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.

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to debate Bill C‑20. We could call this take three, because the government has wanted to pass legislation for this matter for some years, but neither Bill C‑3, which was introduced in the 43rd Parliament, nor Bill C-98, which was introduced in the 42nd Parliament, were prioritized.

Those two bills unfortunately died on the Order Paper. However, what is encouraging is that all parties seemed to agree. They supported the principle of these two bills, which is relatively the same as what we find today in Bill C‑20. All things come in threes, as they say. I hope the bill will pass this time.

However, it is unfortunate that it was not made a priority earlier. It was more than 18 years ago that Justice O'Connor recommended the creation of an independent process to handle public complaints against the Canada Border Services Agency, or the CBSA. That decision was handed down in 2004, but it was not until 2022 that the government finally decided to act.

As the Minister of Public Safety explained earlier, Bill C-20 seeks to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the Canada Border Services Agency Act to change the public complaints process.

This bill would establish the public complaints and review commission, which would replace the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It would make it possible to investigate complaints concerning the conduct and level of service of RCMP and CBSA personnel and review specified activities of these two organizations.

It is true that we currently have an independent oversight mechanism, but its mandate covers only matters affecting national security. It is therefore rather surprising that the CBSA is the only public safety agency in Canada that does not have a body that gives citizens recourse against an organization that can sometimes abuse its authority—

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

moved that Bill C-20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to open up the debate on second reading of Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments.

I would like to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for their important review of systemic racism in the enforcement of the act.

By creating a new public complaints and review commission, the bill would provide new tools to ensure transparency and accountability of the institutions Canadians rely on to keep them safe, to keep them safe in their communities through the work of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and to keep them safe by protecting our international borders through the work of the Canada Border Services Agency. Canadians depend on these public safety organizations, but, at the same time, want assurances that these organizations will use the powers that have been entrusted to them responsibly.

Canadians have a right to consistent, fair and equal treatment when interacting with RCMP and CBSA officers. If members are not acting appropriately, Canadians naturally want and deserve assurances of a thorough review of these actions and consequences for any officer who engages in misconduct.

This is a fundamental principle of our democracy.

Our democracy depends on the principle of trust and confidence in our institutions, including law enforcement institutions. Independent civilian review overseeing is an essential element to that principle. This bill underscores it by creating an independent body that will strengthen transparency and autonomy through the independent review exercises of this new body.

Independence assures that Canadians can have their concerns taken seriously. The bill also underscores that principle. That is why this is stand-alone legislation rather than simply amending either the RCMP or CBSA Acts.

Currently, under the RCMP Act, an independent review and redress process is provided for by the RCMP through the CRCC, or Civilian Review and Complaints Commission. Current cases under the CRCC will be continued under the public complaints and review commission, or the PCRC, under the bill before us. The CBSA, on the other hand, currently has no independent review and redress process.

It is subject to review by various independent boards, tribunals and courts.

Without a dedicated review body, there is no avenue for independent investigation or review of public complaints against the CBSA.

The government has tried twice previously to address this shortfall by creating a review body for the CBSA. Some colleagues will recall that in 2019, our government introduced Bill C-98 and then in 2020, Bill C-3. Those pieces of proposed legislation sought to add CBSA review to the mandate of the existing CRCC, but both died on the Order Paper.

This issue has remained a priority for our government.

The 2020 Speech from the Throne included it in our agenda. The creation of a review body for the CBSA was of top priority and a component of the mandate that the Prime Minister gave to me when I took on this role in December of 2021.

It is time to give Canadians the accountability they deserve.

In the bill before us, the CRCC would be replaced by the new public complaints and review commission, which would continue to review the RCMP and would also become the independent review body for complaints concerning the CBSA.

The bill contains several mechanisms that would strengthen accountability beyond what has been available under the current CRCC for the RCMP. After engaging and listening to Canadians across the country, we have made significant reforms to the regimes proposed under Bill C-98 and Bill C-3 previously. We listened and we acted.

Therefore, in addition to creating a stand-alone law, other changes have been made.

This would subject the RCMP and CBSA to codified timelines. We heard complaints from Canadians regarding the RCMP's, at times, delayed response to reports from the CRCC. This time around, we are getting it right. The RCMP and the CBSA will have six months to respond to the PCRC's interim reports. They must also respond to certain reviews and recommendations of the PCRC within 60 days.

Second, the RCMP and the CBSA will be required to report annually to this office, the Minister of Public Safety, on their progress in implementing PCRC recommendations.

