Luc Thériault
Montcalm, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, in October 2024, during a religious speech, Adil Charkaoui called for the death of Jews in a prayer, citing religious reasons. The director of criminal and penal prosecutions was unable to move the case forward. He said that the reason was the religious exemption in the Criminal Code. What does my colleague think of that?”
“Mr. Speaker, in 2024, Adil Charkaoui recited a prayer in which he called for the death of Jews. Quebec's director of criminal and penal prosecutions found that it could not lay charges because of the religious exemption in the Criminal Code. Does my colleague agree with that?”
“Mr. Speaker, on February 16, at 8:08 p.m., my friend Jacques Tremblay passed away. Jacques was a cornerstone of the political world in the riding of Montcalm. He made his mark as president of the Bloc Québécois in Montcalm, but also as a municipal councillor for the City of Mascouche and as a political aide to the MP for Montcalm.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member pointed out the flaws in Quebec's health care system. He referred to the fact that the range of services is limited, and rightly so. However, he knows very well that the main reason for that is that the federal government is committing to funding only 21% of health care costs.”
“Mr. Speaker, you are the guardian of my parliamentary privilege, and one of those privileges is to ensure that, when I attend question period, I can hear the questions and the answers, regardless of how I may feel about them.”
“Mr. Speaker, beyond how each side presents its arguments, there are uncomfortable questions arising from this debate. Does my colleague not find it embarrassing that it takes 40 months to process a claim and get a response?”
The complete record
Every one of 146 lines we hold for Luc Thériault, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 3.
“Madam Speaker, that is the second time that has happened to me. I know I need to calm down, but speeches like that make no sense. I worked full-time for over two weeks with legal experts to come up with three small amendments. The member for Ponoka—Didsbury made it clear that the first amendment has been incorporated into Bill C‑224 , but there were two others. These two other amendments addressed the concerns raised by some stakeholders, particularly Health Canada. Do members know what the Auditor General's report revealed? It revealed that, since 2014, Health Canada has been unable to enforce its natural health products regulations. That is what it revealed. The Auditor General analyzed 75 of the industry's 91,000 natural health products.”
“Madam Speaker, rarely have I heard a speech showing such ignorance about an issue and a bill. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau: It is embarrassing. Luc Thériault: Madam Speaker, it is really embarrassing. Obviously, the member has not read the natural health products regulations. The member said that Bill C-47 gives more powers, when all of that is already set out in the regulations, which are quite lengthy. I read them all so that I could introduce the amendments that I mentioned earlier. The member clearly also did not read the Food and Drugs Act or Vanessa's Law. Had he read those pieces of legislation, he would not have given the speech that he just gave. He made sweeping generalizations about how we want to promote an irresponsible industry. Will the member apologize for not being able to give a speech that addresses the problem?”
“Madam Speaker, I wish I could say that Bill C-224 is basically the same as Bill C-368 , which was scrapped when the election was called. The Bloc Québécois had made amendments to Bill C‑368 to strike a balance between people's concern for their safety and the need to avoid destroying an industry. Could my colleague give me a clear answer this morning about whether he will support our amendments, like he did the last time when all the parties agreed to our amendments?”
“Mr. Speaker, youth unemployment is high. It has been said that people need to first get a job in order to gain experience. Often, that is a problem. If people do not have experience, they do not have the required qualifications and they do not get hired. The Canada summer jobs program allows young people to gain that initial work experience. How does my colleague explain the fact that the government has cut this program in half?”
“Mr. Speaker, I see "help wanted" signs all over my riding. I have met with business leaders, entrepreneurs and workers at various companies. Of course, I am obviously not talking here about temporary foreign workers in the agriculture sector. The people I meet are concerned about applying a 20% standard, so reducing it to 10% would be a really big deal for them. The fact is that they cannot hire enough staff without temporary foreign workers. Without them, business owners would have to shut down. They would not be able to process orders. Is the situation in my colleague's riding really that much different from mine?”
“Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech, which was rather nuanced. I wonder if he agrees with his leader 's statement from September when he said that Ottawa must scrap the temporary foreign worker program if it really wants to help young Canadians find jobs. Can my colleague explain his leader's comments? Or does he agree with these comments?”
