Debates of Jan. 29th, 2020

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated listening to my colleague, the member for Kootenay—Columbia, in the sense of his long record in the RCMP.

I would believe that probably from his experience and understanding of input when policy that will affect a new agency that does similar types of work is being developed, he might understand the value of input as the new policy and procedures are developed.

Could that member respond and tell us how he feels the value of the input from speaking to those people may have been missed and why it is so important?

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, now that I am on the public safety committee, I will have an opportunity to call in witnesses so that we get a full understanding of the concerns from the unions and the RCMP union or whatever it ends up being. As well, I will have some input on the selection of the oversight committee and exactly what skills they will need to fulfill their duties.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off by saying that I will be sharing my time today with the member for Bonavista—Burin—Trinity.

I am grateful for the opportunity to add my voice to today's debate on Bill C-3, which proposes to establish an arm's-length review body for the Canada Border Services Agency.

The CBSA is already reviewed by several different independent boards, tribunals and courts. They scrutinize such things as the agency's customs and immigration decisions. However, there is no existing external review body for some of its other functions and activities.

For example, there is a gap when it comes to public complaints related to CBSA employee conduct and service. With the way things currently stand, there is also no independent review mechanism for the CBSA's non-national security activities. That makes the CBSA something of an outlier, both at home and abroad.

Other public safety organizations in Canada are subject to independent review, as are border agencies in a number of peer countries including the U.K., Australia, New Zealand and France. Addressing these accountability gaps through Bill C-3 would improve the CBSA's strength and would strengthen public confidence in the agency. It would ensure that the public could continue to expect consistent, fair and equal treatment by CBSA employees, and it would lead to opportunities for ongoing improvement in the CBSA's interactions and service delivery.

For an organization that deals with tens of millions of people each year, that is extremely important. Public complaints about the conduct of, and the service provided by, CBSA employees are currently dealt with only internally at the agency. I am sure all of my hon. colleagues would agree that this is no longer a tenable situation.

Under Bill C-3, these complaints would instead be handled by a new arm's-length public complaints and review commission, or PCRC. The new PCRC would build on and strengthen the existing Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, CRCC for short, which is currently the review agency for the RCMP. The CRCC would thus be given an expanded role under this bill and a new name to go along with its new responsibilities for the CBSA.

The PCRC would be able to receive and investigate complaints from the public regarding the conduct of the CBSA officials and the service provided by the CBSA. Service-related complaints could be about a number of issues. They could include border wait times and processing delays; lost or damaged postal items; the level of service provided; the examination process, including damage to goods or electronic devices during a search or examination; and CBSA infrastructure, including sufficient space, poor signage or the lack of available parking.

Service-related complaints do not include enforcement actions, such as fines for failing to pay duties, nor do they include trade decisions, such as tariff classification. Those types of decisions can already be considered by existing review mechanisms.

In addition to its complaints function, the PCRC would also review non-national security activities conducted by the RCMP and the CBSA. The PCRC reports would include findings and recommendations on the adequacy, appropriateness, sufficiency or clarity of CBSA policies, procedures and guidelines; the CBSA's compliance with the law and ministerial directions; and the reasonableness and necessity of the CBSA's use of its powers. The CBSA would be required to provide a response to those findings and recommendations for all complaints.

The creation of the PCRC is overdue. It would answer long-standing calls for an independent review of public complaints involving the CBSA.

According to former parliamentarian and chair of the NATO Association of Canada at Massey College, Hugh Segal, the lack of oversight for the CBSA is not appropriate and is unacceptable.

Former CBSA president Luc Portelance also said that when a Canadian citizen or a foreign national engages with a border officer and has a negative interaction, the entire review mechanism is not public. It is internal, and it is not seen as independent. In Mr. Portelance's view, that creates a significant problem in terms of public trust.

The Government of Canada has committed to rectifying this situation by addressing gaps in the CBSA's framework for external accountability.

With the introduction of Bill C-3, the government is delivering on that commitment. It builds on recent action taken by the government to strengthen accountability on national security matters. That includes passing legislation to establish the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. It also includes the creation, through Bill C-59, of the new expert review body, the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency. These two bodies are now in operation and they are doing extremely important work in terms of reviewing the national security activities of all departments and agencies, including the CBSA.

Bill C-3 would go further by establishing a review and complaints function for CBSA's other activities. In doing so, it would fill the gap in the architecture of public safety accountability in this country. It would allow for independent review of public complaints related to CBSA employee conduct, issues regarding CBSA services, and the conditions and treatment of immigration detainees. With respect to these detainees specifically, Bill C-3 would offer additional safeguards to ensure that they are treated humanely and are provided with necessary resources and services while detained.

