Kelly McCauley
Edmonton West, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“Madam Speaker, we listened to the Liberals earlier, especially the member for Winnipeg North , bash and attack anyone who disagrees with Bill C-9 , actually in fear that they are all far right, right-wing, crazy white supremacists if they oppose the government on this.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a very divisive issue. There are some parts of Bill C-9 that various communities support. There is also a wide range of issues within Bill C-9 that communities do not support.”
“Mr. Speaker, I understand what my colleague is saying; it is understandable. Various faith groups have expressed concerns about Bill C‑9 , such as the leadership for the Catholic bishops in Canada and others from the Abrahamic faiths. Can the member explain why those views and concerns on Bill C‑9 should be discounted?”
“Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of this fantastic bill from my colleague from Calgary Centre . It is very disappointing to hear members of the Liberal government look at a very strong, common-sense piece of legislation and, of course, throw it away. It is interesting to hear them complain about costs.”
“Yet, when the Liberals have a chance to support a common-sense bill that would help Canadians, encourage investment in Canada and reduce greenhouse gases, we hear government members stand up and speak against it. Bill C-269 is a very simple, common-sense bill.”
“Madam Speaker, I should use this time to finish my speech on Bill C-269 . However, I have a simple question. We have late-night sittings, and we have plenty of time. Why is this government, once again, bringing the guillotine of closure and limiting debate?”
The complete record
Every one of 372 lines we hold for Kelly McCauley, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 8.
“At page 60, they add: Any conduct which offends the authority or dignity of the House, even though no breach of any specific privilege may have been committed, is referred to as a contempt of the House. Contempt may be an act or an admission. It does not have to actually obstruct or impede the House or a Member; it merely has to have the tendency to produce such results.”
“At page 180 of the Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , second edition, offers this insight, stating: ...each House interprets and administers the law of Parliament in order to find breaches of privilege or contempt in appropriate cases, and interprets any statute law setting out procedures to be followed. This is the only part of the general and public law of Canada in which the House has jurisdiction for purposes of interpretation and adjudication. Otherwise, “the Chair is in no position to interpret either the law or the Constitution...”. To my mind, I believe this question of privilege is the most appropriate means for this proceeding. Bosc and Gagnon write, at page 59, “The House has the authority to assert privilege where its ability has been obstructed in the execution of its functions”.”
“In turn, I would respectively submit that identical conclusions should be drawn in relation to the Parliamentary Budget Officer and section 79.4 of the Parliament of Canada Act. That is why I am turning to you on this question of privilege so the House can consider how to address itself in this situation. Page 122 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice , third edition, which I am sure the Speaker has memorized, speaks to the right of the House to regulate its own internal affairs. It states, “where the application of statute law relates to a proceeding in Parliament or a matter covered by privilege, it is the House itself which decides how the law is to apply”.”
“Where the exercise of this auditing function involves the Auditor General in a dispute with the Crown, this is in essence a dispute between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government. Section 7(1)(b) would seem to be the means by which Parliament itself retains control over the position it wishes to take in such a dispute. The reason for judgment concludes on page 110 by observing, “Nothing in the foregoing should be taken as prejudicing the right of the House of Commons to deal with a s. 7(1)(b) report as it sees fit.” In summary, the Supreme Court of Canada has said it has no role in addressing a breach of subsection 13(1) of the Auditor General Act, but it is up to the House to vindicate the powers conferred upon the Auditor General, an officer of Parliament.”
“(1725) At page 103, the then chief justice of Canada explained that an Auditor General does not have judicial recourse to secure access to information required, writing: In this case, it is reasonable to interpret s. 7(1)(b) as the Auditor General's only remedy for claimed denials of s. 13(1) entitlements not only because the text is conducive to such an interpretation but also because, in the circumstances, a political remedy of this nature is an adequate alternative remedy. The Auditor General is acting on Parliament's behalf carrying out a quintessentially Parliamentary function, namely, oversight of executive spending pursuant to Parliamentary appropriations.”
“Canada (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources), Chief Justice Dickson, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court of Canada decision, described in pages 98 and 99 the interaction of the two statutory provisions concerning the Auditor General's right to information from the government and duty to report any failures to this House. It states: The section refers to a duty to report of the Auditor General, but can, in my view, simultaneously be characterized as a reporting remedy.... There must be some purpose for conveying such information to the House of Commons and one must assume that Parliament intended the House of Commons to exercise its judgment as to whether to seek the information its servant had not been able to secure on its behalf.”
