SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 328 - Jun/10/24

Jun/10/24 7:28:43 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Jun/10/24 7:28:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3 Bill C-20

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely pleased to have the opportunity to rise today to speak to Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory amendments. This legislation would rename the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to the public complaints and review commission. Under its name, the commission would be responsible for reviewing civilian complaints against the Canada Border Services Agency; codified timelines for the RCMP and CBSA responses to PCRC interim reports; reviews and recommendations; information sharing between the RCMP, CBSA and the PCRC; mandatory annual reporting by the RCMP and CBSA on actions taken in response to PCRC recommendations; mandatory reporting of disaggregated race-based data by the PCRC; public education; and a statutory framework to govern CBSA responses to serious incidents. On the surface, it may appear we are discussing the specifics of some new entity the government is creating to expand the bureaucracy. I would not blame anyone for assuming that, given it is often how the bloated Liberal government responds. However, the sentiment behind this bill is a good and responsible one. While Conservatives may still have some concerns with this bill, I believe our amendments made at committee did improve it. This legislation seeks to increase people's confidence in the justice system and hold to account those who ensure our safety and who secure our borders. Anyone put in a position of authority can either use it appropriately or inappropriately, including public servants entrusted with protecting Canadians. They are responsible for properly exercising their duties and must be held accountable for their actions. This includes employees at the Canada Border Services Agency, an agency entrusted with supporting national security, public safety priorities and dictating who and what enters or leaves our country. CBSA is the only public safety agency without an independent oversight body for public complaints. This has been deeply concerning for all those who cross our borders and interact with border officials, including CBSA employees themselves, which is why Bill C-20 seeks to correct this. Frankly, this piece of legislation is long overdue, as we have heard. The Liberal government introduced this bill in the 42nd Parliament as Bill C-98 and in the 43rd Parliament as Bill C-3. However, it was never given priority in Parliament by the Liberals. I would be remiss not to mention it was a promise in their 2015 platform. This speaks to either their disingenuousness or their incompetency when it comes to addressing important issues and following through on their commitments. It is also very telling of the NDP-Liberal government's priorities when it puts off initiatives that would protect Canadians in order to focus all its energy on finding new ways to spend taxpayers' money. While I will be voting for this legislation, I still have some concerns about it. The first is that Bill C-20, in its current form, does not reflect many of the recommendations offered to improve it. This bill was studied at committee to provide stakeholders with the opportunity to raise their concerns and flag various problems with it to members of Parliament and even make recommendations, not so that Liberal MPs could have an audience to watch them give the impression they cared. When indigenous chiefs and the National Police Federation, on behalf of the RCMP, suggested changes be made, Liberals voted against Conservative amendments that reflected the experts' recommendations. Another concern that remains unaddressed is the lack of independence. The current complaint process results with most complaints about the RCMP being referred to the RCMP. Given the Liberals' record, they clearly do not understand the need for independence, and so I will explain it for their sake. The reason the police cannot investigate the police is pretty much the same reason that a prime minister should not investigate himself or herself. An independent body is necessary to ensure professionalism and impartiality and build public trust. If the investigator has no vested interest in an investigation, their only allegiance is to the truth, thus ensuring Canadians can trust the process. The PCRC not only ought to, but needs to, be able to conduct its own investigations using its own investigators, which must be reflected in Bill C-20. Even if self-conducted investigations were always completely honest, there is still the problem of perception. If people are afraid to file complaints or believe that, in doing so, they do not have any hope of their complaints' being dealt with, the issues that should be raised will not be addressed. I cannot think of anyone who would file a complaint to the person whom the complaint is about, for obvious reasons. To build trust, investigations must not only be internally transparent, fair and independent, but they must also appear so externally. A fully independent commission is not only good for those filing complaints, but for all Canadians, including the RCMP themselves. The Liberal-NDP government's soft-on-crime policy has led to skyrocketing rates of violent crime and auto theft. Many Canadians, especially those in rural Canada and remote areas like my riding of Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, look to the RCMP for protection of their persons and their property. The Liberal-NDP government's policies are creating chaos, making the RCMP's job more difficult. The RCMP is essential to keeping our country and its people safe and to maintaining law and order. To do this, RCMP officers need to be on the front lines, doing the important work that they were trained to do. The bureaucratic paperwork that comes with dealing with complaints is taking up our valued officers' time. The RCMP officers cannot protect Canadians if they are stuck behind a desk in a cubicle somewhere. Clearly, supporting a commission independent of the RCMP not only ensures fairness, but efficiency as well. The intent of this bill is to lighten the bureaucratic burden of the RCMP and ensure justice and transparency. However, the execution is not the best. It can be better, and that is where the heart of this debate lies. The Liberal-NDP coalition refuses to take constructive criticism. Conservatives embrace legislation that makes positive changes for the good of the country. We listened to stakeholders and worked with other parties when they put forward good suggestions. We introduced amendments. Obviously, we were not going to agree on everything, but our goal should be, and indeed it is our duty as parliamentarians, to ensure the safety and security of Canadians. These are all important issues and I am sure that the members of the costly coalition would say that they agree that the safety and security of Canadians is the most important. However, actions speak louder than words. By doing nothing for nine years after promising to put the bill in place in 2015, refusing to improve the bill by listening to stakeholders and addressing their concerns and now rushing this legislation through because of their own incompetence, the Liberals show how unserious they are and Canadians will not be fooled. Conservatives are committed to continuing to work on these important issues. The question truly is, are the Liberals committed? If they are, can they organize themselves enough to put aside their other pointless endeavours and fix their flawed legislation so that it can be passed, once and for all?

