- Member of Parliament
- Member of the panel of chairs for the legislative committees
- Liberal
- Fleetwood—Port Kells
- British Columbia
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $140,090.09
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, I have been disturbed by all the factors that have come around that particular project, including any mistreatment of people who are out demonstrating and exercising their constitutional rights. I am also disturbed, though, at the destruction of property and lawlessness that may have been taking place there.
I am also aware that police officers usually have a millisecond to make up their minds on how to react to a situation, whereas the rest of us have all of time after that to review what they have done and to pass judgment on them. This is precisely the kind of mechanism that we need to do a deeper dive into these incidents, learn from them and refine how we approach some very ticklish situations.
126 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question, absolutely that is something that I will definitely advocate and support. I believe that when the committee gets its hands on this legislation, some of the people who are asking to be involved in the system should be called as witnesses, so that they can provide their recommendations directly to the committee and those recommendations can find their way into the final version that comes back to the House.
79 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, back in 2003 the Harvard Business Review issued a publication that I think should be required reading for anybody who has to deal with the public. It was all about fair process in the knowledge economy. Fair process is a really critical issue, as it should be, for everybody who is overseeing the creation of legislation, such as we are doing now, right down to the work we provide in our constituency offices. Fair process means a good hearing. It means objective review of what has been presented, and it allows for independent, objective analysis, review and recommendations.
This is what the legislation proposes to apply to the CBSA, and I think it is probably about three years overdue.
121 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, off the top I would like to note that I will be happy to share my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
I am in my place today, aware that we are standing on traditional Algonquin territory. I am also aware that much has been said on Bill C-20 so far, so what I will have to say will kind of act as a recap of where we are. We are debating this legislation that would enact a new stand-alone statute, the public complaints and review commission act, to provide an external review regime for both the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency.
To uphold trust and confidence in our law enforcement and border protection services, Canadians should count on a robust system of accountability. Canadians expect consistent, fair and equal treatment when receiving services from the RCMP and the CBSA. Civilian review is essential for the transparency of that system.
Currently, the RCMP is reviewed by the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, the CRCC. The House has now heard that the new public complaints and review commission would replace the CRCC, provide enhanced reporting requirements for the RCMP, and establish an independent review mechanism for the CBSA.
I would like to note in particular the impact this bill would have on the Canada Border Services Agency. With some 14,000 dedicated and professional employees, the CBSA is one of the largest organizations within the public safety portfolio. It has a long and rich history of providing border services in an exemplary manner, but inevitably, where there is interaction between the public and border service agencies, disputes will sometimes arise. A transparent means of dealing with such disputes supports respect for the rule of law, but unlike the RCMP, the CBSA does not currently have an ongoing structure for independent review of such situations.
The agency is indeed reviewed by various independent boards, tribunals and courts, but it does not have a review mechanism for specific complaints, including officer conduct and the agency’s level of service. I would remind the House that the CBSA is one of the public safety bodies that many Canadians encounter regularly. I know personally that when I come to the border I always look guilty, no matter what, but I have always been treated with fairness and respect.
Border services officers control the movement of people and goods through Canadian borders. They detain and remove potential threats. They collect duties and taxes. Canadians rely on the border security measures enforced by the CBSA, and at the same time the CBSA is a Canadian public safety institution that non-Canadians encounter, including, for example, the refugees currently seeking asylum in our country. For this reason, a review mechanism must be accessible to all people who deal with CBSA employees. It is key to building public trust in the institution designed to protect our borders.
Under Bill C-20, the public complaints and review commission would have authority to review both the CBSA and the RCMP. Some components of the bill would apply to both institutions. Each year, both would be required to report to the Minister of Public Safety on how they have responded to PCRC recommendations. Both would have codified timelines dictating how soon they would need to respond to those recommendations. The PCRC will disaggregate the data of complaints related to both agencies and report on what it reveals about race-based issues. This will help us, for example, to better understand and address any systemic racism in law enforcement in Canada, at least in this law enforcement system.
Apart from national security issues, which are reviewed through the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, the PCRC would be responsible for conducting specified reviews of any activities of the RCMP and the CBSA. These reviews could be conducted at the request of the minister or on the PCRC’s own initiative. The PCRC will have the responsibility for receiving complaints concerning CBSA conduct or levels of service, and the authority to launch investigations.
