Debates of Dec. 10th, 2024

Oral Questions—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Colleagues, I am now ready to rule on a point of order raised by the leader of the government in the House on December 3, regarding the handling of certain oral questions.

During question period that day, the Chair ruled a number of questions out of order after determining that they did not relate to the government's administrative responsibility. After the question from the member for Davenport, the Chair recognized another member without letting the government respond. A similar situation arose on November 27, involving the member for Kingston and the Islands. In contrast, the Chair did allow the government to answer the questions of that kind when they were asked by the opposition.

According to the government House leader, this practice enables the government to respond to any question, if it so wishes, whether or not the question pertains to the government’s responsibilities and regardless of whether it was asked by the opposition or the governing party.

After the point of order, the Chair stated that a question that was not about the government’s responsibilities but was an attack on the government could give rise to a response from a minister, but that the opposite—that is, allowing a minister to respond to criticisms of the opposition parties—is problematic. The Chair would like to expand on the reasoning behind this interpretation.

As the member for Kingston and the Islands rightly noted when he spoke to the matter, question period is not reserved for opposition members alone. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, explains on page 498, and I quote:

Any Member can ask a question, although the time is set aside almost exclusively for the opposition parties to confront the government and hold it accountable for its actions, and to highlight the perceived inadequacies of the government.

Accountability, through question period, is one of the means to the ends sought through the principle of responsible government, which is itself one of the cornerstones of our system of government. Therefore, the purpose of question period is to hold the government to account, not the opposition, within its areas of responsibility.

The Chair is mindful of wanting to preserve the nature and purposes of question period. The roles of opposition and government in this exercise should not be inverted. The opposition does not have to answer to the government.

Moreover, when the opposition asks a question, the government has an opportunity to respond and defend its position. It can also decide not to answer. However, when members of the governing party ask questions about the opposition, the latter does not have the same opportunity to defend its point of view.

A similar logic must also apply to questions one opposition party asks about another. This type of question is not normally in order, based on the above logic. As Speaker Milliken said in a decision rendered on June 14, 2010, at page 3778 of the Debates, and I quote:

the use of members’ […] preambles to questions to attack other members does not provide those targeted with an opportunity to respond or deal directly with such attacks.

In addition, I would encourage members to reread the Chair’s ruling of November 20, 2023. In that ruling, I addressed the need to draw a link to the government’s administrative responsibility. I also reminded members of the limited exceptions to the rule, which concern questions addressed to committee chairs or a representative of the Board of Internal Economy.

If members want to ensure their questions are in order and to get an answer from the government, they need to phrase them clearly and to quickly make a direct connection to the government’s administrative responsibility.

Finally, there is an obvious trend, on both sides of the House, of asking questions that have little or no connection with the government’s responsibilities. These questions often consist of attacks on the opposition parties. While a desire to question and criticize the other parties’ positions is natural, our proceedings offer other opportunities to do so. If we want question period to continue serving its fundamental purpose—namely, government accountability—we must ensure the questions are formulated with that purpose in mind.

As one of my predecessors, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, remarked in a ruling delivered on January 28, 2014, on page 2203 of the Debates, and I quote:

...the Speaker, as the servant of the House, can enforce only those practices and guidelines the House is willing to have enforced. Very often the particular circumstances of the moment dictate how far the Speaker can go without unduly limiting the freedom of speech of members.

But when content causes disorder, the Speaker must step in, all the while acting within the confines of our rules and practices.

Since poorly worded questions, at times, elicit rather intense reactions from all corners of the House, the Chair will be especially vigilant in ensuring that the preamble to questions and the questions themselves are linked to the government's administrative responsibility. It is much easier for the Chair when this link is clearly established with as few deviations as possible. This will enable members to eliminate the risk of being interrupted. I am convinced that members can make their arguments without breaching this vital principle. If members need advice on this, they can consult the table officers.

I thank all members for their attention.

The Environment

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the “2023-2024 Reports by Federal Authorities with Obligations under Section 71 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012”.

Government Operations and Estimates

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 23rd report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, the mighty OGGO, entitled “Indigenous Procurement”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

Science and Research

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Science and Research, entitled “Science and Research in Canada’s Arctic in Relation to Climate Change”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party has submitted a dissenting report on this study of the Arctic and the research therein. As a couple of highlights, from our perspective, one is the potential lack of coordination across all the research projects there. Of course, we want to make sure that there is top value for taxpayers, knowing that there is no duplication. In addition to this, there should be spending effectiveness.

