Debates of June 10th, 2024

Opposition Motion—Foreign Interference in Democratic Institutions

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to discuss the government's efforts to protect our democratic institutions. As members know, Canada has an enviable international reputation because of the stability of its system and democratic institutions. It is important to remember that we have a strong electoral system built on a proven legal framework, and that Elections Canada is a high-calibre election administration agency that is the envy of many.

Obviously, we do not take the threat of foreign interference lightly, and it is essential that we continue to improve our approach. Last year was eventful to say the least, and a lot of attention was drawn to these important concerns. Just in the last few weeks, in addition to the Hogue commission's initial report, reports were also published by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency.

I would like to remind members that these two agencies began their respective studies following the Prime Minister's announcement in March 2023. These accountability mechanisms are essential to ensure transparency and contribute directly to the government's commitment to continue to improve its response to this threat, which is also constantly evolving.

In that same announcement, the Prime Minister asked the hon. Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs and Janice Charette, the former clerk of the Privy Council, to present a report on the government's approach to implement certain recommendations on foreign interference. That report was presented to the Prime Minister a month later. The approach set out in that report centres on four specific themes.

The first of these themes is communication with the Canadian public, meaning the need for transparency and the need to equip citizens with knowledge in this area. Communication is a key element in the fight against attempted interference in Canadian democracy. The government recognizes the importance of better communicating information about the threat of foreign interference and the measures taken by the government to deal with it. Much has already been done in this regard. For example, intelligence agencies have been publishing reports on foreign interference in elections since 2017. In addition, one component of the plan to protect Canada's democracy is the digital citizen initiative, overseen by Canadian Heritage, which aims to build the resilience of citizens and Canadian society against online disinformation.

Our work did not stop there. Since the release of this report, rapid response mechanism Canada, located at Global Affairs Canada, has released two reports exposing foreign actors' disinformation campaigns targeting elected members of the House. The Minister of Public Safety also announced details on the funding for the Canadian digital media research network to further strengthen Canadians' resilience to the increasingly complex information ecosystem. The minister also released tool kits to resist disinformation and foreign interference for elected officials, public servants and community leaders. These tools have been shared with several partners, including provincial and territorial ministers.

These initiatives are just a few examples of how the government is communicating with Canadians on these important issues. We recognize that more work needs to be done in this regard, and we are continuing our efforts. It is important to remember that this kind of communication comes with significant challenges. While we recognize the need for transparency, it is important that it not come at the expense of national security and the safety of those who risk so much, sometimes even their lives, to enable the collection of intelligence that is essential to our efforts to combat foreign interference. In her recent report, Commissioner Hogue aptly explains how difficult it is to strike a balance.

As members of the House can see, we have already made considerable progress on this first theme, as highlighted by the minister and Ms. Charette. The same is true for the second theme, which concerns governance and legal frameworks. This report demonstrated the government's commitment to considering improvements to the legal framework supporting the capacity of intelligence agencies, in particular the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, and our electoral process.

The Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs recently introduced two important bills in the House in support of these commitments.

First, Bill C-70, an act respecting countering foreign interference, proposes important measures, including an update to CSIS' mandate. I would like to highlight the addition of offences related to foreign interference in democratic processes to the Security of Information Act.

The minister also introduced Bill C-65, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. This bill continues to improve our electoral processes, including by implementing many of the Chief Electoral Officer's recommendations. This bill builds on the 2018 Elections Modernization Act as part of our efforts to counter foreign interference in our elections. I hope that all members in the House will support this bill.

The minister promised to advance these priorities and he did. Now it is up to members of the House and the representatives at the other place to ensure that these bills are adopted swiftly. The government continues to advance the commitments in the report discussed this evening that was submitted to the Prime Minister in March 2023. Our work continues.

This brings me to the report's third theme. It highlights the requirement for the government to have the ability to evaluate risks and vulnerabilities resulting from the growing threat posed by foreign interference in order to be able to adapt the government's tool kit to the evolving threat.