The introduction of this bill demonstrates a commitment to keeping Canadians safe and secure while treating people fairly and respecting human rights. It is a major step forward in ensuring that Canadians are confident in the accountability system for the agencies that work so hard to keep them safe.

For all the reasons I have outlined today, I will be voting in favour of Bill C-3 at second reading. I urge all of my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting the bill.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in the last session my friend across the way and I had the privilege to serve together on the public safety committee and I appreciate her perspective on many things. I am wondering whether my colleague could answer two questions for me.

First, the minister spoke about $25 million being allocated over five years for this expansion. What accountability measures would be in place to ensure that this new review body has the appropriate people and the appropriate resources to do the job?

Second, what recourse would Canadians have should the commission decide to not hear a complaint, and what accountability would the commission have when that happens? How would that mechanism work? If the member could describe that for me, it would be great.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's sentiments. I enjoyed my time working with him on the public safety committee last term.

In terms of accountability, this review body is a way to create more accountability. Currently with the process we have in place, nothing is made public. Any complaints that are made are handled internally, and that is unacceptable at this point.

We have had review agencies for the RCMP; my colleague and I worked on that in committee. I understand his concern about accountability, but we also have to understand that this in itself would be another layer of accountability. All the determinations that would be made by this commission would be made public, and I believe if something were to seem distasteful or incorrect, the public would then have the right to know about it and could then raise the issues with the government in public.

I definitely share my colleague's concerns, but this is a step toward accountability.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I do have a concern, as has been mentioned earlier, that there are exemptions in this legislation for the ability to make complaints.

One is the action of CBSA agents in trying to identify suspected illegal immigrants in public. There have been allegations of agents identifying people based on profiling and asking them to prove that they are Canadian citizens.

The second exemption that was raised here today is the power to detain, sometimes indefinitely, children and their families without the oversight that this legislation would provide.

Does the member for Brampton North have any concerns that these types of activities, which are part of the enforcement provisions of agents of the CBSA, will be unregulated, in the sense that such complaints will not be considered by this complaint committee?

These are very serious matters that do need oversight, because complaints have been made about them.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when things like that occur and are brought to our attention, they are alarming and disturbing. However, this body would be able to hear complaints when it came to the treatment of detainees. Therefore, I do not believe that to be an exception. This body would be able to handle complaints of that nature. It is the decisions of the officers that would not be brought to this agency. There are other mechanisms in place before the tribunal that could review those matters.

According to my understanding, the conduct and treatment of people at the border or detainees would fall within this body.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to rise in this House and add my voice to the debate on Bill C-3 which proposes to establish an arm's-length review and complaints function for the CBSA.

The bill before us builds on an action that our government had recently taken to strengthen accountability and transparency in the public safety and national security sphere. As members know, we passed legislation to create the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, and that committee has now been established. Following the passage of Bill C-59, we also created a new National Security and Intelligence Review Agency. The goal of both of these bodies is to provide accountability for the national security work of all Government of Canada departments and agencies, including the CBSA.

Strong internal and external mechanisms are in place to address many of the CBSA's other activities. For example, certain decisions in the immigration context are subject to review by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. Its customs decisions can be appealed to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal as well as to the Federal Court. However, the glaring gap that remains has to do with the public complaints related to the conduct of, and service provided by, CBSA employees.

There is simply no independent place to which people can turn when they have a grievance about the way they were treated by someone representing the CBSA. Without an independent body specifically tasked to hear complaints, it is easy to see how people can feel uncomfortable voicing any concerns. Bill C-3 would change that by establishing an independent review and complaints function for the CBSA. That new tool would be incorporated into, and benefit from the expertise and experience of, the existing Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, or CRCC, for the RCMP.

To reflect its new CBSA responsibilities, the CRCC would be renamed the “public complaints and review commission”, or PCRC. Members of the public who deal with the CBSA would be able to submit a complaint to any officer or employee of the agency or to the PCRC. The CBSA would conduct the initial investigation into a complaint, whether it is submitted to the CBSA or to the PCRC. However, the PCRC would have the ability to investigate any complaint that is considered to be in the public interest. It could also initiate a complaint proactively. In the event that a complainant was not satisfied with the CBSA's response to a complaint, he or she could ask the PCRC to review the CBSA's response. The PCRC would also have a mandate to conduct overarching reviews of specified activities of the CBSA. All of this would bring the CBSA in line with Canada's other public safety organizations, which are currently subject to independent review, and it would allow Canada to join the ranks of peer countries with respect to adding accountability functions for their border agencies.

