House of Commons Hansard #17 of the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was rcmp.
Richard Martel Conservative Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Madam Speaker, what concerns me somewhat are the asylum claimants.
I would like to know if they will have the opportunity to file a complaint. Given that these complaints often create delays and can be used by these people to delay their deportation, I would like to know what my colleague opposite thinks about that.
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant question.
What I understand about this bill is that it pertains not just to Canadians but also to those crossing our borders. That is a very good question and I expect it will be discussed in committee.
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to join the debate on Bill C-3 today. I imagine all the masses sitting at home huddled in front of their TVs watching this on CPAC are quite surprised to see every party stand up and support the bill. I am pleased to support it in general as well. The 18 people at home watching on CPAC probably outnumber those at home watching CBC right now.
Before I get into my general speech, I want to make some comments regarding the oversight committee and its independence from the minister.
A couple of days ago we were debating an opposition day motion about doing a review of the Parole Board and the Parole Board process for appointees, in light of the release of a previous killer into the streets to kill again.
I bring that up because during the debate, some government members intervened and put through an amendment to change that to condemn not the Parole Board, which knew about the situation of the man visiting a prostitute, but to condemn the the parole officer and make the officer the scapegoat, rather than blaming the Parole Board in general.
I worry that instead of focusing on the process in general and the lack of training and the lack of resources, the new oversight committee will go after individual CBSA officers, so I look forward to the bill getting to committee and seeing this issue being brought up so that there is a clear delineation between the government and the board. I hope the oversight committee is appointed through a transparent process and not through patronage appointments of underskilled people, perhaps like the people on the Parole Board who released that murderer.
There is another thing I want to bring up, and I am really glad that so many people have it brought up already. I want to thank CBSA officers who are working to protect and serve Canadians.
CBSA has been one of our best government departments in hiring veterans. A rule was brought through by the Conservatives stating that if anyone serves on our military and is released for medical reasons, that individual will go to the very top of the hiring charts in the public service. After that, before anyone else, is the individual who retired from the military after serving three years in uniform.
We brought in legislation as well that recognized their seniority. If someone has served Canada for 15 years, perhaps served overseas or served five years in Afghanistan, that time serving Canada would be recognized when the individual joins the public service. These seniority rights would count towards vacation and in work scheduling.
We have a lot of problems with getting government departments to hire veterans, but CBSA is probably at the top and has done the greatest job. However, we heard that the Liberal government bargained away seniority rights from veterans who had been medically discharged and had joined the public service.
It is nice to hear members of all parties in the House today praise the CBSA and all the workers, but I hope they put their talking points aside and stand with the CBSA veterans who served our country overseas, those who were perhaps medically discharged or who served in uniform and then found a job with CBSA. I hope members stand together and demand the Liberal government bring back seniority rights for those veterans who are now working with the CBSA.
That said, I want to get to Bill C-3 itself.
The backgrounder says that CBSA ensures Canada's security and prosperity by facilitating and overseeing international travel and trade across Canada's border and interact with thousands of Canadians and visitors to Canada at airports, land border crossing ports and other locations, ensuring a free flow of people and goods across the border.
It continues to say that “the government recognizes that robust accountability mechanisms can help ensure that the public trusts Canada's public safety institutions.”
I want to make sure that we actually have robust oversight of the oversight. It is kind of like the watchmen comic book, “Who's Watching the Watchmen?”. I want to make sure that these are not just people fulfilling some government agenda, as was suggested during the debate on the opposition day motion, when there was an attempt to make the parole officer the scapegoat instead of addressing the general issues at large.
Bill C-3 would also legislate a framework for handling a serious incident regarding CBSA personnel. This includes giving the PCRC responsibility to track and report on serious incidents. That is great, but I want to come back to the CBSA officers.
As I mentioned during a previous intervention, we have serious issues with the cultural structure of the CBSA. I mentioned how the government stripped veterans' benefits from those serving in CBSA. During the most recent employee survey within CBSA, 63% of the members said they do not believe they can bring up concerns without fear of reprisal.
Remember, this is the same government that, when it was presented with a unanimous report from all three parties in the last Parliament to strengthen whistle-blower protection to protect public servants, Scott Brison threw it in the garbage.
We had an operations committee on TV, with a commitment from Scott Brison to come back to explain what his government was doing. He did not come back. For five months before he left the House, left Parliament, he refused to come back. I hope the new President of the Treasury Board will come back and explain what the government is going to do to protect public servants.
