So V ote

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

Jun/4/24 7:58:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is very important. Transparency is not only something that we see with different ombudsmen and different roles, but ultimately it is important. Again, we just need to look at anything that has been tabled in the House recently on some of the reports that have been coming out. We can look at foreign interference and the importance of transparency there to get to the crux of what we need to tackle as Parliament, and what the government needs to focus its efforts on. When it comes to complaints, it needs to be dealt with. My background is that I am ex-military. Unfortunately, I just read in the news today that the Information Commissioner was complaining that she has to take extraordinary action to even get information out of the government when it comes to understanding what the issues are. When we have a complaints commissioner set up, they will need to have that same access to all the material, ultimately, and not be held up during the process.

172 words

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

Jun/4/24 7:57:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will just push back and counter the parliamentary secretary's comments, because, as I mentioned at the start of my speech and as I have brought up in debate previously, I am a big believer that every member in this House should have the opportunity to speak to every piece of legislation, if it is something that their constituents want them to speak to. That member is a member who speaks at every stage to every bill and to every amendment. In fact, he even spoke just two days ago to my private member's bill. He did not even listen to my speech on it, and I am the sponsor and the mover of the bill. There were other Liberal MPs I talked to who wanted to speak to it, yet he does not want to let them speak. He has to speak to it, when he does not even have a clue what he is speaking about.

162 words

Context: House Hansard - 322 - May/31/24

Jun/4/24 7:48:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3 Bill C-20

Mr. Speaker, I was cut off during my last speech on Bill C-20, which was my first time debating the bill. It now, unfortunately, has been time allocated. I am a big believer that all members of Parliament should at least have the opportunity to debate one stage of a bill, as it goes through the parliamentary process, to represent our constituents and express any concerns or support for said bill. As was pointed out in the time allocation motion debate a little while ago, this is, unfortunately, the third attempt to pass this bill. It was Bill C-98 in the 42nd Parliament, which died on the Order Paper when that Parliament ceased to exist. In the 43rd Parliament, it was Bill C-3, but it died when the Prime Minister called the unnecessary election, which he called despite having voted a couple of months before the election against doing that. Ultimately, Bill C-20 has been kicking around for almost two years now. It came out of committee last fall and was only brought forward here last month. My last comment in the first two minutes of my speech was that I was looking forward to finishing this speech when it became a priority for the government again. Lo and behold, it only took it a month this time to make it a priority and now the government has decided to time allocate it. What is this bill about? There are two fundamental things. It is renaming the existing review body, which already exists for the RCMP, but now it would be expanded to cover the Canada Border Services Agency, too. This is important because currently the CBSA is the only public safety agency in Canada without an independent oversight body for public complaints. Establishing this independent review body would foster and enhance public trust and confidence in Canada's law enforcement and border services institutions, something we can agree is desperately needed. It is just disappointing that it has taken this long. The first of the concerns I heard, and I know this was brought up when it was being studied at committee, was a lack of consultation. There is also the concern over the qualifications or experience required for these Governor in Council appointed commissions, which is an oversight. The third concern is the potential lack of independence for access to the information, and the final concern I have heard is with the lack of a mandated review period. I am only going to have time to address part of this in my remaining few minutes. I really want to focus on the lack of consultation because it is clear that these crucial conversations did not take place. Various stakeholders, including indigenous chiefs and the National Police Federation, which represents the RCMP, flagged various problems with the bill. Most importantly, they felt the current framework, which relies on the RCMP to investigate itself, is insufficient and does not inspire public trust in the process. Bill C-20 does not fully address this as the new complaints commission would still rely heavily on RCMP resources, meaning that it would not be truly independent. Conservatives tried to move various amendments to increase the independence at the committee stage, but it was clear that there was no will from the other parties. Another issue, raised by the CBSA union, was the need for remuneration for back pay for officers who had been suspended when an investigation ultimately deems them innocent. This is a major oversight in the bill, which common-sense Conservatives advocated for. Particularly in the midst of this cost of living crisis created by the Prime Minister, it seems especially cruel to punish these officers. As one stakeholder said, “When the allegations are not founded and it's found that there was no wrongdoing, we're told to file a grievance to recuperate the lost salary. It's devastating to people. You're right—I really don't know anyone who could go a year with no pay.” Once again, it is sad that it was not the will of the public safety committee to adopt this common-sense amendment. I want to draw a bit of a parallel to something that was tabled last November by the NSICOP committee on a study of the mandate of the RCMP for federal policing. There are two recommendations I would like to share. The first recommendation states: The Minister of Public Safety provide clear and regular direction to the RCMP to strengthen Federal Policing, including in areas of governance; financial controls; human resources, recruiting and training; and information management. In each of these areas, this direction should include the Minister’s expectations, clear interim and final objectives, and clear performance measures. The second recommendation is that “The Government recognize that Federal Policing resources are insufficient to fulfil its various mandates and put in place measures to ensure Federal resources are appropriated fully to Federal priorities.” The reason I am bringing up those two recommendations from that report is that it is crystal clear from reading that report, which is completely unredacted, with the exception of two sentences in the whole report, that it talks about the strain and pressure that the RCMP is already under to fulfill its federal mandate, yet here we have another example of additional resources still being pulled, though for an important reason, from within the RCMP and not outside it. The last thing I want to bring up is that the CBSA, which, if I heard the news correctly today, is potentially only a couple of days away from taking strike action, needs this additional support and oversight, because it would help protect not only those workers, but the whole mandate of what the CBSA is there to do, which is to ultimately protect Canadians. We need that, because our CBSA officers are phenomenal. They help keep us safe and keep our borders safe. We have heard from umpteen debates in this House, when it comes to justice issues, about the lack of support that the CBSA has and the lack of necessary resources coming from the government to deal with so many crimes, such as the illegal trafficking of firearms across our border. In conclusion, I really want to highlight that this is an important bill. It is a bill that I intend to support. However, it is frustrating and disappointing that it took the government this long to make it a priority for debate in this House.

