SoVote

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

Mr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC)

Jun/4/24 10:45:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell and I served several years together on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, and it is nice to be in the House debating with him. I appreciate his comments, especially around the makeup of the PCRC, and I tease him about all the acronyms used. I am wondering if he could explain the PCRC. He talked about appointments representing our wide diversity in Canada, but how would it be looked at from a geographic perspective? CBSA issues and RCMP issues in Alberta are very different than in downtown Toronto and across the country. How is the bill set up so the PCRC would properly be representing those differences?

120 words

Mr. Francis Drouin

Jun/4/24 10:46:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are here tonight because we are debating an amendment from the Conservative Party on the title of a bill. That is why we are here tonight. We are not here to debate the content of the bill. We are seriously here to debate the title of a bill. I am going to ask my hon. colleague whether he thinks it is valuable time to debate the title of a bill and whether the Conservative Party thought it was a really good idea to debate the title of the bill tonight. I will answer his question. Diversity is diversified across the country. Obviously, the government would take into account the diversity of British Columbia, Alberta and all provinces across the country. Again, I would ask my hon. colleague why we are debating the title of a bill tonight.

140 words

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

Jun/4/24 10:47:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague who gave the speech was supposed to respond to a question but asked a question instead. I will challenge him on that, because the real nature of asking a question is to get a response and an answer to the question asked. I will push back on his question about regional representation, because his government has been sorely lacking in getting input from the provinces in this country in all the legislation it has put forth thus far. It is an autocratic system that it is pushing upon the provinces. We have a Constitution, where we have a federation of powers between the provinces and the federal government. The government continues to ignore that federal arrangement and act in its own interest all the time. I challenge the member on whether he is actually serious about his words when he says the government is going to get input from the regions of the country.

158 words

Mr. Francis Drouin

Jun/4/24 10:48:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are at report stage in the House. If those arguments were brought at committee, they would have been taken seriously, but obviously it is just about delaying time in the House. I get it. The opposition wants to delay time from the budget implementation act. The Conservatives do not want to talk about pharmacare. They do not want to talk about the importance of the budget, which would impact millennials, my generation and the next generation. Of course, it is just about wasting time in the House. Again, the biggest thing they chose to argue about was the title of the bill. How silly is that?

109 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Jun/4/24 10:48:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, obviously we are here to debate the substance of the bill, although I will say that we see so much entitlement from the Liberal government, entitlement to something we certainly see as being in the public interest to discuss. Behind this bill also, as my colleagues have talked about, is the reality that we see increasing crime in this country, and this informs the context of this bill and of the provisions that would be put in place around complaints and the adjudication of those complaints. I wonder if the member will acknowledge how, following the change in government in 2015, the trajectory of violent crime in this country changed dramatically and how violent crime was dropping when Stephen Harper was Prime Minister and violent crime has gone up dramatically. So much of it is because the same criminals are committing crimes over and over again, and under the Liberals it is bail, not jail. Conservatives would bring in jail, not bail, for repeat violent offenders. I wonder if, after nine years of failure, the member is prepared to acknowledge that his government's decisions have had a negative impact on public safety in this country.

198 words

Mr. Francis Drouin

Jun/4/24 10:50:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really respect my hon. colleague on the other side, but again, Conservatives, and Conservatives only, chose to debate the title of a bill, which is “Public Complaints and Review Commission Act”, which they want to strike from debate. They had the opportunity to bring this at committee, and they did not. They had the opportunity to bring this at second reading in the House before this, and they did not. Now, suddenly, they are waking up and want to debate this particular title—

89 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/4/24 10:50:46 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.

11 words

Mr. Marc Dalton (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, CPC)

