Debates of Nov. 20th, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague said that things were not this bad before the Liberals came into power and they will not be that bad if everyone who wants to get rid of the corrupt government comes out in person and votes in the next election for a Conservative government.

Would the member tell the assembled members what steps a new Conservative majority government would take in order to ensure that things are not like this anymore and everyone will be able to afford a home and afford food?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a tremendous amount of respect for the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

Quite simply, we are going to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. We are going to get rid of the carbon tax and, of course, take the GST off new home construction.

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

Madam Speaker, over the last several weeks, all of us have had the opportunity to think about why this place needs to function. This debate has been precipitated because the government has refused to respect the will of this place. This place needs to function as it was designed to function under the Standing Orders and under all the rules and privileges that we are afforded here in this place because, in a lot of ways, democracy can be an illusion if this place does not function.

We are each imbued with power of people. For me, it is close to 120,000 people; I represent that many people. I sometimes think in my head of a Saddledome filled several times over and the responsibility that I have to be the voice of that many people. The rules that we have in this place allow me to speak on their behalf and also prevent Canadians from feeling like they have to settle conflicts or differences or get action through violence. We have to ensure that so many things work here in order to keep our democracy functioning.

My colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills mentioned an article in The Globe and Mail this week. It was written by the editorial board. It is entitled “A Parliament that is dead on the inside”. In establishing its thesis, the article states as follows, “The House has, as established through the Constitution, the absolute power to order the production of government documents—in this case, documents related to the disgraced Sustainable Development Technology Canada agency.” The government has not complied with an order of the House. Therefore, the Speaker found a breach of members' privileges. Now the way to end this, the way to respect the will of Parliament, is for the government to comply with the order, period.

I want to put why this place has to function in a slightly different context. I gave that why, perhaps not explicitly, in a speech that I gave last week at Royal Canadian Legion Branch 284, the Chapelhow legion. I would like to impart to colleagues today why this place has to function and why the government must comply with the House order.

Recently, one of our younger colleagues, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot, stood in the House to deliver a tribute to his father, who had passed away unexpectedly. He closed with a call to action, “my hope is that everyone can remember my dad, Jay, by living with the strength, generosity and faith he showed us.” In response and in a rare show of unity, all members of this place rose and gave him a standing ovation. My colleague's hope and the reaction it evoked among us, a divided people often, exemplify a phenomenon I have often seen in moments of grief. Eulogies of remarkable people are never mere lists of accomplishments. Instead, they challenge us to ensure that their work to improve the human condition endures beyond their lives, uniting us to carry their mission forward.

More than a century ago, Canadian physician Lieutenant-Colonel John McCrae wrote one of the most blunt and enduring calls to action ever contained in a remembrance. In 1915, his friend, Lieutenant Alexis Helmer, fell in combat during the Second Battle of Ypres. After his funeral and noticing the poppies springing up among graves of the fallen, McCrae wrote an elegy entitled In Flanders Fields:

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

In his poem, McCrae, who later died in the war, left a solemn charge to future generations: “You will face the same foe we did and you must engage with it, lest everything we, the war dead, have sacrificed for you be in vain. If you succeed, there shall still be beauty and we shall rest easy, but if you fail, there will be no rest for any of us in this life or the next.”

If McCrae's mandate to us was clear, the enemy he called us to face was left undefined. One could interpret it as a call to defeat enemy soldiers, but this view seems overly narrow to me. McCrae's words transcend literal war. They speak to a more insidious, pervasive threat.

In recent years, I have become increasingly concerned that Canadians spend too little time reflecting on McCrae's lament's true meaning, even on Remembrance Day. With division and unrest spreading through our communities, schools and places of worship, I fear many have grown complacent or naive about the foe McCrae identified.

Years of peace and prosperity have lulled Canadians into thinking the foe can neither take root here nor harm us. Some even see the foe as a friend, believing it worthy of protection rather than something to root out. These are lies that we, particularly in this place, are duty bound to reject if we are to complete McCrae’s task. However, what exactly is the enemy McCrae asked us to confront?

Through my time in public service, I have seen first-hand the worst that humanity can inflict upon itself. I have walked through homes reduced to blackened rubble, where the fresh stench of death and blood spatter were all that was left of families who once inhabited them. I have walked over mass graves. I have met survivors of genocide and sexual slavery, and listened as world leaders attempted to diminish the crimes committed against them. I have witnessed mothers whose starving children limply clung to them in refugee camps, displaced by warfare and disease. I know that all who serve in our military have seen far worse than I have.

I know our foe is real, pervasive and intent on our destruction, but I also know the horrors of war, though perhaps its most visible manifestation, do not constitute the foe itself.

