Debates of Dec. 3rd, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is my last speech, so I did that on purpose.

This includes dental care, an indigenous-led housing program and anti-scab legislation, but I am also proud to be part of a caucus that recognizes we truly live in a climate emergency and there is so much more that has to be done.

I came to the House believing, as most of us do, that we can work together despite our differences to make both Canada and the world a better place. I have worked with MPs from all parties on common initiatives and much of that work was done at the committee level. During my time at the defence committee, over five years, I worked with Liberal chair Stephen Fuhr and the Conservative spokesperson, the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, and together we were able to visit Canadian Forces trainers working in Ukraine, members stationed with NATO in Latvia and Canadian peacekeepers in Mali. As well, we managed to send the House more than 20 unanimous reports on how to improve Canada's defences.

I only wish committee work like this would get half the public attention that the theatre that is question period gets from both the media and the public.

Unfortunately, we now live in the midst of a rising tide of hate and violence, and it is more important now than ever that each of us continues to speak out against hatred. I remain appalled by the constant attack on transgender Canadians, especially transgender kids. I am disturbed by the ongoing wave of incidents of anti-Semitism nationally and even in my own riding. Solidarity matters when fighting against hate, whether it is directed toward my community or any other community in this country. As once a new Canadian myself, I will always speak out against attempts to blame newcomers for all our ills. None of this hate, none of this attack on immigrants, none of this attack on transgender people is part of the Canada that most of us have always been so proud to be part of.

While remaining a firm advocate for my riding, the queer community and greater equity in Canadian society, my time in Parliament has always been devoted to finding common ground to advance all Canadians, especially the most marginalized among us. I hope those of us members of Parliament who still believe we can find the common ground necessary to move forward will stand against those who wish to make MPs nothing more than cheerleaders for opposing teams seeking power. There is always a choice for each of us as a member of Parliament, and I am hopeful MPs from all parties will make the choice to rise above these current challenges.

I thank everyone. It has been great to be a colleague of all members and an honour to serve my constituents and all Canadians.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, when I learned that the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke would be back in the chamber, I was delighted, but then I learned that he will be in the chamber for a very short amount of time even right now. He informed me, as he has informed all of us, that he is leaving this august place, but I believe his last day here in Ottawa may actually be tomorrow.

I have given a lot of speeches in the chamber, but I am just going to speak personally here about a person, a gentleman, whom I have come to know personally. The first word that comes to mind is simply the word “class”. The member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, and it is a mouthful just pronouncing his riding, is just a classy individual and a classy human being.

He started by recognizing his constituents, for whom he stood for office six times, four times successfully, and I have always known him as a fierce defender of his riding and his community. I want to join him in saluting his staff for all the work they have done to make the member such an accomplished one and a person who contributes so much in the chamber.

The second thing I have known the member for is obviously his work on justice files. We had a lot of interactions, in my time as parliamentary secretary and also now in my time as minister, on passion projects of his, but he also spent time teaching me about the other things he would be working on, whether they related to public safety or defence causes, etc.

With respect to the passion with which he approached the fight and the causes that he believes in, we will not find a more dedicated advocate for the 2SLGBTQI+ community than the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. I also remember his telling me, “Arif, that's such a mouthful”, and asking me why we do not just use “SOGI”, which is “sexual orientation and gender identity”. I thought that made a lot of sense, but I will use whatever terms he wants, because I take my cues on such issues from the member.

I have known the member as a passionate advocate for working diligently on projects that really affect all Canadians. We have heard him talk about the fact that the fight for the rights of the queer community extends all of the time to people right around the country, but never more so than with the rights of transpeople right now, and particularly trans children. I salute the member for the leadership he has shown on a cause that really should not be partisan in the chamber or anywhere else, because ultimately we are dealing with a subset of a community and with young, vulnerable kids. That is a testament to what the member puts his priorities into and where he dedicates his energies.

Working together with the member on issues such as medical assistance in dying and how we move from where we were in 2016 through 2019 and through 2021, I have always relied upon his wise counsel and advice. There has obviously been a partisan element to the work we do; that is part of what we do here in the chamber, but what I have always found in the member is that he understands where to replace partisanship with principle in terms of collaborating productively to advance the causes.

