SoVote

Jun/4/24 10:13:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member made an outrageous, unfounded and obviously false claim in the House, and I think she should be called to order for that. She did not even claim she had any evidence for her statement. She just said that she suspected that I may have particular views that I have never stated. Come on.

57 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/4/24 10:13:25 p.m.
Watch

We are starting to get into debate, and unfounded accusations go around quite often in this chamber. I do advise members to be very judicious with the words they choose. The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

36 words

Ms. Leah Gazan

Jun/4/24 10:13:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know the member has very big feelings about indigenous people. I know he has a history of disregarding any discussions on indigenous people. I have articles and facts about what else the Conservatives said was a false claim. I would be very happy to quote articles with residential school denialism comments that came from the member for Carleton, the leader of their party. I know the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, as I have said before, has trouble controlling his toxic masculinity and often heckles in the House, as he is doing right now, but I welcome the member to read the paper. I welcome the member to learn about the history of this country and maybe explore some of his cultural biases and—

130 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/4/24 10:14:46 p.m.
Watch

We have gone way beyond the time for the question and answer. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

24 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Jun/4/24 10:14:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, very respectfully to the member, I asked a simple question and the member did not want to answer it. I had asked her twice previously. I guess I will have a chance to ask her twice tonight. It is not a trick question; it is a very sincere question. The question is, for the fourth time, will the member condemn the destruction of churches and other cultural property that has occurred? I see this as a form of violence and racism against indigenous communities. There have been many instances of destruction of churches and other cultural property. If the member had condemned it, I would not have asked the question a second time. Will the member condemn this?

120 words

Ms. Leah Gazan

Jun/4/24 10:15:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know the member has trouble talking about the bill because it has to do with dealing with systemic racism and addressing systemic racism in policing for Black people, indigenous people and people of colour. It is unfortunate that at a time when we are talking about making systems better, the member consistently chooses to talk about things that have no relevance to the discussion, as he has in other debates. I would invite the member to learn about the residential school system in Canada. I would be happy to go for coffee with him. Then maybe we could work through some of the colonial violence that he regularly perpetuates in the House. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

120 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/4/24 10:16:31 p.m.
Watch

Those accusations are really beyond what is acceptable and an apology would be appreciated, because we are accusing other members of perpetrating colonial violence, which is pretty strong wording. I would be very grateful if there was measure in what is said. The hon. member for Nunavut.

47 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Jun/4/24 10:17:04 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, civilian oversight is particularly important in the bill and the member spoke eloquently about why. Children were taken away from first nations. Métis and Inuit children were taken away from their loving families, from their loving environments. They were thriving and the RCMP were used to take these children to go to residential schools, to environments of hate, environments of violence, environments where they had to be exposed to traumatic experiences that continue to this date. Can the member explain why this civilian oversight commission is going to be so important to continue to address these systemic, racist, genocidal policies that will help to address and move toward reconciliation with indigenous peoples?

115 words

Ms. Leah Gazan

Jun/4/24 10:18:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, absolutely, we need oversight to deal with systemic racism in policing, as well as other systems. I know that there is concern about me talking about colonial violence but there is a lot of racism, with all due respect, that persists in the House, an erasure of history. There is the fact that we are talking about residential schools and people are chuckling on that side of the House, including the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. I will not refrain—

85 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/4/24 10:18:45 p.m.
Watch

We have no more time. The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is rising on a point of order.

21 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Jun/4/24 10:18:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for all members in the House. I think I tried to ask a civil, serious question a couple of times. I would like you to clarify your ruling, because the member accused me of regularly perpetrating colonial violence inside the House of Commons. I do not think any reasonable person would consider that a remotely plausible accusation. Did you or did you not direct the member to withdraw and apologize? Is she going to respect the authority of the Chair, or is she going to defy the Chair? If that was your ruling, then those are the choices: respect the Chair or defy the Chair.

114 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/4/24 10:19:36 p.m.
Watch

I did ask the hon. member to be more judicious in her choice of words and to apologize for that specific comment, yes. The hon. member can do it right now or later if she so chooses. The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

43 words

Ms. Leah Gazan

Jun/4/24 10:19:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will not apologize. With all due respect to you, I will not apologize for telling the truth about this place.