The third major change responds to a mandate the Prime Minister gave to me to combat systemic racism and discrimination in the criminal justice system, and advancing reconciliation with indigenous peoples. This is a critically important priority, especially at this time in our history.

Over the past number of years, in Canada and around the world, we have had necessary conversations about the presence and existence of systemic racism in law enforcement about the disproportionate mistreatment of Black, racialized and indigenous peoples across the country. It is high time that we act.

It is vitally important that this review system shed light on how to address these issues more fully.

Under the bill before us, the PCRC would collect and publish desegregated, race-based data on complainants in consultation with the RCMP and the CBSA.

I want to thank the chairperson of the CRCC, Michelaine Lahaie, and her colleagues for their advice and their vision on how the review process can become an essential tool to help not only understand systemic racism, but to eradicate it once and for all.

The fourth major change introduced in the bill would provide the PCRC with a public education and information mandate. The PCRC would implement programs to increase public knowledge and awareness of the PCRC's mandate and the right to redress.

Finally, the bill would address a gap in the current accountability and transparency regime involving how the CBSA responds to incidents of a serious nature.

These incidents can result in death or serious injury or violations of federal or provincial law.

The CBSA currently conducts its own internal reviews of such matters, but the bill before us would amend the CBSA Act so that the CBSA would be obligated to conduct such reviews. It would also need to notify both the PCRC and the police of appropriate jurisdiction.

The CBSA would also be required to provide the PCRC with reports and other information of serious incidents. The PCRC would have the authority to send an observer to assess the impartiality of these internal investigations. As part of its annual report to this office, the PCRC would also include the number, types and outcomes of serious incident allegations.

Taken together, these five changes represent a major step forward in the accountability and transparency mechanisms governing both the RCMP and the CBSA. The PCRC will be given the tools that it needs to help balance Canada's public safety and security priorities, as well as respect for the rights of the individuals with which they intersect.

To support the establishment of the commission, the government is investing $112.3 million over six years and $19.4 million ongoing. By creating an enhanced independent review body, the public complaints and review commission will help assure Canadians that they can continue to expect consistent, fair and equal treatment under the law when receiving services from the RCMP and the CBSA.

I urge all hon. members of the House to join me in supporting this important bill.

This is so Canada can assuage Canadians' concerns by creating greater transparency, oversight, and trust and confidence in our law institutions.

[Allen Sutherland]

I did look at this a little bit in preparation for the committee meeting, and one of the things that I focused on was the government bills that were in Parliament prior to prorogation. I would note that with one exception all of them were reintroduced and are making their way through the system. I note that it does appear that—and since it's a minority Parliament, it takes goodwill on both sides—the various bills that were before committee or at second reading have been reintroduced. The one exception, I think, was appropriate. It involves what was then Bill C-3.

In terms of some of the other stuff, I think the government endeavoured to bring things back to the stage they were at before. With regard to the PMBs, there was no practical impact—

[Julian Falconer]

Thank you.

I've seen this committee's work specifically on the issues surrounding recommendations that have ended up in Bill C-3 concerning the civilian review and complaints commission. What I am left wondering, after 30 years of doing this work in policing specifically, is this: What is the fear of creating independent civilian oversight over the RCMP? I mean, for God's sake, respectfully, why is everybody pussyfooting around this issue?

You talk about adding some teeth to the work of the CRCC. That's fine. Obviously, Madam Lahaie is the real deal as she tries to call them out—all she has is a recommendation function—but isn't the obvious going on here? You create an independent oversight body, a board, that runs the RCMP. The same should be done with the OPP. That's my first point. Then you make sure it's an effective oversight body. That doesn't exist. Honestly, the RCMP remains quite unbridled and quite a law unto themselves. That's what Ms. Lahaie, the chair, has just recently announced. She cannot get them to follow her recommendations, and the reason is that she doesn't run them. She makes recommendations.

My second issue that I want to emphasize is that the role of indigenous police services in this country needs to be legislated and enhanced. Respectfully, Ms. Whitman shouldn't have to answer why and how the RCMP can adapt and change. Why don't all first nations communities have the option of having indigenous policing? You look at NAPS. You look at Wikwemikong Tribal Police Service. You look at the Treaty Three Police Service. You look at the other police services in Ontario that are indigenous. They make huge headway. I think it's an important step in the right direction.

[Michelaine Lahaie]

The commission was not consulted on Bill C-3 when it was drafted.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Okay.

You have made recommendations on the changes that should be made to Bill C-3. Were you consulted during the drafting of this bill? We feel that no one asked for your opinion.

