Bill C-20

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments

This enactment, among other things,
(a) establishes, as a replacement of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, an independent body, called the Public Complaints and Review Commission, to
(i) review and investigate complaints concerning the conduct and level of service of Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Canada Border Services Agency personnel, and
(ii) conduct reviews of specified activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency;
(b) authorizes the Chairperson of the Public Complaints and Review Commission to recommend the initiation of disciplinary processes or the imposition of disciplinary measures in relation to individuals who have been the subject of complaints;
(c) amends the Canada Border Services Agency Act to provide for the investigation of serious incidents involving officers and employees of the Canada Border Services Agency;
(d) amends the English version of federal statutes and orders, regulations and other instruments to replace references to the “Force” with references to “RCMP”; and
(e) makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

October 31, 2024

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 31st day of October, 2024, at 17:05.

Yours sincerely,

Ken MacKillop

Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates the bill assented to was Bill C‑20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments.

Message from the Senate

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill: Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar, Emergency Preparedness; the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, Carbon Pricing.

Recent Deaths of First Nations People During Police Interventions

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley today.

First, I would like to also thank my northern colleague, the member for Nunavut, for raising this tragic and pressing issue, where indigenous people in Canada continue to experience disproportionate levels of violence and loss. Since late August, six indigenous people have tragically lost their lives in encounters with police across Canada. I want to send my condolences to the families of those who died. Unfortunately, this is not new. In fact, an indigenous person in Canada is 10 times more likely than a non-indigenous person to be killed by police.

Indigenous people face systemic racism and inequitable outcomes in the criminal justice system, particularly with law enforcement. In Canada, the relationship between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples is undergoing a significant transition, which requires us all to recognize the past and address the harm done in order to work towards a fairer future. Achieving reconciliation calls for a thorough reassessment of various elements of Canada's connection with indigenous communities, such as governance, human rights, culture and law enforcement. We know that colonialism and failed policies are what got us to this place, and we will continue to work with first nations, Inuit, and Métis partners towards a fairer, more just future for everyone in this country.

A fair and effective criminal justice system is critical to ensuring that Canadians feel safe in their communities and have confidence in their justice system. I know that the introduction of federal legislation recognizing first nations police services as essential services is an important step toward reconciliation. Over the last couple of years, we have collaborated extensively toward future legislation with first nations partners, as well as provinces and territories. Our objective is to ensure these services are well positioned to continue meeting policing standards and to respond to community priorities. Three federal budgets, of 2018, 2021 and 2024, outline major investments in first nations and Inuit policing, but we know there is more to do, both in terms of funding and also in terms of the way the program functions.

The RCMP recognizes its historical role in colonization. As the RCMP moves toward reconciliation, this work must be done in partnership with first nation and Inuit communities, including under the first nation and Inuit policing program. The RCMP is engaging with national, regional, and local first nation, Inuit, and Métis leaders to formalize working relationships that will strengthen how they collaborate with indigenous partners and organizations. The RCMP has a first nation, Inuit, and Métis recruiting strategy, with the goal of increasing the number of indigenous applicants and cadets entering the cadet training program. As well, the RCMP is establishing a first nation, Inuit, and Métis recruitment unit and working on the launch of indigenous-language application materials.

Beyond our work on policing, we have introduced legislation to provide redress for those who faced unfair treatment by the RCMP or CBSA. Bill C-20 is an urgent step towards reconciliation with indigenous peoples with the potential to rebuild trust between indigenous communities and law enforcement. Many have experienced trauma at the hands of the RCMP or CBSA from inappropriate comments to excessive force and misconduct. While progress has been made, significant challenges remain. Bill C-20 will help bridge that gap by holding law enforcement accountable through an independent review body, giving indigenous peoples and others a platform to address systemic issues. This bill, if adopted, would help rebuild much-needed trust between law enforcement and indigenous communities, and contribute to a renewed nation-to-nation relationship built on rights, respect and partnership.

These are some of the steps that are perhaps more specific to public safety and the RCMP, but I believe personally there is more that we can do. What are some of the solutions that we consider over and above what we are already doing? One example already mentioned in this debate is worth explaining in more detail. Chief Doris Bill was chief of the Kwanlin Dun First Nation. Doris Bill is a person that many in this chamber know well, and she was chief between 2014 and 2023. I am pleased that my colleague, the parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs, already mentioned her during this debate, but this community safety officer program started as a pilot program under the leadership of Chief Doris Bill. It was really to try to bring a community-based, first nation-led solution to many of the problems of crime and disorder that the first nation was experiencing. A short name for this program might be called social policing, a program designed to address in a very pragmatic way the root causes of the crime, public disorder, neglect and domestic violence that was occurring at levels that were becoming intolerable for the Kwanlin Dun community.

Community safety officer programs will vary according to the community needs, based on an extensive community survey and assessment, and this was designed and developed by Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in citizen and former police officer, Gina Nagano, founder of the House of Wolf & Associates. Community safety officers are people from the community, trained over several weeks in the appropriate skills to be able to intervene in potentially risky situations and conflicts. They may be visiting elders or households at risk. They are generally available and approachable to support the day-to-day safety of community citizens.

As they actively patrol communities, they provide simple support and intervention as needed, perhaps with citizens experiencing crisis and supporting investigations or enforcement, but they can also help link to other partners and agencies as appropriate. It could be a youth in crisis, someone feeling threatened, a lonely elder or a host of other situations that, when unaddressed, could lead to violence, disorder or tragedy.

The CS officers are able to contact and liaise with RCMP, bylaw, conservation officers and others, and they have helped the RCMP in the Yukon, who provide policing services, to build closer and more constructive relationships themselves with Yukon communities. Community safety officers, in short, help to build and maintain trust and a positive relationship with citizens and external partners.

Although it started with Kwanlin Dün First Nation, the CSO program has now been adopted in several communities in the Yukon, communities such as Teslin in southern Yukon, where the so-called “deadly aunties” help to bring peace and cohesion to the community. The CSO program is an example to be emulated and further supported by all levels of government. All of Canada can learn from them and bring similar programs, particularly to indigenous communities, and I invite any interested members or citizens to reach out to me if they would like to learn more.

I could go on. I think there are other examples of accomplishments in the Yukon that have helped to prevent or address violence and harms experienced by indigenous peoples. Modern treaties and self-government is one area that cannot be ignored. Of the 14 Yukon first nations, 11 are self-governing, meaning that these governments have the ability and mechanisms to determine their own needs and priorities and to negotiate in good faith with both territorial and federal governments.

With self-government comes the ability to negotiate elements such as administration of justice agreements, a process that seems all too slow to build but at least enables indigenous-led, culturally safe and trauma-informed justice supports for indigenous persons. I think it is also worth noting the Yukon's missing and murdered indigenous women and girls strategy, developed in 2020 with a full implementation plan released last year. I believe it is incumbent on each jurisdiction to follow the Yukon's lead on developing and implementing similar strategies that, in the words of the Yukon strategy, are “committed to a decolonized approach”, “grounded in culture and community”, “to taking action to end violence and upholding dignity and justice for Yukon's MMIWG2S+”.

I would like to end there, but there are solutions already in play in the country that deserve attention and support and that deserve to be shared widely. Perhaps it is small consolation for the families of those who have so tragically died, but let these conversations help us to work together with indigenous citizens and partners in the pursuit of further solutions.

Finally, I would like again to thank the member for Nunavut for her work and for convening this debate tonight.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

I would like to thank the member for Nunavut for bringing forward this motion today to convene this emergency debate on the state of policing in our country and what we as parliamentarians can do to combat systemic racism that exists in so many of our institutions, including policing.

Six indigenous people have been killed across Canada in interactions with police since late August. Their names are Jack Charles Piche, Hoss Lightning, Tammy Bateman, Jason West, Danny Knife and Steven “Iggy” Dedam. This loss is unimaginable, and I would like to extend my sincere sympathies to the families, friends and communities that have lost someone they love.

There is no doubt that indigenous people experience systemic racism and disproportionate outcomes within the criminal justice system, including police. In fact, an indigenous person in Canada is more than 10 times more likely to be shot and killed by a police officer. Indigenous people are 56% more likely to be victims of crime than others, and in 2016, indigenous people represented 25% of the national male, and 35% of the national female, prison population. That has been and continues to be our national shame.

Discrimination on the basis of race or as a result of any other form of bias is unacceptable and abhorrent. In the motion from the member for Nunavut, she calls on all of us as parliamentarians to show leadership and take responsibility to keep our institutions accountable. She rightly points out that people across Canada must know that their parliament is addressing the institutional violence in their communities as a critical and immediate priority.

I agree with her, and tonight I hope to be part of a debate where members from every corner of the country come together with their suggestions on what we can and must do to address the violence that our institutions perpetuate upon our citizens. However, regardless of what ideas or solutions are presented here tonight, the fundamental truth of why we are having this debate will not change: over the course of 11 days, six first nations people have been killed by police. That truth rightfully will make a lot of Canadians angry, and I am angry.

Now, we must ask ourselves what we can do to address immediate measures to save indigenous lives today. The Government of Canada remains committed to working collaboratively with first nations in provinces and territories to ensure that first nations police services are supported with equitable and sustainable funding. The calls for justice from the national inquiry point toward the need for urgent reform to policing for indigenous communities. In budget 2021, we announced $861 million over five years, beginning in 2021-22, and $145 million ongoing to support culturally responsive policing and community safety services in indigenous communities.

These funds will stabilize and enhance the first nations and Inuit policing program by investing in self-administered policing services and provide an enhanced level of policing to more communities. We are also stabilizing and enhancing the first nations and Inuit policing program by enhancing RCMP policing services funded through this program.

These investments were further strengthened in budget 2024. The Minister of Public Safety was clear at the July 2024 AFN assembly that he is committed to co-developing legislation that ensures that first nations police services have equitable and sustainable federal funding. The minister's mandate to co-develop the legislation includes that provincial policing legislation would continue to apply to first nations police services. This ensures that these police services have clear operational standards while providing the necessary funding.

In addition to our investments in indigenous policing, budget 2021 announced up to $64.4 million over five years and $18.1 million ongoing to enhance indigenous-led crime prevention strategies and community safety services, including through the aboriginal community safety planning initiative and expanded funding through the northern and indigenous crime prevention fund.

The ACSPI supports indigenous community healing through a facilitated, community-driven process that works to address multiple safety and wellness issues. The community safety planning process fosters collaboration with government, provincial and territorial partners, local municipal governments and services and industry partners to address issues in the safety plans.