In terms of advancing the fight against hate, again, I have not seen a more co-operative or collaborative member, who is willing not just to step up to the task at hand but also to make it personal, because ultimately politics is personal. When he has stood up with such alacrity and such candour and talked about his own life experiences, as he just did here in a very emotional moment for him, talking about how his own life has taken him through different twists and turns and brought him to the place where he stands as a four-time member of Parliament, he has spoken honestly and compassionately about what he believes in. I applaud him for that.

I remember distinctly the conversations we had during the blockade of this city, and what he faced as a gay man in terms of particular targeting during that time. We talked about what we need to do collaboratively together, as all parliamentarians of every political stripe, to combat that kind of hatred.

We have also had important conversations about abuse and about children. I salute the member for always putting the needs of kids above all else. I will give one tangible example. I represent the largest Tibetan diaspora in the world outside South Asia. What I have found in the member, through his work with constantly taking on Tibetan Canadian youth as interns in his office, is an effort by him not just to do right by those young people and to provide them with mentorship, but also to actually take it to the next level, where he both provides mentorship to the young people and also uses tools on the floor of the chamber to actually advance causes.

What I am talking about are things like the effective use of Order Paper questions and of petitions. In doing so, he is not just taking on a young person who might not otherwise get a chance, but he is actually advancing the yardsticks of causes that they believe in, which is I think is the best of both worlds in terms of a mentorship exercise. He is not just committed but he is also savvy about the parliamentary tools. He mentioned some of those tools in the work he had done on the defence committee, in terms of advancing the yardsticks.

What I would say about the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, and why I insisted to my staff that I would be going in to listen to the speech and would be providing some words about him, is simply that from my perspective, he represents the best of what it means to be a parliamentarian in the chamber. He is committed to his riding. He is committed to his portfolio. He is committed to defending the interests in which he believes.

If politics is the art of the possible, I would say that the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke shows always what is possible and what can be achieved, with tremendous success. He has distinguished himself in committee. He has distinguished himself in the chamber as a man of principle and as a man of integrity. What I would say is that he will be missed. He should enjoy retirement; my friend deserves it.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was very powerful when the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke shared that Jack Layton had recruited him. If Jack should have the credit for recruiting him, I will take a little credit for trying to keep him in the House for as long as possible. I mean that really personally. I had to ask the hon. member multiple times to stay on as member of Parliament. I owe him a life debt of gratitude for agreeing.

I asked the member to stay on for many reasons. One is that I trust his counsel very dearly. He is someone who gives me a lot of really great advice. As we can see, he does a lot of really important work in the House.

One of the things about the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke that I want to share is that he shared the pain he endured as a child, the trauma and the violence that he saw and that he himself experienced. What we can see in his life's work and in the way he brings himself to the world is that he did not let that pain extinguish his joy and his deep belief that we can build a better world. Despite the pain he endured, he approaches his life with the passion that better is possible.

Another thing that we might know about the member is that he wants no other child to ever experience that same pain again, to feel like they do not belong. It is a big part of what guides him in the work he does. I see that and I feel that we are all better off because of the passion that he brings, the care that he brings and the personal tragedy that he turns into the powerful motivation for the work he does.

On a personal note, I remember when the member first told me that he was going to message me on my cellphone, not often but whenever he thought it was appropriate. I did not realize that meant he would send me essays on my cellphone. Those essays that he would send every now and then, true to his word, not all the time but when he did, would guide me in the right direction and would encourage me when times were tough.

The member reminded me often that he chose me and endorsed me early on and that he never regretted his choice. There are times when he might have, or times when it was hard to say that he continued to support me, I would say, but I really value his friendship, his commitment, his loyalty and the fact that he reminded me often that he was proud of his choice.

I am proud to call the member a friend. I am proud to call him an ally. I am proud that he chose to be a part of the movement. I am so thankful he said yes to Jack. I think all of us in the chamber have seen the difference that he has made. Kids in this country are safer because of him. Because of his work, there are more little members for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke who are going to be less scared, less afraid and less feeling like they do not belong.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not a member of the NDP caucus, but, if I were, I would have a great deal of respect for our colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.

I had the pleasure and privilege of serving with him on the Standing Committee on Justice over the past few years. I do not know him very well, but I can say for sure that he is a man of integrity, a dedicated man who always passionately represented his constituents, as well as all persecuted people and all Canadian groups who need to be properly represented in our parliamentary institutions.