1092 words

Context: House Hansard - 322 - May/31/24

May/31/24 1:43:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have more of a comment to build on the last question from our NDP colleague, because I want to put it on the record. I have huge belief in our Canadian Armed Forces members to move forward and be there for domestic operations, but that is not their primary role. They will be there to do those tasks that nobody else in the civil service can do, or if municipal or provincial capabilities do not exist. However, something I would encourage the government to look at is how we can restructure a federal force to be able to deal with those tasks, one that would not be part of the Canadian Armed Forces.

116 words

Armed
Role

Context: House Hansard - 322 - May/31/24

May/31/24 12:19:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I actually want him to follow up a little more on that because maybe it has potential. I know we have heard an amendment from the NDP to potentially move the election date back to the normal date. Maybe another amendment would be just to move it a full month or a month and a half further into the future, or maybe even to next week. What does my colleague think about that?

75 words

Context: House Hansard - 321 - May/30/24

May/31/24 11:02:29 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, six students from Bruce and Grey counties participated in the Canada-Wide Science Fair here in Ottawa this week. They are the following: Chayle Oatt for her project, Plant Growth Spurt; Oscar Weerasinghe for his project, Breakfast on the Brain, which won the gold medal in the junior division, plus a health and nutrition award; Kenna Wilson for her project, Body Temperature, which won a bronze medal in the junior division; Lucas Muir for his project, Hydro Harvest; Emily Caulfeild for her project, Schooled: Diving into the Social Behaviours of Fish; and Charlotte Woodhouse for her project, Dairy Dilemma: The Fertility Fallout of Inbreeding in Holsteins, which won a bronze medal in the senior division. Congratulations to all the participants in the Canada-Wide Science Fair. Canada's future in science is bright. Further, I would like to recognize Ross McLean, who is retiring after 45 years of law across our riding. Ross has been a dedicated, tireless member of the community. I wish him and Brenda all the best in the future.

175 words

Context: House Hansard - 321 - May/30/24

May/30/24 6:25:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would ask for it to pass unanimously, but I doubt that would work, so I am going to ask for a recorded vote.

