SoVote

May/3/24 12:37:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point. It is not that they want to spend hours and hours debating that one sentence and whether we remove it, when it has absolutely no impact on the legislation or on the public complaints commission, but that they want to spend. They want to waste. I see the finance critic for the Conservatives in the House right now, and they want to waste $70,000 for each and every hour—

78 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

May/3/24 12:37:53 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn on a point of order.

12 words

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan

May/3/24 12:37:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we are allowed to mention who is or is not inside the chamber.

19 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

May/3/24 12:38:05 p.m.
Watch

The hon. NDP House leader knows the rules of the House. He cannot say who is present in the House and who is not. He has a few seconds left to finish his answer.

34 words

Rules

Mr. Peter Julian

May/3/24 12:38:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, they have wasted $70,000, so far, on this meaningless debate and delay tactic. I think Canadians would say to get on with the public complaints and review commission. Why did they not accept the UC that I moved prior to question period, which would actually allow us to move to third reading debate on this bill?

59 words

Mr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC)

May/3/24 12:38:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member talked a lot about, really, restricting or censoring the ability of members in the House to speak and voice their concerns about legislation. Does the hon. member think that all members of the House should have an equal right to speak to any bill at any stage of the debate, and if he does not, as the House leader for the New Democratic Party, how does he censor or restrict his members when they are speaking in this chamber?

83 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/3/24 12:39:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my colleague for his French question a little while ago. I was quite impressed with that. His French is coming along well. The reality is that there is no censorship, when one is paying $70,000, to debate deleting one line that has absolutely no impact on the bill. The short title has no impact on the bill itself. This is nothing but a delay tactic. I point out Conservative hypocrisy, when Conservatives rise in the House and say that it is really important that this bill passes and wonder why this bill has not passed, and it is their fault that it has not passed. They held this bill up for months in the public safety committee by bringing forward meaningless motions, constantly, so that we could not actually get to the nuts and bolts of the bill. I spoke earlier about the many amendments and improvements that the NDP brought. As the worker bees of the House of Commons, as the adults in the room, we wanted to improve the legislation so that it was better. However, the Conservatives just want to block it and block it. If one blocks legislation, at least step up and have the guts to say that they have been blocking it for months, that they are going to block it even more and that they do not mind if Canadians are spending $70,000 an hour listening to us debating this meaningless amendment that deletes the short title. If one is going to block legislation and stop good things from happening, at least have the guts to own up to it.

275 words

Censorship

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

May/3/24 12:40:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill. The accountability and transparency of many agencies, including the CBSA and the RCMP, is fundamental. I would like my colleague to explain to me in French why the Conservatives are delaying the passage of this bill right now, even though they say they support it.

52 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/3/24 12:41:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is one of the best MPs in the House. He does a tremendous amount of work and is always very productive. We listen carefully when he asks questions. Honestly, I do not have an answer. Why are the Conservatives saying that this bill is important while doing everything they can to block it, even though their filibuster costs $70,000 for every hour of useless debate? They do not want the bill to go to third reading. That is a useful debate, but they do not want to do it and I cannot explain why.

105 words

Filibuster

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/3/24 12:41:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-20