Recourse through the PCRC would be available to anyone who interacts with CBSA or RCMP employees. This includes Canadian citizens, permanent residents and foreign nationals, including immigration detainees. Most of these detainees are held in CBSA-managed immigration holding centres. When that is not possible, CBSA detainees are placed in other facilities, including provincial correctional facilities. The CBSA has established agreements with B.C., Alberta, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia for detention purposes.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Bonavista—Burin—Trinity will have about five minutes remaining in his time, should he wish to take it, when the House next gets back to debate on the question.

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

Natural Resources

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to stand in this House. It is always a privilege to speak in this place and it is a great place for Canadians to see us represent them.

In my community the resource sector is a huge and critically important industry. Many businesses have closed. Many businesses have gone out of business. It is horrendous to think what the government has done to my riding by shutting down the fossil fuel industry

A week ago we had some of the coldest temperatures in Canada for a solid week. As the energy for Alberta was reported, there was 0.000 coming in from solar. We have hundreds and hundreds of acres of solar. We also have thousands of big windmills and that energy came in at 0.004% to the grid. For a solid week the only way we survived in Alberta was with fossil fuels. We live in a northern climate and without those fossil fuels, we will not survive. It is a critical industry in this country and it needs to be valued as an ethical and economically produced resource.

The government reacted quickly, which was great, with the Iranian missile crisis when a plane was shot down and Canadians were killed. However, months ago there was a plane that crashed where 18 Canadians were killed. What has the government done in following up with those families? Sometimes the government responds and sometimes it does not.

Another area in which the government needs to respond is cystic fibrosis. Over 4,300 Canadians are living with cystic fibrosis. The median age of people with cystic fibrosis is 22. The median age of survival is 52. They need access to medicine. They need a real, effective national rare disease policy. We talked about this for months. We need drug approval for rare diseases like CF and we need it streamlined. We need the government to take leadership to work with the province to make these drugs available to Canadians that desperately need them.

I want to read a letter I received a couple days ago:

“We are writing to you on behalf of our dear son, who is as you know, suffering from the fatal genetic disease, cystic fibrosis. In October, the U.S. released a new gene-modifying drug. This drug could save his life. He is an engineer, well educated and a very intelligent man. Marten is currently living with reduced lung function and does not have years to wait for this drug to come to Canada. I cannot imagine the struggle he has on a daily basis knowing that drugs are available which could improve the quality of his life but are just out of reach. We were shocked to learn that Canada is one of the only developed nations in the world that has failed to approve access to sustaining CF. Australia, Denmark, England, Scotland, Ireland, France, Germany, Netherlands, Austria, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Greece, Spain, Luxembourg and the United States are all providing public access to the gene modulators for CF, while Canadian patients suffer needlessly. This disheartens me and makes me ashamed of my province and country.

“Why should our son suffer when the rest of the world is celebrating? This is just uncomprehensible. With hope and anticipation, Henk and Janny.”

We need this drug approved. The federal government can take the lead on this. We need it approved so it can work with the provinces to make this drug available for 4,300 Canadians. It needs to be done and it needs to be done quickly.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for sharing with us the importance of the energy sector for the prosperity of people living in his riding.

I would like to reassure him and all members of the House that we have been at the table with our support for this job-creating industry, including through a $275-million investment to support the single-largest private sector investment in Canadian history, the LNG Canada project.

Let us remember that this is a project that, when completed, will be not only the cleanest of its kind in the world, but will also allow sustainably produced Canadian natural gas to displace dirtier sources of energy currently in use around the world. The project will also create up to 10,000 good, well-paying jobs at the height of its construction. This is a clear win-win for growing the economy and protecting the environment.

Our government has also participated in recent trade missions to places such as Japan and the United Kingdom, and we did so to promote Canadian LNG as a reliable and competitively priced source of energy. This reflects what Canadians told us through Generation Energy, the largest national discussion on our energy in our country's history.

We invited Canadians to imagine their energy future, to think about what the world might look like when their kids and grandkids were grown and what we should do now to get there. More than 380,000 Canadians shared their vision with us and we listened.

What emerged from Generation Energy was a compelling and inspiring vision. Canadians told us they wanted a thriving, low-carbon economy. They wanted us to be leaders in Canada's transition to a low-carbon economy by investing in innovation and delivering economic growth, competitive industries and clean jobs, while protecting the environment.

