House of Commons Hansard #145 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-39.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Criminal Code Second reading of Bill C-255. The bill would create a separate offence for mischief against places of worship without requiring proof of a hateful motive, and impose mandatory compensation and penalties. Supporters say it fills a gap and protects religious and community spaces; opponents argue existing offences and restitution powers suffice, while mandatory minimums limit judges’ discretion. 7500 words, 1 hour.
Building Canada Strong Act Second reading of Bill C-39. The bill proposes faster, more coordinated federal approvals for major projects, along with changes to trade corridors, ports and labour rules. Liberals say it will attract investment, strengthen supply chains and protect workers and environmental standards. Opposition members question whether its timelines will deliver results, and warn that expanded ministerial powers could weaken environmental and Indigenous protections, workers’ rights and parliamentary oversight. 42300 words, 5 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Alleged Premature Disclosure of Information Concerning Bill C-39 Christine Normandin raises a question of privilege over the government giving media an embargoed technical briefing on the Pacific Link pipeline while denying MPs equivalent access; other parties reserve the right to respond. 600 words.
Residential School Denialism Leah Gazan requests an emergency debate on Canada’s response to residential school denialism, citing a Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal ruling and a white nationalist demonstration on Tk'emlúps te Secwépemc territory. 400 words.
Alleged Foreign Interference in the Alberta Referendum Heather McPherson seeks an emergency debate on alleged U.S. political involvement in Alberta separatism, foreign financing and misuse of voter data, arguing that foreign interference threatens Canadian sovereignty ahead of an Alberta referendum. 400 words.
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for all the work he has been doing on the bill before us and also on Bill C-5 when we worked together on that legislation.
The member has made the exact point about the fact that, right now, everything is as uncertain as ever for private sector proponents, for developers of major infrastructure and for resource development. I think the member has, very importantly, pointed out what is actually the agenda of the Liberals, and it is central—
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
I have to interrupt the member.
Before I recognize the member for Pierre‑Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, I want to warn him that I will have to interrupt him in about eight minutes. He will have two minutes remaining when the House resumes debate on this bill.
The hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Mr. Speaker, I want to start by making a brief comment on the speech given by the member who spoke before me, as I tried to listen to it. I sometimes like to practise my English, so I listen to speeches in the original language. I must say that I really sympathize with the interpreters, because I had a lot of trouble understanding everything that was said. However, I did understand a few things, because I tried to keep track of the number of times the word “pipeline” came up in the speech. I ended up losing count because it came up so often.
At least I understood that my colleague was talking about a pipeline. Since we are talking about Bill C‑39, I gather that she wants more pipelines. It is not a good time to be a Conservative right now, because the Liberals are building more pipelines than the Conservatives ever built, more than they ever would have dreamed of and more than they ever wanted. Unfortunately, this is not a good time for the planet either.
That is what I want to talk about in my speech on Bill C‑39.
The government decided to call this bill the “building Canada act”. That is what it says at the bottom of the screen for anyone watching this debate on Bill C-39 in the House. That kind of title always surprises me. Anyone who reads the bill will soon realize that it is not a law designed to build Canada. Rather, it is a law designed to give the government even more arbitrary powers to override existing laws, to gut environmental protections, to trample on workers' rights and to sell off our airports to the highest bidders. That sums up the bill. It is sad to see the government, which already had an authoritarian flavour when it was a minority, go even further now that it has a majority.
Earlier, one of my Conservative colleagues mentioned something that we have already reported a number of times in the House. I think it bears repeating, because the Liberals apparently fail to grasp the magnitude of what they are doing. We already passed Bill C-5, one of the worst bills I have ever had the misfortune of studying and debating in the House. Unfortunately, they are now proposing Bill C-39. Apparently, they had it in them to come up with something even worse. Bill C‑5 contained limitations imposed by the opposition because, in committee, we heard from a number of witnesses who essentially told us that Bill C‑5 was similar to the Emergencies Act. The government could claim there was an emergency, like the tariff emergency or the economic threat emergency, as an excuse to gain extraordinary powers that would let it override some laws and tailor others to suit specific projects that it decided were in the national interest.
