Debates of Oct. 28th, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start where the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle left off: Under the Liberal government, housing costs have doubled. Let us start by getting this down to layman's terms to explain to Canadians what has gone on.

There are a lot of acronyms. There are a lot of terms of art and legal terms from the various conflicts of interest, ineligible—

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, do we have quorum?

And the count having been taken:

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

Yes, we do. We have 20 members.

The hon. member.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for being attentive, but when I speak, there are usually lots of people in the House. It is not usually a problem for me.

Let us get back to the matter at hand. There are lots of technical terms, legal linguistic terms and acronyms, such as SDTC, that we can utilize. Of course, there are different names.

What we need to understand is that there was a pool of nearly a billion dollars that was established by the Liberal government. The government then entrusted this money to a group of individuals who came under the auspices of SDTC, the then minister Navdeep Bains and eventually the current Minister of Innovation. SDTC was given this billion dollars and told what the government wanted SDTC to do with it. What the government was selling to the Canadian public was that this money would be used to get a cleaner, greener, more efficient and more productive economy.

Let us not forget where that billion dollars came from. It came from single moms, seniors, high school kids and folks working two or three jobs trying to get by in this ever-diminishing Liberal economy. One might say we would get this money from the wealthy, but that is not the reality. A large portion of Canadian tax dollars comes from the most vulnerable and, in fact, the poorest of our society. For example, people would probably be shocked to know that, with clawbacks and taxation, there can be folks earning less than $40,000 a year but paying more than 70% of their dollars to clawbacks and income tax.

The government is taking this money from people who are struggling to get by every day, to get that last meal of the month. The government is taking millions of dollars. In fact, as I said, it was $1 billion. The taxpayers do not get a choice as to whether they pay. Either people pay or they go to jail. The government took a billion dollars in hard-earned tax dollars, taken under a threat of force. What did the government do with it? It told the Canadian public that it would make the environment clean and more efficient. It said that it would make the economy more productive and get patents and intellectual property that would grow our economy. Nothing could be further from the truth of what actually happened.

In this cabal of individuals, we saw $58 million given to 10 ineligible proposals. This means that these proposals did not fit the criteria. Once again, there is that billion dollars, which had rules attached to it. There was an agreement on how that money was going to be spent because it came from all those hard-working Canadian taxpayers. SDTC decided which people it was going to give the money to. What has been found so far is that it flagrantly disregarded those criteria with 10 proposals. There were $58 million that went out the door for things that did not fit the criteria of making the economy cleaner, greener, more efficient or more productive.

The question of whom SDTC gave this $58 million to needs to be asked, as well as why it did that. This is what I will talk about in the latter part of the story. There were also 186 cases in which board members held a conflict of interest. We will get back to that.

There was a group of individuals in charge of this billion dollars. As I said, it was to get a more efficient economy. It would make sense that it was not there to benefit this group of individuals. We do not need complex conflict of interest regulations or policies; if a billion dollars is given to grow the economy, one would just assume that the money is not going back to the people who are deciding where that money is going.

I will say that again. One would presume that billion dollars would not be going back to the individuals who are deciding where the money is going. Obviously, they are not going to be objective, and this creates the opportunity for corruption. Clearly, we have seen some things Canadians would not be proud of. There was millions more given to parties that did not perform the contracts.

The way it works is that there are tranches of money that are given out. Usually, certainly in the private sector, if someone does not meet certain criteria, and “specific performance” is the legal term, then the rest of the money is not given to them. In the case in question, however, the money kept flowing and flowing. We have seen so far that millions of dollars of the billion-dollar pot was given out either where there were conflicts of interest or where contracts were clearly ineligible.

What is it that Conservatives asked for in the privilege motion? What did we possibly ask that is trampling the rights of the charter, interfering with a police investigation, or other red herrings the parliamentary clerk has said are not the case? In fact, the people through their representatives have the ultimate and unfettered right to ask for any documents they require. What is the awful step we have taken? We have just asked for documents. At the end of the day, we want more information to find out what went on so the RCMP can proceed with its investigation, unimpeded by the Liberal government.