We have submitted that.

Official Languages

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, entitled “Establishing Language Requirements for Governor in Council Appointments”.

This study was conducted in response to a recommendation from the Commissioner of Official Languages. In his 2021-22 report, he looked into language obligations in the staffing process for senior management positions in the federal public service and Governor in Council appointments. Despite the passage of Bill C‑13 and the modernization of the Official Languages Act, it seems that a significant number of positions filled by Governor in Council appointments still do not have a language requirement.

This report and these recommendations will be of interest to the reader wishing to address these gaps. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

Justice and Human Rights

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 26th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human rights, entitled “Islamophobia on the Rise: Taking Action, Confronting Hate and Protecting Civil Liberties Together”, and the 27th report, entitled “Heightened Antisemitism in Canada and How to Confront It”.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise to present a dissenting report by the Conservative Party on the study on Islamophobia. The study was undertaken at a time of conflict in the Middle East between Israel and the Palestinian people of Gaza. As one witness noticed, the committee suffered from a fundamental category error by confusing Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism. We agreed with that assessment. Indeed, nine of the 13 recommendations make reference to anti-Palestinian racism. We do not think that this shift in attention away from the main topic of Islamophobia was helpful in identifying the challenges that Canadians face with the rise of Islamophobia. Our dissenting report reflects that.

I have a second dissenting report, on the study of anti-Semitism. Multiple witnesses testified that diversity, equity and inclusion programs on their campuses have discriminated against Jewish people. In response, the majority of the committee proposed addressing this issue by expanding these diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives to ensure that Jewish voices are heard. Conversely, the Conservative members of the committee viewed this testimony as evidence that, despite good intentions, these programs are ineffective. Our dissenting report reflects that sentiment.

Public Accounts

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I move that the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented on Tuesday, February 8, 2022, be concurred in.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Conservatives blocked their own opposition day yesterday. They seem to be doing the same thing today. They do not even take their own opposition motions seriously. It is important to point out that the Conservatives are blocking their own opposition day—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is not a point of order. I would ask members to please state the Standing Order they are rising on. That way, it will be a lot easier for us to determine the point of order from the beginning.

Debate, the hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, as we were so rudely interrupted by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, allow me the opportunity to rise and speak on behalf of the residents of the riding of Calgary Shepard on the eighth report of the public accounts committee, for which I was briefly the chair. The report is entitled “Pandemic Preparedness, Surveillance—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would ask members who are having conversations to please take their conversations outside so that we can really hear what the hon. member has to say.

The hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, I am talking about report 8: “Pandemic Preparedness, Surveillance, and Border Control Measures”. The border control measures are the most important and are of great interest to me, because today is an opposition supply day.

We now know, both from public media reports and from statements by the incoming U.S. administration that will be swearing its oath next month, that border measures in Canada are of great interest to the incoming administration, especially with respect to the fact that we have such lax border measures. It is concerned about border measures on two primary issues.

I want to demonstrate to the House how this is connected to the important report I mentioned, because in the previous situation where border measures were found to be lacking by the Auditor General, when she reviewed the conduct of the Public Health Agency of Canada and the conduct of the CBSA, she found it was lacking in a different national emergency at the time, related to the pandemic, with respect to what was done at the time, including the government response to that particular event.

I have a Yiddish proverb, as I always do: “Time is the best doctor.” In the situation in question, it has not been so. If the government proceeds to do the same thing it did with the pandemic response, in order to train up the CBSA officers responsible for border enforcement, then we will likely have a multi-year disaster at our borders. The border disorder will continue.

Madam Speaker, I want to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Sturgeon River—Parkland.

I want to draw the attention of the House to recommendation 7 of the committee: “The Canada Border Services Agency should provide the Committee with a progress report regarding the training tool for border services officers.”

With respect to the report and the response that the government presented to the House, I again want to draw the attention of the House to the progress report. It said at the time that CBSA had established a process to monitor decisions made by border services officers as they relate to the application of public health policies. It goes on and on to talk about a case management system, an Order in Council system, developing training tools and developing all types of interesting policy health guidelines that were supposed to make it easier at the border for CBSA officers to monitor and apply the rules for people entering the country.

