Debates of Oct. 22nd, 2025

Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, is the House familiar with the concept of a pyromaniac firefighter? Essentially, it is when a person starts a fire and then sits by the phone waiting for a call to come in saying that there is a fire for them to go put out. The person causes problems and then tries to pretend to fix the problems that they themselves caused.

The Liberals say that a new Prime Minister means a new approach. They say that they now realize they created some problems but that they are going to fix everything. The trouble is that it is the same government, the same actors, the same people. In fact, the Prime Minister is the same person who advised the former prime minister to make his bad decisions.

It is six of one and half a dozen of the other. The government is like a pyromaniac firefighter with a hero complex. What it is offering are superficial fixes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with many of the observations my colleague raised about the Conservatives' negligence in matters of immigration. I am sorry, I meant to say “Liberals”. I quite agree with him regarding asylum seekers, and Quebec has taken in more than its share of asylum seekers without being able to benefit from the money that should have come back to us from Ottawa.

However, I would like my colleague to elaborate on temporary foreign workers. The Leader of the Opposition made some unfortunate comments about temporary foreign workers stealing the jobs of good Canadians. I do not know about my colleague, but in my riding, that was very negatively perceived because many people in the manufacturing sector, for example, need these skilled workers, who are so much more than just cheap labour. These are people with expertise who are keeping viable businesses in the regions, thereby generating considerable economic activity.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think that my colleague is still a bit confused. He mixed up the Liberals and the Conservatives, and I think his statements are still a bit muddled. As I see things, it was the Liberal government that lowered the thresholds. When they were lowered from 30 to 20 and from 20 to 10 overnight, without any warning to businesses, families or workers that this was coming, that was a Liberal decision.

I know that my colleague is eager for the Conservatives to be in power so that he can criticize them, as we saw at the start of his intervention. Right now, however, the situation we are in was caused by the Liberals' ineptitude, incompetence and negligence in matters of immigration.

I would just like to remind my colleague that he can ask the Liberals some pointed questions on this matter too. The Conservatives are not to blame for the situation we are in today.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague made mention of a poorly thought-out social media post by the former prime minister, who said Canada is open, come on over, and a flood of refugees followed. I cannot help but make the comparison to another world leader who also makes poorly thought-out social media posts, shaping government policy on the fly.

I would like my colleague to comment on the negative impact that can have on our nation.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I can just say one thing: Canada will always be a country that is open to refugees who are truly in need. For refugees fleeing war and hardship, Canada will be open.

However, sending a tweet inviting the whole world to come settle in Canada and then forgetting about these people is unacceptable, immoral and, dare I say, heartless.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-12. This is the fourth time I am speaking to a piece of government legislation in this Parliament.

For the first time, I think it is the story of the bill rather than its content that I find most interesting. I apologize to those following at home if it seems a little bit like inside baseball, but in every Parliament, the government introduces bills and numbers them sequentially. After the pro forma throne speech, Bill C-1, came Bill C-2. The present bill, Bill C-12, is the parts of Bill C-2 that had to be salvaged from the flaming dumpster fire of that original piece of legislation. It is as though the Liberals set their own legislative agenda on fire and the Conservatives had to comb through the charred remains to find something salvageable. What an embarrassment it is for the government.

The new Prime Minister ran on his expertise in government, having spent most of his career as a bureaucrat. He had been waiting in the wings for 10 years to plant his legislative agenda. Do members opposite remember when he was asked if he would ever become prime minister? He said, “Why don’t I become a circus clown?” Well, now he has. He has beclowned himself.

Bill C-2 is the very first piece of legislation that the Prime Minister's government introduced, and it had to be split up in this manner. What an embarrassment that is.

Why did it need to be split up? It is because the forefather of Bill C-12 contained clauses that were so howlingly bad that no one on either side of the House, nor from any coast in this country, could bring themselves to defend it.

Bill C-2 includes a provision that would allow the police to ask a doctor, without a warrant, if their services had ever been used by an individual. This is reprehensible. I am a physician; frankly, this does not just offend me as a Canadian and as a person, but it offends my whole profession. It would violate not just our Charter of Rights and Freedoms but the Hippocratic oath. If a member opposite or their child went to see a doctor who specializes in addictions, mental health, sexually transmitted diseases or reproductive medicine, on what possible planet would they think it was appropriate for the police to ask that physician to disclose them as a client?

Again, I suspect members opposite are getting ready to say that I am somehow being outlandish in my interpretation of their proposed law. Here, once again, I will read them their own darned bill.