The member for Winnipeg North might say that we should just let the RCMP decide, and that would be well and good if what I am going to describe had not happened, which is a series of different scandals that have occurred over the last nine years. This forms the context as to why Conservatives feel it is important that we help get the documents across the way to the RCMP.

We have to go back to December 2017, when, just two years after the Prime Minister was elected, Canada's Ethics Commissioner ruled that the Prime Minister had broken the conflict of interest rules by accepting vacations, gifts and flights in 2016. He had been elected less than a year before and had already started a pattern of corruption. It was the first time a prime minister had ever been found guilty of such a transgression.

There have been a number of things between then and now. Clam scam was in there as well, and a number of other scandals, but we will just jump forward and hit some of the highlights of the corruption.

In February 2019, former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould accused the government of inappropriately pressuring her to help construction giant SNC-Lavalin avoid a corruption trial. Public works minister Jane Philpott also quit, citing loss of confidence in the Prime Minister. The Ethics Commissioner ruled that the Prime Minister and officials had breached ethics rules.

In 2020, there was one of the larger scandals, and there are quite a few. It was another nearly billion-dollar scandal, with the WE Charity. Of course, with the WE Charity, the government took the opportunity, just like with SDTC, of the cloak of COVID in order to promote its corrupt agenda, which included a $912-million program that the Prime Minister promised as part of a $9-billion COVID-19 financial aid program for post-secondary students.

Shortly after, the Liberal government announced it was awarding the sole-source contract to WE Charity, and it came to light that the Prime Minister's family had a connection there. Once again, underneath the cloak of COVID, the government took the opportunity to stuff the pockets of Liberal insiders full of hard-earned Canadian taxpayer dollars.

We go on with the scandals. We jump forward to a more recent one, the arrive scam scandal. It came out on February 12, 2024, with the Auditor General's report in which she said that there were so many dollars spent and the bookkeeping was so bad that it is impossible for anyone, including the Auditor General, to know exactly how much money was wasted on arrive scam.

Just so everyone remembers, ArriveCAN was an app that IT professionals said could have been designed and completed in a weekend for a quarter of a million dollars. In fact, because the bookkeeping was so bad, they could not even determine exactly how many resources were dedicated to the creation of the ArriveCAN app. Estimates put it at least $60 million. It resulted in a single update sending 10,000 Canadians to quarantine despite doing everything right. It resulted in a massive scandal involving dozens of senior officials in the public service.

As I said, it should have cost a quarter of a million dollars. Instead, it ended up costing $60 million. The app had numerous other issues. An interesting one, in terms of corruption, is that after so many self-inflicted issues with the Ethics Commissioner, the Liberals attempted to appoint the sister-in-law of the minister of public safety as the interim Ethics Commissioner.

I wonder what the Thanksgiving or Christmas dinners would look like. They would be sitting there having turkey, discussing how the grandkids are, saying they are great, and what about that little ethics violation we had there? We will be able to take care of that over a couple wings of turkey and pass the cranberries and eliminate the corruption, please.

Of course, in May 2022, the Ethics Commissioner opened up an investigation into the minister of international trade's conduct from spring 2020, involving approximately $17,000 in a contract for media training given to a company co-founded by a Liberal strategist. The commissioner determined the minister broke the rules for refusing to recuse herself from the process that led to the decision to award the contract to a public relations firm due to her nearly 20-year friendship with the firm's co-founder. In that one, we had a Liberal consultant who was getting onto the payroll for media training for $17,000. The Ethics Commissioner found that broke the rules, but that should be no surprise to anyone.

Here is an interesting one, given that the themes of today seem to involve foreign interference. I would remind the member from Winnipeg North about this. It became well known that the Communist regime in Beijing used donations to the Trudeau Foundation to attempt to influence the Prime Minister.