If it is not war, then what is it? I believe the foe germinates in complacency and the false belief that Canada is immune to external threats. It spreads by erasing the hard-learned lessons of past conflicts and convincing us that others will defend our freedom, rendering us unprepared and unwilling to defend it ourselves. It fosters divisiveness and denies the existence of a Canadian identity. However, this assumption that the foe can be ignored or that Canada lacks something worth defending is fatally flawed. In that place of folly, of ingratitude, decadence, arrogance and naïveté, we meet McCrae's foe: the desire to subjugate others and strip away their freedoms.

It terrifies me that the foe so obviously lives on in Canada despite McCrae's cautionary words and the sacrifices made by so many who have fought to defend our nation in armed combat. That is because the foe, left unchecked, inevitably leads to the downfall of a free people like us in Canada. If we are truly to honour those who have fallen in defence of our nation, we must accept that opposing the foe is a battle each of us, particularly in this place, is currently engaged in. We must view remembrance as a lifelong charge, a sacred duty to prevent the foe from eroding Canadian freedoms, democratic institutions and our national unity.

Like mould spores, the foe lives on every surface of human nature, constantly probing for new hosts to infect. It seeks to divide us and strip us of our birthrights: freedom of speech, the choice of our own path, the right to worship without persecution and the ability to love without consequence. It attempts to deceive us, suggesting that to preserve these freedoms we must abandon our most fundamental responsibility: to do no harm to another.

We must be vigilant on these matters. The foe cannot be appeased and it will not de-escalate. Thus, we must resist the foe within our minds, in our relationships, in our workplaces and in civil society. This is a challenging task. The foe often disguises itself as a virtuous ideology that is wrong to challenge, masking its true intentions. It often attempts to convince us that the only way to protect our freedom is to take away or limit the freedom of others, and yet, hope lies in Canada's history.

When McCrae penned In Flanders Fields, Canadian soldiers were fighting for one of the first times as a unified force. During the First World War, soldiers of diverse backgrounds, including over 4,000 indigenous people, fought side by side under the Canadian banner for the goodness our nation represents. In that war, and others that followed, men and women of all faiths fought alongside one another to liberate others from the foe. This unity, the miracle of people setting aside differences to protect the freedom found in our nation, is the foe's greatest fear. That miracle, thankfully, remains alive and well today.

We must thank those who have fought for Canada, but we also must renew our commitment to confront the foe here ourselves. How do we quarrel with the foe, as McCrae charged us to do? What must we do to hold it at bay? The foe responds to hard power, making it essential for our nation to be capable of self-defence and for military service to be respected. However, civilians too must bear the responsibility of keeping the foe in check.

We know the foe is deathly allergic to freedom and equality of opportunity, and so we can starve it of the fuel it needs. The foe's oxygen is religious hatred, rigid caste structures, petty jealousies, intellectual laziness, selfishness, political cowardice and autocracy. The foe cannot thrive in a nation in which anyone, of any background, belief or origin, can live without fear of persecution and prosper by the work of their hand.

Canada and other countries committed to traditions of freedom, democracy and justice, and the rule of law, are humanity's best and only defence against the foe. It is only within those nations where institutions exist that allow us to solve society-scale grievances through words and democratic action instead of with violence that humanity has been able to hold the foe at bay for any length of time.

We must remember that the foe confronts us every day in small moments, like when we choose to empathize rather than judge, when we bear witness to suffering rather than ignore it and when we temper anger with understanding, but also when we work to correct injustices. Fighting the foe means shedding ideologies that undermine our freedoms. It means thinking critically, challenging the status quo and forgiving when we can. A shared commitment to freedom and decency can transcend many divides, a reminder that the foe seeks to silence us, and it seeks to silence us here, but that we must protect open dialogue as a safeguard against our democracy.

Perhaps the most potent weapon against the foe is pride in Canada. Canada is the embodiment of freedom from the foe, a shining example of peaceful, democratic pluralism. We weaken the foe each time we feel pride for our country singing in our blood. Every time we sing the national anthem, every time we wave our flag, wear the poppy or thank a veteran, we strike a blow against it.

Proud of our nation we should be. Canada offers a promise of freedom and prosperity that tens of millions of people from around the world have migrated to experience. It is the promise Lieutenant-Colonel McCrae fought and died for and the promise he threw the torch to us to protect.

Today, the foe seeks to extinguish this pride and make us feel ashamed of the goodness that can be found in our shared Canadian traditions. The foe understands we will not fight to protect something if we do not value it. That is why it tempts us to cancel Canada Day celebrations and seeks to normalize shouts of death to Canada and the burning of Canadian flags in our streets.

