SoVote

Jun/4/24 11:25:45 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the New Democrats are applauding this record. Canadians right now are poorer than they have ever been and are paying more for services compared to the rest of the world. We have less competition. There was even a limerick on this: The NDP let the Big Fish Swim HSBC Shaw, they're all in RBC and Rogers GREW Sunwing flew right out of view. At the end of the day, the NDP was the only party and its leader to say no to these mergers to help Canadians. When we look at what is happening with grocery prices, it is the only party that could have said no to what is raising the prices of groceries the most across Canada, which is the carbon tax. When we tax the farmer who grows the food, the truckers who ship the food and the manufacturers who make the food, those taxes add costs all the way down the line and grocery prices have gone up. More importantly, when we look at competition for groceries, even though we heard in this House of Commons Loblaws consistently and Metro hardly ever, not once have we heard about the manufacturers, the manufacturing size and scope of these big monopolies that exist not only across Canada but across North America: Nestlé, PepsiCo, Tyson Foods, Kraft Heinz, Archer Daniels Midland and George Weston Limited. Manufacturers are charging excessive amounts for their products because there is no competition. When we talk about competition, I finally figured out why it is so wrong with the NDP and the Liberals. If one were to sit down on a three-legged stool, there is balance. There are three legs and that is really what we are missing in competition: one is regulation, one is competition and one is innovation. The common-sense Conservatives talk about these three things. First, on the need for regulation, we do not believe in the big, powerful companies. We want to make sure there is regulation, companies are held in check and Competition Act changes are made. I have a bill that would eliminate the efficiencies defence. Second, looking at competition, we need small players to grow and compete. Third, we need to make sure we have innovation, new ways to bring innovation and bring more competition to Canadians. I finally figured it out with this three-legged stool. The NDP only has one leg. That is why, when people sit on it, they talk about regulation, regulation, regulation and not innovation or competition. People topple over, and they topple left. It is how it goes. When we talk about what we need for competition, of course we need to talk about regulation, but we have to talk about competition in Canada. No aspect of this motion talks about taking on manufacturers and their large profits or looking at who can grow in Canada. Let us talk about Save-On-Foods with 183 locations in western Canada. Why are we not helping Save-on-Foods come east in Canada? Freson Bros. in Alberta has 16 stores throughout the province, a great, locally owned grocery store. Why are we not helping it grow, expand and get to the rest of Canada? We are looking at how locally owned grocers can play a part in competing in the Canadian economy. There are new innovations right now. People can order groceries on their phones and they are delivered to their doors. There is normally a four-dollar delivery fee, but what is being eliminated? It eliminates the warehousing and the retail store. The biggest advantage that Loblaws, Sobeys and Metro have, besides the leader of the NDP's brother working for one of those companies, Metro, is real estate. The biggest monopoly in some of that real estate is the real estate investment trusts. They own all the land. Of course those grocery stores are going to be tough to compete against because they own the land on which they reside. Grocery right now is a retail game. It is basically a real estate game. They own the land on the right side of Main Street, and people driving home from work, driving to work or on the weekend get groceries for their families. They have a complete and utter monopoly on how we get groceries to Canadians. It has to be about distribution, which is part of innovation. It has to be competition, meaning we are bringing more competitors in. It has to be regulation, but regulation also means that we get rid of the burden of the carbon tax, which we know is increasing those prices. None of that is in this opposition day motion. When we talk about what could have happened for Canadians, there are motions and ideas, but we had ideas up front, we have put forward motions that the government could have made and that the NDP could have said no to, which was opposing the three mergers that are hurting Canadians today. The fact is that Canada cannot even get cellphone prices down. We have the highest in the world. The answer, of course, is the same thing: competition and innovation to get those prices down. When we look at bank fees, open banking will revolutionize banking in Canada, if we can ever do it. It has taken six years to get regulation in place. When we look at airlines, airports and competition as a whole, the only party in the House that is even willing to look at this is the common-sense Conservative Party. A common-sense Conservative government understands there are three legs to a stool. We know we are going to create competition, and we know we are going to ensure there is innovation. We are going to axe the carbon tax. We are going to ensure there are regulations so the monopolies do not control this economy. We will bring back competition to Canadians, to their families and to their savings and their households.

