SoVote

Jun/4/24 7:01:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when I asked the minister a question about systemic racism, I heard Conservatives heckling. I bring this up because we know there is an overrepresentation of excessive force used against Black people, indigenous people and people of colour. We have a serious issue of systemic racism in this country, which informed part of the TRC final report and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. Let us not forget that the roots of the RCMP are in apprehending children and shipping them off to residential schools. That is the history upon which the RCMP was founded. Of course, some Conservative members have been quoted as residential school denialists, and it is concerning. I am wondering whether the minister can reassure me that we will stop allowing the Conservatives to stall and will make sure we address the serious systemic racism in this country.

149 words

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc

Jun/4/24 7:02:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, our colleague from Winnipeg Centre raises a very troubling and important issue. We acknowledge the presence of systemic racism in many aspects of the criminal justice system. The overrepresentation of indigenous persons, Black people and racialized people is a source of concern for all of us. It should concern all Canadians. It certainly is a concern that I share. As expressed by our colleague from Winnipeg Centre, there is no doubt that having more reliable data, which is one of the important things this legislation would do, would help us come up with the policies appropriate to reduce this very concerning overrepresentation. I would obviously be happy to work with our colleague from Winnipeg Centre, who has been a very powerful voice on these issues, to ensure that we have the right series of measures in the criminal justice system at all times and that this important circumstance is addressed and addressed quickly. We have made some progress, but there is still a lot more work to do, and we think this legislation is one of many steps necessary to address the issues that she so correctly identified.

190 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/4/24 7:03:52 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House. The question is as follows. May I dispense? Some hon. members: No. [Chair read text of motion to House] The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

97 words

Mr. Frank Caputo

Jun/4/24 7:05:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are seeking a recorded vote, please.

9 words

Recorded

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/4/24 7:05:07 p.m.
Watch

Call in the members.

4 words

Call

Ms. Christine Normandin

Jun/4/24 7:47:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that we were unable to identify the member for York South—Weston.

25 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/4/24 7:47:36 p.m.
Watch

His vote will be withdrawn.

5 words

Withdrawn

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/4/24 7:47:57 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion carried.

5 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/4/24 7:48:20 p.m.
Watch

I would like to remind members that, pursuant to order made February 28, for the remainder of the sitting, the Speaker shall not receive any quorum calls or dilatory motions and shall only accept a request for unanimous consent after receiving a notice from the House leaders or whips of all recognized parties stating that they are in agreement with such a request.

63 words

Quorum
Calls

Mr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC)

