44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 22, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to an important piece of legislation, legislation that I would have liked, ideally, to have seen pass earlier. I would like to break down my comments into a couple of different sections. First, I want to talk about something that has already been raised by two previous speakers and that is the issue of timing.
It is important that we recognize that a substantive report was provided many years ago, when Stephen Harper was prime minister of Canada, that took a look at the ways we could reinforce public confidence in Canada's Royal Canadian Mounted Police, given some circumstances that were taking place at the time. That report came out with a number of recommendations.
One of those recommendations was the idea of having some form of an independent commission that would be able to address complaints, with respect to the RCMP, and to be able to investigate. I looked up that report, and I thought that it had been from around 2005 or 2006. I understand that it was actually brought to the House in 2006.
Mr. Harper was the prime minister at the time, and he chose not to take any sort of action on it. When the government changed in 2015, we did a considerable amount of work and effort on doing an overall review.
The Department of Justice had a number of pieces of legislation that would have been before them. We have been debating several pieces of legislation, virtually from 2015, on a wide spectrum of that department's responsibilities. This is our third attempt to get the legislation through, dealing with the commission.
I believe that our very first piece of legislation was Bill C-2, which was tax relief for Canada's middle class. Members will recall that this was when we reduced the taxes of Canadians, for the most part. We had the 1% wealthiest get the extra tax, but that was our first major piece of legislation.
From then to today, there has been an extensive legislative agenda. We have had to go through some fairly difficult times. For example, the worldwide pandemic required numerous pieces of legislation.
I do not know how many times I have stood up inside the chamber to talk about Conservative filibustering on government legislation. We have seen that consistently for years now. We take a look at it and we say, well, today, we are talking about Bill C-20, legislation that is significant. Not only does it reflect on a report that was provided back in 2006, but it is also a reflection on several years of consultations with Canada's border control agency. Not only are we talking about the RCMP today but we are also talking about the Canada Border Services Agency.
The CBSA plays a critical role, as does the RCMP, every day, seven days a week, 24 hours a day. That whole agency is now being provided the same opportunity that the RCMP with the public and the issues that have been raised with regard to both agencies. I see that as a very strong, powerful piece of legislation that will make a difference.
Earlier I asked about the Bloc's support for this. Its members were fairly clear that they would vote in favour of it. They saw the legislation as a positive and were anxious to see it pass through the House. Then we asked the New Democratic Party about the issue of getting the legislation through the House and the NDP seemed to be just as supportive, recognizing the value of the legislation and the desire to see it pass through the House. Both parties were somewhat critical of the government for not passing it earlier. That is why I highlighted the fact that there was substantial legislation.
If time permitted, I would go into the different types of legislation that the government has had to introduce. There is a finite amount of time that the House actually sits. That is one reason why, with the support of the New Democratic Party, we were successful in being able to extend hours so we could sit beyond six o'clock. If we need to sit until midnight for more debate, we are in that position, thanks to the support from the New Democratic Party. Both political entities have acknowledged that substantive legislation needs to be passed. One way we can ensure there is time for debate is to provide those additional hours, if more hours of debate are required, particularly by the official opposition, prior to passing the legislation.
From questions posed by the Conservatives, I am of the opinion that they also support this legislation.
Once again, we might actually find ourselves in a position where political parties support the legislation. I suspect the Green Party will take a position on it, likely in support. I must congratulate the leader of the the Green Party, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for taking on that role again.
I suspect we have legislation before the chamber that will receive unanimous support of getting it to committee. It would be wonderful to get a sense from the official opposition as to when it would like to see this legislation go to committee. In other words, how many speakers will the Conservatives be putting up? For example, if they are going to put up more than three or four speakers, maybe they should look to the government and suggest we sit additional hours in an evening, so we can get the legislation passed and get it to committee.
It seems to me that the desire is there to see the legislation pass to the committee. There are more government bills on the horizon on which we would like to have debate. When I hear that all members are supporting the legislation, my concern is that the Conservatives might double down, insisting they put up speakers until the government brings in time allocation. The leader of the Green Party will be in opposition to that time allocation and we will have to bring in other parties to support it in order to get the Conservatives to pass the legislation and allow the bill to ultimately go to committee.
We should try to avoid all that. If it is not resolved today, I would encourage the opposition House leader, in particular, to let the government House leader know how many actual speakers the Conservatives anticipate, so we can get it into committee. Literally thousands of people are being directly or indirectly impacted. I would argue that all Canadians are, in one way or another, affected by it.
With respect to the cost expenditure, we are talking about well over $100 million over five years, but the trade-off with the cost factor is building what is absolutely essential when it comes to law enforcement, whether it for our borders or anywhere in between. Public confidence in our border agency and RCMP is absolutely critical. This is one way we can reinforce the many things that need to be done related to the fine work that both CBSA and RCMP agents do for us seven days a week, 24 hours a day.
In listening to the comments from members, I want to provide a general thought with respect to bad apples versus the vast majority. For the vast majority in both agencies, we continue to receive the best service that is humanly possible.
