- Member of Parliament
- Member of the Board of Internal Economy
Deputy House leader of the government
- Liberal
- Kingston and the Islands
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $112,228.33
- Government Page
- Apr/19/24 10:04:23 a.m.
- Watch
In 2015, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which was chaired by the hon. Murray Sinclair, investigated the history and the legacy of residential schools and released its final report. It came after six years of hearings and testimonies of more than 6,000 residential school survivors and their loved ones. The report included 94 calls to action to address the legacy of residential schools and to achieve true reconciliation based on the experiences and recommendations of survivors. Our government is committed to implementing each and every one of those calls to action.
This legislation responds to call to action numbers 53 to 56. The final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission concluded that “all levels of government must make a new commitment to reconciliation and accountability.” The Truth and Reconciliation Commission further noted that Indigenous peoples and Canadians will benefit from the establishment of an oversight body to evaluate and to report on progress made toward fulfilling commitments and to ensure that the necessary educational resources to advance reconciliation are available to all Canadians.
On this journey, it is crucial that we listen, truly listen, to the stories of those who have been affected by our history. These stories, though often fraught with pain and injustice, are vital in understanding the depth of the hurt that has been caused. They remind us that behind every call to action, there are human faces and stories that deserve to be heard and to be acknowledged.
To that end, this bill was brought forward after extensive engagement with Indigenous peoples and organizations. Our government as well as parliamentarians in both chambers have worked tirelessly to ensure that the bill before us today is at the heart of what indigenous people have been asking for in this country. Parliamentarians have made important amendments, and the government accepts all of them.
Walking the path of reconciliation requires consistent action and a desire to forge a new relationship based on mutual respect, trust and nation-to-nation recognition, to which indigenous peoples are entitled. This work is vital, complex and long term. That is why it is crucial that we have systems to measure the progress we are making as a country as we work toward reconciliation and that we hold the government accountable to its obligations. The council would do just that.
Reconciliation requires more than just words. It demands action. It challenges us to move beyond the mere acknowledgement of past injustices to the implementation of concrete steps that address these wrongs. While the Leader of the Opposition offers platitudes on the necessity of reconciliation, there remains a stark contrast between his rhetoric and the actions, or lack thereof, taken by his party.
That is why the National Council for Reconciliation is so important. It would be an independent, permanent body that would oversee the progress of reconciliation efforts in Canada. It aims to promote respect, dialogue and understanding between Canadian and indigenous peoples. The council would provide oversight and would hold the government accountable for advancing reconciliation with indigenous communities, including monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action.
We know progress has been made, but I hope that everyone in this place would agree that there is more to do. As amended, this bill strengthens the accountability of governments to respond to council concerns in terms of measuring progress. The establishment of such a council reflects a commitment to creating mechanisms for ongoing dialogue, for respect for Indigenous rights and for a concerted effort to address historical injustices and the legacy of colonialism. It signifies a step forward in the journey toward reconciliation, aiming to ensure that the actions and the policies of the future are informed by a comprehensive understanding of the past and present realities faced by indigenous peoples in Canada.
I encourage my colleagues to support the bill, as amended, as it represents a critical step toward bridging the gap between words and action.
Meegwetch. Qujannamiik. Marsi.
668 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 11:18:14 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his rationale he set out in his bill.
I do not particularly disagree with his important comments about accountability and transparency, which I think would actually go a long way in accomplishing what he has set out to do. My question comes down more to the need to know, and how that relates to various different operations that might be ongoing and somebody's getting access to information. If there are too many people with access to particular information, it could actually end up jeopardizing an ongoing operation.
I am not saying this is a reason to vote against the bill, but my question would be this: What are the member's thoughts on that, and how can we continue to keep individuals safe?
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/12/22 1:51:04 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-8
Mr. Speaker, I heard the member talk about openness, transparency and accountability with respect to how such individuals would be identified. I wonder if she can explain how she sees that happening and why she considers that to be so important when it comes to something like this.
48 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, 20 years ago none of us were on Facebook. I think it was just Mark Zuckerberg and some of his college friends, and look where we are now and not only the way Facebook, Instagram and all those other social media services impact our daily lives in the sense that we are using them, but also how they are selling stuff to us, collecting information from us and feeding stuff back to us. The same could be said about Google and the iPhone. All these things have come a tremendous way in the last 20 years.
Having the proper measures in place now is critically important, because these technologies are not going to slow down. They are just going to speed up, getting better and more efficient. We need to make sure the proper accountability and rules are in place at this stage of the game, so we are not trying to play catch-up even more later on.
170 words
- 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
Madam Speaker, at the outset of listening to the debate in this House and reading the text of this bill, I cannot help but wonder if the Conservatives have lost faith in the Bank of Canada. I know they are going to say they just want accountability and they just want to have proper oversight. However, as pointed out, not just by Liberals but by members from the Bloc and the NDP, this goes a lot further than just looking for accountability and oversight. This plays into that narrative that, quite honestly, the member for Carleton, who is the perceived next leader of the Conservative Party, is feeding. He is feeding that narrative, and it is the narrative that they do not have faith in one of the most important institutions in our country. Have the members across the way lost faith in the Bank of Canada?
An hon. member: Yes.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, we just heard a yes. I heard a yes that was heckled across the way. I did not realize the answer was going to be that easy. I thought I was going to have to fight for it.
Madam Speaker, it goes to the heart of the issue, and the heart of the issue here is that this idea and this politicization of the Bank of Canada, which is being led by the member for Carleton and those who support him, for nothing more than the gains that they can make out of this populist movement, is exactly what we are seeing.
The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was asked a question earlier: Will all Conservatives support this? He stood up and said that yes, they would. I am really interested to see the vote from the member for Abbotsford, because he was extremely critical, and he agreed that the politicization of the Bank of Canada “undermines the party's credibility on economic issues”. That is the member for Abbotsford, the same member who was ousted for making a comment like this, just last night.
An hon. member: He resigned.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: I am sorry. I am corrected, Madam Speaker. He resigned. He was given the opportunity to resign. I thank the Conservative member across the way for correcting that.
This is about populism. That has been well documented, and not just by the member from the Liberal Party who spoke earlier but indeed by other political parties in here. I am very glad to see that it is extremely clear what is going on here, and I look forward to my seven minutes that remain the next time this comes up for debate.
444 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 9:48:03 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to compliment the member on her intervention today, which related to where she saw the underpinning of this movement. She has really hit the nail on the head with respect to that.
I was on the Wyatt Sharpe Show recently, which a lot of MPs have been on. Wyatt is a 13-year-old interviewer. I was on with the member's colleague, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. On the show, I said that it was critically important that, when this measure was being put in place, Parliament was in a minority situation. That means that there has to be collaboration with at least one other party. It also ensures that proper tools can be exercised to reignite the debate in here at an appropriate time. It puts in the safeguards and it ensures that there is a certain level of accountability.
Can she expand on how important she thinks it is that we are doing this in a minority Parliament?
171 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