1236 words

Mr. Eric Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC)

Jun/10/24 7:38:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's always well-spoken and well-thought-out comments on the legislation before us tonight. I echo the concerns that my colleague raised about the long and delayed process the Liberals have in managing a lot of the legislation they bring forward. It is their inability not only to get legislation through to make fundamental changes, many of which we have argued and thankfully some have been taken up, but more, I would like my colleague to perhaps elaborate a bit on the frustration we constantly have that when a piece of legislation is passed in the House and in the Senate, it is the actual implementation of it in a timely manner. There is strong support across the country and here in the House for this commission to proceed, but if it is like other commissions, like other promises made in the past by the Liberals and NDP in legislation, it often costs a lot of money, takes a lot of time and produces more frustration than results. Could my colleague elaborate as to whether she shares that same concern post this legislation passing and not just in the process of seeing it through right now?

203 words

Mrs. Kelly Block

Jun/10/24 7:39:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, I agree with the member. We have spent many years in this place under the Liberal government, watching the Liberals' inability to manage their own legislative agenda and then taking far too long to implement what has been passed into law. I would absolutely agree with the member's comments. I would have to say that the only people to blame for this bill not being passed already are the Liberals themselves.

75 words

Passed
Blame

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

Jun/10/24 7:40:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I find it truly amazing that the member would say that, given the fact that the Conservatives moved an amendment at report stage to delete the short title. Who are they really trying to kid? Do they think Canadians are that stupid? At the end of the day, this bill could pass if the Conservatives would stop playing their games. That is all that has to happen. The Conservatives just have to allow the legislation to pass, and stop playing games. Then the Conservatives have the tenacity to say, “Well, it is the government that is not passing the legislation” or that we are dragging the legislation. No. Duh. It is the Conservative Party not understanding or trying to fool Canadians. Why does the Conservative Party want to try to trick Canadians into believing that it is the Liberals, when in fact it is the incompetent Conservatives across the way?

154 words

Mrs. Kelly Block

Jun/10/24 7:41:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, I absolutely know that Canadians are not fooled by the Liberal government, its incompetence, unseriousness and its inability to manage its own legislative agenda. As for putting forward amendments in regard to a short title, all parties in this House have put forward amendments to change a short title. That member knows it, should just come clean with Canadians, and stop pretending that this has anything to do with more than just the Liberals' own incompetence.

81 words

Short
Title

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

Jun/10/24 7:41:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. One thing I want to highlight is that the Liberal government is just not working for Canadians these days. Not only are the Liberals not working for Canadians, they are just not getting things done. This bill was put forward in 2015, and it did not pass. The Liberals prorogued in the 43rd Parliament. Here we are now, and they think, “Oh, we've got some time to kill, so let's just do this.” This is during a week when foreign interference is at an all-time high and the Liberals just do not seem to care about naming names of people in this House who are working with foreign governments. This is at a time when people are paying double the rent, and the Liberals will pontificate that Canadians have never had it so good. What message does this send to Canadians, with this bill passing and the other things I mentioned?

175 words

Mrs. Kelly Block

Jun/10/24 7:42:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his observations and for the fact that he has been shepherding this bill through the House most recently. The member opposite spoke about the importance of checks and balances, and of having this independent body in place. However, he then went on to say that they even understood the need. Quite frankly, I find that rich, knowing how long it took them to actually get it done.

74 words

Mr. Eric Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC)