1000 words

Context: House Hansard - 324 - Jun/4/24

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/4/24 3:21:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are like a one-trick pony. They only have one idea, and that idea is to cut the price on pollution or to cut the carbon tax. What the member does not say is that Conservatives would also cut the carbon rebate for 80% of Canadians who get more money back in the rebate than they pay in the carbon tax. Here is the really astounding thing. There are 30 Conservative members of Parliament who represent the province of Alberta. On April 1, when the carbon tax went up three cents a litre, the provincial Conservative government increased it by four cents a litre, and not one Reform-Conservative member of Parliament said anything negative regarding a Conservative tax increase in the province of Alberta. When they look in the mirror, do they ever recognize the word “shame”?

144 words

Alberta

Context: House Hansard - 324 - Jun/4/24

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Jun/4/24 3:46:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to be able to stand and represent the people of Edmonton Strathcona. Today we are talking about the increasing price of groceries. I want to start by talking a bit about my son. I have a 16-year-old. He is 6 feet, 3 inches tall. He is involved in rugby, football, hockey and wrestling. I can tell members very clearly that I know how much groceries cost, because that kid eats a lot. However, I also want to talk about some other folks in my riding. My dear friend Luanne came to my office. She is a senior, and, as one of my colleagues from the Bloc has mentioned, the government refuses to raise the OAS payments. Seniors are living right on the edge in my riding. Luanne came and asked about buying a little meat for her elderly mother. Luanne is living on OAS. She is trying to make ends meet, and she just wants a little meat for her mother in Canada, in Edmonton, in Alberta. I want to talk about people living with disabilities. Bev, one of my fantastic constituents, actually has a guinea pig that she dresses up in Oilers colours; Bev's guinea pig is in my pet calendar that I give out to my constituents. Once again, I want to just take a moment to say congratulations to the Edmonton Oilers. She came in with a meticulously written budget of exactly where every single one of the dollars she gets from AISH goes, and there is no room for error there. There is no going out for dinner. She lives so close to the line. She is so cautious and so careful, and every time grocery prices go up, it is another hit on Bev and another time that she cannot afford groceries. These are seniors and people living with disabilities in our communities, but I want to say that this is not all. Folks who have jobs and who are working can no longer afford to pay for their groceries; they can no longer afford to eat in this country. This is a huge problem, and the cost of food just keeps going up and up. In the last three years, the price of groceries has gone up by 20%. Food banks have reached a 35-year high, and food banks in and of themselves are not a solution: They are a band-aid. Edmonton's Food Bank served 42,000 people in April alone, and a new report by Food Banks Canada said that Alberta's food insecurity rate is 27% higher than the national average. Canadians are skipping meals. This is completely unacceptable, and government is urgently required to step up and help. We cannot continue to wait and to watch the Liberals nicely ask CEOs, who are raking in millions and billions of dollars of profit, to stop. That is not how we fix this problem. If I were to ask nicely for my 16-year-old to clean his room, it might not happen. Sometimes there have to be consequences if he does not do it. I would propose to the government that this may be the same case. Loblaws doubled its profit margin in five years. Metro has the biggest