Jun/4/24 7:48:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3 Bill C-20

Mr. Speaker, I was cut off during my last speech on Bill C-20, which was my first time debating the bill. It now, unfortunately, has been time allocated. I am a big believer that all members of Parliament should at least have the opportunity to debate one stage of a bill, as it goes through the parliamentary process, to represent our constituents and express any concerns or support for said bill. As was pointed out in the time allocation motion debate a little while ago, this is, unfortunately, the third attempt to pass this bill. It was Bill C-98 in the 42nd Parliament, which died on the Order Paper when that Parliament ceased to exist. In the 43rd Parliament, it was Bill C-3, but it died when the Prime Minister called the unnecessary election, which he called despite having voted a couple of months before the election against doing that. Ultimately, Bill C-20 has been kicking around for almost two years now. It came out of committee last fall and was only brought forward here last month. My last comment in the first two minutes of my speech was that I was looking forward to finishing this speech when it became a priority for the government again. Lo and behold, it only took it a month this time to make it a priority and now the government has decided to time allocate it. What is this bill about? There are two fundamental things. It is renaming the existing review body, which already exists for the RCMP, but now it would be expanded to cover the Canada Border Services Agency, too. This is important because currently the CBSA is the only public safety agency in Canada without an independent oversight body for public complaints. Establishing this independent review body would foster and enhance public trust and confidence in Canada's law enforcement and border services institutions, something we can agree is desperately needed. It is just disappointing that it has taken this long. The first of the concerns I heard, and I know this was brought up when it was being studied at committee, was a lack of consultation. There is also the concern over the qualifications or experience required for these Governor in Council appointed commissions, which is an oversight. The third concern is the potential lack of independence for access to the information, and the final concern I have heard is with the lack of a mandated review period. I am only going to have time to address part of this in my remaining few minutes. I really want to focus on the lack of consultation because it is clear that these crucial conversations did not take place. Various stakeholders, including indigenous chiefs and the National Police Federation, which represents the RCMP, flagged various problems with the bill. Most importantly, they felt the current framework, which relies on the RCMP to investigate itself, is insufficient and does not inspire public trust in the process. Bill C-20 does not fully address this as the new complaints commission would still rely heavily on RCMP resources, meaning that it would not be truly independent. Conservatives tried to move various amendments to increase the independence at the committee stage, but it was clear that there was no will from the other parties. Another issue, raised by the CBSA union, was the need for remuneration for back pay for officers who had been suspended when an investigation ultimately deems them innocent. This is a major oversight in the bill, which common-sense Conservatives advocated for. Particularly in the midst of this cost of living crisis created by the Prime Minister, it seems especially cruel to punish these officers. As one stakeholder said, “When the allegations are not founded and it's found that there was no wrongdoing, we're told to file a grievance to recuperate the lost salary. It's devastating to people. You're right—I really don't know anyone who could go a year with no pay.” Once again, it is sad that it was not the will of the public safety committee to adopt this common-sense amendment. I want to draw a bit of a parallel to something that was tabled last November by the NSICOP committee on a study of the mandate of the RCMP for federal policing. There are two recommendations I would like to share. The first recommendation states: The Minister of Public Safety provide clear and regular direction to the RCMP to strengthen Federal Policing, including in areas of governance; financial controls; human resources, recruiting and training; and information management. In each of these areas, this direction should include the Minister’s expectations, clear interim and final objectives, and clear performance measures. The second recommendation is that “The Government recognize that Federal Policing resources are insufficient to fulfil its various mandates and put in place measures to ensure Federal resources are appropriated fully to Federal priorities.” The reason I am bringing up those two recommendations from that report is that it is crystal clear from reading that report, which is completely unredacted, with the exception of two sentences in the whole report, that it talks about the strain and pressure that the RCMP is already under to fulfill its federal mandate, yet here we have another example of additional resources still being pulled, though for an important reason, from within the RCMP and not outside it. The last thing I want to bring up is that the CBSA, which, if I heard the news correctly today, is potentially only a couple of days away from taking strike action, needs this additional support and oversight, because it would help protect not only those workers, but the whole mandate of what the CBSA is there to do, which is to ultimately protect Canadians. We need that, because our CBSA officers are phenomenal. They help keep us safe and keep our borders safe. We have heard from umpteen debates in this House, when it comes to justice issues, about the lack of support that the CBSA has and the lack of necessary resources coming from the government to deal with so many crimes, such as the illegal trafficking of firearms across our border. In conclusion, I really want to highlight that this is an important bill. It is a bill that I intend to support. However, it is frustrating and disappointing that it took the government this long to make it a priority for debate in this House.

1092 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/4/24 7:56:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the concluding remarks from the member. He supports the bill. He is disappointed that it is taking us so long to pass it, and at the beginning of his comments, he was talking about how the government was unable to get it passed in the last session. It is truly amazing. “Look in a mirror”, I say to the members opposite. The reason it does not get passed is that the Conservatives do not want it to pass. The member needs to talk to his House leadership team. The Conservatives moved a very simple motion to delete the short title of the legislation in order to prevent it from passing. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on why he believes his own Reform-Conservative Party does not actually want to pass it and instead filibusters.

146 words

Mr. Alex Ruff

Jun/4/24 7:57:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will just push back and counter the parliamentary secretary's comments, because, as I mentioned at the start of my speech and as I have brought up in debate previously, I am a big believer that every member in this House should have the opportunity to speak to every piece of legislation, if it is something that their constituents want them to speak to. That member is a member who speaks at every stage to every bill and to every amendment. In fact, he even spoke just two days ago to my private member's bill. He did not even listen to my speech on it, and I am the sponsor and the mover of the bill. There were other Liberal MPs I talked to who wanted to speak to it, yet he does not want to let them speak. He has to speak to it, when he does not even have a clue what he is speaking about.

162 words

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Jun/4/24 7:58:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I like the member very much, and I would like to hear his comments on the following point. During his speech, he talked about the importance of transparency and independence. My understanding of the bill is that the chairperson of the commission is to report to the minister rather than reporting directly to the House. This is a problem we have previously discussed. For example, the military ombudsman reported exclusively to the minister, which led to issues with transparency in the Jonathan Vance case. Does my colleague think that this is one of the blind spots in the bill and something that could perhaps be improved down the line?

