Francis Drouin

[Taxation, June 5th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I have an almost five-year-old in my household who likes to play “I spy with my little eye”. When we play, however, he cannot see the South Pole. The savings my hon. colleague is calling for with his motion would have Canadians driving to the South Pole and coming back to the North Pole. We know we cannot get there, but it is just to demonstrate the distance families would have to travel during a summer. I drive a lot in summertime because I represent a big riding. I know my hon. colleague also represents a big riding, but I know for a fact he does not drive over 40,000 kilometres and that no family in Canada drives that in a summertime.

Through our carbon rebate, our government is helping families in these provinces cope with the cost of living while encouraging choices that will help Canada reduce its emissions. In so doing, we are ensuring that eight out of 10 households in these provinces receive more money through quarterly payments of the Canada carbon rebate than they pay through carbon pricing.

As members can see, we are making life more affordable for these families. Thanks to our pollution pricing system, a family of four living in provinces where the fuel tax applies can receive up to $1,800 under the base carbon tax rebate this year. We are not just fighting climate change, we are also giving money back to Canadians.

I want to make it clear that the federal government retains none of the direct proceeds from the federal pollution pricing system.

Instead, the government returns the proceeds collected to Canadian households, small and medium-sized businesses, farmers and indigenous governments. As members know, budget 2024 proposes to urgently return over $2.5 billion in fuel charge proceeds from 2019-20 to 2023-24 to an estimated 600,000 small and medium-sized businesses through a new refundable tax credit. This return will make a huge difference for these businesses, and a welcome difference, I should say.

I would also like to remind my hon. colleague that international experts agree that our pollution price mechanism is an effective way to fight climate change. It is important to realize that we are sending a clear message that pollution has a price. By putting a price on carbon pollution, we are encouraging a reduction across the economy while giving households and businesses the flexibility to decide when and how to make those changes. To achieve this, we need to maintain a price signal that, over the long term, is necessary for carbon pricing to work and bring emissions down. If we were to remove the price signal, we would end up eliminating a powerful incentive to encourage people and businesses to pollute less.

I have not even started talking about carbon adjustment border mechanisms, which Europe is already starting to implement. This will have an impact on jurisdictions that do not have a price on pollution.

On that side of the House, they have no plan to fight climate change. On this side of the House, we have a plan to fight climate change.

[Public Services and Procurement, June 5th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, this is coming from a member who worked for Stephen Harper, who sold a bill of goods to Canadians in 2011. He told Canadians that the F-35 project would cost $10 billion, and later, we found out from the Auditor General that it would cost $25 billion. I am not going to take lessons from this guy. He does not know anything about accountability.

If someone broke the law, they will face the full consequences of the law. It is not the member who has the power to condemn these people. The RCMP will get involved, and let the process be the process.

[Public Services and Procurement, June 5th, 2024]

The member says that they are a lot better, but his government signed a contract with IBM for Phoenix. I would argue that it was not a lot better. He continues to yell, and I get it. He is not happy when we remind him of the Conservatives' record.

Madam Speaker, I do want to thank him for his important question. It is not the first time the member has risen in the House to ask this question. Obviously, as the member is aware, because he was there when I was there, the former minister had no say in this particular contract. It was never brought up for the former minister to sign. The member knows that, but he continues to sling mud in this place, and I really get it. That is all he has.

The CBSA initiated an internal investigation as soon as there were allegations of inappropriate contracting practices. The matter was also referred to the RCMP for investigation. Contracts with three companies involved, including GC Strategies, also had been suspended through a stop work order from PSPC. We expect the procurement processes to be followed properly, and anyone who does not follow contracting rules will face appropriate consequences. This has been, and will always be, the practice of this government.

The procurement ombudsman's and the Auditor General's reports have identified unacceptable gaps in management processes, roles and controls. Some recommendations have already been implemented, and the CBSA is taking further action to ensure that practices are aligned with policies and meet that they the expectations of Canadians.

Need I remind my hon. colleague of the context in which the app was developed? The CBSA needed to develop and launch this app, as quickly as possible, at the request of the Public Health Agency of Canada, after a global pandemic was declared in March 2020. The CBSA was working as quickly as possible to replace a paper process that was not meeting public health needs and that was also impacting the border with significant wait times that disrupted the essential flow of people and goods.

I wish to point out that the Auditor General did recognize, in her report, that the government improved the speed and quality of information collected at the border by using the ArriveCAN app, rather than the paper-based form. The ArriveCAN app was an essential tool at the time to collect mandatory health information, while facilitating travel and trade. The government is taking steps to ensure that all departments are better positioned to undertake projects of this nature in the future.

In wrapping up my remarks, I want to emphasize that this should not detract from the commendable efforts of frontline border officers and all CBSA personnel who diligently serve and protect Canadian citizens on a daily basis in support of our country's economy. The government remains committed to act on the findings of all audits, reviews and investigations. Obviously, as the minister said, if somebody broke the law, they will face the full consequences of the law.