“While the current statutory framework for the Parliamentary Budget Officer's information request was enacted in 2017 as part of the Liberal Budget Implementation Act, which was another omnibus bill, by the way, the Auditor General's parallel authorities, upon which I would argue the PBO's authority was modelled, has something of an established history. In 1982 and 1983, Pierre Trudeau's government denied information to then auditor general Kenneth Dye respecting the takeover of Petrofina by then Crown corporation Petro-Canada. This denial of information went to the courts, going all the way to the highest court in the land. (1720) In the 1989 decision in Canada (Auditor General) v.”
“To meet this objective, I kindly request your response to this letter at your earliest convenience. Parliamentarians need this information, and we need it now. Provision of the Parliament of Canada Act, which the Parliamentary Budget Officer relies upon to seek information from the government, largely mirrors a similar authority the Auditor General enjoys under subsection 13(1) of the Auditor General Act. Similar to section 79.42 of the Parliament of Canada Act, which triggered Mr. Jacques's letter to the two Speakers, the Auditor General is obliged by paragraph 7(1)(b) of the Auditor General Act to report annually to the House of Commons on whether, in carrying on the work of her office, she received all the information and explanations she required.”
“Jacques, especially in light of news that the government has launched a job posting for a new Parliamentary Budget Officer, but I digress. Mr. Jacques' letter explained the importance of this information being provided in a timely manner. He says: The [comprehensive expenditure review's] proposed cuts of $60 billion over the next five years are an important aspect of the Government's economic and fiscal plan outlined in Budget 2025. Given that parliamentarians will be asked to vote on this plan next week [tonight, in fact], I am seeking your support to compel the Comptroller General of Canada to release the necessary information without delay. Timely disclosure is essential to ensure parliamentarians can engage in a fully informed debate on these significant measures.”
“In the course of doing just that for the budget tabled on November 4, he wrote to the minister specifically requesting information concerning “the savings of the CER [the comprehensive expenditure review] by program, planned personnel reductions, and details of potential service level impacts of the years 2026-27 to 2029-30”. On behalf of the ministers, the Comptroller General of Canada answered that the information will not be provided within the timelines required by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Again, I go back to October 30 in the operations committee when the President of the Treasury Board assured the committee that information would be provided. It remains to be seen if the information will ever be shared with Mr.”
“Specifically, Mr. Jacques has indicated that he has been stonewalled in respect to requests about budget measures, specifically the so-called comprehensive expenditure review, addressed to five ministers of the Crown, namely the Minister of Fisheries , Minister of Health , Minister of Public Safety , Minister of Justice and the Minister of Industry . I will note, on October 30 in the operations committee, when questioned on this, the President of the Treasury Board stated he would provide the information to the PBO. Again, he has not done so. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is mandated by Parliament to, among other things, analyze budgets tabled in the House by the Minister of Finance .”
“Madam Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege arising from the troubling notice published by the Parliamentary Budget Officer on Thursday afternoon. In letters to the Speaker, the Deputy Speakers and their counterparts in the Senate, Jason Jacques wrote to provide notice, under section 79.42 of the Parliament of Canada Act, that he is of the opinion he has “not been provided with free and timely access to information requested under section 79.4 of the Act.” Under the latter provision, subsection 79.4(1) of the Parliament of Canada Act reads: The Parliamentary Budget Officer is entitled, by request made to the head of a department or of a parent Crown corporation, to free and timely access to any information under the control of the department or parent Crown corporation that is required for the performance of his or her mandate.”
“Madam Speaker, I think the government's budget is saying exactly what my colleague is commenting on. It is placing a priority on paying out interest to Bay Street bankers and not helping main street Canadians. The $76 billion a year in interest payments could provide a new hospital every single year in the top 100 largest cities in the country. The government's focus is completely wrong. It should be on Canadians and health care and less on paying off bankers.”
“Madam Speaker, two million Canadians every single month is not a positive, tangible result. Record unemployment for youth is not a positive, tangible result. We have not seen any positive, tangible results from the government for 10 years, and we do not see them in the budget either. What we see is a generational debt being passed on to our kids and our grandkids. The government's own growth projection is 1.26%. The OECD said that we are going to have the worst growth going out to 2060. Failure is not a tangible, positive result.”
“It is purely an attempt to hide from Canadians the true facts that the government can only spend and spend to produce substandard results, results that have led to two million Canadians a month going to the food bank, to the highest housing prices and to the highest deficit we have seen outside the COVID period.”