23 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/4/24 10:20:48 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

11 words

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

Jun/4/24 10:20:55 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3 Bill C-20

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I really appreciate the opportunity to rise in this place. I was telling people recently what an honour it is to be just a kid from North Kamloops rising in the House of Commons as the child of immigrants. I know that some of the Assistant Deputy Speaker's heritage is from Europe, just as mine is. There was a flag-raising just today recognizing my Italian heritage, which I am incredibly proud of. Unfortunately, I was elsewhere this morning dealing with the Auditor General's report, but I do recognize that. One of the things that I am always mindful of is the people I grew up with, and someone I grew up with is Jackie Fouillard, or Jacqueline. Her mom, Clara Fouillard, passed away recently. I just read about the obituary tonight, so I want to extend my deepest condolences to Jacqueline and her brother Desmond on the passing of Clara. May perpetual light shine upon her. I also want to recognize the life of Bernard “Bernie” Worsfold. He is the grandfather to my nephew, and he recently passed away after a long battle with Alzheimer's. Obviously, this is very difficult. It is a difficult disease. I was just at the walk for Alzheimer's. My condolences go to Bernie's family. May perpetual light shine upon him. As to Bill C-20, which is what we are here to discuss, the bill started in the 42nd Parliament, wherein it died, languishing in the Senate. It was again introduced in the last Parliament as Bill C-3. We had a prorogation. There was a prorogation that was obviously before my time, and I know the Liberals have made a lot of noise about the fact that the previous Harper government prorogued. Interestingly enough, in this case, when it comes to electoral manoeuvres, the Liberals called what I would call a vanity election, though some people called it a pandemic election, hoping for the majority that they so ardently desired. Obviously, that did not work out. Now, unfortunately, we do have the NDP, in its confidence and supply agreement, that has supported them, which brings us here to today in the 44th Parliament, nine years after this promise was made. Like with so many bills we debate in this House, and it is unfortunate, we deal with things that go wrong. Sometimes we will have motions and those motions will say, “we exhort the government to do this” or “we are establishing a strategy to do this”, and that is something positive, but so often here we are dealing with negative things. This is when things go wrong, and tonight is obviously no exception, because we are dealing with alleged misconduct in some cases, or misconduct that has been proven in other cases. It would be great if we never had to deal with this from our frontline peace officers, but the reality is that we do. Sometimes, simply put, things go poorly. This leads me to question, obviously, what the standards are that we expect from our professionals. I am speaking, namely, of our frontline police officers and our frontline CBSA officers. I remember when I was teaching a sentencing course not long ago, before I came to Parliament, that I was always struck, whenever the accused person was a peace officer and they had committed a criminal offence, how different the reaction was from the students. I found that my classes were generally very compassionate when it came to sentencing. They were very measured and typically quite fair in their sentencing proposals. Yet one thing that always struck me, especially when it was a peace officer but sometimes when it was somebody who is in authority or a position of privilege, was that the students would often want to really reflect that when much is given much is expected or, in other words, that there should be harsh penalties, and that is something that I have not forgotten. When we do have people who are in authority, we have to expect the highest order of ethics from them just as we ought to expect that from people in this House, whether it be how they act in the House, how they act outside the House or what they say within this place. I would be remiss if I did not recognize that so many of our peace officers do a good job in what they do. My experience is that, generally, people do their jobs; generally, they do it without any sort of prejudice and, at the end of the day, most of them just want to get home. They have families, just like many of us do in this place. So often, as a former trial lawyer, I would see how easy it is to dissect a split-second decision. Therefore, I do not envy the position that peace officers are in, but they do have substantial responsibility and substantial accountability. With that being said, the CBSA does not yet have an external review commission, which this bill aims to amend. This legislation would rename the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP to the “public complaints and review commission”. This commission would also be responsible for reviewing civilian complaints against the CBSA. As I understand it, this commission would have five members, which would include a chair, a vice-chair and three other members, and my hope is that these would not be just typical patronage appointments. One of my greatest criticisms of the current government has been that so frequently, when it establishes a commission or a board or something like that, the government just gets bigger and bigger. I see that it would have only five members and I really urge the government here to not simply appoint people who have had long-term Liberal memberships and have donated to the Liberal Party, as we have so often seen. One of the things that I noticed in this bill are the codified timelines for responses. Now, the Jordan decision came out almost a decade ago now, which is hard to believe. That was a case that interpreted the charter right to trial within a reasonable time. Therefore, I am happy to see, if memory serves, that the reasonable time for a complaint made under this proposed piece of legislation would be six months. In my view, that is eminently reasonable, given the circumstances. It would be wonderful if it could be down to one to two months, but that is not always going to be the case. One other thing that I believe this bill gets right is the informal resolution process. One thing I can recall, as a former lawyer, is that people often are angry. They might be angry with their lawyer or their accountant or, in this case, with the way somebody treated them for a variety of different reasons. We have spoken a lot tonight about racism, in this House. What I have found is that people generally want to be heard. They want their complaint to be heard. They want their feelings to be listened to and to be validated. What I have seen, in my experience anyway, is that a lot of these complaints can be informally resolved. That is why I was happy to see that clause 43 of this legislation has an informal complaint resolution process. I also see at clause 46 that the commission could take over and prevent any agency or police force from continuing on investigating a complaint, in which case perhaps other people have used a hybrid method. We were talking at SECU today about the proposed commissioner for transparency for foreign interference and the transparency registry and the importance of having independence in that regard. I really do reiterate how important that independence is. It would require that the complaints commission institute an investigation if it is in the public interest to do so. I know that sometimes reasonable people can disagree on what that is, but my hope is that the government would appoint the appropriate people to the commission, who would serve the public well in determining when that public interest is there. We expect a lot from our professionals and as a result we need independence.