The ACSPI has supported close to 60 communities in defining their safety concerns and finding solutions to respond to root causes and current aggravating factors. In addition to the work that the government has and will continue to do to co-develop legislation, we have also introduced legislation that looks to provide redress for individuals who have been subjected to unfair treatment by either the RCMP or the CBSA.

Bill C-20 is an important and urgent piece of legislation because it would contribute to the government's efforts toward reconciliation with indigenous people. It has the potential to increase the trust and confidence of indigenous people in our law enforcement agencies. We have all heard stories of incidents that some, especially indigenous people, experience at the hands of the RCMP and CBSA, incidents that range from allegations of inappropriate or disrespectful comments to the use of excessive force, even including sexual misconduct. This is especially true for indigenous people, for whom the experiences with these agencies have been historically traumatizing.

While the situation has evolved and improved over the years, there remain significant challenges, but Bill C-20 was an important step forward and must be adopted. It would contribute to rebuilding trust between our law enforcement agencies and the people they serve, especially indigenous people, and increase the ability of Parliament to hold the minister to account for the way the RCMP and CBSA serve those populations.

It would also support the government's commitment to build a renewed nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples based on the recognition of rights, respect and partnership. It would do so by ensuring there is a robust, independent review body in place to which members of the public can turn should they have complaints about their experience with the RCMP or the CBSA. It would also ensure that the new commission, the PCRC, is composed of members who represent the diversity of the people they would serve, including indigenous people.

At the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security we heard from various witnesses during its study of Bill C-20, and there is a lack of data around law enforcement activities, which makes it difficult to identify and respond to systemic issues. In particular, the committee heard from Mr. Natan Obed, president of the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. Mr. Obed highlighted the need to not only have a robust review body in place to hold enforcement accountable, but also “to be able to inform this body of how to improve policing and broader outcomes for our communities”. This is exactly what was envisioned in Bill C-20. The information would be particularly useful to help us understand and respond to systemic issues in law enforcement activities. Findings of the commission would also support learning and training for the members of our valued law enforcement agencies.

One more feature included in the bill that might have passed under the radar but which I believe is important to mention in the context of reconciliation with indigenous peoples is the recognition within the bill of an indigenous complaint resolution mechanism. Indeed, the bill would provide for PCRC to respond annually on the number of complaints from individuals detained by the CBSA that have been resolved through the reconciliation process with indigenous peoples.

Bill C-20 would include transformative provisions that would have the ability to improve the way our law enforcement agencies work, especially with indigenous and other vulnerable communities. This is just one example of additional work that we are doing to improve law enforcement agencies' interactions with indigenous people.

Again, I would like to thank the member for Nunavut for her work in convening this important debate here tonight.

Record of the Proceedings of the House—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

I am ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on June 6, by the member for Winnipeg Centre, concerning editorial changes to the Debates of June 4.

In raising this matter, the member asserted that a substantive change was inappropriately made at page 24440 of the Debates of June 4, 2024. According to the member, that day's Debates do not accurately reflect the content of the speech given by the member for Saskatoon West during the consideration at report stage of Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments. She explained that the member for Saskatoon West had stated that a certain individual “was likely to reoffend because of his racial background.”

However, the Debates read that the same individual “was likely to reoffend regardless of his racial background.”

She stated that replacing the word “because” with the word “regardless” significantly altered the meaning of the member's intervention. In making this point, the member referenced a recent ruling in which the Chair indicated that revisions should not alter the substance and meaning of what members say in the House.

On June 6, 2024, the member for Saskatoon West rose on a point of order to apologize for misspeaking during the debate. He said that he had realized his mistake immediately after his speech and therefore requested the change when the blues came out.

The House leader of the official opposition subsequently intervened on this matter, outlining the purpose of the blues and the role of editors in producing the Debates. Given the apologies offered by the member for Saskatoon West and his admission that he had misspoken, thereby properly correcting the record to reflect the intention of his remarks, the House leader suggested that the matter be considered closed.

The Chair is hesitant to deal with concerns about the editing of the Debates. The work of the editors is based on a standard of professional excellence and performed independently from political pressures. However, when members complain about the accuracy of the Debates, the Chair also has a duty to assess whether the record accurately reflects the proceedings of the House. If not, the Chair can ask that the Debates be modified.

Regarding the editing process, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 1229, states the following:

It is a long-standing practice of the House that editors of the Debates may exercise judgment as to whether or not changes suggested by Members constitute the correction of an error or a minor alteration. The editors may likewise alter a sentence to render it more readable but may not go so far as to change its meaning

On October 29, 2009, in a ruling on a similar matter, which can be found at page 6356 of the Debates, Speaker Milliken said:

As all members know, the Debates are not a verbatim ad literatum transcription of what is said in this House. When producing the Debates, House of Commons editors routinely edit interventions for clarity and clean up our grammatical and syntactical lapses. They also of course consider corrections and minor alterations to the blues submitted by the member to which words are attributed.

Any editorial changes, either suggested by a member or made by the editors themselves, must remain faithful to the original meaning of the statement as a whole, as spoken on the floor of the House. Editors are also expected to exercise judgment in assessing any potential change. The final word on the change does not rest with the member requesting it, but with the editors.

Just recently, on May 30, the Chair ruled on a complaint about the editing process for the Debates of April 30. In that ruling, which can be found at page 24087 of the Debates, the following is stated with respect to the independence of Parliamentary Publications, “The editors of the Parliamentary Publications team craft a record that, in their judgment, best corresponds to the proceedings, without political interference and in a completely non-partisan manner.”

Exercising due diligence, the Chair assessed the facts of the present situation by inquiring with Parliamentary Publications. The question editors faced when preparing the Debates on June 4 was whether substituting “regardless” for “because” would distort the meaning of the intervention or clarify it. That day, even before the member for Saskatoon West requested a change, editors had already begun to investigate the issue and analyze the overall context of his intervention. They had found through their fact-checking that the member was paraphrasing an assessment made by the Parole Board that did not seem to align with the term used.

Furthermore, the member's use of the word seemed illogical in the context of the rest of his speech. The request from the member for Saskatoon West to modify the blues ostensibly confirmed their suspicion as to his apparent intention. The editors concluded he had misspoken and it was on that basis that the editorial change was made. In retrospect, the editors might have handled the situation differently as they always have the option to leave an intervention as is, even if it is incoherent. However, their ultimate objective is for the transcript to make sense.

Members should not be surprised to learn that editors occasionally make changes and replace words to ensure that members' interventions remain coherent for the reader, while attempting to ensure they accurately reflect what was said. This is not unusual. These changes are made by editors on their own initiative, but also at the request of members from all parties. Accordingly, editors must have the latitude to navigate perilous interpretation exercises, though they do not have free rein, as they must be equally careful not to change the meaning of what is said.

Admittedly, some situations are more complex than others and, indeed, the present case has caused some degree of controversy. The member for Saskatoon West undoubtedly used the word “because” in his intervention. He admitted the mistake himself and apologized for having misspoken. His initial use of the word is now on the record.

The Chair is, nonetheless, satisfied with the explanations provided by Parliamentary Publications and the reasoning behind the replacement of the disputed word. While the decision does appear to change the meaning of the intervention, their motivation was clearly to make the text more coherent.

I hope members can accept that the editors have a challenging job and that the correction was made in good faith. As a result, the Chair concludes that this matter does not constitute a question of privilege and, therefore, considers the matter closed.

I thank all members for their attention.

Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Act (David and Joyce Milgaard's Law)

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I wish to seek the support of the House. On the third reading of Bill C-20, I ran into difficulties with my phone app as I was walking to committee. I would like to seek unanimous consent to record my vote as yea.

Bill C‑40—Time Allocation Motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I receive a lot of phone calls from constituents within the riding of Waterloo. Constituents often ask about this chamber. Right now, we are debating and will be voting on having to use time allocation to, once again, advance legislation.

This morning I had meetings set up, and we had to go to orders of the day because we have an official opposition that refuses to call the question. Even earlier today we voted on Bill C-20. The Conservatives had been filibustering that legislation, putting up automated speeches, most likely through ChatGPT, yet when it came time to call the question and to vote, the Conservatives did support the legislation because it was important legislation.

Why are we having to debate time allocation? Why are we having to make sure that we get the legislation called to a question? Unfortunately, there are some members who will not get to speak to this legislation because the official opposition, under its leader, refuses to call the question.

The member for Fundy Royal did ask a question today, and the only thing he has done really well was to make sure that the House advanced the issue of ensuring that there was no longer conversion therapy in Canada. It is something the member does not speak to, but he was the member who moved the motion to have unanimous consent because the Conservatives did not want to debate it.

How do we ensure justice is served? Why are we using time allocation?

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there is indeed a secret in the House, and that is the Conservative Party's true intentions when it comes to cuts. “Chop, chop, chop,” as my colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine so aptly puts it. That party wants to cut social programs and the programs that are so dear to Quebeckers and Canadians: women's rights, the right to abortion, the right to contraception. The Conservatives want to scrap our government's dental care and pharmacare plans. The secret is the Conservative Party's hidden agenda, which will do great harm to all Canadians.

With our government's usual transparency, this evening we will proceed to report stage consideration of Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments, and Bill C-40, an act to amend the Criminal Code, to make consequential amendments to other acts and to repeal a regulation regarding miscarriage of justice reviews, also known as David and Joyce Milgaard's law.

Tomorrow, we will begin second reading of Bill C-63, an act to enact the online harms act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts.

I would like to inform the House that next Monday and Thursday shall be allotted days. On Tuesday, we will start report stage of Bill C-69, the budget implementation act. On Wednesday, we will deal with Bill C-70, concerning foreign interference, as per the special order adopted last Thursday. I wish all members and the House staff a good weekend.

Opposition Motion—Documents Regarding Sustainable Development Technology Canada

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I wish to apologize to the member, to the House and anyone else I may have offended.

Specifically, the member referenced a speech that I gave in the House Tuesday night on Bill C-20. In a quote she read from my speech, I said the following, “One of the interesting things in that particular incident was that the perpetrator, Myles Sanderson, had a history of violent offences and had been recently released on parole, despite the prediction by the parole board that he was likely to reoffend because of his racial background.” I misspoke when I used the word “because”. I meant to say “regardless”.

This was caught immediately and when the blues came out, the preliminary version of Hansard, we requested to change the word “because” to “regardless”. That change was accepted and published in Hansard officially.

Once again, I apologize for misspeaking. I never meant to offend anyone. I never meant to cast any aspersions on anyone because of race.

First Responders Tax Credit

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order to discuss a serious incident that occurred in this chamber on Tuesday night. As you may recall, the House was sitting late on that evening to debate Bill C-20, the public complaints and review commission.

