SoVote

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Nov/3/22 12:56:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague very much. I was very touched by his speech. It was one of his great speeches, and it is a real pleasure to work with him on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. I am reminded of something that happens every year. On November 11, we all go and lay wreaths and pay tribute to our veterans. Then the next day, we are back in the House, back in committee, trying to move things forward but not getting anywhere. I am not saying that things were better or would be better under a Conservative government, but we have here a report with great recommendations and none of them have been implemented. Would my colleague care to comment on that?

126 words

Mr. Fraser Tolmie

Nov/3/22 12:57:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize my colleague and all his hard work and passion for getting good service. I will say that this committee would be better under a Conservative government, so I thank him for giving me that opportunity. I know my colleague and I share the same feeling, because I shared it in my speech. We are disappointed. We are upset. We work so hard. We commit time to look after our veterans, and then nothing gets done. When we get reports back that nothing gets done, it feels like we are not being heard. Those numbers, those vets, those stats are people. They are not getting the service.

113 words

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC)

Nov/3/22 12:58:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in a recent take-note debate on mental health, I spoke about our veterans, who have unique challenges that impact their well-being and mental wellness and that very few civilians face. They embody the emotional and mental toll of having been deployed to many theatres of war, sometimes for peacemaking or peacekeeping, where they and their comrades face peril, injury and death and where they participate in and witness violence that they cannot and do not want to begin to share with anyone outside of those who have also had that lived experience. Too many have experienced mental, physical and sexual abuse from those they thought would be their mentors and have their backs no matter what. Many come home with physical and/or mental and emotional injuries after serving and they struggle to cope. They struggle on a whole other level as they start to realize they are failing in their relationships with their spouses and children. Many struggle with trying to fit into a civilian world, where, from their life experience and perspective, they have trouble finding their place. Then there is a challenge that is so counterintuitive and disturbing to me that it grieves my heart and keeps me awake. It is the added injury that sanctuary trauma inflicts on so many of our veterans. Sanctuary trauma is what happens to the spirit and mind of veterans when they experience the failure of the government to fulfill its promise to take care of them and their families. This happens while they serve and put their lives on the line and when they choose to leave or retire or are released due to injuries that, in the mind of their superiors, prevent them from any form of continued service in the Canadian Armed Forces. Having served now for seven years on the veterans affairs standing committee under multiple ministers and ombudsmen, everything from homelessness and mental wellness to seamless transition and the growing backlogs has been studied multiple times in different ways. Recommendations on top of recommendations have been made in reports that sometimes do not get the proper response from the government. The recent report from the Auditor General reinforces the need for VAC to have clear paths and metrics to determine its outcomes. The bureaucracy is broken. Yes, buckets of money have been announced for veterans, but the processes in place are not capable of getting it out the door. Veteran Affairs Canada is broken, and veterans and their families are experiencing unprecedented levels of sanctuary trauma because of that. Last night, I reached out to four individuals in very different veterans organizations that I deeply appreciate and that are part of those that are making a difference in combatting veteran homelessness. Stephen Beardwood of Veterans House Charity said this to me: If we only treat the symptoms but not the cause, we will have rows of housing with full bank accounts and no one spending the money or living in the accommodations. We have missed an incredible opportunity to change what causes homelessness. We need to change our approach. We must first start by greeting humanity with humanity, not bureaucracy and political solutions. I am hopeful one day soon we will embrace change as an opportunity to grow.” He says in the end, “Imagine if instead of wading into the stream daily to rescue drowning victims, we instead went upstream and kept them from falling in. Alan Mulawyshyn, the deputy executive director of Veterans' House Canada, is actually in Toronto today at a three-day Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness conference, where they are having a veteran homelessness breakout sessions stream for the very first time. His words for me today were to remind Parliament of its all-party motion of June 