In part 14, clause 158, it reads:

A peace officer or public officer may make a demand...to a person who provides services to the public requiring the person to provide, in the form, manner and time specified in the demand, the following information:

(a) whether the person provides or has provided services to any subscriber or client

This is bananas. This is, once again, a Chinese Communist Party level of state overreach.

Once again, if the Liberals do not trust my interpretation of their legislation, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association's interpretation or the Canadian Constitution Foundation's interpretation, will they believe their own public safety minister, the one who introduced the legislation? He was quoted in The Globe and Mail in an October 9 article by Marie Woolf, entitled “Public Safety Minister says he wants to push through refined warrantless...powers to help police”. She wrote that the Minister of Public Safety acknowledged that the “provisions in Bill C-2, the original strong borders bill, [allowing police to ask a] doctor without a warrant” if their services had been used by someone, constituted “overreach”.

This is not the first time the Minister of Public Safety has had to throw the Minister of Public Safety under the bus. Who could forget that, just last month, he told his tenant that his own gun confiscation program was a bad idea that he did not support? I would love to believe that it is merely incompetence over there. It is incompetence; it is just not “merely” incompetence.

I am a physician. I do not sign prescriptions that I have not read. I do not give out prescriptions that I do not believe in, because prescriptions are important documents and I have a professional duty to read them. On the other side of the House, we have a Liberal minister who seems not to read the legislation that he tries to pass in the House. On other occasions, he executes a gun grab he does not believe in. This sort of conduct would not be tolerated from any physician in this country. I dare say it would not be tolerated from any professional under any professional body in this country. Why does the Prime Minister tolerate it from one of the highest office-holders in this land?

As I said, it is not merely incompetence over there. I take it that the public safety minister did not write the legislation, but someone did. I want to know who, because this is not a one-off oopsy doopsy in which a junior staffer wrote a law that would violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is a clear pattern with the government.

The last three pieces of government legislation that I have debated in the House, Bill C-8, Bill C-9 and now Bill C-12 have involved significant power grabs by the Prime Minister. I want to know why.

Bill C-8 would allow the Liberals to kick people off the Internet without a warrant. Bill C-9 would allow the Liberals to police speech on the Internet. Bill C-12, in its previous iteration as Bill C-2, would not only violate patient-physician confidentiality but also allow the government to read letter mail without a warrant.

What is going on over there? Why is the Liberals' response to every conceivable social problem to violate our charter rights? Who is writing the legislation?

I know that as soon as I am done, the member for Winnipeg North will ask why we do not fix this at committee, to which I would say, yes, we are going to have to, but every member in this House should be protecting charter rights. The committee should not be the goalie. The Conservatives should not be the goalie. The Liberals should not be trying to get charter violations past the Conservative goalies. They are the Liberals. They are supposed to believe in liberty. I am honestly starting to wonder if they even know what their party's name means anymore.

Here is the Encyclopædia Britannica entry on “liberalism”:

political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty.

Do the members opposite see themselves at all in this definition today? It has been six months since I was elected to this House, and not once, in between their power grabs, have I heard them make even passing reference to individual liberty or to the fact that the government itself can threaten that liberty.

Conservatives seek to conserve our liberty. Liberals are supposed to seek to expand our liberty. However, this is three times in six months they have tried to get one past us. I am asking them honestly to reflect on this. Are they even Liberals anymore, or have they become something darker? How is it that they have betrayed the Liberal tradition again and again in this House?

I would ask the Liberal backbenchers, in particular, if this is what they signed up to do when they took out a Liberal Party membership and if the Prime Minister's Office ran any of it by them before it tried to ram it through the House. Why do they not do the right thing and withdraw Bill C-2 entirely instead of trying to get it passed piecemeal?

One piece of Bill C-2, Bill C-12, is going to go to committee, but we must not forget the omnibus monstrosity from which it came. We must not forget the questions of competence that the story of Bill C-12 raises, and we must also not look away from the authoritarian tendencies of the so-called Liberals that this story reveals.

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

Mr. Speaker, those are interesting comments. When the leader of the Conservative Party sat around the Harper cabinet inside the Conservative caucus, they passed laws that did not meet the charter challenge. We had the superior courts actually rule them out of order. Now the member makes accusations about the current Liberal government or the past Liberal government. Can he cite any legislation that we have introduced that has gone against the charter, an actual bill that has been ruled as going against the charter in terms of individual rights? We are the party that brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am so surprised to receive that question. I think I explained it to the member during my last two speeches on government legislation.