“How much new money has the federal government given for the next 10 years while no longer covering system costs? A total of $46 billion. That is $4.6 billion a year for the entire country. Over on that side of the House, a member stands up to say that people want better care, that there are problems. Everyone knows that. Now we are being told that asking the provinces to allocate the money to specific areas will improve the situation. First of all, that makes no sense, and second of all, it is arrogant. If the member wants to improve health care, he should run for a seat in a provincial legislature. That is what provincial legislatures do; it is their specialty. He can then ask the federal government to provide the necessary resources so that the people on the ground can do their jobs. That is the situation.”
“However, during the pandemic, Quebec had to go into lockdown for a year because the health care system was too fragile. I thought that as we emerged from the pandemic, the federal government would take a step back and listen to the demands of the Council of the Federation, Quebec and the provinces, which were asking it to increase transfers from 21% to 35%. We are talking about 35 cents on the dollar, not even 50 cents. That translates into investments to buy equipment. There can be no medicine without diagnosis. Access to care depends on the ability to diagnose patients and to have more trained doctors, more trained nurses and fewer agencies. The number crunchers determined that it would require $28 billion per year, or $280 billion over 10 years.”
“The problem stems from the federal government's disengagement. (1805) Currently, working conditions for doctors, nurses and health care workers are appalling. The initial agreement was that the federal government would fund 50% of health care costs. At the rate things are going, that figure will dwindle to 18%. In fact, this has happened once before. In 1995, when Quebec was reforming its health care system, Paul Martin made sure health care transfers were slashed overnight from 40% to 18%. When I talk about a chronic funding crisis, chronic disinvestment in health care, that is what I mean. How can we expect the provinces to provide quality care when the federal government dumps its deficit on them overnight? Perhaps the government saw the light in 2004 and decided it would respect an agreement that made sense.”
“On September 15, 2004, Paul Martin's federal government, in conjunction with Quebec, made the following statement: ...the Government of Quebec's desire to exercise its own responsibilities with respect to planning, organizing and managing health services within its territory, and noting that its commitment with regard to the underlying principles of its public health system - universality, portability, comprehensiveness, accessibility and public administration - coincides with that of all governments in Canada, and resting on asymetrical federalism [this is what my colleague has not understood], that is, flexible federalism that notably allows for the existence of specific agreements and arrangements adapted to Quebec's specificity.... It is not complicated. Those are the facts.”
“I said earlier that this bill was pointless because the Canada Health Act already sets out five criteria, these being public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility. This bill also creates two conditions that are already included in the act. The first condition is to provide the necessary information, which is already covered in subsection 13(a) of the act. There is also a condition about recognizing the amounts transferred, not allowing extra billing and not charging user fees. These conditions are already required and met. This bill negates what already exists. Perhaps that is due to a lack of knowledge about the Canada Health Act's history and the negotiations and agreements that have taken place over the years. I will quote from one such agreement.”
“THAT it affirm that the Canadian government's most recent offer is clearly insufficient to ensure the sustainability of health services for the population and that Quebecers will therefore have to assume the cost of this shortfall; otherwise, they will have to endure a decrease in health services; THAT it denounce the inadequacy of Canada's offer and its definitive nature and the Canadian government's gradual withdrawal from the health of Quebecers; THAT, lastly, it reiterate that the current Canadian framework and its fiscal imbalance places Quebec in a difficult situation from a financial standpoint. I get the impression that not a single Liberal member from Quebec is going to vote in favour of Bill C-239 . If they do, they will be going against a motion adopted unanimously by the representatives of the people of Quebec.”
“Those folks brag every day about representing Quebeckers. I would like to know what they think of the motion unanimously adopted by the Quebec National Assembly in March 2023, which stated the following: THAT the National Assembly recall that the Canadian government's contribution to health services funding has decreased considerably over the years, as it once represented 50% but is now called on to fund only 24% of costs; Now it is 21%, to be precise.”
“Mr. Speaker, thank you for calling me to order. I did actually think I could ask a question. I will continue with my speech. I doubt the member for Surrey Newton consulted the 44 members from Quebec. If he did not consult the provinces, he did not consult members from Quebec either. I would be curious to hear what those 44 members think of Bill C-239 , because it does not seem to change anything in the existing legislation. The current legislation does have criteria, two conditions, and that means that we have everything we need in the law to be able to provide appropriate care. What do the 44 members from Quebec think of the motion unanimously adopted by the Quebec National Assembly? Will they go against the elected members of the Quebec National Assembly, who unanimously adopted this motion across party lines?”