Bill C-20 is a very important piece of legislation, which is a long time coming. The purpose of the bill was to put in place an independent oversight body for the RCMP and CBSA as a way to deal with institutional issues, including actions of excessive police force and systemic racism.

It is also worth noting that the debate that evening came a day after the five-year anniversary of the release of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls across the country, which called on a need for reforms in policing to deal with both violence and over- and under-policing of indigenous peoples, particularly indigenous women, specifically noted in calls for justice 9.1 to 9.11. It is within this context, the comments I am about to cite are deeply concerning.

During the debate on the bill, the member for Saskatoon West made very concerning and inappropriate remarks. During the member's speech, while speaking about the case of Myles Sanderson, the member made the following shocking and completely wrong statement. He said, “One of the interesting things in that particular incident was that the perpetrator, Myles Sanderson, had a history of violent offences and had been recently released on parole, despite the prediction by the parole board that he was likely to reoffend because of his racial background.”

Mr. Speaker, that is not at all what the Parole Board said in a statement in response to the final report of the National Joint Board of Investigation into the mass stabbing in Saskatchewan by the offender on statutory release. It clearly said, “The BOI found there were no pre-incident indicators or precipitating events that were known to staff, or that staff could have acted upon to prevent this incident.” Moreover, the Parole Board also noted, “the overall case preparation leading up to the release of the offender was both reasonable and appropriate, including the consideration of the Indigenous social history of the offender in the decision-making process.”

It is important to note “that courts must consider an Aboriginal offender's background when he or she is being sentenced for a crime. Factors that are considered include discrimination, physical abuse, separation from culture and family, or drug and alcohol abuse”, in response to the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling.

I will read from the Supreme Court ruling, R v. Ipeelee. It states—

Bill C‑20—Time Allocation Motion

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, as members know, we introduced and passed Bill C-290 to protect whistle-blowers. Neither the CBSA nor the RCMP were included in that bill.

Can the minister assure me that Bill C-20 will change things so that my constituency office stops receiving emails from officers asking for help with unjustified layoffs, threats to suspend their pensions, and so on? Will this kind of thing finally end with the passage of Bill C‑20?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have to laugh at the minister's comments about being disingenuous. He talked about strengthening oversight with this bill, Bill C-20, the importance of the appointments process and the appropriate role of the complaints process.

I wonder if the minister made the exact same arguments to the Prime Minister and the rest of his cabinet before he voted to prorogue government in order to cover up for the WE scandal.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby again identifies what, for us, was a very constructive and positive effort from our colleagues at committee to improve the legislation. As I said, the New Democratic Party was a very steady and constructive voice in bringing thoughtful amendments that, from our perspective, strengthened the legislation.

The member identified, for example, the importance of the public having a process by which complaints could be adjudicated by competent authorities, the appointments process of members of the commission reflecting the diversity of our country and the appropriate role for this complaints review commission, with respect to the internal matters involving employees. These were all things the committee strengthened or improved in the legislative process.

I too share my colleague's view of the disingenuous way in which the Conservatives now pretend that there is no urgency to pass this bill, Bill C-20, after they took every conceivable step to make sure that this legislation would not get to a vote. The good news is that we may be getting to that point this evening.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the NDP fought hard to improve this bill, Bill C-20, to increase transparency and accountability and to ensure that there was more investigative power. There are many improvements to this bill. However, as we know, it came out of committee, and then promptly ran into the stone wall, which is the Conservative Party of Canada, that blocked dental care, pharmacare, the affordable housing provisions that the NDP has pushed the government to put into place and the improvements to the Competition Act. Of course, Conservatives do not accept the blame for having delayed this bill now for months because they blocked everything else before it.

The disingenuous idea that somehow this bill, Bill C-20, can just make its way through the House of Commons when the Conservatives have blocked every single piece of legislation that helps the country and that helps their constituents, I think shows the extent to which Conservatives are willing to mislead the public. The reality is that Conservatives have been unwilling to pass this bill, despite all the benefits for Canada and for those who work for CBSA and the RCMP, which would ensure more accountability and transparency of those institutions and would ensure a way for the public to make complaints.

With all those benefits in Bill C-20, why have Conservatives been blocking it for so long?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank our colleague, the parliamentary secretary, for highlighting what surprises colleagues on our side of the House, in terms of the Conservatives' reticence to adopt legislation that would provide, for the first time, independent civilian oversight of the Canada Border Services Agency and that would strengthen the previous complaints commission process for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Our national security institutions do great work to protect Canadians, to serve Canadians and to ensure, in the case of the Canada Border Services Agency, that duties are collected appropriately by competent authorities. It is important for the Canadian economy, and it is important for the treasury of the Government of Canada. That work is very important, and it is done well.

There is also a national security, a border security, element. All of these agencies benefit from independent, strengthened oversight to deal with complaints, to deal with, as my colleague, the New Democratic Party House leader, identified in the case of some union circumstances or employees.

All of this should be important for members, in terms of providing the support for these agencies, and I hope Parliament will adopt this bill, Bill C-20.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the NDP worked assiduously to improve this legislation, and we had to do it with the Conservatives blocking it at every single stage. What I found were delays at the committee level, when we tried repeatedly to have meetings to hear from witnesses, and each time it was blocked by the Conservatives. Despite that fact, because we are the worker bees in the House of Commons, the NDP worked to improve this bill, Bill C-20, which is a necessary bill. We had about a dozen improvements to the legislation, including banning the use of non-disclosure agreements to silence victims, ensuring there was no intimidation that could be imposed, ensuring union representation and increasing transparency. All those things improve the legislation and are needed.

Why have Conservatives blocked legislation like this, which is something that is needed and which all parties understand that it needs to be adopted through Parliament?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage and five hours shall be allotted to the consideration at the third reading stage of the bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at report stage and at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Bill C‑20—Notice of Time Allocation

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading of Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages of the bill.

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, my daily attempts to reach out to opposition members and improve the efficiency of the business of the House are always rebuffed out of hand. The Conservatives would rather filibuster, raise totally fake questions of privilege, and use all sorts of delay tactics in the House to prevent the government from passing measures that are going to help Canadians in their daily lives.

Despite it all, I will continue to reach out to opposition members to make sure that the business of the House takes place efficiently.

This evening, we will deal with report stage of Bill C-64 respecting pharmacare. Tomorrow, we will commence second reading of Bill C-65, the electoral participation act. On Monday, we will call Bill C-64 again, this time at third reading stage.

I would also like to inform the House that next Tuesday and Thursday shall be allotted days. On Wednesday, we will consider second reading of Bill C‑61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on first nation lands.

Next week, we will also give priority to Bill C‑20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments, and Bill C‑40, the miscarriage of justice review commission act, also known as David and Joyce Milgaard's law.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, on that question I can assure the hon. member that whatever we do, we will do with the elected premier of British Columbia and not the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

On the Thursday question, this afternoon we will continue with debate on Bill C-49, the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic accord implementation and offshore renewable energy management act, which has had great support obviously from my colleagues from Atlantic Canada.

Tomorrow, we will call Bill C-20, concerning the public complaints and review commission act.

On Monday, we will begin debate at second reading of Bill C‑69, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024.

I would also like to inform the House that Thursday, May 9, will be an allotted day.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, during the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 on Motion No. 54 to concur in the eighth report of the Standing Committee on National Defence, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair and at the conclusion of the time provided for debate or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the motions be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred pursuant to Standing Order 66.

Opposition Motion—Auto Theft

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to elaborate on this subject. As I was saying earlier, the Conservatives are finally paying attention. They now realize that this is an important topic and that it might be a good idea to add it to their arsenal of election slogans.

As my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands was saying a little earlier, it is true that investigative journalism brought this problem to our attention a few months ago. There are also organizations that come to Ottawa to tell us about certain issues and raise awareness about them.

Last April, I met with people from the Corporation des concessionnaires automobiles du Québec and the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association and they talked to me about this. It is wrong to say that they do not care about this phenomenon because they make money and they will be able to sell a car if a customer has theirs stolen, since they are reimbursed by the insurance company. It is not true that they do not care, because they are here in Ottawa to talk to us about it. They want the government to do something about this problem.

I first became interested in the subject a few months ago. I met with global car manufacturers, who also spoke to me about it. In October, following the feature story aired in J.E, a television program on TVA, and after the numerous news reports of the Journal de Montréal’s investigations bureau, I announced that I was going to move a motion at the public safety and national security committee. I talked to my colleagues about it, because we often see members of certain parties come totally out of left field with a motion on any given subject, thinking everyone is going to accept it as is. It is important to discuss these things with colleagues first and to make them aware of the issue. That is how I came to talk to my Conservative colleagues about the auto theft problem. They seemed to be very interested. When I moved the motion, all parties voted in favour of it. Everyone had a story to tell, everyone had a friend or colleague who had their vehicle stolen. A Conservative colleague even told me that he personally had his car stolen. There was definitely a consensus that this was something we should look into as soon as possible.

At the public safety and national security committee, we were looking at Bill C-20. That was significantly delayed by the Conservative Party for reasons we may or may not be aware of. The same thing is happening now with Bill C-26. The process has been delayed, and our committee agenda has us looking at the bill on auto theft after that. I do not really understand why the Conservatives are trying to delay this study as much as possible, when they are making it a priority today by talking about it. If it were that important to them, they would be working hard on the public safety and national security committee to finally get it done.

With today’s motion, they may be trying to get material for pre-election, or even election, slogans, because we get the impression that the Conservative Party may already be on the campaign trail. The Bloc Québécois did not get the memo. The Conservatives’ new slogan is in today’s motion, which states, “after eight years of soft on crime policies, this Prime Minister has created the auto theft crisis”. Who knew? The Prime Minister himself created the auto theft crisis. He sure has broad shoulders. I am not saying this to defend him. It is true that the Liberals have not done much in recent years to combat this problem. However, that the Prime Minister single-handedly created the crisis is something we cannot take very seriously.

I would even go so far as to say that the entire argument laid out in the Conservatives’ motion is completely disconnected from reality, despite the fact that the problem is all too real. If one looks at the problem with a minimum of seriousness, it is immediately clear that the COVID 19 pandemic in 2020 caused significant disruptions in the logistics chain around the world. One of the most hard-hit sectors was the industry producing the semiconductors needed for all microprocessors. The microprocessor shortage led to a worldwide reduction in auto manufacturing, which made demand go up. This increased the cost of used vehicles. Crime gangs jumped on the opportunity and quickly specialized in car theft and shipment to other markets. This was already happening on a smaller scale, but the pandemic and the impact it had on supply chains accelerated the phenomenon. Because of its geographical location, Montreal became an auto theft hub.

