the executive of the SDTC board. The RCGT report states that these contributions did not appear to be consistent with the requirements of SDTC's contribution agreements with the government and that the payments do not require project cost eligibility or monitoring and reporting. In other words, it did not meet any basic requirements that any responsible government would put in place on the oversight of taxpayer dollars.

To compound the issue, the government somehow ignored these findings and continued to fund this organization after it knew what was going on. This scandal is sordid and complex, so please buckle up and bear with me as I lay out some of the facts in what could be called the anatomy of a scandal.

What is the SDTC? It is a federally funded non-profit founded in 2001 that approves and disburses millions in funds annually to clean tech companies. Its latest mandate was to disburse a billion dollars over five years, ending in the 2025-26 fiscal year.

In 2015, the head villain of the story, Leah Lawrence, was hired to be the CEO of SDTC. This is the foundational piece. Under her leadership, the institution soon started to decline. It essentially turned into a green slush fund for her and her friends. A key player in covering up her behaviour, seemingly her partner in this, is Annette Verschuren, who was appointed chair of the board through the government's order in council in 2019.

Annette then used her position as the chair to protect Leah, the chief executive officer, and they teamed up to create new funding streams, which were ineligible by the very nature of the provisions of the creation of SDTC. They did this to supposedly help SDTC meet its funding targets. What happens when these funding targets are hit? It triggers bonuses for the executives and the members of the board. These bonuses were then used by board members to fund their own businesses interests. The entire board then also partook in the scam.

Furthermore, subcontractors on the projects were often affiliated with the chief executive officer. The problem was so bad that Annette Verschuren had her own companies funded to a staggering rate of $220,000. Clearly in the wrong, the board tried to cover its tracks by contracting an outside legal opinion that said it was okay to fund their own companies with the bonus money. However, there was a major flaw with that opinion because it came from Ed Vandenberg, who happens to be a paid SDTC member, which is just another conflict of interest in a long line of many.

Once again, we know all of this because of the whistle-blowers who came forward. One of them had secretly recorded conversations with Doug McConnachie, the assistant deputy minister at Innovation, Science and Economic Development, who is also a man who had a lot of interesting things to say about the fund and its sickening levels of graft. He said, “There's a lot of sloppiness and laziness. There is some outright incompetence and, you know, the situation is just kind of untenable at this point”.

He also referred to the original investigation by the board as a whitewash and said that the RCGT report implicated the board in terrible ways, like by not following process, by not following the conflict of interest regime and by not being prudent fiduciaries. He said that they have missed out on so many and that it is just the board failure altogether. He also said that, in that case, they were briefing it and that was how it was well understood by them and the deputies. He thought is was understood by PCO as well because, according to him, it was not the first time they have seen this kind of situation, so they knew that they had to get people out of there.

What does that imply? It implies that the minister knew, and it implies that the Prime Minister knew. Even more damning, Mr. McConnachie was quoted saying the scandal “is almost a sponsorship scandal-level kind of giveaway.”

Despite Doug McConnachie's disgust, and the hopes of his fellow whistle-blowers for action from the government, the SDTC management team and board of directors remained in place months later. This clear lack of action demonstrates a strange passivity within the government in the face of substantiated allegations of corruption.

On the question of what kind of workplace environment this corruption and ineptitude has caused, almost half of the fifty-person staff is on its way out. Four of them are on sick leave, and 20 are in the process of resigning or quitting. This is unacceptable and kills morale among the hard-working, honest people in our departments. This fact was acknowledged by Doug McConnachie who stated that the workplace was now toxic. The problem was even worse in 2018, where the rate of turnover could be factored at over 75%. During Leah Lawrence's tenure, whistle-blowers made allegations that loyalties were constantly being tested by petty executives who pressured subordinates to write fake reviews online to inflate workplace review scores. What should be expected of a group of executives who were that corrupt? They could not even take responsibility for their actions.

In a statement responding to the RCGT report, the SDTC executive and board said, “the report found no clear evidence of wrongdoing or misconduct at SDTC and indicated that no further investigation is merited.” This out-of-touch statement is not only ludicrous, but also a disconnect from reality.

Recently, the Office of the Auditor General of Canada has announced that it will be investigating this scandal. This is a welcome announcement, but we need to ensure accountability in the long term. This type of graft over the last eight years has been noticed internationally, with our standing on Transparency International's corruption perceptions index falling precipitously over the last few years. In fact, our descent down the rankings is among the fastest in the world. Canada's whistle-blower protections have been criticized, and our access to information legislation is out of date. It is time that we move on. There is a long list of scandals that I could talk about for hours.