I do not have a problem in comparing our national institutions, in particular, the RCMP, to any other law enforcement agency anywhere in the world. Its members are constantly called upon from other countries and from within Canada to perform in many ways, whether it is training and assistance in countries like Ukraine and many others throughout the world to the absolutely fantastic work they do in Canada.
The same principle applies to the majority of those who work at the Canada Border Services Agency, and I recognize their phenomenal effort. It is very delicate work, as some members have implied. It is almost like a border agent is a semi-god of sorts when someone comes into Canada. That individual is completely dependent on that border agent to make a decision that is favourable to the nation and that decision could ultimately prevent the person from coming into Canada.
The bad apples cause a great deal of issues for both agencies, and we often will see that take place. After all, it is the incident that the public will react to through media reporting which reflects negatively on the institution. For example, when an RCMP officer takes an action that reflects negatively on the entire force, that gets amplified, whether through social media or mainstream media. That is when the seeds of doubt or questionable behaviour are planted in the minds of many, and justifiably so. However, it is because of those bad apples in particular that we need this legislation.
This is why it is so important to recognize the finances to support the public complaints and review commission. That is money well spent.
The public complaints and review commission will have the ability to review and investigate the conduct and level of service of an RCMP officer or a border control agent when an has been issue raised. That is the essence of the legislation. It will allow the chair of the commission to initiate some form of a disciplinary action where it is deemed warranted. Again, that type of action is necessary. At the beginning, when I talked about the time frame, I put it in the form of a question. There has been a lot of time since the report, but the essence of the legislation is far beyond what was recommended back when Stephen Harper was the prime minister.
The vote of confidence that is established when the commissioner provides a recommendation on a behaviour that has taken place is what provides that confidence. Through that recommendation, we will receive an annual report. That annual report will highlight the many different things with which the commission has had the opportunity to deal.
I recognize the importance of the makeup of the commission. I suspect, given some of the suggestions or ideas from the opposition party, we will likely see some healthy debate on this at the standing committee. Given the department's interest and level of time commitment to the legislation, I believe the government is open to suggestions, and I would encourage members to bring those ideas to committee.
I understand there are concerns, particularly related to a number of issues of the day. The Conservatives have raised issues like illegal guns crossing the borders. When we think of the Canada Border Services Agency, it is important to note that it deals with issues such as arrests, detentions, removals, human trafficking, customs, trade, immigration and illegal firearms. The Conservatives are quick to criticize the government on that issue.
I suggest that the Conservatives might not want to bring that issue up during questions and answers. If they do, I will talk about the tens of millions of dollars in cuts to the Canada Border Services Agency that the Conservatives put in place, which reduced the number of border services officers and that enhanced the opportunities for illegal trafficking of guns and weapons coming into the country. I will remind them of their responsibilities to the issue and their lack of commitment and support of Canada Border Services Agency before. Maybe they could come up with a different question, but I will not tell them what they have to ask.
I hope, as I explained in depth why it is important, that the legislation passes.
1963 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will take up my colleague's offer to discuss the CBSA.
I have the public accounts here from a previous year detailing cuts from the time the government took over. Funding was higher in the final year of the Harper era and was cut in the Liberal era. This is from the public accounts.
Who is lying, the public accounts or perhaps someone else?
67 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/22/22 11:30:26 a.m.
- Watch
I would remind the hon. member that “lying” is not a word we like to use here in the House. The hon. member also cannot use props, so I would remind him of that too.
The hon. member for Edmonton West.
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will address that. I did not accuse the member of lying. I asked a simple question: Who is lying, the public accounts or someone else?
28 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/22/22 11:30:54 a.m.
- Watch
I would remind the member that he cannot say indirectly what he cannot say directly.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have a way of trying to make numbers tell different stories.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
20 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/22/22 11:31:14 a.m.
- Watch
There will be time for other questions. I would ask members to please hold onto their thoughts.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have a magical way of manipulating the numbers. I know there are more border control officers today than there were when Stephen Harper made his notable and well-known cuts to Canada's border control. That I am fairly confident of.
45 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always fascinating to hear my colleague boast about the government's actions.
He said earlier that they gave time to the House, that they voted to extend sitting hours until midnight with the NDP's agreement, that they are so democratic, and that they have so much to say. I forget how many gag orders they have forced on the House since I have been here. In fact, we spend half our time in the House debating adjournment motions in order not to debate. It is outrageous. Two weeks ago, they cut off debate on Bill C‑31, a very important bill for housing. In committee, they cut off debate on Bill C‑13 on reforming the Official Languages Act and they no longer want witnesses to be heard. The act has not been reformed in 50 years. There is a major language crisis in Canada and the Liberals do not want to debate it.
I cannot believe that they think this is a great democracy that spends its time debating the big issues.
180 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it seems that every day the Conservatives and the Bloc get closer and closer on certain themes.