That is why it wants us to view the Canadian military uniform as a symbol of oppression instead of the proud armour of liberators it always has been. That is why it seeks to have us erase our nation's history instead of celebrating the good while fixing the bad. It gives me hope that many Canadians of differing political viewpoints, religions and ethnic backgrounds are coming together to reject these lies and defend the institutions that protect our national identity of freedom. People united in freedom, as we can be here in this country, is the foe's undoing.

When we stand together as Canadians, united in our love for our nation, our freedoms, our democratic institutions, we, the true north, strong and free, truly honour those who have fought and died to protect Canada's promise. When we do this, we defeat the foe. To Lieutenant-Colonel McCrae and to all those who have served our nation across time, we are thankful for what they have done and we give our promise today: We remember, we will take up the quarrel with the foe and we will prevail. God keep our land glorious and free. O Canada, now and always we stand together proudly on guard for thee, lest we forget.

I believe this place has forgotten. I believe it has broken faith with those who died. If we do not protect the democratic institution that is Parliament, then we have broken faith. We have let the foe into this institution and it is insidious. We are supposed to think this is not a big deal. It is not a big deal that the government is not respecting the will of the House. We are supposed to believe that the Liberal government does not have a duty to comply with this, that we should just send this to a committee, that we should just let it go, that it is not a big deal.

At the end of the day, reading the Globe editorial from yesterday, and my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills read the quote at the end, the government is honour bound and duty bound to respect the will of Parliament. If the government does not do that, then our democratic institution is broken. This is a lie. How are we supposed to uphold the principles of democracy that allow our pluralism to thrive, that allow us to solve quarrels without violence, that allow us to uphold freedoms? If we cannot do that here, it is impossible across the country.

That is why we have parliamentary privilege. It is my privilege to stand in this place on behalf of over 100,000 Canadians. If the government is not complying with the will of Parliament, then that privilege has been violated. It is not just my privilege; it is the privilege of every single Canadian. That is the gravity of the situation here. This, to me, is a hill to die on.

There is a reason we are demanding that the government hand over these documents, and there is a reason we are asking our colleagues in the other opposition parties to hold the line. There is a greater principle at play here. That principle is whether or not we are going to allow McCrae's foe to seep into our business here, in our naïveté, in our comfort, our decadence and our arrogance, that what happens here does not matter.

Many people have said this place does not matter anymore, bureaucracy runs everything and there is no ministerial accountability. That may be, but for what I will do, and in the promise I make to people who serve in Canada's military, people who serve abroad, people of all walks of life who have decided to take up the quarrel with the foe, who have caught the torch from failing hands, I will not let that pass. Nor should anyone in this place, regardless of political strife, members of the government backbench particularly.

This is the time for political courage. Our democracy is under attack. It is no less than that. There is no amount of hyperbole in that statement. It is the time for political courage. It is the time to hold space and to honour those who have sacrificed to protect the democratic institution in which we are so privileged every day to speak.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the greatest honours I have had in my lifetime was when I served in the Canadian Forces and I marched with World War II veterans. After the marches, we would often go to the legions. I would see these grown men in tears. They believed in Canada. They fought for our country, and many of their friends had died.

When I think of bringing that to the table and of the types of debates we have here on the floor of the House of Commons, I believe that they would believe that, yes, Parliament does have unfettered power. It is an incredible authority that we have as parliamentarians, but it does not give us the right to abuse that power.

I would highly recommend that the member read the Hill Times story from October 28, written by Steven Chaplin, and see how that might influence her. I, for one, believe in the freedoms that we often hear about. There are issues I have with the tactics the Conservative opposition party is using. I would think that she would share some of those.

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

Madam Speaker, if future generations of people in this place, our successors, read this debate, I want them to look on this exchange with great gravity because the foe does try to make us think that we should be ceding our power and the privileges that we have in this place, which we are imbued with on their behalf. We should never do that.

What my colleague opposite suggested was that we should cede the power of Parliament and that the will of Parliament is not supreme. That is an ideology that must be rejected if we are to keep the democratic institutions of Canada alive and to respect and honour the sacrifices of those who have fought to defend them.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to say that I really enjoy listening to the speeches given by my hon. colleague from Calgary Nose Hill. She has a lot of experience. Do not worry, I am not about to sing any Francis Martin songs tonight.

Maybe I am being naive, but since the member does have experience, I came up with an idea that I would like to run by her. I would like her to tell me if it makes sense.

What the Conservative Party is trying to achieve through the question of privilege is to get the documents tabled. The Liberal Party, however, is unwilling to turn over the documents. Now, if the Conservative Party ended this question of privilege and immediately moved a motion of non-confidence in the government, since the NDP, the Bloc Québécois, and the Conservatives all want these documents, that could trigger an election and my colleague's party could end up in power. At that point, it could table the documents in the House.

