Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, we have a great respect for the fine work that our farmers do day in and day out, 365 days a year. Let there be no doubt about that, whether they are addressing the needs created in drought situations or promoting trade. Earlier this year, I was with the Minister of Agriculture when we opened up one of the greatest economic opportunities for the future of agri-foods by opening up an office in Manila, a trade office for 40 Asian countries. I wonder if the member would recognize that we not only have budget measures to support farmers but also other initiatives. Does the member support the Indo-Pacific Agriculture and Agri-Food Office opening in Manila?

Mr. Speaker, and then there was reality. The reality is that we have a government that is actually building literally thousands of homes in co-operation with other levels of government. Contrast that to the leader of the Conservative Party, who, when he was the minister of housing, in one year, built, and I need two hands for this, six houses. I can suggest to you that the programs being put in place would have a positive, profound impact by working with other levels of government, contrary to the position that the Conservatives have, which is to cut the funding and beat the municipalities over the head to try to get them to build more homes. That is the Conservative approach. Why does the member believe the Conservative approach is going to build any houses?

Mr. Speaker, with its targets, the government is well on its way to ending fossil fuel subsidies. There are a couple of exceptions that I am aware of. For example, thinking of the environment, something needs to be done with orphan wells. There is government support to deal with them. Also, in certain situations in the north, we will see some subsidies. Can the member give an indication as to what other specific subsidies he is talking about? I ask because I am not necessarily aware of them.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments. In fact, when I left the forces myself, I lived in one of those wartime houses on Logan Avenue in the north end of Winnipeg. What we have before us today is a government that is genuinely committed to working with other levels of government to address the housing issue that we face today. The federal government needs to play a leading role, which it is doing. Would the member agree that co-operating with the different levels of government is far more effective in terms of dealing with the issue of housing than when today's leader of the Conservative Party was the minister responsible for housing? He, in one year, completed six houses.

Madam Speaker, as I have indicated before, when I listen to Conservative speakers, the first thing that comes to my mind is the contrast between the Liberals and the Conservatives. The Liberals, on the one hand, truly care. The Conservatives cut. The Liberals care; the Conservatives do not care. At the end of the day, why does the Conservative Party, or the Conservative-Reform party, across the way continue to not support our programs, whether it is pharmacare, dental care, the disability program or the child care program, the investments in generational health care supports, with $200 billion over 10 years, and so much more? The Conservatives are preoccupied with cuts. The question is, why?

Madam Speaker, the member said that he is going to give people a chance to have hope, yet he is going to cut back on issues that people genuinely care about, such as seniors receiving dental care services and the pharmacare program being rolled out. Imagine the individuals with diabetes. Think of the school food program. The Conservatives are going to cut that away. There are so many things they are going to cut. My question for the member is this: Why do the Conservatives not recognize the need to be fair? Why are they opposing the capital gains tax? They voted against the 1% tax hike for—

Madam Speaker, the member is right. This government has dealt more with foreign interference in elections than the Stephen Harper administration did. It is a very good point. We will continue to look at ways to enhance the strength of our election laws, and part of that goes to what I just used as an example: long-term care facilities and making it easier for residents to be engaged and vote. That is a positive thing. At the end of the day, it also allows, for example, for youth to be more engaged, with voting at campuses. Why would the Conservatives oppose this stuff? The bill even talks about going into the 2029 election and how we can make it easier, with the hope that Elections Canada will put into place such things as being able to vote at any polling station within a riding. I use the comparison of a provincial election, where people can vote for their candidate in a local constituency anywhere in the province. It is a step forward. The legislation would, I hope, move us in that direction. These are the types of initiatives that really make a difference. We could talk about expanding the number of voting days. We might not be able to implement it for the next election, but in 2029, we may have three days on which people can mark their ballots, with “election day” becoming “election days”. The legislation would do many things. The only thing Conservatives want to talk about is how we supported 32 Conservatives with regard to changing the election date. It is not about helping those 32 Conservatives. It is about making sure the committee understands and appreciates that there are things happening. Edmonton and Calgary were having elections on that day. The entire province of Alberta listened to what the Bloc had to say when it came to the date being too close to Quebec's municipal elections. Where are those Alberta MP advocates?

Madam Speaker, I understand the Conservative-Reform party members are a little weak in math. There are actually more than double the number of opposition members who would benefit from this than Liberal members. I can assure the member across the way that it had absolutely nothing to do with the legislation. It is unfortunate that he did not hear the comments from the minister directly. I would ask the member to reflect on the fact that it is a minority government, which means the will of the committee will ultimately prevail. As the minister himself indicated, we will support the committee.

