SoVote

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Jun/4/24 8:42:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, one aspect we can talk about in relation to the bill is the issue of transparency, which is a problem right now with the CBSA. We keep hearing about it. There is the ArriveCAN app, but there is also the lack of surveillance at the port of Montreal, which is a hub for vehicle theft. Canadians are asking questions about these files and really demanding answers. Many whistle-blowers have raised this issue. I would therefore like to hear the member's comments on how important it is that this bill address those issues and the question of transparency at the CBSA.

104 words

Mr. Parm Bains

Jun/4/24 8:42:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, and other members have spoken about, the CBSA was never included in this type of a review, and we are encouraged to see that this transparency will now be brought forward. The CBSA will be included and will have to answer to any incidents that do occur.

52 words

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

Jun/4/24 8:43:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret when it comes to law enforcement in the country that there is a disturbing pattern that is particularly identified by those who suffer discrimination, whether it is indigenous or Black Canadians, at a disproportionate rate. We know this from several reports, including Auditor General reports. So many indigenous organizations have called for a particular level of reform that would include indigenous persons in the actual accountability mechanisms. Can the member speak about whether or not the government would be not just consulting indigenous people in this work, but actually moving to find ways to directly incorporate indigenous ways of knowing, indigenous principles, in oversight and accountability mechanisms here?

114 words

Mr. Parm Bains

Jun/4/24 8:44:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my comments about the collection of data, which has never been done before, to look at race-based discriminatory incidents that may take place, as it comes back to Parliament, parliamentarians from diverse backgrounds would have an opportunity to address those needs.

48 words

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)

Jun/4/24 8:44:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. We have been talking a lot about the CBSA here, and I am not sure if my hon. colleague is aware, but the CBSA has a real problem on its hands when it comes to high-risk detainees. This might be an area where there could be some complaints, in that CBSA has no way of dealing with high-risk detainees who might be at risk to flee the country. I am wondering if my colleague will answer the question, or if he is aware of the issue, wherein there is no maximum security setting, in this area at least, and the federal government is contracting with the provinces to provide detention. Is he aware of the government's response to this very important issue?

144 words

Mr. Parm Bains

Jun/4/24 8:45:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member, a fellow British Columbian, for the question. Of course, I am happy to always answer questions from the member. If we look at some of the measures that are being brought in, they would increase transparency. I think the issue at the heart of the matter that the member is questioning is learning about what high-risk detainees there may be. We would now understand what the needs are based on the transparency that is being reported through these measures.

86 words

Mr. Earl Dreeshen (Red Deer—Mountain View, CPC)

Jun/4/24 8:46:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-20

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 to our RCMP, 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.

1449 words

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

Jun/4/24 8:55:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, surely to goodness members of the Conservative Party would recognize their hypocrisy in dealing with legislation. The member talks about how the Conservatives want to make sure that there is ample debate time, endless debate time on all legislation. However, when they were in government, they brought in time allocation over 125 times. Where were those types of comments back when they had a majority government? The Conservatives also talk about criticizing the legislation because the government is not passing it, even though it is the Conservatives who are preventing it from passing. For example, in the amendment we are talking about today, the Conservatives want to delete the short title, “Public Complaints and Review Commission Act”. That is what we are actually debating today. It is a nonsense amendment meant to prevent the legislation from passing. Why do members of the Conservative Party continually contradict themselves? They vote in favour of the legislation. They say they want it passed, yet they continue to filibuster endlessly.

170 words

Mr. Earl Dreeshen

Jun/4/24 8:57:03 p.m.
Watch

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 that are left in opposition in a few years' time, they will try the same thing.

142 words

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

Jun/4/24 8:58:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-20

Mr. Speaker, it seems as though the member intends to support this bill. Although I am not a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, it is my understanding that the Conservatives filibustered during the study of Bill C-20. That being said, I would like to ask my colleague whether his party really intends to make this issue a priority. If his party does take office in the next election a year and a half from now, can we expect the Conservatives to make this issue a priority? Will they make the proposed amendments to Bill C-20 and will they allocate the necessary funding to ensure that investigations can be conducted and completed in a timely manner?

125 words

Mr. Earl Dreeshen

Jun/4/24 8:59:03 p.m.
Watch

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.

103 words

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Jun/4/24 8:59:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Conservatives like to pride themselves on being the law and order party, the ones who stand up for police, but I just want to talk about Coutts, Alberta. Two of the four men charged with conspiracy to commit murder at the Coutts border blockade in southern Alberta have now been released from custody. There were arrests, and there were crimes committed. Can we guess who was supporting the convoy protesters at Coutts? It was members of the Conservative Party. There is heckling, but it is in the news. When do they decide to support people in positions of authority and when do they not, with freedom for some and not for others?

118 words

Mr. Earl Dreeshen

Jun/4/24 9:00:38 p.m.
Watch

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.

71 words

Hon. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.)