2019, which set the goal to both prevent and end veteran homelessness in Canada by 2025. Debbie Lowther, the CEO and co-founder of VETS Canada, emailed me last night to say: [A]ll levels of government must come together in a non-partisan way and commit to addressing Veterans’ homelessness. It’s not enough to talk about the issue; we need action, not words. And we don’t need more research. A big step in the right direction would be to provide sufficient funding to those on the front lines trying not only to confront the problem but to prevent it. Policymakers should consult these groups and Veterans with lived experience to ascertain the greatest needs. And listen to what they are told. The problem will only worsen due to the nationwide housing crisis and the rising cost of living. Organizations such as VETS Canada are no longer recognized as specialized service providers according to the Auditor General’s report. I cannot even understand this. I know Deb and VETS Canada well, and I cannot comprehend any good reason why they are not valued and validated by VAC. Like the United States, it is time for Veterans Affairs Canada to have a catalogue listed of all of these amazing veteran-centric organizations, with veterans helping other veterans, so that veterans can reach out. They will choose the ones they know are the most effective in this country. David Howard, president and CEO of Homes for Heroes Foundation, told me, “[D]eveloping solutions needs to come through partnerships between the municipal, the provincial and federal governments and at the same time private businesses and charity organizations like Homes For Heroes.” He said, as we have heard today, that the Senate published a report stating there were 5,000 veterans experiencing homelessness across Canada, but he believes the number is closer to 10,000. I have to agree, because I am becoming more and more aware of the many homeless veterans in my province alone who are not getting the care they need. He says traditionally our veterans do not self-identify. They are proud and are not using these services because they believe they are for women and children. This is more than just homelessness. It is veterans who are living rough, living in the woods and couch surfing. He also says that a number of our vets are struggling to transition back to civilian life, and the Homes For Heroes program builds tiny home villages with wraparound social supports to address the problem. That means they are coming off the streets into a home, working with social workers and working on the issues that put them on the streets in the first place, and now they are finding a sense of belonging. They then transition out of the program, with the majority of them working full time, and move to permanent housing, making room for more veterans. He says, “We are fortunate to have the support of Veterans Affairs, as they are a partner in supplying funding for our social workers.” CMHC is a partner and is providing funding for builds, but more is needed. He goes on to say, “I've been involved supporting our veterans for 25 years and we have an opportunity to eliminate the issue, but every day that goes by, the problem gets worse, and action is needed immediately.” He says it is a struggle to convince municipal and provincial governments to grant them land access for their projects, and also says they are struggling to find funds at the federal level, as the current government has not implemented housing for homeless veterans in its mandate. It is cheaper to house our veterans and have them work with social workers to move on and transition back to civilian life than it is to have these heroes, who stood on guard for us, living on the streets. I will end my intervention today by reiterating what I believe Stephen, Alan, Debbie and David have said. Imagine if instead of wading into the stream daily to rescue drowning victims, we went upstream and kept them from falling in. Who is serving whom and when? The government is not preventing them from falling in. The broken processes are pushing them in. The intentions expressed in the all-party motion of June 2019, which set the goal to both prevent and end veterans homelessness in Canada by 2025, must be honoured. All levels of government must work together in step with private businesses and charities to succeed. In the case of the federal government’s direct role right now, right here, it has a duty to consult, listen and implement what it hears from the lived experience of veterans’ organizations, which veterans and their families are trusting, by providing sufficient funding that empowers them to do the work that, quite honestly, I do not believe and it clearly appears government cannot accomplish directly. It has a duty to consult, listen and respond to the lived experience of individual veterans and serving members. It has a duty to end the sanctuary trauma that has become increasingly harmful to our veterans over these last seven years. I hear over and over again that we have the highest level of demoralization there has ever been in our Canadian Forces. There is a lack of willingness to even enlist, and veterans are being encouraged to consider options other than care. One comment was made in committee that they can access MAID in 90 days, but it is taking them over 265 days to get the care they need.

