SoVote

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

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

May/3/24 1:09:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I take umbrage with a number of comments, starting with respect for the police. At the health committee, we had police testify on the toxic drug crisis, and as soon as the Conservatives did not get the answers they liked, what did they do? They tried to test the credibility of the RCMP and undermine it. This is totally unacceptable. These are the people who protect us day in and day out. He also cited that the NDP has gotten nothing done out of our deal. I am going to name a few things: a national dental care plan; a pharmacare plan, so that people who have diabetes can get insulin; a school lunch food program; a youth mental health fund; anti-scab legislation; a doubling of the GST tax credit to help people deal with inflation; a doubling of the firefighter and search and rescue tax credit; a renter protection fund; a red dress alert; and more money for child care and housing. I could go on and on, but maybe the member could name just one opposition party, outside of Tommy Douglas bringing in universal health care, that has gotten more done for people. Maybe he could even name one thing that the Conservatives have gotten done in the last nine years.

216 words

Rcmp

Mr. Damien Kurek

May/3/24 1:10:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. He just provided a list. I do not have the time to dispel many of the myths that the member is propagating. Let me simply say this: Many of the things on that so-called list of accomplishments are things that they compromised on, things that they have not actually accomplished, things that are not being delivered, or things that are billed as one thing. However, Canadians, including Canadians who reach out to me to ask questions about the specifics of those programs, express extreme disappointment, including of members. Although there are not too many of them, there are a few people in my constituency who have voted NDP in the past. They have expressed to me extreme disappointment with how that member and that party have sold their souls to the Liberals. Let me say this: When it comes to the toxic drug crisis, there is a very clear sentiment that I hear across this country, and it is that the failed policy that the Liberals and the NDP are pushing upon Canadians is not something that Canadians support. This needs to end, the free drugs and, in many cases, taxpayer-funded drugs. We need to get people who are suffering from the challenges associated with addiction into the treatment they need so that they can get better, and not simply, as the minister suggested the other day, not dying alone. They should not die at all. Let us get them into treatment. Let us give them hope because that is the promise of what this country is, not the embarrassment that it has become under the NDP and the Liberal government.