Think about it. Almost two-thirds, 63%, of people at CBSA are afraid to come forward for fear of reprisal. In the operations committee, we heard what some of these reprisals were. Lives were destroyed, people were thrown out of work or blackballed from work. We heard of someone who brought up an issue where the government actually sued the person.
When the whistle-blower blew the whistle on the Liberal government's payout to Omar Khadr, Liberals were not concerned about paying a confessed murderer $10.5 million. They spent tens of thousands of dollars investigating and going after the whistle-blower.
We have all the parties in the government saying CBSA officers are valued workers. The CBSA workers are saying they do not trust their senior managers or the government. We have a serious issue and I hope we will address these issues in ongoing legislation.
Another issue that came up is that 57% do not have confidence in senior management. These are the same workers who we are expecting to be exposed, in a way, and held to trial, in a way, by this new oversight process. It does not mention the oversight of the management, nor does it mention the fact that perhaps there is a culture of fear within the department. Again, I look forward to these things being hashed out at committee so we have a proper system.
Also, 51% do not believe senior management act ethically. Think about it. These are the people who are supposed to be stopping smuggled goods, protecting us from bad people coming across the border and dealing with hundreds of billions of dollars of trade throughout the year. However, 51% do not believe their managers act ethically, and 63% do not believe they can come forward to the government to bring this up without reprisals against them. Again, I hope these issues are brought up.
We have a lot of problems at CBSA. This is from the departmental plan the government tabled as part of the estimates process. Ralph Goodale tabled it last year, but these are some of the Liberals' goals for the coming year.
The percentage of high-risk commercial goods targeted by CBSA examined at the border was 94%, and 96% under the Conservatives. The Liberals' goal for this year we do not know. It actually says “to be decided”. Last year, the government put the goal for this year as “to be decided”.
For the percentage of threats identified that lead to an enforcement action or inadmissibility recommendation, the goal was 18%. They are saying only 18% of the threats identified would actually be held to enforcement. They are saying 80% of threats identified, they are not going to go after. This is a problem.
The percentage of high-priority foreign nationals removed for issues such as war crimes is 80%. They have dropped their goal from previous years, so their goal is only to remove 80% of war criminals from Canada.
The reason I bring this up is that it is a serious problem. If we look at the same departmental plan tabled by the government, over the next two years the Liberals are cutting $410 million from the budget, according to their plans. This is on top of $150 million that was cut from last year to this year.
The government wants to do this, this and this, but it is actually doing something completely opposite. I hope the government will get on track and support CBSA, and we will get on track and support this bill if it does so.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I always find it interesting when statistics are brought before us. There is a lot of validity to the idea that they can be manipulated at times. I do not necessarily know all the background of the report the member across the way cited, but I suspect it was a fairly thorough report.
One of the things anyone following this debate will have detected is that there is a wide spectrum of support, from all political parties in the House, to see the bill pass, so can it go to a standing committee. Many of the concerns that have been raised during second reading will be afforded some limited discussion and dialogue at the standing committee.
My question for the member opposite is related to the standing committee and the important role it plays in looking at the possible amendments. Does the member have any tangible amendments he will move forward with on this legislation? Does he know if his caucus has any amendments?
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Madam Speaker, I want to assure the member for Winnipeg North, since we are flying out of Ottawa at almost the same time today, that I have looked online and his flight to Winnipeg is on time. I was hoping that would be his question.
I was not quoting statistics earlier, I was quoting facts. These cuts are directly from the Public Accounts. The Speaker was on the public accounts committee, so she knows full well that these are actual numbers. These are not made-up numbers like the Liberals throw around all the time, like saying they have housed 100 million people in their housing program, which is not true, or that they have created this or that. These are actual, truthful numbers.
When I quote from the departmental plan, showing that it is reducing funding to CBSA by $410 million over the next couple of years, that is from its own plan on which its minister signed off. These are not made-up numbers. One side can say whatever it wants, but these are actual numbers.
As for what I would like to see put forward, although I am not on that committee, I would like to see a very strong overview plan so we protect Canadians who have legitimate complaints. However, I also do not want us to scapegoat the CBSA.
My colleague across the way mentioned there was support for this around the entire House. There was support from every party for our motion about a proper review of the Parole Board, but the government tried to change it to scapegoat the Parole Board officer and not the general problem.
I hope that in committee the members will look at a system that protects Canadians and protects CBSA officers and workers in general, but that it is not used for perhaps scapegoating someone to further the government agenda.