profit margin of any grocery store. In fact, in 2023, the grocery sector made record profits, raking in $6 billion. When is it enough? We should all be asking that. When is it enough profit for them? Canadians cannot afford their groceries; people cannot afford to eat. I should not even get started on what is happening in the northern part of this country. The member for Nunavut has been fearless and tireless in raising this issue, day in and day out, in this place. However, we continue to see the nutrition north program contribute to corporate greed. Of the $137 million that went to nutrition north, $64 million went to the North West Company, and the CEO of that company was paid millions. My colleague from Nunavut has told me that, when she goes to buy eggs in a store not run by the North West Company, they are half the price. The system is broken. Nutrition north is broken. This means that people in the north are not able to access food and that the Liberals' promise to help people be able to afford food in the north is simply contributing to corporate greed. What fix have we seen? The Liberals have set up a task force. They have done no tasks, nor are they much of a force, to take the words from one of my colleagues from British Columbia. Again, it is a perfect example of Liberal talk with no action behind it. We have seen this time and time again. Then we look at the Conservatives, and they have lobbyists within the highest level of their party. When the Conservatives were in power, they cut the corporate tax rate from 22% to 15%, which cost $60 billion in corporate handouts, and $2.35 billion of that went to Loblaws and Metro. In the U.S., they have a 21% corporate tax rate, and they are trying to get that up to 28%. These are handouts to corporations that are gouging Canadians. The Conservatives did this because these are their friends, those whom they represent. This is who is part of their party. These are their donors. Why would we expect that they would do anything else? Here is what we are asking for, what the NDP needs to see: We want to make sure that things are fair for Canadians. We want it to be fair for people to go out and to buy their groceries. My leader, the leader from Burnaby South, and the rest of the NDP caucus want to force big grocery chains and suppliers to lower the price of essential foods or to face consequences such as a price cap. That is a concrete step we could take now. That is a concrete piece of action that could be taken and that would have immediate effects on Canadians' grocery prices. We want to stop delaying long-needed reforms on nutrition north programming. This program is not working. It is contributing to corporate greed, and people in the north deserve to be able to afford nutritious, good food. That is not happening right now. We need to stop the Liberal and Conservative corporate handouts to big grocers. There has been enough of giving money to those who are making the lives of Canadians harder. The NDP has been leading on this issue for years. I understand that the Liberals and the Conservatives want to jump on this bandwagon. Obviously, the Liberals' plan is to talk about how concerned they are, perhaps get a task force together, consult with somebody and ask nicely. The Conservatives' plan, of course, would be to continue to give out corporate handouts to their friends. Their leader, the Stornoway king, is the guy who lives in the 19-room mansion paid for by taxpayers. He is not going to take away the gravy train that all his funders give him. Canadians are going to need to depend on the NDP for this. We have been raising it in committee and in the House for years. The NDP has a plan. We have put forward this plan. There are concrete steps that every member in the House could take. Every member could vote for the motion. It would help Canadians. It would help members' constituents. Canadians are running out of time. I hope members support the motion.