Why was that? Because Montreal is home to the largest port in eastern Canada that provides access to the rest of the world. Of course other ports are involved as well, such as those in Halifax and Vancouver. However, these ports have not been as affected as the port of Montreal. It is truly a gateway, a hub. As I was saying, the pandemic exacerbated the situation but, on top of that, new technological developments have made auto theft more appealing.

For example, consider the increasingly frequent use of smart keys, which make it easier to steal vehicles. Several news reports have shown how thieves go about it. All they have to do is use a relay to amplify the signal of a smart key inside a house by standing next to the front door. With an accomplice, the thief can then open the car door and start the engine.

They can also connect a computer to the onboard diagnostic port in the car, which enables them to use another key. All they have to do then is force open the door.

It is child’s play for people who know what they are doing.

In Montreal, as in the rest of the country, we have seen people using Denver boots or steering wheel locks to make it harder for thieves to steal their car. I say harder, because thieves have found other ways to remove these devices and leave with a car in no time at all.

This phenomenon is truly becoming a scourge, especially in Quebec and in Montreal. Auto theft has increased over the years. According to Équité Association, roughly 70,000 vehicles were stolen in Canada in 2022. That is huge. Between 2021 and 2022, the number of thefts increased by 50%, or half, in Quebec, by nearly half in Ontario, or 48%, by 34% in Atlantic Canada, and by 18% in Alberta. 2022 was a record year for auto theft. The numbers are not yet known for 2023, but by all indications auto theft has increased yet again.

The reported losses are in the billions of dollars for insurers, and we have seen premiums go up for ordinary people. Le Journal de Montréal reported that between 2012 and 2022, the average car insurance premium increased by 50% as well. This increase is in part tied to auto theft.

Given these facts, one of the questions we need to ask ourselves is why there is this growing interest in auto theft.

It must be said that auto theft is one of the easiest and least risky sources of revenue for gangs, which then use part of the proceeds to finance other criminal activities, such as gun trafficking and human trafficking. Those are the two reasons. It is easy and low-risk.

I explained earlier why it is easy. One reason it is so low-risk is that sentences are so light. In an article in La Presse, Jacques Lamontagne, director of investigations for Quebec and the Atlantic region at Équité Association and a retired Montreal police force criminal investigator, explained—

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will start again. Unfortunately, I do not think anyone heard me. If the member would put his earpiece in, I think that would work even better.

I am pleased to see that the Conservatives have finally realized that there is an auto theft crisis in Canada. I for one have been talking about it since October. I moved a motion at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to study this issue. The Conservatives agreed to it. They thought it was a good idea, but all they have done since then is hold up the committee's work. That is what they did with Bill C-20 and Bill C-26.

Why are they doing that? The reason is that they do not think that the auto theft crisis is all that important after all.

Why do they want to talk about it today? Is it because it makes for a good campaign slogan? Is it because they want to crack down on crime? Why has this become a priority for the Conservative Party today?

Public Safety and National Security

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 9th report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, in relation to Bill C-20, an act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments.

The committee has studied the bill and decided to report it back to the House with amendments.

Public Safety

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, we supported and put forward a motion to study these very transfers. The Conservatives use heinous crimes and the suffering of women and violence against women as a way to block government legislation. Bill C-20 would have tangible results to protect women in the workplace with respect to sexual harassment. The Conservatives time and time again use clickbait, instead of real action to protect women.

Small Business

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have received a notice that the chair of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security has unilaterally cancelled the committee's meeting this afternoon. The committee was scheduled to meet to begin a clause-by-clause study of Bill C-20, government legislation regarding a complaints process for the RCMP and the CBSA.

Conservatives have given notice of a motion to call the Minister of Public Safety to appear on the Bernardo transfer travesty. I call on all party whips to manage the resources of the House in a way that reflects the priorities of the House.

Criminal Code

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise and offer my thoughts on Bill C-21 at third reading.

I say that with a bit of amazement because I cannot believe we have actually made it to third reading. This bill received first reading in this House on May 30 of last year. We got through second reading in fairly short order, but at committee stage, things really got lost and all hell broke loose, so to speak.

I remember participating as the NDP's public safety critic. We had scheduled eight witness meetings to look at the first version of this bill. Things were going along quite well. There were some disagreements around the table, but there was not any of the friction that suggested there would be a major catastrophe in the making.

That all changed in November when we arrived at the clause-by-clause portion of the bill. Before that meeting started, every party was responsible for reviewing the witness testimony, reviewing the briefs that had been submitted, and working with legislative drafters to put together our amendments. Once those were submitted to the clerk, as is the normal course of things, the clerk then distributed them to all committee members.

It was quite a surprise when we saw just how big the amendment package was and just how expanded the scope of the bill was going to be. Most of the amendments came from the government. There were a couple in particular that completely sent the committee off its rails.

The amendments landed on our laps at the 11th hour. It was obvious that there had been no warning to committee members. The Liberal members of the committee were introducing those amendments on behalf of the government. They read them into the record, but I do not think they actually had a clue as to the monumental nature of the amendments.

It was clear that the amendments were not backed by any witness testimony because of the significant nature of how they were changing the bill. We, as committee members, never had the opportunity to question witnesses on the bill taking shape.

That completely derailed things. That started in November 2022, and it is only just recently that the committee stage of the bill was finally able to complete its job. That is an incredible amount of time for one committee to be occupied with a single bill.

If we look at the mandate of the public safety and national security committee, it is one of the most important committees. It is responsible for reviewing the policies and legislation of multiple agencies, whether it is the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Officer of the Correctional Investigator or the RCMP.

There are two other bills. Bill C-20 is going to provide an important oversight body for the RCMP and the CBSA. Bill C-26 is going to seek to upgrade our cybersecurity infrastructure. Both of those bills have been held up because of the shenanigans going on with Bill C-21.

I listened to the debate all day yesterday when this bill was going through report stage, and today when it was going through third reading. Unfortunately, because of some of the speeches in this House, there is a lot of misinformation out there and a lot of people have the wrong idea of what is included in this bill.

My Conservative colleagues do make a big deal in their speeches about standing up for hunters, farmers and indigenous communities, and I take no fault with that. I proudly stand here and say the same thing. It is troubling because it is alluding to something that is actually not in the bill. That illusion for hunters, farmers and indigenous communities is that their rifle or shotgun, if it is semi-automatic, is going to be prohibited by this bill.

Let me clearly say this for the record: That is not the case. Bill C-21 is not going to do that. If someone has a current make or model of a rifle or shotgun, they are licensed and legally own that firearm, after this bill receives royal assent, they will continue to be able to use it.

That is a fact. So far, when I have brought it up in questions, my Conservative colleagues have been unable to refute that. I have challenged multiple Conservative MPs to name one rifle or shotgun that is going to be prohibited by Bill C-21. In every single instance, they have deflected and swerved away to go back to comfortable talking points, because they cannot do it. I will tell colleagues why. It is because I am not reading Conservative talking points. I am going to actually read from the text of the bill.

In the new section that is going to add to the definition of a prohibited firearm, it mentions that it is:

...a firearm that is not a handgun and that

(i) discharges centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner,

(ii) was originally designed with a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity of six cartridges or more, and

(iii) is designed and manufactured on or after the day on which this paragraph comes into force...

The last point is one that everyone seems to skip over, but it is the key part.

Current makes and models are not going to be affected by Bill C-21. Future makes and models that come into the market after this bill receives royal assent will be affected. However, current owners will not be affected by Bill C-21.

Conservatives will then seek to muddy the waters even further. I have heard a lot of reference to the firearms advisory committee. They say that the minister is going to bring this back and staff it with Liberal appointees, who are going to make suggestions about what firearms should be prohibited and then act on the suggestions. I have a news flash for my Conservative colleagues. This is a power that the government already has. It does not need a firearms advisory committee.

I would direct my Conservative colleagues to the existing section 84(1) of the Criminal Code. It says right there that the government can change the definition of what a prohibited firearm is when it mentions “any firearm that is prescribed to be a prohibited firearm”. “Prescribed” is the key word there, because that means it can be done by cabinet decree. If they do not believe me, how did the government get the authority in May 2020 to issue an order in council? Here, 1,500 makes and models were done through the Canada Gazette under existing powers.

All this ballyhoo over a firearms advisory council, as well as all the hoopla that we have heard in this House about the dangers of that council coming into being, is a complete red herring. It is smoke and mirrors. This is a power the government already has. In fact, I would rebut them on that argument by saying that if the minister currently has that power to do this unilaterally through an order in council cabinet decree, would it not be a good thing to have an advisory council to at least talk to the minister about how maybe that would not be a good idea?

If we can ensure that the advisory council has indigenous representation, representation from the hunting community and representation from the sport shooting community, in my mind, that is a good thing. I will let them continue to say that, but they know they cannot argue with me on those facts. Again, I am reading from the bill and from existing provisions of the Criminal Code. If they are going to try to muddy the waters, they can try to argue their way out of it, but the facts cannot be changed.

I want to turn to something more positive, with the airsoft community. Last summer, I had the pleasure of visiting the Victoria fish and game club. I do not know if colleagues have been to Vancouver Island, but in the middle of my riding is the Malahat Mountain. It is the big mountain that separates the Cowichan Valley from the city of Langford and the whole west shore. It is the traditional territory of the Malahat people, but on top of it is where the Victoria fish and game club is, on a beautiful property. Right beside it, there is an amazing forest setting for the club's airsoft games. I went out there with one of my constituency assistants on a weekend. They invited us to come and see a match. We got to don the referee uniforms, so that we could walk out in the middle of a pitched battle. I think one of my constituency assistants accidentally got shot.

It was so fun to see how much fun these players were having, to talk to them about how passionate they were about their sport and to really understand that this is more than a hobby for them. This is something that allows them to get out into the great outdoors with their family and friends.

They were really worried about Bill C-21 because of a section in the bill that would basically turn their airsoft rifles into prohibited devices. I invited some of them, with other colleagues around the committee table, to come to committee, to submit briefs and to say their piece. I have to say that the representatives of the airsoft industry, the manufacturers and the players associations did themselves proud. They made a good argument, and they convinced those around the committee table. They did what is done in a democratic system. They fought for change, and they achieved it.

The NDP amendment that was put forward to delete the offending sections from the bill was passed. That is a victory for the airsoft community. All they are asking for is not the sledgehammer approach of legislation that was in the original version of Bill C-21, but a regulatory approach. They are more than willing to work with government on the regulatory approach. That message was heard, and that is something that all parliamentarians can celebrate.