At least we managed to impose some limits, such as the creation of a special committee to oversee the enforcement of Bill C-5. We also managed to include a sunset clause in the bill so that the measures would expire after five years, because an emergency is not a permanent state. It is temporary. What is more, those powers could not be used when the House was not in session, when Parliament was prorogued. That is basically all just common sense. In short, when the government is granted extraordinary powers, it must be held to account for how they were used.
Unfortunately, it seems that was not enough power for the government. The Liberals seem truly power-hungry right now. They have decided to get rid of the provision that ensured Bill C-5 would no longer be in effect after five years. That is mind-boggling. In five years' time, Donald Trump will not be U.S. President anymore. The emergency is now. If it is still an emergency in five years, then it is not really an emergency at all. It is a situation that has become permanent. An emergency cannot be permanent.
Clearly, the government wanted to use the emergency as an excuse to secure concessions and permanently weaken the rule of law. I have a real problem with that. Bill C-39 clearly reveals the Liberal government's true intentions. The Liberals must be held accountable.
Worse still, there are all sorts of other provisions in Bill C‑39 that weaken protections, particularly when it comes to workers' rights. I was the Bloc Québécois transportation critic, and I saw all kinds of lobbying for years. Every year, it was the same old tune. Representatives of ports, airports and all types of federally regulated businesses would come to my office and tell me that we really needed to find a way to prevent workers from striking. They would tell me that the government should declare that the national interest is too important for workers in pretty much every federally regulated sector to be able to exercise their rights. Of course, we know that the only leverage that workers have against their employers, aside from quitting, is to go on strike, to have everyone stand up and refuse to work in inappropriate conditions.
Unfortunately, workers who are unhappy with their conditions are now left with only one option: to quit and leave other workers in the same situation. The option of striking at least enables these people to demonstrate their solidarity collectively and build up their bargaining power. Individual workers have very little power. Sometimes they are not motivated to retrain in another field.
There is a certain hypocrisy here, in saying that the government is going to give people time, appoint an arbitrator, allow time for negotiations and then refer the matter to the Canada Industrial Relations Board.
As we all know, the reality is that the government does not want to bear the burden anymore. It does not want to have to justify its actions before Parliament anymore. Up until now, special legislation was required. The government wants to do away with that. It wants to decide everything by decree, behind closed doors, as was the case with Bill C-5. We can see how similar these two measures are in spirit. It is also clear why these two measures are both included in Bill C-39. In a way, these measures are both meant to undermine transparency. The government wants to make decisions behind closed doors, without consulting anyone and without being held accountable. This is very problematic for democracy.
It seems to me that the Liberals do not realize what they are doing. In its speeches and promises, the Liberal Party generally claims to stand for virtue, good faith and ideals. As I listen to my Liberal colleagues speak, I hear only naive optimism. They have nothing negative to say about what they are doing. However, when we actually read the bills, they are frightening.
I do not know if the Liberals realize what they are doing or if they are just blindly taking their leader at his word because they are completely mesmerized, have no idea what they are voting on on a daily basis and simply accept the message. I do not know if they are actually capable of thinking critically, if they read the bills and if they ask themselves questions. I wonder if, in caucus, they actually ask the ministers and the Prime Minister questions.
Personally, I am troubled b y the parliamentary dynamic that is taking shape. We saw debate cut short in the case of Bill C‑5. I hope we will not see that again with Bill C‑39.
It seems that the government is interested not in democracy, but in power. The Liberals are going to realize that at some point. I cannot believe that they will not listen to their constituents who will be experiencing difficult situations or when there will be protests in their ridings in the future against projects that will have been unilaterally imposed before an environmental assessment has even been completed. It is madness, but that is where we are headed. What a sad prospect.
I have a lot more to say, but my time is up.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am returning to a question I raised regarding CORCAN last week. CORCAN is the inmate skills development wing of Corrections Canada.
Last week, I asked why CORCAN employs 608 individuals, at a cost of $66 million in salaries alone, to train only 1,056 inmates in rudimentary tasks like farm chores, apple picking and sewing. The public safety minister responded to my question with a heartwarming story about a trip he took with the Governor General to a prison in Saskatchewan. That was a very unsatisfactory answer, so I am back again to point out that the per-prisoner cost of a CORCAN education per year is $62,000, which is half the tuition at Harvard University and is also more than the average Canadian earns in a year. At this price, one would assume that the investment is justified by astoundingly good public safety outcomes and a very low rate of recidivism for people who receive CORCAN training, but as it turns out, that is not the case.