“Mr. Speaker, what I am hearing from my colleague reflects my own opinion. This bill is utterly pointless. Of course all the provinces want to be able to provide appropriate care to their residents. I am not aware of any premier of Quebec or of any province who is happy with the current situation. However, accountability and transparency would also require the Liberal government to admit that it is paying 21% of the bill. When the government starts paying 79% of the bill, perhaps then it can demand accountability. At present, the declining level of service is the result of the chronic underfunding of health care. Does my colleague agree with me on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, it blows my mind to hear my colleague talk about shared jurisdiction even as he says there is no need to consult the provinces on his bill. What a bunch of nonsense. My colleague is concerned about accountability. In Quebec and the provinces, accountability happens every time there is a provincial election. Can my colleague recall even a single time, during a federal election, when health care was the key election issue and a federal government was thrown out because it was not doing what needed to be done on health care? The answer is no. Why? It is because it is not a federal matter.”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech. I heard him talk about the issue of sentencing. We know that, in the judicial process, judges are responsible for sentencing. They have the flexibility they need to apply a sentence that fits the crime. Does my colleague's current emphasis on sentencing and wanting to pass legislation reflect his belief, namely that judges are not doing their job properly?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised an interesting point earlier, when she spoke about the costs associated with this. Let us not forget that the changes the federal government made to the Criminal Code with respect to cannabis meant that the federal government collected taxes and kept all the money for itself, while the provinces had to bear the administrative costs of these changes. In this specific case, we are amending the Criminal Code, which is easy to do. However, it will result in administrative costs for provinces, which are already struggling. Does my colleague believe that, if the federal government wants to make these changes, then it should also provide the provinces with the necessary funding to manage them?”
“Mr. Speaker, for me, engaging in politics is a noble pursuit. A key pillar of my work in politics is to make politics more ethical. Does my colleague realize that the other side of the House is setting a trap and trying to reopen the debate by playing petty partisan politics? Right now, I want to bring the debate back to ethics. Does my colleague agree that the Conflict of Interest Act should be expanded to include the appearance of a conflict of interest? If one day, in the distant or not-so-distant future, he were to form government, would he be a strong advocate of legislation governing the appearance of a conflict of interest?”
“Mr. Speaker, we did a lot of work during the previous Parliament on the issue of Chinese foreign interference. We debated that a lot. Today, we heard from a witness, an investigative journalist, who came to tell us about Brookfield's various ties to China back when the Prime Minister was the head of that firm. Does my colleague find that troubling?”
“Mr. Speaker, this is a clear example of the contempt toward the House of Commons that I mentioned earlier. For the Liberals, committees are just a way to keep people busy. They use them to get rid of issues they do not want to discuss in the House. However, it is important to discuss these issues in the people's place and not just in committees, whose reports just gather dust anyway, as we all know Take, for example, the unanimous report we sent to the House on the dangers of breast implants. I managed to get 10 unanimous recommendations adopted, and the government is letting the report sit on a shelf. That is why we want to have certain debates in front of all Canadians. It is a matter of transparency.”
“He was not advised to recuse himself because the conflict of interest definition is limited to so-called personal interests, and it was a decision of general interest. This allows him to grow his wealth, but also, and most importantly, Brookfield's wealth.”
“Madam Speaker, some people say it is because we need to encourage competent people to enter politics, as though competence has something to do with wealth or the fact that a person owns shares and interests in a number of companies. My question about the Prime Minister 's conflict of interest screen is whether his chief of staff asked him to be careful when, at the G7 meeting, he took steps to exempt American companies from the 15% minimum tax. When he was not Prime Minister, he decided to move assets that were governed by this rule out of Canada. I am referring to Brookfield headquarters, in the United States. Was he unaware of what he was doing at the G7 regarding that exemption? Was the conflict of interest screen applied? The answer is no.”
“A veil of suspicion and opacity is being created, and that is why we absolutely must ensure that the law covers this type of situation. This is unusual. We have never seen this before, and it could set a precedent. This is a long way from Paul Martin's ship scandal.”