Let me turn to the handgun freeze and the amendment that we put forward as an attempt to expand the exceptions of the handgun freeze to allow for other sport shooting disciplines. As the bill is currently written, at this third reading stage, the only exemptions that exist are limited to people who are at an extremely elite level. They are Olympic athletes and Paralympic athletes. I use the terms “exemptions” and “exceptions” interchangeably.

After speaking to members of my community who participate in the International Practical Shooting Confederation and speaking to members who are in single-action shooting as well, I felt that these people are athletes. They train for what they do. They are passionate about their sport. They deserve to have exemptions as well. Therefore, I put forward an amendment to try to expand that. That amendment almost passed. There was a little bit of confusion on the Liberal side when that amendment came to a vote.

When I tuned in to watch the committee hearing at that stage, I was pleasantly surprised to see the Liberal member for Kings—Hants speaking in support of our amendment. It was a wonderful surprise to see, except that when it came to a vote, unfortunately, he abstained. It resulted in a five-five tie; of course, this had to be broken by the Liberal Chair. We came really close.

I have received a lot of flak from certain sectors of society for my stance on this. That is okay; I can take it. I am not going to apologize for standing here and making an attempt to fix the bill on behalf of my constituents who simply want to be able to practise their sport. To those who are arguing against that, I would simply point to the submission that was given to our committee by none other than the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. They said:

We believe that a handgun freeze is one method of reducing access to these types of firearms, while allowing existing law-abiding handgun owners to practise their sport.

That is what I was basing my amendment on, as well as the interventions made by my constituents. We tried our best at committee to make that change. Unfortunately, because of the votes falling the way they did with the Liberals and Bloc, it did not pass.

I will give another reason. The top IPSC competitors were telling me that they shoot about 50,000 rounds of ammunition a year. That is an incredible amount. We have to understand that a handgun is essentially a mechanical device. If someone is shooting it 50,000 times a year, it will break down. Sometimes, handguns have to be replaced. In my mind, it was unfair, not allowing an exception for an athlete of that calibre to have the means to be able to replace a tool that they use to compete.

We may have lost this particular battle, but what I would say to members of those sport shooting disciplines is that I will continue to pursue this issue. I will find other avenues to fight to make sure that their sport has an exemption.

We have completed the report stage part of the bill, but there has been some controversy from some women's groups who were unhappy with the red-flag provisions of the law, and I understand that. When I approached the committee hearings on this, I understood the controversy that existed around red-flag provisions. There were some women's groups that felt that adding this extra layer of bureaucracy through the court system did not serve women or other people who were in vulnerable situations where firearms might be present. They felt that we should have a properly equipped and responsive police force, and I agree with them.

I will turn critics' attention to members of the National Association of Women and the Law, because when Bill C-21 was reported back to the House, they made some public tweets, which are all up there for people to read. They said that with all the amendments that were proposed, these are some of the ways that the bill would make women safer: “The provision on licence revocation when someone has committed violence is now strengthened and clarified. A licence must be revoked when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an individual may have engaged in family violence.” They also said, “people who have been subject to a protection order will now be ineligible to hold a licence if they ‘could pose’ a threat or risk to the safety of another person. This way, safety comes first.” That is the onus test.

They went on to say, “The Bill had no timelines for reacting to danger and domestic violence. Thanks to the adoption of our recommendations, there is now a statutory duty to act within 24 hours. This will protect women at the critical time of separation, when risk of violence is at its highest.”

A lot about the bill has been subsumed by the debate over hunting rifles, shotguns, airsoft and the handgun freeze. However, it is important for us to realize that, in the heart of the bill, there are actually some very important measures, which have now been improved by the committee. I have worked with members of the National Association of Women and the Law, and I respect the submissions they have made. If they are willing to come out and publicly endorse the bill in this way, I am glad to have their support as a stakeholder, and I give it a lot of credence.

I also want to talk about ghost guns, which relate to another “unsung hero” part of the bill. We heard from law enforcement, and I want to read into the record the testimony that came from Inspector Michael Rowe, who is a staff sergeant in the Vancouver Police Department. He said:

In addition to what is already included in Bill C‑21, I would ask this committee to consider regulating the possession, sale and importation of firearms parts used to manufacture ghost guns, such as barrels, slides and trigger assemblies. These parts are currently lawful to purchase and possess without a licence, and they can be purchased online or imported from the United States. The emergence of privately made firearms has reduced the significance of the currently regulated receiver and increased the importance of currently unregulated gun parts that are needed to finish a 3-D-printed receiver and turn it into a functioning firearm.

That is the request coming from law enforcement. We know that this is a growing problem, and they asked for a specific legislative fix to the problem. I am proud to see that the public safety committee delivered on that request from law enforcement.

Much has been said about indigenous communities. They are, of course, the ones who led the way in opposition to the bill. I remember, back in December, when the Assembly of First Nations came out with a unanimous emergency resolution opposing those eleventh-hour amendments that were made by the Liberal government. They said that the amendments went against the spirit of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. They helped us to understand, as parliamentarians, that these are not toys or hobbies; rather, they are a way of life. In some indigenous communities, they are necessary for the protection of life. I am glad to see that the committee listened, and no current make or model of a rifle or shotgun that is currently in use in indigenous communities is touched by Bill C-21. The committee went further and added a clause, which now references section 35 of the Constitution Act to show that indigenous rights are upheld.

I will conclude by saying I can honestly go back to the hunters, farmers and indigenous communities in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and tell them their currently owned firearms are safe. I am glad we were able to force the government's hand on this matter.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I spoke to this last week when we were debating Motion No. 25. I made reference to the fact that, for the Conservatives, Bill C-21 is the goose that lays the golden eggs. That is why they have wanted to see it stuck in the House; that hoovering sound we can hear is the sound of the Conservative Party's fundraising machine raking in millions of dollars off this bill. I for one am glad to see that the committee has sent it back to the House, because there are two other important bills waiting to be heard. These are Bill C-20, which deals with important RCMP oversight, and Bill C-26, which looks at cybersecurity; these are both very pressing issues. It is high time the public safety committee got to work in addressing those other key issues.

Government Business No. 25—Proceedings on Bill C-21

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is hard to find the words to start given how long I have personally been involved with this piece of legislation. I know there are a few select members of this House who would agree with me. I think for each one of us, this has been our own personal odyssey, and to get to this point is really remarkable. All of the different twists and turns that this one bill, Bill C-21, has taken are going to be studied in parliamentary procedure for years to come.

I have had the privilege of representing my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for three terms, now being in my eighth year, and I have discovered that in my time here, Parliament has demonstrated that it is indeed the last place to go for an open, honest and logical debate on firearms. A lot of the debate we have seen on this bill and on firearms regulations, policy and legislation in general has done a very real disservice to Canadians. Both sides of the issue have torqued up their arguments. There has been blatant misinformation and labelling, and this has really descended the level of debate into something that I think a lot of Canadians would quite rightly be disgusted by. It is very difficult in this place, when we have all of these torqued up emotions and political agendas, to have a reasoned debate on firearms. That certainly has been the story.

I know a lot of people on Twitter are following this debate very closely. I would say that the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security is probably the most watched committee of them all, and I know that my words right now are being analyzed and tweeted about, even in real time. I just want the people who are listening to brace themselves, because I have equal amounts of criticism for both the Liberals and the Conservatives as to why we now find ourselves in this place.

I first want to start by talking about the committee, because ultimately today's motion is one of instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. One could be forgiven for thinking that all this committee does is study policy and legislation surrounding firearms, because that is indeed all it has really been consumed with since the bill was referred to the committee late last year. In fact, we started Bill C-21 at committee in October 2022, and here we are now, well into May 2023, and we are still only at the clause-by-clause part of the bill.

I think it is useful for people to understand what the mandate of this committee is. It is responsible for reviewing legislation, policies, programs and expenditure plans of a whole host of different government departments and agencies that are responsible for not only public safety, but national security, policing, law enforcement, corrections, the conditional release of federal offenders, emergency management, crime prevention and of course the protection of our borders. When we are doing things like the estimates for the spending plans of Public Safety Canada, quite often we have representatives included from the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Parole Board of Canada and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

What I am trying to underline here is that this committee is an extremely important committee of the House of Commons, and all the work it does in all of these different areas in looking after our intelligence gathering, law enforcement and border protection has been sidelined by the incredible amount of time that has been consumed. Time is our most valuable resource in Parliament, and once we spend it we do not get it back.

Because of the shenanigans that have occurred with respect to Bill C-21, the public safety committee has quite correctly been prevented from examining all of these other different areas, keeping tabs on those different departments, examining different pieces of legislation and keeping tabs on what the government's policies and practices are going to be with respect to other key areas. That is an important element that we first need to establish when we are talking about where we are today.

As many members will know, including members in my own community, I used to be our party's public safety critic. I found my time on that committee to be personally quite valuable. I found that the subject matter we were dealing with was quite intellectually challenging and stimulating, and it is important work.

I know from my interactions with other members of the committee, whether on the Liberal, Conservative or Bloc Québécois side, that they all conducted themselves very well, and I enjoyed my working relationships with them. That even goes for our work on Bill C-21.

Believe it or not, there was actually a time when Bill C-21 was progressing through committee in relatively good order. We concluded roughly eight meetings with witnesses. The committee then had time to come forward with its amendments, and there seemed to be an acknowledgement that aside from a few differences with a few clauses here and there, the bill was probably on schedule to be reported back to the House for report stage and eventually third reading sometime in December.

We then got to November, and all hell broke loose. This was when the eleventh-hour amendments were dropped by the Liberals. I should correctly say “the Liberal government”, because I do not think they were, by design, from the Liberal members of the committee. They did come from the government.

I do not want to go into the details of the bill too much, because I think that is a well-trodden path and a well-known story, but allow me to take this moment in my speech to levy what I think are some well-earned criticisms on both the Liberals and the Conservatives. I know some of my colleagues will probably laugh at this, particularly the member for Hamilton Centre, because he has heard me joke about this before.

I often feel like the character Mercutio in Shakespeare's play, Romeo and Juliet, when he is expressing his frustration with the Capulets and the Montagues, because I feel that same frustration with the Liberals and the Conservatives. It is difficult sometimes to watch the shenanigans between those parties and the way our level of debate around this issue descends into the depths and scrapes the bottom of the barrel.