1409 words

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

Jun/4/24 10:31:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments that the member has put on the record. I too look at the outstanding work, for the most part, that is done by Canada border control and law enforcement officers. However, there is a need to have this oversight and to ensure that there is an independent review committee. This is progressive legislation that would do just that, among other things. I am glad that we are finally able to get a consensus through time allocation, which will now see the legislation pass. Would the member not agree, given that the Conservatives are voting in favour of the legislation, that, indeed, the sooner the legislation becomes law, the better?

117 words

Mr. Frank Caputo

Jun/4/24 10:32:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the reality is that we do expect a lot from our people, and we should expect it every single day. Frankly, we should expect it with or without the legislation. It sounds as though the legislation has been contemplated for nine years. I get that people can take different approaches and say someone has done this or that at committee. It sounds to me that it has taken a really long time for the bill to come. Obviously, the government has the prerogative to advance and prioritize legislation. It is going to be voted on soon, so the member will have his wish come true.

107 words

Expect
Soon

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Jun/4/24 10:32:50 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-20

Uqaqtittiji, we hear the member say he does not agree with how long it has taken the Liberals to get Bill C-20 to the table, yet we heard about how much the Conservatives filibustered, including having submitted 33 amendments at committee and withdrawing 75% of the amendments they themselves had submitted. What was the Conservatives' tactic behind filibustering on this important bill? Why are they now agreeing to make sure it gets passed, so it becomes law during this sitting?

81 words

Mr. Frank Caputo

Jun/4/24 10:33:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I only recently started sitting on SECU, for those watching at home, namely, my mother. She is probably the only one who watches CPAC. I know there was a very contentious issue at the time, and it remains contentious; this goes to part of the member's question in terms of what was happening at committee at the time. If I understand correctly, this was when the Bernardo and Magnotta transfers were being debated, particularly the Bernardo transfer. Conservatives stand for victims and will always stand with victims. Things can be somewhat acrimonious at committee, but, at the end of the day, we are here to discuss this. Again, as I said earlier, we can say people delayed this or that. There have been times in the past when New Democrats have suggested a number of amendments. All parties have done it. However, I am glad we are debating the bill at report stage; it sounds as though most of us agree on it.

166 words

Mr. Francis Drouin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.)

