House of Commons Hansard #372 of the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was documents.

Topics

line drawing of robot

This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Statements by Members

Question Period

The Conservatives criticize the Prime Minister's record on housing costs, debt, and food bank use, blaming him as the "bad actor" behind a broken immigration system and housing shortage. They attack the inflationary carbon tax, Canada's poor climate performance, and the hidden deficit. They also raise concerns about the Paul Bernardo case and the former minister's double identity scandal, demanding a carbon tax election.
The Liberals defend their investments in housing, dental care, and child care, contrasting them with Conservative calls for cuts and austerity. They criticize the Conservative leader for muzzling his MPs, obstructing Parliament, and refusing security briefings. They also highlight adjusting immigration numbers, protecting supply management, and the Canada carbon rebate as an affordability measure.
The Bloc criticizes the Senate's obstruction of supply management Bill C-282. They highlight Quebec deploying the SQ to patrol borders due to federal inaction on potential migration waves from the US, and address House decorum.
The NDP focus on lowering costs for families by cutting the GST on essentials like cell/Internet bills, addressing the climate crisis and lack of clean water in Nunavut, and defending freedom of expression regarding wearing pins.
The Greens call for a citizens' assembly on electoral reform to address the Prime Minister's broken promise.

Petitions

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs Members debate a privilege motion concerning the government's refusal to provide unredacted documents on Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) to the RCMP, as ordered by the House. Conservatives call the fund a "Liberal billion-dollar green slush fund" and allege conflicts of interest, stating the refusal paralyzes Parliament. Liberals and NDP acknowledge transparency is needed but question sending documents directly to police, while accusing Conservatives of obstruction and filibustering debate on other issues like housing and inflation. Past scandals of various parties are also raised. 20500 words, 2 hours.

Refusal of Witness to Respond to Questions from Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security Members debate a witness's refusal to answer a committee studying foreign interference, citing US charges and self-incrimination risk. Kevin Lamoureux proposes referring the matter to PROC for study before the Speaker rules on privilege. 600 words.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities Members debate the financialization of housing and the ongoing crisis, including rising homelessness and delayed federal funds. Bloc members express frustration with procedural delays preventing legislative work. Liberals defend their housing plan, while Conservatives propose removing GST and linking municipal funding to housing targets. NDP members criticize both parties for abandoning social housing. 11200 words, 1 hour.

Adjournment Debates

Indigenous procurement scandal Garnett Genuis accuses the Liberals of ignoring rampant abuse in the indigenous procurement program, including a former minister's company pretending to be Indigenous. Jenica Atwin defends the program's importance for economic reconciliation, citing increased Indigenous participation and efforts to address concerns of supplier integrity.
Foreign Interference Allegations Kevin Vuong asks if the Prime Minister is shielding 11 parliamentarians, potentially including a cabinet minister, who are in league with the Chinese Communist Party. Jenica Atwin defends the government's actions, citing the public inquiry and new legislation addressing foreign interference, while accusing Vuong of spreading misinformation.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

5:55 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

5:55 p.m.

Bloc

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?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

5:55 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

5:55 p.m.

NDP

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?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

6 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

6 p.m.

Liberal

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?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

6 p.m.

Conservative

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—

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

6 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

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

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

6 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

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—

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

November 20th, 2024 / 6:20 p.m.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

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

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

6:20 p.m.

An hon. member

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

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

6:20 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) 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.”

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

6:25 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

6:25 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

6:25 p.m.

Bloc

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?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

6:25 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

6:25 p.m.

Conservative

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?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeOrders of the Day

6:25 p.m.

Conservative

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.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseConcurrence in Committee Reports

6:30 p.m.

Bloc

Denis Trudel Bloc Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that you are here. In fact, I want to open up to you, and I hope that you will have some answers for me.

Over the past month and a half, I have been going through a deeply serious parliamentary crisis, both on a personal and a professional level. It has been troubling me and keeping me awake at night. I am not sleeping well and my relationship with my friends and family is suffering. I no longer see my friends. I have been keeping to myself. My colleagues find me to be difficult and irritable. I am really having a hard time. I wanted to talk about it in the House because this concerns all members of the House.

Quite honestly, I would say that I was naive and a bit ingenuous when I was elected. I put my face on some posters and told myself that I was going to improve the lives of my fellow citizens, that I was going to come to the House to work every day to improve their lives, particularly the lives of Quebeckers.

People are concerned about all sorts of issues, such as the climate crisis, flooding, drought and the housing crisis, which we will talk about later. We are talking about a report from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities that focuses on the housing crisis. That is quite serious, and people are grappling with this problem every day. The homelessness crisis is critical.

There is the language crisis too. French is disappearing. It has practically vanished from the rest of Canada and is dying in Quebec. Luckily, in a few years, we will have our independence and we will save the French language. In the meantime, however, we have to work within Canada and within our institutions. We have to work every day to improve the lives of our constituents.

What has been going on for the last month and a half? I come here every day and sit in my seat. I am no stranger to rehearsals. In the theatre, we rehearse a lot. I have acted in the same show 200 or 250 times. There is a big difference, however, between performing Molière 250 times and listening to 110 speeches on a privilege motion. A lot of the time, these speeches are delivered at a snail's pace to emphasize every word and really waste the House's time. The goal is to make absolutely sure that people get fed up, that they fall asleep, and that Parliament grinds to a complete halt. There is a big difference between Molière or Shakespeare and the stuff that we hear in this place. It is a far cry from Shakespeare or Molière.