The recent reports, as well as the deliberations of the public inquiry into foreign interference in federal electoral processes and democratic institutions, provide valuable information that we can use to further improve existing measures for countering the threat of foreign interference. Among other things, this includes measures introduced under the plan to protect Canada's democracy.

As the report states, our government will continue to explore further enhancements to this plan. This will include an examination of making the Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections Task Force a permanent entity, with a mandate to conduct regular reporting on foreign interference activities.

Lastly, I would be remiss not to mention the final theme of the report, which involves engagement to raise awareness and improve resilience to foreign interference. I have already mentioned some of the government's efforts in this regard, including the publication of information kits to resist disinformation and foreign interference. The work on this is also ongoing, and resources have been invested to ensure active progress on these efforts.

The Government of Canada also created the Protecting Democracy Unit within the Privy Council Office to coordinate, develop and implement government-wide measures. These teams are working with other agencies and partners within government and with stakeholders to advance these efforts.

Perhaps I should remind my colleagues that, when we swear our oath or affirmation of allegiance, we are swearing allegiance to democratic institutions and the principle of democracy. That means we have to take our responsibilities seriously, and I find it reassuring that the government is committed to better informing partners about the threat of foreign interference.

I am ready for questions.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague, who is also a wise fellow member of the Standing Committee on International Trade. That is what I want to talk about, in fact. Unfortunately, I ran out of time at the end of my speech earlier, but my colleague from Mirabel asked me an interesting question that I would also like to put to my Standing Committee on International Trade colleague.

Several of Canada's trading and economic partners are justifiably suspicious, because, if there is interference, there is also the possibility that Canada is nothing but a conduit for foreign interests. Does the member sense that Canada's partners are worried or afraid?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, I work very well with my colleague across the way at the Standing Committee on International Trade, and I think that we are still in the process of ensuring that we are doing the right things. Obviously, we have concerns. With the bills we are discussing this evening, we are making sure that we have the right tools to reduce any fears that companies may have and address the threats that they believe the country is facing.

We will continue to work together to build this trust that will allow us to continue to prosper and work together.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, in the NSICOP report, the committee noted that NSICOP tabled its first report indicating concerns around foreign interference activities back in 2018. Since then, there have been two other reports with this latest one. The government said that it would take action, but there was a huge gap when no action was taken. As a result, we saw that leaks surfaced in the media, which propelled the government to action. The NSICOP report actually noted that, because of the gap, we are sending all the wrong messages; we are basically saying that there is no deterrent for foreign interference actors and that they can carry on with business as usual. Therefore, in light of this and the severity of foreign interference into Canada's democratic institutions and processes, would the member agree that Commissioner Hogue should be given unfettered access to all unredacted documents, both within cabinet and what was provided to NSICOP, so that we can get to the bottom of the situation?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question and the context she provided. As we can see, the government did take steps to set up the Hogue commission and ensure that the mandate it was given had parameters.

These parameters are numerous, and they are being followed. We will leave it to Commissioner Hogue to continue to write her report and make recommendations. The government is taking action. We see that with the introduction of Bill C‑70 and Bill C‑65.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the reality is this: The commissioner is not able to get access to unredacted documents. In my view, that is impeding the ability for the commission to do its work, to rebuild trust in the hearts and minds of Canadians and all parliamentarians. Again, is it not time for the government to do what is necessary and give the commissioner unfettered access to unredacted cabinet documents, as well as intelligence documents?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, again, I am sure that Commissioner Hogue will be able to do her work and that she will ask for everything she needs to be able to finalize her report and make recommendations to the government. I am sure that this will happen within the scope of the mandate she received.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to see my colleagues here this evening to debate the important issue of foreign interference in Canadian elections. Today, our democratic life has reached the very heart of the House of Commons.

The report that the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians released last week, which is a redacted version—we do not have access to all the information—is literally a bombshell. I will read the part of paragraph 55, on page 25, that we are allowed to read: “Some elected officials, however, began wittingly assisting foreign state actors soon after their election”. Obviously, some sentences are redacted, but there are reportedly several members of Parliament who provided—not would provide—“confidential information to Indian officials”.