1278 words

Context: House Hansard - 324 - Jun/4/24

Ms. Heather McPherson

Jun/4/24 3:59:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is somebody I have worked with quite closely on a number of different files, and I appreciate her insight and thought process. I would agree with her that this is a very complex issue. There are some things we can do and other things we can continue to work on. Supporting local producers is vital. Supporting our farmers is a very important role that the government can step into and play. I do not know very well the Quebec program the member is referring to. I am a member of Parliament, of course, from Alberta. I congratulate the Edmonton Oilers. What we can do to support local farmers is very different from making sure that corporate giants are not taking $6 billion out of the pockets of Canadians and gouging them. Those are two very different things, and we can very much support one without supporting the other.

152 words

Context: House Hansard - 324 - Jun/4/24

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

Jun/4/24 5:06:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in the House of Commons to speak on behalf of the constituents of Battle River—Crowfoot. I will be sharing my time with my friend, the member for Calgary Shepard. We are here debating a motion that the NDP has put forward in which it is asking for action. The NDP is asking somebody to do something, anything, to address the skyrocketing costs of food. Now, I will agree that the price of food has gone up substantially, but here we are, as the NDP stands in this place and touts that somehow it is not responsible for voting constantly in favour of the measures this government puts forward, which is causing much of that price inflation. Further, its members are asking somebody to do something. In fact, the member who just spoke, the leader of the fourth party who spoke earlier this afternoon and the party's whip are all saying that it is time to do something concrete. The tragic irony is that the motion we are debating today would truly do nothing. New Democrats are accusing the government and saying that it is time to stop asking nicely. They are accusing the Conservatives of focusing too much on the fact that taxes are causing an increase to the cost of food. What are the NDP members doing? Well, instead of proposing measures that would lower the price of food, they are throwing a temper tantrum. They are shirking the responsibility and the opportunity to actually debate and challenge the government to address some of these things. They are simply saying, while stomping their feet, that it is simply time to stop these prices from going up. The tragic irony is that it was only yesterday when that NDP member and every other left-leaning member of Parliament in this place voted against the common-sense Conservative measure that would have axed all the federal taxes on fuel to give Canadians a fuel tax holiday this summer. That member is as responsible as every member of the government for the increased costs that Canadians are facing when it comes to food. I have heard throughout the debate today a pure lack of understanding of the most basic economic principles that are driving up the price of things such as food. In fact, we hear this from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance herself. She is celebrating the fact that inflation is now 2.7%, but that is a misnomer because, as the Liberals celebrate inflation, she says it herself that it has come down, which is misleading in every sense of the word because no costs have come down. What they are celebrating is that prices have increased dramatically, but they are just not quite increasing as quickly anymore. It is a pure example of the economic incompetence that we see in the Liberal government. Its front bench, backed up by a Liberal backbench and the New Democrats, seems to be unwilling to take into account basic economic principles. I am proud to represent a region of Alberta that has a whole host of farmers growing some of the most incredible agricultural products on the planet. My father Jay, my uncle Darren, my family friend Dale and my cousin Grainger are all in the field today planting crops. They are putting in the last of our spring planting season on the family farm and planting oats today. However, here is the reality that farmers face. They are subject to the carbon tax, but not just, as it seems the Liberals and the NDP like to suggest, on what they pay for the fuel that they put into their vehicles. No, it is much more than that. I want to share a basic economic principle here. It is that the carbon tax, by design, is meant to increase the cost of everything in order to drive consumer change. That is what the carbon tax is. Quite frankly, it was the Prime Minister who said it would never go above $50, prior to the 2019 election. After the 2019 election, all of a sudden it was that it would never go above $170. We know that some friends of the Liberals, the very same economists whom the Liberals quote and tout so often, are calling for the carbon tax to be raised to over $1,000. Can members believe that? I have asked the question directly to the Liberals, and they have refused to answer it. A basic economic principle is that a mechanism like the carbon tax drives up the cost of every part of the supply chain. From the farmer who plants, to every aspect of the agricultural operation; then the transportation of the harvested good; the storage of that good; the processing and production of whatever the secondary or tertiary product is; then the further transportation to a warehouse or further processing, or ultimately to a store or something like a grocery store or a warehouse; and then to a grocery store. The product is then sold to the consumer. Further, the consumer has to pay the carbon tax on every part of the process to purchase said product. Take a loaf of bread, for example. Consumers are paying the carbon tax on their home and on the fuel to go to the grocery store. At every single step of the supply chain, the carbon tax applies. By design, it is meant to increase costs. The Liberals have succeeded in accomplishing that objective. Further inflation in that process has had a significant impact in increased costs. What do we do about it? This is what the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton, talks so often about. It is time to empower people within our country: farmers and producers, those who know how to get the job done. Let us lower costs for them. Let us make sure that we lower costs for every step of the food supply chain. As a result, we could see the price of groceries go down for Canadians. We could see Canadians save costs directly. We would see the indirect savings throughout every stage of the supply chain when it comes to food. The NDP members are acting like peacocks today. They are standing up, stomping their feet and yelling that somebody ought to do something. It is an acknowledgement, I would suggest, of what an abject failure their confidence and supply coalition agreement is with a Liberal Party that is truly not worth the cost. Conservatives have a practical plan to see costs lowered for Canadians and then, further, to make sure that we unleash the potential that exists in the Canadian economy, whether that be in energy, agriculture or manufacturing. Anything that can be done, I am confident that our country can do it. It is just that right now it is held back by an ideological Liberal-NDP government that truly does not understand the basic principles of what it is to see an economy prosper. When an economy prospers, it is the people who can benefit at every step of the process. Whether that be the producers or whether that be the buyers of the goods, when there is a free market that is functioning at its best, prosperity reigns. We can get back to that point when the member for Carleton becomes the prime minister and unleashes the true potential of our nation. That is why Conservatives are going to bring it home.