“Madam Speaker, some witnesses told us that it was a smokescreen. Others talked about the need to work on the operational aspects of this. However, it became clear that this should not be managed by subordinates of the highest-ranking official, the highest-ranking person in the government, especially since he is the one who decides on economic policy. Also, when he first came to power, he took advantage of a tariff crisis, which will be resolved with free trade agreements in 2026, to launch construction projects that will take eight years to complete, saying that the Canadian economy needed to be rebuilt. In eight or 10 years, Donald Trump will be gone. He will be dead and buried. It just so happens that the opportunity to develop these projects is directly linked, among other things, to the company he used to run.”
“The former conflict of interest and ethics commissioner had requested that this review and these changes be carried out, as had the commissioner we received in committee. In his 2024-25 report, the commissioner suggested changes, and we must decide whether or not to implement those changes. It is that simple.”
“Madam Speaker, the question is not so much what has changed, and this is not limited to members. It is simply that we have to review the provisions of the law every five years, and that is where we are now. It is as simple as that. We have reached the point where we need to review the law, and we have submitted a report outlining the issues we wish to examine, because the world is changing and people no longer trust political institutions or politicians. There have been conflicts of interest, there have been commissions of inquiry, including in Quebec and at various levels of government, and that does not help. We must review the law every five years simply because the law requires us to do so.”
“I asked the former clerk of the Privy Council, and he could not remember the last time he asked a prime minister to leave the room. Perhaps this proves Mr. Conacher was right when he said that, under the current act, only 1% of cases would require the individual to recuse themselves. Once upon a time there was a fellow who wanted to become prime minister. He was the head of a multinational corporation that controlled 900 companies with assets of $1 trillion. He came to power. Before taking office, he declined to make a declaration, in the interest of transparency, of any potential conflicts of interest he may have had. After entering office, however, the first thing he did was to pass a bill under a gag order that, coincidentally, will ensure that the company he once headed will one day hold very substantial interests in five shipyards—”
“We have here an opportunity to create additional leverage. Have I upset the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons ? Am I being overly partisan, or am I bringing up key issues in order to improve parliamentary democracy and the basic requirements expected by those who elected us? Are my current remarks in the House unnecessary? Do the people listening at home think that what I am saying is not important? That would be a bit simplistic. Duff Conacher, from Democracy Watch, told us that when conflicts of interest are defined strictly in terms of private interests, as opposed to being defined in terms of matters that apply more generally, 99% of the time, the prime minister does not have to leave the room. Funny, is it not? He said that, and several Liberals are offended by it.”
“For now, we have heard from a lot of people who are saying the conflict of interest screens are not sufficient because people who report to the Prime Minister, people he himself appointed, are the ones responsible for this screen. We do not know exactly how this conflict of interest screen works. What I would propose is that we have an independent commissioner. I asked the commissioner why it was not up to his office to go to cabinet to demand accountability, to administer this screen. He told me that, if he were to do so, he would be in a conflict of interest himself, that he would be both judge and stakeholder. The commissioner should remain the judge and we should appoint someone else to the essential role of ensuring that the process is transparent and that the requirements for exemplary behaviour are met.”
“In contrast, we have the case of a Prime Minister who decides on all of the country's economic policies and who also comes from an environment where tax avoidance is commonplace. It is a whole culture. How do we transpose that culture into a public culture? (1625) We asked the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner the following question: If all the Prime Minister's assets were placed in a blind trust and that resolved the issue, then why did the commissioner insist on a conflict of interest screen? If that is the case, then on some level, this must not have been sufficient. How many other conflict of interest screens are there and who is managing them? That is another question that we should look into. Experts have differing opinions on that.”
“This means that the legislation, as it is currently structured, does not adequately address the issue of conflicts of interest because the definition in section 2 is strictly limited to private interests and does not cover decisions that would have a general impact. As my colleague from Joliette demonstrated earlier, the world has changed. Gone are the days when it was a case of one company and one minister who reports to the prime minister and who is governed by certain rules. Indeed, the prime minister can tell a minister to leave the room. The Prime Minister can come to the conclusion that there is the appearance of a conflict of interest and that a decision will not be made along those lines.”