Let me start with the Liberals. One day, someone is going to write a book about this sorry episode, and it is probably going to be titled something like “How Not to Amend One's Own Legislation”. It is going to be a warning guide for governments in the future on what not to do and how not to spring a surprise on an unsuspecting committee when they have not done their homework, when they have not done consultation and, most importantly, when they have not consulted with the members of the committee who are actually responsible for shepherding those amendments through.

I want to caution members: My comments are not, in any way, directed to the colleagues I work with, but more to the Liberal Party brain trust. I understand the reasoning behind where they are coming from. Gun violence in our major urban centres is a very concerning thing. It needs to be dealt with appropriately. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the extreme grief that is out there within so many families who are dealing with a loss due to firearms violence.

Sometimes the road forward for the Liberals has been paved with good intentions, but it has led to some pretty awful results. I would ask them to step back and try and heal some of the wounds that exist in that divide between urban and rural Canada. We need to understand that yes, firearms violence is a big issue, but there also has to be a level of respect afforded to Canadians who are lawful firearms owners, who play by the rules and who have done everything right. I would encourage the Liberals to consult more with their rural MPs.

When the Liberals introduced those amendments, one of the groups that were leading the way was indigenous communities—not only hunters and farmers, but indigenous communities, not the least of which was the Assembly of First Nations. In an extremely rare move, the AFN came out with a unanimous emergency resolution on the last day. That is almost unheard of. They were going after the government for those ill-thought-of eleventh-hour amendments.

No consultation had taken place. One could make a legitimate argument that the Liberals, in bringing in these amendments, were not respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples or even the legislation we have passed that enshrines that within our own laws to make sure that all federal laws are in harmony with the declaration itself. It went against the spirit of that.

Now I will turn to my Conservative friends.

What do we say about the reams of ridiculous hyperbole we have seen from that party on Bill C-21? The bill has been a fundraising boon for the Conservative Party. That giant sucking sound we hear is Conservatives hoovering money from the harvest of their rage-farming operation around the bill, and I think a part of me wonders whether the Conservatives do not want to see the bill go forward because it has been so financially viable for them. The evidence is all out there. I do not think there is any interest at all in trying to move the legislation forward, because doing so would essentially stop the goose from laying golden eggs for them. It has been an incredible money-maker for them.

When I look at some of the misinformation that has been put out by the Conservative Party around the bill, I see they are fanning flames of rage over amendments that no longer exist and incorrectly saying that the government wants to take away all their guns. It is just completely off-the-wall bonkers stuff that can be easily disproven, and it is completely not helping the standard of debate we expect of our parliamentarians. It just makes the rest of our jobs harder when we have to fight that completely untrue disinformation that is being actively fanned on social media.

Yes, it is a sorry state due to the actions of both parties in so expertly playing politics with the bill, and that is a large part of the reason we are here today.

We know that the problematic amendments were withdrawn by the Liberals. That is fact number one. All current owners of long guns in Canada are not going to have those firearms impacted, because the problematic amendments were withdrawn. What we now have being proposed as an amendment to the bill would go after firearms that will be manufactured in the future, after the bill receives royal assent. There is also an important amendment, I understand, that would make sure that nothing in the bill takes away from the rights of indigenous peoples. That is recognized and affirmed under section 35 of our Constitution.

Of course, there are incredibly important amendments dealing with the exponentially growing problem of ghost guns. This is a problem that has been brought to the committee's attention repeatedly by law enforcement agencies. I would hope that more attention is paid to those particular amendments, and of course we, the remaining members of the House of Commons, have to reserve our judgment on the bill until we see the final version that the committee ultimately reports back to us.

Now let us turn to the motion of instruction and what it would do.

First of all, we have to understand that as of this morning, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security had already spent approximately five hours on clause-by-clause consideration. If they had been able to complete their meeting this afternoon, and I know it was interrupted by a series of votes, that would have brought the total to eight hours, which is roughly equivalent to four full meetings. The motion being debated today would add a further 17 hours to that, bringing it to roughly 25 hours, which is the equivalent of 12-and-a-half meetings.

I understand from the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, our member on the public safety committee, that he has tried multiple times to extend the sitting hours of the public safety committee so that Conservatives, the Bloc and New Democrats could have additional time to look at the amendments that are being proposed by various members. I understand that in each of those instances, these attempts were either rejected or filibustered so that the committee ultimately could never get to a vote. To hear Conservatives complain that they are being silenced in the House when they have, in fact, had multiple opportunities at committee to extend the sitting hours of that committee does come across as a bit rich.

I would say that because I have had my staff look at bills similar in size and complexity to Bill C-21, Bill C-18 comes to mind. That particular bill, when it went through clause-by-clause study at its committee, had seven meetings, the equivalent of 14 hours, for clause-by-clause study, so that is more than enough time to get through it.

I know from my own experience, because I used to be a member of the public safety committee and have seen a lot of these amendments, that are a lot of them are very technical, small changes to the bill, especially the parts that deal with ghost guns. Not a lot of debate is going to be required on them. In fact, the committee can probably get through them in short order because they are repetitive and many different areas of the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act have to be updated to make sure that those existing statutes are in harmony with each another.

The other thing I want to turn to in my final three minutes goes back to the earlier part that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the overall mandate of the public safety committee. We have two really important pieces of legislation waiting in the wings, waiting for their turn to be examined at the public safety committee. They are Bill C-20 and Bill C-26.

Bill C-20 is going to create our first-ever public accountability and transparency network that is independent of the RCMP and the CBSA. In fact, the CBSA has never had an independent oversight mechanism. Looking at the public safety committee's report from the previous Parliament looking at systemic racism in policing and looking at all of the instances of injuries and sometimes death that have happened to people who had been in the custody of the CBSA, we see that these are important measures. We have had so many racialized Canadians, so many indigenous Canadians who have been calling out for these types of oversight measures for years. Why should those pieces of legislation continue to be pushed back while we draw out this process on Bill C-21?

Bill C-26 is an important piece of legislation, which I will be the first to admit needs a lot of work at committee, but it is going to really bring in line a lot of the cybersecurity requirements that are needed for some of our critical sectors, be they in banking, transportation, energy and so on. It is going to be a requirement for many of those private actors to bring their systems in line with a standard that is acceptable to the federal government. Again, a lot of work is needed, but no one in this House can deny or absolve themselves from the fact that these are important issues that deserve to have their turn at the public safety committee.

My ultimate motivation for this motion today is to get Bill C-21 on its way. We have had enough time at the committee. It has occupied so much time at the public safety committee, and it is time for the public safety committee to move on to other bills that are equally important to many other Canadians.

In conclusion, I ultimately am going to reserve my judgment on Bill C-21 until I see what the committee reports back to the House, but I will not agree to let that committee continue to be bogged down, especially when there is so much other important work to be done.

With that I conclude. I welcome any comments and questions from my colleagues.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of criticism reserved for the Liberals for when I give my remarks in a little bit, but I do want to turn to the remarks that were made by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

I will say, first of all, that I have great respect for her, and I enjoyed working with her at committee very much. However, I have to take issue with the remarks that she brought forward in the House when she said she is being silenced. I have spoken with the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, and on several occasions, he has tried to extend the sitting hours of the public safety committee to give the Conservatives and every party more time to look at these amendments. Every single time, the attempts were either rejected or filibustered. There were attempts made multiple times; that has to be made very clear.

I will wrap up with the second point I want to make. The member talks about rural communities; these communities also care about RCMP oversight and transparency, especially the indigenous communities in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. Why must they be made to wait for their turn to speak to Bill C-20, which has been waiting in the wings of the public safety committee and is an equally important piece of legislation? There has been ample time given. Why have the Conservatives not taken advantage of those offers?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, we miss the member on the committee, although we welcome his colleague. His contributions to this bill have been important and he is absolutely right.

Waiting in line at the public safety committee is Bill C-20, a bill that would provide important oversight for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency, something that, for many year, has been called for to enhance that oversight for the RCMP, but also provide oversight for CBSA for the very first time.

In addition to that, we have Bill C-26, which deals with cybersecurity. The member is absolutely correct. We have two important bills waiting, but we cannot get to them until we finish Bill C-21.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was glad to hear that the parliamentary secretary started her remarks with an acknowledgement of indigenous communities, because they led the way, with the Assembly of First Nations, in fighting against the amendments the government brought in at the eleventh hour. I am glad to see that those amendments were withdrawn. I would also thank committee members for passing my amendment to save the sport of airsoft. We have had a lot of very positive correspondence from that community, which is glad to see that the government will go back to the drawing board on this.

By my calculation, after tomorrow's meeting, the committee will have had eight hours on clause-by-clause. If this motion passes, there will be an additional 17 hours, which will be the equivalent of 12.5 meetings. By comparison, Bill C-18 only had seven meetings. I think there will be enough time to get this bill through.

Could the parliamentary secretary talk about the other bills that are waiting their turn at the public safety committee, like Bill C-20 and Bill C-26, and how important it is to look at those bills?

Red Dress Day

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Chair, Friday is Red Dress Day, a devastating and unacceptable reality in Canada also known as the National Day of Awareness for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and Two-Spirit People. Everyone has the right to safety and to live free from violence. All families deserve to know that if a loved one goes missing, every effort will be made to find them.

I want to thank the member for Winnipeg Centre, and I commit to working closely with her on finding justice for indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people, particularly around creating a red dress alert.

The release of the final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls prompted a period of deep reflection, and urgent action is required. In June 2021, the government released its pathway, which is aligned with the broader national action plan.

We must acknowledge colonialism's impact on the disproportionate representation of indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system. Indigenous women continue to be the fastest-growing prison population in Canada, and almost half of all federally sentenced women are indigenous. Most of the women whom I have visited in several women's prisons are there because of poverty, addiction, abuse, mental illness and intergenerational trauma.

Recently, Correctional Services appointed a deputy commissioner for indigenous corrections. This was a direct response to call to justice 5.23. Incarceration has a devastating impact on women and their children. If a woman is incarcerated, her child has a 25% chance of being convicted in adulthood. This is unacceptable. Corrections has also undertaken an expansion of the mother-child program at institutions for women offenders.

We must ensure safe spaces for indigenous women. Recently, I visited Saskatoon and helped announce an 18-bed transitional housing project in partnership with the Saskatoon Tribal Council and all levels of government. At the Thunder Woman Healing Lodge Society in Toronto, I have worked with Patti Pettigrew, who envisions a facility to support indigenous women. However, we need more of these initiatives.

Indigenous peoples have long been mistreated by law enforcement, going back to the time of residential schools, when the RCMP were used to forcibly remove children from their families. We know that we need to do more for reform. Our government introduced Bill C-20, which would enact a new stand-alone statute to provide an external review regime of oversight called the public complaints and review commission for both the RCMP and CBSA.