Jun/10/24 7:43:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-20

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the people of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry and eastern Ontario and to have the opportunity tonight to talk on the bill before us, Bill C-20, the public complaints and review commission act, and actually localize it a little bit. It is an important piece of legislation for our part of eastern Ontario, and I am proud to not only to represent the great people of the city of Cornwall and most of the united counties of SD&G, but also the people of Akwesasne. I would be remiss, as I begin my comments here tonight, if I did not acknowledge the leadership of the retiring and outgoing grand chief of the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, Abram Benedict, who has been, for many years, a great leader and a great partner to work with. In my role before as a warden of the united counties, as a mayor in our community and most recently as member of Parliament, Grand Chief Abram has become a friend, and I had seen him recently on the weekend at community events. He has been such a positive advocate for the people of Akwesasne and the unique challenges they face. The geography of Akwesasne alone is enough of a challenge for him and council and their staff, team and residents to navigate on a day-to-day basis, which is why Bill C-20 is very important to the riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry. The bill would create a commission that would do independent reviews of civilian complaints of the RCMP to a certain jurisdiction and also CBSA on the interactions that Canadian residents may have with CBSA on the front lines or otherwise. We have a port of entry in the city of Cornwall that goes through Cornwall Island and Akwesasne into northern New York. The community of Akwesasne is unique geographically, as I mentioned, because the community straddles both Canada and the United States, which creates a very interesting logistical challenge on many fronts. If that was not unique enough, the geography also stands unique east and west by encompassing both Ontario and Quebec. So, on provincial jurisdiction, there are often a lot of complexities about working with the respective provincial governments, and having an international border between two countries certainly makes things strained at our port of entry. The strain, frankly, around the CBSA port of entry has been well documented and known for years. As I mentioned, the grand chief has always been a great advocate for the residents and council in Akwesasne, and on Bill C-20, he has been no different. He spoke in previous Parliaments. Actually, this started two Parliaments ago when then Minister Ralph Goodale tabled similar legislation, and it was tried again in the last Parliament. Again, I will say that it is the inability of the Liberals to manage their legislative calendar and see legislation through that, here we are again, in the final days of our sitting before rising for the summer, the bill is up for debate again and then has to go through. However, the grand chief spoke at the public safety committee last year and provided the context of why this new and needed commission is going to be important and much supported by council and the community in Akwesasne, and not just them but the City of Cornwall, partners and neighbours of the port of entry as well. Here is the thing that is interesting about the port of entry in our part of eastern Ontario. It is the 10th busiest in all of Canada, but 70% of the traffic is actually residents of Akwesasne going back and forth between Cornwall Island and the city of the Cornwall more often that not. That equates to about 1.4 million trips through Canadian customs by Mohawks travelling in Akwesasne, or more than 100 trips per member per year. Sadly, that puts quite a strain and tension in the community when there is somebody, a Canadian citizen, residing in Cornwall Island looking to take their kids to school, go to a medical appointment, go out for dinner or go shopping and having to go through customs each time they leave Cornwall Island to go to Cornwall and vice versa. This has created a lot of tension and frustration over the years, and rightfully so. If the port of entry and CBSA is not enough of an issue, there is the location of the tolls. I have been on record before, and will continue to be on record, to say that, itself, is another barrier when it comes to Akwesasne and our neighbouring communities being able to partner more on economic development, travel and tourism. I spoke to local residents in Akwesasne who worked very hard over the course of the last couple of years to fundraise and build a beautiful skate park on Cornwall Island. They raised money through a variety of ways. The construction of the project and the ribbon cutting were, rightfully, well documented on social and local media, and were a source of pride in our region. What continues to be frustrating is this: It is one of the best skate parks for young people to experience, but there is a barrier that continues to be in place. If someone living in Ottawa wants to go down to check out the skate park for the afternoon with their children, they have to bring their passports, go through CBSA and pay a toll just to go to Cornwall Island. Therefore, the commission is necessary. My colleague from Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek said it very well: Police investigating police, complaints against complaints within, is the equivalent of the Prime Minister's investigating the Prime Minister. People would look at that and say it is not a proper recourse nor an appropriate one. It is the same thing we have seen with the RCMP and the CBSA. We need to require what we have done in that regard. We need the commission in place, and it is time for the Liberals to finally move forward. I want to take the opportunity to lay out some of the further concerns that were raised by the grand chief in his testimony at the public safety committee. The assurances have yet to be provided from a technical side of things when it comes to the legislation. The community does support Bill C-20, but there need to be assurances from the Liberal government on the implementation, and that is going to be key for the commission to be a success. The first is that it has to be set up in a timely manner. There needs to be specific training when it comes to our area, our port of entry, and the uniqueness that we face, as I have outlined in this speech tonight. However, at the same time, we need to make sure that when a citizen, a civilian, wants to bring a complaint forward to the commission, it would be easily done. The grand chief raises the example of ArriveCAN. Many elders in Akwesasne do not have a smart phone. They did not have the ArriveCAN app. That in itself presented a lot of challenges in navigating during the COVID world of going back and forth between the port of entry, Akwesasne, Cornwall Island and the city of Cornwall. However, it needs to be the same way with the commission; the government needs to realize this and commit to a simplified process for an individual to make a complaint. It could be done by paper, by phone or through another means such that regardless of one's age or access to technology and ability to use it, one would have the right to file a complaint in a simple manner, in order to be heard. The other part that would be key is making sure the process, from an HR perspective and an operations perspective, would ensure, first, that the civilians and citizens who do initiate a complaint are heard in a timely manner, and, second, that there is a clear resolution and outcome to the complaint they file. If the legislation comes to fruition, I believe, based on the set-up of our port of entry, that sadly we are going to see a significant number of the complaints come from the Cornwall-Akwesasne area. We need to have full commitment from the government, not only on the legislation itself but also on what I call the regulations and operations around it. Canadians deserve to know that there would be a fair and simple process through which they could file a complaint. All Canadians need to be assured that their voices and complaints would be heard, responded to and dealt with in a timely manner. My role as a member of Parliament for our community is to make sure that does happen. I look forward to questions and comments from my colleagues, and I appreciate the time to add my voice and thoughts on the issue.