“I am not quite ready to let everything go. We will look at this, but it is serious. Just because a person's assets have been put in a blind trust does not preclude a situation where a decision might be made requiring him to recuse himself. Recusal is vital. We are told that a conflict of interest screen has been set up. On the issue of recusal, I asked the former clerk of the Privy Council, who served from 2016 to 2019, how many times he had had to suggest to the then prime minister that he leave the room. His answer was that he did not remember. I would just like to say that if I had to ask my boss to leave the room so that we could make a decision without him there, I would remember the time and the date. I would still remember a few years later.”
“He would like to see people receive training and information to prevent them from getting into these kinds of situations in the first place. The other aspect has to do with sanctions. The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics is working on this. The commissioner told us that the $500 penalty seems too lenient to him and should perhaps be increased to $3,000. We will look into it. I want to talk about blind trusts and what is happening with the Prime Minister . If his assets are in a blind trust, does that mean that he is making decisions without knowing how much his fortune is growing? Does he really have no idea that it is growing? I mean, he knows how to count. He just does not know by how much it is growing. Some witnesses told us that this blind trust was insufficient.”
“(1620) He suggested a definition: “Every public office holder shall arrange his or her private affairs in a manner that will prevent the public office holder from being in a conflict of interest” or in an apparent conflict of interest. He wants people who are interested in entering politics to know that they must avoid not only conflicts of interest, but also the appearance of a conflict of interest. Some people think this is far too difficult to manage. I would respond that the Ethics Commissioner opens an investigation when he believes there is the appearance of a conflict of interest. What he told us is that he would like the provisions of the act, our regulations, to stop things from going that far.”
“It will come as no surprise that I disagree with the Ethics Commissioner on that principle. People who want to get into politics must make sacrifices. At the end of the review, the committee could very well conclude that the role of prime minister is not meant for people with certain private sector backgrounds. Of course, that is assuming that we want to avoid having a veil of secrecy around all this. We will examine this issue, but it is clear that anyone who wants to become prime minister must not have any apparent conflicts of interest. That is one of the issues here. The Ethics Commissioner spoke to us about proactive rather than retroactive ethics, that is, punishing questionable conduct. He told us that it would be interesting to extend the Conflict of Interest Act to apparent conflicts of interest.”
“It seems to me that there is reason to be concerned or, at the very least, to question and reconsider the matter. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government may not like it, but the fact remains that we need to do our job and lift this veil of secrecy. Other principles that should underpin our actions and analysis as we review this act are integrity, transparency and accountability. These must be at the heart of our work in order to come up with rules that preserve or enhance citizens' trust in political institutions. Issues have been raised since the work began. For example, one of the Ethics Commissioner's objectives is to avoid tightening ethics rules too much so as not to discourage qualified and competent people from entering politics.”
“This also implies the highest level of transparency and requires, according a former clerk of the Privy Council, that a distinction be made, in terms of rules and requirements, between the Prime Minister, ministers, members of Parliament, and public office holders. It is important to say that. As part of this review, we will have to find a way to provide for more oversight of the role of prime minister. When I say that ethics is more demanding than the law, I mean that just because something is legal does not mean it is ethical. For example, tax avoidance and tax havens are legal, but are they ethical? Jason Ward, who appeared before the committee, told us that the Canadian government loses between $13 billion and $15 billion a year to tax avoidance, and we learned from other witnesses that Brookfield excels in this area.”
“Before we vote on the report, they want to see if we need to go further, and they want to wait for an order from the House to hear from key players identified by the Ethics Commissioner, who told us that the Prime Minister's situation was such that he had to set up conflict of interest screens, which are administered by his chief of staff and the Clerk of the Privy Council. (1615) My colleague across the way seems to look down on the opposition parties. I hope people will remember that in the next election. Ethics analyzes a situation based on what should be happening. As such, ethics is more demanding than the law. The review I am referring to must be based on principles, and one of those principles is that the highest office in the land requires the highest level of exemplary conduct.”
“...limiting the availability of blind trusts as a compliance measure, extending the Act's provisions to political party leaders and leadership candidates, and increasing penalties for non-compliance; That was also a recommendation from the Ethics Commissioner. It concludes as follows: ...and that, at the conclusion of the review, the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House. The Conservatives are proposing an amendment and saying that we will not be voting on this report today.”
