44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 4, 2024 10:00AM
- Jun/4/24 2:28:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we obviously thank the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians for its work. We take interference very seriously. That is why we are taking all necessary steps to protect Canadians from the threat of foreign interference.
We established oversight and accountability bodies. We set up a public inquiry. We introduced new legislation that provides for a foreign influence transparency registry that makes foreign interference a serious crime and allows CSIS to share information with all levels of government, businesses, researchers and more.
We will continue to be there to protect Canadians.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/4/24 6:36:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I understand why my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou would ask that question.
When I look at the bill's timeline, I can see that it has been before Parliament for quite some time. That is probably one good reason to pass it speedily. The committee spent a significant number of meetings on this bill, during which our colleagues amended it.
Our government recognizes the importance of having a civilian authority mandated by law to oversee both the Canada Border Services Agency and the RCMP. We all know of situations where that kind of independent civilian oversight would have been desirable.
I think it is time for the House of Commons to vote on this bill, and I hope my colleagues will support it.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/4/24 6:39:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have had the chance to work with our colleague, the House leader of the New Democratic Party, over a number of years. He is an experienced, dedicated parliamentarian. I might have even given him the title of “worker bee” as well. He has been, and his colleagues in his caucus have been, extraordinarily constructive in committee in improving this legislation. We worked happily with our colleagues from the New Democratic Party. The member for New Westminster—Burnaby in particular brought a number of thoughtful amendments. He identified the improvements the committee made to this legislation. We were pleased that it was an example of a parliamentary process working well.
I share his concern. I am dumbfounded as well why the Conservatives would resist having independent, legislated, civilian oversight, for the first time ever, of the Canada Border Services Agency and having strengthened oversight of the RCMP. We thought parliamentarians would be in favour of this. Canadians are in favour of it. It is pretty disingenuous for Conservatives to bring amendments, for example, to delete the short title just to make sure the legislation does not come to a vote. That is what we are trying to fix this evening.
205 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/4/24 6:41:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo is in his first term in this Parliament, and he is correct that he would not have seen previous Parliaments that were not able to pass this legislation. However, we can conclude that this simple fact would behoove all of us to work collaboratively, as the committee did, and the support of the Conservatives at committee, for example, was important.
What we do not understand, and I think what other parliamentarians may not understand, is why the Conservatives are now seeking, through a series of frivolous amendments, to delete the short title. We think the idea of having an independent civilian oversight of national security agencies is important, which is something the Conservatives of course resisted when they were in government. Maybe it is an extension of their same hesitancy to set up a national security committee of parliamentarians to ensure that the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency would have the substantive authorities that it has now. Finally, they are seeking to delay and to obstruct the idea of a civilian review commission to look at the Canada Border Services Agency, for the first time ever, and of course to look at the RCMP, which we think is a good idea. Canadians would expect us to work collaboratively on that.
221 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank our colleague, the parliamentary secretary, for highlighting what surprises colleagues on our side of the House, in terms of the Conservatives' reticence to adopt legislation that would provide, for the first time, independent civilian oversight of the Canada Border Services Agency and that would strengthen the previous complaints commission process for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Our national security institutions do great work to protect Canadians, to serve Canadians and to ensure, in the case of the Canada Border Services Agency, that duties are collected appropriately by competent authorities. It is important for the Canadian economy, and it is important for the treasury of the Government of Canada. That work is very important, and it is done well.
There is also a national security, a border security, element. All of these agencies benefit from independent, strengthened oversight to deal with complaints, to deal with, as my colleague, the New Democratic Party House leader, identified in the case of some union circumstances or employees.
All of this should be important for members, in terms of providing the support for these agencies, and I hope Parliament will adopt this bill, Bill C-20.
195 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have to laugh at the minister's comments about being disingenuous. He talked about strengthening oversight with this bill, Bill C-20, the importance of the appointments process and the appropriate role of the complaints process.
I wonder if the minister made the exact same arguments to the Prime Minister and the rest of his cabinet before he voted to prorogue government in order to cover up for the WE scandal.
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/4/24 6:53:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is very clear, certainly from the news, that there is a need for independent oversight. The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls called for systemic change, particularly relating to calls 9.1 to 9.11.
It is not shocking to me. We know there is systemic racism in policing. We know it is not effective for police to police themselves. To the minister, why do you think the Conservatives are so against addressing systemic racism in both the CBSA and the RCMP, which has been highly reported, including at the United Nations?
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/4/24 6:54:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member identifies something that we have acknowledged: the presence of systemic racism in policing institutions and other governmental institutions. It is a concern that we share with her.