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak in the House. When I think of Bill C-20, which we are debating today, I cannot help but reflect on what the member for Sturgeon River—Parkland said today, which was that the Conservative Party was disappointed, in essence, that the legislation has not been passed. He was challenging the government on why we have not passed the legislation. The type of hypocrisy we see flowing out of the Conservative Party of Canada is truly amazing. The Conservatives have a far-right mentality of trying to say to Canadians that everything is broken, and that includes what takes place here on the floor of the House of Commons. They like to spread misinformation, and they like to filibuster and do everything possible to prevent things from actually happening in the chamber that is positive for Canadians. On Bill C-20, I agree with the member opposite who spoke to the bill. He talked about the fine work that our RCMP and our border control officers perform, day in and day out. Everyone recognizes the importance of this legislation, but there is only one political party that is going out of its way to see this legislation actually not pass, and that is the Conservative Party, that alt-right group that we witness every day across the way when the House sits. We see that in the behaviour of the leader of the Conservative Party. They do not want to see a productive House of Commons. To those who follow this debate or who follow CPAC on a regular basis, recognize that no matter what sort of filibuster or block the Conservative Party puts in place on a daily basis, we will continue to be there to fight for fairness for all Canadians. We saw that in the presentation of a budget that builds upon Canada's middle class and that provides a higher sense of fairness so that those who have more could cover for other individuals, so that everyone would pay their fair share and so that we would not forget about millennials and generation X. Bill C-20 would go a long way in providing a substantial initiative that is needed to support our RCMP and our border control officers. However, we are debating, instead of trying to get to the matter at hand, in hopes that we could try to pass this legislation. Opposition members know full well that there is a limited amount of time for government legislation, and one would think they would take that issue seriously, especially if they say that they support the legislation. However, instead of allowing the debate to go into third reading, the Conservative Party of Canada has moved an amendment to a substantial piece of legislation. There is a long title for legislation, and there is a short title. This is what the bill itself, under “Short Title”, actually says: “This Act may be cited as the Public Complaints and Review Commission Act.” How much simpler could it be? How could that possibly be controversial? There is no controversy surrounding that issue, so I would ask this question: Why did the Conservative Party member opposite decide to bring in this particular amendment? The short answer is that they do not want it to go to third reading. Rather, they want us to debate that aspect in the form of a filibuster. This is obstruction, something we witness far too often on the floor of the House of Commons. Today, it is a ridiculous amendment meant to prevent legislation from going into third reading. Then the Conservatives will cry that they want more debate time, that they want this and they want that. They bring forward absolutely illegitimate arguments to justify behaviour that I believe a vast majority of Canadians would not support. There are some in society, being the far right Diagolon group, that would support those types of actions. I would say to the leader of the Conservative Party that the vast majority of Canadians would not support or condone the type of far right extreme behaviour that we are seeing being implemented by members of the Conservative Party. This includes bringing in senseless amendments like this one today, which has the sole purpose of preventing the bill from moving forward. At the same time, the Conservatives are tenacious and persistent in their critiques of the government for not bringing forward legislation or not getting it passed. Look at what the member said in his speech. He was critical of the government for not supporting CBSA border control officers. Does the member not even realize that it was the former Conservative prime minister who cut hundreds of jobs in that area and millions of dollars from that department? The member criticized our government on that issue, but we reinstated the funding and added to it. Do the Conservatives not have any shame whatsoever? Do they not realize the hypocrisy that is overflowing from the modern, right-wing Conservative Party? We are witnesses to that hypocrisy, day in and day out, when the House is sitting. The Conservative Party is not there to support Canadians. When we talk about supporting, it means not only getting behind legislation like what we have today and allowing it to pass but also recognizing the initiatives that are there in the budget to support our border control agents and the RCMP by developing the board that the legislation will put into place, being the independent and enhanced public complaints and review commission. That is, in fact, needed. Everyone in the chamber recognizes that, but only one party wants to prevent it from becoming law and having it enacted. The Conservatives will criticize, just as the member opposite tried to criticize us for not taking action on the issue of gun smuggling. Are they serious? The member can take a look at the actions we have taken in comparison to the previous administration, under Stephen Harper. When Conservatives talk about auto theft, the greatest auto theft that was taking place in Manitoba was in that 2004-08 era, under national Liberal and national Conservative governments. The federal government, provincial government and non-profits such as Manitoba Public Insurance came together to deal with the problem. That is why we had a summit. The government took action, contrary to what the Conservatives said. Actions speak louder than words, but all we get is wind from the Conservatives. It does not smell good at all. I would ask the Conservative Party to grow up on the issue.

1107 words

Mr. Dane Lloyd (Sturgeon River—Parkland, CPC)

May/3/24 12:52:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-22

Mr. Speaker, the NDP-Liberals stand in the House today and say it is a waste of time to be debating this very important legislation. It is not a waste of time for all the civil society organizations that have very serious concerns about the bill, concerns that were not fully addressed at committee. The National Police Federation, union officials and working people are concerned that, if there is an unfounded allegation against them, they are off work for a year and are not going to get paid. Conservatives put forward amendments to try to ensure that they would get back pay if the allegation was unfounded. The Liberals defeated them. That is why it is so important to have debates on this in the House. I would draw the attention of the House to the parliamentary secretary himself. He is saying that these are ridiculous motions. On November 26, 2018, he himself moved a notice of motion to delete the short title of Bill C-87; again, on March 6, 2017, the parliamentary secretary put a motion on notice to delete the short title of Bill C-22. The Liberal parliamentary secretary is being a hypocrite in the House. He has done this on numerous occasions, and he should be ashamed.

212 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/3/24 12:53:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there is no hypocrisy. The member should allow me the time to expand on the things he just finished saying. We are talking about substantial legislation, on which there is support from all sides of the House, and how the Conservatives are using this as a tactic in order to filibuster. What makes it even worse is the member's response to my comments. He says, “All these people outside the chamber do not want us to pass the legislation. They are the ones making us do it.” I can tell the member opposite that, at the end of the day, the Conservatives need to grow up, take responsibility, recognize that they too were given a mandate to work with government, not just oppose for the sake of opposing and filibuster everything. They have a responsibility. They're not letting us—

146 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

May/3/24 12:54:17 p.m.
Watch

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Nepean.

