Debates of Dec. 10th, 2024

Public Accounts

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

Madam Speaker, it is very unparliamentary that any member would accuse another hon. member of being a traitor to our country.

The member for Timmins—James Bay is simply putting his head in the sand when he claims there is not a fentanyl issue in our country. We know that the majority of our ally Australia's fentanyl supply is coming from Canada. We cannot ignore this fact. We need to take action to save Australian lives, Canadian lives and American lives, and to save our borders with the other country. Ignoring that fact is not taking responsibility on behalf of Canadians. Taking responsibility on behalf of Canadians means looking at it squarely in the eye and taking action on the real issues, not burying our heads in the sand like the NDP member is doing.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, an initial catalyst to the current extreme and growing drug crisis that Canada is facing at its borders was the government removing mandatory minimum penalties for drug dealers. How incredibly inappropriate is it for the government to signal more leniency on drug dealers right now? With premeditation, they are benefiting more than ever from the addiction and death of Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, we know that, when mandatory minimum penalties are removed, the instances of repeat criminals, not just people who commit one crime and are rehabilitated, increase on our streets. When I talk to law enforcement, they tell me that they are apprehending the same people over and over again.

We need tough penalties to get tough on drug dealers who are peddling death in our communities. We can no longer let the Liberal government stand idly by and let that happen.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am just curious. Is it parliamentary language to claim that someone is a “traitor?” I am just looking for clarification on the rules and bounds.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member did not indicate a specific person was a traitor. He did not say it was a specific individual. However, the word is raising an issue, and I would just ask members to please be judicial with the words they use in the House.

Resume debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, it is interesting how sensitive the Conservatives are about the word “traitor.” It might be fair to say that many within the Canadian community see that the Conservatives are attempting to be puppets for Donald Trump and wanting to raise issues that are ultimately to the detriment of any potential trade discussions that take place. After all, in many cases, they like to amplify issues that are nowhere near as severe as they try to portray.

For example, Conservatives are talking about fentanyl. When we think about the amount of fentanyl going into the United States from Canada, do people realize it is less than 0.2% that comes in from Canada? Anyone listening to the debate from the Conservatives this morning would think there is a huge problem with fentanyl going into the States from Canada, a lot more than 0.2%. If the Conservatives want to, both inside and outside the chamber, try to give the false narrative that there is fentanyl flooding the United States from Canada, it is just not true. It does not help with any sort of negotiations taking place, because it portrays a false narrative.

We see the same issue when it comes to migrants. Less than 1% of illegal migrants, if I can put it that way, come from Canada into the United States. When we listen to the Conservatives, we would think that Canada is the problem for migrants going into the United States.

The Conservatives are not being kind to Canada's negotiators when they amplify misinformation. I had the opportunity to meet with Sara and some of our trade commissioners last week, as we had a fantastic trade mission to the Philippines. In fact, we have now begun exploratory discussions about a potential future trade agreement with the Philippines. We had the largest-ever trade mission to the Philippines, and President Marcos indicated it might have been the largest in decades of any country.

We should be talking about trade in a positive way and encouraging the Government of Canada and other governments to look at Canada as a country that has the ability to trade. Our negotiators are the best in the world. When Conservatives are inside the chamber voting against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement or espousing a false narrative, it does not help our negotiators. That is why what the Conservatives are doing thus far this morning is nothing more than just puppeting Donald Trump's concerns about border controls.

Yes, there is a need for us to monitor, do our job and play an important role in beefing up, where we can, the Canada-U.S. border. We take that seriously. Our actions have clearly shown that. We hear the numbers. Let me give a number when it comes to Conservatives and misinformation.

If we take a look at the 2011-12 federal budget, when the current leader of the Conservative Party sat around the cabinet table, the number of border control officers we had was 14,833 full-time equivalents. That is when the leader of the Conservative Party was sitting around the cabinet table. In 2015-2016, four years later, there were 13,774 full-time equivalents. That is a drop of over 1,000 full-time positions.

The Conservatives can say whatever they want, but the bottom line is that the leader of the Conservative Party, when he sat around the cabinet table, saw one of the most significant cuts to Canadian border control in the history of Canada. Now, he wants to come out and say that we are going to have a healthier border control agency. If there had been no change in government, the cuts would have continued. In fact, according to their projections, there would have been an additional loss of 371 jobs by 2017-18 if the leader of the Conservative Party had been allowed to stay around the cabinet table with Stephen Harper.