Information published by La Presse and The Globe and Mail raised even more concerns about the $200,000 donation directed by Beijing. The foundation misled Canadians when it said the controversial donation made by two Chinese businessmen qualified as a Canadian donation. Testifying before the House of Commons ethics committee, Pascale Fournier said her predecessor, Morris Rosenberg, told the National Post in December 2016 that the foundation did not consider the donation to be foreign money because it was made by a company incorporated in Canada.

We see over and over again, from the sponsorship scandal on out, this culture of entitlement and of corruption, where when times are tough for Canadians, when that single mom is desperately working that extra overtime shift just to make sure she has enough money to pay for her son's hockey, or her daughter's soccer, the government members take the opportunity to stuff their jeans full of as much cash as they can. In this case, it was underneath the cloak of COVID.

One has to remember that, actually, if not for the Conservatives, during COVID, if we can believe this, the then finance minister, Bill Morneau, came to this place and tried to sneak in a piece of legislation. Because of COVID, we were moving quickly, and we were working largely in good faith and consensus. He tried to sneak in that the government could spend as much money as it wanted for whatever it wanted.

If not for our current leader of the official opposition, the then finance critic, that would have gone through. We are hearing so far, in these recent days, we have SDTC that is good for a billion dollars of corruption. We have the WE scandal that is a billion dollars worth of corruption. That is just what we have found so far, and there are more Auditor General reports to come.

There has been, over the last week or two, a lot of use of the word “reflection”. The Prime Minister and the cabinet may be immune to this reflection. It appears that when he has important decisions, the Prime Minister's max reflection time is about 18 hours or so. However, I would hope the Liberal members back there would have some reflection on what their government has become, including a leader who is clearly unpopular.

There is a reason they are cruising toward single digits in the polls. There is a reason that, when I walk and talk with my constituents, the number one question is: “When is the Prime Minister leaving, and can we help him pack his bags?” That is what I hear, and not just from Conservative voters but also from some folks who I know have never voted for me and are lifelong Liberals.

At a certain point in the life of a caucus, members have to stand up for their principles and beliefs. They have to decide if power is really worth it. Is power worth $1 billion in corruption through SDTC? Is it worth having $1 billion taken from hard-working Canadians and an attempt to have it given to WE Charity? Is it worth supporting a Prime Minister who is habitually convicted by the Ethics Commissioner for ethics violation? Is power really worth it?

We are asking for something entirely reasonable. We are asking for documents to be handed over to the RCMP. Some government offices have already complied, so we know it is possible. We are hoping that reflection comes to folks as they think about their hard-working constituents who, just like my constituents in the great riding of Northumberland—Peterborough South, are working day and night to get by and are giving, sometimes, 60%, 70%, 80% of their paycheques to the government. We hope they will think, “This is not right, and we should have the RCMP.”

There is going to be some discussion about how much time this has taken in the House, but the debate could end right now. All the government has to do is deliver those documents so the RCMP can look into this and hopefully, and I might be dreaming too big here, Canadians could get some of that $400 million back to help them pay for their kids' hockey, afford their rent or afford a meal so they do not have to go to the food bank this week. The government should get that money back, get those documents and let us end this.

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

Madam Speaker, the member was having some flashbacks, but they were limited to 2015.

There is an interesting booklet, “The Evidence Compiled”, on Stephen Harper that includes abuses of power, scandals and corruption. The list is long. There are at least 70: “Senate Hush Money”, “Contempt of Parliament”, “Refusal to Share Budget Info”, “Cabinet Staffers...Immunity from Testimony”, “Falsify Reports and Documents”, “Repeated Duplicity in Afghan Detainees”, “F-35 Fighter Jets” scandal, “Blames Statistics Canada”, lying and all sorts of stuff, if members want to talk about abuse of power.

Anyway, that is not what today is about. Today is about having the Conservatives shut up and allow the debate to come to a conclusion so we can actually comply with what the Speaker is suggesting: that the issue be handed over to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It is no surprise the Conservatives want to continue the filibuster, at a great expense. They are serving the Conservative Party as opposed to the interests of Canadians.