1580 words

All Topics

Ms. Louise Chabot (Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ)

Nov/3/22 1:08:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and for her years of work on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. I have been wondering about something and am hoping my colleague can enlighten me. Members sit on committees whose job it is to report to the government. We take the time to hear from witnesses and document situations. How is it that a report from 2019 that contains what I believe are very important recommendations can be left on a shelf to gather dust and now members are shaking their heads about how there are apparently some 5,000 homeless veterans in Canada?

106 words

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall

Nov/3/22 1:09:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as a new member of Parliament in 2016, I was dumbfounded when I went to the veterans affairs standing committee for the first time. A new report had been created in 2014 along those same lines, with all kinds of recommendations agreed to by the entire committee, yet there we were considering to restudy those same issues, and we actually did. I said that I was new but could not understand why we were not taking up the previous reports, looking at what recommendations the government agreed to, studying where they were at and why they were or were not accomplished, and moving forward with them. I agree with the member that there is a lot of frustration when we study a number of these things over and over again. We hear the right answers from stakeholders and veterans organizations on these issues, but somehow they are not getting through.

152 words

Mr. Mel Arnold (North Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC)

Nov/3/22 1:10:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member Yorkton—Melville for her passion for veterans. She has displayed that at committee for a number of years. I think we all are looking forward to getting back to our ridings and participating in Remembrance Day events next Friday, as I certainly am, and attending as many as possible throughout the day to honour our veterans, which we truly need to do and which the government has failed to do. The member mentioned that she questioned why we see report after report but no action. It reminds me of one of the first reports I came across at the fisheries committee. Something was promised decades ago and was promised again a decade later, and the response from the department was that it would develop a plan to develop plans. That sounds like the government, which simply cannot even plan to put a plan together. I would like to hear the member's comments on that.

162 words

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall

Nov/3/22 1:11:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member is basically echoing what we heard from the Auditor General regarding where the current government is in its ability to manage the business of providing for our veterans. Its systems are such that it does not know what is happening and where. Even when it has tried to follow something, it has not put the right metrics in place to truly determine what is happening, and I appreciate that. It is part of why I say the government has a role here, a very important role, but there are areas where I believe small businesses, charities and veteran-centric organizations, which truly understand the dynamics, are the ones we should be empowering to do this work.

120 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/3/22 1:12:32 p.m.
Watch

There is not enough time, so we will go to the vote. The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. The hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

68 words

Mr. Alex Ruff

Nov/3/22 1:13:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I respectfully request a recorded vote.

8 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/3/22 1:13:07 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the division stands deferred until later this day at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

26 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

Nov/3/22 1:13:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to table in the House today. In the first petition, the undersigned recognize that the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has been signed by 86 countries and ratified by 66 but not by Canada. They state that as a non-nuclear state, Canada is in the best position to comply with the articles of the TPNW and guide its allies and other nations toward a world free from nuclear weapons. Therefore, they are calling upon the Government of Canada to sign and commit to ratifying the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and to urge allies and other nations to follow suit.

111 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

Nov/3/22 1:15:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in the second petition I have, the undersigned recognize that companies based in Canada are contributing to human rights abuses and environmental damage around the world. The people who protect against these abuses and defend their rights are often harassed, attacked or killed. Indigenous people, women and marginalized groups are especially under threat, and Canada encourages but does not require companies to prevent such harms in their global operations and supply chains. The petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to adopt Bill C-262, which is an example of human rights and environmental due diligence legislation that would require companies to prevent adverse human rights impacts, require them to do their due diligence and require meaningful consequences for companies that fail to carry this out and report on adequate due diligence. I am pleased to table both of these petitions today.

145 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Nov/3/22 1:15:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 768 to 770 and 772.

15 words

Nov/3/22 1:16:00 p.m.
Watch

Question No. 768—

Questioner: Damien C.

With regard to the statement from the Canada Border Services Agency that approximately 10,200 travellers received quarantine notifications in error due to a glitch with the ArriveCAN application: how will the government be compensating individuals who suffered damages, either financial or otherwise, as a result of being a victim of this ArriveCAN glitch and were, as a result of the error, forced to quarantine?

