- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- NDP
- Hamilton Centre
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 66%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $131,250.15
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, this is an important reference to the Jay Treaty, which is a historical reference to the sovereign nationalism that is embedded in the treaties that allow indigenous first nations people who are a part of the Jay Treaty to travel freely, unencumbered, back and forth across the border. It is an integral part of our historical treaty rights, which need to be respected.
This is a very important point brought up by the hon. member from the Bloc. I suggest that given the recommendations, we invite experts on the Jay Treaty to come here. Part of the understanding of cultural competency and having not just moral duties but a legal duty to understand the implications of treaties and treaty-based systems nation to nation would include the CBSA having a full and clear training process on the Jay Treaty. Then when people who have inherent rights arrive at the border, they will not be criminalized, vilified or pulled into secondary to explain what their rights and constitutional protections are under the Jay Treaty.
175 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the hon. member for allowing me to expand on that, given my proximity to the Haudenosaunee territory, where the Six Nations of the Grand River are actively involved in their own policing.
If we acknowledge that we are in nation-to-nation relationships, then we have to grant sovereignty, ultimately, over all decisions within those territories, which would absolutely include policing. We only have to look at the pipeline to prison, which starts, as we know, with policing in schools and ends up with the disgusting and abhorrent overrepresentation of indigenous people within our prison systems. That is absolutely an indictment on the ways we have failed to provide fair and adequate access to the legal system.
What we need to do is work toward having a justice system in this country. We cannot have a justice system until we address the ongoing colonialism that is expressed through the state's monopoly on violence as it relates to policing within indigenous communities.
167 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity. Forty-three recommendations came from the report on systemic racism in policing in Canada. I would go even further to note the recent events within the context of the occupation, the convoy and what we witnessed in Nova Scotia. Right now there is a lack of trust and an erosion of trust within our institution of policing.
The report is good work, with 18 meetings, 53 witnesses and 43 recommendations. It blows my mind that the government will set aside the good work of Parliament that has already been done and provide incomplete legislation.
We are calling on the government to listen to the recommendations that are contained within the report on systemic racism, which is informed by subject-matter experts across the country. At committee, I implore members to address these things and make sure they are included, because if the bill comes back to the House and they are not included, there is definitely going to be a problem.
167 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, while we have heard in previous interventions lots of people sharing their displeasure and some of the challenges they face at committee, I am rising to support Bill C-20 at second reading.
Bill C-20 would replace the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP and establish a stand-alone commission, the public complaints and review commission, for both the RCMP and the CBSA. As we know, the CBSA is the only major law enforcement agency in Canada without an independent review mechanism for the bulk of its activity.
There has been a major gap that has not been addressed, despite calls from the NDP dating back to Harper. It is our hope that Bill C-20 will provide accountability, increase the public trust at the border and provide an independent dispute mechanism that may be used by CBSA officials as well.
We heard comments about how, when things get to committee, bills sometimes have material departures from their initial spirit. I happen to believe that committee is precisely the place where both the opposition and the government get a chance to reflect on feedback from committee and perhaps improve upon bills to shore up some of the gaps that might have been identified.
I want to speak specifically to the good work of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. In the 43rd Parliament, it had a report entitled “Systemic Racism in Policing in Canada”. For this report, which was adopted by the committee, both government and opposition members came together. I believe there were 19 meetings within the study with over 53 witnesses. There was testimony from subject matter experts, and there was a very detailed report of perhaps 42 recommendations on how to tackle systemic racism in policing in Canada.
However, when the government has the opportunity to take the good work of Parliament, and, as an extension, the citizenry of this country, it still presents bills that are wholly inadequate to address the very topics raised in previous Parliaments and that continue to be a problem here today.
While Bill C-20 has the potential to provide these importance changes in civilian oversight to both the RCMP and the CBSA, it falls short. It falls short of meeting several of the important recommendations from the report, namely indigenous oversight, including indigenous investigators and decision-makers, and the appointment of Black and racialized Canadians.
For those who might not be familiar with these processes, I would like to expand on what it is like to have personal interactions with police, be it the RCMP, the OPP, local policing or the CBSA, anybody who has power and control over anyone's inherent rights and feelings of belonging in their own communities.
I have had these experiences in my own city as a city councillor. I have been stopped and questioned by local police simply for existing in my neighbourhood and waiting for a bus. When we were engaging in these discussions around systemic racism within policing, as a former city councillor, I would tell residents that when they have an issue, it is so important that they lodge a formal complaint.
The reason is that if there are no formal complaints, there is no quantitative data that would show problematic trends of structural and institutional racism within policing. I filed a Police Services Act complaint given my very problematic interaction with Constable Andrew Pfeifer at that time because that was what was made available to me.
I wish I had known then what I know now, which is that our civilian oversight of policing is completely culturally incompetent and devoid of any type of context that would account for the various lived experiences of people outside of the culture of policing.
In fact, we have always had this culture of policing policing, where we have former cops appointed to boards to investigate former cops, and then we have quasi-judicial tribunals, kangaroo courts, set up to either absolve them or, if it is politically convenient in the moment, to teach them a lesson.