1261 words

Context: House Hansard - 324 - Jun/4/24

Mr. Damien Kurek

Jun/4/24 5:19:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I always find it interesting that, as somebody who is proud to come from a farming background, I am lectured often by other members from different political parties about how farmers should address the challenges related to climate change. Farmers are up to the task. They are capable of ensuring that they can provide the high-quality products that Canadians need at an affordable price. However, I will tell the House what the biggest inhibiting factor to that is in our country today. It is a big, bloated government with a bureaucracy that is driving up the cost of everything and with policies that are intentionally designed to raise prices to change consumer behaviour. Those policies are supported in many cases by the Bloc Québécois. I would simply end my response to the member with this: If the member is concerned about rising costs, including the cost of energy that has an impact on the supply chain, then I hope he would take seriously the need to support Alberta energy's getting to global markets so that we can, in fact, be a world leader. We not only want to drive down emissions, but we also want to be able to provide high-quality goods, like food, to Canadians and to so many people around the planet, at a cost and with an environmental footprint that Canadians can and should truly be proud of.

240 words

Context: House Hansard - 324 - Jun/4/24

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Jun/4/24 5:21:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour, obviously, to rise and speak on behalf of my constituents in Calgary Shephard. I know that the residents have seen it fit to send me back here to speak on their behalf. One of the issues that I often get emails and phone calls about is the daily cost of living. Whether it is constituents' cellphone bill, rent, mortgages or prices at the grocery stores and elsewhere, the cost of goods and services is going up, and everybody sees it all around them. A lot of that is related to decisions that were made during the pandemic. The government massively increased the monetary supply and more than doubled the national debt at the time. We know from the Auditor General and the PBO that only about $205 billion of the $600 billion in spending had nothing to do with the pandemic. There is a lot of spending there. On this opposition day that has been put forward by the NDP, I heard one member on the other side whom I want to correct. The member for Edmonton Griesbach was talking about three apples for $7. My favourite store in Calgary is the Calgary Co-op. It is a co-op with 400,000 members, and I am a member. There is no way; one would have to buy a lot of apples. I highly recommend that the member drive down from Edmonton, go to the co-op in Calgary and purchase my favourite, which is Granny Smith apples, for $1.32 for every single apple. If he buys more, he gets a discount. It is highly recommended that he do so. Again, someone can pick and choose which grocery stores they want to go to. There is choice out there. One thing I will mention is that the federal government is making it making it more expensive to shop at Calgary Co-op because the government has banned the store's fully compostable green bags, which have no plastic in them whatsoever, from being used, despite the fact that the City of Calgary worked with Calgary Co-op to create a bag that was fully compostable in the city's composting system. Even the ink does not have any plastic in it. It is not artificial. It is a completely recyclable bag. I have tabled petitions on behalf of the residents in my riding. I have spoken up on it. I have sent the minister letters on this fact, pointing out to him that the City of Calgary is one of the first movers on compostable bags in its jurisdiction, trying to address the issue of single-use plastic bags. I will say that I prefer the compostable bags. There are many residents who have emailed me, many more than I ever thought would. There is now the ridiculous situation where one has to buy the bags in a roll. The clerks are not allowed to give them out. People have to buy them from a bin right before the cash and then have their groceries bagged. They are much more expensive than they were before, and that adds to the cost of buying groceries unless one remembers to bring cloth bags or one's own other bags. Many of us forget to do so. When someone has kids and the kids are hassling them, it is very difficult to do. That is just one very small example of what happens as the cost of daily living increases. Some of the examples that they have here include the government's ordering companies to reduce prices, as if that would work, when the government is pushing up prices because the supply chains are stressed and because the monetary supply has been vastly increased. There are more dollars chasing fewer goods and services. It is as true today as it has been for decades before. I especially find it concerning that the government would introduce price caps here. Price controls have never worked in any jurisdiction. It has been attempted. It leads to rationing