Would it not be easier to do that? Would it not move things along a little faster? Maybe I am being a bit naive, but I wanted to put that idea out there this evening. Would it not be easier to move a motion of non-confidence in the government and then, if the Conservative Party takes power, table these documents?

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

Madam Speaker, this place has to work, and for it to work, the government must respect the will of Parliament. The way for the government to end this issue is to hand over the documents and respect the will of Parliament. We have to start taking these principles seriously if Canadians are to believe that their democracy works. It is as simple as that.

There are so many Canadians who feel disillusioned and powerless because they see members ceding their power and they see the government thumbing its nose at all of us. They saw the government sue the former Speaker of the House in a previous Parliament over a very similar issue. That has to stop. If Canada is to continue as a great nation among the great nations of the world, then this place has to work. The government has to respect the will of Parliament, and in this instance, it must hand over the documents.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague gave a thoughtful speech. She talked a lot about “the foe”, and I am not sure from where, in her view, the foe emanates, but I want to focus and get her opinion on the foe from within. In this country, we have routinely seen the turnout for federal elections at about 60%. That seems to be the norm over successive elections. That means, and pardon my bad math, about half of Canadians do not even think their democracy is important enough to cast a ballot every four years or so.

I am wondering what she thinks is the cause of that. My own view is that it happens when there are successive political parties that promise things and then betray their promises, like when the Liberals broke their promise that 2015 would be the last election under first past the post and their promise that they would bring in a universal pharmacare system 25 years ago. When they tell Canadians they will do that sort of thing and then get in government and do not, does she feel that has a corrosive impact on our democracy and drives people away from the democratic process? Is that a legitimate foe she thinks ought to be addressed?

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

Madam Speaker, I tried in my speech to really emphasize that the only place McCrae's foe does not thrive is in democratic nations where people have enshrined rights to equality of opportunity and fundamental freedoms that are protected by democratic institutions and the rule of law.

There are many people who feel disillusioned at this juncture in Canadian history about their democracy because we have a government that continually, day after day, thumbs its nose at this institution, be it by giving ridiculous talking points in question period or having a cabinet minister who falsely claimed indigenous identity. We can pick from the litany of scandals, and then we watch members of the governing party, instead of demanding change from within, trying to figure out how to get a cabinet spot.

However, more importantly, watching the government continue to deny the will of Parliament is something I do think disillusions Canadians. Those members in the government who continually, day after day, hold water for the government by standing up to ask inane questions and hold the water of the bad decisions of cabinet are what erodes democracy. If those members keep doing that, that is what erodes democracy, and that is what disillusions people.

I would just look to my colleagues, particularly those in the governing party, and beg them to have some decency. If they cannot do that, they need to respect Parliament and stop carrying the water of a government that has proven its absolute contempt of this place and of Canadian democratic institutions.

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

Madam Speaker, I find it really interesting to hear the member say that the government is just making talking points when a lot of the speeches that have been given by Conservatives, and I think this member was the 171st Conservative to speak to this, were generated by AI. I take some offence to that.

In any event, if the opposition wants to bring forward a motion, which it has, and the motion is that we send this matter to committee, I do not think there is a member in the House who will not vote in favour of it. We want to vote in favour of this motion. It is a very unique situation when the movers of the motion are the ones who are filibustering their own motion. Notwithstanding everything else about this, why bring forward a motion to move something to a committee if they never had the intention of allowing it to move to committee?

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

Madam Speaker, the order from Parliament to the government was to hand over documents. It was not to send it to a committee. It was to release documents, so we are demanding that is what happens.

While I have time, I would like to offer some advice to my colleague, who is frequently up in this place and who recently had to apologize for spreading libellous misinformation on social media. I have to say—

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

We will resume debate with the hon. member for Saskatoon West.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise once again to address the sweeping corruption that grips the NDP-Liberal government here in Ottawa. Parliament is consumed with the issue of the Liberal government refusing to turn over unredacted documents to the RCMP for a criminal investigation.

These documents pertain to Sustainable Development Technology Canada, better known as the green slush fund. I have already spoken extensively on this issue, as did the Auditor General, I may add, so I am in good company. I encourage everyone to check out my Facebook and Twitter feeds to see my deep dive into the green slush fund and other Liberal criminal wrongdoings. For example, in today's case, these documents have been blotted out by the Liberals and, as a result, the police are at a standstill, but is this a surprise? In our country, police investigations of possible wrongdoing and criminal activity are not just esoteric questions confined to the Prime Minister and his cadre of NDP advisers. Crime is real.

The government may not take crime seriously, something they are demonstrating here by failing to provide to the RCMP documents that may very well hide criminal actions and connections to Liberal insiders, potentially even Liberal MPs or ministers, but crime is a crisis gripping our nation. It is a crisis that affects every community, family and Canadian.