I can tell members that, as a political leader within my community, I had senior members of our local police service, on their way out, tell me explicitly that they were about to teach me a lesson. From the outset, within the first five minutes of my experience at a Police Services Act hearing, as a Canadian of African descent, as a city councillor, as somebody who had been accorded power and privilege, it was made apparent within the first five minutes that the hearing officer, a former deputy from the Peel Region, Terence Kelly, was unwilling to and incapable of hearing any aspects related to anti-Blackness within policing.
It was a textbook case of racial profiling, and he said within the first five minutes that he would not hear the case. In legal terms, it is what is called a “reasonable presumption of bias”, which jaundiced the entire process. The case ended up in the courts for over two years, with over a week of hearings, in which I, as the complainant, became the target of the investigation.
It was a completely humiliating and dehumanizing experience, one that if other people in that same experience asked me if they should go through that, I would say “absolutely not”. I would tell them to save themselves, to get the best civil lawyers they can and to sue, because that is the only language the police understand. That is the only place where one can get on a full footing for proper disclosure, because as we have heard, in all levels of police review, they just refuse to co-operate.
We had subject matter experts provide, over the course of 19 hearings and 53 witnesses, including Robyn Maynard, a brilliant mind on what structural and institutional racism looks like, on what anti-Blackness looks like. They provided their testimony, as did former RCMP officers like Alain Babineau, who understands it from both the inside and the practical street application, both from what discipline looks like and from what anti-Blackness looks like out in communities. We had learned professors like Akwasi Owusu-Bempah break down all the ways in which systemic, institutional and structural racism occur.
The recommendations are clear, the recommendations that have been obviously omitted by the current government, which had the opportunity to address these issues.
We have a Liberal government that likes to speak the language of identity politics without any commitment to justice. The Liberals will go out at Black Lives Matter. They will take a knee and will say all the right things, but when it comes down to actually providing legislation that all members of Parliament in that committee supported, the government refused.
Namely, it refused to ensure that the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission of the RCMP allow for meaningful and engaged indigenous participation and to hold the RCMP accountable for wrongful, negligent, reckless or discriminatory behaviour toward indigenous people. There are videotapes of the RCMP brutalizing indigenous people across this country time and again.
When is it going to be enough for the current government to finally take a position, listen to the reports and implement these things?
The fourth recommendation is that the government appoint indigenous, Black and other racialized people, and residents of northern communities, to the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, and for them to have investigation and leadership positions within that organization. I am sorry, but when Officer Terrence Kelly takes on my case and says within the first three minutes that he is unwilling and unable to listen to any parameters of race, that is negligent, it is discriminatory and it only further serves to uphold the institutional, structural and systemic racism within policing.
In my closing remarks, I call on the current government to do better by people in this country, to listen to the work of the House when it comes together in a non-partisan way to address these issues, and to cease bringing back these empty and shallow bills that are devoid of any of the things that they purport to be standing for within our communities, and, with specificity, to listen to the voices of Black, indigenous and racialized people within this country.
1389 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 9:25:17 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I share the sober concerns of my colleagues in the House who understand the grave implications of this critical moment in Canadian history. it is a moment of crisis for Canadian democracy. I believe in democracy. I will defend rights and have spent my entire life doing so. However, I want to ensure that our rights are defended by the rule of law, not by rhetoric or politics, and certainly not by decree of insurrectionist mob rule.
Having been present at the opening proceedings of this debate, I have listened intently to all parties. When I rose in the House for my member's statement, I noted the need for us to begin the important work of restoring faith in our institutions, and the need for greater transparency and accountability given what is before us in this debate on the declaration of the Emergencies Act and perhaps, more importantly, what is yet to come. What has been made abundantly clear to all Canadians is how fragile our democracy is and the work that will be required to fully restore it, regardless of the occupation's final outcome this week.
I should state that I still hope there will be continued non-violent de-escalations in the situation. I wish for no further escalations of violence. It may be too late, but those who have taken these streets should pack up and leave so we may return to the public health crisis at hand and continue to work in responding to the public health needs of Canadians suffering through COVID.
On top of that suffering, I want to acknowledge the disproportionate impact that this occupation has had on local residents and workers, including Parliament Hill staff and federal employees, who have been subjected to complete lawlessness during this 24-7 disruption of their lives. For three weeks, our nation and its capital have been seized by the threat of an ongoing and volatile occupation while the world looks on. I have heard directly from residents in Hamilton Centre a feeling of frustration and disappointment in all levels of government and a sense of deep failure by local police services to adequately maintain public safety and handle these illegal acts of insurrection that threaten our democracy and the rights of all Canadians across the country.
Over the past three weeks, we have watched assaults, attempted arson, widespread harassment at homes, workplaces and schools, the promotion of hate, and other concerning behaviours, such as convoy members giving themselves false powers to detain people. It concerns me that rather than denounce these actions and find ways to help Canadians who do not feel safe in their homes, some in the House have found it politically useful to encourage and embolden these actions, which run counter to our democracy. On February 14, 2022, the RCMP arrested 11 people, who have been charged with conspiracy to commit murder, after finding the following in three trailers: 14 firearms, sets of body armour, a machete and a large quantity of ammunition, including high-capacity magazines.
