44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 22, 2022 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, could the member reflect on the importance of establishing this review body so that Canadians can have confidence in the law enforcement and protection agencies that we have? Could he provide his comments on the importance of that?
40 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, in her speech, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands spoke about the experience her stepdaughter had when entering the States. The reality is these various experiences are arbitrary and can be different depending on the person. They can be different depending on the circumstance. They can be different depending on just about any variable.
I am wondering if she can comment on why she sees the set-up of this structure as beneficial for an individual like her stepdaughter, who will have somewhere to go to file a proper grievance or complaint.
95 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about very important legislation, Bill C-20, which would establish a new public complaints and review commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian Border Services Agency. It would enact accountability and transparency mechanisms that would provide a foundation for trust and confidence in Canada's public safety.
Employees of both the RCMP and the CBSA hold a broad range of powers. Public trust that those powers are to be used appropriately is crucial to maintaining respect for the rule of law. There is a balance that needs to be established. On the one hand is Canada's public safety and security priorities. On the other hand is respect for fair treatment and human rights. In our system that balance is supported by ensuring civilian review of public safety bodies, such as the RCMP and the CBSA.
This is a stand-alone bill. It would provide these mechanisms not as part of the enabling statutes of the RCMP or the CBSA, but independently of them. By doing this, we underscore the importance of the independent civilian review of organizations entrusted with maintaining public safety.
Both the RCMP and CBSA employees interact with the public on a daily basis, including with vulnerable populations. One of those organizations, the Canada Border Services Agency, currently has no civilian review mechanism to deal with public complaints. The Canada Border Services Agency Act itself is silent on this matter. This legislation would close a long-standing gap by providing a review body for the CBSA.
The RCMP currently has a civilian accountability body in the existing Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, the CRCC, but over the years there have been calls to update and enhance it. The CRCC itself has advised on the need to strengthen and expand existing review mechanisms for the RCMP.
I want to thank the chairperson, Michelaine Lahaie, and her staff at the CRCC for their thoughtfulness, thoroughness and dedication in recommending the additional accountability and transparency mechanisms included in this bill.
Bill C-20 would see the new public complaints and review commission replace the CRCC. The PCRC would continue the CRCC's existing mandate for complaints and review, but with new accountability tools at its disposal that would apply to both the RCMP and the CBSA. On its own initiative, or at the request of the minister, the PCRC would be able to conduct specified reviews on any RCMP or CBSA activities that do not involve national security.
I would remind the House that national security issues are handled by the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency. The PCRC will have the authority to investigate complaints about conduct and level of service in both the RCMP and the CBSA. If a complainant is not satisfied with how these organizations have handled a complaint, the PCRC can conduct a review. When it is in the public's interest to do so, the PCRC may initiate its own complaint and investigation into RCMP and CBSA conduct.
One of the issues that has underscored the need for a renewed and enhanced review system has been the time it has taken the RCMP in the past to respond to CRCC reports and recommendations. Frequent delays led to a Federal Court decision that the RCMP must provide a response to CRCC interim reports within six months. Over the last year, the RCMP has improved the timelines within which it responds to the CRCC. We want to ensure this improvement continues.
Bill C-20 includes timelines that would codify when a response is required to an interim report, review or recommendation from the PCRC. When the PCRC issues an interim report, the RCMP and CBSA would have six months to respond. Should the PCRC issue specified activity reviews and recommendations, the RCMP and CBSA would have 60 days to respond.
Not only must these bodies report back to the commissioner of the PCRC within these codified timelines, the bill would obligate the RCMP commissioner and the CBSA president each to submit an annual report to the Minister of Public Safety. These reports would detail the actions the RCMP and CBSA have taken within the year to respond to PCRC recommendations.
In short, the bill would give the PCRC tools that the CRCC did not have to uphold civilian review of the law enforcement system.
However, there are other tools in the bill that are designed to enhance, at another level, the trust and confidence Canadians have for public safety in our country.
In their recommendations on ways to enhance the CRCC, the chairperson and her colleagues looked beyond the measures that would improve accountability. They considered ways in which a new review mechanism might enhance the public trust, and respect for, law enforcement in general and the rule of law itself.
Among the challenges is the urgent need to increase knowledge about systemic racism in law enforcement. This includes work done by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, which is in the report entitled “Systemic Racism in Policing in Canada”.
I am pleased to say this bill would respond to the committee's recommendation that the government clarify and strengthen the mandate, independence and efficacy of the CRCC. It provides for codified timelines for the RCMP's responses to the PCRC reports, for the RCMP to report annually to the minister on implementing PCRC recommendations and it provides for the protection of the identity of the complainants.