Again, one of the constructive elements of the work done by colleagues at the committee, including the House leader of the New Democratic Party, was the ability to collect race-based data and to look at the issues around overrepresentation of racialized people and indigenous people in the criminal justice system. Sadly, in many cases, the entry point for many of these people in the criminal justice system is interactions with the police or conceivably the Canada Border Services Agency. That is why it is important that the appropriate people be appointed to this oversight group to ensure that exactly the kind of concern that our colleague from Winnipeg Centre raises is addressed at the highest levels and with the utmost vigour.
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the shout-out; the chair of the mighty OGGO is here to witness this.
I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-20, which would establish a public complaints and review commission for the Canada Border Services Agency and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Both the RCMP and the CBSA are critical organizations that protect the security of Canadians. While carrying out their mandates, employees of both organizations are quite literally on the front lines.
The employees work around the clock to ensure Canada's security each and every day, and to achieve this mammoth task, they are entrusted with significant powers. Among others, these powers include the ability to use force, to search and to detain individuals. They are essential to the safety and security of the public. That said, equally essential is the need for independent review of these activities to ensure that the RCMP and the CBSA are transparent, and accountable to the population they serve and to Parliament.
The adoption of Bill C-20 would provide for increased accountability and transparency of the RCMP and the CBSA. This would be done through the establishment of an enhanced mechanism for independent review of these organizations. The RCMP already has an external review body in the form of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, CRCC. Bill C-20 would build on the CRCC through the establishment of the public complaints and review commission, PCRC.
The PCRC would serve as the external review body for the RCMP, but would have enhanced power to fulfill this mandate. The bill would, at long last, also provide for independent review for the CBSA, which currently does not have an independent review mechanism. It would do so by giving the PCRC an additional mandate to serve as the review body for the CBSA. The PCRC would do that using the existing knowledge, processes and expertise of the CRCC, and expand them to include the CBSA.
We have been talking about evidence-based steps to get here since 2015. We established the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians that reviews the work of national security and intelligence agencies. As part of that consultation, we examined how well existing oversight and review bodies function. We also sought answers about what sort of independent review would be needed for agencies that do not currently have an independent review, such as the CBSA.
As we know, effective civilian review is central to the rule of law and maintaining public confidence and trust. Bill C-20 embodies that concept. It would respond to a long-lasting need for independent review of the CBSA and improve RCMP review. It seeks to ensure that both the RCMP and the CBSA continue the work to transform their culture, and to enhance transparency and accountability, as well as equity, diversity and inclusivity.
Bill C-20 would provide an avenue to ensure the public is able to have its complaints about the conduct and level of service of RCMP and CBSA employees reviewed by an external body. It would also provide an avenue to identify and investigate systemic issues within Canadian law enforcement.
Today, I wish to concentrate on how this bill would help us as parliamentarians contribute to enhanced accountability and transparency of the RCMP and the CBSA. Bill C-20 does that through the establishment of a series of additional and enhanced reporting requirements, and accountability measures for the PCRC, the RCMP and the CBSA. These measures would ensure that parliamentarians in both chambers are equipped to monitor the state of the complaint and review process, and to hold the Minister of Public Safety to account in relation to complaints and systemic review.
Bill C-20 would do so by enhancing PCRC recommendation-making powers of the PCRC, as well as establishing annual reporting requirements for the RCMP and the CBSA. By clearly showing parliamentarians which PCRC recommendations have and have not been implemented by the RCMP and the CBSA, this would strengthen the accountability to Parliament of the minister, and through the minister, of the RCMP's and CBSA's deputy heads.
As mentioned by my colleagues, the bill would also establish defined timelines to ensure swift responses and decisions throughout the review process. These include codified timelines for the RCMP and the CBSA to respond to PCRC reports, systemic review and recommendations. The PCRC would receive the information it needs promptly and include it in its annual report to Parliament.
The bill would also equip Parliament with an ability to identify allegations of systemic racism and other systemic discrimination in policing by requiring the PCRC to collect and publish demographic and race-based data on complainants. Stakeholders, including police chiefs, have long called for such information to be collected as it is essential to the development of responses to systemic issues in the criminal justice system.
Bill C-20 would also establish a statutory framework for CBSA responses to serious incidents currently provided for in an internal policy only, so that the PCRC would be informed on the nature and responses to serious incidents involving the CBSA, such as death in custody. This would take place through a requirement for the PCRC to report on the number, types and outcomes of serious incidents as part of its annual reporting.
For the first time, parliamentarians and the Canadian public would be informed of serious incidents that involve CBSA officers, including incidents involving immigration and detainees. The PCRC would retrieve this information through requirements for the CBSA to notify and provide information to the PCRC when serious incidents take place and permit the PCRC to send an observer to assess the impartiality of the CBSA's investigations.
Through enhanced reporting to Parliament, Bill C-20 would help to ensure our border services and national law enforcement agencies remain world class and are worthy of the trust of Canadians.