I move:

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

“the 26th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented on Tuesday, February 14, 2023, be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the committee with the instruction that:

(a) It take note of the resignation of the CEO and Chair of Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) over allegations that funds were used improperly, namely that SDTC has been accused of giving grants to start-ups and accelerators with ties to their senior management, as well as making payments inconsistent with the requirements of their agreement with the government; and

(b) In keeping with the Auditor General's observation at Treasury Board, which is responsible for the supervision of SDTC, has not provided oversight, as well as SDTC's mission statement claiming it is ‘committed to full transparency’, the committee add to its recommendations an invitation to Annette Verschuren former CEO and Chair of Sustainable Development Technology Canada and the whistleblowers who exposed this scandal to appear before the committee.”

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

The amendment is in order.

There being no further members rising for debate, pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion are deemed put and recorded divisions are deemed requested.

Pursuant to Standing Order 66, the recorded divisions stand deferred until Wednesday, December 6, 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.

Housing

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, in my November 1 question to the government, I pointed out that 24 Liberal MPs supposedly represent ridings in the city of Toronto. However, we would never know it from their deafening silence on issues of extreme importance to the city.

The Minister of Rural Economic Development said the quiet part out loud when she said other parts of the country should elect more Liberals if they want a carbon tax deferral, like Atlantic Canadians had received. Toronto has 24 Liberal MPs and they have been unwilling or unable to stand up for the city and get people, including refugees who have been forced to sleep on the city's streets, the help that they need.

The missing 24 MPs were missing in action when it came to the government honouring its promise to help Toronto with its COVID-created budget shortfall. This winter, Torontonians will be struggling to heat, and hopefully keep, their homes. Others are unable to find housing due to inflation and high interest rates. They would all like to receive a carbon tax deferral, too. However, their Liberal MPs did not show up to defend the people's interest and get a tax holiday. The two Liberal MPs from Alberta can hold their regional caucus in a phone booth, so they can be forgiven for not being very effective in getting the government to do anything, much less in bringing about a carbon tax holiday.

However, in my question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister, I asked if he could explain how his “Toronto 24” colleagues disappeared from their responsibilities to represent the city's interests. It is, indeed, odd that two dozen MPs vanished and their faces never even made milk cartons.

In attempting to answer my question, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing waxed poetically from speaking notes that did not address my question's salient points: one, helping Toronto with its housing issues and, two, living up to the federal promise to assist the city with its COVID-created budget shortfall. Indeed, the parliamentary secretary indicated that I had failed to mention the Toronto MPs who allegedly pushed the government to invest money in the city. It is hard to mention things that no one has seen. Perhaps they are not missing. Maybe they are just shy and, in an astounding world first for politicians, they just do not want to tell anyone about their hard work and success.

National failures have local consequences and because of the Liberal government's failure, Deb, who I spoke to earlier today, and other constituents living by Clarence Park are being overwhelmed by a tent encampment. They do not feel safe walking through the park. A neighbour was assaulted this week while walking her dog.

Others in Fort York saw a fire break out at an encampment two days ago and there is a new facility at 75 Elizabeth Street forced on local residents directly across the street from a day care and a children's playground. Unfortunately, we also cannot forget the low-barrier respite, now a shelter, being forced on Niagara and King West residents at 629 Adelaide Street West.

Therefore, I am forced yet again to stand up for not only my constituents but all Torontonians who are being failed by their 24 Liberal MPs. Since local Liberal MPs cannot or will not do it, I am here to ask: Will the federal government help Toronto with its housing issues and, in the process, finally honour its 2021 election promise to assist the city with its COVID budget shortfall, yes or no?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's concern for Torontonians, and I agree that we need to be there for our constituents. However, I strongly disagree with the allegation and assertion that the 24 Liberal members of Parliament who reside in Toronto are ineffective.

They are extremely effective. They have great relationships with Toronto's mayor, Olivia Chow, and the previous mayor, John Tory. Those relationships are strong and deep. Toronto council members regularly contact their members of Parliament, and we have consistently been there for the city of Toronto, whether on housing, on addictions, on crime or on any issue at all.

I would remind the member of Parliament for Spadina—Fort York that he was elected because of our strong relationship with the city of Toronto and our strong reputation as a party that represents Toronto very well. I would repeat that if his name had not been on Liberal signs, he would not have been elected in the city of Toronto.

The government shares the firm belief that everybody in this country, regardless of income, deserves a safe and affordable place to call home. We understand that the challenges we are facing are complex and multi-faceted. Homelessness is one of the most complex and difficult problems to solve, and these things have been in the works for years. There are no single solutions. There are no quick switches that any government can flip to solve the challenges represented by homelessness. It is also a nationwide issue that can only be solved with close co-operation between partners in every sector, just like the close relationship that our government has with the city of Toronto.

The city of Toronto is on the front lines of the housing crisis, and we are not just eager to work with those in Toronto; we have been working with them. The Government of Canada has been making historic investments to tackle chronic homelessness, and we are working closely with communities and service providers to deliver on those commitments. It is hard work that will not happen overnight, and it has certainly been challenging, but if we work together, set aside differences and leverage our strengths, we can make a real difference, as we have been.

