Earl Dreeshen

[Public Complaints and Review Commission Act, June 4th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, of course, the situation at Coutts was entirely different from the issues where there were some members of our party who were looking at the freedoms that others have indicated here in Ottawa. I think that is the relationship that the member is trying to portray. Yes, we are a law and order party; we also believe that there needs to be respect all the way through the system.

[Public Complaints and Review Commission Act, June 4th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to a matter of any type of organization that has been tasked with helping the public, it certainly does need to come with the funding that is available. That is the first comment I have. The question of which one of the badger holes we are going to have to fill in the pasture once the time comes that we are in government, I am not sure just exactly how we will be able to manage that. There is going to be a lot of work to do to bring the nation back to its level of greatness.

[Public Complaints and Review Commission Act, June 4th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I have been here quite some time, as has the member who was speaking, so I have seen the same types of procedures from the members opposite when they were in opposition. I have seen those things even happen with regard to bills. If we recall back in 2018, with regard to Bill C-87, the same type of thing was done. This is not something unique, but it gives us an opportunity to put something on notice. I know that amendments draw criticism from my colleagues across the aisle. It is no different from the novel tactics that the Liberals have used. It is something that I have seen happen very often. I am sure that, if there are people in the House who are left in opposition in a few years' time, they will try the same thing.

[Public Complaints and Review Commission Act, June 4th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise and speak on behalf of the constituents of Red Deer—Mountain View.

First of all, I would like to simply speak about our RCMP officers, who have done such a great job. They have been neighbours and fellow coaches. They are the ones who run into emergencies when trouble comes, and I appreciate their commitment to the community. Certainly, as someone who has spent some time working with rural crime in Alberta, as one of the co-chairs of a report that we sent out, it is an honour for me to be able to speak to the other side of the issue.

Those of us who have been in this place for a long time also know that there are many cases that are referred to the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, and we always hope that there are solutions that can help in that regard.

With the rise of hate-related incidents in Canada, we are now more in need of a strong police force than we were several years ago. Therefore, the need never faded; it has become much more pronounced. Considering that a rise in crime results in a growing need for police, we must take steps to hold law enforcement bodies to the highest standards while standing up for the security of Canadians. The public complaints and review commission, as it is proposed, is an overdue effort to carry out these objectives.

The commission would investigate complaints made by the public against the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency. In fact, this oversight was promised by the Liberals in 2015, and the government is now trying to ram it through one month before Parliament breaks. This comes after nine years in government.

I want to be clear in my support of the bill and its efforts to create the effective oversight of federal law enforcement agencies that Canadians expect, but I am disappointed that it has taken so long for the Liberals to follow through on their initial promise to Canadians. The Conservative Party supported the legislation in its previous iteration at each stage without amendments.

The Conservative Party believes in the dignity of our borders and ensuring that the CBSA is properly resourced in both manpower and equipment. The commission would grant explicit oversight over the Canada Border Service Agency and push the CBSA to be even more effective alongside the RCMP.

The current process by which the RCMP is held accountable to the public, along with the current lack of such a process for the CBSA, presents challenges that may undermine the public's trust in our law enforcement. We often speak of avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest when discussing matters of ethics. This matter is no different.

The National Police Federation made a submission to the House on Bill C-20, citing a number of disadvantages with the current way the RCMP is investigated by the existing Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, the CRCC, which often refers matters back to the RCMP for internal investigation. Some of these disadvantages include perceived bias of police investigating police, a lack of independence, a lack of transparency and reduced trust in our investigative process. With the lessons learned from the flawed implementation of the CRCC as a means of holding the RCMP accountable to the public, I am glad to see that the proposed legislation would move us in the right direction of a more independent means of oversight.

The CBSA is an important part of maintaining the integrity of our borders; however, as with any arm of the government, it must be held accountable to the public in a timely and efficient manner. With that in mind, I want to draw attention to two areas that are significant. I believe that aspects of the bill would lead us in the right direction, but I also believe that aspects of the bill are setting the commission up for failure.

I am happy to know that debate and discussion on the bill will continue as it moves forward. First, I want to go back to my earlier point, in which I illustrated the importance of avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest in matters concerning law enforcement here in Canada. As of right now, it is true that there is no separate or independent apparatus designated to review civilian complaints lodged against the CBSA. This is deeply concerning, as it brings us right back to the same problem.

When border agents must investigate complaints internally, this presents the appearance of a conflict of interest and may undermine Canadians' trust in due process and the accountability of federal agencies. With a commission that will not consist of current CBSA members or agents, we would be able to largely minimize the risk of there appearing to be a conflict of interest when complaints of this nature are being investigated. In this way, we will be doing what we can to ensure Canadians' trust in our federal agencies remains strong. Establishing an independent commission that does not rely on the resources of the RCMP or the CBSA will also reassure taxpayers that the funding for these agencies is not being spent investigating wrongdoings against the public.

Conservative estimates of an average of 1,500 investigations per year, requiring 40 hours each, will cost taxpayers roughly 60,000 work hours, with no cost recovery mechanisms. On that note, I believe that this proposed legislation is taking us in the right direction. However, I also believe that more discussion needs to be had on the nuances around the structure of this commission and the delegation of tasks. Making note of the latter of those two things, I would be interested in seeing discussions around how we can ensure that the resources of the commission are deployed efficiently. I especially wish to highlight this point, as the Canadian Bar Association wrote this in their submission on Bill C-20: “It seems inevitable that as the Commission's workload increases, delays will grow.”