The Liberals violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when they imposed the Emergencies Act, sections 2 and 8. That is not me, but Justice Mosley of the Federal Court who found that. I would love to hear the member apologize for that violation.

Bill C-8, Bill C-9 and Bill C-2 also violate our charter. I am not going to let it get through the net.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague's speech today. He questioned at one point if we signed up to support this bill.

My question for the member opposite is this. Having worked for the RCMP for 23 years as a civilian member, I have seen the hard work of the many women of the RCMP, day in and day out. I have seen them put their lives on the line. I wonder if my colleague agrees with the leader of his party when he questioned the independence of the RCMP. Also, when the Leader of the Opposition indicated—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member to give the member for Kitchener South—Hespeler a chance to respond.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am heartened, I suppose, that the member opposite heard and understood the question. I am terribly disheartened that she decided not to answer the question. I take it as a tacit admission that she does not support this legislation.

As for my leader's comments, it is my job here to criticize the appointments the government makes. Criticizing their appointments is well within what we as a democratic body have to do.

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-233, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to assault against persons who provide health services and first responders.

Canada's International Development Assistance

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston—Etobicoke, ON]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should strengthen the accountability, effectiveness, and mutual benefits of Canada’s international development assistance by:

(a) implementing new policies to ensure that Canadian international assistance programming integrates opportunities for reciprocal economic benefit, including through the participation of Canadian small and medium-sized enterprises, innovators, and workers;

(b) establishing a dedicated Economic Partnerships Window to support projects that align poverty reduction abroad with economic security at home, and that utilize Canadian economic strengths such as clean energy, agriculture, digital technology, and education; and

(c) requiring the Minister of International Development to report to Parliament annually on the extent of Canadian participation in international assistance projects, the measurable benefits for partner countries, and the economic opportunities created for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Motion No. 14, a motion that embodies a simple but powerful idea, that Canada's generosity abroad should also help build opportunities at home.

For decades, Canadians have led with compassion, building schools, strengthening food systems, empowering women and literally saving lives across the world. We have done so not for recognition but because it is who we are. As the world changes, our development approach must change with it. We must continue to be generous but we must also be strategic, innovative and accountable.

The global development landscape has evolved dramatically. Today, many donor countries are pulling back, according to the OECD's 2024 report. International development assistance dollars have declined for the first time in years. Several major countries facing domestic pressures have cut back their international development dollars to the tune of billions.

Canada must not follow that path. We must do what we do best but do it even better. We must stay engaged, stay innovative and make our international assistance work for both our partners and our people.

The global economy is shifting. Emerging markets are no longer just recipients of aid; they are engines of growth. They are innovators. They are our trading partners. Nine out of the top 20 fastest-growing economies this year are in Africa. Countries like Rwanda, Niger, Senegal and Côte d'Ivoire are experiencing growth rates of between 6% to 11% per year. ln Asia, the ASEAN region is now the fastest-growing economic bloc in the world, even surpassing the G7 on a per capita basis. In these regions, Canada has a depth of credibility. We are seen as long-term partners who have been there through thick and thin.

The first pillar of Motion No. 14 calls on us to embed reciprocal economic benefit within Canada's international assistance program. This is not about turning aid into trade. lt is about aligning our compassion with our capabilities. When a Canadian clean energy start-up helps deploy solar microgrids in a Caribbean country, it not only lowers emissions abroad but it helps create skilled jobs right here in Canada.

When a Canadian agri-tech firm supports farmers in producing more and higher yields in East Africa, we not only get to tackle hunger over there but we also help Canada's agricultural innovation sector. When our colleges deliver digital skills training, we not only empower youth in the developing world, we also continue to enhance Canada's reputation as a leader in education. This pillar ensures that Canadian innovation becomes part of the world's solution to global challenges while ensuring that Canadians share in the opportunity that innovation creates.

The second pillar proposes the creation of a dedicated economic partnerships window. This window would bridge Canada's development priorities and our domestic economic strengths. lt would support projects that advance poverty reduction and sustainable development abroad. It would strengthen Canadian sectors such as clean energy, agriculture, digital technology and education. It would mobilize small and medium-sized enterprises to become global problem-solvers. We already have glimpses of what this model looks like through FinDev Canada.

In 2022, FinDev invested $8 million U.S. in the Central American small enterprise investment fund, which supports high-growth SMEs in the agri-food, manufacturing, education and information technology sectors in Central America and the Caribbean. The fund focuses on job creation, women's economic empowerment and local value chains.