[Public Services and Procurement, June 5th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I have heard this before in the House by this particular member, and he has a short memory. I recall procurement processes under the government that he used to work for. They were not perfect. I actually recall—

[Housing, June 5th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talked about the last two years. We have been at the table since 2015, since we came into power. I know for a fact that co-op housing has been a major priority for our government because I have lived it in my own riding. Co-op housing, under the previous government, was on a downward scale. We have increased funding for co-op housing, and I can say for a fact that we have built over 30 units based on co-op housing funding because we chose to invest in housing. We will continue to choose to invest in housing.

We made an announcement, and I would invite my hon. colleague to speak to the minister. I am not sure which project the member is talking about, but a home is not built in two months. There are obviously conditions that come into play. I know that my hon. colleague understands that. I would invite him to contact the minister to talk about his specific project.

[Housing, June 5th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I am always pleased to share information about how the Government of Canada is taking concrete action to help build more homes faster. A key part of our work is to ensure fairness for every generation.

For decades now, co-operative housing has provided affordable housing and caring communities for Canadians. That is why the Government of Canada is supporting the co-operative housing sector to grow and become more resilient. In budget 2024, we proposed a number of measures that will benefit co-operative housing providers and the families that call these communities home.

First, we proposed to enhance the affordable housing fund with an additional $1-billion top-up. This brings the fund to $15 billion, and we encourage co-operatives to continue to access it to build units and repair existing ones.

We also proposed to protect and expand affordable housing by creating a new $1.5-billion Canada rental protection fund. This fund will provide loans and contributions to help housing providers acquire units that will be rented at affordable rates and preserve rents at a stable level for decades to come. It will prevent those units from being redeveloped into out-of-reach condos or luxury rental units.

We also proposed to keep not-for-profits and co-op homes affordable by introducing new flexibilities to the federal community housing initiative. This will ensure eligible housing providers can access funding to maintain affordability for low-income tenants and co-op members.

Finally, our new Canada greener homes affordability program will help housing providers make energy-efficient retrofits that will help them and their tenants.

In addition to these initiatives specifically designed for not-for-profit and co-operative housing, we announced a number of measures that will make it easier to get affordable housing projects off the ground. For example, the $400-million top-up to the housing accelerator fund will help more local governments cut red tape and make the changes needed to get more housing built faster.

Our investments to boost the productive capacity of the construction industry will ensure that Canada has the workers and innovative technologies needed to scale up supply. Starting in 2024-25, we plan to invest $100 million over two years to encourage Canadians to explore careers in the skilled trades and to help create apprenticeship placements. Our new $6-billion Canada housing infrastructure fund will help communities build the essential infrastructure needed to support more homes and more vibrant and livable neighbourhoods, including with co-operative housing.

The Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada supports our plan. It said, “We recognize and support the important federal commitments detailed in today’s plan to ensure co-op housing is part of the supply response to this generation’s housing crisis”. While not part of budget 2024, I would also like to note that the housing plan launched just ahead of the budget includes a $1.5-billion co-operative housing development program developed with the CHFC that will commence this summer. The program will build capacity with the co-op sector and support the sustainability of housing. It is an effective and affordable model that has stood the test of time.

We are there for co-op housing, we are there for Canadians and we will continue to support building co-op housing across Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I really respect my hon. colleague on the other side, but again, Conservatives, and Conservatives only, chose to debate the title of a bill, which is “Public Complaints and Review Commission Act”, which they want to strike from debate. They had the opportunity to bring this at committee, and they did not. They had the opportunity to bring this at second reading in the House before this, and they did not. Now, suddenly, they are waking up and want to debate this particular title—

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

Madam Speaker, we are at report stage in the House. If those arguments were brought at committee, they would have been taken seriously, but obviously it is just about delaying time in the House. I get it. The opposition wants to delay time from the budget implementation act. The Conservatives do not want to talk about pharmacare. They do not want to talk about the importance of the budget, which would impact millennials, my generation and the next generation. Of course, it is just about wasting time in the House. Again, the biggest thing they chose to argue about was the title of the bill. How silly is that?

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

Madam Speaker, we are here tonight because we are debating an amendment from the Conservative Party on the title of a bill. That is why we are here tonight. We are not here to debate the content of the bill. We are seriously here to debate the title of a bill.

I am going to ask my hon. colleague whether he thinks it is valuable time to debate the title of a bill and whether the Conservative Party thought it was a really good idea to debate the title of the bill tonight.

I will answer his question. Diversity is diversified across the country. Obviously, the government would take into account the diversity of British Columbia, Alberta and all provinces across the country. Again, I would ask my hon. colleague why we are debating the title of a bill tonight.

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

Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak tonight to Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission.

As we have heard, the bill seeks to establish a stand-alone statute to create the public complaints and review commission, the PCRC, to serve as a robust independent review body for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency. It proposes to build on the expertise of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, which currently serves as the complaints and review body for the RCMP. This work would continue under the PCRC. It would increase transparency and accountability on the review body's mandate, which will also be extended to the Canada Border Services Agency.