I hope everyone understands my dilemma. When I arrived here, I was hoping that we would have debates, that we would put our ideas up against those of the Liberals, the Conservatives and the NDP. I thought there would be a clash of ideas and debates, that members would launch ideas back and forth, with each idea brighter than the last. I thought this verbal and intellectual clash of ideas would lead to—

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseConcurrence in Committee Reports

6:30 p.m.

An hon. member

Oh, oh!

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseConcurrence in Committee Reports

6:30 p.m.

Bloc

Denis Trudel Bloc Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC

Madam Speaker, I would appreciate not being interrupted. My colleague just broke my momentum, which is annoying. I would ask for a little respect. I am making an effort. I am performing here, unbeknownst to my agent. I should charge for this performance. The public does not usually talk. When people in the audience talk during a performance, they are kicked out, but that is another story. People have less and less respect for audience members who disrupt shows. People pay a lot of money, and they have the right to hear the performance.

Where was I? This clash of ideas should lead to brilliant, nay, incandescent bills that serve the varied interests of our constituents. That is democracy. At least, that is what it should be. As a separatist, I respect the House as an institution. However, for the past month, I have been robbed, assaulted and abused. I cannot move anything forward for my constituents in Longueuil—Saint-Hubert and for all Quebeckers.

As I was saying, I have been faced with this dilemma for the past month. One minute I was sitting here, and the next I woke up because it was my turn to speak. It has been a month and a half since I have spoken in the House. I was asked to speak about an important issue, a report by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities on the financialization of housing. “At last”, I thought, “they want to hear from me.” At the time, I was thinking about the fact that my skills and my work as a parliamentarian were being solicited. We put people to work on this file. The Bloc Québécois research team, my colleagues and I worked on this file.

We worked on the committee's report as well as the housing crisis. We did our homework. That is what I am going to talk about. The financialization of housing is a very important element in this major housing crisis. It is one of the obstacles to solving the housing crisis. The truth is, in Quebec alone, one million housing units need to be built by 2032 or so. One million units need to be built within the next eight years. However, in 2021, a record year, 67,000 units were built.

This means that, to achieve the objectives that were set by the CMHC and the big banks, to reach market equilibrium, which is one million housing units in Quebec and nearly 3.5 million housing units in the rest of Canada, we would need to build three times more housing units than have ever been built before. Can members imagine the construction sites, the urgency, how far away we are from the target. Can they imagine all the resources that need to be deployed to face the challenge of building three times more housing units a year than we have ever built before, year after year until 2032. It is nuts. If we do not do it, then what?

I am going to talk about homelessness.

Homelessness comes up every day in the media. We recently learned that in the past five years, there has been a threefold increase in the number of deaths in the streets in Quebec. Three times more people are dying on the street. They die from overdoses or from the cold, and no one seems to care in the slightest. They are found along rivers, in tents next to sidewalks. Among those people are seniors, workers. The face of homelessness has changed and if we do not address the broader issue of the financialization of housing, which I will come back to later, homelessness will grow.

I want to talk about homelessness because there is a specific aspect of this issue that directly concerns the government. In the last budget, the government announced a $250-million envelope to put an end to encampments in Canada. Everyone was happy, everyone applauded the good news. Unfortunately, eight months later, with winter approaching, with nights already getting colder and with temperatures dipping below freezing across Quebec and Canada, the money has yet te be paid out. Quebec's share is about $60 million. Quebec is ready to match this amount and invest another $60 million to help house people.

We saw that this morning in Montreal. There are people sleeping along Notre‑Dame Street. The city does not know what to do with them any more. Even if they are removed from there, no one knows where to put them. The federal government keeps adding administrative and bureaucratic hurdles. People who want to open shelters are being asked, what colour will the walls be? How big will the beds be? Will the blankets be synthetic or wool? How many pillowcases will be required? How many pencils will be used to register the number of homeless people sleeping at their shelter? It is so dumb. They keep adding forms and hurdles. People are fed up.

When it comes time to take care of people, housing organizations in Quebec know what to do. However, these organizations are not like Microsoft, Google, Amazon, X or Elon Musk. They do not have billions of employees who can spend all their time filling out an endless number of forms. The people who work in these organizations want to help other people. They are empathetic and competent when it comes to getting people off the streets and finding them a place to live, when it comes to helping people to improve their circumstances and finding them social housing. We are talking about helping people overcome addictions. We are talking about helping them return to work. Some of these people may be just getting out of prison and they need to reintegrate into society. These organizations know how to do that. We just need to give the people with the proper know-how the means to accomplish these goals.

It is unacceptable that this $50 million is just sitting around in Ottawa when it could be helping single mothers who are sleeping in their cars in Rivière‑du‑Loup or Saint‑Jean‑de‑Dieu, a small village not far from Kamouraska. I know this is true because I went there. People are living in tents all over the place. In recent years, some women have even given birth on Quebec sidewalks. How can we allow such a thing to happen in a G7 country? How can we allow this money to sit idle in Ottawa, for some demented administrative reason, when it could be making a difference on the ground?

My time is almost up. I wanted to talk about the financialization of housing, but I am happy that I was able to talk about something that is important to my constituents.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseConcurrence in Committee Reports

6:40 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the passion and the energy of that speech. I thought the member was very effective at communicating some of the struggles we are dealing with in the chamber right now. He talked about how he came here to be able to represent his constituents and work as a parliamentarian, but we cannot because we seem to be at a logjam in terms of our ability to get past one single issue.

The good news is that, and there is good news in this, the Bloc can help the government get past this impasse we are at right now by working with the government to deal with this question of privilege. He is right, 188 or 191 or so people have now spoken to this privilege motion, of which 171 were Conservatives. Conservatives are filibustering this place. They are preventing us from doing the work he speaks so passionately about. Will he work with the government to allow us to get past this so we can get to that really important work he was talking about?