Debates of June 4th, 2024

Report Stage

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, there is justice in this place after all.

I want to thank my colleague for his excellent speech. He talked about legislative mismanagement on behalf of the Liberals. There is a serious case of legislative mismanagement as it pertains to the budget. The Liberals brought in a budget that was going to give Canadians until June 25 to sell their assets so they can lock in at the lower capital gains inclusion rate. Then, when the budget bill came, there was nothing. It was not there. They still have not tabled legislation.

Is this not extremely dangerous and unfair to taxpayers, who are being forced into a situation where they do not know what the rules are?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, in my speech, I talked about accountability and responsibility. I can tell members there is no accountability in this budget to the Canadians who might be affected by the government's legislation. The government is going to increase taxation on Canadians, but it has not identified exactly who those Canadians are.

All those Canadians are calling their financial advisers and their accountants. They are saying they are not sure if they are captured by this, and the accountants do not know either, because the government will not tell them. It is a serious oversight of the government to put forward legislation to increase taxes without clearly delineating exactly who is going to be affected.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated the words from the member for Calgary Centre in speaking about the need for co-operation in this place. If there was a day when the member was in the party that was governing at that time, could he share with us what productive co-operation would look like in this place from a governing party?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, Canadians have a vision of this Parliament being a place where they elect people from across the country, and they choose which candidate is going to represent them the best to go and sit in Parliament. Then it is our job to bring our skills together and actually build better legislation.

I know a lot of it comes with bureaucracy, but I think we also have to use the skills we see in every party here, and every person who comes to committee, to ask how can we make that bill better so it serves the needs of Canadians, not just those ones who talk to me but those Canadians all the way across the country, because we do not know everything.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak to this bill in Parliament. Third time lucky, maybe.

Now it is called Bill C-20. It was Bill C-98, when it was brought to the House in May of 2019. Then it was dropped because of the writ in September. Then the Liberals brought it back again as Bill C-3. It was brought back in January of 2020, and then it died in August when the Liberals prorogued Parliament.

Here we are, maybe third time lucky, for Bill C-20. We will see what happens here. It is an act establishing the public complaints and review commission, something that I think is actually deeply needed in this country. I am going to talk about that in a moment.

The legislation, right now, would rename the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to the public complaints and review commission. Under its new name, the commission would also be responsible for reviewing civilian complaints against the Canada Border Services Agency.

This bill follows through on a Liberal election promise. I remember running in 2015 for the first time, and that was one of the bills the Liberals talked about. Then, as I mentioned, in 2015, the Liberals got elected with a majority. Finally, they brought this bill out four years after that. Now we are at another four to five years, and maybe we will get Bill C-20 passed in the House.

I am going to talk about it a little, because there is no question a civilian review commission would improve the oversight and help the CBSA be an even more effective agency in its duties and its functions. The public complaints and review commission should end the practice of police investigating police. There is nothing good that comes out of that. There will be a lot of questions, as we have seen over the years.

We want to implement a fully independent model, and I think this is where we are going with Bill C-20. We all know that over the past number of years, we have seen an increase in interest in police activities all through social media. The latest is people with cellphones. I have seen it in my city of Saskatoon, people taking a cellphone out, not to record an accident, but to record the police and what they are doing. This is very dangerous. This is an ongoing thing that we have seen in this country, time and time again.

Now, there is a risk of some bias or perceived bias in investigations that have been conducted by police officers from the same organization. As we all know, this can potentially undermine public trust and confidence in the investigation process. The internal investigation process may lack the transparency and public accountability that could lead to skepticism and doubts about the fairness of all these investigations.

We have seen a lot of that, and I am going to talk about it right now. Some of the groups in my province that seems to be under a lot of pressure with the police, whether it is city police or municipal police or even the RCMP, are the indigenous groups. They feel that being independent from the agency would certainly be more helpful. The community would feel more comfortable filing complaints, knowing that an independent body would review and take action, if appropriate. Everyone understands that all complaints should be resolved in a timely manner. It is in the interest of both the complainant and the employee subject of the complaint.