I draw the attention of the House to a few of the points. The report said that CBSA college in Rigaud, Quebec, had updated its training modules on legislation and resources to include teaching points specific to the Orders in Council and application to the job. It had a part on additional training tools for officers, having created a form of job aids that provide scenarios regarding various quarantine exemptions of non-discretionary travel that officers could reference when making a decision.

We know from public reporting and from the incoming American administration that the two primary issues the administration is worried about, with the border disorder caused by the Liberal government, are fentanyl and other opioid trafficking across our border, the smuggling that is going on seemingly almost unabated; and the immigration visa disorder that the Liberals have created as well over the past nine years.

This is important because we know that 47,000 Canadians have now died from the radical liberalization of hard drugs that the Liberal government has conducted, the experiment over the past nine years. That is a 200% increase of such deaths compared to 2016.

The media is not in a vacuum. Information and facts do not exist in a vacuum. The incoming U.S. administration has been paying attention; it has seen the same numbers. America has an opioid crisis in its country and is looking to its neighbours on both sides, as it is going to increase enforcement and wants our government to increase enforcement at the border. At the previous time when there was a major crisis, the government was slow to react. If all it is going to do is offer training modules and have pieces of paper informing officers at the border what they should be looking at, then we are going to be far behind what our neighbours expect us to do.

We know that since 2024, over 80% of accidental opioid deaths primarily involve fentanyl. We also know that the reduced sentences for drug kingpins and lax borders contribute to the deaths. The situation threatens our trade relationship with our biggest trading partner.

I know that in my riding, there are a lot of businesses that are completely dependent on trade with America for the products and services they provide, which run the gambit. One would think it would be mostly oil and gas, which of course it is, but there are also companies in my riding that do things that would be considered to be on the higher end, such as the refurbishment of small aircraft. Small Cessna aircraft are refurbished for the American market by companies in my riding.

Recently, a major new construction centre opened just east of my riding of Bow River, which will now be making new firefighting equipment. Firefighting aircraft in the DHC series of aircraft will again be made by De Havilland right in Calgary. Some of the parts companies are located in the industrial areas of my riding. They are dependent on the American market in order to ensure that they will have future contracts. A lot of European countries have purchased these aircraft, but the American market is also incredibly important.

If our trade relationship with the U.S. continues to sour because the government is not capable of cutting down on the fentanyl trafficking across the border, if all it does is similar to what it did during the pandemic with little training modules, then I am sorry to say that the border disorder will continue. It will not be enough and will not assuage the concerns of the American administration, and in its crosshairs would be regular, everyday Canadians who would pay the price for the NDP-Liberal government's incompetence.

We have seen over the past few years what can happen. Hundreds of thousands of Albertans lost their job through the radical policies the Liberals have introduced targeting energy workers and their families. We cannot risk losing tens of thousands more jobs in my riding and also throughout Calgary, in Edmonton, all across western Canada and in fact anywhere in Canada because the NDP-Liberals are simply too slow to act when they hear serious, logical concerns over what is going on with fentanyl trafficking in Canada.

We know that CSIS has also found that synthetic drugs are increasingly being produced in Canada, using precursor chemicals largely sourced from the People's Republic of China. CSIS has identified more than 350 organized crime groups actively involved in the domestic illegal fentanyl market. I mention that because I also happen to be the vice-chair of the Canada-China committee. That committee, at the call of the chair, twice now has not met.

As far as I know, there is no meeting of the China-Canada committee set for next week, which means three meetings are now cancelled where we could be looking at issues like fentanyl. The committee's mandate is to look at the Canada-China relationship and the fact that precursor chemicals are coming from the PRC and entering our country, seemingly without a lot of border controls being applied.

This is not to blame the CBSA. The agents are doing the best job they possibly can under their circumstances, but if all they are being offered are training modules and little OICs, their hands are really tied. I am sure that if we go to see rank-and-file members, we would see that they are just as frustrated as we are on this side that we have such lax border controls for precursor chemicals.

The Liberals have kept cancelling the meeting of the Canada-China committee, which should be meeting to talk about issues like fentanyl smuggling across the border and like precursor chemicals coming into Canada. We know that the incoming American administration is concerned, but we should also be concerned. Tens of thousands of Canadians have died because of the opioid crisis and especially the fentanyl crisis, so why should we not be concerned?