Question No. 769—

Questioner: Frank Caputo

With regard to the light armoured vehicles (LAV) and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF): (a) what is the total number of LAV3 Kodiak that the CAF has which are (i) operational or in service, (ii) decommissioned, (iii) other, broken down by status; (b) what is the breakdown of where the LAV3 Kodiak are located; and (c) for each of the LAV3 Kodiak that have been decommissioned, (i) when was it decommissioned, (ii) where is it located?

Question No. 770—

Questioner: John Williamson

With regard to the $49.2 billion in total funds approved for loans and expansion under the Canada Emergency Business Account (CEBA): (a) what is the (i) number, (ii) dollar amount, of CEBA loans that the government projected would have to be written off for bad debt or other reasons, such as fraud; (b) what is the (i) number, (ii) dollar amount, of CEBA loans that the government budgeted would have to be written off for bad debt or other reasons, such as fraud; (c) in what published document, if any, and on what date, was the dollar amount in (b) made public; (d) what is the (i) number, (ii) dollar value, of CEBA loans that have been written off to date; and (e) what is the (i) number, (ii) dollar value, of CEBA loans that the government projects will be written off in the future, but have not yet been written off?

Question No. 772—

Questioner: Earl Dreeshen

With regard to the backlog at Transport Canada in processing aviation medical certifications: (a) what is the current average processing time for each of the four categories of aviation medical certification; and (b) what is the government's timeline for when the backlog will be over and the processing time will return to normal (between 30 and 40 days), broken down by each of the four categories?

1627 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Nov/3/22 1:16:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if the government's response to Questions Nos. 766, 767, 771, 773 and 774 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

37 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Nov/3/22 1:16:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

21 words

Stand

Nov/3/22 1:16:12 p.m.
Watch

Question No. 766—

Questioner: Gérard Deltell

With regard to government measures related to the removal of unexploded explosive ordnance (UXO) in the Lac Saint-Pierre region: (a) which vendors have been awarded contracts related to the removal of UXO in the region since 2019; (b) what are the details of each contract in (a), including, for each, (i) the vendor, (ii) the value, (iii) the start and end dates, (iv) whether the contract was sole-sourced or awarded through a competitive bidding process, (v) the description of goods or services provided through contract; (c) for each contract in (b), how many UXOs in the region have actually been removed, broken down by year; (d) what are the projections related to the number of UXOs which will be removed by each vendor in (b), broken down by year between now and the end of the contract; (e) for each contract in (b), which was awarded through a competitive bidding process, how many vendors submitted bids; (f) does the government plan to award further contracts related to the UXO removal in the region, and, if so, what are the details of the plan; and (g) for each contract, what is the work schedule, broken down by month, including both work that has been completed to date and work that will be completed in the future?

Question No. 767—

Questioner: Eric Duncan

With regard to fines issued related to violations of the government's restrictions and measures put in place in response to COVID-19 (ArriveCAN, quarantine requirements, etc.): (a) what is the total (i) number, (ii) value, of fines issued each month since January 1, 2022; (b) what is the breakdown of the fines in (a) by (i) province or territory, (ii) type of offence or violation, (iii) entity which issued the fine, (iv) amount of fine, (v) point of entry (if applicable); and (c) of the fines in (a), what is the (i) number, (ii) value, of amounts which have actually been paid or collected?

Question No. 771—

Questioner: John Williamson

With regard to fines issued by Transport Canada to Canadian Coast Guard ships and other vessels owned by the government, since 2016: what are the details of each instance, including (i) the date, (ii) the type of vessel, (iii) the summary of the incident or infraction, (iv) the location of the incident or infraction, (v) the amount of fine, (vi) who paid the fine and whether the fine was paid out of personal or public funds?