The government has defended CORCAN by pointing over and over again, when I raise these questions in this place, to a research report by Corrections Canada published in 2014 that found that former inmates who find post-release employment are less likely to reoffend. Of course that is true, but I am not sure that the government read the rest of the research report, because it concludes, based on measurable data, that “Involvement in CORCAN employment [while incarcerated] was not found to have a significant impact on the length of time that offenders retained their first job post-release” and that “CORCAN participation was not directly linked to reductions in recidivism.”
In other words, CORCAN does not make a person any more likely to maintain employment after serving time in prison and therefore makes no difference to that person's employment status and does not reduce their likelihood of reoffending. In fact, the research in the same study found “no significant differences” whether prisoners worked for CORCAN, worked a non-CORCAN job in prison or did nothing at all.
Here is an interesting fact. Eight times as many prisoners, 7,944 to be exact, worked while incarcerated in non-CORCAN jobs last year compared to only 1,056 in CORCAN jobs, at a much lower cost. CORCAN is therefore as redundant as it is inefficient and expensive.
Why are we spending $66 million to add nothing at all to the skills prisoners receive? The minister asked us to look at what he calls the remarkable success of CORCAN. I see no success whatsoever. Why does this program exist at all?
Jacques Ramsay LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, through CORCAN, the Correctional Service of Canada actively enhances the safety and security of our institutions and our communities. CORCAN programming does that by providing offenders with a sense of purpose, promoting pro-social behaviour and allowing them to participate in meaningful work. This reduces the risk of violence among offenders in CSC institutions, thereby benefiting the safety of other inmates as well as our correctional staff.
CORCAN's public safety benefits extend much further than within our correctional institutions, as CORCAN actively enhances public safety by providing offenders with the employment skills and experience necessary to become productive, law-abiding citizens and skilled workers when they return to their communities.
We all want safer communities for our friends, our loved ones and our constituents. That is why I am proud to acknowledge that employability-related training is available at all federal institutions. This is in addition to the CORCAN-operated on-the-job training sites at 34 CSC institutions across the country and in six community-based operations. Additionally, Correctional Service Canada provides apprenticeship opportunities to offenders through certain on-the-job training assignments in institutions, as well as through the CORCAN community industries program during transitional employment.
Research clearly demonstrates that offenders who are employed in their communities are less likely to reoffend and return to federal custody. This is why vocational training for offenders remains so important. Not only is it our duty to do so, but it is effective and it works. It provides offenders with knowledge and skills that are transferable to the workplace and are aligned with industry and the Canadian labour market. Vocational training also results in industry-recognized certificates that enhance the employability of offenders, thereby promoting greater rehabilitation.
In fiscal year 2025-26, there were 20,714 certificates earned by offenders for their work in vocational training programs. Further, staff and contractors, and general employment services available in the community, assisted offenders under community supervision to obtain 2,425 community job placements.
In response to the member opposite's question, I would like to advise that offenders participate in training and work programs that are directly transferable and in line with the Canadian labour market. This includes areas of farming, construction, welding, manufacturing and work in the food industry, among others. These are the skills being promoted by CSC facilities, including within CORCAN.
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac, ON
Mr. Speaker, the government asked Corrections Canada to make cuts to save $132 million over the next three years. To that end, Corrections Canada has eliminated 25 community employment coordinators. These are the people who actually help prisoners find jobs after they are in prison. Firing these employment coordinators saved $2.7 million.
Now, it seems to me the wrong cuts are being made. Eliminating a totally unnecessary and ineffective program like CORCAN would save at least $198 million, and that is just the salaries, over the next three years and would save the jobs of the employment coordinators, who actually make a difference in finding jobs for ex-convicts and making our communities safer.
Does the government have it backwards? Were the researchers at Corrections Canada right when they said, in a report to the minister, “CORCAN is an outdated model”?
Jacques Ramsay Liberal La Prairie—Atateken, QC
Mr. Speaker, I do not share that opinion. I think CORCAN does help the labour market, and it helps inmates to achieve their rehabilitation and be productive in our society.