Did the government ask you?

[Michelaine Lahaie]

To clarify, she is required to respond in accordance with the legislation, so she must respond to our reports. She must indicate whether she accepts our recommendations. If she does not accept them, she has to tell us why.

I believe the solution to this issue is to insert statutory timelines within Bill C-3, so that they are required to provide a response within a time that's articulated in the law. We currently have an MOU with the RCMP that articulates those timelines, but they are not statutory.

[Michelaine Lahaie, Chairperson, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Good morning and thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today on the subject of systemic racism in policing services in Canada.

The Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP is an independent body established by Parliament. The commission makes broad-ranging recommendations regarding policies, procedures and training with the ultimate goal of improving policing and enhancing RCMP accountability. Greater police accountability is achieved through effective oversight, not only for public complaints but also through reviews of systemic issues.

As the Minister of Public Safety recently indicated to this committee, indigenous people, black Canadians and other racialized people experience systemic racism and disparate outcomes within the criminal justice system. That system includes all police forces, including the RCMP.

I must point out that the work of the commission is not immune to the long-term and ongoing effects of systemic racism. For example, it has been reported that there is an overrepresentation of police use of force incidents involving indigenous and racialized people. However, many of these use of force incidents do not result in a public complaint. Why is that the case?

In the commission’s northern British Columbia investigation, which was undertaken as a follow-up to a Human Rights Watch report, we asked members of indigenous communities why they do not make use of the complaints system. We found out that many indigenous people are either unaware of the public complaint process or do not trust it. The process can be excessively bureaucratic and difficult to navigate.

However, the commission has taken some action to improve the accessibility of the public complaints system, including making the public complaint form available in 16 different languages. We most recently worked very closely with the territorial Government of Nunavut to ensure that the complaint form and additional materials on the complaints process were available in Inuktitut.

Even with these strides, the commission still needs to do more to ensure greater accessibility, trust and transparency in the complaints process. Ultimately, my goal is for people to believe that they can file a complaint with the commission and be treated fairly, without fear of reprisal. To achieve that, we need to consult indigenous and racialized communities to identify and break down the systemic barriers that exist within our current system and implement their suggested changes. We must adopt a regime that better serves all communities.

In that regard, the commission, along with the RCMP, was involved in advancing an informal resolution process put forward by indigenous leaders. Such projects are key to combatting systemic racism and restoring public trust.

In terms of the RCMP, I must highlight that the commission’s lens tends to focus on individual allegations of bias, discrimination or racism. We do not get complaints of systemic racism as a rule. It is only when we take a step back and analyze our findings that the systemic nature of racism becomes apparent.

One such area is in the disparity of treatment between Caucasian and indigenous women detained for public intoxication in northern British Columbia, as noted in the commission’s public interest investigation into policing in that area. In a review of occurrence reports involving the policing of public intoxication, the commission noted that there were differences in treatment between indigenous and Caucasian women when it came to detention for public intoxication. Seventy-three per cent of indigenous women were held in cells until sober. In contrast, 54% percent of Caucasian women were held in cells until sober. As well, indigenous women were four times less likely to be taken home, rather than lodged in cells, as compared with Caucasian women.

The commission is also currently working on a systemic review of the RCMP's bias-free policing model. This review is examining the RCMP's bias-free policing policies and training, and assessing the broader application and accountability framework that is in place to ensure that RCMP members adhere to these policies. Accountability and transparency are key to addressing systemic issues and bringing about change.

To that end, I would suggest that there is an opportunity to further enhance the oversight regime with Bill C-3 and would make the following recommendations to strengthen the bill.

First, I recommend statutory timelines for responses to commission reports to codify the schedule established in the CRCC–RCMP MOU. At present, the legislation requires the commissioner to respond as soon as feasible. Responses to commission interim reports now take an average of 17 months. One of the commission's reports has been waiting for a response for over three and a half years. This is unacceptable in any system where accountability is critical.

Second, public education and outreach to indigenous and racialized communities must become statutory requirements. Bill C-3 currently makes public education mandatory for the commission's new oversight mandate for CBSA, but these activities remain optional under the RCMP Act. The only way that the public complaint process works is if people trust the system. The only way to build that trust is through our outreach efforts.

Third, I would like to see both the commissioner and, once Bill C-3 comes into force, the president of the CBSA required to provide an annual report to the commission outlining the status of implementation of the commission's recommendations. This would increase the transparency of the complaint system and reassure Canadians that the RCMP and the CBSA are held to a high standard of public accountability.