This brings me to my next point, which is around the glaring omission of a maximum delay for the commission to resolve complaints. In its current form, Bill C-20 places the onus to set resolution timelines on the commission itself. While I can understand why this language was chosen, I'm also concerned with the statements raised by the Canadian Bar Association, which I mentioned earlier. It seems like common sense to think that, as we consolidate the duties of investigating both the RCMP and the CBSA into one commission, the workload of the commission will increase. In its submission on Bill C-20, the Customs and Immigration Union said, “we fear an investigation could take years to complete, which is neither fair to the employee under investigation nor to the complainant.”

Ambiguity in the resolution timeline of these cases, especially in the most egregious of complaints, is a disservice not only to Canadians but also to the future commission. Setting out concrete timelines in which every step of the complaint process is accounted for will show that our government is taking our responsibility to Canadian taxpayers seriously. It will also show our commitment to the RCMP and CBSA officers and agents who work tirelessly to serve Canadians by maintaining our domestic security and the integrity of our borders. These are necessary considerations that must be discussed and debated as consideration of the bill continues. While I do support the bill, I believe more work needs to be done to address the matters I have raised so far.

Let me be clear: With the reckless use of time allocation and programming motions by the NDP-Liberal government, the Conservative Party is doing what it can to ensure that proper debate takes place on critical government bills. As we pass legislation to improve the lives of Canadians, we must exercise caution so that we do not make matters even worse. When bills are not afforded adequate time for debate here in the House, we risk missing the observations and voices of Canadians, which may prove to be consequential in our discussions around shaping the federal policies of this nation.

It is our unique responsibility to ensure that the proceedings here are conducive to fostering an environment in which open debate can always be had. Canadians look at us in our roles as members of Parliament and how we navigate discussions in which we may have differing opinions. It is important that we continue to ensure that we have ample debate on proposed legislation, showing Canadians that we take this responsibility seriously.

[Carbon Tax, May 27th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, after nine years, tax-and-spend Liberals are jeopardizing all that Canadians hold dear. The family vacation was the one opportunity to enjoy Canada's great outdoors, a chance to connect with fellow travellers and to see the sights and sounds of this great nation. Now, even a simple road trip is unaffordable as parents struggle with the basic necessities of life. A summer vacation is no longer an option for Canadian families.

Families will have to pay $700 more for food this year than they did in 2023. Last year, food banks had to handle a record two million visits in a single month with one million more monthly visits expected in 2024.

In the middle of this historic cost-of-living crisis, the NDP–Liberal coalition decided to hike the carbon tax by 23%. This is just one step in its plan to quadruple the carbon tax over the next six years, making everything more expensive at the worst possible time. This has to stop. Our common-sense Conservatives can be trusted to axe the tax this summer and to give Canadian families the break they so desperately deserve.

[Pharmacare Act, April 16th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of points on the things I have heard this morning.

Of course, the NDP is talking about cuts that were there during the Harper era. If one were to look at the amount of money from the budgets over the years, when the Liberals first took power, that was the first time that it had ever ducked below the 3% floor that was given. That statement is certainly one that they talk a lot about, but it is incorrect.

The other question I would like to ask the member has to do with the formularies that the provinces already have. In order to get drugs approved, we go through the federal system, but then it goes into the provinces and they make the decisions on how much they can afford to cover. This is different around the country.

I am wondering if the member is at least curious about what the consequences will be when that decision comes from the federal government versus the provinces, whose responsibility it is to deliver health care.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 15th, 2024]

With regard to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC): (a) how many individuals currently have permanent residency status in Canada; (b) what is the breakdown of the individuals in (a) by place of residence (i.e. living in Canada versus overseas); (c) what is the breakdown of the individuals in (a) by stream (i.e. Express Entry, economic, family class, or refugee); (d) how many permanent residency applications are still outstanding or being processed by IRCC; (e) how many permanent residency applications have been rejected; (f) for each rejection in (e), what were the reasons for rejection under statute; and (g) how many permanent resident cards have expired in the last 90 days?

[Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act, April 11th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, Suncor is an energy company. Many of the items it is dealing with, and what it is doing, are renewable energy projects, so there is a mix. There is money being made throughout it. Perhaps there is money being made in the investments they have in solar and wind, but some of that is perhaps coming from government and the policies we have. I think that is important, but it is also important that we recognize what that does for our communities and what it does to make sure we have a health care system and a solid structure throughout our communities.

[Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act, April 11th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the compliment. I appreciate it.

There are times when people are provoked, and I think this is the part that one should be aware of. Not everybody hears all of the things that are said, and that can be a reason behind tempers getting hot. I prefer to make sure that we keep the temperature cooler, but I also think it is important that we speak to the strengths we have as a nation.

I have always stood up for Quebeckers, for their energy sources and for that type of thing. I get frustrated when people say, “That is fine, but we are just going to shut someone down”. That is a bit of a problem I have; nevertheless, I think we have all of these strengths in every province. That is what we should be concentrating on.

[Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act, April 11th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I have just gone through all of the amendments, and I agree with every one, especially the ones I put my name to that talk about making sure that we pay attention to indigenous groups and to our communities. Every one of those that I have put my name to has been researched and dealt with. That is the first part.

The second part is about our five-year plans and new deals. We are all banned from Russia right now, but I was there back in the eighties playing hockey. When I did that, and when we were there, we happened to be there during the two weeks the Soviet party in congress was coming together to talk about what the next five years were going to be. Do members think they were listening to their people or to themselves?