I would just remind the hon. member that as members of Parliament, we all want safer communities for our friends, loved ones and constituents. Having inmates going into permanent jobs, jobs that are giving them skills and a salary, is a good way to prevent reoffending. It is in pursuit of this goal that I am pleased to highlight the positive interventions provided by CORCAN that provide offenders with the skills and competencies necessary and that are aligned with labour needs. As stated, there is a direct correlation between an offender's ability to find employment and rates of recidivism.
Dan Mazier Conservative Riding Mountain, MB
Mr. Speaker, the taxpayer-funded CEO in charge of the $300-million PrescribeIT failure is suing Canada Health Infoway for $3 million in damages after he was fired. Buried in the lawsuit is a very damning allegation. Michael Green claims that his firing “was timed in order to prevent his further testimony” before the health committee.
In May, the Liberal health minister said in the House of Commons, “the CEO of Infoway's behaviour was unacceptable. I spoke to the board of directors, and they took the necessary steps.”
My question is simple. Did the health minister instruct the board of directors to fire the PrescribeIT CEO in order to prevent him from testifying at the parliamentary committee, yes or no?
Jacques Ramsay LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite asked the same question two weeks ago, and today he will get the same answer that he got two weeks ago.
As the Minister of Health said at the time and as she stated in June, while many Canadians have benefited from the work of Canada Health Infoway to advance the interoperability of health data and sharing of that data, important questions have been raised in recent months about the program's accountability and value for money. That is why the minister launched a multi-phase review of Canada Health Infoway. Phase one involves an independent, third-party audit, which will include a comprehensive review of the organization's finances and determine whether the funds were used appropriately. Phase two will include an independent review of the organization's governance structures and operations.
This work is currently under way, and it is important that enough time and space be given for fulfilling the critical task of the audit and review. It is not just our government that is saying so. The Auditor General herself said, in response to the minister's statement, that conducting a performance audit at this time would be duplicative and therefore of limited added value for parliamentarians and Canadians.
In my humble opinion, we should let this independent work continue instead of rushing things through with the kind of political interference that the Conservatives are calling for. Canadians deserve a modern health care system that meets their needs, and these reviews will help achieve that.
Dan Mazier Conservative Riding Mountain, MB
Mr. Speaker, my question was not the same as it was two weeks ago. The taxpayer-funded CEO who was in charge of the $300-million PrescribeIT failure is suing Canada Health Infoway. He claims that he was fired to prevent him from testifying at the health committee.
Did the Liberal health minister have any role in terminating the PrescribeIT CEO, yes or no?
Jacques Ramsay Liberal La Prairie—Atateken, QC
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is referring to a lawsuit filed by the former president and CEO of Canada Health Infoway. I think it would be inappropriate to comment further on this matter at this time. This is a completely standard procedure. The member opposite can laugh all he wants, but he knows full well that we do not comment on this sort of thing.
Again, no one is denying that Canada Health Infoway followed best practices or that Canadians got their money's worth. That is why the government launched an independent review and an independent audit. We look forward to the results of both, and we will act accordingly.
Matt Strauss Conservative Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is such a pleasure to be back again for the late show. I shared the topic of my question with my colleague on this side. Questions regarding PrescribeIT are consistently not being answered in question period, so that is why we are here. I am not happy to be here this late. I imagine the parliamentary secretary across the way is also not happy. We could put an end to this if he would just answer the questions tonight.
To put this into perspective for Canadians, $300 million was blown on a piece of software that did not work. That is $50 million more than the Liberals spent on the sponsorship scandal that brought down the Paul Martin government. I happened to bump into a popular television personality on Sparks Street today, and I mentioned to him that I was going to come do the late show about the PrescribeIT scandal. He asked, “What's that?” I asked, “You go on CBC frequently and talk about politics, and you haven't heard of this $300-million scandal?”
Do they know, on the other side of the House, how many nurses $300 million could hire? Do they know how many hospital beds could be constructed with $300 million? When a financial catastrophe such as this happens, $300 million is how much money 300 Canadians who worked their whole life long for a paycheque would be lucky to see over the course of their whole life. The Liberals wasted the life's work of 300 Canadians on something that did not work at all. Why are they not interested in getting to the bottom of this with us?
