SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 132

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 22, 2022 10:00AM
  • Nov/22/22 5:43:11 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-20 
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, we have Bill C-5 before us, which deals with minimum sentences. We have Bill C-21, which deals with guns. Now the member is going over some statistics. I realize there is a great deal of latitude. I am just pointing out that she might want to save parts of her speech for other pieces of legislation that are more—
69 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/22/22 5:43:31 p.m.
  • Watch
Again, I want to remind the member, which he mentioned himself, that there is some latitude with this type of bill. I have the bill before me, and there is a lot that can be brought forward during the debate based on the bill. I want to remind members to please be respectful. The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock can continue.
64 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/22/22 5:44:02 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-20 
Madam Speaker, I have faith in your pronouncements, not in the heckling from the other side. I will be unequivocal. Our justice system is broken and the blame rests with the Prime Minister. He changed the system to cater to the sensibilities of left-wing activists who want to defund the police, rather than support communities who want safe streets for their children and grandchildren. The new justice system puts criminals first and the victims last. It took the justice minister almost a year to appoint a new victims ombudsperson. It puts the wants of one offender ahead of the needs of a whole community. It frees the felon while tying the hands of law enforcement. Despite these challenges, the RCMP in White Rock and Surrey do yeoman's work to serve and protect the residents of my riding, as do the CBSA agents who work at the Peace Arch and Pacific Highway border crossings, which includes dealing with migrants illegally crossing into Canada daily, not at points of entry. They are the first line of defence for my community against human trafficking and the illegal importation of guns and drugs. The Liberals threw CBSA a curve ball last year when they implemented the costly and ineffective ArriveCAN app. Their $54-million boondoggle frustrated travelling seniors, hampered our tourism sector and put border agents in the untenable position of enforcing the mandatory use of the app. As always, CBSA agents conducted themselves with professionalism. With that said, the public should always have a right to question the decisions and actions of any law enforcement agency, including the RCMP and CBSA. We lean into and support these agencies, but also believe in transparency and accountability. That is why Conservatives will support Bill C-20. This legislation requires the RCMP and CBSA to share information related to public complaints with a new body, the public complaints and review commission. The commission would make recommendations for potential disciplinary action to the relevant law enforcement agency with legislated timelines to respond. The bill would require both the RCMP and CBSA to report on actions taken in response to the commission's recommendations. The legislation would also require the commission to report disaggregated race-based data to Parliament. While I will vote for the bill, I am taking this opportunity to raise a word of caution. We cannot allow our public safety institutions to erode any further. Come the next election, whenever that may be, voters in the Lower Mainland and on Vancouver Island can count on Conservatives to clean up the mess made of our cities and of our borders. We will restore safe streets and protect the rights of victims. I have been talking about Bill C-20 throughout.
456 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/22/22 5:47:00 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-20 
Madam Speaker, with all due respect, she did not. What she did was she talked about guns, she talked about various different crimes, and she talked about her position on this government, which is all very important. I listened to her speech from beginning to end, and there were only two or three sentences at about the nine-minute and 30-second mark where she actually brought it back to the bill by saying that what we are going to vote on is the oversight on all of this stuff. I am wondering if she would like to take the opportunity now to comment on why it is important to have this oversight committee set up to look into the conduct, the actions and, indeed, the complaints brought forward. That is what this bill is really about.
137 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/22/22 5:47:55 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-20 
Madam Speaker, it is actually a commission, not a committee. I do not believe the member, who kept referring to me as “she” as opposed to being more respectful and using the term of either “member” or even my riding, was listening to my speech. The whole point of my speech was that we are supporting Bill C-20. We believe in transparency and accountability. We believe the idea of a commission to put forward complaints, filter through and facilitate them is a good idea, but it was also to point out the very hard work and challenges that both the RCMP and CBSA agents face on a daily basis. That was the point.
118 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/22/22 5:48:51 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-20 
Madam Speaker, one thing we could all agree on in this place is that the tragedy of the opioid overdose crisis is something that is of concern to everybody. I would point out, though, that opioid overdose deaths did not begin in 2015. I represent Vancouver Kingsway, and in the Lower Mainland thousands of people died of the opioid overdose crisis before that. I would posit that one of the reasons, if we talked to the families of people who died, is that most of these people were getting their drugs from organized crime, which does not care at all about the drugs being sold. They are buying tainted, dangerous drugs on the street from organized crime, and this is the cause of their immediate death. I am just wondering. What would my hon. colleague say to that? Does she think that we could interdict our way out of that?