I am going to go back in time to the James Smith Cree Nation mass killer Myles Sanderson. Unfortunately, he was actually released from custody before killing 11 and injuring 17 others, and that was during the 2022 rampage. The investigation into his statutory release made 14 recommendations for the Correctional Service Canada and the Parole Board of Canada.

Sanderson had a massive record of violent assaults over a number of years. The killings have raised questions about why he was released. The police really did not know where he was for months. Ten recommendations were directed at the Parole Board, including reviewing scheduling guidelines to allow members more time to prepare for hearings and for writing decisions thereafter.

The community involvement, I feel, in the James Smith Cree Nation mass killing was excluded from this process, and that is something we need to learn from. The RCMP certainly made some mistakes during the mass killing of 2022. I would say there were several mistakes also made by the James Smith Cree Nation. The communication between the reserve and the RCMP detachment in Melfort was spotty at the best of times. I will compliment the provincial government, as it held an inquiry. A coroner, Clive Weighill, who was the former city police chief of Saskatoon, conducted the inquiry for several weeks in Melfort.

The RCMP, as I said, admitted it made mistakes. It was a very emotional inquiry. It went on for weeks in Melfort. It was closely followed by the whole province. This was an event we hope will never happen again. It gave the chance for family members to finally grieve. As I said, 11 passed away; Myles Sanderson killed 11 and injured 17. During this inquiry, the members of the families needed to talk about what they saw and what their family members went through, which was deeply needed. That is the part in question. When the public complaints and review commission is established, we need to hear from the public.

James Smith Cree Nation is only a few kilometres from the city of Melfort, where all the RCMP of the detachment came from. I remember reading the stories. There was a gentleman stabbed in a vehicle. Some say the police should have known. If they had stopped, maybe they could have saved that person. He died later in a hospital. There was a lot of miscommunication between the RCMP and James Smith Cree Nation.

With Bill C-20, I am hoping we could have these public discussions before an event like this happens rather than having it after. As I said, it was a very emotional event. I received texts from all over the world about it. I remember a banquet I held in Delisle with Billy Smith, who was the notorious, great goaltender of the New York Islanders. He texted me right away when that happened because he was that concerned. Billy is from Regina, by the way, and the home of the RCMP depot is Regina—Lewvan. Billy Smith knew right away this was an issue in our province of Saskatchewan between the RCMP and, in this case, James Smith Cree Nation. He just wanted to reach out to see if everybody was fine.

That was one of many texts I received that week, where people were genuine. They knew the issue in our province between the RCMP and indigenous groups, and unfortunately it took an event like this to get this raised.

As I conclude, I am happy that we are talking about this. The mandatory annual reporting by the RCMP and CBSA on actions taken in response to PCRC recommendations is something we desperately need, as well as the mandatory reporting of race-based data by the PCRC. Public education is first and foremost. We all need to get educated on situations like this. This bill going forward, Bill C-20, would help everyone, not only in my province of Saskatchewan, but also in every district in this country.

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

Madam Speaker, the legislation is substantive and is very positive. It is something that, whether one is a border control officer, a member of a law agency or a member of the RCMP, is in everyone's best interest. No one questions that. In that sense, even with the Conservatives filibustering, ultimately it is going to pass. I see that as a good thing.