I should share my concern that I feel the government, in specifying the emergency, placed an overemphasis on the economic disruptions posed by the blockades, including the adverse effects on businesses and supply chains, without adequately referencing the threat of extremist white supremacy and the reported potential for violence. This is despite reports from the intelligence assessments prepared by Canada's Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre that warned in late January that it was likely extremists were involved and said the scale of the protest could yet pose a trigger point and opportunity for potential lone actors to conduct a terrorist attack. I had to read about the seriousness of national security via The Guardian, while ITAC reported that supporters of the convoy had advocated civil war. They have called for violence against the Prime Minister and said that the protests should be used as Canada's January 6, in reference to the storming of the U.S. Capitol. If the government knew, as reported, that the intelligence agencies had been briefing the Canadian government as far back as late December on the possible threat posed by the convoy, why was this clear and present threat not better articulated in the proclamation?
It is my assertion that the overemphasis on blockades, the economy and the threat to capital is a failure of the government's proclamation in the public order emergency and continues to undermine the public's ability to fully grasp what is at stake here. It also speaks to how differently communities have experienced the impact of these threats. For those who do not feel an existential threat of white supremacy, the top priority is and remains the economy and the flow of capital. For those of us who do recognize and experience the real threat of violence posed by white supremacist extremists, this is about the threat of the stated intentions of the occupiers to overthrow our elected government and replace it with an ethnonationalist junta.
I am from a city where if someone tells me they want to drop a bullet in my head, I am compelled to take them seriously, so I appreciate the solemn reflections earlier today from the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer. However, I want to reiterate that it will be critical over the course of this debate for the government to continue to clearly expand upon what I have outlined and what may go beyond what is publicly made available. For example, I call on the government to come clean with Canadians and clearly state the threats to security that many of us see from section 2 of the CSIS Act, which exempts protests in dissent, but with a special emphasis on subsection (d), which outlines:
activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of, the constitutionally established system of government in Canada
Unpacking these important distinctions will be crucial for the public's ability to determine the proportionality of using part II of the act and safeguarding against government overreach, which we have seen time and again against sovereign indigenous land defenders, racial and climate justice activists and workers. The very legitimate concern is that the precedent set here could lower the bar for future use against legitimate protests in dissent.
I will state again that this is no time for talking points, spin or partisan attacks. Canadians deserve honest answers, accurate information and clear reasoning. How is it that we have gotten to this point? This declaration of a public order emergency, and indeed the entire debate, ought to be properly centred on public safety and not merely a defence of critical capital. We have witnessed the juxtaposition of brutal and excessive responses to legitimate protests, as experienced for generations by indigenous peoples of these lands and as ongoing in unceded, unsurrendered Wet'suwet'en territory; the use of Canadian military to surveil the Black Lives Matter protest, as recently as 2022; the vicious response to climate justice activists at Fairy Creek; and the violent crackdown on police services against houseless residents and encampment support activists at Trinity-Bellwoods in Toronto and J.C. Beemer Park right here in my riding of Hamilton Centre. Many of these people, in this very moment, fear that the extended powers of the state's monopoly on violence will only serve to further target their causes.
From the place of this deep concern, I wish to put on the record a question for the government side. Will it clearly state whether the rights afforded by the charter, the supreme law of this land, will remain whole, or if, in its declaration, it is attempting to surreptitiously rescue any potential abuses of authority through section 1 of the charter? I believe this is an incredibly important point of law and is necessary to understand the scale and scope of powers granted under the provisions of the proclamation, along with its future potential use.
In my opening remarks, I spoke about the need to restore faith in our public institutions, perhaps none more compromised than the the police, who have time and again been recorded in compromised exchanges with the occupiers, and who have been witnessed, in some instances, actively collaborating. Logistically, they have been aiding and abetting the occupation the entire time.
Canadians cannot maintain faith in our nation's safety and security institutions when faced with this early and ongoing de facto dereliction of duty by local police officers, whose weaponized incompetence and refusal to uphold the law in our nation's capital helped to ultimately bring us to this place. The reports about retired active duty national intelligence and military members, including Joint Task Force 2 members, about the RCMP and about former members of the Prime Minister's security detail further demonstrate the need for a national commission on policing. The last royal commission on policing was in 1962. It is why on Thursday I asked the Minister of Emergency Preparedness if he would commit to establishing a national commission on policing that would review the role of police in this national crisis, as well as the duties generally assigned to the police and their corresponding budgets, and if he would commit to a secretariat or some other office to report on the radicalization and use of public resources and security forces for undemocratic ends.
Today is an extraordinary moment in Canadian history, but there comes a time when democracy is truly tested. The question that remains and the one we will inevitably be forced to answer is this: How, as a nation, can we pull through this crisis, hold those responsible accountable and improve upon or abolish the failed systems and principles that forced us into this crisis in the first place?
1646 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