Jun/4/24 10:35:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-20

Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak tonight to Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission. As we have heard, the bill seeks to establish a stand-alone statute to create the public complaints and review commission, the PCRC, to serve as a robust independent review body for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency. It proposes to build on the expertise of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, which currently serves as the complaints and review body for the RCMP. This work would continue under the PCRC. It would increase transparency and accountability on the review body's mandate, which will also be extended to the Canada Border Services Agency. Bill C-20 responds to a long-standing gap in the public safety civilian review framework by ensuring an external review process for the CBSA, as there is currently no mechanism to request an independent review of public complaints against the agency. We have before us a much-improved bill that raises the bar of the quality of law enforcement review in Canada. This is due in no small part to the quality of the interventions by members and witnesses at committee. During its study of Bill C-20, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security heard from various stakeholders, including indigenous leaders, union representatives, academics, and civil rights and society organizations. I am pleased to note that all were generally supportive of this initiative. I therefore take this opportunity to thank the members of SECU, witnesses and stakeholders, who all contributed to advancing this important legislation. In particular, I would like to thank Heather Campbell, a commissioner with the Calgary Police Commission, who spoke to the need for improved data collection and analysis in policing. Data is key to identifying and developing responses to systemic issues in Canadian law enforcement. I also wish to highlight the testimony of members of the Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l'immigration. Their testimony highlighted the need to ensure that third parties can submit complaints to the PCRC and to guarantee that information shared with complainants is also shared with legal representatives. Aided by these testimonies, the committee made several amendments that improved Bill C-20, strengthening the complaints and review process through increased accountability and transparency, as well as providing further clarity to make it more accessible to all. I would now like to highlight some of the most impactful changes made to the proposed legislation by the committee. To build further trust in federal law enforcement, it is imperative that complainants be able to recognize themselves and their communities in the PCRC, including among members of the commission. Thus, it bears repeating that one of the committee's main contributions is the inclusion of a clause that would require the Minister of Public Safety to take into account the diversity of Canadian society when he or she recommends to the Governor in Council the appointment of a PCRC member. The committee also made amendments to increase transparency around the complaints and review process by requiring the PCRC to incorporate additional elements in its annual report, such as demographic data on complainants. This amendment will be key to supporting our efforts to identify and respond to issues of systemic racism within law enforcement, as well as boosting public confidence in our institution. A third amendment that received strong support from all committee members is one that would provide the PCRC with the autonomy to best determine how it should fulfill its complaints and review mandates. More specifically, this amendment removed a PCRC obligation to consider whether it has sufficient resources to conduct a specified activity review, also known as a systemic investigation. I will quickly remind my hon. colleagues of what the two main activities of the PCRC would be. Members of the public, be they Canadians or not, would be able to make a complaint against an employee of the RCMP or the CBSA regarding their conduct or level of service. Should a complainant not be satisfied with the RCMP's or the CBSA's investigation at first instance, they would have the right to request that the PCRC examine the organization's findings regarding their complaint. In addition to the review of complaints, the commission would also conduct systemic investigations of non-national security RCMP and CBSA activities to ensure that those activities are in line with legislation, policies, guidelines and procedures. These specified activity reviews are essential. They would allow the PCRC to identify and investigate systemic issues that exist within these organizations, such as use of force and harassment, and to develop recommendations for the RCMP and the CBSA. These recommendations would also support the development of solutions to systemic matters and could contribute to cultural changes within our law enforcement. These amendments would give the PCRC increased flexibility to identify and develop recommendations around broader, more systemic issues within the RCMP and the CBSA. Giving the PCRC more autonomy on how to fulfill its mandate also aligns with other review bodies, such as the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA. A fourth amendment made by SECU, or the committee, would improve co-operation between the PCRC and review bodies such as NSIRA. Indeed, the committee voted in favour of government-introduced amendments that would allow the Minister of Public Safety to create regulations around the sharing of information, referral of complaints and joint proceedings between federal entities. These regulations could be made to improve work between review bodies and to ensure no complaint is misplaced. The committee also adopted amendments that would leave no ambiguity about who can make a complaint, as well as ensuring that the process remains accessible to both members of the public and stakeholders. More specifically, Bill C-20 now clarifies that third parties can submit complaints and request that the PCRC initiate a specified activity review. I know that hon. members on the other side want to hear about this. The committee made an amendment to clarify that the information related to the handling of complaints can also be shared with the legal representatives of complainants. Again, I commend the important improvements made by the hon. members of the committee. They have listened to concerns from stakeholders and have contributed to improving on what is already a robust transparency and accountability mechanism. Let us not forget why the bill is so crucial. The CBSA is the only agency under the public safety portfolio that is not subject to an external, independent complaints and review mechanism. The legislation fulfills our government's commitment to establish an independent review body for the CBSA; it would respond to important transparency and accountability gaps and increase public confidence in the RCMP and the CBSA. Furthermore, this initiative also responds to several recommendations, notably those made in the Mass Casualty Commission's report and SECU's report on systemic racism in policing. In my belief, not only would the bill have a positive impact on public interactions with our law enforcement agencies, including at the border, but it is also essential to public trust and the rule of law. I note that my hon. colleagues on both sides of the House have demonstrated their support for the legislation. I therefore urge them to vote with me in favour of this important bill.

1237 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 324