The question I have for the member is a question I posed to others earlier regarding the issue of how one builds public confidence. By having it in an independent fashion, it helps contribute to building the confidence of the two institutions. What are his thoughts on that?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, what I am worried about is that nobody in this country wants to be a police officer anymore. In the city of Saskatoon, recruitment is hard. From RCMP Depot in Regina, officers can be stationed anywhere in this country. It does not matter if one comes from Toronto; one may go to Lac des Îles and have no say in that. When I look at the Toronto area, with all the shootings every night and the killings that have taken place there, I am fearful. Who would want to be a peace officer today in this country? I am really concerned about this, because these are the people who sacrifice everything for us to be safe; right now, it is a very tough job to be a police officer in this country, whether municipal, provincial or RCMP.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, my seatmate hit on a point. I have the honour of representing RCMP Depot in Regina—Lewvan. I have visited there many times. I have gone to a couple of troop graduations and a few sunset ceremonies; I have gotten to know a few of the officers there. He hit the nail on the head. The biggest problem right now with the RCMP is recruitment and retention; RCMP members feel as though they are not supported. I think a bill such as this would bring some civilian oversight, and it would make them feel better because there would be more accountability. However, what they really want is for parliamentarians and provincial leaders to support them and their cause. They are the ones who run into trouble when everyone else runs away from it, and we have to have more people who support them. Could my colleague comment on that?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, as the chair of the Saskatchewan caucus, I ask members to guess whom we are going to have coming to caucus tomorrow, in eight hours' time. Members of the police association are coming to the Saskatchewan caucus on Wednesday. Eight and a half hours from now, we will chair it; we are going to hear their stories. We are really concerned in this country about recruitment and retention. Retention is the big issue with these people. They will go on for maybe the first three or four years; then, all of a sudden, there is an incident that may change their life, and they want to move on from it.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about hypocrisy a bit. The member of Parliament for Winnipeg North stands up over and over again and talks about the amount of time the debate is taking, yet he burns up more minutes in the House talking than any other member here. He complains about the Conservative members who stand up to raise concerns from their constituents on important legislation, yet he speaks for more minutes, by multiple times, than every one of the Conservative members he has been complaining about.

Could the member comment on the rights of Conservative members of Parliament to take even a fraction of the time the member for Winnipeg North has in the House to raise concerns brought up by their constituents?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, we have heard some great comments tonight from the Conservative side. I have brought mine from my constituents in Saskatoon. The member for Saskatoon West brought up another issue. On this side, we have issues from all over this country that need to be debated. I know the debate is being shut down, and we have had five hours here, but these are good points that we brought out tonight.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join the debate tonight and follow my friend from Saskatoon—Grasswood, who gave an excellent speech. He mentioned that the police would be coming to the Saskatchewan Conservative caucus meeting tomorrow, which is great news. I wonder if the police will be going to the Liberal caucus meeting tomorrow as well after all the ethical scandals that we have been seeing, but that is to be determined.

I have been listening to the debate tonight and want to start by delving into some of the exchanges that have taken place so far, some more substantive ones and less substantive ones that perhaps should be commented on. Earlier in the evening, I had the opportunity to have a good exchange with my colleague from Edmonton Griesbach. In his speech, he highlighted, importantly, instances of injustice, abuse and violence through the actions of members of the police. We need to draw attention to those instances of violence, injustice and racism, call them out and put in place the actions to combat them.

I also think it is important to establish a positive discourse about the work being done by police and the positive role that police officers play within our society. That is important because, of course, without a positive message around the contributions that police officers are making in our society, we will struggle to recruit, which other members have commented on the importance of. Moreover, we should be grateful to the vast majority of police officers, who sacrifice and risk their lives and safety every day when they go to work, not knowing what they will encounter or what the outcomes will be and nonetheless working hard to protect their communities.

Are there instances where people in those sorts of positions betray that trust? Absolutely those instances exist. Are there more than just individual instances? Are there cases that we might be able to identify where there are histories or mentalities that contribute to wrong action? Those are legitimate things to discuss and certainly explore, but we need to recognize that, overwhelmingly, police play a positive role in our society, particularly when we have proper oversight, as advanced by this bill. As I and my colleagues have said, we support Bill C-20, but in the context of proper oversight, the commitment and sacrifice of police officers can be harnessed for them to play a dramatic, productive role in our society.

I worry that a discourse that emphasizes the negatives without the positives has led to bad policy outcomes, which are very dangerous for marginalized communities. All the evidence shows us that when we do not have a properly funded, effective police force in place, it is the most vulnerable who suffer. In certain contexts, there may be weaker state institutions, which we see in certain places around the world where the state does not have the capacity to provide the kind of protection from law enforcement that we take for granted generally here in Canada. There, wealthier people are still able to provide for their own protection through other kinds of private means for protecting their security, whereas those who cannot afford these mechanisms are the most vulnerable.

If we push the “defund the police” movement forward, the result is that those who are not able to protect themselves are more vulnerable to violence, while those who have more power and resources within a society are, to a greater extent, able to invest in their own protection. This is why the demonization of police and the movements to defund the police are ultimately deeply destructive, especially to the most vulnerable and marginalized. I would affirm the importance of recognizing injustice, of holding people accountable and of proper oversight, but I would also challenge all members in all parties of this House to recognize the positive contribution of police officers and police forces and establish a discourse that is affirming of their efforts and sacrifices.