8 words

Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.)

May/3/24 12:54:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in a civilized society, the security of communities comes not only from the implementation of laws but also from the public's trust in law enforcement agencies. This trust provides stability and effectiveness in any society. Could the hon. member comment on that particular issue?

47 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/3/24 12:54:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, establishing a public complaint and review commission would reinforce and strengthen public confidence in the system. That is what makes the essence of the legislation powerful; it is a potentially effective tool that would assist in keeping that confidence in two institutions, the RCMP and our border control agency, which do phenomenal work. That is recognized not only domestically but also internationally, and I believe it is one reason the legislation has the support that it has from all political parties in the House. It is unfortunate that one leader, the leader of the Conservative Party, has taken the decision to advocate more for policy positions of the extreme right, which is causing issues here in the House of Commons.

122 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

May/3/24 12:55:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on why his party voted against the NDP's amendment, which called for a standard service time for complaints related to things like systemic racism. Without a standard service time, things can drag on and people do not get answers. The National Council of Canadian Muslims, Amnesty International and many other civil society groups requested a standard service time. Why did the Liberals reject that amendment?

77 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/3/24 12:56:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you can appreciate, I was not necessarily at the committee, nor did I hear the explanations that would have ultimately been provided. The member would be best advised to sit down with department officials or possibly have that discussion with the minister. I appreciate the fact that members of the Bloc and New Democrats have recognized the importance of the establishment of the commission. That is the most important thing. Not only do they recognize it, but, ultimately, they would also like to see it pass. I see that as a positive thing. Unfortunately, based on what we are witnessing today, it would appear that time allocation might be required in order for this to see the light of day. The Conservatives are determined to prevent it from passing, even though they say they support it.