26 words

Context: House Hansard - 318 - May/27/24

May/30/24 6:20:27 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-70

Madam Speaker, I want to thank everybody who participated in this important debate because it actually achieved one of my aims, which I talked about in my initial speech when I introduced this bill, and that is education. I will get into the reasons why that is so important. I am not shocked by this, but after listening to members, there seems to still be a level of misunderstanding of what exactly this bill is. I am going to talk about what it is, what it is not, and why it is so important. I will read the crux of what this bill is into the record one more time because then it will be easy to break down. It is subclause 13.1(1) of this need to know legislation, which reads, “A member of the Senate or the House of Commons who applies for a secret security clearance from the Government of Canada is, for the purposes of the consideration of their application, deemed to need access to the information in respect of which the application is made.” That is the important clause. My point is that the only thing this bill would do would be to allow parliamentarians to apply for a secret security clearance. The government would not be able to deny, regardless of who is in government, a parliamentarian from applying. That is all that it would do. It would allow them to apply. I would dare say that every speaker who spoke to this during the debate on my PMB highlighted two key examples: the Winnipeg labs, most recently, and the Afghan detainee file. A colleague just spoke to what this bill does not do. This does not guarantee a parliamentarian will pass, should they apply. They still have to go through the same security vetting and clearance process that we have been doing for decades. I have had a secret level clearance for likely 25 to 30 years now. I have been at the top secret level for 15-plus years. The clearance does not guarantee one has a need to know or that one gets access to the information because that is how the system protects it. One still has to demonstrate that to the government. Why is this so important? We have heard a little bit about this. The world is more complicated. We have listed a couple of historical examples. The most important one, which has been highlighted numerous times, is foreign interference. When we look at foreign interference, there are lots of cases. I do applaud the government about Bill C-70. It is going to come and address some of that because it allows changes to the CSIS Act, which then allows CSIS to actually share information beyond just the federal government, not just to potential parliamentarians. Again, if they are not cleared, they still cannot get that information, but it will potentially allow CSIS to share information to other levels of government, to industry and stakeholders, but they have to have the clearance. We have heard testimony and speeches here, so we know that parliamentarians are being targeted. We have seen the original NSICOP annual report of 2019. What was one of the key takeaways? Parliamentarians need to be briefed on the threats that they face from foreign interference. We have seen Madam Hogue's public inquiry into foreign interference. Just recently we saw the NSIRA report that came out. We are only a few days away from seeing NSICOP's latest report. However, it is not just from those agencies. I would like to read again from the recommendations that came out of PROC, with unanimous consent, just a few weeks ago. Recommendation 3 reads: That the government work with recognized parties’ whips to facilitate security clearances, at Secret level or higher, of caucus members who are not Privy Councillors (particularly those who sit on committees with mandates concerning foreign affairs, national defence and national security), who shall be taken as satisfying requirements for a “need to know,” to ensure that they may be adequately briefed about important national security matters, including foreign intelligence threat activity directed toward Parliament, or their party or its caucus members. The point is that this has already unanimously passed at PROC to basically implement what my bill is trying to achieve. In conclusion, I have not heard a single criticism of the bill that is based on what the bill would do and what is contained within it. I know members from all parties who I have talked to are going to support this bill. I am hoping that, when it does come up for a vote, it will pass unanimously.

786 words

Context: House Hansard - 318 - May/27/24

May/27/24 4:46:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to give the parliamentary secretary another chance to answer my question. I asked him this: If the Speaker does not resign, when this comes to a vote, how is he going to vote? Is he going to vote for the Speaker to stay in the chair or not? If he is going to vote to keep the Speaker in the chair, how many more mistakes does he think the Speaker should be allowed? Is it one, two or 10 more? I just want to know the number. If the Speaker makes a mistake, how many more strikes does the member think the Speaker should get?

109 words

May/27/24 4:38:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have two quick questions for the parliamentary secretary. First, if the Speaker does not do the honourable thing and resign, is the member going to vote to have the Speaker step down? If his answer is no, then I want to know how many strikes, mistakes or errors of judgment he expects the Speaker to be tied to before he would ask him to step down. As for my second question, the parliamentary secretary has alluded to the fact that he somehow knows how I or all Conservatives voted when we elected the Speaker in the first place. I am wondering how he has access to secret ballots.