Question No. 773—

Questioner: Earl Dreeshen

With regard to the government's Net-Zero Challenge program: (a) what is the annual amount budgeted towards administering the program; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by line item or type of expense; (c) what is the number of employees or full-time equivalents assigned to work on the program; and (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by employee classification level (AS-07, EX-01, etc.)?

Question No. 774—

Questioner: John Nater

With regard to spending by Canadian Heritage on Canada Day festivities on Parliament Hill and in the National Capital Region since 2010: what was the total amount (i) allocated, (ii) spent, on the festivities, broken down by year?

515 words

All Topics

Hon. Marco Mendicino (Minister of Public Safety, Lib.)

Nov/3/22 1:16:50 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-20

moved that Bill C-20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments, be read the second time and referred to a committee. He said: Madam Speaker, I am honoured to open up the debate on second reading of Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments. I would like to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for their important review of systemic racism in the enforcement of the act. By creating a new public complaints and review commission, the bill would provide new tools to ensure transparency and accountability of the institutions Canadians rely on to keep them safe, to keep them safe in their communities through the work of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and to keep them safe by protecting our international borders through the work of the Canada Border Services Agency. Canadians depend on these public safety organizations, but, at the same time, want assurances that these organizations will use the powers that have been entrusted to them responsibly. Canadians have a right to consistent, fair and equal treatment when interacting with RCMP and CBSA officers. If members are not acting appropriately, Canadians naturally want and deserve assurances of a thorough review of these actions and consequences for any officer who engages in misconduct. This is a fundamental principle of our democracy. Our democracy depends on the principle of trust and confidence in our institutions, including law enforcement institutions. Independent civilian review overseeing is an essential element to that principle. This bill underscores it by creating an independent body that will strengthen transparency and autonomy through the independent review exercises of this new body. Independence assures that Canadians can have their concerns taken seriously. The bill also underscores that principle. That is why this is stand-alone legislation rather than simply amending either the RCMP or CBSA Acts. Currently, under the RCMP Act, an independent review and redress process is provided for by the RCMP through the CRCC, or Civilian Review and Complaints Commission. Current cases under the CRCC will be continued under the public complaints and review commission, or the PCRC, under the bill before us. The CBSA, on the other hand, currently has no independent review and redress process. It is subject to review by various independent boards, tribunals and courts. Without a dedicated review body, there is no avenue for independent investigation or review of public complaints against the CBSA. The government has tried twice previously to address this shortfall by creating a review body for the CBSA. Some colleagues will recall that in 2019, our government introduced Bill C-98 and then in 2020, Bill C-3. Those pieces of proposed legislation sought to add CBSA review to the mandate of the existing CRCC, but both died on the Order Paper. This issue has remained a priority for our government. The 2020 Speech from the Throne included it in our agenda. The creation of a review body for the CBSA was of top priority and a component of the mandate that the Prime Minister gave to me when I took on this role in December of 2021. It is time to give Canadians the accountability they deserve. In the bill before us, the CRCC would be replaced by the new public complaints and review commission, which would continue to review the RCMP and would also become the independent review body for complaints concerning the CBSA. The bill contains several mechanisms that would strengthen accountability beyond what has been available under the current CRCC for the RCMP. After engaging and listening to Canadians across the country, we have made significant reforms to the regimes proposed under Bill C-98 and Bill C-3 previously. We listened and we acted. Therefore, in addition to creating a stand-alone law, other changes have been made. This would subject the RCMP and CBSA to codified timelines. We heard complaints from Canadians regarding the RCMP's, at times, delayed response to reports from the CRCC. This time around, we are getting it right. The RCMP and the CBSA will have six months to respond to the PCRC's interim reports. They must also respond to certain reviews and recommendations of the PCRC within 60 days. Second, the RCMP and the CBSA will be required to report annually to this office, the Minister of Public Safety, on their progress in implementing PCRC recommendations. The third major change responds to a mandate the Prime Minister gave to me to combat systemic racism and discrimination in the criminal justice system, and advancing reconciliation with indigenous peoples. This is a critically important priority, especially at this time in our history. Over the past number of years, in Canada and around the world, we have had necessary conversations about the presence and existence of systemic racism in law enforcement about the disproportionate mistreatment of Black, racialized and indigenous peoples across the country. It is high time that we act. It is vitally important that this review system shed light on how to address these issues more fully. Under the bill before us, the PCRC would collect and publish desegregated, race-based data on complainants in consultation with the RCMP and the CBSA. I want to thank the chairperson of the CRCC, Michelaine Lahaie, and her colleagues for their advice and their vision on how the review process can become an essential tool to help not only understand systemic racism, but to eradicate it once and for all. The fourth major change introduced in the bill would provide the PCRC with a public education and information mandate. The PCRC would implement programs to increase public knowledge and awareness of the PCRC's mandate and the right to redress. Finally, the bill would address a gap in the current accountability and transparency regime involving how the CBSA responds to incidents of a serious nature. These incidents can result in death or serious injury or violations of federal or provincial law. The CBSA currently conducts its own internal reviews of such matters, but the bill before us would amend the CBSA Act so that the CBSA would be obligated to conduct such reviews. It would also need to notify both the PCRC and the police of appropriate jurisdiction. The CBSA would also be required to provide the PCRC with reports and other information of serious incidents. The PCRC would have the authority to send an observer to assess the impartiality of these internal investigations. As part of its annual report to this office, the PCRC would also include the number, types and outcomes of serious incident allegations. Taken together, these five changes represent a major step forward in the accountability and transparency mechanisms governing both the RCMP and the CBSA. The PCRC will be given the tools that it needs to help balance Canada's public safety and security priorities, as well as respect for the rights of the individuals with which they intersect. To support the establishment of the commission, the government is investing $112.3 million over six years and $19.4 million ongoing. By creating an enhanced independent review body, the public complaints and review commission will help assure Canadians that they can continue to expect consistent, fair and equal treatment under the law when receiving services from the RCMP and the CBSA. I urge all hon. members of the House to join me in supporting this important bill. This is so Canada can assuage Canadians' concerns by creating greater transparency, oversight, and trust and confidence in our law institutions.