In 2025, FinDev invested $15 million U.S. in EcoEnterprises Partners, a women-led impact fund backing 20 SMEs in Latin America working in agritech, renewable energy, sustainable forestry and biodiversity conservation. This is exactly the kind of clean-growth collaboration this motion envisions. In Colombia, FinDev partnered with IDB Invest and the U.S. DFC on a $319-million U.S. facility with Banco Davivienda, expanding financing for small and women-led businesses and for green projects.

These examples prove that Canadian finance, innovation and know-how can generate shared prosperity. A dedicated economic partnerships window would scale up this model by opening more pathways for Canadian SMEs and workers to plug into these global value chains.

The third pillar of Motion No. 14 would strengthen accountability. lt would require the minister of international development to report annually to Parliament on the extent of Canadian participation in international development projects. It would also require the minister to table measurable benefits for partner countries, as well as economic opportunities created for Canadians right here at home. This transparency would ensure that every dollar of development assistance delivers a real impact, measurable progress and tangible benefits, both abroad and at home. lt would turn good intentions into accountable outcomes.

This motion is not about changing who we are; it is about strengthening who we always have been. Canadians are compassionate, but we are also innovative, entrepreneurial and globally minded.

Motion No. 14 reflects a modern, confident Canada, one that sees international development not as a cost, but as an investment in shared prosperity. lt tells the world that partnership is the future of aid and that Canada's economic security and global solidarity go hand in hand. By aligning our values with our strengths, we can make every act of assistance an act of opportunity in the world for Canadians.

I want to conclude by saying that I have seen first-hand the impact that Canadian international development and assistance programs have had on people's lives. From allowing people to access education and clean water to encouraging entrepreneurship and hope, Canada has always been a global leader in this field. What this motion seeks to do is build on that proud tradition and propel it into the future. lt would ensure our aid remains generous, effective and accountable, but also smart, strategic and innovative

When we help others, we rise with them, so let us pass Motion No. 14 and make Canada's international development policy a model of shared progress for a changing world.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. member for the work he did as minister of immigration and minister responsible for international development.

He touched on how the motion would create opportunities for Canadians. Can he expand on how Canada's international development work can create and strengthen economic opportunities for Canadians?

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston—Etobicoke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his great work.

When we are more focused on and strategic in how we deliver international development projects, we can be more definitive in our ability to create more opportunities for small, medium and large Canadian enterprises. I will give an example. If we look at areas in which we have led the world, such as clean tech, agribusiness, education and digital skills training, we can find ways to bring forth SMEs so they can benefit while we help our partner countries.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the text of the motion says it would establish a “dedicated Economic Partnerships Window to support projects that align poverty reduction abroad with economic security at home”. I am just wondering if the member could comment on that a little further and expand on the intention of that part of the motion.

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston—Etobicoke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for that important question. It allows me to elaborate on what this motion is trying to do, which is to make sure that we enable small, medium and large enterprises in Canada to benefit from the global value chains that result from international development projects. International development projects are not only small, community-based projects. They can also be massive initiatives that bring in the private sector and bring in multiple countries to partner with us to make sure we are solving global challenges.

In that regard, those massive projects enable Canadian SMEs to not only showcase their innovation but also take advantage of those global value chains, thereby creating prosperity and jobs right here at home.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very enlightening speech.

We know that things are tough right now when it comes to international co-operation because of the current global context. I also know that my colleague is working closely with the member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean on this issue.

I would like to hear his thoughts on an amendment proposed by the member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean to ensure that the smaller centres of international co-operation and solidarity in the regions are not overlooked. They may be smaller in scale than the ones in major urban centres, but they are just as essential. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston—Etobicoke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions with the member for Lac-Saint-Jean. He brings up an important point in his amendment. As we reinvigorate our international development program, we should always have space for small and medium-sized organizations that punch way above their weight. We should make sure we create processes that treat them equally and give them an equal chance at the investments we make around the world. We should also keep an eye on internationally minded small and medium-sized organizations in rural Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for the House. With the Liberals, we are seeing the “Trumpification” of international co-operation and international aid, which are becoming transactional. In other words, what the Liberal government is essentially telling us today is that if something does not benefit the government, it will not help. That is not what international aid is all about. The point is to lift people out of poverty, to educate girls, to improve the future of humanity with common goals.

Why is the government taking such a hyper-capitalistic approach to international aid?