Madam Speaker, I think that is a fair question. Why does the leader of the Conservative Party not want to get the security clearance to have the full, unredacted briefing? It is a legitimate question. I suspect that the leader of the Conservative Party would rather play political games than do justice to the issue at hand. I find that unfortunate. As one of my colleagues asked, what is the leader hiding? We know there are references, for example, to the Conservative leadership. I suspect that might be the leadership he ran in. Is there something that he is scared of? What is the reason? The leader has not provided any explanation other than he does not want to know.

Madam Speaker, there are many aspects of the legislation that would ultimately be modernized. It deals, for example, with issues like cryptocurrency. Across the way, we have the king of cryptocurrency, the member for Carleton, who apparently knows the benefits of cryptocurrency. However, we need to ensure that we do not have foreign actors investing in cryptocurrency and donating to candidates or political entities during or outside of elections. I think that is a positive aspect of the legislation. It deals with misinformation and it enhances the opportunity for people to vote. It makes a whole lot of sense to get behind this legislation.

Madam Speaker, that is a little weird. There is no NDP-Liberal pension coalition. There is an NDP-Liberal understanding that this is important legislation. Even though the Conservative Party opposes the legislation, there is a great deal of value in strengthening our election laws by seeing the legislation go to committee. If there is a coalition, I would even suggest that the Bloc also recognizes the value of the legislation. I would remind my friend opposite we are in a minority government. When dealing with this issue, the minister has indicated he will abide by what the committee proposes with respect to that, or listen to any other ideas that would give strength to the legislation. It is beyond me as to why the Conservative-Reform party is not supporting this legislation going to committee.

Madam Speaker, there is a great deal of merit to the argument that the member has just put forward. I would add to it by reflecting on the voter identification card, which members would remember. The Conservative Harper government, when the current Conservative leader was a part of that government, advocated that that particular voting card should not be used as proof of identification that would enable a person to vote. We even had one Conservative who grossly exaggerated abuse of the card and literally made up a story about how cards were being thrown to the side and then gathered and how people were going to vote, or something of that nature. That member had to formally apologize for being intentionally misleading. There is a valid argument that the Conservative-Reform party today does not want to see an enhanced electoral system that sees more people vote. That could be a major aspect of the problem.

Madam Speaker, I listened very closely to what the member was saying. It seems to me that virtually all the other aspects of the legislation, which enhance or give strength to the elections laws, would have more people participate. It seems to me that that is what the member was asking for, but he does not like the date that is being suggested. Based on what the member is hearing, if the date was changed, would he support the legislation?

Mr. Speaker, no one will be surprised to know they did it again. We will remember back in 2015 when the Conservative Party voted against the wealthiest 1% being taxed a bit more. It did it again yesterday. Yesterday, the Conservative Party, or should I say the Reform Party, voted no against the capital gains tax. What does it have against fairness? Why is it that the Conservative Party is more in favour of supporting lobbyists as opposed to Canada's middle class and individuals who need the support from government? Why is it that the Liberal Party, on the one hand, demonstrates a caring, compassionate attitude and the Conservatives, on the other hand, consistently talk about cuts, cuts, cuts and do not understand the word “fairness”? Shame on them.

Mr. Speaker, one way I like to compare the contrast between the Conservative Party and the progressive budgets that we have brought forward is to look at it from the perspective that the government understands the needs Canadians have. That is why we have been able to develop a budget that deals with issues such as disability benefits, a pharmacare program and a dental care program. The member made reference to anti-scab legislation. I am thinking that, when progressive minds come together, in fact, it can make a difference. That is in contrast to what we hear from the Conservatives, where their attitude seems to be to cut, and they spread misinformation through social media. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on that aspect.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we do not see any form or sense of co-operation coming from opposition members in wanting to deal with legislation and ultimately see it coming to a vote. My question for the minister is specifically in regard to trying to put a human face on the issue that we are talking about. David Milgaard and the Milgaard family are fairly well known in Manitoba and, I would even suggest, beyond Manitoba's border. I think it is one of the reasons why this legislation is important for all of us to reflect on. I am wondering if the minister could provide some of his thoughts in regard to that particular file.