Jun/4/24 9:01:23 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-20

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. Still before us we have Bill C‑20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission. As my hon. colleagues know, this bill is of the utmost importance to Canadians. It establishes an independent review body for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or RCMP, and for the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA. Members of the public, including members of indigenous and racialized communities, can turn to this body, the public complaints and review commission, if they have comments or complaints about their dealings with the RCMP or the CBSA. A robust civilian review system for both the RCMP and the CBSA is vital to ensure balance in our system between security and equity. Bill C-20 has been extensively discussed, and relevant recommendations have been made. The government has taken these recommendations into consideration and is grateful for them. Since it was introduced in the House, the bill and the proposed new commission have been considerably improved. I want to commend the work of my colleagues at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. In preparing this bill and adopting the changes contained in the version that is before us, the government and the committee have taken note of the opinions from indigenous organizations, civil liberties associations, police and customs unions, as well as universities. Although the partners and stakeholders presented different viewpoints in committee, they were united in their desire to strengthen the accountability regime. I thank them all for taking the time to contribute to these important discussions and legislative provisions. Their points of view allowed the committee to build on the solid civilian review and complaints system that Bill C‑20 will create. The committee adopted 46 amendments to the bill, based on what the committee heard from these stakeholders. These amendments addressed some key priorities for our government, such as diversity and inclusion, accountability, common sense and practical considerations. Specifically, the committee made changes that respond to the recommendations made in the committee's report on systemic racism in policing. In particular, I would like to point out an amendment adopted to expand the commission's ability to collect demographic and race-based data on complainants so that the commission, and Parliament, more broadly, can identify incidents of systemic racism. Although the bill already proposed that the commission be authorized to collect race-based data, the committee expanded on this proposal by ensuring that other demographic data would also be collected. This recognizes that the nature of systemic issues can be complex and change over time, and that it can be linked to a wide range of social, cultural and other factors. By gathering additional information on complainants, we will have a more complete picture of any potential systemic issues arising from the public's interaction with the RCMP or the CBSA. This new power will also enable the commission to identify systemic problems in the application of the act and develop recommendations to respond to them. What is more, one amendment specifies that third parties can file a complaint with the commission on behalf of someone else. Bill C-20 already provided for the possibility of third parties filing complaints with the commission, but additional clarifications were made to eliminate any confusion about the possibility of filing a complaint on behalf of someone else. This provision will also make it possible to ensure that complainants know that they can get help from people they trust when they have concerns. The RCMP and the CBSA often interact with vulnerable people, particularly people from indigenous or racialized communities, asylum seekers, people with disabilities and 2SLGBTQIA+ people. For reasons that include language barriers and distrust of law enforcement agencies, many of these individuals may be reluctant to file a complaint. In some cases, they may even be unable to proceed with the complaint process. In other words, with the additional clarifications, someone who is reluctant to file a complaint or who encounters problems that prevent them from following through with the process can have a third person file the complaint on their behalf. Another change to the bill is that stakeholders can now ask the PCRC to conduct a specified activity review, or SAR. Also called systemic investigations, SARs are a second type of activity that the PCRC will undertake as part of its mandate. SARs will allow the PCRC to determine whether RCMP and CBSA policies, procedures and guidelines are adequate and appropriate. They can also help determine whether the agencies are operating in accordance with the legislation or ministerial directions. These reviews are essential because they help address systemic problems within the organization and help make positive changes by contributing to fair and equitable treatment for all. By specifying that third parties can request SARs from the PCRC, the bill guarantees that the PCRC will be aware of their concerns about systemic problems in law enforcement. The government's goal is always to provide exemplary law enforcement services and border services. It expects all misconduct to be reviewed and handled appropriately by an independent civilian authority in a timely manner. To sum up, Canada must offer uniform, fair and equitable treatment as well as an effective accountability mechanism, if applicable, for people who interact with the RCMP and the CBSA. I encourage the House to move this bill through quickly. People need this treatment.

915 words

Mr. Larry Maguire (Brandon—Souris, CPC)

Jun/4/24 9:10:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, just as many have said before me this evening, this is the third time we have seen this bill. I wonder if my colleague, in her answer to me, could let me know her thoughts as to why the Liberals did not pass it before the 2021 election and why they did not pass it the first time they had it up.

64 words

Hon. Joyce Murray

Jun/4/24 9:11:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the excellent work of the various parties in this Parliament to bring their ideas forward, to discuss and debate them and to finally come forward with a consensus on this bill, as it is at present, is exactly what Parliament is all about. The committee has also done its work to bring people together to explore challenges and make improvements to the bill, so I am pleased to see it here today.

74 words

Consensus

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Jun/4/24 9:11:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. She spoke exclusively in French, and I thank her for that. I should mention in passing that her French was excellent. It was very kind of her. My question is actually about language skills. I would like to know if there were any discussions in committee about the need to ensure that there are bilingual commissioners so that complaints can be received in both languages. We know that the appointment of bilingual judges and commissioners was a challenge for the miscarriage of justice review commission. Was this a discussion that took place in committee? Were any recommendations made on this subject?

113 words

Hon. Joyce Murray

Jun/4/24 9:12:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, to be honest, I was not on the committee and I am not aware of all the discussions that took place in committee. I can say that Canada is a bilingual country; the work of Parliament must be done in both official languages, and federal organizations that serve the public must be able to serve people in both official languages.

62 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Jun/4/24 9:13:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-20

Uqaqtittiji, I understand that with Bill C-20, amendments were required to ensure that there were provisions related to the reconciliation process with indigenous peoples. I wonder if the member could respond to why it took amendments and why that process was not there when Bill C-20 was originally introduced. Why did it take NDP amendments to make sure they were included?

63 words

Hon. Joyce Murray

Jun/4/24 9:13:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the question because it gives me an opportunity to confirm my appreciation for all the work the member does in the chamber and to state our government's absolute commitment to reconciliation. We have shown that through laws reflecting UNDRIP and in how we operate as a government. As a society, we are still on the voyage to fully acknowledging and correcting historic injustices. That is what reconciliation is all about. The fact that this was identified as a weakness in this bill and was corrected shows the very process that is under way in so many aspects of our society and our parliamentary affairs. I am happy that this was caught and improved, and we will continue to do our best to do better.

130 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 324