Finally, the commission needs to be appropriately resourced to conduct systemic reviews. At present, systemic reviews are conducted when sufficient resources are available. However, as chairperson, I must constantly make the decision between dealing with complaints from the public and conducting systemic reviews.

I do realize, however, that we have our own work to do. We need to dedicate more resources to outreach and public education in indigenous and racialized communities. We must consult and we must listen. We must become more transparent. We recently began to post summaries of public complaint decisions on our website. It is important that the Canadian public be made aware of our work and the recommendations that we make.

The commission must be consulted on any changes to oversight for both the RCMP and changes to Bill C-3. With its 35 years of experience in overseeing our national police force, the CRCC is uniquely qualified to provide insight and recommendations to inform decision-makers on this critical and pressing issue for Canadians. We are at an opportune time to effect change.

Thank you again for inviting me here today. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[Dr. Christian Leuprecht]

I will close with my four points on action items.

We need to hold middle management accountable. The CAF demonstrates the effect that can have in terms of curtailing the sorts of challenges we are seeing.

The RCMP needs to release results of discipline hearings to the public. There's a ministerial directive on this. The RCMP has not published an annual report since 2017. Commissioner Lucki, as has been widely reported, has 180 Civilian Review and Complaints Commission reports on her desk dating back to 2016. That backlog simply is not acceptable.

My challenge to you as a committee is this. You have concrete opportunities to do things here and now, and that is Bill C-3, which is currently before Parliament. I detail several challenges that bill currently has. For the sake of time, I will not go through these in detail here, but Bill C-3, with the improvements that I lay out, can effect very clear and concrete change right here, right now.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Let me begin by saying that I think our complaints system has to be accessible to all Canadians. It needs to be transparent. It needs to be fair and objective. It also needs to be quick. What we have seen and what I've heard very clearly is that Canadians across the country have raised a number of concerns regarding the timeliness of those complaint reviews.

I've had a little bit of experience in my own jurisdiction, under a different legislative framework, with a complaints process. As a police chief, I can tell you that a well-functioning and accessible complaints review system that the public can trust with regard to its objectivity, its fairness, and its accessibility, and through which individuals who engage in misconduct will be held to account, is of tremendously important assistance to a police chief to maintain public trust in those complaints systems. I also recall that when they were first being introduced across the country, there was some resistance to them amongst police leaders. What we found very quickly was that when those investigations were being conducted independent of police leadership and the public trusted the outcome, they produced much better results.

I'll also tell you that in my experience the overwhelming majority of complaints can be resolved quite informally and quite quickly, but they need to be recorded to ensure the integrity of a complaints review system.

I am in complete agreement with the importance of published and enforceable timelines so that Canadians can have a reasonable expectation of when a matter will be resolved, and I think they should be as open and transparent as possible. The commissioner and I have had a number of conversations about how that can be achieved.

I would also point out that we introduced legislation in the last Parliament, which, unfortunately, passed in the House but didn't get through the Senate. We've reintroduced it in the form of Bill C-3. That's for a complaints review system that builds upon the existing CRCC body and includes the responsibility for providing a complaints mechanism for our border services officers. I'm looking very carefully at that legislation to ensure it does have those appropriate and defined timelines. I think there are a number of things this committee could do.

Let me assure you that I'm very open to your observations and recommendations coming forward from the work of this committee on how we can make the complaints review system work better, not just for all Canadians but for police officers who are the subject of these complaints. Timely resolutions of those complaints are actually in their interests as well so that they can get on with rebuilding their relationship with the people they're supposed to be serving.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

This afternoon we will continue debate on the NDP motion.

Tomorrow, we will resume debate on Bill C-4 on the free trade agreement with Mexico and the United States. We hope to conclude the debate that afternoon.

When hon. colleagues return from the constituency week, we will follow up with Bill C-7 on medical assistance in dying, Bill C-8 on conversion therapy and Bill C-3 on CBSA oversight.

Finally, I would like to inform the House that Monday, March 23, and Thursday, March 26, shall be allotted days.

Opposition Motion—Additional Allotted Days

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the recurring themes in the hon. member's speech was encouraging debate in this place.

A week ago today, the members of the House were debating Bill C-3. I participated in the debate on the Thursday, a debate that was going to make significant changes and improvements to Canada's boarder agency.

As we recall, a Conservative member moved a motion to shut down the House for the day at 12:30 in the afternoon. We had a lot more to debate, yet the Conservatives wanted to shut down the House for the day, so they could go home or go to Niagara. They failed to get the votes they needed and MPs from other parties wanted to continue debate on the bill, but it did not matter. The Conservatives tied up the House over and over with votes that took attention away from debating this important legislation.