1522 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ)

Jun/10/24 7:53:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-40 Bill C-20

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak, for the last time I hope, to Bill C‑20, which we have helped to improve over the last few weeks and months. As I said last week, this was one of the first bills I had the pleasure of working on in the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, and we were indeed able to improve it. Last week, I talked about the amendments proposed by the Bloc Québécois that were adopted and made this bill more transparent. I will come back to that briefly, but this evening I would like to focus on the amendments that we adopted as a committee. Amendments were proposed by all the parties, meaning the NDP, the Conservative Party and the government. It always makes me smile or even laugh a bit to see the government proposing amendments to its own bills. It is as though they did not take the time to think bills through properly before introducing them, and when they saw the result, they figured they could have done things differently and therefore decided to propose amendments to their own bills. Nevertheless, I believe that, when we have an opportunity to make something better, we must do so. The government helped improve its own bill. So much the better. The parties actually did work well together. Last week, I talked about how long it took for the government to make this bill a priority. It was the third attempt. Two bills had been introduced in previous parliaments. There was also a lot of systematic obstruction by the Conservatives, who wanted to focus on another study instead of Bill C‑20. We got a lot of emails because of that. A lot of people who were keeping a close eye on the work of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and watching this bill progress reached out to us. They also contacted the clerk of the committee and to the chair of the committee, saying it made no sense for parliamentarians to talk about anything and everything except Bill C‑20, when people, citizens and Canadian travellers had been victimized by the behaviour of certain Canada Border Services Agency officers and were entitled to some justice. They had a right to be heard, at least, and to have their complaints processed in a timely manner. We were finally able to study this bill. I hope that it will be passed as soon as possible and that the Senate will complete its work quickly so that this commission can finally get off the ground. What is more, it has been said many times that the CBSA is still the only Canadian public safety organization that does not have an independent or external public complaints commission. Establishing one is long overdue. In fact, Justice O'Connor recommended this, as has been mentioned here a number of times. He recommended that 20 years ago. He said back in 2006 that an independent process was needed to manage public complaints. The government finally heeded that call 20 years later, and we are examining that bill today. This new commission will handle public complaints regarding the CBSA, which does not already have such a process, as well as complaints about the RCMP. The Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP, or CRCC, already exists. Representatives from that body appeared before the committee. The government simply decided to combine the two into a single commission. I heard my government colleague say earlier that combining the two commissions into one seemed quite simply the best thing to do. It is not a bad idea, I admit, but the current chairperson of the CRCC told the parliamentary committee during the hearings that she already does not have sufficient or adequate resources to deal with all the complaints within a reasonable timeframe. We were talking about financial resources, of course, but also human resources. I am wondering how the government is going to create a single commission to deal with complaints for both the RCMP and the CBSA. I hope that, in creating this new commission, the government will give it the resources it needs to do its job properly so that victims are heard quickly. This process can already be long and complicated. When a person is the victim of harm caused by a border services officer, they may not decide to file a complaint until a few months or even a year or two later. They may not be ready to file a complaint the day after the harm is done. All of these processes can be extremely long. If the commission does not have the necessary resources to deal with a case in a timely manner, that will obviously make the process even longer. That is not pleasant for those who decide to file a complaint. In recent years, the media has reported on many cases of misconduct on the part of some CBSA officers. These officers have a lot of power, as we know, because they can detain and search Canadians and they can deport people. It is therefore rather surprising that there is still no commission to review public complaints. Conducting internal investigations in this type of organization is always an option, but the process is not wholly transparent and some of the information is not available. For the public, being able to turn to an external organization that is independent of these security organizations could help boost confidence in Canada's public safety institutions. The media has reported numerous cases involving searches of travellers' electronic devices and racist and rude remarks made by some officers toward clients and travellers. We also cannot ignore the many other situations that likely occurred but were not reported in the media. Some organizations told the parliamentary committee to imagine all the people who decide not to file a complaint out of fear of harm or consequences. For example, an immigrant or a refugee who would be sent back to their country of origin in the meantime may feel they lack the necessary tools or may fear that complaining could hurt their immigration application, so they choose not to file a complaint. All of these specific cases were worth examining to determine effective ways to change or improve the bill to make it a more transparent piece of legislation. I touched on why it was important that this commission be created. Obviously, it will allow people to benefit from a truly transparent process. If someone is not satisfied with the results of the internal investigation by the CBSA or the RCMP, they will be able to ask the commission to look into the complaint. The commission will be able to present its findings or recommendations. However, it is important to understand that the commission will not have the power to compel the CBSA or the RCMP to take disciplinary action. Then again, these organizations will have to report to the minister and justify their response to the commission's recommendations. A report will then be tabled in the House and the Senate. This will ensure a certain degree of accountability, even if the commission cannot take any action in response to the acts committed. It will be up to the CBSA or the RCMP to take those measures, for example, with respect to the employees identified. An interesting aspect of Bill C‑20 is that it aims to reduce the RCMP's existing complaint processing times and make the complaint processing time for the CBSA as reasonable as possible. Who will sit on this commission? As I said last week, it will not be former members of the RCMP or the CBSA. The proposal that was adopted by the entire Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security is that the members who sit on this commission should reflect the diversity of society. When I spoke about this last week, my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord asked if we had moved an amendment to ensure that the members