Chris Lewis Conservative Essex, ON
Madam Speaker, I have somewhat of a two-point question here, but I will be very brief.
Is this the most pressing priority facing Canadians today? We have a rising number of illegal firearms, rising shootings by gangs, skyrocketing overdoses, mental health challenges, court blockages, repeat offenders out assaulting Canadians, serious rural crime issues and more. Why is this the top priority for the public safety department?
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Madam Speaker, I do not know why this is the top priority for the government.
The election was October 21. When Britain had its election, Boris Johnson recalled parliament within six days. I can see, with the change in government from Conservative to Liberal like in 2015, it takes two months to recall Parliament. However, there was no reason we had to sit on our hands, waiting for the Liberal government to recall Parliament. This is only the third week we have been sitting in three months. If there was such an urgency, I do not know why the government did not just get on with it.
It is the same with committees. Three months after the election, most of the committees dealing with such issues, including the CBSA, still have not had their first seating. The government, just like the 42nd Parliament, seems to be wandering aimlessly from point to point, waiting for an issue to pop up so it can tackle it. I am not sure why it has placed this ahead of opioid issue or the jobs crisis in Alberta, but that is typical of the government.
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today on this stormy Friday in Quebec. Obviously, as usual, everything is going smoothly here in the House with no sign of a storm.
We are here on this Friday afternoon to talk about Bill C-3, 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. Essentially, this bill would create a committee that would oversee the operation of these two organizations. It is also the logical next step to a bill that was introduced and passed in the previous Parliament, Bill C-98.
As members probably already heard from some of the previous speakers, the official opposition is in favour of this bill. I wanted to say that right off the top. However, we have some concerns that we will raise during the debate at first and second reading and in committee.
First, I would like to take this wonderful opportunity to pay tribute to those who work for the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency. Every day, they work to protect, sometimes at the risk of their own lives, our security both within Canada and at our border crossings.
We do not think about this often enough, but we are extraordinarily privileged to live in such a safe country. That is due to millions of Canadians, of course, but above all to the people whose job it is to protect us all. That includes the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It also includes the officers who protect border crossings across Canada, both those working on the ground, right at the border, and those working in our airports and ports. We must not forget that we share the longest land border in the world with the United States, and we can be very proud of it because we know it is well guarded by these officers. We owe them so much.
As I was saying, this bill flows from another piece of legislation from the last Parliament. Members will recall that in 2015, the current government got itself elected by saying it would table a bill addressing the concerns this document is about.
Today, we can see that the people on the government side seem surprised that things are not moving along as fast as they hoped. I would remind them that, despite getting elected on that promise back in 2015, they did not table Bill C-98 until the very end of their first term. If they really thought it was so important, so integral, so essential, so vital to their commitment, they could have tabled that bill much sooner.
I will not mention certain promises that were not kept during the Liberals' first term, such as the “modest deficits” and the return to a balanced budget in 2019. However, this also proves that this government, which got itself elected on the strength of certain promises, did not accomplish what it said it would.
Since we are talking about border services, I want to share a sad episode in Canada's history, perhaps the saddest episode in the history of our border services. Unfortunately, this episode was not provoked by our workers, our employers, our public servants, our RCMP officers or our border services officers, but by the Prime Minister of Canada himself. He is the one who is fully responsible for the refugee crisis we have had and continue to have in Canada. We are sad to say that it has been nearly three years since the Prime Minister himself unwittingly created a crisis.
It was the evening of January 28, 2017. I remember because I got a Twitter alert on my smartphone indicating that the Prime Minister had just tweeted something.
The Prime Minister, who was all too happy to tweet something to outdo the Americans, but especially to give himself some brass and prestige on the world stage, wrote a tweet that essentially said, you are all welcome here in Canada. The Prime Minister's tweet came on the heels of the U.S. government's announcement that it was closing its doors to all refugees from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
That tweet set off a border crisis the likes of which we have never seen in this country. Over 40,000 people entered Canada illegally at Roxham Road, showing complete contempt and disregard for the honour and hard work of other people from around the world who followed the rules and dreamed of coming here to enrich Canada with their presence. Unfortunately, those 40,000 people got the Prime Minister's green light to come into Canada through the back door, which is illegal.
I am choosing my words carefully because I know that there is a war of words going on. Some people call it “irregular”, not “illegal”. If it is indeed irregular, why is there a huge sign at the entrance to Roxham Road saying that it is illegal to cross the border except at an official crossing?
Once something illegal has been done, how can it then be considered “irregular”?