Jun/4/24 10:50:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-20

Madam Speaker, right out of the starting blocks, I will say that I will be supporting the bill, as my Conservative colleagues will be. There may be those who think it is our duty as an official opposition to oppose all legislation put forward by the costly Liberal-NDP coalition, that it is our duty to vote against it. We do that with the majority of their bills. After nine years of the Prime Minister, crime, chaos, drugs and disorder reign in so many of our streets and communities. The coalition government has dragged our country down: The cost of living has soared, housing costs have doubled and Canadians are struggling. An election cannot come soon enough. The longer the NDP and the Liberals are in power, the worse off Canadians will become. There is a good reason why we vote against most of the Liberal government's bills, and that is for the good of Canadians. However, this bill, to establish a public complaints and review commission, is not one of them. It is not perfect, but it is a good bill that has the support of the parties in the House. That begs the question: Why has it taken so long for the bill to get through the legislative process and become law? An hon. member: Oh, I know. Mr. Marc Dalton: Madam Speaker, let us talk about that. I know that members on the other side of the House are eager to jump into this right now, but the fact of the matter is that the Liberals promised it. They promised to introduce a more effective oversight of federal law enforcement agencies in, drum roll, 2015. That is right. Nine years ago, they were hot to trot and decided to introduce Bill C-98, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the Canada Border Services Agency Act. However, when did they introduce it? It was not 2015, not 2016, not 2017 and not 2018. It was 2019, in May. What was May 2019 about? That was the end of their first mandate. They decided in May 2019 to introduce it and an election was called. They had to have an election. Then what happened? That legislation fell through. They obviously were not very serious about this law, as it fell through in 2019. Then they decided they were going to bring it up again in January 2020, a few months later. They went through some of the processes, and actually, the Conservatives voted for the bill all the way through. However, the Liberals did not give themselves enough time, and even more than that, they decided to take the opportunity to have a COVID election, something they said they were not going to do but did. Then guess what happened to this bill. It tanked. It died. Here we are again, and it is at the very end of the session. It is not May, though. It is June, and the Liberals have decided to bring it forward again, rushing it through because of their disorganization and ramming it through with time allocation. We are approaching the pumpkin hour debating Bill C-20, and my question is, are they even serious about having this bill pass? One must wonder. Maybe it is a good bill, and they are not used to having a good bill. The fact of the matter is that we want it passed. However, we do believe in debating it. We do believe in speaking to it. I think that is important. The bill before us deals with specific complaints made by the public about the RCMP or the Canada Border Services Agency. It is about how these complaints would be investigated. Currently, the CBSA and the RCMP investigate most of the complaints filed. While both of these agencies, the RCMP and CBSA, are very professional, there is, nonetheless, concern about police investigating police. There is a risk of bias or perceived bias, which can undermine public trust, and an internal investigation process may lack transparency and public accountability, leading to doubts about fairness. Before I go any further, I want to express my deep appreciation for the work and service of RCMP officers, police overall, and our Canadian border services personnel for the public security and safety they provide. They place their lives on the line, day in and day out. I think of Constable Rick O'Brien, who was a constable in my riding of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge. He was at a drug bust when he was shot at through the door from the other side and killed. His widow is Nicole, and he had six children. He was a real example of a person who just gave his all in community engagement, especially with youth. He became an officer later in his life, probably in his forties, but it was his dream. However, he laid down his life. Bill C-20 is not an anti-police or anti-border agency bill, but I just want to say that, as Conservatives, we support our protective services, and they know that. As a matter of fact, I can think of maybe one person who is a police officer who has said that she may not vote for me. I mean, there may be a police officer who is not voting for Conservatives, but they see that we stand for order, safety, security and sanity, as opposed to the disorder, insanity and chaos of the other side. We are living in a dangerous society, and our CBSA also faces risks. To them all, I say thank you. Public complaints do occur, justified or unjustified, and it is important that the complaints be dealt with expeditiously with as little red tape as possible. However, the Liberals and the NDP are red tape proponents, and it just causes delays and increased expenses. Even though they have added 100,000 new bureaucrats, things have gotten a lot worse. We believe in being expeditious. We support an amendment for the PCRC, which would be the public complaints review commission, to direct the RCMP to conduct informal resolutions. It would just be informal. According to the National Police Federation, most complaints can be resolved with a phone call, and they can conduct information resolutions to address long delays of complaints. It is important that we get things moving. We do believe that there needs to be timelines, that it cannot just go on and on. Things must move along so that justice and people's concerns are addressed. We also believe that timelines begin at the top, and it really falls on the Liberal government, with its cabinet ministers who do not take control of the bureaucracy, and that just goes right down. We believe in having more efficiency, which is important for the taxpayers. Conservatives also support the unions that represent workers during the hearings. We believe in fair processes that support union agreements, and an automatic back pay process for unfounded complaints because, when someone, such as agents, security personnel or police, is being investigated, it can be without pay. It is important that, if the complaint is unfounded, they would automatically receive their back pay.

1205 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 324