Indeed, under the bill, individuals who are detained by the CBSA would be informed that they have an avenue to make a complaint. If somebody has filed a complaint with the CBSA and is not satisfied with the manner in which the complaint was handled, the complainant may forward the matter to the PCRC for review. The PCRC would also have authority to initiate its own investigation into CBSA conduct when it is in the public interest to do so. The PCRC would report its findings and recommendations to the CBSA and to the minister.
I have been speaking about the authority to review complaints, but there is another level of authority required to govern serious incidents involving the CBSA and its personnel. These would include matters that, for example, may have resulted in serious injury or death, or constituted federal or provincial offences. The CBSA is responsible for conducting its own internal reviews of such matters, but there is currently no statutory obligation for the CBSA to conduct such a review.
Under the bill before us, the CBSA would be obliged to conduct internal investigations into alleged serious incidents. The CBSA would be required to notify the police of the jurisdiction in which the alleged serious incident took place and to notify the PCRC.
Furthermore, the CBSA would be required to provide the PCRC with reports and other information on serious incidents. The PCRC, for its part, would have the authority to send an observer to verify the impartiality of the CBSA’s internal investigation, and it would be required to report on the number, types and outcomes of serious incidents as part of its annual reporting. I am sure hon. members would agree that this would provide a much-needed degree of transparency to the handling of serious incidents.
Finally, I would remind the House of the special nature of CBSA review, in that it would seek to provide the consistent, fair and equal treatment that Canadians expect in a manner that would also include people who do not reside in Canada. The Canadian Human Rights Commission, for example, can receive complaints only from individuals lawfully in Canada. The PCRC, on the other hand, would be in a position to accept complaints from foreign nationals that involve allegations of discrimination by the CBSA.
These are important matters in creating the kind of robust accountability mechanisms that are essential for public trust in our border services and law enforcement institutions. The time is well overdue for the CBSA to join its partner organizations in having such a mechanism. Indeed, this is the third time in recent years that the government has endeavoured to reform the system. We attempted it in 2019 with Bill C-98 and again in 2020 with Bill C-3.
This bill is a key part of the government’s agenda, and I urge my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting its quick passage.
1174 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 9:42:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a message tonight for all my colleagues here in the House of Commons and especially for everyone at home in Fleetwood—Port Kells, who are rightfully having a good debate right now about the justifications for using the emergency measures act. I want to provide my own thoughts and the rationale behind my support for the government's actions. To do that, let us focus specifically on the questions in this debate. Is the government's use of the emergency measures act justified and are the measures being invoked legally?
The second question is the easiest to answer because that answer is yes, if the measures being used to deal with this situation conform with the legislation that has been on the books since the 1980s. Given that this is the first time the legislation has been used, there should be scrutiny of the measures to make sure that they do conform with the law. However, that is the easy part.
We have to talk about the justification. The act is right to the point. It says:
a national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that
(a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or
(b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada
Let us take that apart and look at the evidence.
Does the current situation endanger the lives of Canadians? Well, the border disruptions certainly endangered the economic quality of life of Canadians and therefore their well-being. There is ample evidence of that in Windsor, especially in the auto sector, and for so many businesses and their employees in Ottawa. The threats of physical violence toward people in Ottawa's downtown neighbourhood have been real, and charges have been laid against 13 people in Coutts, Alberta, apparently because they appeared ready to murder RCMP officers.
Does the activity endanger our health? There is no doubt that the premature lifting of public health measures, as demanded by the protesters, would do this. We saw this very clearly in Alberta last year when it lifted the mandates for the best summer ever. It was not. We do not want a repeat of that. However, the stated aim of the protest is to force the government to abandon public health measures regardless of the advice from the Public Health Agency of Canada and provincial authorities.
Do the blockades endanger safety? When protesters harass and bully people and threaten assault, yes. When protesters allegedly try to set fire to a residential building in Ottawa, gluing the doors shut in the process, yes, indeed. When police found that cache of weapons that was seized in Coutts, Alberta, how could there not be a perception that public safety was endangered?
Does the situation exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it? This is not true in every case, but certainly in some, notably in Ontario. It is why the use of the emergency measures act clearly sets out that it can be specifically targeted to locations where provincial authorities need additional help to restore order. One point that has been raised a few times is that all these things were cleared up just as the emergency measures act was being announced. Let us face it. We want to prevent people from bringing disorder back to those locations, which is a real and current threat.