278 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

May/3/24 1:12:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-20

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C‑20. Basically, this bill, in its very essence, seeks to increase people's confidence in the justice system and to hold accountable all those across Canada who ensure our safety and that of our borders. This bill holds that the RCMP and the CBSA deserve certain things to make their work a lot more effective. We are well aware that the challenges of today, in 2024, are a far cry from the challenges of 30, 40 or 50 years ago. Leaving aside social media, just think of the transfer of information, and the quick and effective access we have to information today thanks to AI and other tools, like our smart phones. These tools have taken national security challenges to a whole new level. They have changed and our tools must be adapted. That is why this bill seeks, as I said earlier, to increase Canadians' confidence in the RCMP and border policing system. It also aims to ensure that their work is done properly, and therefore gives them even more relevant and practical powers to address the actual problems that police officers have to face. It is important to understand that information is the key to security, particularly when it comes to long-term criminality, which is what the RCMP deals with. This has to do with international relations, where foreign powers or individuals from foreign states infiltrate our country, and, of course, the access people have on our soil. Let us not forget that Canada has the longest non-military border on the planet. Obviously, we share that with our American partner, so we are not alone. We share the border with the Americans. It is more appropriate to put it that way, out of respect for our neighbour. We share the world's longest demilitarized border. It is 8,891 kilometres long. I am referring, of course, to border dividing the north from the south, the one closest to where we are now, between Canada and the United States. However, we must not forget the border that is more than 2,400 kilometres long, between Alaska and the northern part of our country, the northwest boundary of our country. The challenges at the border are immense. We can take great comfort in the fact that our Canada-U.S. border is one of the best. That said, it also presents certain challenges. I will come back to that later with the issue of illegal firearms. It is important to understand that, under the current circumstances, border services have completely different challenges. That is why we need to review certain aspects of the border services organization and the RCMP. That is what this bill seeks to improve. This bill is not perfect, but overall we believe that it is a step in the right direction. Among other things, we want to improve communication between the various law enforcement partners and law enforcement authorities, whether we are talking about the border services or the RCMP. We also want much more fluidity of information. On the other hand, we want to reinforce the respect that people should have for their police forces and their border service officers. If, by some misfortune, something happens and someone ends troubled by a situation and feels they have been mistreated in connection with a problem at the border or with the RCMP, that complaint must not end up in limbo or fall through the cracks, as they say, and not be spoken of again. We therefore need to strengthen the rights of citizens to complain about situations that they feel are completely inappropriate and ensure that investigations into such situations are conducted properly. That is where we have some concerns. Police forces have said that an officer's career can be tarnished for months if a citizen wrongly reports them for inappropriate behaviour, and in the end it is determined that everything was done by the book and that the complaint was unfounded. It is a very long process, so we need to be aware of that. We presented an amendment in that regard, but unfortunately, it was rejected. That being said, we still need to keep in mind that this bill also seeks to give more flexibility in addressing new challenges, as I said earlier. Let us take auto theft as an example. In recent years, there has been a sadly astronomical increase in car theft. As members of the official opposition, we have diligently done our job by tackling this problem head on and proposing concrete and effective solutions. I would like to point out that those solutions have been very well received by the people who have first-hand knowledge of the situation, namely the police. To begin, our leader, the Leader of the Opposition, leader of the Conservatives and member for Carleton, made an announcement in Ontario and, the next day, an announcement in Quebec. The first announcement was about ways to tackle auto theft and indicated that we will ensure we take a much more punitive approach to those who commit these crimes. No more weekend house arrests, known as Netflix sentences. With those types of sentences, the person sentenced can spend the weekend at home in their basement, watching Netflix. We proposed tougher sentences, specifically in a bid to scare off the miscreants who might be tempted to get involved in car theft. That is another thing. The first step is to go after the thieves themselves and ensure tougher penalties. Second, border services officers, especially those working in ports, have to be properly equipped. That is why our leader made an announcement at the port of Montreal, which many observers welcomed as the right thing to do. Our leader promised to properly equip our customs officers and customs services, exactly the people called on to flush out abnormal and illegal situations inside containers concealing vehicles stolen just hours earlier from downtown areas, whether that be Toronto, Montreal or somewhere else. Our proposal is to provide real search tools. That means 24 X-ray scanners, devices that can see through containers and identify their contents. We have to properly equip our people, buy 24 new X-ray scanners and hire 75 people to perform checks at ports, especially in Montreal. Our proposal, articulated by the Leader of the Opposition and MP for Carleton, was two-pronged: to make sentences a lot harsher and to properly equip our border services. This is a practical response to a real problem. The approach is not dogmatic, aimed at setting ambitious targets or whatever. These are concrete actions. I was very proud to see the Quebec National Assembly vote unanimously on a motion just a few days later that very closely reflected the Conservative proposal, that is, to toughen penalties and provide the necessary tools. That is exactly what we were hoping for. Auto theft is a major problem for border services. There are also illegal weapons, which I mentioned earlier. We know that there has unfortunately been a huge increase in violent crimes committed with weapons, especially illegal weapons. We know that this government, initially supported by the Bloc Québécois regarding which firearms would be prohibited, took a completely dogmatic and disrespectful approach. Pages and pages of weapons, hundreds of them, were to be prohibited. However, as the front page of The Globe and Mail clearly showed, they were essentially weapons that had absolutely no criminal purpose. They were, in fact, hunting rifles. Unfortunately, we know that illegal guns cross the border quite often. This needs to be properly addressed. That is why, when we talk about security, the border and the work of the RCMP, we do it respectfully and in concrete terms, focusing on realistic, responsible, applicable and effective solutions. What is more, our solutions respect those who work in the RCMP or in our border services across the country to ensure greater security for all Canadians. We sincerely thank them. We appreciate their work and their commitment. Far too often, they put their lives at risk to keep everyone safe throughout the country. We are very grateful to them. We will vote in favour of this bill. We would have liked it to be a bit more tailored to the reality of these workers, but, generally speaking, it is a step in the right direction.