The RCMP is making progress on its first nations, Inuit and Métis recruitment strategy. This strategy is led through an indigenous lens, and it examines how systemic barriers can be further mitigated to ensure diverse and inclusive recruitment. Community-led and culturally sensitive approaches to community safety must be at the forefront. The government is co-developing first nations policing legislation with the Assembly of First Nations and first nations partners to recognize first nations policing as an essential service.

A red dress alert would notify the public when an indigenous woman, girl or two-spirit person went missing. We must put women, girls and two-spirit people, along with survivors, at the centre of the development. The member for Winnipeg Centre and I recently met with the Minister of Emergency Preparedness to determine next steps.

In budget 2023, our government announced investments of $2.5 million over the next five years to establish a federal-provincial-territorial-indigenous table, providing a forum to discuss and act on the red dress alert and other initiatives. The budget also announced a $2.6-million investment over three years to support the National Family and Survivors Circle in keeping families and survivors at the centre of the implementation of the national action plan and federal pathway.

When I was in British Columbia recently, I spoke with grassroots female advocates from You Empowered Strong and others in the Okanagan. They talked about their efforts in their communities to engage the public's assistance in their search for loved ones.

The government must support those efforts, and a red dress alert would send a strong signal to Canadians and to indigenous peoples that we value the lives of indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people. I not only give my personal commitment, but I know that the government is also committed to working with indigenous partners, communities, and provinces and territories while centring survivors and their families for the success of a red dress initiative.

We cannot stand by while first nations, Inuit and Métis women, girls and two-spirit people go missing. If they do, every effort must be made to find them. Their lives matter, and we must urgently act for change.

Telecommunications Act

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be joining the debate today to offer some of my thoughts and perspective on Bill C-26, a much awaited bill on a cybersecurity infrastructure.

Bill C-26 is a good reminder to members that the Department of Public Safety and its subject matter is so much bigger than just firearms, because, of course, firearms and Bill C-21 have been dominating the news cycle for the last couple of months. That bill, in particular at the public safety committee, has occupied so much time and wasted so many resources. Bill C-26 is a good reminder that with cybersecurity we have so many other agencies that are dedicated to national security under the umbrella of public safety. Cybersecurity is a big subject matter. We also have Bill C-20, which is an important bill on oversight and accountability for both the CBSA and RCMP.

Today, we would not find many members in the House of Commons who are arguing against the need for better cybersecurity. All of the evidence out there points to this being a new and evolving threat. Artificial intelligence systems offer some interesting advantages, but with those advantages come threats and with those threats come actors who are determined to use them in nefarious ways that will harm and have harmed Canada's interests. We need a whole host of options to counter this threat. We need our national security agencies to take these threats with increased importance. We also need legislation to fill in the gaps and make sure that all of Canada's laws are up to date.

I have spent a lot of time on the public safety committee. We did a couple of reports that directly touched on this area. One of our first reports identified violent extremism. Our most recent study looked at the threat posed by Russia. We know that since Russia conducted its invasion of Ukraine, which has recently passed the one-year anniversary, it has also increased the threats that it offers to Canada and to like-minded countries. One of those areas is cybersecurity.

Our committee has not yet tabled its report, which should be tabled in the House of Commons soon so that members of the House and the public can not only see the results of the deliberations, but also see the important recommendations that the committee is going to make. However, we heard a lot of testimony during those committee hearings on the cyber-related threats from Russia. Many witnesses identified that those are among the most serious and relevant for Canada's public safety and national security, particularly in relation to critical infrastructure.

I want to set this table before I get into the nuts and bolts of what Bill C-26 is offering, but also set some of the problems that are in evidence with this first version of the bill.

We have to understand a few basic terms. The Government of Canada refers to critical infrastructure as the “processes, systems, facilities, technologies, networks, assets and services essential to the health, safety, security or economic well-being of Canadians and the effective functioning of government”, whether that is the federal government, the provincial governments or our municipal governments. Because so many of those pieces of critical infrastructure are now tied into computer systems that are vulnerable to attack, a bill like this becomes quite necessary.

I could go on and on about all of the critical systems in our modern society and the range of sectors, from our energy production to our food distribution systems to our electricity grid and transportation networks and how our ports and our banking system work. If one were to interrupt any one of those services, it could create absolute havoc within any Canadian community or countrywide.

One of the witnesses we had during our public safety meetings on the topic of the threats posed from Russia, and this was just talking about the cyber-threat more broadly, was Jennifer Quaid, Executive Director of the Canadian Cyber Threat Exchange. She reminded our committee that there are nation-states that are conducting espionage and statecraft through the Internet, but there are also criminals who are engaging in cybercrime for financial gain.

In some cases, those criminal groups and the nation-states are working together. There is evidence of this not only in Russia but in places like North Korea and China, where it is almost like the policy that was in place back in the 1700s and 1600s, where privateers would go out and do a nation-state's bidding. In this modern-day version of that policy, there are criminal organizations that are working hand in glove with some nation-states to give them some plausible deniability, but the systems they are using do pose a very real threat to Canada.

One of our key witnesses during the study was Caroline Xavier, Chief of the Communications Security Establishment. She was not able to go into much detail or specifics, given the very sensitive nature of the topic, but she was able to assure the committee that cybercrime is absolutely the most prevalent and most pervasive threat to Canadians and Canadian businesses. She observed that the state-sponsored cyber programs of China, North Korea, Iran and Russia posed the greatest strategic threat to Canada, and that foreign cyber-threat activities have included attempts to target Canadian critical infrastructure operators, as well as their operational and information technology.

Leaving aside the government, it is important for members to realize that most of Canada's critical infrastructure is, by and large, in the hands of the private sector. This is going to underline some of the important elements of Bill C-26.

We also had testimony from David Shipley, Chief Executive Officer of Beauceron Security. He was relaying the same stuff about Russian criminal organizations working in tandem with the government, and saying that criminal gangs have crippled Canadian municipalities. They have gone after health care organizations. The range of malicious cyber-activity has absolutely extended to many small and medium-sized enterprises.

When we look at the reporting requirements of Bill C-26, one of the biggest gaps that we have in our system is the fact that many businesses, private enterprises, are loath to report the fact that their systems have experienced a cyber-attack. They may be threatened to not do so. There is also a very real concern about the institutional harm that could come from the public release of said information. A large corporation that relays to its customers that it has experienced a cyber-attack may find people are loath to do business with it if they are unsure that its systems are up to par.

I also want to highlight a recent example from 2021, where the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador experienced a health records cyber-attack on October 30. The investigation revealed that over 200,000 files were taken that contained confidential patient information.

One can just imagine that in a province the size of Newfoundland and Labrador the fact that over 200,000 files were taken, that is a shocking theft of personal and confidential information. It really underlines just how important addressing this is.

I also want to touch briefly on the topic of artificial intelligence. I want to read a quote from a recent Hill Times article. This is from Jérémie Harris who is one of the co-founders of Gladstone AI, which is an artificial intelligence safety committee. He says:

But perhaps more concerning are the national security implications of these impressive capabilities. ChatGPT has been used to generate highly effective and unprecedented forms of malware, and the technology behind it can be used to power hyperscaled election interference operations and phishing attacks. These applications—and countless other, equally concerning ones also enabled by new advances in AI—would have been the stuff of science fiction just two years ago.

He goes on to say:

...ChatGPT is a harbinger of an era in which AI will be the single most important source of public safety risk facing Canada. As AI advances at a breakneck pace, the destructive footprint of malicious actors who use it will increase just as fast. Likewise, AI accidents—now widely viewed by AI safety specialists as a source of global catastrophic risk—will take more significant and exotic forms.

Something all members of the House really have to be aware of is how, just in the last two years, AI has advanced so quickly. We can think about what AI will be capable of two years or a decade from now. Just as Mr. Harris said, what it is doing right now was inconceivable just two years ago. The fact that AI is now being used to generate unique code for malware indicates there is no telling what it can be used to do and how it could be used to wreak havoc. That underlies just how important this issue is and how seriously we, as parliamentarians, have to take it as we serve our constituents and do the important work of equipping our nation with the tools it needs to keep Canadians, and the critical infrastructure they depend upon, safe.

When I was a member of the public safety committee, I had a chance to speak with Mr. Harris. I actually put a motion on notice that the committee should be undertaking a study on the range of threats posed to Canada's public safety, national security and critical infrastructure, specifically by AI systems. I hope one day the committee can take that study up, but it is a committee with a very heavy workload. It is still trying to find its way through Bill C-21. It is waiting for Bill C-20 to arrive on its door and, of course, this bill, Bill C-26, would also keep committee members quite busy.

I would like now to turn to the specifics of Bill C-26 and what it is attempting to do. It is separated into two main parts. According to the summary of the bill:

Part 1 amends the Telecommunications Act to add the promotion of the security of the Canadian telecommunications system as an objective of the Canadian telecommunications policy and to authorize the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry to direct telecommunications service providers to do anything, or refrain from doing anything, that is necessary to secure the Canadian telecommunications system.

There are a number of orders that the Minister of Industry could issue. For example, he or she could prohibit a TSP from using any specified product or service in its networks or facilities; direct a TSP to remove a specified product from its networks or facilities; impose conditions on a TSP’s use of any product or service; subject a TSP’s networks or facilities, as well as its procurement plans for those networks or facilities, to a specified review process. Those are just a few examples of how the minister's orders could be issued. The bill does require the Governor in Council or the Minister of Industry to publish these orders in the Canada Gazette, but there is an allowance in the bill to allow these provisions to be prohibited, so the government can prevent the disclosure of these orders within the Gazette if they feel they need to be kept secret.

Part 2 would enact a brand new statute of Canada, a critical cyber systems protection act, which would “provide a framework for the protection of the critical cyber systems of services and systems that are vital to national security or public safety”. In schedule 1 of the government's bill there is a brief list. Vital systems and services can include telecommunication services, interprovincial or international pipelines and power line systems, and nuclear energy systems. Those are a few examples. A really important point is that the Governor in Council, through this bill, would be able to establish classes of operators and require designated operators to establish and implement cybersecurity programs.

This is where the bill would affect the private sector and make sure those cybersecurity programs are in place, especially when that private sector is involved in critical infrastructure. As a brief outline, with those cybersecurity programs, the expected outcomes would be that they could identify and manage any cyber-risk to the organization, including supply chain risks; prevent their critical cyber systems from being compromised; detect cybersecurity incidents; and limit the damage in the event a cybersecurity incident did occur.