On this note, I also want to thank the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for its important study of the bill. Its amendments have served to reinforce the reporting requirements I just noted. Among others, I would want to highlight a government-introduced amendment that would set the time period allowed for the PCRC to submit its annual report to Parliament. The extension of this timeline would give the PCRC sufficient time to analyze the annual reports of the RCMP and the CBSA and give the commission the ability to comment on these reports as part of its own annual reporting to Parliament.
SECU also made an amendment that would ensure the PCRC would include the number of complainants it refers to NSIRA in its annual report. This would give parliamentarians and the Canadian public a look into how the work of these two reviewing bodies intertwine. I encourage all members to join me in supporting Bill C-20 today.
1152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/4/24 9:53:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what I am getting at with all of the crime that I am discussing and all of the soft-on-crime policies that the Liberal government has put in place is the fact of the workload that is on the RCMP and other police forces, which then leads to issues that would have to be investigated by the new commission that we are talking about.
Part of the answer is to fix the underlying problem in our laws so that we could reduce the crime we are seeing on our streets, make sure that appropriate punishments are being given to people who deserve to be punished, and ensure that appropriate treatment policies and other things are there. That is how we could make sure that the work of the new commission would be minimized.
I just want to mention the CBSA briefly. The CBSA does need oversight. We know it is having a very difficult time managing auto theft, and that is another huge problem. I have heard stories, for example, of people who are installing bollards in their driveway. For people who do not know what those are, people pull their car into the driveway and push a button, and steel columns come up to surround their vehicle so it cannot actually be removed, in any way, from their property. That is something we should not have to do in Canada, but people are doing it. It costs tens of thousands of dollars to install those in a driveway, yet people are being forced to do it.
As I wrap up, I want to take a moment to thank our RCMP officers, our local police officers and our CBSA officers. These individuals do tremendous work on behalf of Canadians. They keep our country safe. They keep our cities safe. They have a thankless job. They do not often get credit for what they do, so I just want to make sure to acknowledge that work and acknowledge that we in the House, and all Canadians as well, are thankful for the work that they do.
I am looking forward to the public review commission. I do support the idea. It is unfortunate that it has taken so long for it to get to this point and that it has been such a low priority for the government. I look forward to further discussion on it. Maybe this time, as the third time is the charm, it might actually get passed. We are going to make sure to stop the crime.
423 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, first of all, there is some housekeeping. Of course, it is 11:05 p.m. on June 4, and we are here in the House debating a bill, but first of all, June 4 is a very important date in my household. June 4 is my anniversary with my wife of our marriage 13 years ago. Members who have met my wife know that I am a pretty lucky man, and I thank her for all the years and all the joy she has added to my life. My life is full because of her.
Let me get to the matter at hand here. My constituents will know that we start work the same time as they do, 8 a.m., here in Ottawa. Here we are at 11 p.m., and that is because of mismanagement of the government's agenda. There is a lot on the agenda here, but the things we were talking about last week and the week before are all a matter of not being able to manage the time in this House, and that is on the government's side.
However, tonight we are here debating Bill C-20, which is an act establishing the public complaints and review commission. It is an act that would actually take what was previously the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission and update it. It has been debated in the House by the government a number of times, in three different Parliaments, starting as a promise in 2015, and then it expired. Then, of course, it came back, and it came back again. It is back in front of this Parliament this time, and I will have people note that the first time the bill was read in this Parliament for first reading, as we call it, was on May 19, 2022. Over two years ago, the bill was brought before the House of Commons.
Then, of course, the process in the House of Commons is that we go to a second reading. The second reading, in this government's allocation of its timeline, happened on November 25, 2022, so about six months later, the House got it through to a second reading, which is where we debate in the House of Commons, much like we are doing here tonight, although we usually do it before supper.
Then, of course, it goes to committee. It gets consideration in committee, and that took, for some reason, a full year. People need to know that when a bill goes to committee, it has precedence over everything else that is happening in the committee, over all the reports and everything else, and legislation jumps to the front of that. It is not like it is waiting behind a whole bunch of things to get done. The minute it goes to committee, it gets considered, but for some reason, the government did not want to put it there and get it passed until November 2023, a full year after second reading in the House of Commons. That is too long. Again, it is mismanagement, not on the opposition side, but on the government side.
The government does not know how to get its legislation through the House, and it was not always this way. Governments used to get things done in this place. They did not have to sit until midnight to go through an agenda to get things done. They actually got things done in the allocated time, and that took some co-operation with the other parties in the House of Commons. I wish the current government could learn co-operation and could learn how to actually make bills better in committee and on the floor of the House of Commons. However, it is acting repeatedly in an autocratic sense, and as a result, here we are. Here we are at almost midnight, 11:09, as I see right now on the clock.