That which gets measured gets done, and if we are to respond to systemic racism, we must first gather the data that will inform our solutions. The bill would give statutory authority to the recommendation that the new PCRC will collect and publish disaggregated race-based data of complainants, in consultation with the RCMP and CBSA. Moreover, the bill would provide the PCRC with a mandate to implement public education and information programs. These would help inform Canadians on their rights of redress should they have issues with how they were treated by the RCMP or CBSA officials.
The programs will also increase knowledge and awareness of the PCRC's mandate and thus provide a better understanding of the role of civilian review in upholding the rule of law.
As with the collection of race-based data, the public information mandate will be especially important in helping earn the trust of indigenous, Black and racialized Canadians.
The bill before us is a high priority for this government. Twice before, we have introduced bills to address many of these issues. They died on the Order Paper, but in the process we listened to all points of view and remained determined to strengthen transparency and accountability.
The bill before us now would take advantage of what we have learned. It responds to some of the issues that are long overdue, such as the need to provide a review mechanism to the CBSA. It responds to some of the issues that have presented difficulties in the past, such as the need to respond to recommendations in a timely manner. It responds to issues that have gained more attention in recent years, such as the evidence of systemic racism in the law enforcement system and the urgent need to find solutions.
The government has responded to those issues with a stand-alone bill that highlights the importance of civilian review of the law enforcement and border security systems.
I would add that it is extremely important to ensure that we have such mechanisms in place for people to have their complaints heard.
We heard the example moments ago from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands of the issue her step-daughter had, and that is not uncommon. We hear about these situations all the time, quite frankly. I have heard of situations similar to that. It is critically important that when people experience these situations, whether they are crossing a border or whether it is something with the RCMP, they have an avenue to have their complaints heard. Sometimes those complaints are valid and sometimes they are not, but I do not think we are doing a service to anybody by not having the tool for those complaints to be heard.
In my opinion, having such a tool is not just a benefit to the complainant but indeed a benefit to the individual or individuals that the complaint is being made against. Quite often, especially in the world we live in today, a complaint can be made and amplified through social media, and if it is sensationalized enough, it can gain traction and people can very quickly be made aware of somebody's grievance with a border agent or an RCMP member. We all see people filming and recording just about everything.
A tool like this, allowing those individuals to bring their complaints forward, would give the opportunity for both sides of the story to be heard and the facts to come out with respect to everything that has been represented with individual circumstances and cases. When we empower individuals within the Canadian government and the roles they play to have such incredible discretionary authority like this, there has to be a mechanism for oversight to allow those who have potential grievances to come forward, so they can be heard as well as all individuals who are mentioned in the complaint. They would have the opportunity to ensure that the independent review body has the ability to determine whether there is merit in the complaint, and if so, what the next steps should be.
As I indicated in my prepared remarks, it is critically important that not only do we have this oversight, but that it is annually reported back to the minister, which would happen. By having that tool, Parliament, through the minister's office, would have the ability to scrutinize more collectively what is going on with respect to those complaints, how they are being handled and the timelines to ensure that the proper recourse is being taken. Quite frankly, sometimes it takes quite a long time to get a response, and that is unacceptable. We do not need a court to weigh in on what those timelines should be. Those timelines should be codified, as the bill would do, and set in stone. If timelines are not met, we could properly inquire as to why and get to the bottom of what needs to change, if anything.
I am very pleased to see the legislation come forward. A number of members have spoken about the fact that this is the third time it has been here and, indeed, the third time under this government. However, I hope we can all appreciate that the other two times have helped to inform where we are today. I hope that, because this has taken longer, the one silver lining is that we have even better legislation than we may have had otherwise, because we have been able to inform ourselves along the way of the various aspects of the bill that may need to be improved.
I get the sense, from listening to the comments in the House today, that the bill will be supported by all members of the House. I look forward to it moving along so we can finally get this very important legislation in place.
1891 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, as the member would know, any piece of legislation that comes before the House is not public information until such time that it is tabled, including to members of the governing party. Quite frankly, there is a very important rule of the House that the legislation be tabled at the same time for every member of Parliament to be able to review it.
With respect to the degree to which consultation has occurred in the minister's office, the member would have to ask the minister directly about that. We have question period in seven minutes, and maybe there will be time to do that.
What is really important, which I pointed out in my speech, is that having had the benefit of this come through the House twice already, we have heard individuals and organizations speak to various different aspects of the bill and the process. Hopefully we will have had the opportunity to get it right by the time it gets to this point.