This is a big deal. This is why those guys, the Liberals, are talking about irregularity instead of illegality. My colleagues and I have been asking the government for the last three years why there is a huge sign at the entrance of Roxham Road that says it is an illegal entrance. People cannot go there. It is illegal.
If the Liberals cannot accept what their own government is writing on signs they should resign, but they will not.
That is the problem with this government. It likes to crow about its lofty principles, wears its heart on its sleeve and brings everyone to tears talking about how Canada is the most beautiful, most wonderful country on the planet, a country that will welcome every last living creature with open arms.
The actual fact of the matter is that Canada has laws and rules that must be obeyed, not because one leans left or right but because everyone needs to follow the rules and the rules apply to everyone.
When we were in power, we took in 25,000 refugees. Unlike the current government, we did not make a big show of it when people arrived at the airport. We did not convene the media, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the minister of this, that and the other thing and an opposition member to please everyone and get some air time.
We focus on being a serious, rigorous and humanitarian country that cares about individuals more than those TV appearances the Liberals like to use to show that they are the best and the nicest. Our serious Conservative approach allowed 25,000 refugees from around the world to come enrich our country.
Refugees and immigrants contribute to our country's wealth. I know what I am talking about. This is a bit of a conflict of interest for me because my parents came here in 1958 as immigrants. It is important to disclose any conflicts of interest, and I just did. I cannot thank Canada enough for welcoming my parents in 1958.
Some 40,000 people have crossed illegally into Canada at Roxham Road. I remind members that this sparked a battle with the Government of Quebec, which had to wait three years to get reimbursed for all this.
What is worse, these illegal crossings were an insult to the thousands of people from around the world who follow the rules and contact various embassies, consulates and border services. As members of Parliament, we know how this works, since we see all kinds of cases at our riding offices. These people were not fortunate enough to see the Prime Minister's tweet, take Roxham Road and automatically gain access to Canada.
On April 3, 2018, the National Post reported that the first secretary at the Canadian embassy in Mexico warned the government that the Prime Minister's tweet was causing all kinds of problems.
In conclusion, I want to sincerely thank all of the RCMP officers as well as all the Canadians, from both the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency, who keep us safe.
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Madam Speaker, my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent reminded us that Bill C-3 pertains to the handling of complaints within the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA. However, he then went on to speak for 10 minutes about irregular migrants who cross the border at Roxham Road.
Am I to understand that he believes that irregular migrants are to blame for the poor handling of complaints at the CBSA?
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Madam Speaker, I salute my colleague and congratulate her on being elected.
When she started talking about the CBSA, I was a little surprised, because I thought she was talking about the CBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Clearly, that is not the case. As a Conservative member, I would never dare pass judgment on the CBC, since that could complicate things down the line.
First of all, I mentioned that we are well aware of what is happening within the CBSA and the RCMP. I wanted to pay tribute to them and review the history of the bill. I did not spend 10 minutes talking about Roxham Road. I think my colleague will agree with me on that.
The reality is that dozens if not hundreds of CBSA officers have been grappling with a problem entirely created by this government. The House has a duty to correct the situation and shed some light on the problems, especially since they have been artificially created by heavy-handed political interference.
Ginette Petitpas Taylor Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, my colleague and my neighbour in the Confederation Building for his comments.
Before entering politics, I worked for the RCMP for almost 24 years. The RCMP has an independent investigative process. When my colleagues had to file a complaint, the majority of them had confidence in this system.
Can my colleague tell us how important such a system is in terms of properly serving our fellow citizens?
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to answer my colleague's question. I hold her in high regard and have a lot of affection for her. We crossed swords from time to time when I was the finance critic and she was the parliamentary secretary to the finance minister. We had a lot of fun together. I also want to acknowledge the contribution of the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe.
We agree on the principle of the bill. We believe that this is the right approach. That is why, when we studied Bill C-98 during the 42nd Parliament, we made rigorous and legitimate efforts that led to the passage of the bill. Of course, we raised some very relevant questions, which we will raise again. I am convinced that we will have the opportunity to examine this issue more thoroughly in committee.
We definitely agree on the principle of the bill.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, I will start with thanking my colleague for the great work he does in the House, particularly on the national unity file and in speaking about the importance of projects in Alberta. I think Albertans should know about the great work being done by members of our caucus from all parts of the country, including from Quebec, in standing up for projects like Teck's Frontier project and communicating those messages in both official languages.