“It also asks: that it be an instruction to the Committee to consider, as part of its review, whether the Act should be amended or expanded with a view to enhancing transparency, preventing conflicts of interest, avoiding potential or apparent conflicts of interest... This is also a question that the Ethics Commissioner raised during his appearance. I will continue: ...regulating public office holders' ownership of assets in tax havens... Indeed, it is quite interesting to know that the Brookfield firm, whose leader is now the Prime Minister , is the king of tax havens and tax avoidance.”
“He will learn that the public has little regard for the work we do here. They have no confidence in their public institutions. Spending one short afternoon on a serious discussion of a review that is required every five years is also an opportunity to educate and to show the public that even though we politicians are constantly criticized on these issues, they do matter to us. We want to take steps to repair the negative opinion that some people may have toward politics. The report asks: that the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics be designated to undertake the review; I believe we are in the best position to do so.”
“We would not be talking about grey areas having to do with an incredibly unusual case that is before us, namely the position an individual held before becoming a public officer holder. Today's debate concerns the report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, which requests that the committee conduct a review of the Conflict of Interest Act. Who better to do that than the committee? The report calls for a review of “the Conflict of Interest Act, including the conflict of interest rules, disclosure mechanisms and compliance measures set out in it”. This is the mandate that we are seeking in the House, which is why we are discussing it now. The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has only to ask around in the streets and on social media.”
“Madam Speaker, I am surprised by what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government is telling us today, because the Liberals are always trying to teach the Conservatives a lesson, telling them to take note of the election result. The Liberals themselves should take note of the election result. The government does not have a majority. It is a minority government. As such, the Liberals are in the minority in committees, and if they do not make substantive suggestions, they will not have the support of the Bloc Québécois. What the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government is saying to us is that if the Liberals had a majority, we would not be having this type of debate this afternoon. There would be no debate on the rules governing conflicts of interest.”
“The Liberals do not like the idea of restoring public confidence in democratic institutions. The Liberals do not like the Prime Minister 's past. That is their problem. However, discussing a report in the House that says the act needs to be revised and that outlines the elements that need to be revised is not a waste of time. I am sorry.”
“Madam Speaker, I am very disappointed in my colleague's intervention. He says we should be talking something else, like Bill C‑3 . He does that often. If the Liberals would stop sabotaging the work that is done in committee, we could make more progress on Bill C‑3. They need to take a look in the mirror. Today we are seeing the perfect example of the art of turning an ethical debate into a petty political debate. The Bloc Québécois is not forming a coalition with another party to disrupt the Liberal Party and discredit the Prime Minister. The Bloc Québécois is going to rally behind substantive arguments. If the Liberals have any, they will have our support. It is as simple as that. What is more important right now than to do what Parliament calls us to do every five years, namely review the Conflict of Interest Act?”
“Mr. Speaker, I commend my committee colleague who, I want to point out, is doing a very good job in the chair this afternoon. We did indeed hear from a few witnesses, including the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, who was very concerned that restricting conflict of interest rules could discourage “competent” people from entering politics. He said that we need to strike a balance: restore or enhance public trust in democratic institutions without going overboard on tightening the rules. What does my colleague think about that?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Health spent a year working on the toxic drug crisis. All the experts said that cracking down on clandestine labs was absolutely crucial. One way to do this is to take action on the precursors, in other words, the substances used to make illicit drugs. Part 2 of Bill C‑12 gives the Minister of Health the authority to better regulate these precursors. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on part 2 of the bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, in her speech, my colleague said that this bill would do what it needs to do and that, among other things, it would ensure the integrity of the border. Good intentions aside, a bill is only good insofar as it can be effective on the ground. We are reportedly 2,000 to 3,000 border officers short of the number we would need to keep the border secure. Will her government act now to ensure that the resources needed for this bill to be effective are coordinated before its passage?”
“Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, the debates we have here can help us develop and draft the best bill possible, but if we fail to ensure it is effective in the real world, it becomes a bad law. The Customs and Immigration Union tells us that we need somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000 more border officers to keep the borders secure. Will my colleague join us in our efforts to make this happen and ensure that this bill rises above mere lip service?”