When we pick up a version of this document in the lobby and start reading it on our way to the House, and we come across that, it means we are in crisis. What is surprising is that the party proposing a solution to the crisis, so that the public can regain confidence in its elected assembly, is the Bloc Québécois.

Let us be clear: This is not about protecting the Canada of today. It is about defending a fundamental principle that is supposed to be universal. I am talking about the representation of elected officials and the representation of democracy. All of that hinges on trust.

Every riding is important. I say that as a token of esteem for my colleagues. Every riding is important and every elected member in the House is important. That is why we have a hard time trusting the Prime Minister to take action. That is why we are trying to push the Prime Minister. He has a lot to answer for. We read in the Hogue commission's report that there was interference in the riding of Don Valley North and that the Prime Minister knew about it. The testimony showed that he had the reports, he had the information. We do not know whether or not he read them. It still looks like he is not interested. The Hogue commission's report said that the Liberals claimed they did nothing because they expected to win the riding.

Every elected representative is important. Independent members are important. Green Party members are important. The Conservatives are important. The Liberals are important. What would we do without the member for Winnipeg North? All elected representatives are important, but the government does not seem to think so, based on the way it is dealing with the issue of foreign interference. Its actions do not reflect that.

The Prime Minister has given us every reason to doubt his seriousness. Earlier, I was listening to the member for Ottawa—Vanier recite the litany of measures they have taken. The reality is that the information had to be released. The reality is that these measures are insufficient. Journalists only got the information because of CSIS data leaks. At that time, there were calls for a public inquiry.

I was elected in 2021. That was one of the first major incidents I witnessed. Everyone was rising in the House every day and calling for a public inquiry. The Prime Minister refused to call one, eventually deciding that it was untenable. The government is always in reaction mode. That is what it is doing today. We welcome the government's support, but it is reactive.

The Liberals appointed a friend. Everyone knows that a friend is a friend. They appointed their friend Mr. Johnston, who is a respectable individual. I, for one, would not want my friends to put me in that type of situation. A real friend would not put a person in the situation that the Liberals put Mr. Johnston in. No one needs friends like that. In passing, I do not have many Liberal friends. Mr. Johnston's finding was that nothing was going on, that nothing went on and that all is well. We were just supposed to carry on and act as though nothing ever happened.

The member for Ottawa—Vanier just gave a speech that was likely written by the Prime Minister's Office. Those are the same people who were saying that nothing was going on, that we needed to carry on and that that was the least of their concerns. How long has it been? It has been a year, and today we are living with suspicion in the air.

First, the Hogue commission gave us some information. We are starting to wrap our heads around it. I know there are allegations. I know that there are secret agents' reports, intelligence reports and so on. There could be rumours or unsubstantiated information in there. However, almost everything lines up. They say that there is no smoke without fire. Well, there is enough smoke to fill the sky right now. We know something is going on. There is suspicion in the air.

Personally, I respect my colleagues. We have differences of opinion, different political choices. We come from different places politically, geographically and linguistically, but we respect each other because we represent those who elected us. This affair does not sit well with me. For me, it is a violation of my privilege not to know whether the person in front of me represents Indian, Chinese or Russian interests. That is why we absolutely must expand the commission's terms of reference.

The government did not want that commission. It had to be negotiated last summer. The negotiations went on for some time. Eventually, a commission was struck. At the time, the terms of reference were fine. They suited us because the issue was election interference. We wanted the commission to cover the most pressing, urgent issue, because there was the prospect of an election. The NDP wanted something else, but that was the thinking at the time. People thought there might be an election, so it made sense to focus on that. Today, we know that there are people sitting here among us who are doing things that cannot be undone. These people no longer belong among us in this assembly. We do not know who these people are. Now, the Conservatives want a list of names.