“Madam Speaker, my friend brings up a very valid point. This is what the economist Trevor Tombe was referring to, the difference between reality and truth. There is a large gap between the truth of what the budget is and the rhetoric the Liberals are presenting. The budget constantly talks about how they are changing how they record their expenses to do so as England does. However, when we actually look at it, the United Kingdom has a very narrow definition of capital. The government has expanded the definition of capital so much that $90 billion of its supposed capital is actually operating.”
“Instead, we get another bureaucracy for major projects. To finish, I just want to quote from Trevor Tombe, the famous economist. He says that this budget has a big gap between rhetoric and reality. He says, “Canada would benefit from a credible and sustainable fiscal strategy. Unfortunately, this platform takes us further from that goal.” This budget would be bad for Canada, and that is why I will not be supporting it.”
“The government is saying that, despite all its rhetoric, unemployment is going to remain elevated for the next five years. We have record spending and record debt, and in return we get little growth, little help for unemployment and little help for housing. What would help would be to approve a pipeline. It is a 400-page budget, and the word “pipeline” is mentioned once, hidden in a bit about carbon capture. The best way this country can improve revenues, improve wealth and improve our productivity is to approve a pipeline. The omnibus budget has about 75 legislative items it needs to change. There is nothing in there about repealing Bill C-48 , the Canadian tanker ban off the B.C. coast. We allow American tankers, but not Alberta oil. There is no repeal of Bill C-69 . There is no repeal of the production cap. There is no growth.”
“We have a rise in urban violent crime in 19 out of 20 of our largest cities, the most unaffordable housing-to-income index in the G7 and a bloated bureaucracy that failed to achieve 47% of its goals last year. Hidden on the same day the budget came out were the departmental results, where the Treasury Board puts out what the government projected for its plans and goals and what it achieved. The government failed on 47% of its goals. There are tens of thousands more employees in the bureaucracy, and over $70 billion spent, and it failed on 47% of its goals. We have youth unemployment of 14.1%, and I want to quote from the budget. This is from the Liberals' own budget: “The unemployment rate is projected to remain elevated over the forecast horizon”. The forecast horizon in the budget goes out five years.”
“I mention the 2020 to 2030 part as well because 2020 is about the time the current Prime Minister started advising the Liberal government as a financial adviser. It would be billions and billions of added debt sinking the next generation with interest payments and debt for 1.26% growth and the slowest growth of economy per capita in the OECD. What else has all this spending gotten us? We have the highest consumer debt per person in the G7. It is 80% higher per person than in the U.S. There are two million Canadians every month at a food bank. That is a result of the Liberal government. With all this spending, it has achieved two million people a month at food banks.”
“(1525) I think about how, if we were running a business like that, before we even opened the doors, 13% of the income would just be wiped out before we would provide any services. That is the Liberal record, and that is what this budget is calling for. What would Canadians get for all this spending? What would they get for $76 billion of interest payments? What would they get with a third of $1 trillion more in spending? They would get an average growth over the next five years of 1.26% GDP growth. It would be a third of $1 trillion in added debt just for 1.26% growth. The OECD predicts Canada will have the lowest per person growth for its economy from 2020 to 2030 and then from 2030 to 2060, so basically out to 2060.”
“To put it further into perspective, the GST is forecasted in 2029 to be $62.7 billion, which is from what is collected each time someone goes out to buy a bag of chips, as I like to do because I am addicted to chips, or go to a restaurant, buy beer or buy a new car. There will be $62.7 billion to be collected in GST, but the interest in 2029-30, at the end of this budget, is projected to be $76.1 billion. The GST would have to increase by 20% just to pay the interest, not to pay for any health care, border security, RCMP or defence. That is just to cover the interest on the Liberal debt. In 2029-30, that will mean that 13%, or almost $1 out of every $7, of what is collected by the government, as taxpayers will be paying not only the GST but also income tax and corporate tax, will be for just the interest.”
“That is almost a third of $1 trillion gone to interest. That is 10% more that we are going to spend on interest than on health care transfers to the province, despite record lineups and record wait-lists for care at hospitals. People cannot find a doctor, but under the government, we are spending 10% more on interest than we are on health care transfers. That is 100% more than we are actually spending on the child benefit. The government is placing a higher priority on spending and on paying interest to Bay Street bankers than on providing money to families, 100% more. It is more than we are going to spend on new subs, the over-budget frigate program, which is about $80 billion over budget, and F-35s. We are still going to spend more on interest than all those needed items on defence.”