I also believe in the importance of individual responsibility. I think when we see bad actions take place, the primary response should be holding the individuals who commit those actions responsible, recognizing that individual action is never rendered inevitable by institutional context, and that regardless of the context in which an individual is, the organization they are a member of, etc., they still bear responsibility for their own choices to act or not to act in a certain way.

Now, I want to respond as well to the exchange that I had with the member for Winnipeg Centre, and this was a perplexing exchange. I rose in response to her speech about violence against indigenous communities to ask a specific question about violence against indigenous communities and the destruction of churches and other cultural property that we have seen. It is a highly pertinent question at this time in Canada when dozens of churches have been not just vandalized but burned to the ground, many historic churches in indigenous communities, and where indigenous leaders have spoken out against these attacks on their communities. I think it is important when we see this rampage of violence against indigenous cultural property, against churches in particular, that leaders at all levels speak out against that violence. Strikingly, there has been a lack of response to these attacks on churches, in particular, on churches in indigenous communities. There has been a stark silence from so many leaders who should be condemning these acts of violence, and who would be quick to condemn acts of violence against other kinds of religious institutions.

The reason I have persisted in asking the member for Winnipeg Centre these questions is because I had asked the questions before and she had refused to condemn these acts of violence against churches. I have now asked the member the same question four times, and her response has been to attack me personally and to make all kinds of absurd, obviously verifiably bizarre allegations and accusations, which she has been told by the Speaker to withdraw. She has refused to withdraw, and I have no doubt that there will be follow-up on that matter. However, the point is that these were serious questions that were ignored. I think we should be clear and consistent in condemning all forms of abuse, all forms of violence against all communities. It is a glaring hole in that pattern of general condemnation to see the lack of response from many politicians to the rampage of destruction that has targeted Christian churches.

Further to the debate that has happened tonight, I want to agree with the comments that have been made by many of my Conservative colleagues about the increase in crime being an important part of the context of this legislation, and about how there was, leading up to 2015, during the tenure of the previous Conservative government, a decline in the rates of violent crime, and there has been a spike in violent crime since this Prime Minister took office. As they say, elections have consequences. When we elect a political party that has an ideology and implements that ideology, we see the results of it. I think we have seen, over the last nine years, the ideological experimentation of this Prime Minister, and we have seen the results: higher rent, higher cost of living, declining reputation in the world and increasing violent crime. The Prime Minister, over the last nine years, has experimented with putting one of the furthest left ideologies we have ever seen in this country into action, and we have seen, over the last nine years, the results of that extreme ideology.

There has also been some discussion tonight of scheduling issues. I think it is clear that this government has wildly mismanaged its legislative agenda, and every time the member for Winnipeg North stands up to speak for 20 minutes about how the opposition should stop talking about bills, yes, I do just shake my head.

We support Bill C-20. We think there are some important provisions in it, and I appreciate the chance to participate in the debate and engage in dialogue with various members about various issues.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a little bit tempting to venture into the area of filibustering with the member who just spoke. He is the one who has probably introduced more concurrence motions to prevent the government from being able to debate legislation than any other member. I will avoid commenting on that.

Rather, I would put forward the proposition that this is important legislation. We recognize that it is important for citizens and it would reinforce confidence in the system itself by having that sense of independence. Incorporating the Canada border control would be such a positive thing. I am anxious to ultimately see the legislation pass. I am somewhat grateful that we finally have time allocation on the legislation. I would just like to get the member to provide his thoughts on the benefits of the passage of the legislation itself.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not going to allow his comment about concurrence motions to go unanswered. He says the legislation is important. I would just say that I am proud of my record of proposing many important, substantive concurrence motions in the House that are not aimed at blocking government legislation but at advancing serious issues that are important to different communities.

I put forward a concurrence motion to reopen the Lachin corridor, an issue that was critically important to the Armenian community, given the escalating aggression that we have seen. I was pleased to put forward a concurrence motion to call for genuine autonomy for Tibet, affirming the right to democratic self-determination that Tibetans, Uyghurs and all people everywhere enjoy.