It is part of their pattern. The Conservatives have done this many times before to try to delay a passage of legislation in this place and to get in the way of debate in this place.

Why does the member's party continually play political tactics to prevent members of Parliament in the House from doing their jobs to debate important legislation?

Opposition Motion—Additional allotted days in the supply period

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, it seems we hit a nerve. It is clear the members of the opposition do not want to go forward on this important bill, a bill that is required, that businesses are crying out for, that farmers are crying out for, that people across the country want us to move forward on, but we are playing gotcha politics and we are playing petty politics on this particular day.

I would like to offer some comment on the importance of what we are debating today. This is not a motion that will likely attract the attention of many Canadians outside this chamber or outside the Ottawa bubble. It does not touch on the issues that are important to many of our constituents: the economy, jobs, affordability, climate change, health care, pensions, reconciliation with indigenous people, keeping our streets safe and securing Canada's place in the world.

These are, of course, the issues that are at the forefront of our government's agenda. These are the issues on which our government was elected to make changes. These are the issues on which our government has a mandate from Canadians.

This motion today does not call on the House to have a constructive debate on any of these matters. Make no mistake, the motion from the Conservative House leader has profound implications for Parliament and for the democratic system that we cherish. It is a motion that is reflective of the Conservatives themselves. While they were in government and during recent years in opposition, we have all seen their track record.

In government, under Stephen Harper, Conservatives showed disdain for Parliament and for all the members on the opposition benches. In opposition, under the current leader, who will be replaced in June, they have continued to show disdain for the traditions and decorum of this chamber. They heckle when I talk about decorum in this chamber, which is ironic.

Canadians have not forgotten the behaviour of the Conservatives in the 41st Parliament, as well as in the last one. It is the Conservatives who, all too often, held the House of Commons hostage with political tactics and manoeuvres, repeatedly obstructing MPs from debating important legislation. On more than one occasion, they forced the House to hold all-night marathon vote sessions. They voted against funding for infrastructure during that time, on national defence, veterans, police, security, VIA Rail services, Parks Canada, indigenous peoples and more.

This was a political stunt, and Liberal MPs stood proudly to vote in favour of those services that are important to Canadians. One of these voting marathons kept MPs in the chamber for 30 hours in the last Parliament. This came at a cost to Parliament's reputation and literally a cost to the taxpayers. Indeed, the Conservatives' current House leader said in a news release, when she was part of a previous Conservative government that was facing an NDP filibuster in 2011, that these tactics cost the House of Commons an additional $50,000 per hour to stay open. Where was that outrage in the last Parliament?

One of the Conservatives' most shameful episodes was when they tried to prevent the finance minister from reading his budget speech in the chamber by banging on their desks and shouting him down, like bullies in a schoolyard. It was an undignified spectacle.

These are the political stunts that the Conservatives like to call tools from their tool box. It is quite the tool box. This behaviour from the Conservative opposition has done nothing to restore Canadians' trust in Parliament. In fact, I fear what they have done has deepened the cynicism among all of our constituents.

Unfortunately, it has become clear that the Conservatives have not changed since the last Parliament. Last Thursday, they kept MPs in Ottawa for a vote on a opposition day, which never happened because once everyone had missed their flights home, they deferred the vote to the following Monday. MPs missed events in their riding, they missed spending time with their kids, husbands, wives and families. Why did they do this? For one reason: they could.

Simply a day later, on Friday, the Conservatives dipped into their bag of tricks again to obstruct the work of Parliament. On that day, members were debating Bill C-3, supported by all parties, including the Conservatives, that would bring great improvements to the accountability of the Canada Border Services Agency, and yet the Conservatives moved to literally shut down the business of the House that day.

They moved a motion to adjourn the House at 12:30 p.m., during their lunch hour. I know most Canadians do not move to end their work during their lunch hour, but the Conservatives did. They wanted to turn off the lights for the day. When that did not work, they attempted to adjourn debate again. When that failed, they attempted to shut down the House early, again.

These political stunts consumed over two hours of time in the House. The Conservatives' objective was clear: preventing the House from debating this important legislation. Unfortunately, that is exactly what happened. Without a doubt, the Conservatives have shown their true colours. They do not believe in Parliament.

Conservatives have shown this once again with the motion we are debating today, for at the heart of what the Conservative opposition members hope to achieve is tilting the balance from long-standing practices and procedures that have served the House well for many decades. This balance is simple in its design but crucial to its core.