The member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke was compassionate and sympathetic to virtually every cause. People knew he understood. I do not know how much he agreed with every point of view, but that is not necessary. He clearly had a good understanding of every point of view. He was sensitive to individuals' misfortunes and represented them honestly and with tremendous dedication.

I will remember him as a man of integrity, commitment and passion. We will miss him.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would just add my voice of thanks to the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke on what could be his last day.

Often this place is defined by the disagreements we have with each other, but all Canadians who are watching should see that there are times when, despite those disagreements and policy differences, there is common ground that can be found.

I just want to thank the member. Specifically, I know that I have a few family members who live in his constituency. I am not sure that they vote for him, but nonetheless, I know his dedication to his community. In particular, we share something when it comes to the areas we represent, and that is having a military installation. The care that I know that member has shown throughout his time, putting the policy issues aside, for the people of our armed forces is deeply moving to those whom he has had an opportunity to connect with.

I want to thank him for his service and to wish him all the best in what is next to come in his life.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to join colleagues in giving honour to the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. As a newer MP in this place, I can say that he is an hon. member whom I have been really grateful to have had the chance to learn from and I am grateful for our time here to have overlapped. In my time prior to being here, he was someone I really looked up to as someone who continued to stand up for the queer community across the country. As we heard from his speech, he has had such an impact on the laws of this country in the way that so much more needs to be done.

As we close this round of speeches, though, to me it is appropriate that the member would have the last word. If the Speaker would allow me, I would remark that the tenor in this place at times, and certainly now, can get somewhat partisan. The member had some important reflections for us on how important it is that the reasons that MPs arrived here, the causes that they and their communities care about, should come first.

I wonder whether the member could offer some advice for those of us here, particularly newer members like me, on how we continue to ensure that the issues we are looking to address remain more important than the parties we happen to be here representing, and that our constituents should remain first. Can he offer some reflections for us on that?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank all the members who spoke for their kind words. I said what I said in my speech, and I really mean it. I think that the great majority of us come here wanting to work together to do good for Canadians. I think we sometimes lose sight of that in the chamber, and we need to remind ourselves regularly and to rise above the forces of partisanship to try to make this a better country and a better world.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I will just say that we will miss the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, but I would rather use the French way of saying it: Il va nous manquer; “he will be missing from us”. I thank him for his service. I know he will be around for a little bit, so I look forward to saying goodbye.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, Foreign Affairs, the hon. member for Bow River, carbon pricing; the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, natural resources.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, just before I dive into the substance of what will be, I have no doubt, of great interest to all those in this place when it comes to the SDTC scandal that has continued to paralyze this place and the Liberal government, specifically the Prime Minister's refusal to simply release the documents, there are just a couple of quick things I would like to note. One is very personal.

When I get home on the weekends, I see, in particular, my grandmas. My one grandma, she texts me. My other grandma, I just see her whether it is at church on Sunday or when I go to visit her. They often compliment me on my speeches and whatnot. Sometimes I think we wonder if anybody is actually watching these proceedings. I know both my grandmas, Linda and Nora, are, so here is a shout-out to both Grandma Linda and Grandma Nora, two fine women, and to my grandfathers who have passed on. They have an incredible legacy there. I love my grandma, and I love my grandma. This is a shout-out to them because there is a good chance they are watching. I am thankful for that latitude.

Here we are back debating the green slush fund, where we have an instance of nearly $400 million of taxpayers' money. Let me pause there because I think there is an important distinction I would like to elaborate on a little bit. We have an instance where there is this $400 million that has been misallocated, wrongly allocated to organizations, companies, etc. It has been called into question. It is close to $400 million.

What is important is not just the dollar amount. Do not get me wrong; it is a huge number. What is key in understanding this and why it is such a significant thing for us to get answers on and for us to get true clarity when it comes to what happened here is that this is $400 million not of the government's money. The government does not have money in and of itself, but rather it has money it derives from taxes. It is the money it derives from taxes that it then spends. This is often forgotten in this place.

As parliamentarians from all parties, we need to take seriously that it is not the government's money to spend, but rather it is for us to be stewards of the dollars paid in taxes by Canadians. This fundamental premise is so often forgotten. We have seen time and time again over these last nine years under the NDP-Liberals that they have forgotten where the money comes from. The result of that is an utter disregard that leads to scandals like the one we are seeing today, where we have an unbelievable amount of money, close to $400 million, being misallocated, allocated where there were conflicts of interest, etc.