1408 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

May/3/24 1:22:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I just want to set the record straight. My colleague spoke about hunting rifles. The Bloc Québécois has never been in favour of the list, which did not make any sense. We were the first to speak out against that. I would like to remind the House and my colleague that, when it comes to firearms, the Bloc Québécois's position is by far the most responsible one, at least in my opinion. We suggest respecting the rights of hunters while banning assault weapons, so that attacks like the one at the École polytechnique never happen again. In that regard, I would like to recognize the tremendous work done by my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, who managed to negotiate and obtain something constructive. On one hand, we have the government, which wanted to restrict the rights of hunters. On the other, we have the official opposition, which wanted to continue to allow assault weapons. That is unacceptable. Attacks like the one at the École polytechnique must never be allowed to happen again. Will my colleague recognize my colleague's great work?

201 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell

May/3/24 1:23:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that one of his Bloc Québécois colleagues was very clear during a parliamentary committee study. I am quoting him from memory and I will admit right away that it is not exactly word for word: It is so good, you would think the Bloc Québécois wrote it. Facts are facts.

67 words

Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.)

May/3/24 1:23:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in any society, the public should have trust in its law enforcement agencies. We cannot maintain security in any community with just the implementation of the laws, but with the very clear involvement of the community, and the community should have trust in the law enforcement agencies. I would like to ask the member whether he agrees that this bill, through the establishment of this commission, would work towards increasing transparency and helping to build Canadians' trust in our law enforcement agencies.

84 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell

May/3/24 1:24:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments from my colleague. I think I said many times that we would support the bill. We are saying that the bill is going in the right direction and, yes, we need to confirm the responsibility of our people who are working in the RCMP and in the CBSA. The issue is that we have to modernize our rules, obviously. In 2024, and in the years ahead, the challenges are far different from what we had 30 or 40 years ago because of artificial intelligence, social media and also the transfer of information. We are saying that the bill is going in the right direction. It is not as good as we expected, but at least it is in the right direction.

127 words

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

May/3/24 1:25:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech as well as for pointing out that facts are facts. Speaking of facts, although the Conservatives are saying that this bill is important and that we must move forward, all we see is obstruction. On one side, we have the Bloc Québécois; everyone knows them. On the other side, we have the “block everything party”, which is the Conservative Party. The Conservatives filibustered in committee and are now forcing us into a pointless debate. In fact, technically, we are debating the title. That is what the Conservatives are making us do today. We are wasting our time debating the title, even though they are saying this bill is important. I do not understand the position of the Conservative Party, which is stepping on the gas and slamming on the brakes at the same time.

149 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell

May/3/24 1:25:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I find it unfortunate to hear that from a colleague who has been in the House for 13 years and two days now, if memory serves. Yes, that is right: He was first elected on May 2, 2011. I am grateful for the day he was elected. However, it is unfortunate to see such an experienced member lament the fact that we are having a debate. That is why we are here. We have raised issues. The other side also raised issues. That is perfectly fine. In terms of what debates over titles are acceptable, I would like to remind the member that his party previously supported a motion, moved by another party, which sought exactly that, a debate over a title.

125 words

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

May/3/24 1:26:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I just want to take the opportunity to correct something from my hon. colleague from the Bloc Québécois. He did use the term “military-style assault rifles” when referring to the legislation. However, there is nothing in the legislation that refers to that, so it does bother me when we hear misleading comments that confuse Canadians. My question to my hon. colleague is specifically about the bill and why it takes so long for any legislation from this government when it comes to accountability. This was actually passed at committee last November, and here we are six months later. To give another example, I sit on the NSICOP committee, and while that act was mandated to start review a year and a half ago, the government has yet to bring legislation forward to do that necessary review. Could the member just elaborate on the importance of actually dealing with accountability legislation, and the lack thereof, by the government?

166 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell

May/3/24 1:27:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the last time we debated this bill was back in November. For six months now, this bill should have been debated in the House, and yet for six months those members on the other side of the House found a not to debate it. If the debate is all that urgent, why did they not put it on the agenda over the past six months, as they could have and should have done?

75 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 308