I am speaking about the devastating convergence of drugs and crime, two interconnected issues that have spiralled out of control under the NDP-Liberal government's watch. This crisis is not about abstract statistics. It is about real people. It is about the family grieving the loss of a loved one to a fentanyl overdose, the shopkeeper who no longer feels safe in their store and parents who are afraid to let their children play in local parks because of discarded needles and drug paraphernalia. This is a crisis that touches all of us, and it demands immediate, decisive action.

For too long, the Liberal government, propped up by its NDP allies, have implemented reckless ideological policies that have not only failed to solve these problems but also made them worse. Their so-called evidence-based approaches have emboldened criminals, exacerbated addiction and left Canadians feeling less safe in their own communities. It is unacceptable. The Conservative Party offers a clear, common-sense alternative. We believe in holding criminals accountable, in prioritizing recovery over enabling addiction and ensuring that every Canadian can feel safe in their home, their neighbourhood and their workplace. All of this is against the backdrop of a government that commits scandal after scandal.

This discussion here today is only the latest one, which is the refusal of the government to provide the unredacted documents to the RCMP so it can determine if there were actual crimes committed. When we have a federal government so quick to bend the rules, and possibly even commit crimes, is it any wonder that we have a larger crime and drug problem in this country?

To address this crisis effectively, we must begin by understanding the root causes. Drug addiction and crime are deeply intertwined, each fuelling the other in a vicious cycle that devastates individuals, families and communities. The opioid crisis is a prime example. Since 2015, Canada has seen an explosion in opioid-related deaths, driven by the rise of synthetic drugs, such as fentanyl. These substances are cheap, potent and deadly. Between January 2016 and September 2022, over 35,000 Canadians lost their lives to opioid overdoses. In my home province, the Saskatchewan Coroners Service recorded eight deaths by fentanyl poisoning in 2016. Deaths by fentanyl poisoning peaked at 272 in 2021, during COVID, and levelled out at 252 in 2023.

Addiction is not just a personal struggle. It is also a societal failure. The current government's response has been to normalize and enable drug use through policies such as safe supply and harm reduction. These programs are based on the flawed assumption that addiction is a permanent condition that cannot be overcome. This defeatist mindset ignores the potential for recovery and consigns individuals to a life of dependency.

At the same time, our justice system has been systematically weakened. Bills such as Bill C-75 and Bill C-5 have prioritized the rights of offenders over the safety of law-abiding citizens. These laws have made it easier for repeat offenders to obtain bail, have reduced sentences for violent crimes and have eliminated mandatory minimums for serious offences. The result is a justice system that no longer serves justice. We cannot afford any more years of inaction or misguided ideology.

It is time to chart a course built on accountability, safety and recovery. These are important words. We need accountability here in Ottawa, like today as we debate this motion on the green slush fund and the possible criminal wrongdoing of the NDP-Liberal government in funnelling money through the green slush fund. Why do I say “possible wrongdoing”? Well, it is because the Liberals are blocking this Conservative motion to release the unredacted documents necessary for the RCMP to investigate.

It is amazing that the Liberal Party has prioritized itself and its own selfish needs over the safety of Canadians, selfish needs like funnelling government cash to their friends through the green slush fund. How do I know that? Well, just look at the Liberals' legislative record when it comes to criminal matters.

The NDP-Liberals passed Bill C-5, which purposely took accountability and punishment out of the courts. Since the passage of Bill C-5, violent crime and drug-related offences have skyrocketed. Repeat offenders, no longer deterred by the threat of significant prison time, have become more brazen. Police officers across the country report increased difficulty in keeping dangerous individuals off the streets, knowing they will likely be released with minimal consequences. Simply put, Bill C-5 replaced prison sentences with conditional sentences, better known as house arrest, for crimes like sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, stealing cars, breaking and entering, arson, assault with a weapon, assaulting peace officers, and trafficking in dangerous narcotics and drugs.

The introduction of house arrest for these serious crimes is quite troubling. House arrest may be appropriate for minor, non-violent offences, but it is entirely inadequate for crimes like sexual assault, kidnapping or drug trafficking. This policy not only fails to hold offenders accountable, but also places an undue burden on victims and their communities. Imagine the trauma of knowing that one's assailant is serving their sentence just blocks away from one's home. One particular harrowing example is the case of a violent offender released on house arrest who subsequently commits additional crimes. This revolving door justice system undermines public trust in the legal system and places innocent Canadians in harm's way. That is why we need accountability restored to our criminal justice system.

Unfortunately, accountability is lacking in this justice system, which is why common-sense Conservatives brought forward the motion we are debating today to turn this criminal matter over to the RCMP. Indeed, common-sense Conservatives have put forward strong policy proposals on criminal justice matters since the last election. Perhaps the government, which is so intent on avoiding accountability around the criminal wrongdoings of the green slush fund, as well as everyday, common-sense Canadians, would like to hear about them. Perhaps this could distract from other conflicts of interest.