We are not the only ones saying it. There are also police chiefs across Canada, like the London police chief, who has said that thousands of deaths have happened and “confirmed that taxpayer-funded hard drugs” that the NDP-Liberals have supported “are being diverted to communities across Canada. In fact, over 30,000 hydromorphone pills were seized in 2023, with most being diverted from so-called ‘safe supply’ programs. He later went on to say that Canadians ‘are being targeted by criminals who exchange these prescriptions for fentanyl, exacerbating addiction and community harm.’”

A lot of this is related to the original report. The government lurches from one crisis to the next. There is border disorder today. There is a crisis at the border and we know this. There is an incoming American administration that is now, in the wrong way, focused on and interested in what the NDP-Liberals have done over the past years and how they have exacerbated the problem.

If we look at past conduct as future conduct, what we see now is that things are going to get worse next year for the residents of my riding and the residents of all our ridings. That is why I have moved concurrence on the report today. It is important and substantive. We need to debate the issue; we need to get to the bottom of it and have a better way of ending the border disorder that the NDP-Liberals have caused.

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

Madam Speaker, it is truly amazing. The member talks about “border disorder”, when in fact today's leader of the Conservative Party was a member of the Stephen Harper cabinet when it made drastic cuts to staff and significant financial resources of Canada's border control agency.

Again, what we are witnessing is a Conservative Party that is loaded with hypocrisy. The Conservatives are complaining about the lack of support going to the Canada Border Services Agency, when in fact the government not only redressed the financial cuts and burdens that the Harper regime put on Canada's border controls but has also since enhanced the controls. Does the member not see the hypocrisy?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member needs to understand that between 2006 and 2015 there was a 45% increase to CBSA's budget. There were 1,000 more full-time equivalent employees at the agency and 26% more border agents assigned at the agency. Those are the numbers.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on the fact that the Government of Quebec, until quite recently, had to deploy resources to patrol the border even though border surveillance is a federal responsibility.

What does he think of that?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member from Quebec for that great question.

That is exactly what the Premier of Alberta did. She said that Alberta's provincial police forces were ready to step in and ensure border control, since the federal government seemed incapable of enforcing the law, exercising its power or resolving threats along our border. It has also failed to stop organized criminals from bringing people into our country or smuggling immigrants out of Canada and across the border in return for thousands of dollars.

We now have to deal with an American administration that is threatening our country precisely because of the policies of this NDP-Liberal government.

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

Madam Speaker, yesterday was an opposition day, and the Conservatives put forward a motion and then blocked their own motion because they obviously did not take it seriously. Today is an opposition day where the Conservatives are again procedurally blocking their own motion. They are trying to break Parliament. It is the most bizarre and childish approach on an issue like the one before us the issue of border security. The Conservatives are responsible for killing 1,200 positions with CBSA on the border. They slashed those positions, and tragically, the Liberals have not made up for the damage the Conservatives did to the border.

However, it is not just that. Conservative provincial governments have the fastest-rising rate of tragic opioid overdose deaths. In Alberta and Saskatchewan, the rates are skyrocketing through the roof. This is the irresponsibility of Conservative governments, and the tragedy is that the federal Conservatives fundraise from it rather than try to get their provinces to actually make sense.

How does the member respond to the fact that the Conservatives killed 1,200 border positions, creating the border crisis, and how does the member respond to the skyrocketing and tragic opioid deaths in Alberta and Saskatchewan?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, there were 26% more border guards between 2006 and 2015. There were 1,000 more FTE employees; the member did not hear that. There was a 45% higher budget between 2006 and 2015. Most importantly, it is the New Democrat member and his party, which kept supporting the Liberal government, that have led to the crisis of today.

What really breaks Parliament is when an opposition party loses itself, ignores the fact that it is an opposition party and keeps providing confidence to the government in a coalition deal. That is what breaks Parliament: not standing up for our constituents but basically behaving like an extra annex to the Liberal caucus.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House. I have always been proud to stand behind my colleague, the member for Calgary Shepard, and today I am quite literally standing behind the member for Calgary Shepard as I give my speech.

After nine years of the Prime Minister's reckless policies, Canada's border is broken. Drugs, stolen cars and even terrorists are now evading detection at our border, and the Prime Minister's border incompetence is threatening our international reputation, particularly our reputation with our closest ally and most important trading partner.

One example of the Prime Minister's recklessness in the past was his infamous “#WelcomeToCanada” tweet, which led to a large influx of irregular migrants who came through Roxham Road for years. This was a problem that took the Liberal government years to get under control, and it is a broad problem for which we are still facing the consequences of today.