Why does the Conservative leader consistently do things against the interests of Canadians, even when he was parliamentary secretary to prime minister Stephen Harper when that prime minister was held in contempt ? He does this all the time.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am going to put aside the irony of the member who has the most words on record in this debate saying it is us filibustering.

This can be ended today. All the Liberals have to do is hand over the documents. This is absolutely in our rights; the law clerk referred to this. We can end this today if they just go out there and bring the documents in.

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

Madam Speaker, I like the member. I have worked with him and enjoy his sense of humour.

As he knows, the NDP is supporting the motion. Whether we are talking about SDTC, WE Charity or SNC-Lavalin, NDP members believe we have been instrumental in getting to the bottom of Liberal corruption.

To the credit of the Liberal government, despite the fact that there are these scandals, it has allowed Parliament, because it is a minority Parliament, to get to the bottom of things. That was not the case, as the member well knows, during the Harper regime, when a Conservative majority steamrolled Parliament and parliamentary traditions and transparency.

I mention this because my colleague asked this question: Is power really worth it? Was power really worth it for the $400-million ETS scam that we never got to the bottom of because the Conservatives refused to allow us to get any sort of transparency? Was power really worth it for the $1 billion spent on the G8, another scandal the Harper regime shut down? Was power really worth it for the $2.2 billion misspent on the Phoenix pay system? Was power really worth it for the $3.1 billion lost in anti-terrorism funding?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I like the member as well, but it is not shocking that the NDP runs to the rescue of the Liberal government, as it has been propping up the government through scandal after scandal.

The New Democrats look the other way as corruption happens, and what do they get? They get fake promises of things that will not happen. They run interference for the Liberal government. They run outside and say the Liberals are terrible, but then at vote time the New Democrats are 100% in. They are for the Prime Minister and support him all the way—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Northumberland—Peterborough South for laying out the various problems we have with the Liberal government and the ongoing culture of corruption.

He mentioned a number of the scandals before us, including the one we are dealing with, the green slush fund. Almost $400 million has been stolen and misappropriated by Liberal insiders, even to the benefit of the environment minister.

When I was first elected 20 years ago, we were dealing with the ad scam. At $40 million, it was a small thing compared to this scandal. It caused the defeat of the government of the day under Paul Martin and occurred under Jean Chrétien. There was also the billion-dollar boondoggle of the ineffective and useless long-gun registry. Let us not forget the lost $2 billion spent on Human Resources Skills and Development Canada that nobody was ever able to find.

Does my colleague know why the Liberals are so corrupt so often?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really do wonder what happens in a Liberal's life. I assume they start like everyone else. They want to accomplish good and want to make this country better. I do not know what happens to them in the process of being a Liberal that they start looking the other way when $400 million goes out the door to ineligible companies with conflicts of interest, that they start looking the other way with billion-dollar WE scandals and that they start looking the other way with multiple ethics violations.

It is a time of reflection. There will soon be snow. Perhaps it is time for a walk. I will ask this again: Is power really worth it?

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

Mental Health and Addictions

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am back tonight to continue to raise the alarm on the impacts of the poisoned drug crisis on my community and, specifically tonight, on the federal funds that are needed to act. The reality is that, in my community, this crisis continues to have devastating impacts. This year alone, there were 72 more deaths from poisoned drugs. In fact, just in the period from October 11 to October 21, earlier this month, there were five more suspected poisoned drug deaths, each one a loved member of my community, such as Alby, who I spoke about in the House recently, or my friend Hudeyfa, who passed away earlier this year. Every single one was a preventable death.

In the midst of this crisis, the federal government has a program specifically for prevention, harm reduction and treatment initiatives. It is called the substance use and addictions program, or SUAP for short. It is a $359-million program. There is good news for the government: We have two experienced, credible organizations who applied for this very fund from Waterloo region, Sanguen and Community Healthcaring.

