This week, I changed much of the tech behind this site. If you see anything that looks like a bug, please let me know!
House of Commons photo

Track Ralph

Your Say

Elsewhere

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word is rcmp.

Liberal MP for Regina—Wascana (Saskatchewan)

Won his last election, in 2015, with 55% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Questions on the Order Paper April 6th, 2017

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP does not disclose any information that may expose a security posture adopted to ensure the security of any given principal, site, location, or event.

In processing parliamentary returns, the government applies the principles set out in the Access to Information Act, and information has been withheld on the grounds that the information could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the government.

Privacy April 3rd, 2017

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note what the New Democratic Party said when the existing system was introduced a number of years ago. It said that it was no good and should be rejected. Now it is using the same line with respect to Bill C-23. The fact of the matter is that under this improved pre-clearance arrangement, more Canadians will be able to clear American customs but do so in Canada, on Canadian soil, and under the protection of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Foreign Investment April 3rd, 2017

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of our government, the Prime Minister asked me and a number of other ministers to full re-examine Canada's cybersecurity capacity.

That review has been ongoing now for a number of months and is leading to a much more vigorous and robust posture on the part of Canada, in collaboration with our allies, in dealing with all cybersecurity issues.

Might I just repeat, with respect to the transaction that has been referred to in the question, all national security advice has been followed.

Questions on the Order Paper March 24th, 2017

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), between January 27 and February 10, 2017, the CBSA revoked the Nexus cards of 44 Canadians and five permanent residents, for a total of 49.

With regard to (b), both Canada and the United States make independent decisions regarding Nexus eligibility and revocation, and there is no obligation to report these decisions to the other country. The Canadian government made 49 of these decisions; the number made by the United States government is not available.

With regard to (c)(i), of the 44 revocations of Nexus cards for Canadian citizens, 17 were due to seizures at the port of entry under the Customs Act; 14 were due to program violations under the Presentation of Persons (2003) Regulations, such as travelling with commercial goods, facilitation of a non-member, and travelling with restricted, controlled, or prohibited goods; and 13 were due to criminality when new criminal information was found in law enforcement databases. With regard to (c)(ii), of the five revocations of NEXUS cards for Canadian permanent residents, three were due to seizures at the port of entry under the Customs Act and two were due to program violations under the Presentation of Persons (2003) Regulations, such as travelling with commercial goods, facilitation of a non-member, and travelling with restricted, controlled, or prohibited goods.

With regard to (d), there is no obligation for an individual to self-identify as a dual national. The statistics provided reflect cases where the CBSA was aware of a secondary citizenship. The countries of citizenship were Brazil in one case, China in one case, and the United States in one case.

With regard to (e), the breakdown of the country of citizenship for Canadian permanent residents who have had their Nexus cards revoked is as follows: Japan, one; China, two; and India, two.

Public Safety March 24th, 2017

Mr. Speaker, the rules governing entry into the United States are set and enforced by the United States. We as Canadian citizens have the right to expect that our treatment at the border will be professional, consistent, and respectful. If there is a pattern of behaviour that seems untoward or counterproductive, then we will pursue those cases.

I would point out that 400,000 people cross back and forth across that border every day, almost always without incident.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship March 23rd, 2017

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman can be absolutely assured that every Canadian law is being enforced by the RCMP and by the CBSA. As well, we are honouring all of our obligations under international law.

The hon. gentleman should know that when people cross the border in irregular fashion, they are apprehended, they are identified, they are fingerprinted. Their biographical and biometric information is collected. That is checked against every Canadian database and the appropriate international databases for immigration or criminal activity. If it is warranted, suspects are detained.

Public Safety March 21st, 2017

Mr. Speaker, there is no tangible evidence of the issue that the hon. member has raised. However, this was a subject that was discussed between myself and the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security. We are concerned about the pattern of people arriving at the border, particularly those who, in the last number of weeks and months, have actually risked their lives in very severe weather conditions in transportation.

This is an issue that is under very close scrutiny by both our government and the Government of the United States.

Public Safety March 21st, 2017

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman and Canadians can be absolutely assured that every Canadian law is being properly enforced and applied by both the RCMP and the CBSA. We are monitoring the situation very carefully.

It is true that the numbers over the last number of weeks and months have risen compared to where they were before, but the RCMP and the CBSA have assured us that they have the resources at the present time to deal with the situation adequately and appropriately. If they require additional resources, they will certainly let the government know.

National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act March 20th, 2017

Madam Speaker, as has been universally stated by expert observers, both in the parliamentary process and beyond the parliamentary process in the public media and elsewhere, Bill C-22 is a major step forward. Thanks to the amendments that are being accepted in dealing with some of the issues that were raised by hon. members in the last two questions, the bill is stronger now than when it began, and it will be a major innovation in our national security architecture.

I would point out that many of the experts we consulted, both here in Canada and around the world, said it was very important to ensure that the new committee would have the time and opportunity to earn the trust and confidence of the very agencies it would have to oversee and scrutinize, as well as the Canadian public. According to many of these expert advisers, it would therefore be prudent to start in a cautious manner, learn from experience, and then make the appropriate changes when we in Canada have gained that experience.

That is the reason there is a provision in the bill to require the legislation to be reviewed in five years. It is so that we will have the chance to learn from that experience and in five years will have the obligation to make the appropriate upgrades and updates to the legislation to keep it in the forefront of such legislation around the world.

National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act March 20th, 2017

Madam Speaker, the expert witnesses who either appeared before the committee or made comments in public made the very strong point that a piece of legislation like Bill C-22 is long overdue in the country and that it does represent a major step forward in improving the oversight, review, and scrutiny architecture within the Canadian national security and intelligence system. They made a number of recommendations for making the provision even better, and a number of those recommendations have been accepted by the government. They are being embodied in Bill C-22.

Bill C-22 was a major step forward before the amendments. The amendments have made it better, and the end result is that we have a more successful piece of legislation now, thanks to the representations of the expert witnesses and thanks to the hard work of the parliamentary committee. I thank both for their contributions.