I will get into the privilege side of that here in just a moment, but what is absolutely key is that the amount of money this relates to is truly astonishing.

In comparison, most Canadians who will be watching, whether it is my grandmas, as I referenced earlier, or so many others, are wondering what the deal is with this $400 million. It is said that, when economists do evaluations when it comes to the dollars in an economy, often the most easily understood dollars in terms of amounts are not the numbers and figures parliamentarians quite often throw around when an announcement has millions or billions of dollars associated with it. When it really comes down to it, an average Canadian family's biggest expense it will make is the purchase of its home.

While we have seen a doubling of house prices over the last decade under these NDP-Liberals and we have seen some real challenges in terms of Canadians being able to afford the basics, the carbon tax impact on all of these things and the inflationary effect it has had across our economy and everything related to that, the average Canadian spends less than a million dollars on a home.

We have an example where the largest purchase that the average Canadian family ever makes is one four-hundredth of the tax dollars that have been abused when it comes to this green slush fund. The scale and the impact is truly astonishing, and we can break that down further.

A common investment within most households is that of a vehicle. I know it has been called into question. I did not even know Maserati made SUVs, but that has certainly been publicized here as of late as the choice of vehicle for the leader of the fourth party. I looked at the price. For somebody who claims to be from the middle class, that is quite a claim when someone drives that type of vehicle.

We have the average vehicle. When it comes to what Canadians spend, the average between Canadians buying used vehicles and those who buy new, we have before us the average price of a vehicle equating to about $40,000. That is the average from the very expensive Maserati, like the one the leader of the fourth party drives, to Canadians who are just starting out drive, like a 16-year-old buying their first vehicle for several thousand dollars. We have an average of about $40,000.

We can think about the scale of $400 million versus $40,000. It puts it into context. The reason I am flagging this and providing that context is that it is truly astonishing, the scale of this scandal with the hard-earned dollars taxpayers earned and paid to the government through taxes. We saw money misallocated and misappropriated, and through a scandal-ridden process, we have this abuse.

I would suggest this bears repeating because of the failures that have been exposed. The former minister of industry took an organization that, under the previous Harper government and under the scandal-plagued Martin and Chrétien governments before, was operating fairly well. It had a high efficiency rate and a good return on investment, and it certainly did not have the types of scandals that we are seeing today.

We had three successive governments that, under their leadership, saw this organization do its job, which was to invest in sustainable technologies. This included times when there might be a business case with a bit higher risk, so going with partnerships in terms of private lending and whatnot. We saw a good return on taxpayers' investments, those hard-earned dollars that the government takes that could be leveraged for economic development. However, in 2018, the former minister, Navdeep Bains, fired Harper's board and installed Liberal insiders. This is where the problems began to brew.

We have seen, over the last five or six years, the result of this $400 million that has been called into question. It is truly astonishing the scale of the scandal we have before us. Now we have, I believe, week six, maybe going into week seven, of Parliament having been seized with this issue. It has been paralyzed by this scandal that has shaken the very foundations of our democratic infrastructure and is calling into question for so many Canadians whether or not they can trust the government.

I talk often about trust in this place because trust is a key element of what we do here. It is the idea of the social contract. In fact, I spoke to a class this morning, and it was a very interesting discussion. I always appreciate it. It was a grade nine class from the Prairie Christian Academy in Three Hills, Alberta. They are a great group of kids with great questions and very engaging conversation. It truly was a great opportunity to talk about how to get involved in government, citizenship and the responsibility of that. It was an incredible conversation.

One of the things that we talked about was the idea of the social contract. Although that is often a topic of conversation that happens in university philosophy classes, the reason I bring up the idea of the social contract is that there is this back-and-forth, this tension that exists. Citizens have responsibilities in order to have freedoms. There is a tension that exists. We have to be able to trust the government for it to be able to function appropriately in our country.

Where we see the social contract being called into question is that, after nine years of the Liberals, there has been an erosion of trust that has taken place. The erosion of trust that has taken place is forcing many Canadians across our country to lose trust not only in the person who is in charge, the current Prime Minister and those in the Liberal Party and the NDP who continue to prop him up, but they are losing trust in the very foundational institutions of our democracy.

Those institutions have persisted, in the case of Canada, for 157 years, with responsible government coming several decades before that and different types of administrations prior to that point in time. Our history of our democratic system dates back more than 800 years to the United Kingdom, wherein the first few sentences of the British North America Act, now known as the Constitution Act of 1867, talk about its being similar in form to that of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Westminster system.