1274 words

All Topics

Ms. Raquel Dancho (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC)

Nov/3/22 1:26:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-20

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the Minister of Public Safety's bringing forward this important bill. It is critical that we have oversight bodies to hold those who hold power in our country accountable, notably in this bill the RCMP and the CBSA. Recently, we have been talking a lot about holding the RCMP accountable, particularly at the public safety committee. Recently in the Globe and Mail, certain journalists have talked about how our commissioner of the RCMP was texting the commissioner of the OPP concerning using applications on their phones that would not store deleted messages. To me, this seems like the commissioner was trying to avoid accountability for her communications on the Emergencies Act invocation. I wonder if this bill would do anything to hold the RCMP commissioner accountable for trying to hide any evidence and if the Minister of Public Safety is concerned about the commissioner's looking to use applications that would permanently delete text messages that could be used as evidence in the Emergencies Act invocation.

170 words

All Topics

Hon. Marco Mendicino

Nov/3/22 1:27:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-20

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her work on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I am proud to be part of a government that believes in transparency. The commissioner of the RCMP's testimony repeatedly before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, other committees and her upcoming appearance before the Public Order Emergency Commission is a vehicle to ensure that we are shining a light so there can be accountability when it comes to not only law enforcement's role, but, indeed, to the government's role with regard to our interactions when it comes to upholding public safety. At the same time, I want to encourage my colleague and all the members of her Conservative caucus to support the bill, if my colleague believes in transparency and accountability and she sees the work we have put into Bill C-20, which would set up enhanced rigour around civilian review so there can be accountability for which she advocates. By supporting the bill, we are taking a step in that direction, so all Canadians can have trust and confidence in their institutions, including in the RCMP.

196 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 124