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston—Etobicoke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is completely not true. In my speech, I said Canada must not follow that path, the path of those countries that have cut international development dollars. We are treating our partners with respect, acknowledging their growth and innovation, and saying that Canadians should also benefit while we work to lift others outside of Canada.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of this Liberal government, we have seen nothing but consistent reckless spending. From arrive scam to the green slush fund of the last Parliament, Liberals just cannot seem to stop giving away taxpayer dollars to their friends and allies. We are six months post-election, and nothing has changed. With conflict of interest breaches circling the current Prime Minister, Canadians are in for another season of more Liberals getting rich off their wasted taxes.

I say all this as a preamble to the discussion at hand today on Motion No. 14, which is about Canada’s international development assistance. After I read the motion, I reflected. This is from our current Liberal government. Words like “accountability” and “effectiveness” seem distant from the actions of the current and previous Liberal administrations. Under Conservative governments, these were not merely words, but pillars in the Conservative approach to international development.

The Prime Minister is looking to “rein in spending”. As our Conservative leader has said, that is a goal worth co-operating on. Under the Liberal government, international development programming has been seen as overly generous, to the point of being wasteful. Programs have not been yielding results and have been ideologically leaning toward woke causes. There have also been reports of abuse and of development funding being misappropriated by terrorist groups or organizations sympathetic to terrorist causes.

The words and actions of this government are at odds. As Canadians struggle with high taxes, record food bank usage and an unaffordability crisis, the Secretary of State for International Development recently announced nearly $140 million in overseas funding. Motion No. 14 serves as a request for the oversight the Liberals neglected when they got into power 10 years ago.

Canada’s commitment to international assistance is rooted in decades of real-world impact. Conservative governments in particular have often pioneered focused, high-impact initiatives. By examining a few historical case studies, we can draw lessons on what works and what a Conservative-led development policy should champion.

One of the clearest examples of focused Canadian aid delivering results was Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s maternal, newborn and child health initiative, launched at the G8 Muskoka summit in 2010. In the face of high mortality rates among mothers and young children in developing countries, Canada rallied global partners to take decisive action. The Harper government committed a total of $2.85 billion over five years to improve maternal and child health, including $1.1 billion in new funding and $1.75 billion in renewed support, establishing this as a long-term Canadian priority.

This infusion of resources went to practical interventions like training health workers, funding immunizations and building clinics in some of the world’s poorest regions. Just as important as the money was an emphasis on outcomes. As Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced, “Accountability for results will be an integral part of Canada’s contribution”. He announced this with a rigorous framework to measure progress and ensure aid dollars are used effectively.

That accountability paid off. Alongside other donors, Canada’s push helped save countless lives by expanding vaccination programs and maternal care, contributing to a significant drop in the under-five mortality rate globally in the early 2010s. I have seen first-hand the benefits of freshwater well sites and maternal health clinics and the positive impact they have had in the communities in Tanzania. The people are grateful, and they want more of this type of support. Because of a Conservative initiative, their lives have been measurably improved permanently.

The Muskoka initiative demonstrated how a Conservative government’s focus on a clear priority, coupled with demand for results, could mobilize the world. Canada once led the way in mobilizing support among G8 and non-G8 leaders, key donors and private foundations to tackle this challenge. This legacy guides our vision. We will target aid to where it makes a measurable difference, in this case the health of mothers and children, while insisting on transparency and effectiveness in every dollar spent.

Another example of international development done right was in 2014, after Russia’s first incursion into Ukraine. When Ukraine’s sovereignty came under attack, Prime Minister Harper took swift action, condemning Russian aggression and backing words with aid.

In March 2014, Canada announced a package of over $220 million to help Ukraine stabilize its economy and support democratic development. This assistance, delivered as loans and grants, helped the new Ukrainian government pay its bills and implement reforms during a pivotal moment of transition. Canada also deployed hundreds of election observers and provided technical support to bolster Ukraine's fragile democracy. The message was clear: Canadians stand with those fighting for their freedom and self-determination.

Canada currently spends over $8 billion annually on foreign aid. At a time when so many Canadians are struggling to make ends meet, this number should be much lower. We should also be transitioning from government handouts to partnerships that benefit Canadian interests and bolster our economy. This is something the motion proposes, but we will have to wait and see if the government can follow through.

