Bill C-3 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the Canada Border Services Agency Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to, among other things, rename the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as the Public Complaints and Review Commission. It also amends the Canada Border Services Agency Act to, among other things, grant to that Commission powers, duties and functions in relation to the Canada Border Services Agency, including the power to conduct a review of the activities of that Agency and to investigate complaints concerning the conduct of any of that Agency’s officers or employees. It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

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

Vote #16

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I declare the motion defeated.

We will now go back to questions and comments.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth and to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today because I am confused and dismayed at the earlier comments made by the member for Prince Albert. I am confused because the member spoke for five minutes on the value of debate, discourse and dialogue, and then subsequently moved to adjourn all discussions for the day.

I am dismayed because prior to that he advocated for force, for action and for a lack of discourse. He is contradicting himself and I would like him to elaborate on whether he does indeed value debate and discourse, or would like us all to go home without talking any more or what action he submits.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised the Liberal member is confused. That is quite common in this House.

The point I was trying to make is there are so many good things we could have been debating this week and the Liberals chose not to because they are so weak in dealing with an issue that is facing the country with the blockades. That is the point I was making.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring it back to Bill C-3 for a moment.

Bill C-3 is a new approach that would combine a current panel that gives oversight to the RCMP and extend that to the CBSA. I am not convinced that this will be a successful effort, but does the member believe it is worthy of being given a shot?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I always look forward to members on this side providing advice and suggestions. Those are things that should be considered. I think we should consider what the member is proposing.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party is sending a confusing message. On the one hand, it does not really want to work on Fridays, and we know that. On the other hand, the Conservatives moved another motion saying that we should adjourn the debate on a piece of legislation that everyone inside this chamber appears to be supporting.

We have had days of debate thus far and the Conservatives have chosen, for whatever reason, to continue to filibuster. The members talk about having different types of debate. If we are all in agreement on this issue, why would the Conservatives at the very least not allow the debate to continue or allow it to come to a vote? Why play games on important pieces of legislation?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I can hear the frustration in the member's voice and see it on his face. Maybe the member has an idea of how Canadians feel today. Maybe he has a sense of how the farmers are feeling today, when they are looking at their bins that are full of grain, and they look at their bills and are asking what they are to do. They know that a month from now they will not be able to haul their grain because of road bans. They know it would take at least two and a half to three weeks for the grain to actually get moving again, if we were to stop blockades today.

If the member feels frustration, it is one-tenth of what those farmers are feeling right now.