We are seeing this mismanagement call into question the trust that Canadians should have in their institutions. I would suggest today that of all the things that we debate, this truly is one of such significance because it is the keystone on which we continue to ensure that we have a strong and functioning democracy.

We have to be able to trust that our government works. Let me unpack that for just a moment. We need to ensure that it is not simply trust in an individual, because no government is an individual. The reality here is that we have an erosion of trust in the institution in and of itself. Whereas we used to be able to say we might not like the guy or gal in charge but we could respect the office, it has come to the point where, truly, there are so many instances of people losing trust in the institutions themselves. That is something that should seize each and every one of us as parliamentarians.

The basic premise of trust in our institutions underlies the debate we are having, and when it comes to the very basics, we have to release the documents. It is simple, just three words: Release the documents. It is not that hard.

We have Parliament, which has constitutionally unfettered access and the ability to demand documents. In fact, in the constitutional framework, which was written long before the advent of computers, we have the ability for government to demand any document that exists in Canada. Any Parliament can demand that. It is within its rights to demand any document.

Over the last nine years, we have seen something that I would like to unpack a little here. Not only is it a refusal of the government to release the documents in relation to this $400 million in taxpayers' money that has been misallocated where there were conflicts of interest, etc., but we are seeing how, in the midst of this, it is truly the continuation of a pattern. This pattern could be summed up by a phrase: It is that the Liberals, under the Prime Minister, have normalized constitutional crises. I say that, not flippantly, but with all seriousness, because, time and time again, we see how they have an utter disregard for the Constitution.

When most Canadians think of the Constitution, they think of the thing that is often on the walls of classrooms, which is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is an important aspect of our Constitution. It has Pierre Elliott Trudeau's signature at the bottom of it, although in the history of that, for those who might be watching, what was eventually adopted was certainly different from what Pierre Elliott Trudeau had envisioned, but he was certainly happy to take credit for it.

However, we have that as part of our Constitution, as well as a host of other constitutional documents, including one I referenced earlier, which is the British North America Act, or the Constitution Act 1867. We have a host of constitutional documents, dating back to the foundation of this country, which lead all the way to where we are today. There was a minor constitutional amendment just a number of years ago on the number of MPs who would represent each province in this place. We have a series of documents and, when it comes to constitutional law, it is a series of written and unwritten laws that define the Westminster system.

What we have before us shows that the government has an utter disregard for constitutional conventions and for the role of the 800-plus years of constitutional history that has built this Westminster system. The Liberals have an utter disregard for the things that have allowed us to function as a free and open democracy. It is not without its challenges, but certainly the Liberals are putting our institutions at risk with the normalizing of constitutional crises. I would highlight one that comes to mind, and I often hear from constituents about this. It is the Winnipeg lab scandal, when there were documents that Parliament demanded. It was a minority Parliament. The 2021 election, despite the Prime Minister's promise that he would not call it, but then he called it anyway, seemed to leverage much of the fear that Canadians had about the COVID pandemic, which seems to be a big part of it.

What happened during that summer was absolutely astounding. The government took Parliament, specifically the former Speaker, to court over a document request and a constitutional crisis. This was unbelievable and unacceptable. The election took place. Was that the reason the Liberals called the election? Was there something that was so revealing that it would have brought down the Prime Minister and the government and would have exposed them? I do not know, but what is very clear is that the Liberals will stop at nothing, including ripping up the Constitution, to try to cover up their scandals time and time again.

In 2020, the Liberals proposed to give themselves unlimited spending and taxation powers. Just to give some context, that would have torn up 800 years of tradition that demands responsible government, including money only being spent with the permission of the House and taxes only being levied by Parliament.

We see that we have before us an astounding series of events that have lead us to the privilege debate we are having today. The Liberals could end this immediately. They could end it. They simply have to release the documents. In doing so, they would put to rest the crises that they have brought forward, which have not only kept them from being able to accomplish their agenda, but also caused an erosion of trust in the very institution of this place.