I want to talk about concerns with the bill, because there are a lot of concerns. I have had the chance to speak with a number of organizations, but first and foremost was OpenMedia. I had a great conversation with the people there. There is a section on its website that specifically deals with Bill C-26. OpenMedia absolutely realizes that new cybersecurity protections are needed to protect Canada's infrastructure, but it believes they have to be balanced by appropriate safeguards, and this is to prevent their abuse and misuse.

We rely on these essential services, and their protection is important, but Bill C-26, as it is currently written, would give the executive branch huge sweeping powers. In my reading of the bill, there would not be enough accountability and oversight; there would not be enough review mechanisms for Parliament to check the power of the executive, and I think this is a critical point. I think, in principle, we have a good idea with the bill, but a lot of work will be needed at committee to ensure that this executive power would be checked and that it would fit within the parameters of the law. We absolutely must have that kind of parliamentary oversight.

I also know of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which said:

The problems with the Bill lie in the fact that the new and discretionary powers introduced by C-26 are largely unconstrained by safeguards to ensure those powers are used, when necessary, in ways that are proportionate, with due consideration for privacy and other rights. The lack of provisions around accountability and transparency make it all more troubling still.

I think, at this stage, we want to ensure, with the minister's powers to order or direct service providers, and the requirement to comply with these orders, that these powers are being subjected to the appropriate safeguard mechanisms. They are quite broad, as currently written.

In conclusion, I want to see a bill that protects vulnerable groups from cyber-attacks. So many Canadians rely on these critical systems, and we know so many have been targeted and are being targeted as we speak, and we know these dangers are going to multiply and get worse the longer we go on. We want to make sure they are protected, but we want to make sure that we do not have broad unchecked ministerial powers with no public oversight. That is the balance that must be achieved.

I must express, in my closing minute, my personal frustration with how the Liberals draft their bills. The idea behind Bill C-26 is a good one, but the problem with how the Liberals drafted the bill is that it would give huge sweeping amount of power to the executive branch. I just wish they would have had the foresight to understand that, of course, these provisions would be met with opposition. It seems the Liberals are putting the work on committee members to fix the bill for them, rather than having had the foresight and intuition to understand that these are problematic elements of the bill.

I think a lot more work could have been done on the government's side to have presented a better first draft. I guess we have what we have to work with, but a lot of work is going to be needed to be done at committee, and I look forward to seeing members do that work.

I also look forward to voting for the bill at second reading and sending it to committee. I welcome any questions or comments from my colleagues.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Edmonton Strathcona, who has done incredible work on this file.

Throughout the debate today, I have heard issues raised about the lack of clarity in this bill and the fact that there is not enough parliamentary oversight into the sanctions regime. I am just wondering if my hon. colleague could tell the House if that would inform her committee strategy. Does she see that there might be opportunities amongst the government and opposition sides to reach a compromise to make sure that the important aspect of parliamentary oversight is there?

I have noticed that, in public safety bills introduced earlier in this session, notably in Bill C-20 and in Bill C-26, there was a clear lack of parliamentary oversight specified. That will inform our strategy going forward. I am just wondering if the member could add some further comments on that.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in several other public safety bills, notably Bill C-20 and Bill C-26, I have noticed, in the way the bills are written, there is a lack of avenue for parliamentary oversight.

One thing that has been missing with this sanctions regime is also a lack of parliamentary oversight. Would Conservatives join with New Democrats at committee to look for avenues in which this bill could be strengthened to buttress up parliamentary oversight so members of the House could make sure the government is doing its job when it should be doing its job?

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are not going to stop the supports we have for Canadians. In fact, I would suggest to the member opposite that making sure our most vulnerable are protected is critical. That is why we have a number of things we are going to be doing in that regard, which I will illuminate in a moment.

As to the other question that was put, I do seriously want to ask, if the Conservatives are opposed to action on the climate, whether they have reflected about what the costs are. These are not costs that will be borne for a year or two but for all time. It is something to reflect on regarding the questions that were posed to me.

I am pleased that this afternoon we are going to complete the second reading debate of Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other acts. Tomorrow, we will go back to the second reading debate of Bill C-20, concerning the public complaints and review commission act. On Monday, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-27, the digital charter implementation act, 2022. For Tuesday and Wednesday, we will call Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, which was reported with amendments from committee earlier this week.

Mr. Speaker, I see you moving in your chair, so you will be happy to know that, finally, for next Thursday, our plan is to commence second reading debate of Bill C-26, the critical cyber systems protection act.

Public Safety

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his continued good work on the public safety committee, his keen interest in the issue of police accountability and oversight, and his pragmatic, progressive leadership on a number of issues for which we share a passion.

The hon. member knows that the independence of law enforcement is vital to our democracy. Good governance is essential to good policing. I look forward to reviewing the legislation he has brought forward, and I will continue to work with all members of the House in support of the continued independence of the RCMP.

I would also add that police operational independence is a key principle that underpins the rule of law. Our government has always respected the independence of the police, so that they can never be subject to political interference. This is imperative so that the public trusts that the police will follow the rule of law and, as such, that the police will act in the public interest.

As well, I trust that members will agree when I say that it is the government's duty and responsibility to the Canadian public to ask questions about how police can best serve our communities. I will continue to push the RCMP to meet the needs of the communities it serves and transform its culture into one in which accountability, equity, diversity and inclusion are foundational tenets.

Police services in Canada are entrusted with a broad mandate and significant powers to enforce the law, keep the peace and maintain public safety. Maintaining the trust of the public through accountable, transparent policing is crucial to effective policing in a democratic society.

The government is committed to improving civilian oversight of the RCMP. We are advancing accountability in several areas, including our commitment to enhance and strengthen the role of the management advisory board, an independent body that provides advice and expertise to the commissioner.

The government has also introduced Bill C-20, which would establish a new public complaints and review commission for the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency. The bill is a pivotal step forward in ensuring the transparency and accountability of these organizations, and it represents a commitment to Canadians that they can expect consistent, fair and equitable treatment when interacting with these organizations. I know the hon. member shares my hope that this legislation will pass quickly, so that we can raise the bar on transparency and accountability and increase the confidence of Canadians in their law enforcement institutions while respecting the operational independence of policing institutions in Canada.

Bill C-32—Time Allocation Motion

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, by my count, I think that the vast majority of last week was spent debating Bill C-32. Unfortunately, the House cannot debate two bills at any one time. As a consequence of last week, Bill C-20, the important oversight legislation for both the CBSA and the RCMP, has been bumped to tomorrow.

People have been waiting for years for an effective oversight mechanism for both of these agencies. The CBSA has never had this kind of oversight. There are other interests in play. I know that the Conservatives would like to keep on debating Bill C-32, but indigenous people in Canada, racialized people and so many people who have been at the wrong receiving end of both the RCMP and the CBSA have been waiting years for this important accountability and oversight legislation.

I hope that, after we get through Bill C-32 and it is sent to committee, I have a commitment from the government that Bill C-20 will get the priority it deserves.

We waited in the 42nd Parliament for Bill C-98 when that member was here. We waited in the last Parliament for Bill C-3 and we now, finally, have Bill C-20. I want to see a commitment that this bill will get the time it deserves.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. Bloc Québécois colleague, who is a very reasonable person. He is right, but when someone asks me a question, it is my job to answer. Every time I am asked the Thursday question, I try to answer as clearly and directly as possible.

Moving back to the calendar, as I know the hon. House leader for the opposition is keenly awaiting this information, this afternoon and tomorrow we will continue with the debate on Bill C-32, concerning the fall economic statement. Of course, we look forward to that hon. colleague's support for this.

Next week, we will be focusing on the second reading debate of Bill C-20, the public complaints and review commission act; Bill S-4, COVID-19 measures; and Bill C-27, the digital charter implementation act, 2022.

Public Safety

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to work with my hon. colleague on the private member's bill he put forward this morning.

In the meantime, I want to update the chamber and say that my mandate calls for strengthened standards when it comes to the use of force, strengthening the role of the management advisory board, and finally Bill C-20, which will ensure there is an opportunity for Canadians who have concerns regarding the quality of service they are getting from the RCMP and the CBSA, for the first time. This is legislation that I hope we will pass with great haste so that we can raise the bar on transparency and accountability and ensure the confidence of Canadians in their law enforcement institutions.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is always a chance. I hear the member opposite saying there is a chance. Although we have many and great differences, there is always hope for us, and I look forward to that hope.

I am very pleased to say that this afternoon, we are going to complete third reading debate of Bill C-31 with respect to dental care and rental housing. Tomorrow, we will finish second reading debate of Bill C-9 concerning the Judges Act. On Monday, we will continue to the fifth day of the second reading debate for Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Tuesday, as members will be happy to note, is an allotted day. On Wednesday, we will commence debate on Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act (COVID-19 response and other measures). On Thursday, we will call Bill C-20, the public complaints and review commission act. For next Friday, our plan is to start second reading debate of Bill C-27, the digital charter implementation act, 2022.

I would also like to inform the House that next Wednesday during Routine Proceedings, under ministerial statements, the Minister of Veterans Affairs will be pleased to deliver a statement for Remembrance Day.

Opposition Motion—Ties Between the Canadian State and the Monarchy

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all day long, both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party have been trying to dodge the issue. They say it is not the right time to talk about this and we should talk about inflation and fighting the pandemic instead.

Over the past few weeks, however, we have talked about bills C‑3, C‑5, C‑9, C‑20 and S‑4, none of which have anything to do with inflation or fighting the pandemic.

Does my colleague think we waste our time in the House every day? Should we talk about nothing but inflation and the pandemic? Can we not walk and chew gum at the same time?

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, what I can assure the member opposite, my hon. opposition House leader, is that the government will continue to be introducing legislation that helps Canadians with affordability and makes their lives easier in these globally difficult and conflicted times.

With respect to the immediate term, I can tell the House that tomorrow we will turn to Bill C-9, which concerns the Judges Act at second reading. On Monday, we will continue with the second reading debate on Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Tuesday shall be an allotted day.

On Wednesday, we will commence with the second reading debate on Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act, related to COVID-19 response and other measures. On Thursday, we will deal with the report stage and third reading of Bill C-31, with respect to dental care and rental housing.

We also hope to make progress next week on Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments.

Criminal Code

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was very happy to see the government also introduce Bill C-20, which is the result of some very considerate recommendations from a report in the previous Parliament on systemic racism in policing in Canada. That bill would set up a public complaints and review commission: It is a stand-alone piece of legislation, a stand-alone agency, that would have the authority to investigate both the CBSA and the RCMP. It would require statutory timelines for responses to its investigations, and it would have the funds necessary to hold both of those law enforcement agencies to account.