The reality is that there was no sense of urgency or commitment to protect our borders under the Conservative Party. Why should we believe Conservatives today when they go around saying that they are going to cut? Are they not going to cut this area? Are they actually going to give more? Have I got a car to sell them.

At the end of the day, we cannot trust the Conservative hidden agenda. I call it that because they are not honest with Canadians. When Canadians see the reality of a Conservative administration 10 years from now, they will see that it is true to the far right. The far right is what drives the Conservative Party today. Let us not kid ourselves. Many people thought the Reformers were far right. I can say that the Leader of the Opposition is genuinely as far right as they come.

The Conservatives say their fancy slogans, and every one of them will talk about them because they get gold stars every time they repeat the Conservative slogans and bumper stickers; we know that. That is what they are going to talk about, but it is about cuts. It is not giving more. That is what is going to happen with border control. Let us hear the leader of the Conservative Party stand in this place and say that they are going to increase, as the Liberals did.

Not only did we restore the cuts that Stephen Harper and the current leader of the Conservative Party put in place, but we also added several hundred new positions. We recognized the real need there. We understand there is a sensitivity in regard to what takes place on the border, both coming from the United States into Canada and vice versa, and we have seen very impressive results.

From January 2022 to December 2023, CBSA had over 37,000 seizures of guns and drugs. That is some 7,000 illegal firearms entering the country. Whereas the Conservatives turn their heads and neglect border controls, this is a government that ensures our border control agents have the necessary resources and staffing to make a positive difference.

It is interesting why the Conservatives wanted to talk about this specific issue, when history will show they have done a poor job of protecting Canadians' interests. That is the bottom line. We are a government that has recognized the importance of our border, and we are talking about billions of dollars every day of two-way trade that goes through the Canada-U.S. border.

There are tens of thousands of people in different regions of our country who cross the border every day. It is a border in which we all have a vested interest. As a government, we have recognized that, going back to our first day in office, when we were looking at ways we could restore many of the cuts the Conservatives put in place, because we know that Canadians and Americans need to have confidence in our borders. Canada is absolutely dependent on having that free flow of materials, supplies, services and products. That is critical to our economy, as it is critical to many American states and the entire United States.

It is not a one-way thing, where Canada is the only benefactor. Both Canada and the United States benefit by the traffic flow that takes place between Canada and the United States. I only wish that the Conservative Party of Canada would recognize that fact. I only wish that the Conservative Party had actually invested in our border controls and in protecting Canada's interests. Rather, what we see is a leader of the Conservative Party who has dictated to his caucus what they need to say. Even if it is not true, they still need to say it because the leader of the Conservative Party dictates it.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, some members laugh at that, but it is true. Let us look at national news that was reported about the leader of the Conservative Party. The interesting thing about this story is that it is what Conservatives, members from the Conservative Party, are saying about the leader of the Conservative Party today. This was national news on November 20. The article says, “After two years of [the leader of the Conservative Party] as their leader, many Conservative MPs say they are much less free now than they were before his arrival.”

Imagine that. The leader goes around promising Canadians they are going to have freedom, yet the Conservative members of Parliament are “much less free”. That is not me saying it; that is Conservatives who are saying it.

[An hon. member]

Name someone.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, they are too scared to put their name to it. Someone is saying “Name someone”. Seriously—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order.

I think a lot of people ate their Wheaties this morning. I just want to ask members to please wait. They will have 10 minutes of questions and comments, so there will be opportunities to ask those questions or make comments then.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has six and a half minutes left.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, members say, “Name someone”. I look at what happened to the member for Abbotsford. When the member for Abbotsford spoke out and criticized his leader, what happened to him—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just indicated that there will be an opportunity to ask questions and make comments. I would appreciate it if the member did not scream across the room.

The hon. parliamentary secretary—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order.

What did people eat this morning? The clock is always stopped, so this just lengthens the day.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has six minutes and 10 seconds now.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I should get a 15-second bonus for that interruption.

The article says, “The man who promised during his leadership run to make Canada “the freest country in the world” maintains tight control over the actions of his caucus members.”

I do not have enough time to read it all but there are some delights in the article, such as “Conservative MPs' words and actions are closely scrutinized by the leader's office. Partisanship is encouraged. Fraternizing with elected officials from other parties is a no-no.” That means they do not come over here to talk to me because they will lose gold stars if they do that. It continues,“Those who follow these rules are rewarded. Those who don't often have to suffer consequences.”