by suppliers and by producers, because if someone cannot get the price that it costs to make the product and to ship it, so that it can be on our store shelves, that makes them not do it. Therefore we run short of goods. This was true in western Germany. It was true well after the war. It is true in many jurisdictions for different types of goods and services when the government puts a cap on prices. It was tried in Canada in the 1970s. Famously, it was tried in the United Kingdom by a Labour government, and it led to shortages of goods and services. In the United Kingdom, the national Labour government was actually setting tax rates. The national government of the U.K., in the 1970s, set tax rates. It is reported in one of Lady Thatcher's biographies in which she wrote about her time in government. I would think on (b) in the motion, with respect to the delays in long-needed reforms to the nutrition north program. I think many of us would actually agree that reforms are needed to the program. I do not think anybody disagrees. We have had some of the prices quoted back to us as to what it costs to live in the north. I think that for me and other members who have come to be educated thanks to others who have done the research and who have put forward the numbers, this is something we would generally agree with. However, it then goes on to say, “stop Liberal and Conservative corporate handouts to big grocers.” I wonder when the NDP leader is going to talk about his brother, who lobbies for Metro. I wonder when we will have a conversation about all the big, major corporations that are so busy lobbying ministers. Some of these ministers were lobbyists before they became ministers and are now buddies with the people they were lobbying. I would like to hear more about that. In Alberta, one of the major costs and cost drivers for suppliers of produce and grocery goods on the store shelves is the carbon tax. Before the rebate, the average family in Alberta will pay $2,943. Every Alberta family will be worse off in just a few years if they are not worse off right now, on average. Consistently, many constituents are sending me their Enmax bills and Hydro One bills, which show that they are paying a lot of money, sometimes more than they use in natural gas, just on the carbon tax. I have a great love for Yiddish proverbs, and I know there are those who appreciate it when I use them. A fool says what he knows, and a wise man knows what he says. Now I can transition to what I think is the greatest foolishness: budget 2024. The $61 billion of new spending in it will only drive up the cost of our goods and services even further. This is $61 billion of new government spending that the coalition has decided to support, further driving up the prices of goods and services in Canada. It is not just me saying this. RBC says it. CIBC says it. TD says it. The big banks are reporting it. Economists are saying it. Analysts are saying consistently that if we drive up public spending and drive up public borrowing, we will crowd out private spending and private borrowing because they become more expensive and there are fewer goods to go around. In fact, RBC's budget analysis headline for federal budget 2024 was “Lack of spending restraint offset by revenue surprise and tax hikes”. This is the last thing I want to raise. We often say in this place, and I hear rhetoric from the NDP side on it, that companies are being greedy and that usually it is just profit-making. Companies are trying to earn a profit, whether it is a family company or a company that has shareholders. What about government greed? What about the government incessantly raising taxes on everyone in this country and then expecting to get as much of that revenue into its pockets as possible so it can have a Liberal green slush fund? The Liberals are so embarrassed by it that now they are going to shut it down. What about government greed and the incessant voracious appetite for tax dollars so they can be misspent, thrown away and corruptly given to consultants? This is something I do not hear the New Democrats and Liberal MPs talk about enough. We have endless examples of corruption in different government bureaucracies. The latest is the SDTC's green slush fund, which the government has admitted to and is shutting down. The government is abandoning it and trying to run away from its own board members, whom it appointed. They corruptly gave money to the corporations they ran. However, that money came from taxpayers in each of our ridings, who paid more at the end of the day. Families in my riding, as I said, pay $2,943 more in carbon tax. That does not just raise the price of groceries. It is on their utility bills and it is for the staycation they want to take. It is in all the goods they are buying for their homes. All of those costs are incurred as part of it. There are shipping costs too. There are no farms in my riding. The closest connection we have to farms in my riding is the grocery stores, and it is the same thing for seafood. That is the closest connection we have to the food chain, and when we go to grocery stores, we see prices being inflated because the shipping costs have gone up so high.