Sanguen has even been funded by SUAP before. I was thrilled to join the then minister of mental health and addictions, our former colleague Carolyn Bennett, alongside my colleague from Kitchener—Conestoga last year, to announce a previous extension of SUAP funding for Sanguen's community health van, yet this year, for both applications from Waterloo region, neither one was successful, meaning that zero SUAP dollars are going to Waterloo region.

Even if we received just the average across the country, in recent years program funding varied between $104 million to $145 million a year. If we were to average that out across the five ridings across Waterloo region, it would mean between $1.5 million to $2 million.

This is at a time when we need more of everything in the face of this poisoned drug crisis: more treatment, more mental health supports, more safe consumption sites, more safer supply and more harm reduction. Instead, both provincially and now federally as well, our community is actually getting less. This is why I met with the minister and her team when we began to hear news of these funding decisions back in July.

The best they can do is talk about a new fund being set up that non-profits and charities in my community, and others across the country, will not even be eligible for, with a hope that more money might get announced in the future. That means that organizations such as Sanguen and Community Healthcaring are going to have to begin to wind down programs by March 31 of next year if nothing more is done, at a time when we need them doing more.

The other reality, though, is that, beyond those two organizations, what we need is SUAP money, not words of aspiration, to be delivered to communities like mine.

Will the minister commit to reviewing these SUAP decisions to ensure that hot spots such as Waterloo region are not overlooked?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, the overdose crisis has impacted far too many lives across our country, affecting all Canadians. Each loss of life due to the dangerous, illegal, toxic drug supply is tragic, creating a heartbreaking reality for families, friends and communities throughout our nation. This pain ripples through society, leaving grieving families and communities struggling to heal.

The Government of Canada is deeply concerned about the devastating effects of substance use, particularly the ongoing overdose crisis. We are committed to taking decisive action to combat this crisis and save lives. Addressing the overdose crisis requires a comprehensive approach rooted in public health and public safety.

Since 2017, we have committed over $1.2 billion to support access to evidence-based prevention, treatment and harm reduction services. We have also supported research and consolidated enforcement activities to combat the production and trafficking of illicit drugs. We have invested more than $650 million in over 420 projects through Health Canada's substance use and addictions program, or SUAP. For example, more than $15.5 million has been allocated to projects in my colleague's community of Kitchener—Waterloo. Across the country, community organizations are working tirelessly to reduce stigma and provide much-needed support to people who use substances.

In line with our ongoing commitment under budget 2023 to fight the overdose crisis, we have allocated $144 million to fund more evidence-based community supports and health interventions following a national call for proposals through SUAP. The initiative generated a lot of interest. In all, close to 700 proposals were submitted and over $2 billion in funding was requested. These proposals were carefully reviewed. The successful proponents were selected based on their ability to implement innovative, community-led projects that are viable and that could eventually be scaled up. The unprecedented number of applications received highlights the severity of the overdose crisis in communities across the country, and confirms that our work is far from done.

Together, we will continue to make the health and well-being of all Canadians a priority and to fight this crisis. Now, we are announcing $150 million over three years as of 2024-25 to implement an emergency treatment fund for municipalities and indigenous communities. This fund will make it possible to quickly respond to urgent needs related to the overdose crisis, increase links to treatments and expand harm reduction services across Canada.

These investments reflect our commitment to making the health and well-being of all Canadians a priority. We will continue to work with our partners to effectively address this crisis.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that my friend and colleague, the parliamentary secretary, spoke about past funding that has come to Waterloo region. However, I hope she and the minister can realize that the argument that we got a lot of applications and money ran out is not good enough.

First of all, the member is part of the government that set the total dollar amount, which obviously was not enough. Second, no one has done any thinking to say, wait a second, Waterloo region is a hot spot; we have had 72 people die in this community this year already. It is not okay in a community like mine to say we ran out of money.