of the commission were bilingual. I told him that that was a good question, but that I had not tabled such an amendment because it seemed to be a no-brainer. This is Canada, there are two official languages, and I figured that the members of this commission would obviously be bilingual. He went through something during the study of Bill C‑40, which seeks to establish the miscarriage of justice review commission. He moved an amendment to ensure that decision-makers under this act will be bilingual. Believe it or not, some committee members rejected it. It is unbelievable. Personally, I thought it was not even worth moving that kind of amendment because those people would definitely be bilingual. Interestingly enough, if this act is reviewed in the near future, I will make sure to move such an amendment. At the very least, when this commission is set up, I will look at it very closely. I want to ensure that the people appointed to the commission are representative of society, obviously, but also bilingual. That is a very important point, and I thank my colleague for bringing it up. One of the amendments presented during the study seeks to authorize third parties to file complaints on behalf of citizens or travellers. I explained it in this way. For immigrants and refugees, there may be a language barrier. There may be people outside the country who fear reprisals, as I mentioned. Maybe the individual can turn to someone they trust or an organization that takes care of complaints. For example, members of the Quebec Immigration Lawyers Association can do this work on behalf of people who want to file a complaint. It is their job. They have the necessary expertise and they can support these people. Adding this to the bill was essential. To us, third parties have to be able to review specified activities. Fortunately, this was adopted by the committee. We also removed a paragraph from the bill requiring the commission to be satisfied that it had sufficient resources to review a complaint. There was something vague about the wording. I talked about a lack of financial or human resources earlier. We were afraid the commission might say it could not review a particular complaint because it lacked the necessary resources. There was something unclear or missing there that we wanted to clarify to make sure the commission always gets sufficient resources to examine every complaint it receives. We certainly hope the government will put its money where its mouth is and give the commission the funds it needs to carry out its mandate. We also added a requirement that copies of the commission's correspondence be sent to the complainant's legal representative. Earlier, I talked about third parties that can be involved in the process. The same thing applies to legal representatives. For example, if an organization is representing the complainant, but correspondence is always sent to the complainant instead of the legal representative, that is a problem, so that has to be fixed in the bill. Finally, some aspects of the refusal to investigate were amended thanks to the Bloc Québécois. The commission will now be able to refuse a complaint rather than being required to refuse it. Sometimes a few words can make a big difference. This applies to cases where other recourse would be available to an individual. The commission can choose to refuse the complaint, but it will not be required to refuse it. We felt it was important to amend that. I am going to talk about what I feel are the most important amendments the committee adopted to make this whole complaint process more transparent. Unions were included in establishing standards for handling complaints, and a one-year time limit for handling complaints was also added. One year may seem like a long time, but given the number of complaints filed per year, it was enough to give the commission time to investigate a complaint. Knowing that it will not go on for longer than a year may take some stress off the complainant. If the commission decides that it really needs more than a year to review a complaint, it will be entitled to that, as long as it explains why it needs more time. We then adopted an amendment that forces the minister to provide a copy of the commission's report to the organization in question, either the RCMP or the CBSA, on the same day the minister receives it. Previously, in the bill as originally drafted, the minister would only do so if the minister considered it appropriate. In terms of accountability, we thought it would be a good idea for the agencies concerned to receive the reports as quickly as possible, so we amended that. The government also made a suggestion that the number of national security-related complaints be stated in the annual report. We thought that was an interesting suggestion. We adopted it, again for transparency. Next, the chairperson of the commission has to publish the memorandum of understanding respecting access to protected information on the website. I am obviously getting into the more specific details of the bill, but we adopted this amendment, once again to ensure more transparency. This enhances the availability of certain information on the commission's web site. We also added a two-year deadline for filing a complaint. As I was explaining earlier, a person will have up to two years after the harm to file a complaint. Sometimes people hesitate out of confusion, then realize that the deadline has passed and they cannot file a complaint because the incident happened too long ago. We extended the deadline to give complainants some flexibility. The commission will have the option of extending the deadline for filing a complaint and, if it chooses not to, it will be required to provide the reason it is not extending the deadline. The NDP proposed a very worthwhile amendment. I will give the NDP credit where credit is due. The complaints that are filed cannot be subject to non-disclosure agreements. Members will recall the case of Janet Merlot and the class action lawsuit filed by hundreds of women who were the victims of sexual harassment, intimidation and discrimination during their career with the RCMP. Under the act governing the RCMP's Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, complaints could be dealt with out of court and non-disclosure agreements could be signed. We made sure that this legislation banned non-disclosure agreements outright in order to keep things as transparent as possible. The second-last amendment that I want to mention is this: If a complainant decides to withdraw their complaint, they have to explain to the commission why they are doing so. That is for feedback purposes and to help the commission understand why a complainant would want to withdraw their complaint. Is it because the process is taking too long, for example? That would enable the commission to improve how it deals with complaints. We thought it was a good idea to add that. Finally, the union representatives of an RCMP or CBSA employee will have the opportunity to make representations to the commission, which was not the case before. The unions were somewhat neglected in this bill, so we found a way to include them because it is important to get their opinion. Overall, Bill C‑20 was an interesting, well-crafted, long-awaited bill, but I think all the parties helped improve it in the best possible way, making it as transparent as possible. As I have mentioned before, we already have ideas on how to improve it even more once the act is reviewed. The goal is to pass it as quickly as possible so that complainants, the people harmed by border services officers, can receive a hearing, get their complaints processed as quickly as possible, and gain trust, especially in Canada's public safety institutions. I hope this bill will be passed as soon as possible.