I was pleased to, again, put forward a concurrence motion calling on the government to list the IRGC as a terrorist organization, a motion that passed unanimously, yet it is one that the government has persistently failed to implement. I think that many of these communities, the Iranian community, the Tibetan community, the Armenian community, which have been deeply invested in the outcome of these concurrence motions, would find it offensive the way this member persistently dismisses the substantive role that concurrence motions have played in advancing issues that are critical to different communities across this country.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I feel like I have said that a few times tonight.

I really appreciate my colleague's passion. If he could distill his message down, we hear the Liberals and their heckling about different things, saying that we as Conservatives have slowed this down, when they have had nine years to get it right. Can my colleague reflect on that? What would he say to the Liberals who have been quite vocal today about Conservative actions in the House, when they could not get the job done in the last nine years?

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

Madam Speaker, the member is right. It is quite simple. The Liberals complain about this Sisyphean task of passing legislation, but they are the ones who send the boulder down the hill every time. They bring all this legislation almost to the point of passing, and then they prorogue Parliament or call an early election. They then complain, but we did not make them do it.

That said, we would be prepared to have an early election at this point. Given the disaster we have seen over the last years, if they were to call an election, bring it on. We want to have that carbon tax election, and we have no confidence in the government. Nonetheless, Liberals complain about their own failures to pass legislation when they are the ones that undermine the passage of their own legislation by constantly resetting the clock. It does not make any sense.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member could give a clear indication of why the Conservative Party genuinely feels that, for every piece of legislation brought forward by the government, if the government is not prepared to bring in time allocation, there is an endless stream of members from the Conservative Party that would not only like to speak to it but also bring in amendments.

As a bonus, the member opposite, who only listed about four concurrence motions, and I think there is another dozen he could have also made reference to, is a master at filibustering. I will give him that much. Could he just provide some further comment on that master skill he has?

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

Madam Speaker, I think if we were to put the question to the members present in the House tonight, there would actually be a demand for even more concurrence motions than we have seen previously.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join this debate, and I am looking forward to speaking, then to question and answers. Before I get into the substance of the debate, this is the 10th anniversary of the shooting in Moncton, New Brunswick. Five officers were shot and three were shot fatally. I would just like to read their names into the record, so we should always remember our fallen heroes: Constable Larche, age 40; Constable Ross, age 32; Constable Gevaudan, age 45. Injured in the shooting in Moncton 10 years ago today were Constable Goguen and Constable Eric Dubois. When we are speaking to this bill, we should always keep all those in our mind who paid the ultimate sacrifice for our freedoms and for the safety that we enjoy in this country.

Now, we can get to the substance of Bill C-20. The legislation would rename the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to the public complaints and review commission, which would also have the ability to accept complaints filed against the Canada Border Services Agency.

First and foremost, I will be continuing to support our men and women in uniform. The RCMP Depot, like I said earlier, is in the heart of Regina—Lewvan. I have been on the grounds many times, and wherever there is an RCMP officer across this beautiful country, that officer was trained in our hometown of Regina and we are very proud. Despite some of the ideas that might be flowing out there, I will fight tooth and nail to ensure that the Depot will stay in Regina—Lewvan for the next 50 years or 100 years, because that is where it deserves to be.

It is with great pride that I represent that area because the RCMP has continued to increase its training every year. I think there is the idea out here in the public that it still trains the way it did in the 1980s and 1990s. However, one can see the new innovation training and the simulators where trainees get to do different situational engagement with the public and the training has evolved so much. They have social workers, and they do so many more things to get ready to have the men and women go out and protect their communities, more than they have ever done before. I have gone through and watched the training facilities, and it is never stagnant. They are always trying to get better. They are always trying to build on what they are doing to make sure that the men and women are ready to face very difficult situations when they are protecting their communities.

