44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 27, 2023 11:00AM
- Nov/27/23 2:31:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, a 45-year-old woman in London, Ontario, who works full-time and makes above minimum wage is living out of her car because this government failed to offer her affordable housing options.
While the out-of-touch Liberals fail to deliver homes people can actually afford in their community, the corporate-controlled Conservatives sold off 800,000 affordable homes to rich developers when they were in power.
Canadians deserve better. When will this government start building homes people can actually afford so that they do not have to live out of their cars?
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/27/23 5:00:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, hopefully the third time is the charm, because the hon. member did not actually answer the questions of my last two colleagues. I too listened to the hon. member's speech. She did not really speak a lot about the bill in question. Yes, the cost of living is rising but, again, this bill will help ensure that workers have the ability and the power to negotiate as equals with their employers.
Again, will this member and will the Conservative members of the House support this bill and support workers' rights when dealing with potential replacement workers?
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, a lot of us have heard from constituents who are quite concerned about the cost of living increase and how hard it is for folks. She mentioned in her speech the necessity to ensure that workers have an ability to negotiate on an equal footing with their employers to have better wages. One of my concerns is the time that it takes to pass this legislation and that within the legislation the Liberals have put in an 18-month delay before implementation.
I want to ask the member why she thinks this is justified, considering people are struggling now and workers need the supports in Bill C-58 to ensure they have equal rights to that of their employers.
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/27/23 6:14:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one of the things I am concerned about within this legislation is the 18-month delay in moving this legislation forward. Could the hon. member talk about how necessary it is to move this much faster than the 18-month delay within the legislation?
46 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/27/23 6:31:03 p.m.
- Watch
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.
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/27/23 6:35:56 p.m.
- Watch
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—
1687 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/27/23 6:47:43 p.m.
- Watch
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.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/27/23 6:49:44 p.m.
- Watch
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.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/27/23 6:51:12 p.m.
- Watch
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.
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/27/23 7:04:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I knew the hon. member would not disappoint. I really appreciate her taking part in this debate tonight.
At the defence committee last week, we had the Minister of National Defence before us. When I was asking about following up on support for rangers, the chief of the defence staff said something I found quite disturbing. I would love the member's input on it. He said that when it comes rangers, “We've noticed that perhaps some of those traditional skills are eroding”.
Could the member comment on why they believe that to be the case and how we can stop that from happening?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/27/23 7:25:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one of the key recommendations I have a big problem with in this report is number 3, which states, “That the Government of Canada reconsider its long-standing policy with respect to the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defence program.” General Wayne Eyre specifically stated, “I think policies related to ballistic missile offence are becoming less and less relevant.”
As the member is a member of the government, I want to know what its stance is on that positioning? Is the government going to reconsider the long-standing policy it had for ballistic missile defence?
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/27/23 7:39:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned recommendation number 2 in terms of the replacement of submarines. I agree that this is a big issue that will be coming forward. However, one of the big conversations, of course, is with respect to what kind of submarines Canada looks at. The under-ice capability is quite key, as is nuclear versus diesel-electric and all that.
However, one of the key components of all of that conversation, too, is the recruitment, retention and personnel crisis and how all that comes into play. Therefore, I would really love the member to go further into the recommendation because it is something that will be coming up in the future, and I know the government has not been talking about it as much as we need to.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