2702 words

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

Jun/10/24 8:12:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-20

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to speak to Bill C‑20 at third reading. We worked hard on this bill at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We are finally at third reading, about to send this bill to the other place. It is extremely important that we do just that. Our role as members of Parliament is to improve bills. It must be said that this bill was introduced by the government. This was its third attempt. Before now, it did not really put in the work to set up a review and complaints commission. We have seen this in previous bills. The government introduced bills so late in the parliamentary session that they never passed. There is a clear need for a complaints commission. Everyone is calling for one. So far, the government has failed to make it a high enough priority to get it through all stages of the parliamentary legislative process. The bill passed second reading and was referred to committee for study, where there were several delays. It was not the government that caused these delays, it was actually the Conservatives who, on several occasions, prevented amendments from being considered and witnesses from being heard. Happily, after spending hours considering each amendment, the bill was passed. All the witnesses said that it was really important to improve this bill. At the same time, it needed to be adapted. I want to say that finally, after several delays, my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and I have succeeded, by working together, in getting this bill passed and improved. I would like to take a few minutes to talk specifically about how the NDP worked to improve the bill. The NDP got approximately ten amendments passed, all of which are quite crucial. We worked with the other parties, the governing party, the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party, to pass amendments that had been submitted by the other parties. Even though the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security had to meet several times, and the Conservatives moved a completely separate motion rather than hear from witnesses and hear such important evidence, even though all these delays slowed down the study of the bill, we are now getting to the final stage. We even hope the bill will pass unanimously this evening and be sent to the other place. First, this complaints commission will cover more than just members of the public. Internal employees should be well represented. We put forward an amendment, NDP-6, to ensure union representation. When you work in the labour movement, it is important that unions be represented. Workers must have a representation process. We amended clause 28 of the bill, allowing union representatives of Canada Border Services Agency and Royal Canadian Mounted Police employees to jointly set service standards for the review timelines specified in that section of the bill. We set a one-year deadline for resolving these representation and timeline issues. It is a victory for union representation and assurance of union representation in the service standards initiative. We did not stop there. We also pushed for greater transparency and accountability. The committee heard from a number of witnesses, including the Breaking Barriers coalition, which wanted to see more transparency and accountability in the bill. We asked that copies of the reports submitted be distributed. The transparency issue was raised in amendments NDP-7 and NDP-14. We wanted all this information to be available, and we worked hard to get these amendments passed. We also wanted to contribute to the reconciliation process with indigenous peoples, and we submitted amendments NDP-9 and NDP-9.1 to include all reconciliation issues in the bill. We also wanted to give complainants more time to bring forward complaints, which is key. Initially, before it was improved in committee, the bill said that complaints had to be brought within a year. We wanted to extend that period to accommodate organizations that testified, such as Amnesty International, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and all the other organizations, including the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group. We wanted to ban the use of non-disclosure agreements, an issue that was brought up in connection with the Hockey Canada scandals. We wanted to ban non-disclosure agreements, which prevent victims from speaking up. Amendment NDP-23 on that subject was agreed to. We wanted to definitively prevent intimidation and know why a complaint was withdrawn. The monitoring group suggested that a complainant could provide reasons for withdrawing a complaint, which would be another way to better protect victims. Other proposals of ours were adopted, making the version of the bill amended by the committee more transparent than the original version. There were other extremely important improvements. I would like to list the organizations that played an important role in improving this bill: Amnesty International Canada, both the francophone and anglophone wings; the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association; the Canadian Council for Refugees; the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association; the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council; and the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group. Because of them, Bill C‑20 will pass at long last, but with extremely important improvements. We are now hopefully coming to the end of the House saga around Bill C-20, a bill that would establish the public complaints and review commission, which is so important for both the CBSA and the RCMP. We want to have in place a public complaints commission that does its job. We want to make sure those who serve our country at the RCMP and CBSA are subject to the appropriate oversight but at the same time have protections as well. The bill, as improved by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, would achieve that mandate. We have managed to improve the bill and provide for more transparency and for a better set of checks and balances to ensure victims have more rights and that labour representation is acknowledged and upheld in the bill itself. Also, providing for a longer complaint period is something that is extremely important, as well as banning the use of non-disclosure agreements to silence victims. There are so many organizations that provided valuable testimony. I am hoping the bill will pass tonight by unanimous consent, despite the delays that took place through the committee process. The reality is that this bill is much better coming out of committee than it was going into committee. It is necessary. It is important to put this into place. I am hoping that all members of Parliament will vote to send it to the other place this evening.