I will conclude my remarks by referencing some of the extraordinary Canadians whom we work for. I had the opportunity to meet with constituents, including the fire chief from Hanna, Alberta, Mr. Mohl, and a couple of his colleagues. One was from Redwater and the other from Grande Prairie. They are small-town and small-city fire chiefs. It was a good conversation. They came and saw question period. What was encouraging in the midst of that was to see Canadians at work. In this case, they are small-town emergency services personnel who are ready to do the work when called upon. I compliment them. I know there is advocacy that is taking place on the Hill this week, and I wish them the best in that. I appreciate the opportunity to have met them earlier.

When it comes down to it, we need to take seriously our responsibility as parliamentarians. We need to ensure that we are responding to the call and, when it comes to the very crux of the issue here, that we restore trust in our institutions. That can start with the Liberals releasing the documents so we can get back to work.

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

Mr. Speaker, despite two and a half months of this, no one is talking about this. Nobody cares about this issue. The member keeps talking, and Conservatives have now put up over 200 members to speak to this issue, but Canadians are not talking about this.

What they are talking about, and what is on the news tonight, is that five people within Patrick Brown's campaign have now come forward to say that the member for Calgary Nose Hill knew that Indian diplomats were affecting Patrick Brown's campaign. She even had a conference call, according to what is being reported, where she brought it up.

Does this member not agree that the member for Calgary Nose Hill should be going to the public safety committee and answering questions about what she knows when it comes to foreign interference in the Patrick Brown leadership campaign?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I will offer a reminder to hon. members that one of our Speakers has ruled that we want to try to keep questions and comments as close to the topic at hand as possible.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the official opposition won the leadership of our party with the largest margin of any major national leadership campaign in Canadian history. I think the evidence speaks for itself and is commanding a massive amount of support.

Quite frankly, unlike many Liberals, it seems, we actually like our leader, the work he is doing and the message he is offering to Canadians. I would suggest that Canadians are increasingly on our page. Certainly, I am hearing from Canadians coast to coast to coast who are ready for change because they are sick and tired of the corruption, the waste and the Liberals' dividing of Canadians for political reasons.

I would like to reference something the member said, which was that Canadians do not care about this. Well, there are 400 million reasons that would suggest otherwise, and the fact that the member and the Liberals, supported by the NDP, would so flippantly not care about $400 million in misallocated, misappropriated tax dollars is an absolute shame.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are living in difficult times, and the president-elect of the United States, who will be returning to power, has made threats with very serious consequences for the Canadian economy and job stability. He did so while saying that we are not capable of looking after our border.

Can my colleague admit that we are being criticized for having a porous border today largely because Stephen Harper's government cut 1,100 border officer positions? Was it not the Conservatives' cuts that fuelled the threats facing Canada's economy?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a member of my staff just texted me that I have received thousands of emails about the green slush fund, so the member for Kingston and the Islands is simply out to lunch.

When it comes to the issue of our borders, we absolutely need to take this seriously. After nine years, including five during which the government has been propped up by the fourth party, which is sitting in the corner over there, the fact is that crime was on its way down when Stephen Harper left office and Justin Trudeau took—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw that and reference the Prime Minister. When he took over, illegal border crossings were down, smuggling was on its way down and, by almost every objective measure, life in Canada was getting better. Despite there being much global economic uncertainty at that time, Canada was well positioned. Then the Liberals and the Prime Minister took over, and for the last five years, they have been supported by the fourth party, the NDP, and we are seeing the consequences of this each and every day. Now it is putting our country's economic future at risk.

I understand why the president-elect of the United States wants to stand up for American jobs, but why does the Canadian Prime Minister want to help him?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech, and he was bang on. This is about our parliamentary democracy and our privileges. I am going to be speaking next, and I will be talking about censorship and how the government has really ramped that up.

I want to ask the member about these repeated crises because he talked about the sponsorship scandal and the border crisis. We could go on and on. I wonder if he thinks that the Liberals are normalizing these constitutional crises because it seems it is a means for them to grab more power. We saw it during COVID, where they were going after people's bank accounts and stopping people from travelling. It just seems that they want to normalize these crises as a power grab. Could he comment on that, please?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister seems to want to be like his dad when it comes to doing things that are truly unprecedented, which includes the invocation of the Emergencies Act. He is the first prime minister in history to do so. For the previous version of that act, the War Measures Act, the only prime minister to have invoked it, outside of wartime, was Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

I do not know what it is about the Liberals or, in particular, the left in general. They are so desperate and hungry for power that they trod over the Constitution. In the case of our country, to fulfill their political objectives, they would trod over the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which has the signature of the Prime Minister's father, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, on it.

