House of Commons Hansard #59 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was colombia.

Topics

Employment Insurance Act
Private Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from June 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-475, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (methamphetamine and ecstasy), be read the third time and passed.

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
Private Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-475 under private members' business. The question is on the motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #72

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
Private Members' Business

7 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

I wish to inform the House that because of the delay there will be no private members' business today. Accordingly, the order will be rescheduled for another sitting.

Use of Camera in Chamber
Points of Order
Private Members' Business

June 9th, 2010 / 7:05 p.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Mr. Speaker, the rule in the House is that we are not supposed to use cameras to take pictures. The member for Oakville just used a camera to take pictures in the House while the House was sitting.

Use of Camera in Chamber
Points of Order
Private Members' Business

7:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin

It would appear that the member for Oakville has left the chamber. The point of order is noted and we will wait to hear from the member for Oakville.

Use of Camera in Chamber
Points of Order
Private Members' Business

7:05 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, it may be too late in light of your earlier comments, but I was hoping to ask the House to see the clock as 6:59 p.m. so that we might proceed to private members' business.

Use of Camera in Chamber
Points of Order
Private Members' Business

7:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin

Is it agreed?

Use of Camera in Chamber
Points of Order
Private Members' Business

7:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

7:05 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

Mr. Speaker, on April 16, I rose to ask the Minister of Public Safety why he continued to pay no attention to the safety and security needs of Canadians in southeastern New Brunswick.

Since 1997, Moncton, Riverview and Dieppe have employed RCMP police services, with great success I might add. The Codiac RCMP has ensured honourable and effective service for many New Brunswickers but costs in recent years have soared.

Public safety is a fundamental right and it is the responsibility of government to guarantee this right. That is why the federal government has a cost sharing agreement with Canadian municipalities for their policing needs.

Of almost 270 communities in Canada, all but 2 out of 270 enjoy the 10% rebate provided by the federal government. Both of those communities are in southeastern New Brunswick. This is shameful. It is a dereliction of duty on the part of the government and it is not in the national interests. I speak now of the local concerns of the municipal governments in Moncton, Riverview and Dieppe that are suffering, as are the taxpayers, by this discrimination and dereliction of duty.

Over the last three years, municipal, provincial and federal leaders in New Brunswick have requested the cost sharing agreement every other community has been afforded. Repeated and sustained efforts have been met without the slightest response or acknowledgement from the government. This is totally unacceptable.

Every year the people of Moncton, Riverview and Dieppe must foot an extra $2 million in police costs that are covered by the federal government in every other community, and this is at a time when the government thinks it is appropriate to spend about the same amount of money, $1.9 million, on a fake lake. So, $2 million for policing services or $2 million for a fake lake with a fake lighthouse. What do the people of Canada think about this?

How have photo ops come to supercede the public safety needs of Canadians? All parties involved, from the municipalities to the Codiac Regional Policing Authority, have proven their shared commitment to finding a resolution to this matter but the federal government has not.

This is beyond the time for deliberations and consultations, as the minister continues to assert. These discussions have gone on for years now and the safety and security of New Brunswickers continues to suffer. The City of Moncton alone has made it clear that the current situation is unsustainable. Requests for a decision from the government have been completely ignored and the city stands to not renew its contract with the Codiac RCMP when it expires in 2012.

Only with a far more equitable cost sharing agreement can the Codiac RCMP continue to operate in the region. Moncton must make its final decision on the future of its police services by June 30 of this year. After years of being ignored by the government, it has now come to a head.

The question has been asked in this House numerous times. Soft assurances have been given and lunches paid for in the parliamentary restaurant by the government for mayors and successive mayors. Successive municipal administrations have not had an answer from the government.

When will equity and fairness be done so that southeastern New Brunswickers can join the other 268 communities that enjoy this advantage?

7:10 p.m.

Oxford
Ontario

Conservative

Dave MacKenzie Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety

Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the question put by my good friend, the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, regarding the police services agreement for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe.

In 1992 the Government of Canada entered into police service agreements with all of the provinces, except Ontario and Quebec which have their own provincial police forces, the territories and about 180 municipalities. Contract policing carried out by the RCMP is a method by which contract jurisdictions enter into an arrangement with the federal government known as a police service agreement for the use of the RCMP as a provincial, territorial or local police force. Contract policing has been seen as a way to advance federal government goals for public safety, as well as to provide a recognized professional police service to contract jurisdictions.

As I indicated, the RCMP does provide police service across the country pursuant to police service agreements with contract jurisdictions. All municipal police service agreements signed before 1992 contain a term or clause to share certain costs with Canada. The greater Moncton area, which includes Moncton, Riverview and Dieppe, has been policed by the RCMP under a police service agreement entered into in January 1998 by the former government. Within this agreement there is a clear provision agreed to by the signing parties that the policing service provided by the RCMP would be charged at 100% cost recovery.

The contract was signed in 1998, as I indicated, by the previous government and will expire in 2012, along with all other police service agreements. Currently the federal government is discussing the renewal of all police service agreements with the contract jurisdictions. There are many issues under discussion as all parties prepare for the expiry of the agreements in 2012 and for new arrangements starting then.

I am well aware of the issue concerning the costing arrangements for the police service agreement with Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe. The member may rest assured that this issue has been and will be discussed within the broader context of the renewal of the police service agreement. I believe it would be wise to allow our officials to continue to advance this issue.

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

Brian Murphy Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the response. I know the parliamentary secretary is very hard working and has a background in policing. I do appreciate his sincerity.

However, here is the deal. The deadline is approaching. The citizens of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe have to make a decision, and by the non-response, because the response to Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe has to be couched in an overall reassessment of the agreement for the other 268 communities, this means that the governments in Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe will have to make a decision and that decision will not be with the benefit of a future reduction in the RCMP costs of 10% that other communities enjoy.

The answer tonight says to governments and mayors that we will not have the RCMP in the greater Moncton area. The government has done nothing to further the cause of the RCMP in greater Moncton because it does not give a response to this June 30 deadline.

It is a fait accompli. I am sorry for this dereliction, but that is the way it is.

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

Dave MacKenzie Oxford, ON

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleague across the floor listens closely. Contract policing is recognized by other nations as a model for integrating the fight against crime at the local, provincial, national and international levels, which does advance federal government goals for public safety and provides a professional police service to many rural and remote areas of Canada.

The cost issue has been and will continue to be discussed within the broader context of the renewal of the police service agreements.