118 words

Mr. Alex Ruff

Jun/4/24 7:58:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is very important. Transparency is not only something that we see with different ombudsmen and different roles, but ultimately it is important. Again, we just need to look at anything that has been tabled in the House recently on some of the reports that have been coming out. We can look at foreign interference and the importance of transparency there to get to the crux of what we need to tackle as Parliament, and what the government needs to focus its efforts on. When it comes to complaints, it needs to be dealt with. My background is that I am ex-military. Unfortunately, I just read in the news today that the Information Commissioner was complaining that she has to take extraordinary action to even get information out of the government when it comes to understanding what the issues are. When we have a complaints commissioner set up, they will need to have that same access to all the material, ultimately, and not be held up during the process.

172 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Jun/4/24 8:00:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member is saying that the Conservatives will be supporting the bill. It is kind of belied by the fact that the Conservatives have tabled nuisance amendments that delay the bill at the same time as they are saying that the bill should pass. The member mentioned the NSICOP report. It is very important. There are worrisome allegations in this report about foreign interference into the recent Conservative leadership process. Does the member believe, as I do, that a full and complete investigation by all the appropriate authorities is warranted into that Conservative leadership convention?

100 words

Mr. Alex Ruff

Jun/4/24 8:01:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the member knows that as a member of NSICOP, I have to be very careful and judicious about what I talk about. I congratulate all the members, including the NDP member, the four Liberal members, the Bloc Québécois member and the senators who are part of that committee. It is a very important report that was just tabled. I know there are lots of questions being raised by other members of Parliament. I encourage the government to follow up on the findings of that report and the recommendations made. I encourage every single MP to read the report because, ultimately, we all have a responsibility to make sure we are being very judicious in our actions and whom we interact with, and to make sure that Canadians and this country are first and foremost in everything that we do.

146 words

Nsicop

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity), Lib.)