Zero dollars for Waterloo region in the midst of this poisoned drug crisis is not okay. I have been trying to raise, for months now, a request for the government to look at hot spots such as Waterloo region and find the money to ensure that we are not left without any funding at all to stand up to this poison drug crisis.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, health care decisions should be made by experts. Funding decisions for that program are also made in partnership with provinces and territories, indigenous communities and people with lived and living experiences. They, not politicians, are the best placed to identify projects that should receive funding.

I know that the member had multiple meetings with the minister and the minister's office to discuss proposals from his region. We are happy to continue these discussions with him to make sure that he understands how funding is allocated to achieve the best results and to fund the best proposals.

I also want to point out the historic investment that we made in health care in 2023, recognizing that the provinces and territories are in the best position to invest in their health care priorities.

Correctional Service of Canada

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am rising today to follow up on a question from June 17. Admittedly, it was a very long time ago, but the nature of the world of adjournment proceeding questions is that sometimes they follow considerably after the original question was asked. An unhappy coincidence is that none of the issues that were raised on June 17 have been resolved.

This relates to training in federal penal institutions. I asked about non-Red Seal apprenticeship programs, as opposed to Red Seal apprenticeship programs, which I had asked about on another occasion. I asked about non-Red Seal apprenticeship programs, and why CORCAN does not provide them.

I would like to expand on this question tonight and ask if the minister has read the Office of the Correctional Investigator Annual Report 2019-20. There are reports produced every year. I picked this one because it highlights points raised in five previous reports from the Office of the Correctional Investigator.

This report renewed calls from previous years to improve various aspects of correctional vocational training for inmates. There were five calls repeated from previous years, as I have indicated. Number one was repeated from the 2012-13 report and from the 2018-19 report. It was a call for more meaningful work opportunities, including increased availability of apprenticeships and work releases.

Number two, from the 2014-15 report, was a call to modernize CORCAN to retool the employment and employability program in demand areas, including significantly increasing Red Seal trades and apprenticeships, as well as sales, marketing and IT training.

Number three, from the 2015-16 report, was a repeated request for the development of a three-year action plan to meet demand for meaningful work, increase vocational training skills and increase participation in apprenticeship programs.

Number four, repeated from the 2016-17 report, was a request for the Minister of Public Safety to conduct a special study on inmate work and CORCAN. Finally, call number five was a repeat from the 2018-19 report to modernize the CORCAN manufacturing sector to ensure it aligns with current labour market trends.

Will the minister commit to modernizing CORCAN's employment and employability program, as well as CORCAN's manufacturing sector, to better provide inmates with current workplace skills to better reduce recidivism?

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, I always look forward to my colleague from Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston's comments and interventions in the House. He always seems to elevate the level of debate and discussion.

I am thankful for the opportunity to rise in the House this evening to speak to the positive benefits offered by Correctional Service Canada's employment and employability program. Employment programs and services help build essential skills related to employment while connecting offenders with resources that assist them with finding community employment after release.

The benefits associated with correctional programming have long been demonstrated. In fact, going back a decade, research has noted a direct impact between employment and positive reintegration results upon release. We know that inmates who participate in CORCAN employment programs while incarcerated are more likely to be granted parole. Similarly, inmates who participate in CORCAN employment programs while incarcerated are more likely to get a job in the community. Also, offenders under community supervision who find employment in the community have reduced recidivism rates.

Without the holistic approach of the CORCAN offender employment and employability program, offering a diverse range of correctional interventions and services over the course of their sentence, offenders would not be as well positioned to find employment. As research has demonstrated, programming works to build safer communities for all Canadians to enjoy by providing them with the skills necessary to safely adapt to life upon release.

That is not the only benefit to Canadians. Additionally, community programming works to save Canadians money. The daily cost of maintaining an inmate in prison amounts to six figures annually. When an inmate can be safely returned to the community and find employment, they are working to financially support themselves, are required to pay taxes and are no longer incurring six figures to the Canadian public. That is why I am happy to note that there has been a year-over-year increase in opportunities for inmates to undertake CSC programming.