The day after the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians report was released, we asked some questions here. The NDP asked questions. Everyone asked questions. Two parties were less interested. There were the Conservatives, who were probably asking about the carbon tax because that is all they know how to do, and then there were the Liberals, who, when we asked questions about foreign interference, wanted to talk about the interest rate. The Liberals have changed their tune since then. They probably realize that they cannot survive if they do not support this motion. That leaves the Conservatives.

At some point, the Conservatives will also have to stop spreading disinformation. As everyone knows, we are fighting against foreign powers that may co-opt organizations here, that may even co-opt elected members of the House, though we do not know how, and that can engage in disinformation campaigns and fundraise through local election campaigns. We are now dealing with a situation where the Conservatives are spreading disinformation by saying that the government has the right to release a list of names, when in fact that would be against the law. It is not right to fight fire with fire in these circumstances.

The Hogue commission, which is already at work, must have its terms of reference expanded. It needs more resources, more time and expanded terms of reference so that it is not limited to analyzing the last two elections. Even before the NSICOP report came out, we were asking for more time for the Hogue commission because we felt it needed it. Today, I think we will be able to achieve that if the government honours the will of the House and respects the motion, assuming it is adopted.

Now the Conservatives have a moral duty. If democracy is important to them and if the facts are important to them, they have a moral duty to support this motion. The Conservatives have a troubled history. Lying has become their trademark as of late. Fabrications have become their trademark. Misquoting reports from the Parliamentary Budget Officer has become their trademark. If, for once, the members of this party are able to show that they have a shred of respect for the truth, for facts, for democracy and for our institutions, they will support this motion. I have every confidence that, between now and the vote, all members of the House will shoulder their responsibilities and unanimously adopt the Bloc Québécois motion.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, given the power and authority that all leaders of political parties have in terms of even signing off on the ability to be nominated and run in a federal election, would the member not agree that all leaders should take advantage of the opportunity to get the security clearance, so that they can actually take a look at the documents and see the information, a lot of which is information that the member has been talking about as critical information? Leaders do have that opportunity, yet the Conservative leader continues to say, “No, I do not want to know.”

I am interested in what the member's thoughts are in regard to when he made reference to moral responsibilities. Is there a responsibility for the leader of the Conservative Party to get the security clearance so that he can actually see the information we are talking about?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Québécois said that he was thinking about the opportunity of such a briefing. At one time, it was seen as a trap. Agreeing to this security briefing means getting the information and the names. However, those who obtain the names are not allowed to disclose them, not allowed to talk about it and not allowed to act on this information. We are effectively being shut down. I think that the NDP leader received the security briefing, but so what? Do we know anything? The answer is no.

To me, I think that the leaders should calmly and seriously think about receiving this briefing, making their decisions and, legally, take the necessary measures within their party. However, that is no substitute for the Hogue commission, which has to get to the bottom of things and report publicly on what it can.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 7 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois requests a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred until Tuesday, June 11, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

moved that Bill C-20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments, be read the third time and passed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-20 this evening. This is a piece of legislation that the government thought was fairly straightforward. When we take a serious look at the essence of the bill, it would provide a sense of public confidence in our bureaucratic system.

For many years, there was an independent commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, where, if there were complaints or issues surrounding them, the public knew they had a way they could address a grievance of one form or another by going to the commission. I thought that it was fairly well established and that people had a basic understanding of the true value of having something of this nature. It has done well. If we look at the different agencies across Canada, particularly law enforcement agencies, we often hear about the importance of having some sort of checks in place to ensure a higher level of accountability.

In Manitoba today, for example, there is a sense of independence in offices, where it is not necessarily the police checking on the police or holding the police accountable when there is a grievance, but it is an independent board. It is important that it be independent for the simple reason that there would be far more confidence in the person bringing forward the grievance or the complaint. That is really important to recognize. Whether it is for provincial jurisdictions or for the RCMP, this has been deemed by all aspects of society as absolutely essential.

When we look at the Canada Border Services Agency and the fine work that border officers do, day in and day out, at the end of the day, there was no independent body at the same level as the RCMP. It makes sense. The government had a choice. We could have a stand-alone independent body for the RCMP and we could also have a stand-alone body for the Canada Border Services Agency, but it was determined that the best thing would be to bring the two agencies together.