Jun/4/24 8:02:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-69 Bill C-20

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-20 in this place. This bill is incredibly important, as it would enact a new stand-alone statute to establish the public complaints and review commission, or PCRC, as an independent civilian review body for both the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency. For the first time, both these law enforcement agencies would fall under the scrutiny of an external review body. The bill would also bring about enhanced reporting mechanisms, improving our ability as parliamentarians to hold the Minister of Public Safety to account in relation to complaints and systemic reviews. I urge my hon. colleagues to adopt this bill without delay. It responds to long-standing, unfulfilled commitments from the government's first mandate to introduce legislation to create a review body for the CBSA. Indeed, Bill C-20 follows three previous attempts to fill this gap. Now is the time for us to make sure that Bill C-20 passes the finish line. Robust, independent review of our law enforcement agencies is essential to public trust and the rule of law, and central to our role as parliamentarians in holding to account the Minister of Public Safety through his reporting to Parliament. Bill C-20 is an effort to foster trust between Canadians, the RCMP and the CBSA, and it would do so by providing greater transparency and accountability. Adoption of this bill would be timely, as there has been a notable erosion of trust in Canadian law enforcement agencies. There are many reasons for this, but the erosion has largely been influenced by several recent events involving law enforcement misconduct. The erosion of trust is also the product of broader discussions around systemic racism within law enforcement. A public opinion survey from 2022 found that only one in three Canadians agreed that the RCMP treats members of visible minority groups fairly or that it treats indigenous people fairly. CBSA and RCMP officers are entrusted with broad powers, and Canadians expect and deserve assurances that these powers are not abused or misused. They expect and deserve assurance that any allegations of misconduct will be reviewed and redressed when warranted. As lawmakers, we have the power to restore public confidence in our law enforcement agencies in order to sustain our country's peaceful and civilized society. Under this legislation, we would ensure that Canada's two largest law enforcement agencies are required to demonstrate their ongoing commitment to justice and fairness in all their actions. Through the establishment of the new independent review body, they would also need to be transparent with the public about their powers and their integrity in exercising these powers. As I mentioned, Bill C-20 responds to calls from the public for greater transparency and accountability from Canada's law enforcement agencies. The PCRC would replace the existing Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP and extend its mandate to the CBSA with increased accountability and tools at its disposal. Complainants and eligible third parties would now have access to an external body that could independently initiate, review and investigate RCMP- and CBSA-related complaints as they relate to conduct and/or levels of service. In general, the PCRC would first refer the cases to the RCMP or the CBSA for initial investigation, to ensure accountability remains first and foremost on these agencies. If an individual is not satisfied with how the RCMP or CBSA handled the complaint, they could ask the PCRC to review it. At the end of the PCRC investigation, the review body would report its findings and make recommendations. Tracking these recommendations and their implementation by the RCMP and the CBSA would better allow us to hold the minister to account. Further, the bill would allow third parties to submit complaints to the PCRC. Vulnerable individuals are sometimes reluctant to file a complaint or may be unable to proceed with the complaints process, because of language barriers, distrust of law enforcement or other reasons. In some cases, a complaint against the CBSA may come from someone who is detained in a CBSA facility. The inclusion of third parties would provide for greater representation from individuals who may be reluctant or unable to complete the complaint process. This would make the PCRC accessible to a greater number of individuals who interact with the RCMP and the CBSA, including migrants detained in immigration holding centres and provincial facilities or in any future designated immigrant stations as proposed in Bill C-69. There is a second type of review that the PCRC could undertake as part of its mandate, and that is the conduct of specified activity reviews, or SARs, on the PCRC's own initiative, at the request of a third party or by the Minister of Public Safety. Also called systemic investigations, SARs would allow the PCRC to identify systemic issues and develop recommendations around policies, procedures or guidelines relating to the operations of the CBSA and the RCMP. These investigations would provide the PCRC with the tool to identify broader concerns in Canadian law enforcement and to contribute to solutions to address them. In contrast to its predecessor, Bill C-20 would also provide PCRC with enhanced tools to fulfill its complaints and review mandate. First, it would establish the PCRC under stand-alone legislation to reinforce the commission's independence from the agencies it reviews. To further increase accountability, the bill would also create codified timelines for the RCMP commissioner and the CBSA president to respond to the PCRC's interim reports, reviews and recommendations. This would help deliver on some of the recommendations made by the Mass Casualty Commission with regard to creating more transparent reporting of federal law enforcement agencies. In addition, deputy heads of the RCMP and the CBSA would be required to submit an annual report to the Minister of Public Safety to inform them of the actions taken in response to the PCRC recommendations. Annual reports would be tabled in both Houses, allowing for parliamentary scrutiny, which would further strengthen the accountability process. To facilitate the identification of and contribute to the government's efforts to address systemic issues around vulnerable populations, the PCRC would be required to collect disaggregated demographic and race-based data of complainants. The bill would seek to improve law enforcement's interactions with the public by mandating PCRC outreach activities, including with indigenous or racialized communities, and raise awareness of people's right to file a complaint. I think the legislation is crucially important. All members at the committee stage and all parties represented have had the opportunity to put forward amendments and work collaboratively with us. With respect to the arguments around its timing to get here, if members truly believe the legislation is needed and important, then they should vote with us to ensure that it passes quickly.

1144 words

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP)

Jun/4/24 8:11:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way mentioned timeliness. At committee, the NDP put forward an amendment that would assure timely action on some of the complaints, the specified activities complaints. The amendment had the support of a large coalition of groups across the country and the support of the union, yet the Liberals voted it down even though it included provisions to extend the deadline if necessary. I am wondering why the Liberals voted against our amendment for timely action on these complaints.

84 words

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell

Jun/4/24 8:11:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, part of the work is to ensure that we can build a system that is in place to help protect Canadians and bring complaints forward, but part of the important work is also the review process. The concern my hon. colleague raises is something that now Parliament would be able to see and be seized with, in annual reporting, to determine whether the process is working. There would now be reviews to ensure that there is transparency and accountability. Should additional changes be needed in the future, Parliament and the other place would now have the appropriate mechanisms and would also have data that is clear in order to make good policy choices.

115 words

Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ)

Jun/4/24 8:12:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3 Bill C-20

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois obviously supports Bill C‑20, but we have to wonder. Neither of the two former bills C‑3 or C‑98 were prioritized by the government, so they died on the Order Paper. The next election campaign is fast approaching. Next winter will be the last before the next election. Can my colleague assure us that, this time, her government will make this bill a priority and modernize the way that the CBSA and the RCMP process complaints? Furthermore, we cannot overlook the need to review the funding of these organizations. There is no time to address existing complaints because the number of complaints is growing, in part due to high immigration levels. Will the government provide the funding needed to process these complaints in a timely manner?

142 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 324