In fiscal year 2023-24, employment coordinators, including staff and contractors, directly assisted offenders under community supervision to obtain 2,441 community job placements. In 2023-24, on-the-job training opportunities were provided to 2,624 offenders, within one of CORCAN's five business lines. I am proud to note that a total of 22,300 vocational training certificates were earned by inmates of all backgrounds in 2023-24, representing an increase of 5,855 from the previous year.

Throughout the apprenticeship program, offenders have the opportunity to register, accumulate hours and take block training to become Red Seal journeymen in a specific trade. Since September 2020, a total of 201 offenders participated in apprenticeship programs, of whom 68 have completed certification, with many more continuing to work toward it.

It has been alleged that vocational certificates offered to inmates are meaningless participation awards. This is an unfair characterization considering the nature of Correctional Service Canada's agreements and partnerships for vocational training and employment services. For example, CSC forms partnerships directly with indigenous communities to further increase project availability, and they provide indigenous offenders with additional on-the-job training opportunities.

CSC works with provincial trade associations to track apprenticeship hours in a number of different trades. It also works directly with colleges and universities, as well as private industries that provide established curricula to provide vocational training to offenders. These curricula are also offered to Canadians coast to coast and in the ridings that we represent in a number of different trades and jobs. I am—

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

The hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I hope the parliamentary secretary will understand my point when I note that one of the numbers he cited makes the whole point here: 68 inmates have completed Red Seal certificates since 2021. That is in three years. That is 22 or 23 per year, which is not much in a country with thousands of inmates. It points to the problem that the reports I was citing get at. Our programs are vastly inadequate, whether in scope, which would be the problem going on here, or perhaps in direction.

I would make the suggestion that we could benefit from, perhaps more than anything else, looking at the successes that have occurred in other systems. There are many other penal systems, most of which attempt some form of retraining inmates for re-entry into the community. Some of them, no doubt, are worse than ours. Many, I suspect, are better. We can look at all of Europe, the Americans, the Australians and so on—

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, as stated, correctional interventions work to provide meaningful employment and employability program opportunities for offenders, increasing the likelihood of safe and successful reintegration. As part of this, CSC works with partners in the academic, private and not-for-profit sectors to access learning materials that mirror those available to the general public and to develop courses in line with community employment standards. The resulting vocational certificates are issued, in most cases, by the third party.

The collaboration between CSC and existing partners provides offenders with the support, referrals and services to address their employment needs and contributes to offenders' ability to find and maintain employment in the community. Research clearly demonstrates that offenders who are employed in the community are less likely to reoffend or return to federal custody. This benefits offenders by providing them with the means to support themselves and their families and by creating community support networks.

For Canadians, there are benefits in safer communities through less recidivism as well as by adding to the workforce availability and through the socio-economic benefits such as offenders' custody—

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

The hon. member for Spadina—Fort York.

Democratic Institutions

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

Madam Speaker, we are back this evening to try to get to the truth behind why the Prime Minister, who once held NSICOP, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, in such high esteem, has suddenly changed his tune. The Prime Minister had once said he thought NSICOP was well-suited to examine foreign interference in Canada's democracy and our democratic institutions, but that does not seem to be the case anymore. What was the reason for the change in the Prime Minister's glowing support for NSICOP? What brought about this change? Could it have been a release of an NSICOP report that shed some light on the willingness of some members of the Liberal Party to accept political and financial benefits from foreign sources, most notably from agents of the Chinese government?

I had asked thePrime Minister if he still felt that “Canadians need to have faith in their institutions and deserve answers and transparency”, his words; or, had his party's Beijing masters intervened and indicated a need for a reversal in that faith?

In the reply to my question the Minister of Public Safety had the audacity to suggest I was making things up. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is not me saying these things. The minister notes that NSICOP, the Hogue commission and even national media have done some deep digging to get to the bottom of foreign interference. The truth is that the Liberal government does not want what has been uncovered to come to light and, perhaps most important, it does not want Canadians to know about it. After all, if everything is going so well in the government's eyes, why is it that the Canadian people are still in the dark about the so-called “11”? Why are these people not arrested and why are they not before a court?