Madam Speaker, that was quite a bit to listen to. The member started off by talking about the bumper sticker issues, the themes of the Conservative Party going into the next election. Maybe I could spend a bit of time just talking about that also. At the end of the day, I love the contrast between the Conservatives and the Liberals going into the next federal election, about 18 months from now, I anticipate. Thinking in terms of the difference, one of the ways I can put it on the table is to say that we have Conservatives who believe in “chop, chop, chop”, as one of the ministers has often made reference to, and then we have the government, which understands the needs of Canadians and continues to provide all sorts of programs of great value to Canadians. On the issue of procurement, this is something that has been happening for generations, and at the end of the day, one of the greatest procurement scandals that we have witnessed was during Stephen Harper's government, when we had a $400-million procurement scandal for CSC. It is important to recognize here that just because the Conservatives across the way tack on the word “scandal”, that does not necessarily make it a government scandal. In fact, if we take a look at the government's actions on ArriveCAN, I believe that, at the end of the day, Canadians would understand and appreciate that as a government, when the issue was brought to the attention of the department, the department took immediate action. In terms of looking into the matter, it was ultimately referred to the RCMP. There is a process that is in place in order to protect the integrity of the procurement process, and the government has assigned out responsibilities to make sure there is going to be a consequence where there has been found to be abuse. The member then went on to talk about indigenous procurement. I would advise the member to take a look at the Shoal Lake water treatment facility, the procurement process that went on there and the many different benefits. Indigenous people and indigenous community leaders talk about how long it took for them to actually get that water treatment put into place, because the former government, Stephen Harper's, completely ignored it. If we take a look at how it was actually constructed, we will find that through the federal government working in co-operation with and supporting the incredible leadership coming from Shoal Lake 40, we were able to build a wonderful water treatment that was led by Shoal Lake, and the procurement process was indigenous-driven. At the end of the day, it has received many different awards. The bottom line is that in regard to ArriveCAN, we continue to move forward. The government is very much aware of the serious nature of the issues, and we will continue to look into the matter. Had the government not taken action, then the member might be able to have some credibility on the issue, but virtually from day one, the government has been on top of the issue and will continue to ensure that the taxpayer is protected.

Madam Speaker, the government actually does do that. I will often cite Stephen Harper because members opposite like to give a false impression of many of the wonderful initiatives that the government has actually taken. For example, the Conservatives will criticize the government in terms of the economy, trying to say that our economy is broken, yet as a government, in well under nine years, we were able, by working with Canadians, to create over two million jobs. That contrasts to Stephen Harper's million jobs. There are so many comparisons that one can draw, and we draw the comparisons because the Conservative Party goes around the country giving all sorts of misinformation. Among those things is that the country is broken, when in fact it is not, and we continue to move forward.

Madam Speaker, just to start, it is interesting how the member continued with the character assassination of an outstanding Canadian. When he is talking about the special rapporteur, he is really talking about the former governor general. When the member labelled him as a Liberal appointing all these other Liberals, what people should realize is that the Right Hon. David Johnston was actually appointed as Governor General by former prime minister Stephen Harper. The last time I checked, Stephen Harper was not a Liberal; he was a Conservative and a man who was held in fairly high esteem. It is unfortunate that the Conservatives, with their ramped-up rhetoric, felt it was necessary to throw him under the bus in the fashion they did. Personally, I thought it was somewhat disgraceful. Having said that, when we think about what we are talking about this evening, nothing could be further from the truth in terms of the manner in which the government has actually dealt with foreign interference. In fact, the Government of Canada not only consulted but worked openly with all recognized parties of the House to collaboratively develop the terms of reference for the commission. All parties agreed to the terms of reference, as well as to the appointment of the commissioner herself. One of the key aspects of the terms of reference is that the commission essentially has unlimited access to classified information related to its mandate. The terms of reference are very clear: The commission is to have access to certain cabinet documents that are relevant to its work. The government agreed to this approach, although it is exceedingly rare for something of that nature to occur. Cabinet confidence is a bedrock principle of the Westminster system of government. The notion that such a principle can be thrown out in a sweeping approach to government records undercuts the very same democracy we are actually trying to protect. All of the cabinet documents that were committed to in terms of the reference have already been provided to the commission. I would contrast the manner in which we as a government have approached the issue to the manner in which the leader of the Conservative-Reform party has approached it to date. The leader of the Conservative-Reform party has not even acknowledged, or desired in any way to actually get, the security clearance necessary in order to get the information that will answer the types of questions the member is looking to answer. He does not want to get it. He intentionally chooses to be ignorant of the facts. Contrast that to the leader of the New Democratic Party. In fact, the leader of the Green Party had a very interesting public press conference earlier today after getting the debriefing and was very clear with Canadians as to what she thought. At least she took the interest and the time not only to get the clearance but also then to look at the unredacted report. We know what her comments are. However, that does not solve the appetite of the Conservatives to go on a vengeful character assassination hunt, in terms of what it is and who it is they can go after. I am surprised and disappointed in the leader of the Conservative Party, but I should not be, because even when he was the minister responsible for Elections Canada, in that important role he did absolutely nothing on foreign interference. He knew then that it was an issue but chose, intentionally, to do nothing.