I should have started my comments by highlighting that, even though we are bringing forward this legislation, it is not a reflection on the fine work that the border agents or the RCMP members do. The vast majority of the work is done in an outstanding fashion. Countries around the world often look at what is happening in Canada, through these two agencies. Unlike in many other countries, these institutions are held in high esteem, particularly the RCMP. I have travelled to nations where the confidence level in their national policing agencies is nowhere near as high or as respected as it is in Canada because of issues such as alleged corruption, whether real or perceived.

Periodically, I talk to individuals who came from another country, and they talk about the RCMP being the difference between Canada and some other nations. The RCMP, especially when one puts on that red uniform, is something that is highly respected. Historically, it might not necessarily have been a shining gold star. Yes, there have been many mistakes, but we have been able to overcome those mistakes, and in good part, still today, we look at ways we can compensate for those mistakes.

A good example of that is the record with the RCMP and indigenous people of Canada. There has been a great deal of effort through truth and reconciliation, with all forms of gestures and actions, to deal with some of those issues. By doing that in a public way, it does what the board has actually been doing; it helps build confidence in the institution. I believe we should all strive to see that. Fast forward to today, where we have the legislation that recognizes the importance of having these independent agencies. Through this legislation, we would create the opportunity for the Canada Border Services Agency to be incorporated into a new entity both for the RCMP and for the CBSA.

I thought this would have been universally well received by all members in the chamber. I was surprised at the degree to which members of the official opposition have resisted passing the legislation. I was not participating at the committee level, so I could not tell members how they performed at the committee level, but I was here during the report stage and the second reading stage. The lack of goodwill in recognizing the legislation was somewhat disappointing. When we actually got to the report stage, in fact, the Conservatives moved an amendment to it. It was what I would classify as a silly amendment; it was to delete the short title. When I look at the legislation, it suggested, in an amendment at the report stage, that this act may be cited as the public complaints and review commission act. That is the short title.

When one looks at the short title, one questions the benefit of moving that amendment. The reality is that the only purpose of moving that amendment was to delay the passage of the legislation. That is the reason that they moved that amendment and the reason that we see some of the behaviour of Conservative members, in particular, dealing with second reading, whether it is Bill C-20 or other pieces of legislation. That is why we see many of the concurrence reports brought through. Time and time again, and Bill C-20 is an excellent example of this, the Conservatives are more determined to try to prevent legislation from passing.

A lot of that legislation is solid, tangible legislation that would make a difference in the lives of Canadians. When I look at this piece of legislation, I look at the many benefits of it, and I fully expected that the legislation would have passed relatively quickly. I know that Conservatives are going to be following my comments this evening, so it will be interesting to to hear where their objections to the legislation actually are. Do they not feel that the principles of the legislation are something that could have warranted us passing the legislation sooner?

That principle applies on a number of pieces of legislation, but I think that has a lot more to do with the politics inside the chamber than the actual substance of the legislation. That is a determination that has been made by the House leadership of the Conservative Party.

I am glad we are at this point today because it would seem that there is a very good chance that the legislation is going to pass third reading, and for a very good reason. When we think about our border control, all one needs to do is to look at the number of people who travel back and forth to the United States or, for that matter, to any country in the world. I have an active interest in trying to help facilitate people coming to visit Canada.

In the area I represent, every month, I write literally hundreds of letters. In some months, it is probably four hundred or five hundred letters, and in other months, it is probably closer to eight hundred letters, trying to get individuals to be able to come to Canada to visit, whether they are attending weddings, funerals, graduations or just visiting family members who may have immigrated from countries like Philippines, India, Pakistan, and many other countries.

Every time someone comes in, they have to deal with border control officers. We are getting numbers that go into the millions. Our border control agency and its officers are dealing with literally millions of people coming into Canada every year. They have a lot of authority.