111 words

May/3/24 1:28:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill for the first time. I understand I have only two minutes, so I am not going to be able to address all the concerns. However, I just want to start. There has been a lot of commentary so far about how members should not have the opportunity to debate. It is one of my biggest observations, and I find it very frustrating when members across all parties want to have the opportunity to speak to a bill, yet we are constantly, especially with the current government in the last couple of years, met with countless time allocation motions and restrictions of the ability for members to speak to legislation here in this chamber. Really, what is this bill all about? It renames an existing body that already exists for the RCMP. It obviously expands upon that, but most importantly, it does expand to cover the Canada Border Services Agency. This is very important, because currently the CBSA is the only public safety agency in Canada without that independent oversight body for public complaints. Establishing this independent review body would foster and enhance public trust and confidence in Canada's law enforcement and border services institutions, something that I think all parties desperately agree is very important. As I just mentioned in my previous comment, it is disappointing that this bill has languished for the last six months and has not been a priority for the government. I am going to address a number of concerns, recognizing I only have a few seconds left. I want to highlight the lack of consultation around this bill, specifically some other issues around potentially how the actual members of the commission would get appointed, and the lack of independence in the process. I will get to that when this bill becomes a priority for the government once again.

315 words

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

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

166 words

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

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

83 words

Context: House Hansard - 302 - Apr/18/24

May/3/24 10:48:55 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-20

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-20 is clearly important for building trust and accountability within the RCMP and the CBSA. Unfortunately, the current Liberal government always seems reluctant to prioritize legislation that enhances accountability. Here is another example. The review of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act was supposed to begin in the fall of 2022, but the government has refused to initiate that accountability process. Why does the member think the Liberal government is reluctant to prioritize legislation that enhances accountability?

84 words

Context: House Hansard - 302 - Apr/18/24

Apr/18/24 4:16:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for really focusing on the need for economic growth in this country. I am wondering, considering that the Liberal government has put us in a position where we are paying more money to service the national debt than the government collects from taxpayers in GST, what impact that is having on increasing or supporting economic growth in this country. Even further, I am wondering what impact the carbon tax is having. I am not talking about the rebates, but we know from the Parliamentary Budget Officer's costing note that the government is collecting over $500 million, which will go to over $1 billion a year over the next eight years to the tune of $6.23 billion GST on the carbon tax alone. What impact that is having on our economic growth in Canada?

143 words

Context: House Hansard - 299 - Apr/15/24

Apr/18/24 1:28:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, something that bothers me and a lot of my constituents is just how much interest we are paying on the national debt. My hon. colleague talked about more money going to service the debt than going into health care, but he mentioned the military as well. I would like to ask his opinion on the importance of supporting our military here in Canada, especially considering how volatile the world is, and about the lack of commitment by the current government to getting us to our international commitments, in particular NATO, and how much that bothers so many Canadians and our allies.

103 words

Context: House Hansard - 299 - Apr/15/24

Apr/15/24 11:22:36 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my whole point is to increase the level of education and, I would argue, parliamentary oversight. I talked at length about accountability and transparency. Ultimately, all of us in this place were elected to represent Canadians. There is a huge demand, and I am sure the member has heard from some of his constituents, asking why they cannot know about certain things. In reality, there are legitimate reasons why we need to protect information. I am just saying that here is a way, through a proper process, that Parliament could actually get to know the information, hold the government to account and provide greater transparency as we continue to improve national security and intelligence in this country.

119 words

Context: House Hansard - 299 - Apr/15/24

Apr/15/24 11:21:08 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have looked at some of them, but not specifically on this process, because for a lot of them it is actually a lot simpler to get a security clearance or access to information. In general, the U.K. has a much broader system to allow it. I am not proposing we adopt a U.S. system of congressional or senatorial oversight; I am just suggesting the first step in a process that would just allow us to apply. As I have mentioned, my bill would not guarantee that a member or a senator would actually get the clearance, and it would not guarantee they would get access. All it is saying is that the government of the day, regardless of political party, would not be able to deny somebody's applying to get a security clearance.

139 words