What the government has done recently is nearly doubled the funding for Reaching Home. That is Canada's homelessness strategy, which is at almost $4 billion now. This initiative is specifically designed to help prevent and reduce chronic homelessness. Reaching Home is a crucial part of this government's historic national housing strategy, one that understands the values of local community organizations, which are best placed to understand their communities' unique challenges. Reaching Home gives them funding to support that vital work. I am proud to share with this House that since we launched that program in April 2019, it has already improved outcomes for the more than 121,000 people who have received homelessness prevention support through its projects, and for the nearly 70,000 people it has helped to find stable and consistent long-term housing.

Reaching Home is working. It is creating real, positive results right across Canada, and as we speak, Toronto is no exception. From 2019 to 2024, we have invested more than $252 million through Reaching Home to tackle homelessness in Toronto. That includes $45.5 million over the last two years, starting in 2022, to keep up the funding boost we provided throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, as my colleague mentioned. Of course, we are also making historic efforts to boost Canada's housing supply in order to create more options for stable, affordable housing in the long term.

Our government will always be there for the city of Toronto. Members of Parliament are extremely engaged in their communities, and I will not stand here and listen to anything to the contrary.

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is true that when the Liberals asked me to run, I accepted the invitation, because heaven knows, the government needs people who know how to roll up their sleeves and get stuff done, as opposed to focusing on photo ops and announcements. The reality is that people cannot feed their families with an announcement or heat their homes with an announcement, nor can they live under a photo op or an announcement.

It is frustrating, because there are people struggling to heat their homes and put enough food on their table, yet we hear again that the Liberals have done tons; they have done a lot. The reality on the ground, once the parliamentary secretary leaves his ivory tower or leaves this chamber and walks the streets, is that there are people sleeping on the streets. What will it take for the Liberal government to finally honour its promise, step up and do something to prevent anyone from freezing to death?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, we know that homelessness and addictions are closely tied into the very challenging network of issues that contribute to homelessness. That is why I was really disappointed last week to hear the member for Spadina—Fort York perpetuate stereotypes in this House about people who suffer from addictions. It was very consistent with when the Conservative leader released a video on social media condemning safe consumption sites and the safe supply of drugs. He claimed that tax dollars will be used to fund dangerous drugs, and he was immediately met with resistance from all sides of the political spectrum.

I was really disappointed to hear some of that rhetoric come from the member for Spadina—Fort York last week. Not only do safe consumption sites and safe supply save lives, but research shows that not focusing on harm reduction and treatment is costing billions of dollars. As I did after the member's comments, I would urge him to go by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and hear from some experts.

Sport

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, today I rise with a mix of concern and profound disappointment, even a bit of cynicism because of this government's continued inaction toward athletes. I am talking about victims who courageously called out the heinous acts committed against them by their coaches and were received with indifference by the heads of 16 national sports organizations. That is what we have learned over the past few years.

Canada even won the ignoble award for integrity in sports and, to date, the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity still refuses to launch a public and independent inquiry. The minister's predecessor, the member for Brome—Missisquoi, publicly promised to launch an inquiry into abuse and mistreatment in sports. That plan makes perfect sense because it allowed us to raise crucial issues, demand answers and call for transparency on behalf of a fair justice system in which we could trust. That is what we are talking about.

We have been waiting for too long for a public inquiry to be launched, one that would shed light on all of the systemic problems that persist behind the scenes in Canadian sports. What is the reason for all of these stories of sexual misconduct against our athletes and the number of qualified coaches who have been found guilty of committing obscene and unforgivable acts? Unfortunately, the mystery surrounding the government's apparent reluctance to act raises legitimate questions about this government's real intentions and whether it is perhaps seeking to protect the interests of certain people or associations to the detriment of the common good and especially to the detriment of the interests of children. In our society, no one has the right to choose which individuals they will stand behind.

The minister said the following at a press conference on May 11. I will read it in English, because that is the language that she used.

She said, “I would like to reiterate my commitment and clear any doubts that may remain. I will respond to the requests from athletes and survivors for a national inquiry.”

She obviously used “inquiry” in the English sense of the word.

She continued, “This is a legitimate request and I’m working to be able to announce this as soon as I can.”

In response to a question from reporter Émilie Bergeron, she said this is the first step. She said not to worry because she would be very happy to do something so long-awaited. Those words carry weight. I asked her about that at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage this morning. I felt that she reiterated the commitment she made and was not personally opposed to the government acting on that.

I think it is high time we made our collective voice heard and demanded answers. That takes an independent public inquiry. We must not accept the government's continued inaction. We must demand the truth. We must demand justice. We must remain vigilant in our pursuit of a society in which transparency and accountability are steadfast values. The Olympic movement should not be this way.