One of the largest beneficiaries of the Prime Minister's policies on crime has been the organized crime linked to drugs, stolen cars and terrorism. Organized criminals are specifically targeting Canada because it is a low-risk, high-reward environment. We have heard this consistently at the public safety committee in relation to the issue of auto theft. Criminals will look around the world to find the path of least resistance, and Canada's policies under the Liberal government have made it far easier for organized crime to take root in our country. The government's bail policies, lax border policies, criminal justice policies and inattention to our border have led to organized crime taking root in our country.

We know that Canada has become a manufacturing hub for the deadly fentanyl drug, and the strict border provisions that were introduced during the pandemic saw the Canadian fentanyl market shift from being an importer of fentanyl to becoming a massive domestic producer of fentanyl. CSIS has found that synthetic drugs are increasingly being produced in Canada using precursor chemicals largely sourced from China. That is the quote. However, 80% of the chemicals used in fentanyl production are completely unregulated, meaning that criminals can easily import them from China. We know that there are over 350 organized crime groups that are actively involved in our domestic fentanyl market. CBC has even reported that violent cartels are attempting to establish a foothold in western Canada.

We need to stop the deadly flow of drugs coming into our country and the deadly flow of drugs leaving our country. It has become an international embarrassment that our country is now being seen as a drug provider for the world. In fiscal year 2022, the Canada Border Services Agency claimed that it intercepted a total of 563 grams of fentanyl throughout the year leaving Canada. However, in just one shipment, the Australian Border Force intercepted 11,000 grams of pure, powdered fentanyl entering from a shipment that came from Canada. Therefore, CBSA caught 563 grams in all of fiscal year 2022, yet in just one shipment, the Australians intercepted 11,000 grams coming from Canada.

The Vancouver Police Department has reported that approximately 50% of all hydromorphone, the drug that the Liberal government has funded with taxpayer dollars as the so-called threat-reduction measure, is being diverted from the government's so-called safe-supply program for hard drugs. On July 15, the chief of the London Police Service stated, “Diverted [so-called] safe supply is being resold into our community. It's being trafficked into other communities, and it is being used as currency in exchange for fentanyl, fuelling the drug trade”.

This Prime Minister's reckless drug experiments are now threatening our closest trading relationship. In the 12 months up to September 2024, the U.S. border agency seized 11,600 pounds of drugs entering the United States from Canada. Now, there are some who might say that we should not be talking about this issue because it is making us look worse. However, we cannot deal with the problem until we acknowledge the problem, and when we acknowledge the problem, we can finally take action on solving the problem. The United States is not going to be satisfied with our silence on this issue. It will be satisfied when we take action on this issue.

The seizures of fentanyl doses have more than tripled from 2023 and 2024, rising from 239,000 doses to 839,000 doses. In fact, in Langley, British Columbia, there was a recent lab bust of a mega lab, and there was enough fentanyl captured at that lab to kill 90 million people. That is more than two times the population of Canada. That was just at one drug lab that was busted in British Columbia. We must fix this. This is costing Canadians their lives. We must fix this, not just because it is a threat to our trading relationship, with our closest trading partner, but also because we need to save Canadian lives and the lives of all the people who are suffering around the world from these drugs that are leaving Canada.

Under the Prime Minister, 47,000 Canadians have died from drug overdoses. That is more people than we lost in the Second World War. It represents a 200% annual increase in drug overdose deaths after the Prime Minister's radical drug experiments. Drugs, crime, disorder and a broken border, sadly, are a consequence of the Liberal government's radical policies. It threatens our relationships with our closest partners.

After nine years of the Prime Minister, there has been a 632% increase in U.S. border patrol encounters with people illegally attempting to enter the United States from Canada. Tariff-screening data shows that, in 2023, there were 484 matches on a U.S. tariffs watch list at land ports of entry along the Canada-U.S. border. Since 2017, these numbers have gone up 123%. These are individuals who are known to the U.S. government for their links with terrorist organizations. The only reason they were apprehended was that they attempted to cross into the U.S. Just this summer, we saw that three ISIS fighters who were operating on Canadian soil were apprehended just before they were able to carry out attacks on innocent civilians both here and in the United States.