1150 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Jun/10/24 8:25:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-20

Mr. Speaker, debate is moving at a rapid clip, and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-20. I will pick up on the point of the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby that, my goodness, this bill has been in front of us for a long time. First reading was more than two years ago. The bill is long overdue. I will also put on the record early that I will vote for this bill. I am very pleased to see it head toward the Senate. I do have some comments, though, because I still have some concerns about the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency. We have had a public complaints commission for the RCMP for some time. I think it is fairly shocking that it is only now that we will have a public complaints commission of any kind for the Border Services Agency. The number of complaints about systemic racism within CBSA is legend. It is certainly distressing and disturbing, and no one has had any place to take those complaints until and unless Bill C-20 gets through this place. There is no question, as other members have mentioned, that the bill was much improved in committee. There were amendments that improved the bill on many scores for the RCMP public complaints commission, which is steadily being improved. I will never forget that when I was first elected to this place, the RCMP public complaints commission did not have the right to subpoena witnesses. Things have improved. CBSA needs to have this available for people who are dealt with roughly by CBSA. At some point in the future, certainly not tonight and certainly not before we pass Bill C-20, it would be very useful to reflect on the recommendations of the Mass Casualty Commission in relation to the single biggest mass shooting in Canadian history, as the Speaker will certainly recall as a member from Nova Scotia. The shootings in Portapique remain with me and sit with me, and I do not think we have done enough as a House of Commons to deal with the report of the Mass Casualty Commission. I certainly hope the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security will pick up on unfinished business relating to what happened in the circumstances there. The Mass Casualty Commission made broad and sweeping recommendations for reforming the RCMP, and as far as I can see, in response to alarm bells, the RCMP has hit the snooze button. I really hope that we will return to that at some point in future. Certainly, the Canada Border Services Agency needs to make improvements. When I spoke to the bill at second reading, I shared an extraordinary story in which I was involved, as a member of Parliament. There was a man from outside my riding. He was indigenous. CBSA, without any warning, showed up at his door right before Christmas, arrested him and put him in leg irons. They took him away from his indigenous wife, a survivor of residential schools, threw him in the back of the van and told him he was being deported to the United States, which is where he was born, without any regard to his rights as an indigenous person under the Jay Treaty and with no previous attempt to connect with him. He had been living in Canada for decades. He had been married for decades. He was a member of the Penelakut first nation, a grandfather and a pillar of the community, and, but for the grace of God, he would have been deported.

605 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Jun/10/24 8:29:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-20

I cannot tell how much it stuck with me, the notion that CBSA officers were, at least at that time, some many years ago, probably around 2013, if memory serves, being encouraged to find people whose papers might be a bit irregular and get them out of Canada. I think they also had a TV show to follow them, so they could have real-life examples of what it was like to arrest someone who did not belong in Canada. I thank God for a minister at the time who is no longer in this place, Chris Alexander, who was the minister of immigration. I managed to convince him to regularize the status of this wonderful man who has since passed away. Also, I have to say there was work that was done quickly to get him released from what was then a holding cell under the Vancouver airport. It has since been relocated to a more proper facility. We are making improvements. The proposed bill would be one. I want to see it pass and will certainly be voting for it. I know we are expediting things this evening, but I do not think it is proper to skip over. We have more work to do to ensure that we root out systemic problems of racism at CBSA and in the RCMP and, when the complaints commission is up and running, as it has been for the RCMP, but with renewed vigour thanks to Bill C-20, and for the first time for the Canada Border Services Agency, that we as parliamentarians stay on top of this. The bill is going to the other place. This is another concern: If there are amendments there, as we know, it will come back to us. We should keep our eye on the ball to make sure that Canadians, or for that matter, those who are crossing our border and are not Canadian, receive the protections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as they should from any federal agency. I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to share some thoughts and to encourage us all to pass this, but not to see this as the end of the story in ensuring that all federal agencies respect each human being with whom they deal, regardless of prejudices that exist within both of those services against racialized people and against indigenous people. Our work here is not done, but for tonight, let us hope Bill C-20 passes expeditiously.