The following is what makes our parliamentary system so successful. When an election happens, Canadians send their elected representatives to the House of Commons to act on their behalf. The government is elected with the responsibility to move forward on the agenda that Canadians have given it. That means introducing legislation, ensuring it receives vibrant debate from all sides and ultimately bringing legislation to a vote. There is limited time in the parliamentary calendar, and the government must always endeavour to schedule the time Parliament needs to examine and vote on its legislation.

Across the aisle, the opposition has the responsibility to hold the government to account and raise issues of public concern. Our system, under standing orders, allows for supply days to be scheduled. These days are also known as opposition days. On these days, government legislation is not debated. Instead, the opposition has the opportunity to bring forward a motion for debate and, ultimately, a vote.

This is the balance. Parliament needs time to debate legislation and to debate the supply days motion from the opposition. We believe Parliament can strike that balance.

Already we have come forward with important bills to ratify the new NAFTA, improve the CBSA, require training for judges on sexual assault, modernize the oath of citizenship and adjust the rules surrounding medical assistance in dying. These are just some of the parts of our platform to keep moving forward with policies that are both ambitious and achievable.

Our throne speech in December provided a road map for Parliament that outlines our agenda. We want to strengthen the middle class, make life more affordable for Canadians, protect the environment, fight climate change, improve the lives of indigenous people and secure Canada's place in the world.

Canadians sent us all a message in the recent election. They want us all to work together, and we agree. Indeed, we believe the House of Commons is a place where we can work on legislation to make important decisions for Canadians. Every day, we work hard in Parliament to find common ground on behalf of the Canadians who sent us all here.

While this happens, while we debate the merits of legislation and look to improve it, the opposition has many opportunities to bring issues to the forefront. This happens routinely in question period, and I would be remiss if I did not remind the House that it was our government that made fundamental changes to question period. It was our government that created the prime minister's question period on Wednesdays. Our Prime Minister answers every question during question period from all sides of the House.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act

[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, it is an interesting day to be discussing Bill C-3 when we see what is going on in Canada and what we could be talking about.

There are so many things that are happening that this House should be discussing and debating today other than Bill C-3. I have nothing against Bill C-3. However, if we look at what is going on in Canada and happening across our great country, we see our country being ripped apart and torn to shreds.

I will give members a couple of examples of some of the things we could be talking about that have a day-to-day impact on Canadians.

We could have spent some time this week talking about the coronavirus. We have Canadians who are still trying to get out of China. We have situations around the world where passengers cannot leave cruise ships. We could have been debating that and what we should be doing about it. We could have been making sure that we have the proper safety protocols in place and that we are immensely prepared for this type of virus. However, we did not.

We have started NAFTA hearings at committee. This would have been a great week to show all the problems with NAFTA. This party is here to support and pass it, because we are being told to and we would never play silly bugger with it. We have expressed that right from day one, but there are things in NAFTA that need to be talked about.

This week at committee we heard from witnesses who will be negatively impacted by this agreement. They are not saying we should not sign it or that we should not move it forward. They understand how important it is to the Canadian economy and that it has to happen. However, they are asking the Liberal government for a plan to help them mitigate the downside of the agreement.

Aluminum producers in Chicoutimi are asking for some support in taking their product to the next level to add value to their aluminum products. That would be a plan, but there is no plan from the government. We could have had great debates on that and what we could do to help the different sectors.

The dairy sector is being kneecapped in this agreement. Not only is it facing importations of 3.5%, it is also facing restrictions. It is being told what it can sell, when it can sell it and who it can sell it to. That has never happened in a trade agreement. That would have been a good debate here to look at ways to mitigate that type of scenario.

We could have been talking about the China-Senegal situation, which is the PM's cost for a UN Security Council seat. He has his Mastercard out, paying $50 million here and $50 million there. We should have had a debate this week in the House on just how expensive this seat is going to be and if he will actually have success in getting it. However, we did not talk about it.

The Lima Group was here in Ottawa talking about Venezuela. I do not think anybody realized that. That is ironic, because that is where our country is heading to right now. If we do not have trains running, there will be no toilet paper in the stores in a couple of weeks. That is the reality.

The Liberals can deny it all they want, but their inaction on this file has been so terrible it is unreal. Canadians are going to pay.

The other thing we should have been talking about in light of all these things is the impact it is having on the economy, jobs and growth. There is going to be a huge cost. Nobody is even talking about that cost.