“This is the same government that the former finance minister quit due to the costly spending and the need, as she said, to keep the powder dry. She quit over a lower deficit and debt numbers to keep the powder dry, but this government came through and steamrolled over that with $168 billion on top. We have to ask, how much worse does it have to be to end up with deficit numbers that are 200% worse than those of the famed Trudeau government? It was famous, of course, for its profligate spending patterns. That happened despite an increase in tax revenue of over 97% over the time span of the current government. Tax revenues are doubling, yet somehow the government is still managing to spend every penny of that and almost a third of $1 trillion more. There will be $329 billion of interest on this Liberal debt over the next five years.”
“On September 17, the Prime Minister , in the House, stated, “We are going to have a declining level of debt.” Those were his exact words. What did the budget deliver? On the top line is a deficit of $78.3 billion for this year, which is $40 billion more than delivered last year. Public accounts just came out showing a deficit last year of $36.3 billion. What is remarkable is that it is actually lower than what was forecast under the Trudeau government. Under the current government, not so much. The famed banker is delivering worse results than the drama teacher. Let that sink in. There is $322 billion of new debt on the short time horizon of this budget, out to 2030, with $160 billion more than projected in the fall economic statement under the previous government.”
“Mr. Speaker, to start, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Kitchener South—Hespeler . I am pleased to rise, once again, to speak to the budget. It is nice to actually see the budget finally here after a 19-month delay. That is almost unprecedented, but of course we saw the Liberals refuse to actually table a budget one year during COVID, so I guess they are just keeping to their habits. Has the 19-month wait been worth it? The answer is clearly no. First of all, I have to note just how crass and cynical the government is to actually name the budget after the Liberal campaign platform “Canada Strong”. I think the government wants to be non-partisan. It should maybe find its own slogan. In my view, the government always manages to set low expectations, and it always manages to achieve them.”
“Madam Speaker, my neighbour from Edmonton Northwest or, as I call it, West Edmonton Mall northwest, had an excellent speech and brought up a lot of points. This budget is an omnibus budget, just like other Liberal budgets, despite Liberal promises to not have omnibus legislation. It contains probably dozens of required legislative changes, but none of those will cover the important things for Alberta, such as repealing Bill C-48 , the tanker ban, or Bill C-69 , the no new pipelines bill. In fact, it does not commit to repealing the emissions and production cap either. I wonder if my colleague could opine on what this means for Alberta, that the government still insists on keeping Bill C-48 , Bill C-69 and the emissions cap.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his yelling and screaming. It is always fun. It is nice to actually see him have a chance to get up to speak in the House. He talks a lot about misinformation. I wonder if he could comment on his leader 's, the Prime Minister's, saying in this very place on September 17 that we will have “a declining level of debt.” The budget the member is defending today shows five years of increasing debt. Is it a declining level of debt, as the member's leader stated in the House on September 17, which the member is welcome to look up in Hansard, or is it, as the budget shows, an increasing level of debt? Where is the misinformation?”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague started off by talking about how every dollar the government spends is taken from Canadians. What we see at the end of the budget is that in just a four-year period, more than $10 billion more will be spent on interest on Liberal debt than is actually collected in GST, so instead of money going toward health care, it will be going toward interest on the debt. What does the member think of the government's focusing more on money for bankers on Bay Street than for doctors on Main Street?”
“Madam Speaker, in this very House on September 17, the Prime Minister stated to Canadians, “We are going to have a declining level of debt.” This budget shows $169 billion of more debt than what was forecast by the Trudeau government. Does this sound, as the Prime Minister said, like a “declining level of debt”, or is it just another broken promise from the government?”
“Mr. Speaker, every dollar the government spends comes out of the pockets of Canadians in higher taxes and higher inflation. The Prime Minister is giving billions of dollars to Liberal-connected insiders and consultants, yet at the same time, he is telling young Canadians they have to sacrifice more. He has promised to cap spending at a 2% increase, but he is actually growing it by 8%. Who is paying for this inflationary spending? It is the two million Canadians lining up at food banks every month. Instead of trying to cause a costly election on a costly budget, why not deliver an affordable budget for an affordable life?”
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about the fact that the government has not even looked at, or cannot quantify, what the costs are going to be. I have had the pleasure of serving on the operations committee for close to 10 years. My colleague attended as well for a short period. At one time, we had a visiting delegation from Vietnam, from their version of the operations committee. We were looking at a government bill, and the government stated that it had not costed what the bill would cost Canadians. The Communist Party members from Vietnam lectured us, saying that they would never, ever bring forward legislation without knowing what it would cost their citizens. I wonder what my colleague thinks about Communist Vietnam being more concerned about taxpayers and transparency than the Liberal government.”