My question in question period was very simple. Michael Green was getting $1 million a year to do nothing, as far as those of us on the health committee could tell. He got fired. The Minister of Health previously, in question period, told me that he got fired after she spoke with the board, but the chairman of the board, Dr. Peter Vaughan, told the health committee that the Minister of Health had never spoken to the board, so what the heck happened? This is important. The member opposite talked about accountability. Who is accountable? Is the Minister of Health the person who fires the CEO when he wastes a bunch of money, or is she not? The people who sent us here to the chamber just want to know what happened with the money.
Finding out who was in charge of firing the CEO is step number one. It could be that this was all a miscommunication. It could be that the Minister of Health told her representative, Jocelyne Voisin, to fire Michael Green, and then that Jocelyne Voisin went to the board and did not tell Peter Vaughan that why she wanted to fire Michael Green was that the health minister told her to. It could be that Peter Vaughan was just left out of the loop, but if that is the case, let us get to the bottom of it. If that is the case, why would the health minister not say that this is what happened?
Why would the Liberals on the health committee go to all the lengths they have gone to in order to shut down our investigation? He spoke at length about the third party investigation they are paying for. Is it independent? We have an independent Auditor General. The independent Auditor General was asked to look into this, but because the Liberals hustled in and got a third party to look into it before them, they have now brushed the Auditor General aside. Why are they not answering the questions of members of Parliament? Why are they not allowing the Auditor General to do their work? Are they not ashamed to be covering up a scandal larger than the sponsorship scandal?
Is this how the member opposite wants to spend his parliamentary career: coming here late at night to continue to obfuscate the questions we ask that are reasonable and that our constituents, every Canadian taxpayer, wants to and deserves to hear the answer to? Did the health minister, or did she not, fire Michael Green through her representative on the board?
Jacques Ramsay LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to comment on the remarks made by the member opposite. He said that the program did not work. That is not entirely accurate. In fact, the program has been relaunched. An agreement has been signed with at least one province to date. In fact, what was found was that the program did not have the full support of the medical community, which is why it was discontinued. That said, it does not necessarily mean that the program was not working.
Second, with regard to what happened in terms of governance, I will reiterate what the minister has already said, which is that there were shortcomings. That is why she launched an independent review of the organizational structure and mandate of Canada Health Infoway.
This approach was welcomed by the Auditor General, who herself concluded that there was no need for her to conduct her own investigation. She was satisfied with this approach. Given that the Auditor General was satisfied, I think we should wait to see the findings of this review. The government has already indicated that it will take note of them and ensure that the Canada Health Infoway program becomes operational again.
For now, no supplementary budget has been allocated because we take the management of public funds seriously. No further payments will be made until we receive the findings and an assurance that the money invested in Canada Health Infoway is meeting the needs of the medical community and Canadians.
Matt Strauss Conservative Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON
Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting point.
I later asked the Minister of Health if she would be disbursing the funds. She said no. However, a week later, her policy spokesperson, I believe his name is Alexandre Bergeron, told The Globe and Mail that they would be disbursing the funds. I would like the member to confirm, based on the statements of Alexandre Bergeron from the minister's office, whether it is in fact the case that no funds are flowing through right now. That is a really important point.
I have a second point. The member talks about the program working, but 95% of doctors refused to use the program, and that is before the Liberals put the 20¢ copay on the pharmacist. Every pharmacist group in the country that I spoke with said they were not going to use the program. They made a program that nobody wants to use. I would say that it is not working.
Why will the member not just answer the question? Did the health minister act to remove Michael Green or did she not? It is a very simple question. It does not matter if it is before the courts or not. The member has absolute privilege to give a true answer here and tell the people of Canada what happened with the money.
Did the health minister fire Michael Green?
Jacques Ramsay Liberal La Prairie—Atateken, QC
Mr. Speaker, to answer my hon. colleague's question, the Minister of Health has suspended payments to Canada Health Infoway for the current fiscal year. Since then, no funds have been disbursed to the organization, and we have made it clear that our investments will resume only once we are certain that the money will be spent in the best interests of Canadians. The Auditor General has indicated that she wishes to review the results of this work, and we look forward to sharing them with her as soon as they are available.
This is essential to ensuring that Canadians can trust how their money is spent. That is what this government intends to do.
HealthAdjournment Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6:51 p.m.)