There are laws in the Criminal Code that address treasonous acts. Subsection 46(2), paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) to be precise, sets out what constitutes the act of treason and it is quite clear. Subsection 46(2) states:

Every one commits treason who, in Canada,...

(c) conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);

(d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or

(e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) and manifests that intention by an overt act.

Additionally, subsection 46(4) notes:

Where it is treason to conspire with any person, the act of conspiring is an overt act of treason.

Therefore, how is it that those unnamed 11 people are able to evade our laws, our courts and our justice system? Who are these special 11 people benefiting from the Liberal government's tacit if not implicit protection? Why does Canada even have treason laws if the government of the day decides by itself to suspend the use of these laws?

For some time now, Canada's democracy has been under attack by authoritarian regimes and chief among these is the People's Republic of China. I hosted a press conference earlier today where I was joined by three leading experts on foreign interference. We wanted to address a question that many Canadians have been asking: Who are the parliamentarians who have been identified in that confidential NSICOP report? How can Canada have an election if Canadians do not know whether the people they are voting for have their best interests at heart? Some observers may also wonder if the current government is serving another master.

Now, nearly every opposition party leader has called for release of the names of the parliamentarians identified in the NSICOP report, but the Liberal government still refuses to do so. Why is that? Why will the government not come clean to Canadians, and defend our democracy?

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to the vital, ongoing work that the Government of Canada is doing to protect Canada's democratic institutions.

As all members of the House are aware, threats to Canada's democracy do not affect only some Canadians; they affect all Canadians. This is why the enhancements to safeguard Canada's democratic systems and processes against foreign interference set out in Bill C-70 are supported across party lines. Indeed, the Government of Canada's ongoing work to protect Canada's electoral systems and democratic institutions includes efforts to maximize public transparency while protecting what and how government documents are shared. This is because the nature of some records, as well as how they are intended to be used, is fundamental to the functioning of our democratic system of government.

I would like to take this opportunity to make clear what cabinet confidences are and why they are treated so carefully by the government. In this way, any misunderstanding along these lines can be put to an end. Cabinet confidences are documents prepared for members of cabinet. They include memoranda to cabinet, discussion papers, records of cabinet deliberations or decisions, records of communications between ministers, records to brief ministers and draft legislation.

The Canadian government is a Westminster system of government and has been since Confederation. This means that the principle of keeping cabinet confidences secret is older than Canada itself. It originates from the United Kingdom's Westminster Parliament, which dates back many centuries. Cabinet confidences are central to how the Westminster system functions because of another foundational principle called “cabinet collective responsibility”. The two principles complement each other. Members of cabinet consider all material at their disposal; they deliberate freely, and even disagree, around the cabinet table. Once the deliberations are finished, cabinet makes a collective decision, and all members are responsible for it.

Therefore, the secrecy of these deliberations and of the materials that are used to make cabinet decisions is paramount to the system functioning as designed. This has long been understood by successive Canadian governments, which have upheld the principle of cabinet confidences.

In addition to the government, the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that cabinet confidentiality is essential to good government. Protecting Canada's democracy also means protecting our democratic institutions and ensuring that they can function as intended. Protecting cabinet confidences is not a nefarious act; rather, it is a fulfillment of the government's duty to uphold the long-established principles of Canada's system of government.

While fulfilling this duty, the Government of Canada continues to support the ongoing work of the public inquiry into foreign interference, which it has done since the inquiry was established last year. The set of cabinet confidences specified in the terms of reference for the commission were already provided during the commission's first phase of work, and those terms were developed and agreed to by all recognized parties in the House.

As it has done all along, the government will continue to provide thousands of classified documents to the commission and to make government witnesses available to answer the commission's questions. The Government of Canada looks forward to the commission's final report in December, and it will consider how its recommendations can further help to enhance Canada's measures against foreign interference in its electoral systems and its democratic institutions.