Madam Speaker, put very simply and in point form, the Government of Canada worked openly and collaboratively with all recognized parties inside the House to develop the terms of reference of the commission. That is a fact. The government continues to support the commission by providing tens of thousands of classified documents, while respecting the terms of reference and the underlying principle of cabinet confidence and safeguarding the critical interests of Canada and its allies. That is a fact. No matter what spin the Conservatives put on it or what misinformation they provide to Canadians, it is always better if we stick to the facts of the matter. By the way, I would conclude that the leader of the Conservative-Reform party should also take advantage and get the debriefing so he will be better informed.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member indicated in one of his answers that it is important for us to recognize that democracies all over the world, many of Canada's allied countries, are having to deal with the issue of international interference. It is indeed a very serious issue. I am glad to see that Canada has a House of Commons, and in particular a government, that is doing what it can in order to protect democracies. The question I have for the member is related to NSICOP, which is a relatively new standing committee. Canada is now a part of the Five Eyes countries that actually have a committee like this. The Conservatives have dissed the committee on several occasions. I am interested in knowing what the member from the Bloc has to say about the important role that NSICOP plays. We would not have the report today if it were not for that committee.

Madam Speaker, even prior to the Prime Minister becoming the Prime Minister, in third party, we had advocated for a standing committee, NSICOP. If it were not for NSICOP, we would not have the report that we are talking about today. It is interesting that, even in third party, when we were raising the issue, the Conservative Party opposed bringing in a NSICOP committee. It is important for us to recognize that, today, because of the persistence of this government, the committee exists, and there are representatives from all political entities in the chamber and in the Senate. I am wondering if my colleague could just enhance his comments in regard to why all of us need to come together, as NSICOP has done, to follow through in listening to what is being said.

Madam Speaker, let us be very clear: The leader of today's Conservative-Reform party has made the conscious decision to say, “No, I want to keep being dummied up. I do not want to know and do not want to get the security clearance so I can ask questions.” The leader of the New Democratic Party has already asked questions. The Conservatives are using a false argument. Why is the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada not getting the security clearance he needs to be better informed?

Madam Speaker, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills was actually a member of Parliament in 2013, as was the Conservative leader, when the issue of foreign interference came up. What kind of actions did we see from the member and from the leader of the Conservative Party back then? Absolutely none. When the Liberal Party tried to create NSICOP when we were third party, what did the member opposite say? What did the leader of the Conservative Party say then? Absolutely nothing. In fact, they opposed it. We have the report today because of NSICOP. The hypocrisy coming from the member opposite is amazing. It is time that we start working together and recognizing that foreign international interference is serious. When are the member and his leader going to get off the partisan cheap shots and try to get the issue dealt with in a more apolitical fashion?

Mr. Speaker, I would tend to disagree with the member's conclusion that the government did not take any steps. For the first time, we actually have a government that has recognized international interference is taking place, and there were modifications made in regard to elections. There have been changes in that different individuals have been called forward to look at ways we can deal with interference on the international scene. Canada has been raising the issue among the G7 countries, and we have been very open and transparent. At the end of the day, NSICOP is the reason we have the report we have today. It is a creation by the government, in full co-operation with a majority of the members. Would the member opposite not agree that NSICOP is why we have the report today and that this is something the House passed, with all members, except for the Conservatives, voting in favour of it?

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the acknowledgement of not being able to reveal the names of the individuals in question. Does the member see the value of the leaders getting the classification so that they can get more information? After all, it is the leaders who sign off on candidates. Every leader could make the commitment to the electorate that they would not sign off unless they were comfortable with a candidate and, obviously, being treasonous would be a good reason not to.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on what the member was saying toward the tail end of her speech. One of the best ways we could counter foreign interference would be by building support from all sides of the chamber in not only recognizing the serious nature of foreign interference, but also acting as one strong voice, which would send a very powerful message. Often foreign interference is an attempt to promote and encourage public distrust. If people were to work together, partisanship aside, to combat foreign interference as a top priority, that is one way we can build public confidence in the system. I wonder if the member would provide her thoughts on that.