Responsibility for the broken border falls squarely at the feet of the Liberal government. The brave men and women of the CBSA do not have the resources and support to do the job that they need to do. The previous Conservative government increased the budget of the CBSA by 45% from 2006 to 2015. There were 26% more personnel at our border from 2006 to 2015, and there were a total of 1,000 more full-time equivalents from 2006 to 2015. We will never apologize for our Conservative record.

Canada has the largest undefended border in the world. It is a beautiful thing that we can have a border with closest trading partner that is open. I know there are so many strong relationships across the border, strong relationships that we need. The fact that we have had this for so many decades is a wonderful thing, but the Liberal government has taken that for granted. It has underfunded our border, and we have seen a rise in crime in this country because of its radical criminal policies and its radical drug liberalization policies. Now we see that that border that we have, that privilege that we have as a country, is coming under threat under the new U.S. administration. We cannot take it for granted. This is an existential crisis.

I have farmers in my riding who are texting me to talk about the stress they are under. We know that farmers do face a lot of mental health challenges. They have to face drought. They have to face a volatile commodities market. Now, they are facing the threat of a 25% tariff from the U.S. administration. We cannot afford the Liberal government taking our trading relationship and our borders for granted anymore. We need it to take strong action to ensure our safety, the safety of our allies and our economic opportunities.

We had the CBSA union at the public safety committee, which said that “Canada's ability to prevent smuggling lacking, but its capacity to gather reliable and sound data [about smuggling] is also inadequate,” while going on to say “there's almost a zero per cent chance that any illegal weapons entering the country via rail will ever be found.”

We know that the vast majority of gun violence in Canada is committed with illegally smuggled firearms coming in from the United States. Last week, we saw that the Liberal government continued its attack on law-abiding, responsible, licensed firearm owners. The Prime Minister is desperate to distract from his miserable record of a 116% rise in gun violence since he took office in 2015. Rather than waste money on a flawed confiscation scheme that would only affect legal, law-abiding, licensed gun owners, maybe the Liberal government should be spending that money on the border and increasing the confidence of our trading partners that we are taking action on the drug trade and on illegal people crossing the borders. That is the kind of action that our trading partners want to see, yet these Liberals want to play divisive politics.

A Conservative government would fix our broken border. We would increase border patrols, work with provincial law enforcement, tighten visa rules, crack down on illegal drug production, secure our ports with increased boots on the ground and expand the mandate of the CBSA so that it can do the job we need it to do.

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

Madam Speaker, it is simply amazing that a Conservative member stands and gives a false narrative, as if the Conservative government under Stephen Harper did anything to make Canada's borders secure. It not only divested of people at the borders, but also made cuts. Let us contrast that with an investment of nearly $1.5 billion since 2018 to strengthen Canada's border controls. There is a litany of information the members opposite will no doubt put on the record that is just not true.

Why should Canadians believe the Conservative Party and, in particular, its leader, when he is the absolute opposite of the types of things he is preaching today?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member should have stopped at “amazing”. That is what I took from his comments.

The proof is really in the pudding. Obviously, things were not perfect before 2015, but they certainly were not the disaster we see today under the Liberal government. I just quoted a litany of statistics about how bad things have gotten, and now an incoming U.S. administration wants to penalize Canada for taking the border and our trading relationship for granted. Canadians can see that very clearly. It has been reflected in the numbers we are seeing that they no longer believe the Liberal government and want a Conservative government to clean up the mess that it made.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is important for Canadians to know the Conservatives have erased their own opposition day motion to amplify the falsehoods of Donald Trump. There was a time when, if Canadians were threatened by a foreign power, Canadians stood up with backbone, but not under the pusillanimous and predatory member who lives in Stornoway.

Donald Trump threatens 25% tariffs, and the Conservatives say, “Damn straight, let's do that.” They falsely claim that our border is leaking fentanyl. Why is it leaking fentanyl? The Conservatives claim it because the leader of Canada created a fentanyl crisis. They will say and do anything to burn our house to the ground, but what they will not talk about are the thousands of CBSA employees who Stephen Harper fired while Jean-Pierre Fortin, the national president of customs, was calling out the Conservatives and saying, “More child pornography entering the country, more weapons, illegal drugs, will pass through our borders, not to mention terrorists and sexual predators and hardened criminals.”

That is the Conservatives' record, but they do not give a damn because it is about burning the house to the ground to get to the Prime Minister. They will burn the country to the ground and inflict 25% tariffs on us while imitating anything Donald Trump says. They are sock puppets and traitors.