Conservative members have introduced numerous private members' bills designed to correct the failures of Bill C-5 and address the broader issues plaguing Canada's justice system. First, Bill C-299, the strengthening penalties for sexual exploitation act, seeks to increase the maximum penalty for offences like human trafficking and child exploitation to life imprisonment. While the Liberals redacted their scandals, we introduced Bill C-321, the protecting first responders and health care workers act, which proposes harsher penalties for assaults against first responders and health care workers. While the Liberals hid their wrongdoing with redacted documents, we introduced Bill C-394, the restoring mandatory sentences for drug trafficking act, which would reinstate mandatory jail time for criminals involved in producing, importing and trafficking dangerous drugs like fentanyl and cocaine. These bills tackle the root causes of rising crime. Rising crime requires urgent solutions, yet the Liberal government chooses in the House to defend redacted records and questionable spending on the green slush fund rather than tackling the root causes of crime.

These next two Conservative bills would make sure that criminals stay in prison and do not revictimize people over and over again. Bill C-325, the ensuring dangerous offenders stay behind bars act, would prohibit dangerous repeat offenders from serving sentences in the community. Bill C-296, the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act, would ensure that individuals convicted of heinous crimes, such as the abduction, sexual assault and murder of the same victim, serve life sentences without parole for up to 40 years.

There is more. While the Liberals were giving money to their friends and hiding the evidence in these redacted documents, we introduced Bill C-351 to end least restrictive conditions for dangerous offenders, which would ensure that prisoners are confined under conditions necessary for public safety rather than trying to make criminals feel more comfortable. This change would keep dangerous individuals like Paul Bernard, in maximum-security facilities where they belong. I spoke to this bill when it was debated in the House, and the other side voted it down, voting in favour of Paul Bernardo.

These private members' bills reflect the core principles of the Conservative Party's broader justice reform agenda. Canadians can count on Conservatives to stop the erosion of public trust in the criminal justice system. The erosion of public trust caused by increasing crime mirrors the corruption and opacity surrounding the green slush fund, both of which harm the fabric of Canadian society, which is my point here today. If the Liberals would simply hand over the unredacted documents, we could get on with business here in Ottawa. We could get on with the important things Canadians are demanding, and one of those things is stopping crime.

Our Conservative plan to stop the crime includes the following pillars.

Number one is restoring mandatory minimum sentences for violent crimes, drug trafficking and serious sexual offences. Mandatory minimum sentences are essential to ensure accountability and public safety.

Number two is implementing jail, not bail. Repeat violent offenders would no longer be released back into the community on bail. We would prioritize the safety of law-abiding Canadians over the convenience of criminals.

Number three is expanding treatment and recovery options. A Conservative government would invest in detox and rehabilitation programs, ensuring that individuals struggling with addiction have a path to recovery.

Number four is supporting law enforcement. We would provide police with the tools and resources they need to combat organized crime and drug trafficking effectively. This includes reversing the NDP-Liberal government's restrictions on law enforcement powers under Bill C-75.

Number five is enhancing victims' rights. Conservatives would ensure that victims of crime are treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve. This includes greater transparency in parole decisions and increased support for victims and their families.

It is important that Canadians understand the Conservative approach to these criminal matters, such as the possible criminal wrongdoing that we are debating here today. Today, we are debating documents that, once this Conservative motion is adopted, will allow the RCMP to conduct a proper and formal probe into NDP-Liberal actions around the so-called green slush fund. Unfortunately, the Liberals have chosen to paralyze Parliament rather than adopt our common-sense motion and release those documents.

While Conservatives propose common-sense solutions, the NDP-Liberals engage in one misguided policy decision after another, and the consequences of misguided NDP-Liberal policies are clear. Violent crime in Canada has increased by 39% since 2015. Homicides are up 43% and gang-related murders have more than doubled. In Toronto, sexual assaults have risen by over 11% in the past year alone. The link between drugs and crime is undeniable. Drug users desperate to fund their habits often turn to theft, burglary and other crimes. Organized crime groups capitalize on this desperation, using drugs as a tool to trap individuals and expand their influence. Public Safety Canada has stated that the illegal drug trade is a key driver of gang violence and organized crime.

The situation is particularly dire in British Columbia, where the government's experiment with decriminalization and harm reduction has backfired catastrophically. Drug overdose deaths in the province have increased by 380% since 2015, and this year alone, B.C. is on track to recording more overdose deaths than in any previous year. The evidence is clear. These policies are not working. The human cost of this crisis cannot be overstated.