Madam Speaker, I can assure the member across the way that there are two Conservative members of Parliament who sit on NSICOP. Those two members would be just as entitled to know the names as anyone else. The Conservatives say, “Well, we do not want them them to speak about it, but we want the minister to speak about it.” The minister said earlier today that he cannot share the names. All the member has to do is listen to what the deputy commissioner said, because he too would be eligible for prosecution. Therefore the NSICOP members are being responsible. The government minister is being responsible. The only one who is not being responsible is the Conservative-Reform party leader in the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my good friend, the member for Surrey—Newton, who is in fact one of the members who really tackle the issue head-on. Members will recall that Motion No. 112 received unanimous support from those who were inside the chamber voting. It also dealt with the issue of foreign interference. I want to put things into perspective so those who are following the debate get an appreciation of what we are actually talking about and what led us to where we are today. It is important that we as parliamentarians recognize, and it does not matter what side of the House we are on, that an assault of any nature, anything direct or indirect, through international or foreign interference is an assault on all of us. We should all do what we can to dispose of international foreign interference. As a government, we have taken a number of actions. Let me first put it in the context of the degree to which the current Prime Minister and, in good part, the government have been acting, even in 2015. Going back to when the Liberals had third party status in the chamber, there was Bill C-51. We argued that Canada needed to be able to establish a security clearance standing committee of the House that would be able to take a look at all forms of information. It was nothing new. Canada is one of the Five Eyes countries, and we were the only one that did not have such a committee in existence. At the time, the Conservative Party, which was in government under Stephen Harper, said no to us. It did not recognize, nor was it interested at all in proceeding with what we call NSICOP today. In fact, if we look at the history of the issue itself, we see that the it was actually brought to the government's attention in 2013, knowing full well that there was foreign interference taking place in Canada. Today's leader of the Conservative Party was in cabinet. Not only Stephen Harper completely ignored the issue, but so did today's leader of the Conservative Party. When we brought forward the suggestion of changing the law to incorporate NSICOP, the Conservative Party opposed it. The federal election took place, and one of the first initiatives Liberals took was to establish NSICOP. We did a great deal of consultation on it, believing that it was in Canada's best interest. When we put NSICOP in place after passing the legislation, the Conservatives boycotted it and withdrew some members. NSICOP as a standing committee has representatives from all recognized political entities in the chamber. It even has participation from the Senate. However, the Conservative Party did not support it. Fast-forward to today and listen to some of the quotes that can be provided, in terms of the degree to which the Conservative Party has actually politicized the issue. How many times have we heard the Conservatives stand up and demand that we release the names? Constantly it is “Release the names of the members of Parliament.” Then, through social media, the Conservatives created the idea that the Government of Canada was trying to hide something. There are Conservative members who sit on NSICOP. They would have just as much right to see the names as the government does. If the Conservative Party wants the names released, why do the Conservative members who sit on NSICOP not release them? I suspect it might have something to do with the fact that they are a bit concerned about potential charges or investigations, because it would not be appropriate for them to release the names. Earlier today, the minister responsible indicated that he had a discussion with Deputy Commissioner Flynn about releasing the names, asking whether he could do that as a minister. He was told by the deputy commissioner, who is the second in charge, that if he were to do that he would be opening himself up to criminal prosecution. The Conservatives, on the one hand, are asking us to release the names, knowing full well that we cannot release them, but that does not prevent them from going around spreading misinformation on the issue. It does not end there. The Conservatives are saying that they do not want their leader to be informed. The government has said that a leader of a political party can get the security clearance that would allow them to request the information. The leader of the NDP has done just that, but not the leader of the Conservative Party. It is interesting that just this past weekend, on the issue, the host of CTV's Question Period was conducting an interview. She quoted the national security adviser and the head of CSIS. Then she said, “Just because your leader is briefed on this intelligence does not mean that he can't act.” In essence, she was saying that the leader can in fact be briefed and can act on the issue. Let us follow what happens afterward. The host then asked the Conservative panellist, “Why not get briefed? Why could [the leader of the Conservative party] now not just get that information and then act on it?” The member for Wellington—Halton Hills, who spoke earlier today, responded with, “What the Prime Minister is asking [the Leader of the Opposition] to do is essentially tie his hands behind his back”, even though the New Democratic leader had the same briefing. He goes on further to say, “That process would require [the Leader of the Opposition] to sign an undertaking and to swear an oath of secrecy not to divulge this information to anyone else, and, therefore, not be able to tell anybody else to act on this information to hold individuals accountable.” The host then poses this question: “Respectfully though, am I supposed to believe you over the director of CSIS?” Get this; this is what the member for Wellington—Halton Hills said: “Yes. Yes, you are.” He said to believe him over CSIS. That is incredible. He said, “because I think the director of CSIS and the RCMP may not be as knowledgeable about the processes under the Reform Act that govern [our] party caucuses”. Really? It highlights how the members of the Conservative Party of Canada, the Conservative-Reform party, choose to be dumb on the issue intentionally, come up with lame excuses and then spread misinformation all over social media. Where is the sense of responsibility? The Conservatives are definitely found lacking when it comes to common sense and responsibility in dealing with an issue that Canadians are concerned about. Why will the leader of the Conservative-Reform party today not take the government up on getting the security clearance so he would understand in more depth what is taking place?