416 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/10/24 8:32:52 p.m.
Watch

Is the House ready for the question? Some hon. members: Question. The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

65 words

Deputy

Mr. Frank Caputo

Jun/10/24 8:33:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division, please.

8 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/10/24 8:33:29 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Tuesday, June 11, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

23 words

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

Jun/10/24 8:33:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there have been some consultations with House leadership and members in regards to winding down the session for this evening. I would suggest that there is unanimous consent to call it 12 o'clock midnight so that we can begin Adjournment Proceedings.

44 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/10/24 8:34:01 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Jun/10/24 8:34:22 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, indigenous housing remains a critical issue. Too many Inuit, first nations and Métis live in mouldy, overcrowded homes without access to running water. Far too many Inuit, first nations and Métis are compelled to leave their homes. Too many end up homeless on the streets in urban centres. These realities are a direct result of decades of underinvestment, a pattern continued under the Liberal government. I highlight the work by the federal housing advocate. Her report on Inuit housing emphasizes that the right of Inuit to adequate housing is being violated. None of the seven elements of the right to housing have been upheld in Nunavut and Nunatsiavut. In Pangnirtung, the advocate found that 120 families are on the waiting list for public housing. With a population of 1,500, that means that 28% of all families are on a housing waiting list. The true number is likely even higher, as many people see little hope in applying for housing. I have spoken many times about the heartbreaking conditions I see when I travel to Nunavut communities. These are conditions the federal government imposes on Inuit. Families of eight are living in two-bedroom units with no place to sleep. They have to sleep in shifts because of a lack of beds in a single unit. Children have no space to do homework. Mould and tuberculosis are present in so many homes. Addressing the housing crisis should be a top priority. The NDP has used its power in Parliament to fight for indigenous peoples. In budget 2023, the NDP fought for the creation of a $4-billion urban, rural and northern indigenous housing program. The earned housing funding would give money directly to housing providers to help the most vulnerable Inuit, first nations and Métis living away from their home communities. More than a year later, housing providers are still waiting to receive funding from the government. That is not because of a lack of work by first nations, Inuit and Métis, as hundreds of applications have been completed. If funding does not flow soon, we will see another summer building season in the north lost. This will delay the start of projects by another year. Indigenous peoples are dying, while the Liberals continue their delays. Having repeated all of this here once again, I ask this simple question: When will the desperately needed funds for urban, rural and northern indigenous housing be released so that we can begin closing the housing gap?

422 words

Mr. Ryan Turnbull (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.)

Jun/10/24 8:37:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking the hon. colleague for her question and her tireless advocacy. I also want to acknowledge that I am standing on the unceded traditional territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin people. The negative impacts of the legacies of colonialism are numerous and wide-reaching for indigenous peoples. Poor housing conditions, overcrowding and homelessness are just a few of the lasting impacts of the historic mistreatment and persistent racism indigenous peoples experience. With a commitment of righting past wrongs and building for the future, Canada has embarked on a journey of reconciliation with indigenous peoples to address a long history of colonialism, which is why indigenous housing priorities are being co-developed with and led by indigenous people. Since 2016, Canada has supported the construction, renovation and retrofit of almost 34,000 homes in first nations communities. In 2018, the Canada-Métis Nation Housing Sub-Accord was signed, outlining the design, delivery and administration of housing services such as buying new homes, repairing existing homes and providing rent supplements to families most in need. This was the first time the Government of Canada provided federal funding to Métis for housing, empowering the Métis Nation to manage funding to address their needs. They decided how to use those funds. As of September 2023, governing members of the Métis National Council and the Manitoba Métis Federation have bought or built 1,575 homes and renovated 4,600 housing units. They have also provided down payment assistance to 1,537 households and rental supports to 9,528 households. Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada is working with the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Inuit treaty organizations to deliver Inuit-specific investments and implement the co-developed Inuit Nunangat housing strategy. Canada began providing direct funding to Inuit partners for self-determined housing delivery in 2016. Since then, over 500 new units have been constructed by Inuit, with many more units repaired and critical Inuit-led housing programming expanded. Working as partners with indigenous peoples on solutions to housing is having a real impact and improving conditions for first nations, Inuit and Métis every day. These impacts remain possible with the significant financial investments from the federal government. Budget 2021 allocated $50 million to the governments of Northwest Territories and Nunavut, as well as $18 million to first nations off reserve without modern treaty, Northwest Territories Métis, to address the issues of housing availability and quality, which disproportionately affected northerners. Budget 2022 allocated $150 million to territorial governments to address critical housing needs. Budget 2022 also invested an additional $4.3 billion over seven years, starting in the year 2022-23, to accelerate work in closing indigenous housing gaps. There is more in that budget, with $2.4 billion over five years to support first nations housing on reserve, $565 million over five years to support housing in self-governing and modern treaty holder first nations communities, $845 million over seven years to support housing in Inuit communities, $190 million for housing in Métis communities, and $300 million over five years for the urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy.

537 words