“Mr. Speaker, one issue we have with Bill C-3 is that the government has no idea how many people would actually be affected by it. How many people would receive citizenship immediately or would be affected down the road and thus be a cost to Canadians, both in our health care and in other benefits? I wonder if my colleague could tell me what he thinks of the seriousness of the government, which is trying to plow through Bill C-3 without taking these implications into the process.”
“Mr. Speaker, through the years, the Liberals have debased our immigration system and our citizenship, whether by flooding the country with foreign students or by being lax on criminals' being allowed in the country. I wonder what the member thinks of the Liberals' stance on Bill C-3 and whether it would devalue the overall value of being a Canadian.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Cambridge for a very well-thought-out speech today. We have seen repeatedly over the years that the Liberals have debased and destroyed the Canadian consensus on the success of immigration and its value to this country. I would like to ask my colleague to opine on whether she believes devaluing citizenship, as the Liberals are doing in Bill C-3 , would help restore Canadians' faith in the government and in our immigration process.”
“Madam Speaker, the reason we are at this point is that Conservatives presented this in committee and the Liberals voted it down. I do not know why they are taking the side of corrupt corporations and human traffickers instead of the side of victims and of workers in Canada.”
“Madam Speaker, I will not thank the member for that question, because it is ridiculous. This is a government whose former prime minister called every single member of the RCMP racist by calling the RCMP systemically racist. I wonder if the member would like to ask that same question of his colleague from Victoria , who stated that we should defund the police in June 2020 or the member for London West , who attended a “defund the police” rally. It is pure hypocrisy on the other side, as always.”
“Madam Speaker, I think we should be thankful that there are no Liberal MPs giving speeches. I do not want to hear the member for Winnipeg North any more than this member does. It is an ongoing issue in the House. The government says it is urgent that we pass the legislation. Yes, it says, it has done nothing for 10 years, but, damn it, this had better get done today. This is just another example that it is not a serious government and it does not take border security seriously. The questions Liberals are posing to us today show that they do not take it seriously. This is just more proof.”
“Madam Speaker, first of all, I am disappointed in my colleague across the way. I realize we joust back and forth, often good-naturedly, but this is a serious issue. Human trafficking is happening on government-funded projects. I want a commitment from the government that if Conservatives bring it up again in the operations committee, to put an end to it, his colleagues will not shut down that study. If Conservatives were to offer an amendment, I would ask the government to amend Bill C-12 to address this flagrant oversight, which allows and encourages human trafficking on government-funded infrastructure projects.”
“This is billions of dollars, and jobs have been taken away from Canadians, legal Canadians. This is two-sided. We have Canadians who cannot get work, and we have the government funding illegal workers. We asked the government if we could investigate this at the operations committee, and the Liberals blocked it. A year ago, we gave this documented information to the Treasury Board with our offer saying, “We will work with you. We won't make it political. We won't make it a partisan issue. We'll work with you to fix it.” The government chose to side with human traffickers instead of Canadians. If the government was serious about Bill C-12 helping Canadians and helping border issues, it would act on this issue now.”
“Cash.” This was for a federally funded project. I will tell a story about a gentleman who fell. He said that he did not remember falling. He lost his memory for 24 hours and woke up in the hospital. His helmet saved him. It had broken in half, but he got a cut and a bump. He fell 25 feet because he didn't have a safety harness. He broke his shoulder and could not move for two months. Who was it who visited him at the hospital? It was the safety officer from this fake company, who came to threaten that, if this were to be reported it to WCB, he would be fired and deported. He said it was terrifying. When he got back after two months, he was told, “Here's your last cheque. Get out.” This is happening every day on federally funded projects such as the LRT in Edmonton, the Henday. I had the Library of Parliament put this together.”
“They are paid in cash, so there is no worker's compensation, no CPP deductions and no EI. If injured on the job, they are fired and sent home. We had a documented case where a person fell, broke his leg and was basically told to get on a plane and fly back to Colombia. That is what is happening on federally funded job sites in Alberta, B.C. and across the country. They do not do drug and alcohol testing. There is no avenue for these workers to report workplace safety issues. If they complain, they are threatened with deportation. I am going to read from a Facebook post. It was posted in Spanish, but I have had it translated. It said, “Edmonton area cash-only projects. Five concrete finishers, six labourers, must have WHMIS, H2S certificates. If you don't have them, we'll provide them for you.”