Madam Speaker, the government and the Prime Minister have not been pushed on the issue. I would ultimately argue that, in a certain way, it is the government that has been pushing the issue. All that members have to ask about is why we have the report that we have today. The Prime Minister, when he was the leader of the third party, insisted that we should have a committee like NSICOP. In 2015, when we took over the reins of power, we actually started to take action to put NSICOP into place. We would not have NSICOP today except for the current Prime Minister and government. That is the report we are actually talking about today. NSICOP has representatives of all political entities of the chamber. To say that we have not taken action is not true. There are more actions that I could talk about, but I am out of time.

Madam Speaker, the report talks about the Conservative leadership itself. I think that, yes, we do need to look at ways, maybe working with Elections Canada and other agencies, in which we can protect the integrity of our democracy. It would be nice to see all political parties get onside and do it in such a fashion that it reinforces public confidence in the system. In order to do that, we have to be prepared to put party politics at the time to the side.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the words that the member put on the record this afternoon. NSICOP, which I commented on in my opening remarks as being a creation of the Liberal government, ultimately provided us with the report that we are tabling. Now we know that this is going to be reviewed by the Hogue commission. The Hogue commission was put together in co-operation with all political parties. There will be a report, and through that report I hope to find all sorts of good pieces of information that will better equip leaders and others to deal with building confidence in the system in terms of minimizing indirect foreign interference. I am wondering if the member could provide additional thoughts in regard to the public confidence and all political parties working together, in particular once that whole report comes out.

Madam Speaker, given the power and authority that all leaders of political parties have in terms of even signing off on the ability to be nominated and run in a federal election, would the member not agree that all leaders should take advantage of the opportunity to get the security clearance, so that they can actually take a look at the documents and see the information, a lot of which is information that the member has been talking about as critical information? Leaders do have that opportunity, yet the Conservative leader continues to say, “No, I do not want to know.” I am interested in what the member's thoughts are in regard to when he made reference to moral responsibilities. Is there a responsibility for the leader of the Conservative Party to get the security clearance so that he can actually see the information we are talking about?