I would like to talk a bit about what I asked my good friend and colleague from Saskatoon Grasswoods, and I appreciated his speech. There is a serious deficit when it comes to recruitment and retention of people who want to be in the RCMP or the RPS or the Saskatoon Police Service. I suspect most cities and communities are finding it more and more difficult to find people who want to serve and protect Canadians. That is something we have to take on as leaders in our communities and make sure that we have the support. The police have our support, and I want to put that on the record. All Conservatives will stand with our men and women in uniform always. It is a tag line that we have in Saskatchewan. Our Saskatchewan caucus is 14-strong and we always say we are always on Saskatchewan's side, and that means the men and women who serve across our communities to help keep us safe.

I do have a couple of quotes in favour of this legislation and I want to get into the record. The National Police Federation states:

While there are many advantages to having the police investigate the police, many provincial public complaints bodies have utilized a hybrid investigative model. This model includes the involvement of civilian investigators in the investigative process, with some reliance on experienced police investigators, either retired or serving.

The National Police Federation members are in favour of this because they want to have that openness and transparency if something goes wrong. To err is human, and that is what our men and women are who serve. Sometimes, situations arise where officers have to be reviewed and see what happens, and we see that more often than not, now. We have seen that crime has risen across this country over the past nine long years with the NDP-Liberal coalition in power. We want to get back to having safer streets, and that is the commitment that the Conservatives will make. We would bring common sense back to Canada so we can make sure that Canadians have their safe streets again.

With that, I just want to continue to say that I appreciate what our men and women in uniform do. Hopefully, we do not have to talk about anniversaries when our men and women have passed away in the line of duty. It has happened far too often, and we have to make sure that we give them all the tools to be able to come home safe each and every night. That is what we want to make sure that we do by supporting the legislation so that if there is something that does happen that we have to review, the proper processes are in place.

With that, I will take some questions.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I sincerely appreciate that the member for Regina—Lewvan recognized the officers who lost their lives and were injured 10 years ago today. The comments that we are hearing today about the lack of support for the RCMP and difficulty in recruiting and retention come back to incidents such as this. Out of that incident rose a demand for the RCMP to provide proper critical incident response training. We have just found out that, in terms of of that requirement, the RCMP has mainly missed its goal: 75% of constables, 37% of those in senior ranks and 50% of sergeants have not received the proper critical incident response training.

Could the member fill us in on what he believes the government's priority is, when it is basically not providing the proper training or the tools for the RCMP.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, those are some damning numbers, and I think they speak to the fact that there are members within the NDP-Liberal coalition who are part of the “defund the police” movement. They may think that they would be better off without the men and women in uniform to protect them. However, when there is something that happens in their house and someone is trying to bust down their door, the first call they make is to the police.

We have to get back to respecting police and making sure that the men and women who serve in uniform and keep our communities safe have that support. I think there are also probably a lot of timing issues, where the government has pushed things down the road and not given the proper resources to the RCMP to ensure that training can take place. I know that the RCMP is always struggling to find opportunities and training opportunities, even at Depot. They have to go and rent out ranges in other areas so that they can keep up with their firearms training.

If they cannot have that training at Depot, then they have to rent that out and it costs more money. Thus, more resources need to be put into training our RCMP and our police forces. This is something that the government has let fall by the wayside because there are some within that caucus who do not even believe that the police should be funded at all.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Housing

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, tonight, I am glad to have a chance to continue pressing for badly needed investments in predictable, ongoing and significant investments for deeply affordable housing with a real focus on co-op housing. It is critical because we are in a housing crisis. One of the reasons for that crisis is that Canada has the lowest percentage of deeply affordable social housing stock in the G7. It is about 3%, or just over, of housing stock across the country, or about 650,000 units. Even if we were to double our social housing stock, we would still be the middle of the G7. It is clear that we are not going to solve the housing crisis unless we get more deeply affordable housing built. Co-op housing, of course, is a big part of this.

In the past, we used to do this well. Back in the seventies and the eighties, for example, we got 60,000 co-op homes built. As one example, in 1982, 8% of all rental units constructed across the country were co-ops. It was about 6,500 units that year alone. It is investments like that, every single year, that led to the construction of co-ops such as Brighton Yards in uptown Waterloo, which I lived in for six years. Brighton Yards is deeply affordable, dignified housing with a strong sense of community. There are many others all across Kitchener, including in the riding I represent. There is Asgard Green in Cherry Park, Bread and Roses in downtown Kitchener, and Willowside Co-op on Victoria Street.