Bill C-20 responds to a long-standing gap in the public safety civilian review framework by ensuring an external review process for the CBSA, as there is currently no mechanism to request an independent review of public complaints against the agency.

We have before us a much-improved bill that raises the bar of the quality of law enforcement review in Canada. This is due in no small part to the quality of the interventions by members and witnesses at committee.

During its study of Bill C-20, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security heard from various stakeholders, including indigenous leaders, union representatives, academics, and civil rights and society organizations. I am pleased to note that all were generally supportive of this initiative. I therefore take this opportunity to thank the members of SECU, witnesses and stakeholders, who all contributed to advancing this important legislation.

In particular, I would like to thank Heather Campbell, a commissioner with the Calgary Police Commission, who spoke to the need for improved data collection and analysis in policing. Data is key to identifying and developing responses to systemic issues in Canadian law enforcement.

I also wish to highlight the testimony of members of the Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l'immigration. Their testimony highlighted the need to ensure that third parties can submit complaints to the PCRC and to guarantee that information shared with complainants is also shared with legal representatives.

Aided by these testimonies, the committee made several amendments that improved Bill C-20, strengthening the complaints and review process through increased accountability and transparency, as well as providing further clarity to make it more accessible to all.

I would now like to highlight some of the most impactful changes made to the proposed legislation by the committee.

To build further trust in federal law enforcement, it is imperative that complainants be able to recognize themselves and their communities in the PCRC, including among members of the commission. Thus, it bears repeating that one of the committee's main contributions is the inclusion of a clause that would require the Minister of Public Safety to take into account the diversity of Canadian society when he or she recommends to the Governor in Council the appointment of a PCRC member.

The committee also made amendments to increase transparency around the complaints and review process by requiring the PCRC to incorporate additional elements in its annual report, such as demographic data on complainants. This amendment will be key to supporting our efforts to identify and respond to issues of systemic racism within law enforcement, as well as boosting public confidence in our institution.

A third amendment that received strong support from all committee members is one that would provide the PCRC with the autonomy to best determine how it should fulfill its complaints and review mandates. More specifically, this amendment removed a PCRC obligation to consider whether it has sufficient resources to conduct a specified activity review, also known as a systemic investigation.

I will quickly remind my hon. colleagues of what the two main activities of the PCRC would be. Members of the public, be they Canadians or not, would be able to make a complaint against an employee of the RCMP or the CBSA regarding their conduct or level of service. Should a complainant not be satisfied with the RCMP's or the CBSA's investigation at first instance, they would have the right to request that the PCRC examine the organization's findings regarding their complaint.

In addition to the review of complaints, the commission would also conduct systemic investigations of non-national security RCMP and CBSA activities to ensure that those activities are in line with legislation, policies, guidelines and procedures.

These specified activity reviews are essential. They would allow the PCRC to identify and investigate systemic issues that exist within these organizations, such as use of force and harassment, and to develop recommendations for the RCMP and the CBSA. These recommendations would also support the development of solutions to systemic matters and could contribute to cultural changes within our law enforcement.

These amendments would give the PCRC increased flexibility to identify and develop recommendations around broader, more systemic issues within the RCMP and the CBSA. Giving the PCRC more autonomy on how to fulfill its mandate also aligns with other review bodies, such as the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA.

A fourth amendment made by SECU, or the committee, would improve co-operation between the PCRC and review bodies such as NSIRA. Indeed, the committee voted in favour of government-introduced amendments that would allow the Minister of Public Safety to create regulations around the sharing of information, referral of complaints and joint proceedings between federal entities. These regulations could be made to improve work between review bodies and to ensure no complaint is misplaced.

The committee also adopted amendments that would leave no ambiguity about who can make a complaint, as well as ensuring that the process remains accessible to both members of the public and stakeholders. More specifically, Bill C-20 now clarifies that third parties can submit complaints and request that the PCRC initiate a specified activity review.

I know that hon. members on the other side want to hear about this. The committee made an amendment to clarify that the information related to the handling of complaints can also be shared with the legal representatives of complainants.

Again, I commend the important improvements made by the hon. members of the committee. They have listened to concerns from stakeholders and have contributed to improving on what is already a robust transparency and accountability mechanism.

Let us not forget why the bill is so crucial. The CBSA is the only agency under the public safety portfolio that is not subject to an external, independent complaints and review mechanism. The legislation fulfills our government's commitment to establish an independent review body for the CBSA; it would respond to important transparency and accountability gaps and increase public confidence in the RCMP and the CBSA.

Furthermore, this initiative also responds to several recommendations, notably those made in the Mass Casualty Commission's report and SECU's report on systemic racism in policing.

In my belief, not only would the bill have a positive impact on public interactions with our law enforcement agencies, including at the border, but it is also essential to public trust and the rule of law.

I note that my hon. colleagues on both sides of the House have demonstrated their support for the legislation. I therefore urge them to vote with me in favour of this important bill.