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-20 this evening. This is a piece of legislation that the government thought was fairly straightforward. When we take a serious look at the essence of the bill, it would provide a sense of public confidence in our bureaucratic system. For many years, there was an independent commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, where, if there were complaints or issues surrounding them, the public knew they had a way they could address a grievance of one form or another by going to the commission. I thought that it was fairly well established and that people had a basic understanding of the true value of having something of this nature. It has done well. If we look at the different agencies across Canada, particularly law enforcement agencies, we often hear about the importance of having some sort of checks in place to ensure a higher level of accountability. In Manitoba today, for example, there is a sense of independence in offices, where it is not necessarily the police checking on the police or holding the police accountable when there is a grievance, but it is an independent board. It is important that it be independent, for the simple reason that there would be far more confidence in the person bringing forward the grievance or the complaint. That is really important to recognize. Whether it is for provincial jurisdictions or for the RCMP, this has been deemed by all aspects of society as absolutely essential. When we look at the Canada Border Services Agency and the fine work that border officers do, day in and day out, at the end of the day there was no independent body at the same level as the RCMP. It makes sense. The government had a choice. We could have a stand-alone, independent body for the RCMP, and we could also have a stand-alone body for the Canada Border Services Agency, but it was determined that the best thing would be to bring the two agencies together. I should have started my comments by highlighting that, even though we are bringing forward this legislation, it is not a reflection on the fine work that the border agents or the RCMP members do. The vast majority of the work is done in an outstanding fashion. Countries around the world often look at what is happening in Canada, through these two agencies. Unlike in many other countries, these institutions are held in high esteem, particularly the RCMP. I have travelled to nations where the confidence level in their national policing agencies is nowhere near as high or as respected as it is in Canada because of issues such as alleged corruption, whether real or perceived. Periodically, I talk to individuals who came from another country, and they talk about the RCMP being the difference between Canada and some other nations. The RCMP, especially when they put on that red uniform, is something that is highly respected. Historically, it might not necessarily have been a shining gold star. Yes, there have been many mistakes, but we have been able to overcome those mistakes, and in good part, still today, we look at ways we can compensate for those mistakes. A good example of that is the record with the RCMP and indigenous people of Canada. There has been a great deal of effort through truth and reconciliation, with all forms of gestures and actions, to deal with some of those issues. By doing that in a public way, it does what the board has actually been doing; it helps build confidence in the institution. I believe we should all strive to see that. Fast-forward to today, where we have the legislation that recognizes the importance of having these independent agencies. Through this legislation, we would create the opportunity for the Canada Border Services Agency to be incorporated into a new entity both for the RCMP and for the CBSA. I thought this would have been universally well received by all members in the chamber. I was surprised at the degree to which members of the official opposition have resisted passing the legislation. I was not participating at the committee level, so I could not tell members how they performed at the committee level, but I was here during the report stage and the second reading stage. The lack of goodwill in recognizing the legislation was somewhat disappointing. When we actually got to the report stage, in fact, the Conservatives moved an amendment to it. It was what I would classify as a silly amendment; it was to delete the short title. That is what was suggested in an amendment at report stage. When I look at the legislation, it says, “This Act may be cited as the Public Complaints and Review Commission Act.” That is the short title. When one looks at the short title, one questions the benefit of moving that amendment. The reality is that the only purpose of moving that amendment was to delay the passage of the legislation. That is the reason that they moved that amendment and the reason that we see some of the behaviour of Conservative members, in particular, dealing with second reading, whether it is Bill C-20 or other pieces of legislation. That is why we see many of the concurrence reports brought through. Time and time again, and Bill C-20 is an excellent example of this, the Conservatives are more determined to try to prevent legislation from passing. A lot of that legislation is solid, tangible legislation that would make a difference in the lives of Canadians. When I look at this piece of legislation, I look at the many benefits of it, and I fully expected that the legislation would have passed relatively quickly. I know that Conservatives are going to be following my comments this evening, so it will be interesting to to hear where their objections to the legislation actually are. Do they not feel that the principles of the legislation are something that could have warranted us passing the legislation sooner? That principle applies to a number of pieces of legislation, but I think that has a lot more to do with the politics inside the chamber than the actual substance of the legislation. That is a determination that has been made by the House leadership of the Conservative Party. I am glad we are at this point today, because it would seem that there is a very good chance that the legislation is going to pass third reading, and for a very good reason. When we think about our border control, all we need to do is look at the number of people who travel back and forth to the United States or, for that matter, to any country in the world. I have an active interest in trying to help facilitate people coming to visit Canada. In the area I represent, every month, I write literally hundreds of letters. In some months, it is probably four hundred or five hundred letters, and in other months, it is probably closer to eight hundred letters, trying to get individuals to be able to come to Canada to visit, whether they are attending weddings, funerals, graduations or just visiting family members who may have immigrated from countries like Philippines, India, Pakistan, and many other countries. Every time someone comes in, they have to deal with border control officers. We are getting numbers that go into the millions. Our border control agency and its officers are dealing with literally millions of people coming into Canada every year. They have a lot of authority. I have had the opportunity to take tours of our detention centres, through customs, where people are going through without the appropriate papers, for example. Our officers actually have the ability to detain or to prevent someone from leaving the airport. That is a fairly serious responsibility. With that responsibility comes the need for accountability and transparency. It does not mean that we are saying that there is something wrong with the system, because that is not the case. All in all, the system works exceptionally well. We are talking about tens of millions of people coming and going every year. If we look at the actual number of complaints we receive, it is but a small fraction of the overall number of people coming and going. However, that small fraction does warrant the need for us to be able to put something in place so that if people have concerns, maybe it is the manner in which they were treated at a border or at an airport, wherever it might be, they have an opportunity to be able to express themselves. If I was going through the Canada-U.S. border, an agent could ultimately make a decision that items I have brought with me are going to be kept or that something is going to be applied to them, and I might not feel that it was appropriate. It could also be something that greatly offends someone, anything from a racial incident to a wide spectrum of other behaviours that one might see. At the end of the day, I would suggest that establishing a place that people can go to in order to express their grievance is absolutely critical. For those individuals who feel intimidated by it, as I said, it is not a reflection on the vast majority of the people who are performing this service. It really puts into place the opportunity, as I have said and as I have tried to amplify, that those agencies will in fact be better off because there will be a truly independent commission that actually deals with what is coming up. This legislation enables the commission to investigate complaints and take a look, for example, at levels of service, or even conduct a CBSA employee investigation where it is actually warranted. The commission does have the powers to review the activities of the CBSA. It would exclude things such as issues related to national security and other sensitive types of areas, but it has significant powers to look into, to review, to come up with recommendations and be able to take actions. At the end of the day, what we do know is that it has been very effective for the RCMP. I believe that it will be just as effective for Canada border control officers. Canadians must have confidence in our law enforcement agencies, and having an effective civilian review is central to implementing public confidence and trust. Let me just add to that. Bill C-20 would establish the PCRC, which would function as an independent review body for the RCMP and the CBSA. Through this review body, we will ensure that all Canadians can expect consistent, fair and equitable treatment. We will do that through strengthening the review body's independence and discretion, requiring annual reports from the RCMP and the CBSA on the implementation of PCRC's recommendations, which is a really important aspect, receiving those annual reports. Often we are able to make good, solid policy decisions based on the types of reports that we receive, collecting and publishing disaggregated race-based and demographic data to help assess and address systemic racism in law enforcement. All of that is part of our commitment to making Canada a safer place for anyone. There are a number of points dealing with the legislation. The one that I would highlight is that the government is proposing to invest well over $100 million over the next six years, and about $20 million per year ongoing, in order to support the actions that the legislation is taking. As I indicated, this is legislation that could have very easily passed a whole lot earlier. I am glad that we finally have it at a stage today where it would appear as if it will be passing. I do look forward to comments coming from, in particular, the Conservative Party, realizing, of course, that all the amendments and so forth have actually been dealt with. It is just a question of allowing it to ultimately come to a vote so that it can become law and add more value to building public confidence in two outstanding institutions.