1651 words

Context: House Hansard - 324 - Jun/4/24

Mr. Earl Dreeshen (Red Deer—Mountain View, CPC)

Jun/4/24 8:46:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-20

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise and speak on behalf of the constituents of Red Deer—Mountain View. First of all, I would like to simply speak to our RCMP, who have done such a great job. They have been neighbours and fellow coaches. They are the ones who run into emergencies when trouble comes, and I appreciate their commitment to the community. Certainly, as someone who has spent some time working with rural crime in Alberta, as one of the co-chairs of a report that we sent out, it is an honour for me to be able to speak to the other side of the issue. Those of us who have been in this place for a long time also know that there are many cases that are referred to the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, and we always hope that there are solutions that can help in that regard. With the rise of hate-related incidents in Canada, we are now more in need of a strong police force than we were several years ago. Therefore, the need never faded; it has become much more pronounced. Considering that a rise in crime results in a growing need for police, we must take steps to hold law enforcement bodies to the highest standards while standing up for the security of Canadians. The public complaints and review commission, as it is proposed, is an overdue effort to carry out these objectives. The commission would investigate complaints made by the public against the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency. In fact, this oversight was promised by the Liberals in 2015, and the government is now trying to ram it through one month before Parliament breaks. This comes after nine years in government. I want to be clear in my support of the bill and its efforts to create the effective oversight of federal law enforcement agencies that Canadians expect, but I am disappointed that it has taken so long for the Liberals to follow through on their initial promise to Canadians. The Conservative Party supported the legislation in its previous iteration at each stage without amendments. The Conservative Party believes in the dignity of our borders and ensuring that the CBSA is properly resourced in both manpower and equipment. The commission would grant explicit oversight over the Canada Border Service Agency and push the CBSA to be even more effective alongside the RCMP. The current process by which the RCMP is held accountable to the public, along with the current lack of such a process for the CBSA, presents challenges that may undermine the public's trust in our law enforcement. We often speak of avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest when discussing matters of ethics. This matter is no different. The National Police Federation made a submission to the House on Bill C-20, citing a number of disadvantages with the current way the RCMP is investigated by the existing Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, the CRCC, which often refers matters back to the RCMP for internal investigation. Some of these disadvantages include perceived bias of police investigating police, a lack of independence, a lack of transparency and reduced trust in our investigative process. With the lessons learned from the flawed implementation of the CRCC as a means of holding the RCMP accountable to the public, I am glad to see that the proposed legislation would move us in the right direction of a more independent means of oversight. The CBSA is an important part of maintaining the integrity of our borders; however, as with any arm of the government, it must be held accountable to the public in a timely and efficient manner. With that in mind, I want to draw attention to two areas that are significant. I believe that aspects of the bill would lead us in the right direction, but I also believe that aspects of the bill are setting the commission up for failure. I am happy to know that debate and discussion on the bill will continue as it moves forward. First, I want to go back to my earlier point, in which I illustrated the importance of avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest in matters concerning law enforcement here in Canada. As of right now, it is true that there is no separate or independent apparatus designated to review civilian complaints lodged against the CBSA. This is deeply concerning, as it brings us right back to the same problem. When border agents must investigate complaints internally, this presents the appearance of a conflict of interest and may undermine Canadians' trust in due process and the accountability of federal agencies. With a commission that will not consist of current CBSA members or agents, we would be able to largely minimize the risk of there appearing to be a conflict of interest when complaints of this nature are being investigated. In this way, we will be doing what we can to ensure Canadians' trust in our federal agencies remains strong. Establishing an independent commission that does not rely on the