Canadians are paying the price for the NDP-Liberal government's failed policies in very real ways. In Saskatoon, the police department's crime map reveals a city increasingly plagued by violence, theft and drug-related offences. Parents in neighbourhoods like Riversdale and Fairhaven tell me that they are afraid to let their children play outside. Small business owners report break-ins and vandalism at unprecedented levels.

The opioid crisis has also placed an enormous burden on our health care system. Emergency room visits for overdoses have skyrocketed, straining resources and diverting attention from other medical emergencies. First responders, already stretched thin, are now dealing with an epidemic of overdoses and drug-related violence. The emotional toll on these frontline workers is immense. It is an emotional toll that comes from the challenges of crime gripping our communities. This emotional toll reflects the consequences of a government more focused on rewarding insiders through the green slush fund than on ensuring the safety and well-being of Canadians.

Let me repeat the sad statistic of the green slush fund. The Auditor General found 186 cases where board members doled out $400 million with clear conflicts of interest. The Liberals were taking taxpayer money and giving it to their friends and each other. That is shameful.

An emotional toll is being paid by Canadians, who are suffering through the current government of the costly NDP-Liberal Prime Minister. The NDP-Liberals have wasted billions of dollars of Canadians' money on wasteful so-called green projects through Sustainable Development Technology Canada. The sad truth is that it is being funded through Canadians' carbon tax dollars.

All common-sense Canadians know that when we slap a massive carbon tax on the farmer, then on the transport truck bringing the food to grocery shelves and then on the grocery stores themselves, the price of food goes up. It is called inflation, and boy have Canadians suffered through inflation because of the carbon tax. It is simple: Canada is in crisis. Food Banks Canada's 2024 HungerCount report highlights this stark reality. In Saskatchewan, food bank usage has surged by 42% since 2019. Alarmingly, 23% of food bank users in the province are two-parent families and 18% are employed. It is a glaring sign that something is deeply wrong when hard-working Canadians cannot afford basic necessities.

This crisis is not limited to Saskatchewan; it is a nationwide issue. Since last year, business bankruptcies have climbed 16% while personal bankruptcies are up 14%. Do members know who is not starving? It is the NDP-Liberal insiders, who have funnelled millions of dollars of cash into their pockets from SDTC. That is who. Families and business alike are struggling under the weight of skyrocketing costs and failing policies. The Prime Minister's sunny ways of 2015 have turned into a storm of economic disaster, and it is clear that the government is not worth the cost.

That is why Conservatives have a plan to restore hope and opportunity. We will axe the tax to lower costs for families. We will build the homes that Canadians desperately need. We will fix the budget to end inflationary spending and we will stop the crime that threatens our communities. Canadians are ready for a change, and it is time for an election to bring it home. Conservatives are ready to fix what is broken and restore a brighter future for all.

Fixing the budget is part of the solution to increase public trust right here in Canada. Fixing the budget means respecting the demand of Parliament and finally releasing the documents about Sustainable Development Technology Canada, the so-called green slush fund. By releasing the documents to the RCMP, it can address the criminal aspects of this matter, because crime is crime. It does not matter if it is committed in the House by the government or on the street. Crime makes Canadians less secure. While crime rates surge across Canada, it is alarming that the government continues to block transparency around public funds, funnelling taxpayer dollars into dubious projects like this green slush fund instead of addressing public safety.

The Conservative Party offers a clear, common-sense plan to address the twin crises of drugs and crime. Our approach is rooted in three pillars: accountability, recovery and prevention.

First and foremost, we must restore accountability in our justice system. A Conservative government will repeal Bill C-75 and bring back mandatory minimum sentences for violent crimes. These measures will ensure that dangerous offenders are kept off the streets and that justice is served. We will also implement a jail-not-bail policy for repeat violent offenders. Canadians deserve to know that individuals who pose a threat to public safety will remain behind bars while awaiting trial. Restoring such accountability is one step toward a brighter future that must not only stop the crime, but also address the NDP-Liberal government's disregard for fiscal responsibility, epitomized by the green slush fund scandal, which diverted resources from public safety.

We will also prioritize recovery over enabling addiction. The current government's safe supply program has been an unmitigated disaster, with up to 90% of prescribed drugs being diverted to the black market. The Conservative government will end this program and redirect funding to treatment and recovery initiatives. We will expand access to detox and rehabilitation programs, working with provinces to increase the number of treatment beds and support recovery-oriented systems of care. Programs like the Saskatoon drug treatment court, which offers alternatives to incarceration for non-violent offenders struggling with addiction, are good examples to follow.