Madam Speaker, the legislation itself is a follow-up to a commitment that we actually made in the 2020 throne speech. Since then, we have continued to look at ways we can deal with the discrimination that takes place. I believe that the commission would actually be empowered through a complaint-driven process that would help by providing the type of information that would be essential as we move forward. We would get reports coming into government that would reflect what is actually taking place at our border controls and our RCMP. We will have to wait and see what kinds of policy directions might come out of those reports.

Madam Speaker, this is the reason I provided some comment in regard to how the Conservative Party goes out of its way to prevent legislation from ultimately passing. The member heard correctly in regard to the throne speech. It was a throne speech. It was also in the mandate letter in 2021 for the minister, and we have been talking about it, but there is a finite amount of time for debates in the House of Commons. When I take a look at the sense of commitment, whether it was going through the pandemic with the numerous pieces of legislation or all the different budget bills, not to mention all the other important pieces of legislation that were brought through, including this one, there is a limited amount of time. The opposition knows that, and that is one of the reasons the opposition chooses to bring in concurrence report after concurrence report, tries to adjourn debate, cries if we want to sit too late and uses all sorts of tactics in order to prevent legislation from passing. Sadly, that does make it a bit more of a challenge. We might set the legislative agenda, but I do not underestimate the role the Conservatives play, in terms of that whole destructive force, in preventing legislation from passing. However, I am glad and grateful that it would appear as though we might be able to get it passed today.

Madam Speaker, as the member is likely aware, I was not necessarily sitting on the committee, and so I am not that familiar with the NDP amendment. However, I would be interested in hearing how that amendment was worded. I think that would go a long way in enabling me to provide more of a detailed comment. The point I was trying to amplify is the fact that we all are very much aware of the types of incidents that take place at our border controls, and I would even include the RCMP. We know there are serious issues there. The advantage of having this arm's-length, independent review, both of government and of the agencies it is holding to account, is to ensure that there is a venue for people who have had some sort of a violation against them in one way or another to be able to express their grievance to this truly independent commission or board. I think that is the true value of it, because they will also be presenting reports that will enable all members of Parliament to then better reflect on the types of issues that are taking place. Not only do we need to be aware of those issues, but we need to look at other forms of action that might be necessary in order to be able to deal with the very serious issue that the member is talking about.

Mr. Speaker, I find it truly amazing that the member would say that, given the fact that the Conservatives moved an amendment at report stage to delete the short title. Who are they really trying to kid? Do they think Canadians are that stupid? At the end of the day, this bill could pass if the Conservatives would stop playing their games. That is all that has to happen. The Conservatives just have to allow the legislation to pass, and stop playing games. Then the Conservatives have the tenacity to say, “Well, it is the government that is not passing the legislation” or that we are dragging the legislation. No. Duh. It is the Conservative Party not understanding or trying to fool Canadians. Why does the Conservative Party want to try to trick Canadians into believing that it is the Liberals, when in fact it is the incompetent Conservatives across the way?

Mr. Speaker, this is a government that truly does care. I think of pharmacare, the school food program, dental care, child care and the disability program that we put into place, and we are focused on building a stronger economy. I think of the investments that we are receiving. Did anyone know that when we talk about direct investments per capita, Canada is number one in the G7, and when I compare us to the rest of the world, we are number three? This is because people know and understand that the Canadian economy is doing well. At the same time, we are providing supports to Canadians. Earlier this week, the action that the Government of Canada is taking was reaffirmed as being positive, as the Bank of Canada dropped our interest rate. Canada is the first of the G7 countries to see a drop in interest rates. That is good for all of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I want to table a petition signed by many constituents in regard to air travel between Canada and India. The Indo-Canadian community continues to grow, to the benefit of all of Canada, as does the desire of Indo-Canadian individuals to travel to India. Petitioners are looking for the government, airline industries or airport authorities to look at the possibility of ways we can enhance travel between the two nations.