resources of the RCMP or the CBSA will also reassure taxpayers that the funding for these agencies is not being spent investigating wrongdoings against the public. Conservative estimates of an average of 1,500 investigations per year, requiring 40 hours each, will cost taxpayers roughly 60,000 work hours, with no cost recovery mechanisms. On that note, I believe that this proposed legislation is taking us in the right direction. However, I also believe that more discussion needs to be had on the nuances around the structure of this commission and the delegation of tasks. Making note of the latter of those two things, I would be interested in seeing discussions around how we can ensure that the resources of the commission are deployed efficiently. I especially wish to highlight this point, as the Canadian Bar Association wrote this in their submission on Bill C-20: “It seems inevitable that as the Commission's workload increases, delays will grow.” This brings me to my next point, which is around the glaring omission of a maximum delay for the commission to resolve complaints. In its current form, Bill C-20 places the onus to set resolution timelines on the commission itself. While I can understand why this language was chosen, I'm also concerned with the statements raised by the Canadian Bar Association, which I mentioned earlier. It seems like common sense to think that, as we consolidate the duties of investigating both the RCMP and the CBSA into one commission, the workload of the commission will increase. In its submission on Bill C-20, the Customs and Immigration Union said, “we fear an investigation could take years to complete, which is neither fair to the employee under investigation nor to the complainant.” Ambiguity in the resolution timeline of these cases, especially in the most egregious of complaints, is a disservice not only to Canadians but also to the future commission. Setting out concrete timelines in which every step of the complaint process is accounted for will show that our government is taking our responsibility to Canadian taxpayers seriously. It will also show our commitment to the RCMP and CBSA officers and agents who work tirelessly to serve Canadians by maintaining our domestic security and the integrity of our borders. These are necessary considerations that must be discussed and debated as consideration of the bill continues. While I do support the bill, I believe more work needs to be done to address the matters I have raised so far. Let me be clear: With the reckless use of time allocation and programming motions by the NDP-Liberal government, the Conservative Party is doing what it can to ensure that proper debate takes place on critical government bills. As we pass legislation to improve the lives of Canadians, we must exercise caution so that we do not make matters even worse. When bills are not afforded adequate time for debate here in the House, we risk missing the observations and voices of Canadians, which may prove to be consequential in our discussions around shaping the federal policies of this nation. It is our unique responsibility to ensure that the proceedings here are conducive to fostering an environment in which open debate can always be had. Canadians look at us in our roles as members of Parliament and how we navigate discussions in which we may have differing opinions. It is important that we continue to ensure that we have ample debate on proposed legislation, showing Canadians that we take this responsibility seriously.

1449 words

Context: House Hansard - 324 - Jun/4/24

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Jun/4/24 8:59:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Conservatives like to pride themselves on being the law and order party, the ones who stand up for police, but I just want to talk about Coutts, Alberta. Two of the four men charged with conspiracy to commit murder at the Coutts border blockade in southern Alberta have now been released from custody. There were arrests, and there were crimes committed. Can we guess who was supporting the convoy protesters at Coutts? It was members of the Conservative Party. There is heckling, but it is in the news. When do they decide to support people in positions of authority and when do they not, with freedom for some and not for others?

118 words

Context: House Hansard - 324 - Jun/4/24

Mr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC)

Jun/4/24 10:45:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell and I served several years together on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, and it is nice to be in the House debating with him. I appreciate his comments, especially around the makeup of the PCRC, and I tease him about all the acronyms used. I am wondering if he could explain the PCRC. He talked about appointments representing our wide diversity in Canada, but how would it be looked at from a geographic perspective? CBSA issues and RCMP issues in Alberta are very different than in downtown Toronto and across the country. How is the bill set up so the PCRC would properly be representing those differences?

120 words