Finally, one of the key times in our parliamentary system, in the democratic system that we have for establishing and reviewing legislation, is at committee. When this bill goes to committee, there will be the opportunity for Conservative, NDP, Bloc and Liberal members to invite various different people forward to voice their opinions on this legislation and to get their opinions on the record.
Although, perhaps, the degree to which the consultation has occurred might not be to the satisfaction of the Conservatives, the consultation has just begun in that this bill has now just been introduced and it will go to committee where the real consultation occurs.
276 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I guess we know it is a pretty mundane bill when those are the questions being asked in the House.
My role in the government is one of two parliamentary secretaries to the government House leader. The government House leader oversees the day-to-day operations in the House. Therefore, it makes sense that I would be in the House so much, and that my role has led me to being here. I am sorry if the member thinks my interventions, from time to time, are a little overboard. Perhaps he is not entirely wrong, but I am here to do my job. If he is saying that I am here all the time, please refer that back to my boss, so my boss knows I am doing my job too.
133 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I most certainly agree with my colleague that if anybody is detaining individuals based on their immigration status, citizenship status or race for that matter, it is completely unacceptable and wrong. It is something that we should not do.
I do not know if we need to actually put it in the legislation, because it would appear to me as though that would be unconstitutional on its own anyway. I am not against the idea of putting that in legislation, if that is what the committee determines when the committee does its work. I find it very alarming and very concerning, the suggestion that is coming from the member. I take her word that she is aware of this happening.
That is exactly why we need the measures that are put in this, so that those complaints can be heard and can be dealt with in a manner that has the proper oversight of the very important agencies that have this discretionary power in looking out for our safety.
171 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is a first that it would be my own colleague trying to get me to be hyperpartisan, but I will respond to that question.
As I have said many times in the House, I understand that the role of an opposition is to hold the government to account. I also understand that the most important tool that an opposition has is to delay. It should be using that tool when it finds various pieces of legislation to be so egregious and represent so many problems that it feels as though it needs to put a stop to them.
We see this quite often. We saw it in Ontario's provincial legislature recently when Doug Ford tried to use the notwithstanding clause and how the opposition acted there. It chose that as a hill that it wanted to die on.
Do Conservatives want to die on this hill when it is something that they agree on? I would suggest that they do not, because we know that they support this. Therefore, why not let this bill go to the next stage of the legislative process of becoming a law? Let us do that.
Let the opposition use delay tactics when there are issues so important to Conservatives that they feel as though they need to delay them, not just for the purpose of slowing down government business.
229 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/22/22 3:29:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded division, please.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am not sure how this question in particular relates to this piece of legislation. This legislation was specifically about bringing in oversight and review bodies to look at the work of the CBSA and the RCMP and to respond to the complaints out there.
When it comes to properly resourcing our individual agencies and departments, yes, we have an obligation to do that and provide them with resources so they can deliver on our expectations and what we are asking them to do. I think it goes without saying, as I believe every member of the House would agree, that providing the proper resources is absolutely critical, in this case to the CBSA and the RCMP.
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I just want to drill down into the answer the member gave to the member from Winnipeg a couple of questions ago.
Can he explain to the House why it is so important that he speak for 30 minutes on this issue? I heard what he said. He said it is important that he express his position on this, but let us just analyze this for a second. He spoke for 30 minutes. If all 118 Conservatives spoke for 30 minutes on this, that would put us in the position of having to debate this bill for literally weeks, if not months, just to get it to committee.
Is the member basically saying that occupying all this time for him to give his speech is more important than the legislation getting adopted? Is that what he is saying? In theory, that is what he is saying. He is saying, “I need to speak to this for 30 minutes.” If we let everybody do that, it literally will not go anywhere.
174 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, forgive me, but I rise on a point of order. This is completely off topic. The issue we are talking about is directly with respect to the oversight bodies that are going to be set up for the CBSA and the RCMP. The member, like so many Conservative members who have spoken today, has gone way off topic. Perhaps the Speaker could encourage the member to get back on topic.
72 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, with all due respect, she did not. What she did was she talked about guns, she talked about various different crimes, and she talked about her position on this government, which is all very important. I listened to her speech from beginning to end, and there were only two or three sentences at about the nine-minute and 30-second mark where she actually brought it back to the bill by saying that what we are going to vote on is the oversight on all of this stuff.
I am wondering if she would like to take the opportunity now to comment on why it is important to have this oversight committee set up to look into the conduct, the actions and, indeed, the complaints brought forward. That is what this bill is really about.
137 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Do not call her “she”, she gets offended by that.
12 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I only heard the member for Vancouver Kingsway commit the same sin that I did and that was to accidentally call the member “she”. I apologize.
30 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