“Again, there is no protection. Anyone who has ever worked in construction, which I did as a youth, building houses, knows it is dangerous work. Injuries happen. One thing I have to say about the union movement across Canada for trades, and especially in the oil sands, is that it puts safety first. That is not happening at these work sites. There are workers without fall netting, without helmets, without proper PPE. I have provided documented evidence to the Treasury Board that companies are also faking journeyman papers and faking workers compensation papers. What is happening, from the illegal worker's point of view, is that the employer had told them they did not need safety tickets. Counterfeit tickets are provided for a journeyman, boilermakers, etc.”
“They are not eligible for unemployment insurance because they are not paying into the system. However, legitimate companies and legitimate trades people are getting shut out. It is getting to a point, as I said, where legitimate companies do not even bother bidding on government projects any more. (1040) Here are some of the things that are happening. General contractors and major government-funded infrastructure projects are using multiple subcontractors to conceal that many of the workers are being paid cash under the table. These are contract carpenters, labourers, cement masons and other undocumented workers. They may be brought in from Facebook sites, so they will come in with visitor's visas or family visas, overstayed student visas, overstayed tourist visas or expired TFWs. They could also be on EI and working on the side.”
“We interviewed workers and, miraculously, every single worker we spoke to was a subcontractor to the main contractor who won the bid from the government. Every single worker, Latin American, was a subcontractor. They had no employees of their own, but miraculously, every single one of them just happened to have their own company, working independently and, of course, working for cash under the table. Legitimate companies cannot win bids on these government projects. Unionized companies are getting outbid because these other construction companies will bid and then subcontract out the entire job to shadowy construction companies that fill the entire job with illegal labour. They pay cash, sometimes $10 an hour. These workers have no protection. They are not eligible for workers' compensation because they are being paid under the table.”
“The Liberals shut it down and blocked the study on human trafficking on government-funded labour sites. I want to thank my good friend Rob, who is with Building Trades of Alberta, for championing this issue and bringing it to light. It has fought against this for years, because it is a double-edged sword, a double-sided problem. We have people being abused with human trafficking, and on the other side, we have Canadians, journeymen, ticketed trained union members, who cannot get work on government-funded projects because they are being undercut by workers who were trafficked, brought into Canada illegally, and employed illegally on these projects. Rob and Building Trades of Alberta, as well as other trade unions, have done yeoman's work. I actually attended a site with them on the Henday, the ring road around Edmonton.”
“The reason I bring this up, and I will refer to the failed Liberal former minister for infrastructure and the environment, Catherine McKenna, who basically said that, if one lied loud enough in the House of Commons, people will totally believe it. That is my worry about this departmental plan. If the Liberals repeat it enough that they are going to fight human trafficking, people will totally believe it, but the evidence is that they are not. Again, I delivered documents to the government about illegal labourers and human trafficking on federally funded projects. I offered to work with the Liberals, but nothing was done. Fast-forward a year, and just last week, we decided enough was enough. We tabled a motion in the operations committee to study this issue. Can members guess what happened?”
“It is on page 7 and page 14, and on page 25 it is mentioned twice. We have an issue with human trafficking in Edmonton, in Alberta and across the country in the construction world. We have illegal labourers being brought in and hired to work on federally funded government projects. A year ago, I presented evidence to the head of the Treasury Board about this practice. I told them that I would not make it political, and I would not publicize it, but I was providing the information so they could act on it. A year later, nothing has happened. Just last week, CBSA raided the LRT construction site in Edmonton, which is partially funded by the federal government. Illegal workers have been detained and taken off other projects, and the government has done nothing.”
“Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Bill C-12 , the ugly stepchild of the failed Liberal omnibus bill, Bill C-2 . This is, of course, about border security. I am looking through the departmental plan, which was actually signed by the Minister of Public Safety , that covers the CBSA. It talks about human trafficking, and that is what I will be mostly talking about today. Combatting human trafficking is mentioned five times in the departmental plans. For those opposite, departmental plans are the plans submitted by the government to justify the spending for the money it asked for. It lays out the priorities for the government for the following year. It is not a legal document, but it is a document that supports the request for spending. It was mentioned five times that the government is going to combat human trafficking.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about the scourge of fentanyl and what it is doing to Canadians. More Canadians have been killed over the last 10 years, since the Liberals took over, than died in the Second World War. I wonder if my colleague could opine on what he thinks the reason is that the government has waited so long to bring in some of these reforms. Fentanyl has been killing Canadians for a full decade. Why have the Liberals waited until just now to bring in some of these necessary reforms?”