I would add that the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity promised to participate in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage's study on sport. We got confirmation today that she is supposed to attend on December 12. I am definitely going to ask her again about her responsibility and the commitment her predecessor made on behalf of the government.

May our commitment to ethical and transparent governance guide the actions we must take to protect victims of abuse and mistreatment in sport in this country. In closing, I would ask my colleague, the hon. parliamentary secretary, when she plans to launch an independent public inquiry. The question is no longer how, but when. Urgent action is needed.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak with my friend and colleague about this very important issue and to have the opportunity to address the House of Commons this evening.

Our government strongly believes that Canadians deserve a sport system that reflects and celebrates our Canadian values of equality, fairness and inclusion, a sport system that is safe for kids and all Canadians.

I might just add on a personal note that one of the first times I came to the House of Commons in a work context was two years before I got elected. That was to work on the first iteration of Canada's new safe sport policy. It is hard to overstate how much I care about this issue.

I was on a national team for 18 years, and sport is very special to me. It is something that transcends borders and a lot of issues. In order for it to do its great work, it needs to have integrity. I am here as a member of Parliament for a lot of reasons and for a lot of people, but this issue is one that I care deeply about.

We have heard loud and clear about the need for systemic change in sport. Sport systems in Canada and around the world are going through turbulent times, and indeed it is a time when trust in our leaders and our sports organizations has collapsed.

In recent years, we have made some really important advancements. It is so important we recognize progress when we see it. In the hopes of allowing victims to come forward without fear and intimidation, we have taken some really tremendous steps. We are indebted to the survivors who have bravely come forward, and I want to thank them. We acknowledge their courage, and we hear them loud and clear. While they should not have had to come forward, their advocacy has really turned this into a national conversation and a sincere priority.

A key element of our response has been the development of the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport, or UCCMS. This is a primary example of the positive momentum that can be created when our government works closely with its partners. In this case, I am referring to national sports leaders and experts.

The result of this collaboration, the UCCMS, is the basic document that establishes the harmonized rules adopted by sports organizations that receive funding from the Government of Canada to ensure a respectful sport culture that delivers high-quality, inclusive, accessible, welcoming and safe sport experiences.

Since its establishment in June 2021, the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner has been responsible for administering the UCCMS and overseeing complaints of maltreatment. The office uses trauma-informed processes that are compassionate and efficient and that provide fairness, respect and equity to all partners involved. The office functions independently and without any influence from the Government of Canada or Sport Canada.

These measures are part of the solution. All leaders in the field must share responsibility for ensuring a safe sporting environment. Our government will continue to engage its provincial and territorial partners in promoting harmonization, which is essential for the change of culture that we all want to see.

We are committed to ensuring that all Canadians experience sports environments free of all forms of maltreatment. Since 2018, we have worked to ensure safe, welcoming and inclusive sport environments for all by requiring that federally funded organizations take measures—

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

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue has the floor.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, the fact that there has been no significant movement toward launching this public inquiry raises concerns about the government's actual desire to ensure access to justice for all the survivors.

We can legitimately ask ourselves whether the government is protecting its little friends at the expense of the truth and justice that we, as citizens, deserve. The number of people responsible for this mess who have resigned from sports organizations and Sport Canada is alarming.

There is a crisis in the world of sport, and everyone knows it. Frankly, the survivors deserve greater consideration from people in the Liberal government who are responsible for sport. Athletes and their families are making an urgent appeal for recognition of how serious the situation in the world of sport is, especially as the 2024 Paris Olympics draw near.

The Bloc Québécois is calling for immediate action and urging the minister to be humble while at the International Centre for Human Rights in Geneva next week. What is keeping her from publicly expressing outrage when new scandals come to light? What is keeping her from launching an independent public inquiry?

We need answers. I will keep hounding the government about this.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will reiterate that we are committed to ensuring that all Canadians experience sport environments that are free of harm and all forms of maltreatment. Since 2018, we have worked to ensure that safe, welcoming and inclusive environment for everyone by requiring all federally funded sport organizations take measures to prevent and address maltreatment, and the results speak for themselves. The reality is that it is a very, very challenging environment, but we have done some extraordinary work, and athletes I have discussed this with have recognized that the progress is there and that there is more work to be done.

As I have mentioned before, ensuring that the safety of sport is maintained is a joint responsibility, and that is why we are committed to having a formal process to do this, one that is trauma-informed, supports survivors and focuses on a broad sport reform. We will be releasing the details of the process very soon. It is an important step forward in ensuring that all athletes and participants have somewhere to turn when reporting incidents of abuse, but it is also worth noting that they currently have that; it is built into every single athlete agreement with every national team.

[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 tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:13 p.m.)