Finally, we will invest in prevention. This includes supporting law enforcement efforts to dismantle organized crime networks and reduce the supply of illegal drugs. It also means educating young Canadians about the dangers of drug use and providing at-risk communities with the resources they need to thrive. How can Canadians feel secure when their government prioritizes schemes like the green slush fund over investments in policing and justice reform?

The crisis of drugs and crime demand immediate and decisive action. Canadians are tired of living in fear. They are tired of a government that prioritizes ideology over safety, that experiments with their lives rather than protecting them. They are tired of a government that gives their hard-earned tax dollars to Liberal friends and insiders and covers it all up by refusing to release the documents to the RCMP.

The Conservative Party is ready to lead. We will end the failed policies of the past decade and implement a common-sense approach to crime that prioritizes safety, accountability and recovery. We will bring back mandatory jail time for violent offenders, end taxpayer-funded drug dens and invest in treatment and prevention programs that actually work.

It is time to bring it home. It is time to restore safety to our streets, hope to our communities and dignity to every Canadian. I urge my colleagues in the House to join us on this mission. Together, we can build a safer, stronger Canada.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

I appreciate my colleague's intervention. I know that he takes his work in this place very seriously.

The Liberals often state something to the effect that we should send this matter to PROC, to committee. However, the Speaker's order did not say that; it was to deliver—

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

It did.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I apologize. My understanding was that the Speaker's order was to deliver the—

[An hon. member]

Madam Speaker, that is not your role. You are the Chair.

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

I apologize to the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I did not say the hon. member was wrong; I just said “It did.”

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I apologize if I was misunderstood. My understanding is that there was an order made that the documents be delivered unredacted. That has not happened yet. The Liberals wish to send the matter to PROC. The Conservatives believe the documents should be delivered.

What does the member think the Liberals' rationale is for just not delivering the documents unredacted? That would just end the whole thing.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question and one we ask ourselves a lot. Why will the Liberal government not just provide the unredacted documents as the request was made by Parliament? It is really quite a simple thing to do. They have already produced the documents with all the redactions. Simply undo the redactions and send the same documents.

They are not going to do this, because of what is contained in the redactions. The information there must be very serious. It must be very damning, potentially, for the government. It probably names people. There are all kinds of things that could be there; we just simply do not know. This is the information that is needed. It is what the RCMP needs in order to investigate properly so it knows whether there in fact was any criminal wrongdoing that should be dealt with further.

It is very important the Liberal government respect the request of the House and provide the documents unredacted.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.

For me, what is happening in the House right now is unprecedented. The House has been seized with this question of privilege for over a month and a half, and things are at a standstill. We know what the government needs to do to resolve this impasse. It can produce the documents, which the majority of elected members are asking it to do, or it can impose a gag order with the support of another party. This government, however, does not seem to be doing anything at all to break the impasse. It seems like the government is very comfortable indeed with the current situation.

Why does my colleague think the government is just fine with the situation we are in? Is it because it does not have to face a confidence vote? Is it because it is getting tired and worn out and does not have all that many bills left to introduce?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, my colleague raised a very good point. In many ways it does appear as though the government is just very happy to let things go on. The Liberals certainly do not want to provide the documents, as I stated in my last answer, because they are worried about what the documents contain. At the same time, I do not think they have anything better to do either. I think they have run out of ideas, as my colleague mentioned.

I do not know that the Liberals have much left to do for Canadians. They have destroyed almost everything they have touched. They have ruined our immigration system. The list goes on and on. I honestly do not think they know what to do. In one sense, they probably are not all that sad that the House is stuck on the issue, because I am not sure there is much more they have that they would know what to do with.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech was an excellent one. We are dealing with so many different Liberal corruption scandals concurrently. Just today, a senior member of the Liberal cabinet, who was the only minister from Alberta, resigned. The stack of scandals that is continuing to be investigated with respect to the member for Edmonton Centre is probably the largest that has applied to any one minister in the history of this country. It just shows how the government has debased our institutions and has ignored basic democratic norms of respect for Parliament, of the appropriate separations that are supposed to exist between institutions.

I wonder whether the member would reflect on where we have come over the last nine years and on the incredible volume of corruption. We are dealing with two privilege questions in the House at the same time. Again, this is unprecedented. What does it say about what the NDP-Liberal government has done to our country, to our institutions and to the trust that should exist in them?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is quite right. From the moment the government came into power, scandals erupted. As I have spoken about many times before, the scandals are not new to the Liberal government. Scandals have always been in Liberal governments.

My colleague does raise a very interesting kind of microcase, and that is of the minister who resigned today. In one person, there are multiple scandals and just a simple refusal to admit that and a refusal to even see what is wrong in that. Finally today he was, I believe, forced out because of public opinion. I am not sure that left on his own he would have resigned, because I think there is just an innate misunderstanding and an inability to see what is actually going on.

The House resumed from October 30 consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.