It is clear we need to get back to building co-ops every single year. Instead, what has happened is that the federal government has stagnated in funding co-ops and, as a result, construction has stagnated also. In 2020, for example, less than 1% of all rental units constructed were co-ops, about 477 units. That is a far cry from the 6,500 built back in 1982.

It is pretty clear we are going to need to continue to apply more pressure for the government to commit significant annual and predictable investments in co-op housing. The good news is that, because of that pressure from housing advocates across the country, the government did propose a significant new investment in budget 2022 of $1.5 billion. That funding was announced over two years ago. The government has not actually built any co-ops with that funding yet. The money has yet still to flow. Those funds could have built 6,000 units across the country.

I last asked about this in question period in mid April. Here is what the executive director of the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, Tim Ross, had to say about the issue: “We have shovel-ready projects at risk of missing the 2025 construction season”. He also said, “Co-op housing is just the type of housing we need more of, to ease the affordability crisis. The federal government needs to launch the program in the coming months, so together we can create more co-op homes.”

Could the parliamentary secretary explain to Canadians what is delaying these funds being rolled out? Could he then go on to answer when these funds will get spent so that these needed co-op homes will get built in my community and across the country?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, I am always pleased to share information about how the Government of Canada is taking concrete action to help build more homes faster. A key part of our work is to ensure fairness for every generation.

For decades now, co-operative housing has provided affordable housing and caring communities for Canadians. That is why the Government of Canada is supporting the co-operative housing sector to grow and become more resilient. In budget 2024, we proposed a number of measures that will benefit co-operative housing providers and the families that call these communities home.

First, we proposed to enhance the affordable housing fund with an additional $1-billion top-up. This brings the fund to $15 billion, and we encourage co-operatives to continue to access it to build units and repair existing ones.

We also proposed to protect and expand affordable housing by creating a new $1.5-billion Canada rental protection fund. This fund will provide loans and contributions to help housing providers acquire units that will be rented at affordable rates and preserve rents at a stable level for decades to come. It will prevent those units from being redeveloped into out-of-reach condos or luxury rental units.

We also proposed to keep not-for-profits and co-op homes affordable by introducing new flexibilities to the federal community housing initiative. This will ensure eligible housing providers can access funding to maintain affordability for low-income tenants and co-op members.

Finally, our new Canada greener homes affordability program will help housing providers make energy-efficient retrofits that will help them and their tenants.

In addition to these initiatives specifically designed for not-for-profit and co-operative housing, we announced a number of measures that will make it easier to get affordable housing projects off the ground. For example, the $400-million top-up to the housing accelerator fund will help more local governments cut red tape and make the changes needed to get more housing built faster.

Our investments to boost the productive capacity of the construction industry will ensure that Canada has the workers and innovative technologies needed to scale up supply. Starting in 2024-25, we plan to invest $100 million over two years to encourage Canadians to explore careers in the skilled trades and to help create apprenticeship placements. Our new $6-billion Canada housing infrastructure fund will help communities build the essential infrastructure needed to support more homes and more vibrant and livable neighbourhoods, including with co-operative housing.

The Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada supports our plan. It said, “We recognize and support the important federal commitments detailed in today’s plan to ensure co-op housing is part of the supply response to this generation’s housing crisis”. While not part of budget 2024, I would also like to note that the housing plan launched just ahead of the budget includes a $1.5-billion co-operative housing development program developed with the CHFC that will commence this summer. The program will build capacity with the co-op sector and support the sustainability of housing. It is an effective and affordable model that has stood the test of time.

We are there for co-op housing, we are there for Canadians and we will continue to support building co-op housing across Canada.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, at the end of his remarks, got to the question of this investment. The issue is that this investment was committed to two years ago. It has been two years since the government finally announced that it was going to get back into the business of building co-ops, and it has not built any. We are in a housing crisis. This is not a time to be spending two years talking about getting co-ops built. It is time to actually get them built.

Could the parliamentary secretary at least share some explanation with Canadians of what has happened over the last two years? This investment was committed to, but two years later nothing has been built. Even better, can he share when the funding will flow so that my community and others across the country will see new co-ops getting built, which I know is what he wants to happen too?