142 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

May/3/24 12:57:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to stand and debate the issues that are so important to Canadians. If I could, I would like to cast light on some of the rampant disinformation and misinformation being propagated by the parliamentary secretary across the way and the House leader from the New Democratic Party. In fact, the member will be very interested to hear that it is a relatively common practice to bring about amendments at report stage. The member himself did so in an example from 2016, which I have in front of me, where he moved a motion that would delete clause 1, which is the short title. His explanation for doing so was not that he was trying to delay and stop legislation; rather, he said that there were important issues that needed to be discussed. There are a number of examples where the member, the parliamentary secretary, was quick to move amendments that were not necessarily substantive but would ensure that certain issues could be discussed. Some of those issues are very important in the context of the discussions we have in this place. I say to the NDP members, and specifically the House leader of the NDP, that they are maybe the worst negotiators in the history of coalition agreements; they have accomplished virtually nothing while propping up a government that continues to do things they complain about on a daily basis. I will put that issue aside. However, I will remind them that they have actually moved a number of amendments. In fact, I have an example here from 2018, where the NDP member from Victoria, seconded by a member of the Bloc Québécois, moved a motion that would have deleted a short title. The indignation shown by other members of this place speaks to how they are so quick to dismiss the very valid concerns that can be brought forward, including, in this case, by members of Canada's law enforcement. I would suggest that what drives the attitude to which they are bringing the debate into the House today is not one of wanting to pass the bill, because here are the facts: The government controls the legislative agenda, yet the bill has twice died on the Order Paper. The government says it is somehow a priority; however, we are now in the third year of the current Parliament, and here it is today. Government members may want to not talk about it. They may not put a priority on it. However, excuse me if I, along with my Conservative colleagues take the opportunity to do our jobs when we have the opportunity to discuss important issues in a bill that we will be supporting. That is why Canadians sent us here. It is indicative of how truly dysfunctional those two parties are when we hear the absolutely absurd rhetoric being propagated by their senior members. When it comes to the substance of the bill we are debating today, many Canadians may not understand the specifics around what we are talking about. I think most Canadians would agree, certainly including those I chat with when it comes to some of the issues facing Parliament. However, then there are those who face challenges, those who have a complaint. When there are concerns brought forward, and specifically, when it comes to policing and, in particular, the RCMP, there has to be a process in place to ensure complaints can be talked about, investigated and evaluated with integrity. My understanding is that, as the study was undertaken at committee, a host of witnesses talked about things that could be made better in the bill. There is agreement among all parties that changes have to be made. This is a shining example, despite the absurd rhetoric from other political parties here today, that there is a desire to see some changes brought forward to ensure there is integrity within our policing system. I would suggest we need to take seriously some of the suggestions that have been brought forward. Various stakeholders, including indigenous chiefs and folks from the National Police Federation, have flagged that there will be resource issues. There are some suggestions that if we do not have a truly independent process, there will be some hesitation, whether among those who come forth with civilian complaints or those within the RCMP. We need to make sure that there is true and needed independence. If it is within the command structure, I am sure we can see how there would be some hesitation about how a complaint might be treated if it was brought forward. Again, I think it is indicative that the other two parties in this place are concerned that we are talking about this, yet they say it is a priority. Here I think we have an example of that. Deep within their ranks, there is this anti-police, anti-law enforcement ideology that is permeating. It is this “defund the police” type of movement. They may not stand for it publicly, although a few of them have. We have heard those things, and Conservatives have been quick to call out the absurdity of that. It is concerning that they say in this place that it is important, yet they are unwilling to actually take action. I would suggest that this is driving the way they talk, which shows such indignation that we would dare talk about this and have additional debate. Therefore, I would suggest there is a deeper cause driving that “defund the police” movement, which needs to be stopped, because in Canada today it is not easy to be a police officer. I speak with police officers on a regular basis. I compliment them and thank them for their service, because it is not easy when they have so many things working against them, whether it is how they feel demoralized when they put sometimes hundreds of hours of work into an investigation, only for the perpetrator to be let back out on the streets, which is absolutely unacceptable, or whether it is some of the other issues they face as we continue to bring awareness to mental health and trauma-related mental health injuries and how all of those things are brought forward. In fact, it was an honour to be able to attend the Sam Sharpe dinner with my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. That was specifically in relation to the military and the story of Sam Sharpe, but it talks about the bigger issue of occupational brain injuries and PTSD and how they can have devastating effects. Therefore, morale within police departments across Canada is certainly a huge issue. There are two specific concerns that I want to bring forward, which are related to this, on how we need to make sure that government is responsive to the concerns. I would simply suggest this when it comes to the RCMP and every aspect of what that looks like, in terms of being able to support our men and women who wear the red serge or the other police services across our country. This was raised to me. I will not get into specifics, but a local law enforcement member, and he will know who I am talking about, talked about how he served as a police officer in Afghanistan, training national police there. He highlighted to me recently how, even though he suffered occupational stress injuries as a result of that service and was there partnered with the RCMP, because he was not a current serving member of the RCMP at the time, he is not qualified to receive the supports that RCMP members would receive. He has been successful, and he is a community leader today, but he has had to bear the brunt of being able to make sure that he fights for those supports himself. He shared his story with me, and I greatly appreciated hearing about his fight. I know my time is running very short, but I would simply say this: There is so much work that needs to be done. Whether it is support for our police services, municipal and all the way up to the RCMP, whether it is law and justice reform or whether it is support for our veterans and our military, there is a lot that could be talked about. It is a worthy thing that we are talking about, and it is something that we should continue to talk about. I find it very disappointing that the Liberals and their partners in the NDP would be so quick to dismiss a chance to raise these important issues.

1452 words

Reform

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/3/24 1:07:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, those were interesting words. I can tell members that I have been a parliamentarian for over 30 years now. Most of that time has been in opposition. I can honestly say that this is really amazing, with this particular Conservative Party, even though it is saying that it supports the legislation. The member himself said that he supports the legislation. Does he not realize that Conservatives, with the amendment they are attempting, are again preventing the legislation from passing? If the Conservative Party was true to what it says inside the House, why would it oppose having the bill go through automatically through a unanimous consent motion, as the NDP proposed, and have it go directly into third reading? The Conservatives said no. Would the member, today, make a commitment now that he would be prepared to see it start third reading today? We do not have to be debating the deletion of some five- or six-word clause. Would he not agree with that, in principle, based on what he is saying?

175 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

May/3/24 1:08:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this would only be from a Liberal and a socialist. Certainly the environment minister openly admitted that he was a socialist. It would only be the left-leaning coalition that we have in this country that would be so scared of doing its job. It is terrified, absolutely terrified, of talking about the issues that matter to Canadians. In fact, it was December 5, 2016, when the member for Winnipeg North, and I cannot say his name, seconded by Mr. Graham, who is no longer a member of this place, moved to amend a bill by deleting clause 1. They are accusing Conservatives of doing things that this member himself has done on multiple occasions. That is nothing more than politicking because they are hiding a defund-the-police, anti-police agenda within the ranks of their party. It is shameful, and they should be absolutely disgraced because of the terrible precedent they are setting.

157 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 308