150 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/22/22 5:50:00 p.m.
  • Watch
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
9 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/22/22 5:50:00 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-20 
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We all heard it. I would just ask that this member apologize.
21 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/22/22 5:50:05 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-20 
Madam Speaker, I only heard the member for Vancouver Kingsway commit the same sin that I did and that was to accidentally call the member “she”. I apologize.
30 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/22/22 5:50:11 p.m.
  • Watch
I just want to remind members to be respectful of each other, and I am going to leave it at that. I think it is not appropriate to get into a debate about the word “she” at this point. I know that the hon. member was referring to the member, so I think that this is all an interpretation. The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway can finish his question.
71 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/22/22 5:50:39 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-20 
Madam Speaker, I certainly meant no disrespect. Does the hon. member believe that we can interdict our way out of this problem? What does she think about the prospect of trying a new approach, other than the failed war on drugs, to try to make sure that people can at least get the drugs they are addicted to from a pharmacy or some other place where they can be assured that the quality of the drugs they are getting will not kill them?
83 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/22/22 5:51:05 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-20 
Madam Speaker, we believe, on this side of the House, in trying to help lives lost to drugs. We believe in recovery. We believe in helping people make better choices and get to better places in their lives, so that they can get back to being productive. We also believe in being compassionate. I have spent a lot of my volunteer time, over many years now, working with recovery programs and working with those who are the subject of addiction, something that touches on so many lives in Canada and so many of us here in the House and our families. I appreciate the respect that the member for Vancouver Kingsway showed me in the way he spoke to me, as opposed to the previous member from the Liberal Party.
130 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/22/22 5:52:01 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-20 
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I am just going to relate my question to the previous comment from the NDP, where he talked about people who are gang members poisoning our people with drugs. I wonder if my hon. colleague would comment on the fact that the NDP is similarly, at the same time, lowering sentences for people who are doing this very pernicious activity and inserting this risk into the community.
87 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/22/22 5:52:36 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-20 
Madam Speaker, my friend, also having been a prosecutor before he came to this place, is well aware of the havoc that is wrought by drug dealers, drug smugglers and those who would traffic to our children and even incorporate them into gang life at a very young age, partly through getting them addicted to drugs. Yes, it is very serious that the NDP are supporting the Liberals in their soft-on-crime approach.
74 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/22/22 5:53:15 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-20 
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity, as the member of Parliament for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, to speak in this debate on second reading of Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments. Bill C-20 would enact a new stand-alone statute establishing a public complaints and review commission for both the RCMP and the CBSA, replacing the existing civilian review and complaints commission for the RCMP. The bill would also enact additional accountability and transparency mechanisms, including codifying timelines for RCMP and CBSA responses to PCRC interim reports, reviews and recommendations. The bill also includes a provision for mandatory annual reporting by the RCMP and CBSA on actions taken in response to the PCRC recommendations, as well as provisions for mandatory reporting of disaggregated race-based data by the PCRC. The bill would provide for a mandatory PCRC public education and information program. The bill would provide a statutory framework for governing the CBSA responses to serious incidents. I would like to provide—
178 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Nov/22/22 5:54:59 p.m.
  • Watch
It being 5:54 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper. The hon. member will have eight minutes and 15 seconds the next time this matter is before the House.