At the end of the day, there is a government legislative agenda. As I detailed earlier in addressing the legislation, there is a substantial amount of legislation to support Canadians, whether it was through the pandemic or now to deal with inflation, not to mention other legislative initiatives that are historic. They are for issues dealing with a national dental plan, which will be there for children under the age 12, and for issues dealing with a wide variety of things that are affecting everyday Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
There is a sense of eagerness to get the legislation and the budgetary measures through. Much like when there are opposition days, there is a process that allows for votes to occur. That same principle does not apply to government legislation and, as a result, if an opposition party wants to prevent something from passing, all it needs to do is continue talking, which then dictates that the government needs to take some sort of action in order to get it passed.
193 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member completely neglects the fact that it was the Liberals who failed to deliver on this bill in the last two elections. Both times, the bill died on the Order Paper and did not get through, and that is on the government. Notwithstanding that, I have a substantial question for the member.
Systemic racism is acknowledged to exist in the government, and despite reports and recommendations to ensure indigenous oversight is provided, no such provision is proposed in this bill. Does the government not agree that, given its commitment to reconciliation, this is a major oversight by the Liberals and they must include amendments to ensure indigenous oversight in this bill?
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I know the Prime Minister takes all issues related to indigenous matters very seriously. We also recognize systemic racism is there; it is real and tangible. We have a caucus that understands the issue, and we look forward to this bill going to committee, where no doubt there will be a healthy discussion on that point. If there are ways we can enhance the legislation and make it stronger, I am sure the department, and in particular the minister, would be open to them.
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we in Châteauguay—Lacolle have a major border crossing at Lacolle. Admittedly, we do receive complaints, from time to time, about problems people have experienced at the border, but I also get calls from officers who work at the border. As we know, they have to deal with a whole range of legislation and regulation; however, cutbacks in recent years have limited training in particular.
I would like to hear from my colleague about the importance of this legislation and how it will help border services to better serve the community and Canada.
98 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, to address many of the phone calls the member receives, what the legislation would do is build upon public confidence in Canada border control agents. If, for example, someone is going across the border and is deeply offended because of an incident that occurred, they would have, for the first time, an independent commission where the issue could be raised so there would be a feeling that justice is served.
We know there are bad apples in every profession, including among border agents. Unfortunately, a bad apple is a reflection on all, which is one of the reasons it is important to recognize that legislation of this nature benefits everyone, including border control agents and RCMP officers.
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, first, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his kind words of congratulations. Second, I support this. I have been waiting and waiting to see action taken, as it has been promised for many years. I remember that the initial questions I raised about the Canada Border Services Agency were directed to the minister at the time, Ralph Goodale, who is now our high commissioner to the Commonwealth. Some time has passed and this is urgent.
There are areas I am concerned about. There will be hearings before this commission. It is possible that things could progress to a hearing on the conduct of an RCMP officer or officers, or a CBSA officer or officers.
I would like the parliamentary secretary to give me his opinion, and I do not think he can be conclusive. I am disturbed by the investigation into the Portapique massacres. I am disturbed that something called “trauma-informed inquiry” was used, which meant the people who actually made the decisions and failed to protect the public in Nova Scotia did not need to take the stand. Is there a way to protect against that in this bill?
195 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think the chair of the commission is obligated to provide an annual report. It is important that we recognize how critically important this is for its independence. Through the report provided, I would like to think a number of potential outcomes could come about, including how one might want to further a particular investigation that was conducted by the commission or potential substantial policy changes at the government level, whether it is regulations or even future laws.
80 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, and I will take the member up on this opportunity.
The reality is that I would not want to be a police officer today given the proliferation of illegal firearms on the streets. I would be worried about that, yet the government has done nothing to protect peace officers in that situation. Can he comment on that, please?
78 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, one of my colleagues asked what the Conservatives did when they were in government. At the end of the day, our law enforcement agencies from coast to coast to coast have the confidence of the government of the day. When I say confidence, that means additional supports and resources that I would argue are probably more plentiful than what the Harper regime provided. What we are talking about today is how we ensure we can weed out or recognize more accountability, because there are bad apples that exist in both agencies.
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have many things to say about Bill C-20, but I cannot follow the member for Winnipeg North without offering some response to the absurdities contained within his remarks, something we have come to expect from my friend from Winnipeg North. In particular, the member spoke for about 20 minutes about how people should not be speaking to the legislation, and about how instead we should rapidly pass all of the government's bills. I would submit that, if every member of the House spoke half as much as the member for Winnipeg North, we would be taking much longer, in fact, than we currently do with respect to legislation. I do not claim to be lily-white on that score either, but at least I do not lecture other members about speaking too much.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: You just did.
Mr. Garnett Genuis: Madam Speaker, if I could respond here, there is nothing wrong with speaking in the House, but—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
170 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/22/22 11:41:42 a.m.
- Watch
Order. I understand this is a very lively debate, but it is not time for questions and comments, so I would ask the government side to please hold onto its thoughts, questions and comments until it is time for them.
The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