We are debating Bill C-20, and it is not a bad bill, but it is a bill that we need to take a good look at because it would impact so much. It is about public trust, at the end of the day, to reinforce the government's intent to build that public trust in oversight of law enforcement for accountability and responsibility.
I am not sure I am allowed to do this, so I hope the Speaker pays attention to what I am saying. The bill was introduced in the House of Commons by the then minister of public safety. That former minister is no longer in cabinet for some good reasons. That former minister used to mislead this Parliament on a daily basis. He would come up in question period, and for every response to any question he gave, he would say the talking lines, even if they were so remote from reality that they stunk, quite frankly. I remember a journalist in the paper actually said that this man knows how to “fluff their putts” like nobody else. Yes, the remoteness from the truth was something that was very off his agenda at that point in time.
This is a bill about trust. That is pertinent because the people introducing bills have to be people Canadians can trust. To actually have trust in the House of Commons, we have to make sure people are always representing themselves as honest people. That is what we need. It is about honourability in the House of Commons. We have seen the results of that.
The bill is about an imbalance of power, if we think about it. If somebody is going to make a complaint in front of a public review committee and it is the police that they are complaining about, or the Border Services Agency, to go to the committee and tell it that they have a complaint about somebody in the organization creates a bit of a problem, particularly, if I can talk about it, with new Canadians. In Canada, we have a robust system of justice, a robust system of reporting and a robust parliamentary democracy, which is being mismanaged right now, but it is still a tradition of democracy.
Many Canadians come here from other regimes where they do not have that. The trust in the police is not there. New Canadians represent a substantial percentage of Canadians. They do not necessarily have trust in the institutions in their prior countries. The imbalance of power they sense would be much more than that of a complainant who was born and raised here and who has experienced their own interactions with police. There is that extra consideration we need to give in the bill to make sure that we are not looking at something and visiting it unfairly.
I would like to talk to the government, of course, about bias and conflict of interest, because the bill is all about conflict of interest and setting up a new body to make sure that other bodies are not looking after their own business at the end of the day. Setting up a separate civilian body to look after the police has been a long time coming. Roping in the Canada Border Services Agency is also something that needs to be done. It would elevate the organization as well. However, conflicts of interest are about the confidence, credibility and objectivity of the complaint process that would have to be undertaken.
Let me talk about something here, because I remembered that the former governor general was the special rapporteur on foreign interference in Canadian elections. I looked at it. I had great respect for the former governor general when he was the governor general. It is almost as if I wanted to scream across the airwaves to him that he was in a conflict of interest, with respect to what he would be reporting to on foreign elections interference. Not knowing one has a conflict of interest, even though one has an interest, is the definition of conflict of interest.
We have to understand that being involved in something means one has a perspective that does not make them objective. That is what the nature of the legislation before us actually would do; it would move the reporting relationship one step further than the people who might have been directly involved, one step away from what was involved in the complaint that happened in the first place. That is a necessity. That is the imperative that has to happen here. From what I have seen from the members on the other side, they have to get back to the basics of understanding what the whole nature of a conflict of interest is about.
I tuned in for a while to the Auditor General this morning. I can tell the House that she spoke repeatedly about conflict of interest, particularly with respect to the SDTC and how many of its directors appointed by the current government have put themselves in a position of conflict of interest. Clearly there is a misunderstanding among the government, and its friends, about how it has to report its interests, its financial interest in that case. However, interests are interests. We have to make sure that they are balanced appropriately and that everybody has the opportunity for objectivity.
There is a quantity that we are looking at. I appreciate that the minister has put forward what the bill would cost Canadians. It is about $120 million over the first six years, and then about $20 million per year after that, so even now, $20 million to set up an organization of arm's-length people to make sure that there would be a complaints process. Canadians need to know that, but I am hoping the government in this case can actually stick to a number, because it has not stuck to a budget yet that it has put forward on the floor of the House of Commons. That too is a matter of accountability that it has delivered nothing on at this point in time.
One thing I want to say before I close is that some input came in through committee from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. I will shorten the quote, knowing I am out of time. It states:
Unfortunately, Bill C-20 ignores these types of recommendations as well as the criticisms of the RCMP’s existing inadequate complaints investigation structure. Instead of putting in place truly independent, civilian investigation of police and security agency misconduct, it retains the limited powers in the current police complaints system and extends the CRCC’s flawed oversight model to the CBSA.
I wish—
1779 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/4/24 11:19:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in my speech, I talked about accountability and responsibility. I can tell members there is no accountability in this budget to the Canadians who might be affected by the government's legislation. The government is going to increase taxation on Canadians, but it has not identified exactly who those Canadians are.
All those Canadians are calling their financial advisers and their accountants. They are saying they are not sure if they are captured by this, and the accountants do not know either, because the government will not tell them. It is a serious oversight of the government to put forward legislation to increase taxes without clearly delineating exactly who is going to be affected.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