44 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton for introducing Bill C‑228, which seeks to protect our workers' and our seniors' pensions. I would like to begin by describing the current situation. Right now, companies offer pension plans with specific eligibility criteria and benefits. However, when such a company goes bankrupt, the pension plans may not contain enough money to cover the cost of all the promises the company made to its employees. That has happened a number of times in this country's history. One example is Nortel, once the largest employer in the national capital in Ottawa. When that tech giant went bankrupt, the pension funds were insufficient. There was not enough money to pay the pensions promised to the company's retirees. Many employees have asked me why the company was not required to use the proceeds of the sale of its assets to make up that shortfall. Under the legislation that was in place at the time and is still in force today, in the event of bankruptcy or insolvency, a company must sell all its assets and pay back anyone who has loaned it money and all the individuals or entities to whom it owes money. Obviously, when a company goes bankrupt, it does not have enough money to pay all its creditors, and this means that some people will lose out. Those who lose out may be the banks that have loaned money to the business or the suppliers to the business that have not been paid. In some cases, it could be the pensioners, because there is not enough money in the pension fund to pay the promised pensions. There is no good solution, and inevitably, some people will lose out. In most cases, it is good people who lose out when there are bankruptcies. Also, when a bankruptcy occurs, pensions are in a difficult situation, because big companies typically go bankrupt when the economy is in bad shape or when stock markets are falling. It is possible that both situations may happen at the same time, depriving the pension funds of the money needed to pay out the pensions. Businesses should obviously set aside sufficient funds to guarantee that, in the event of bankruptcy or falling stock markets, it will have enough money to fund these pensions. However, right now, businesses do not have to pay these pension liabilities before paying other creditors. That is legal and the courts decide who gets what. Some are opposed to the idea of giving priority to pension funds as the bill proposes. They believe that this will make it more difficult for a business to raise money from investors and get loans from banks. Bankers will not want to lend them money because, in the event of bankruptcy, the money will go to the pension fund. It is true that it will be more difficult to repay other creditors if the pension fund does not have enough money, but this bill would incentivize CEOs to properly fund their pension fund so that investors will be confident that, in the event of a bankruptcy, the money will be there. Personally, I think this bill is not only compassionate towards people who have worked and expected to receive this money, but also a way to force the market to consider whether the pension fund is adequate today, not 20 years from now, when the company declares bankruptcy. This will force CEOs to invest enough money today to secure the future and the retirement of their workers. If they want to get loans, they will have to prove themselves to the market. People who work their entire lives and are promised a pension should receive it, and that is why the official opposition will support this bill and we will work to bring it into force. I would like to thank the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton, who represents working-class people in her constituency. We know of the grand refineries that do so much of the necessary energy refining for Ontario and that turn our raw materials into final end-use products. These are the hard-working people who should be able to count on their pensions. That is why our colleague, the member for Sarnia—Lambton, has brought this initiative forward. As a quick background, right now, when a company goes bankrupt, all the creditors are roughly on equal footing unless they have secured credit and unless they have collateralized their loan against a particular asset within a company. This means the money can run out as the liquidation happens before a pension shortfall is corrected. This happened to Nortel when it went bankrupt in Ottawa: The largest private sector employer at the time went bankrupt and the pension fund was down. Often, bankruptcies happen when the economy crashes, and that is just when the stock market crashes, which means the funds invested in the pension fund drop dramatically. That awful convergence of factors means that pensioners could be down 30%, 40% or 50%. This bill would put pensioners at the top of the list and give them superpriority in the event of bankruptcy so that when assets are sold, the pension fund gets made whole before other creditors get paid. Some will say this will make it harder for businesses to raise money. That is only the case if their pension is not properly funded. If it is funded properly, the investor will not have to worry about being knocked back behind the pensioners in the event of bankruptcy. The pension fund will already have sufficient dollars with a significant buffer that will protect the viability of the pensioners, and all the other creditors will be in the same position they were without this bill. What the bill would do is incentivize CEOs to make the investments today to make sure their pension funds are in good shape down the road. What happened during the 2008 financial crisis was similar to when Warren Buffet said: When the tide goes out, we find out who was not wearing a bathing suit. That is the case with pension funds. When the tide goes out and the economy crashes, we find out which companies were not investing enough in the viability of their plans. They are then in trouble and are looking for a bailout from everyone else, including the workers who have to take a shortfall. I would like to think that CEOs today would put aside the money for that ugly day down the road when there is a recession so that if God forbid they go bankrupt or God forbid the markets crash, their pension fund is secured. This bill would incentivize them to do that. If they do not, lenders will be worried about lending to them. A lender would go to them and say, “Listen, I would like to buy your bonds or give you a directed loan, but I'm concerned that your pension fund isn't fully solid and that I would fall behind that fund in the event of a bankruptcy.” That would put real-time, immediate pressure on the management of every country to solidify its pension funds in the here and now while times are good in order to raise debt and raise capital for the future. It is for that reason, and for the reason that we must be compassionate to those who have worked hard all their lives, who are counting on those pensions to pay for their golden years and who have earned them, that we have made a promise and that the promise will be kept. That is why the Conservatives are proud to be supporting the bill by our fellow colleague, the member for Sarnia—Lambton, to secure and protect the pensions of our hard-working Canadians.
1315 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to speak to the bill that is before us today. It is really important for us to recognize that Canadians deserve peace of mind when it comes to careers, the amount of effort that is put in and the sense of commitment of workers to employers. I recall many years ago, out in the Transcona area, walking a picket line and talking with a number of individuals who were working for a particular manufacturer. At the time, the amount of money they were receiving, after a number of years working for the company, was a relatively small amount towards a pension. I am talking under the $500 level. For me, personally, I like to think that over the years—
130 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border