Canada's LNG industry will help us tackle global greenhouse gas emissions, while helping to ensure energy remains affordable for Canadians, create good, well-paying jobs and build a stronger, more sustainable economy.

It is also why we are providing support where it is needed most. That is why we are working with our provincial partners to develop Canadian LNG in a sustainable way.

We have signed a new memorandum of understanding to affirm our joint commitment to power British Columbia's natural gas production and liquefied natural gas sectors with clean energy. By moving to clean power, a process referred to as electrification, we will avoid emissions and position Canada as a supplier of the world's cleanest natural gas. We will also help British Columbia achieve its climate change commitments and support projects that will create jobs and opportunities in rural and indigenous communities across the province.

Because of the potential and how tremendous it could be for communities such as my hon. colleague's, the opportunities are there and we are taking them.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is another issue in my community that is getting worse, and it is called rural crime.

In the community of Carseland, the post office was broken into twice and the little store in the community was broken into as well. What is really sad is that Canada Post has closed that building. It is now a half an hour to 45 minutes for people to get their mail, and Canada Post says there will not be a temporary post office for another two months. Because of rural crime, seniors cannot get their mail and have to go another community at least a half hour away during business hours to get their mail, along with everybody else.

Rural crime is growing in my constituency. People are angry. The post office, a business that needs to be open and people need to access, is closed and will not be open for two months. Think of seniors who are not mobile, cannot go to other communities and other people cannot get their mail for them. Think of the anger in the community about rural crime. It needs to be solved now.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I cannot speak this evening to the particulars of the crime taking place in my hon. colleague's community. What I would like to touch upon, though, is our government's actions with regard to supporting the LNG sector.

Actions speak louder than words, and we have taken strong action to make this sector competitive and more sustainable, to create jobs and cut emissions.

By working with B.C. to electrify the industry, by investing in clean technology and innovation and by putting the conditions in place to attract investment, including the single-largest private sector investment in Canadian history with the LNG Canada project, we are making it happen.

These recent investments and the LNG Canada project show Canadians that our plan is working.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to the next round of debate, I would remind hon. members that when we are in adjournment debate, much like when we are in committee of the whole, the rules are slightly more relaxed and members will be recognized from the seat of their choice throughout the three interventions that can take place in adjournment debate in the 30 minutes we have available. I know members are, in many ways, creatures of habit and will always go to their usual seats in the chamber, but they should know that, should they wish, they can choose another seat and make the debate a little less formal.

The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, once again, it is an honour for me to rise in the House to give some remarks with respect to how the constituents of Regina—Lewvan are feeling. These debates are an opportunity to ask further questions to the conversation we had in question period. Therefore, I would like to start by reiterating the question I had in question period.

I asked the hon. Minister of Environment or the Prime Minister to answer this question.

There are families across western Canada suffering. Throughout my campaign, many constituents told me their stories about losing their jobs and how many of their homes had for sale signs on the lawns. I asked the Prime Minister what he would say to these men and women who are out of work because of Bill C-69. How will he ensure these hard-working families across our country can get back to work in our world-class oil and gas sector?

This is an issue that faces people throughout western Canada. I heard the member opposite talk about the B.C. LNG project and other projects. That does not help the 150,000 people who have been out of work in the oil and gas sector in Alberta and Saskatchewan. We were sent here to be their voice and to talk about what options they have going forward. I have not heard any members opposite bringing forward ideas of how to get some of those western Canadian hard-working men and women back to work, many of whom are my family and friends. Friends that I grew up with have been out of work for a very long time. I ask the members opposite this: Are there ways we can work together?

There were 187 amendments brought forward to Bill C-69 from the Senate. The members opposite did not want to listen to any of those amendments. There are nine provincial premiers. Every territorial leader has issues with Bill C-69. We have not seen the government move at all with respect to its stubbornness and not listening to western Canadians.

I remember very well what the Prime Minister said on election night, which I hope was heartfelt. He said that he was listening to western Canadians, that he heard their frustration and that he heard their anger. He said we would work together to make things better in provinces like ours, in Saskatchewan and Alberta. However, I have seen nothing, no action whatsoever, to back up those words. Therefore, tonight I would like to have a couple of solid recommendations on how we can work together to get the hard-working men and women in Saskatchewan back to work.