I would like my colleague to share a little more about the frustrations being felt in different parts of the country with the challenges at the border. These are things we hear about. There are concerns in Manitoba and Quebec especially, where some of this is happening, but all across the country as well. What policy recommendations would he suggest to the government in terms of responding to these issues?
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Madam Speaker, I want to pay my respects to my colleague, who is always present in the House and always has something to say, and always something interesting to say too, which is quite important. Sometimes we have people on the other side who always speak but do not really speak on the good side.
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
We can disagree, which is what democracy is all about. This is why we are in the House of Commons. This is why we are here and, unfortunately, why they are there, but time is moving, so watch out in the next two years.
However, on the question, yes, the crisis created by the Prime Minister's tweet was also a threat to national unity. People in Quebec, as in Manitoba, as in each and every province, would love to welcome people coming to our shores, but they also want to welcome people who will follow the rules, and those asylum refugees, the 40,000 and more who passed through Roxham Road, were the first victims of the Prime Minister's tweet.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
The hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap.
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise, but unfortunately the previous member got cut short. I am sure he had more to say. He is such an eloquent speaker and it is always a pleasure, but always a challenge to follow someone like him.
It is rather fitting that this bill is up for debate this month. Some members may be aware, but I do not think most are, that February 1, 2020, was the 100th anniversary of the forming of the RCMP in Canada. It is an exemplary police force. I heard a member today say she had worked for the RCMP for a number of years before coming to this House. I know we have members on both sides who have served in police work, the RCMP and so on.
My brother-in-law entered the force back in the early 70s. He got transferred out to where we lived in North Okanagan—Shuswap. He met my sister and, even after the rough time our older brothers gave him, they decided to get married. He spent many years in the force and retired from the force from the audit department.
That audit department is internal in the force. They go in and review all the cases in the detachments. He travelled throughout Western Canada and spent many years doing that. A very honourable, but sometimes challenging role because he was reviewing his fellow officers' work.
I speak about the RCMP and the honourable role it has had. I am also fortunate we have a retired RCMP commissioner, the first female RCMP commissioner. She went through the first female recruiting class at Depot in Regina in 1974 and was posted to Salmon Arm in my community of North Okanagan—Shuswap. She served many years with the RCMP and eventually retired as commissioner, but chose the North Okanagan—Shuswap area as her retirement home.
Many people may not be aware, but she is now appointed as senator from B.C. to the upper chamber of the Senate. It is a great honour. We have gotten to know her, her husband and her friends over the past few years. She is a very honourable person and a great fit in our legislative system here in Canada.
There is so much honour in the roles of the people within the RCMP and CBSA. Unfortunately, we have the odd person who many not be as honourable and that is why we need these review processes. I would not want to see the entire CBSA be tainted and for the public think we have to review everyone in that department. That is certainly not the case.
I mentioned that February 1 was the 100th anniversary of the formation of the RCMP. In the town of Vernon, we had a couple of fellows form a small committee to do an RCMP Appreciation Day. I went home last weekend and took part in that at the Vernon Museum and Archives. It was a great representation there.
One of the greatest pieces was they also had two brand new RCMP recruits, who had arrived in the last 48 hours, take part in that ceremony as part of that recognition. Later that night, they were in their red serges and came out on the ice to help drop the puck at the Vernon Vipers hockey game. That honour and tradition was there. Senator Busson was there in her regalia and the members were there in their red serges, showing the honour that is there.
Many of us travel through airports. I do regularly back and forth in travel from B.C. and the North Okanagan—Shuswap. We have seen many instances where those CBSA workers in the airports are being challenged by unruly, impatient and sometimes impaired passengers.
I was passing through Calgary around Christmas and saw an incident take place. I have to congratulate the CBSA guards and security people who were on duty at that time. They handled the situation very professionally.
We also run the risk that guards and members will be set up because of all the tools and technology out there with cellphones. Some want to act unscrupulously so they can initiate an incident and only perhaps record part of it to attack a department or person.
That is where I think this review process will be very beneficial, as long as it is open and transparent. We have heard discussion today about an annual report to the minister. We want to make sure that the report is transparent, that it is not redacted by the minister and that Parliament gets to review it in full.
A review process needs to be open, transparent and fair. It also has to find a balance between national security and an individual's right to privacy and security. We have heard concerns about access to cellphones and personal data on cellphones. Many of us keep our personal information, like passwords and so on for our accounts, on our cellphones. For border guards to have access to that basically without restraint is very troubling for some. It should not be for those who live their lives in a respectful manner, but marginal people may have a lot more issues with that.