Members were saying to give them a name. Look at what happened to the member for Abbotsford. When the leader of the Conservative Party said that he would fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada, the member for Abbotsford, much like every other member on the government benches, said that we needed to recognize that the Bank of Canada was arms length and that we should respect that fact. What happened? The member for Abbotsford was demoted. Where does he sit nowadays? What does he do? There is a message, and that is to stick with what the leader tells them or they could be in trouble.

Here is another good one from the article, “If the leader invents a new slogan, "we know we'll have to use it'.” That is why we see these slogans and bumper stickers pop up in every speech the Conservatives give. Why? Because the leader loves it when they do that. A conservative source said, “If you repeat the slogans, you get rewarded.“ Another source said, “You are celebrated in front of the entire caucus for being a good cheerleader.” Imagine that. If they say those slogans and bumper stickers and they get applauded in a national Conservative caucus.

This is really interesting, “Sources told Radio-Canada that Conservative Party staffers keep a close eye on MPs' activities.” That means they are being stalked, by the way. Who is talking to reporters? Who is deviating from the party line? Who is fraternizing with MPs? That is why I warn them not to not talk to me. I do not mind if they talk to me, but their leader does.

The article goes on to say, “Journalists have spotted party staffers taking notes and sources say these activities are reported to the leader's office. Everybody is being watched. What we say, what we do, who we talk to. We're told not to fraternize with MPs from the other parties. And that's not normal.”

When we stop and think about it, the Conservative Party wants to echo what it is being told. The Conservatives are rewarded, and they are being stalked to ensure that they stick to the script. The leader of the Conservative Party goes around talking about freedom. What about his own caucus members?

The Prime Minister has always said, even when we were in third party status, that he wants and expects his members of Parliament to bring the issues of their constituents to Ottawa. That is why we will see budgets and throne speeches based on what Canadians are talking about in their communities. What we present in Ottawa, if we look at the actions that we have taken, is a true reflection of what Canadians are thinking, because Liberal MPs are bringing that to Ottawa. We get the absolute opposite from the Conservatives. The Conservatives are telling their constituents what their leader is telling them to say. We have proof of that, and it is so sad.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member is not to hold up the paper he is referencing. He can talk from the paper, but I want to ensure that the hon. member knows he cannot use certain documents as props.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has a minute and half.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it was a rookie mistake. If we look at Canada's border and at the issue of trade, no government in the history of Canada has signed off on more trade agreements than the Prime Minister and this government. This government not only beefed up our border controls, we restored what the Conservatives had cut and we added to it.

On that note, I move:

That the question be now put.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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

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

Madam Speaker, that has to be the worst speech ever by the member for Winnipeg North. It was tough to listen to and completely irrelevant. Of course, it will be irrelevant because he is spreading misinformation. He is making use of the state broadcaster to push out the Liberal narrative without any actual evidence in it.

We know he does not want to talk about how the Conservatives increased the number of border guards by 26%, and we armed them so they could do their jobs better. We took away from the backroom and put less tail and more tooth. This is what we did as government, ensuring they were armed, equipped and our borders were more secure.

We also know that he does not want to talk about what the motion is actually about, and that is how fentanyl use and illegal illicit drugs continue to increase.

Why will he not talk about how, under the Liberal government, we have witnessed 22 Canadians dying every day because of fentanyl overdoses?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is because I ran out of time. If I had been provided more time, I could have talked about the serious nature of the fentanyl problem. More than one level of government is responsible that. This is why we will find that across the country different provinces have different levels of issues and severity. The provinces and the federal government need to work together.

It is not appropriate to say that it is all Ottawa's fault, but the member likes to do that because that is all they are focused on. It is just criticizing and criticizing the federal government, even using misinformation, like the member just said. There were cuts by the Conservatives. In 2011-12, 14,833 border control officers were cut. In 2015-16, 13,774 were cut.

The members of the Conservative Party can say whatever they want, but those were real cuts. They cannot change history. The member would be better off sticking with the facts as opposed to the false narrative the Conservatives try to express both inside and outside the House. Shame on them.

[Louis-Philippe Sauvé, Bloc, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I must admit that I am getting a bit confused as I listen to the speeches. I thought we were debating a report on Canada's response to and preparedness for COVID-19, with a particular focus on border control measures. What we are talking about now, however, is fentanyl and Donald Trump. I am at a loss.

Let us return to the debate. The border issue is becoming more and more of an irritant between the Canadian government and the incoming U.S. administration. A family of migrants drowned in Akwesasne, casualties of the well established migrant smuggling networks.

What does the government plan to do to improve our border controls? This is necessary to ensure migrant safety, because we have a moral duty to them. It is also needed for health reasons and to ensure the control of drugs at our borders.