I just came back from an opportunity to talk with some of the leaders of the United Steelworkers, the USW, who are here tonight. They are very concerned as to whether the LNG projects will use Canadian steel instead of steel that comes from other countries that is not as high a quality. I hear about the environment all the time from the members opposite. I can tell them, without a doubt in my mind, that the steel made from recycled materials at Evraz Steel is the most environmentally safe and meets the highest environmental standards of any steel in the world.

Therefore, if the Liberals are worried about the environment and emissions, I have the solution. We have the best steel in the world made in this country. I would like to work together to ensure those hard-working men and women at Evraz have jobs now and going into the future, so that we can get pipelines built in this country and the expansion of the TMX. We can use Canadian steel and the hard-working men and women across western Canada and put them back to work.

I am looking forward to hearing from my hon. colleague across the aisle. Hopefully, we will get a better answer than we received when I first asked this question.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Regina—Lewvan for not only sharing his personal stories, but also sharing the concerns of his constituents and sharing some ideas on how he thinks we can move forward together.

I am pleased today to respond to his question to reiterate our government's commitment to work together with the provinces and territories in implementing the Impact Assessment Act in the best possible way.

The Government of Canada recognizes that the provinces are an integral part of the impact assessment and regulatory process. It is committed to ensuring that the implementation of the Impact Assessment Act is done as effectively as possible, and to working closely with the province to ensure that good projects continue to move forward in a timely and environmentally responsible way.

I would like to acknowledge the time and resources that have been put in place by the provinces and how they have invested in the development of Canada's federal impact assessment regime. Provincial and territorial contributions throughout the review of the federal environmental assessment process were integral in the success of the development of the new Impact Assessment Act.

Developing the Impact Assessment Act and its regulation was a collective effort. The government has been diligent to balance the many viewpoints it has heard over the course of the past three years, including those of the provinces and territories. This is why the implementation of the legislation would also be a collective effort.

I acknowledge the concerns raised by the provinces and reassure my hon. colleague and all members of the House that the Government of Canada shares the goals of an efficient and predictable system that balances environmental protection and economic development and respects provincial jurisdiction.

While I recognize that there are still outstanding concerns from the provinces about the Impact Assessment Act, it is very important to note that during Parliament's consideration of this legislation, the government supported numerous amendments to limit ministerial discretion, including providing the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada authorities to align timelines with those of the provinces in support of one project, one assessment. These were done in response to concerns raised by the provinces and other stakeholders.

Our government continues to assess and work to address any outstanding concerns related to the implementation of the act. As the Prime Minister has recently indicated, the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring the implementation of the act is done as effectively as possible. The government welcomes any advice on the implementation of the legislation and will work together to address provincial concerns.

Building on existing relationships and co-operation practices, the Government of Canada is confident that by working together we can ensure a smooth transition to the new federal impact assessment system, providing a more predictable and timely process, increased efficiency and certainty, and quality assessments that draw on the best available expertise.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for those remarks, but there were not many answers there. My problem is that what he calls the environmental impact assessment act, is we call the no more pipelines bill because it is virtually going to kill pipelines being built in this country. That is one of the problems that I have.

Liberals talk about having meetings and collaborating with provincial and territorial leaders, but not once have they had a good conversation with the premiers in Alberta and Saskatchewan and listened to some of their suggestions moving forward.

Liberals are talking about ensuring resource development is done moving forward. Could we have a firm commitment that Teck's frontier project will be moving forward? That project will help people get back to work in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

We are looking forward to having resource development continue and we do a better job of this than anyone else in the world. We have great environmental standards and great labour laws in place where employees are treated fairly. Is the government going to approve the Teck frontier development? Hopefully it will be in a timely manner, so people can get back to work and have good paying jobs to ensure that their families are looked after.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the one thing I want to make clear tonight is that Canadians told us loud and clear they want a system that protects the environment, the health of our communities, and supports economic opportunities and growth. The Impact Assessment Act does just that.

It creates a new, fairer and more balanced system for reviewing and approving major projects. That is vitally important for growing the economy in Alberta, Saskatchewan and all across the country, for protecting the environment and for improving the quality of life for Canadians.

While our intention is not to reopen the legislation for amendments, we are open to constructive suggestions and discussions moving forward as we look to implement the new law.

I would like to add that if my hon. colleague would like to meet with me and have a frank discussion, I would very much welcome that. His passion came through tonight. I know that people in his riding and in the entire province are having a hard time, and it would be a pleasure to sit down at a time of my hon. colleague's choosing to discuss that further and figure out how we can do better.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:51 p.m.)