What we have before us is a normalization of constitutional crises. It seems like, every which way we look, the Liberals have trod over the very institutions that have been built up in our country over 157 years to serve Canadians. They are trying to turn them into servants of themselves. That is wrong. It needs to be rejected outright. Conservatives will fix what the Prime Minister and the Liberals have broken.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to think about the problem with SDTC in the current context. Also, in the context of the election of the president-elect of the United States, how can Canada and Quebec compete economically with the United States? There is a North American context, and there is a context of interdependence in which we must be able to deal with the Chinese market in particular.

I would like my colleague to talk about the importance of a fund like this one for investing in SMEs that build our economy on innovation. I would also like him to talk about the importance of investing in processing strategic critical minerals as they are mined. That is how we can gain a competitive advantage over the United States. We need this type of fund.

I agree that we need to get to the bottom of this matter. There was wrongdoing, poor governance and fraud. However, if the government were to change, would my colleague, as a member of the Conservative caucus, commit to ensuring that money is invested in sustainable development?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the evidence speaks for itself. This fund was performing with exemplary ratings and great integrity prior to the Prime Minister and the former industry minister, Navdeep Bains, going in and firing all of Stephen Harper's appointees and appointing their own, which has led to this incredible level of mismanagement, incompetence, conflicts of interest, et cetera.

I think the member from the Bloc raises an interesting point, which is the idea of Canada's place in the world. We have seen, under the Liberal Prime Minister and the Liberal government, propped up by the fourth party, the NDP in the corner over there, an erosion of Canada's reputation internationally.

I found it interesting in question period today when one of the ministers stood up and listed off what he called the government's accomplishments. I was wondering to myself if he was listing his accomplishments or the government's failures because, with every single one of those things, the results certainly were not in the best interests of the country. I would suggest that, as a result, Canada is weaker today in its standing in the world than it was when the Prime Minister took over. There are also all the challenges that we face domestically.

It is time for Conservatives to come in and fix what the Prime Minister has broken.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Mr. Speaker, talk about a party being desperate for power. The party opposite tried to become government in 2015, 2019 and 2021.

The member opposite is a straight shooter, and I respect him for that. Here is my question for him: There is clearly something going on with respect to the fact that his leader will not get a security clearance. What is up with the foreign meddling in the leadership contest?

The member opposite is a straight shooter, so I want a straight answer as to why his leader will not get his security clearance. Canadians want to know.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply say to the member for Saint John—Rothesay that it is time for the Prime Minister to do what he is legally allowed to do under the Official Secrets Act, which is to release the names. In fact, there are very clear provisions that allow him to release the names in the public interest. He refuses to do it. The question I think many Canadians have is what does he have to hide.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not pleased to rise to speak to this yet again. I am aware that we are now at the point where we have had over 200 Conservative people speak to this particular issue. It is extremely troubling that the Conservative Party of Canada is completely disregarding the needs of Canadians and has chosen to filibuster the entire House and prevent it from doing any work whatsoever.

All we have to do is look back at what has happened over the last couple of months. The Speaker had made a ruling in favour of an individual who raised a question of privilege. In that ruling, he agreed that this issue should go to PROC, which is the procedure and House affairs committee, to be dealt with. Unfortunately, Conservatives chose to use that opportunity to force this issue to be debated endlessly.

Let us just reflect on what has actually happened. The Conservatives moved a motion, based on the Speaker's ruling, that this particular issue go to PROC and that PROC deal with it. Conservatives moved it; it was their motion. They have now put up over 200 speakers. They do not have 200 members in the House. They have had multiple people speak multiple times. I have seen people get up and give speeches that were written for them or generated by AI on a number of occasions.

People I have not even seen in the House in so long are coming out of the woodwork and giving speeches on this issue. They are interested in one thing only, and that is delaying the government's ability to do any work whatsoever.

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

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

They say “yes” and cheer.

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are intentionally filibustering their own motion. I have the exact number, just because I think it is important for anybody watching this and trying to weigh how seriously Conservatives take this issue, including those who are heckling me now. I would like to bring to the House's attention and Canadians' attention the number of people who have spoken to this particular issue.

Two independents, one Green Party member, seven New Democrats, seven Bloc Québécois members and eight Liberals have spoken to this; I guess my speaking now makes it nine Liberals. How many members do we think spoke from the Conservative Party?