In the text of the motion, we read that the government will be, “establishing a dedicated Economic Partnerships Window to support projects that align poverty reduction abroad with economic security at home”. Unfortunately, as we have seen in the last 10 years, the Liberal government has a habit of creating more bureaucracy. Consider the newly announced Build Canada Homes, a new government body that plans to build 4,000 factory-built affordable homes at a price tag of $13 billion, or $3.25 million a house.

If the government is serious about producing results, it will ensure that the economic partnerships window is not another opportunity to balloon the government. The mission, expectations and outcomes for the economic partnerships window need to be crystal clear. It should also be funded from the current international development budget and not require the taxpayer to shoulder more debt. The required parliamentary report from the Minister of International Development is a welcome addition to this motion.

The Liberals put up frequent roadblocks and have maintained a general, pervasive mentality away from transparency that has made it difficult for the official opposition to hold the Liberal government accountable and give Canadians the information that they deserve. Name the scandal or issue, whether it is inflation, the economy, crime or food prices, the Liberals have shown no accountability for anything or remorse for the harm they have caused. If this motion is serious, it will usher a shift in Liberal policy, championing transparency over secrecy and issue avoidance.

Canada is a generous nation, but there is room to strengthen our leadership. The motion is in no way innovative; the actions highlighted within should never have been abandoned in the first place. When dealing with taxpayer funds, accountability should be the first consideration, not an afterthought. Global Affairs Canada has rightly earned the reputation for being one of the highest wastefully spending departments. Motion No. 14 could be a signal to the end of that.

There is a right and wrong way of stewarding the public purse. Conservatives have a strong record of doing it the right way; the Liberals, not so much. Given the history of Liberal waste, I cautiously give my support for this motion. The economic partnerships window should not cost the taxpayer more. If accountability is the new way forward, the international development budget should cover this initiative.

Let us see if this becomes a model for other departments to follow or if this will be another scandal that Conservatives will need to unearth down the line. For now, we are going to give co-operation a chance, and I look forward to working with the member on his motion going forward.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in 2023, the Auditor General noted that Global Affairs Canada had failed to demonstrate whether its $3.5 billion in annual development assistance, allocated under the government's feminist policy, had improved the lives of women and girls. Furthermore, only half of the projects funded were included in the annual reports to Parliament. It was therefore impossible for the department to properly report on the results of the projects it funded.

The motion moved by my colleague from York South—Weston—Etobicoke demonstrates a desire to improve performance measurements in order to determine whether investments are producing the desired outcomes. The third paragraph calls on the Minister of International Development to table an annual report in Parliament to measure the effectiveness of international assistance and its impact at home. As we know, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of greater transparency, especially when it comes to how the money of Quebec and Canadian families is being spent.

In its election platform, the Bloc Québécois proposed investing 0.7% of gross national income in international assistance, albeit with better monitoring of investments and priority given to issues such as education, health, climate change adaptation and poverty reduction.

It is crucial to recognize that assistance is also a cost-effective investment that plays a fundamental role in global stability. It is often criticized, and rightly so, because it generates so much red tape, carries colonialist overtones and can be weaponized for political purposes. Nonetheless, assistance is still the only mechanism for transferring resources internationally and the only framework we have right now for co-operation and maintenance of international standards.

However, I must point out that, under the Liberals, the Canadian government has achieved the unenviable feat of doing worse than Stephen Harper's government in terms of international assistance. In addition, Canada failed miserably at securing a seat on the UN Security Council after mounting a last-minute campaign in 2020. Experts attribute this failure in part to Canada's abandonment of humanitarian assistance. Canada currently spends 0.3% of its GDP on international assistance. The UN asks countries like Canada to contribute 0.7%. The average for OECD countries ranges from 0.4% to 0.44% of GDP.

We are doing worse under the Liberals than we were under the Harper government. The government that has been the most stingy in terms of providing support for international human rights as a percentage of GDP is the current government, or the old government, as the Liberals like to remind us. It is six of one, half a dozen of the other.

As we know, Canada is not a military or economic power. However, it can play a role in humanitarian assistance and international development. Under commitments made by the UN in 1970, Canada must increase the amount it spends on official development assistance to 0.7% of its gross national income. By the federal government's own admission, however, Canada has no plan to reach the 0.7% target.

While international assistance is often criticized for all the red tape it generates, it is also important to acknowledge the benefits to the countries receiving and providing the aid.

My colleague's motion assumes that international assistance can—

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could you please ask members who are not interested in the speech to take their conversations outside?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I thank the hon. member for that reminder. Yes, if members wish to engage in discussions during this speech, I would ask them to do so outside the House.

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean may continue his speech.