I also want to touch on an issue that I heard just this week about outdoor tourism. People from outside of the country come to Canada for guided fishing or hunting trips, and some are being challenged at the border because of offences from many years in their past, sometimes when they were teenagers. They come to Canada as seniors, and because of impaired driving charges earlier in their lives or minor criminal offences in the U.S., they are being barred from coming into Canada.
There has been some great debate on Bill C-3 and I look forward to seeing it move to committee.
We are all heading into a constituency week, so I want to wish everyone well. I will be heading back to my riding of North Okanagan—Shuswap to the biggest winter carnival in western Canada: the Vernon Winter Carnival. It named its Queen Silver Star and her princess last night. There will be proclamations, parades and snow sculptures. Unfortunately, the hot air balloon fest will not be happening this year. There will also be parka parties and many other events in my riding over the next 10 days.
I am certainly looking forward to being back home, as I think many members are as well, as we move into a constituency week to go back to our ridings to talk to our constituents.
Ginette Petitpas Taylor Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that all members of the House, I believe, approve of this legislation and recognize that it is very important.
As my hon. colleague mentioned, we know that all members who work for the CBSA, almost 14,000 of them, provide a tremendous service to protect our borders and protect us as Canadians on a regular basis. We recognize that the work we are doing to put this review in place is not for the majority of them, but for the exceptions to the rule.
Could my colleague elaborate on the importance of putting together this independent review process and how he feels it would benefit his constituents and all constituents?
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Madam Speaker, this piece of legislation still has to be reviewed at committee, and there may be amendments made to refine it and make it better. I think we are all in agreement that it is ready to move to that stage, but we want to make sure every member in this House has the opportunity to debate it and put their points forward. I was certainly glad to have my opportunity today to recognize the members of the RCMP and the CBSA, who do such a commendable job in their duties every day.
The review process that will be put in place will benefit every constituency and every constituent in this country, because it will give accountability to those who may step offside. That accountability is so important, not just for our enforcement agencies but for our governments as well.
Unfortunately, the Liberal government has not been so accountable. We have seen the issues in the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's reports. The reports have come out, but there has been no retribution required, and one of the troubling pieces of this bill is that there does not seem to be a penalty process in place to deal with someone who has done wrong.
James Cumming Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the depth of his understanding of the RCMP, the stories of the RCMP, the importance of that organization and all the great work it does in our country.
As the member knows, I am new to this place. It strikes me that this is a piece of legislation that was introduced last sitting, and I fail to understand why it has taken so long for what is a relatively straightforward piece of legislation to come back into the House.
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Edmonton Centre on arriving here after the election last year. It is a great feat to be elected to this House. It is certainly an honour, and he is doing a great job of representing his constituents in Edmonton.
The fact that is has taken so long troubles me as well. We went six months without sitting in this House and there was no government legislation. A government that had been in power for four years should have had legislation ready to drop on very short notice, but it took the government six months to start doing any business.
Now we see committee work has been delayed even further, with many committees not coming back until after this upcoming constituency week, which brings us well into February. A lot of this could have been taken care of by a government that should know how to govern, but it certainly has not shown that this term.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, Bill C-3 is about accountability. One of the government's first pieces of legislation in this Parliament is to increase civilian oversight for our law enforcement agencies. This is a bill that Conservatives are generally supportive of. However, we do find some irony in the fact that the government's immediate priority is to strengthen the accountability of somebody else when the biggest problem we have is with the government's lack of accountability, its failure to be accountable for its many terrible decisions and the impact that is having on Canadians.
Let us start with the Liberals' lack of accountability today in question period, when my colleague from a neighbouring riding, the member for Lakeland, asked important questions about the Teck Frontier project. She asked what the government was going to do about this project, which is vital for our national interest. If this project were to be arbitrarily rejected by the government, it would likely create a new larger unity crisis.
She asked those questions and the parliamentary secretary refused to be accountable and explain the government's thinking. All he said was that there is a process and that there will be a decision made at some point.
Meanwhile, leaks are coming out indicating that the government is thinking of an aid package, as if Alberta had been hit by some kind of natural disaster. The disaster hitting western Canada is not a natural disaster; it is very much a disaster made by politicians here in Ottawa.
Let us end the disaster. We do not need disaster relief. We need to end the disaster by approving projects that are in our national interest, supporting the Teck Frontier project and supporting pipelines.
The government needs to be accountable for its own failures, and perhaps it should prioritize being accountable itself before bringing forward legislation to make somebody else accountable.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Tuesday, February 18, 2020, at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)