Do the current actions threaten Canada's sovereignty and security? The manifesto of this group calls for Canada's democratically elected government to be deposed and for the government to be turned over to a committee made up, in part, of them. We can put a check mark next to that one.
There will be some who say the answer is no and that if we consider the protesters at face value, it is just some good old boys and girls and kids in big trucks challenging the government to preserve God-given and charter-enshrined rights and freedoms. However, people who believe that, like some of our Conservative colleagues, have been deceived. They have been gamed by crafty, intense, grey-faced agents of passive aggressive manipulation and sedition. One can only imagine the information our security services have on them.
The gaming that they performed has been intense indeed. Canada has had a long and sometimes very colourful history of civil disobedience where people break the law and the police show patience and restraint while protesters make their point. Then, having made their point on a reasonably transparent agenda, they and the government trade ideas, the deal is done and the protesters go home.
Well, those behind the blockades and occupations know this and have gamed us to a fare-thee-well. They allegedly gamed the Ottawa Police Service too, telling them they will do their thing for a few days and then leave, while planning to use the grace period to dig in. They may have also gamed Ottawa's mayor, who thought there was a deal to get some of the trucks out of the residential areas until one of the leaders, Patrick King, stepped in and said there was no deal and they were not going anywhere.
Do the current actions seriously threaten Canada's sovereignty and security? Well, the evidence says yes. When we take a close, honest look at the people calling the shots in the protest, do their actions seriously threaten Canada's sovereignty and security? Yes, absolutely.
Patrick King, who has demonstrated significant influence in the Ottawa occupation, has deposited a great deal of material online. I am going to quote him, and the “you” in the quote refers to the Prime Minister: “someone's gonna make you catch a bullet one day. To the rest of this government, someone's gonna...do you in.” At another point he said, “The only way that this is gonna be solved is with bullets.”
The 13 people charged in Coutts, Alberta, by their history of arrests and violence, represent a very clear danger to police and to Canadian society. Do members want to know what their motto is for change in Canada? It is “gun or rope”. How many times have we seen news of mass shootings, tragic bloodshed and loss of life only to find out in the aftermath that there were signs the authorities should have picked up. Well, signs have been picked up, and the government will not want the postscript to an act of domestic terrorism to be an indictment by Canadians that we did not act.
This gets us to the real point of the protest, the real agenda of the people behind it. Theirs is a world of anger, resentment and hate, of minorities, immigrants, liberal values and the democracy they represent. The core people behind the protests are precisely as the Prime Minister has described them.
Many agree. Glen Pearson, writing in National Newswatch today, noted:
This hatred for hatred's sake doesn't find an easy landing in Canada, as it might do south of the border. But as the convoy protest revealed, the hate movement is increasingly interested in this country, hoping to undermine its authorities and replace them with chaos. The goal of such insidious agents was never to help the truckers succeed but to make sure the governments and security forces didn't.
Some of the messages put out by the protest leaders make it abundantly clear than Glen Pearson is right that the blockades and occupations have little to do with vaccine mandates and even less to do with truckers. They say Canada should eliminate vaccine mandates for truckers operating back and forth across the U.S. border. They know this is a ridiculous rationale for the protest as long as the U.S. demands anyone entering their country be fully vaccinated. We could eliminate our vaccine mandate right now for truckers, but those truckers would still be out of work and still be out of luck. Some 90% of our truckers agree. They are fully vaccinated, so this foolish premise for the protests has no traction.
The protest leaders and their political familiars frame their actions as legitimate dissent of government actions. That is allowed in Canada. However, the protest leaders have tried to obscure the methods they are capable of using and are possibly threatening to use. Well, we are onto them. They know and we know that those methods are not allowed. They are illegal, and given the size and scope of the blockades and occupations, and even the amount and sources of funding to support them, Canada's security and sovereignty are most certainly under attack.
Two-thirds of Canadians agree with justified, careful measures applied with the emergency powers in the act, with parliamentary and legal oversight and in co-operation with the provinces that need our support. That is what this debate is intended to examine. The majority of Canadians will be looking for justified, careful and measured opposition in this debate, offered in the interests of doing what is best for the country, because what is best for Canada, even when difficult to do, is our government's agenda. It should be the agenda of everyone debating this measure over the weekend.
1585 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