I have had the opportunity to take tours of our detention centres, through customs, where people are going through without the appropriate papers, for example. Our officers actually have the ability to detain or to prevent someone from leaving the airport. That is a fairly serious responsibility.

With that responsibility comes the need for accountability and transparency. It does not mean that we are saying that there is something wrong with the system because that is not the case. All in all, the system works exceptionally well. We are talking about tens of millions of people coming and going every year.

If we look at the actual number of complaints we receive, it is but a small fraction of the overall number of people coming and going. However, that small fraction does warrant the need for us to be able put something in place so that if people have concerns, maybe it is the manner in which they were treated at a border or at an airport, wherever it might be, they have an opportunity to be able to express themselves.

If I was going through the Canada-U.S. border, an agent could ultimately make a decision that items I have brought with me are going to be kept or that something is going to be applied to them, and I might not feel that it was appropriate. It could also be something that greatly offends someone, anything from a racial incident to a wide spectrum of other behaviours that one might see.

At the end of the day, I would suggest that establishing a place that people can go to in order to express their grievance is absolutely critical. For those individuals who feel intimidated by it, as I said, it is not a reflection on the vast majority of the people who are performing this service. It really puts into place the opportunity, as I have said and as I have tried to amplify, that those agencies will in fact be better off because there will be a truly independent commission that actually deals with what is coming up. This legislation enables the commission to investigate complaints and take a look, for example, at levels of service, or even conduct a CBSA employee investigation where it is actually warranted. The commission does have the powers to review the activities of the CBSA. It would exclude things such as issues related to national security and other sensitive types of areas, but it has significant powers to look into, to review, to come up with recommendations and be able to take actions.

At the end of the day, what we do know is that it has been very effective for the RCMP. I believe that it will be just as effective for Canada border control officers. Canadians must have confidence in our law enforcement agencies, and having an effective civilian review is central to implementing public confidence and trust.

Let me just add to that. Bill C-20 would establish the PCRC, which would function as an independent review body for the RCMP and the CBSA. Through this review body, we will ensure that all Canadians can expect consistent, fair and equitable treatment. We will do that through strengthening the review body's independence and discretion, requiring annual reports from the RCMP and the CBSA on the implementation of PCRC's recommendations, which is a really important aspect, receiving those annual reports. Often we are able to make good, solid policy decisions based on the types of reports that we receive, collecting and publishing disaggregated race-based and demographic data to help assess and address systemic racism in law enforcement. All of that is part of our commitment to making Canada a safer place for anyone.

There are a number of points dealing with the legislation. The one that I would highlight is that the government is proposing to invest well over $100 million over the next six years, and about $20 million per year ongoing, in order to support the actions that the legislation is taking.

As I indicated, this is legislation that could have very easily passed a whole lot earlier. I am glad that we finally have it at a stage today where it would appear as if it will be passing. I do look forward to comments coming from, in particular, the Conservative Party, realizing, of course, that all the amendments and so forth have actually been dealt with. It is just a question of allowing it to ultimately come to a vote so that it can become law and add more value to building public confidence in two outstanding institutions.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was glad to hear that the hon. colleague mentioned the importance of addressing systemic racism within the proposed bill in particular, but I am concerned. Could he explain why his party did not support the NDP amendment to set up a service standard timeline for specified activities such as systemic racism? This is something that the National Council of Canadian Muslims specifically called for, along with many other organizations. I would like to hear his response to that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the legislation itself is a follow-up to a commitment that we actually made in the 2020 throne speech. Since then, we have continued to look at ways we can deal with the discrimination that takes place. I believe that the commission would actually be empowered through a complaint-driven process that would help by providing the type of information that would be essential as we move forward. We would get reports coming into government that would reflect what is actually taking place at our border controls and our RCMP. We will have to wait and see what kinds of policy directions might come out of those reports.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

Before I begin, I want to recognize someone who recently passed away in the riding, and that is a gentleman by the name of Anton Fras. My condolences go to his family, particularly his daughter, whom I know very well. May perpetual light shine upon him.

My colleague just said that this was in the throne speech. I may have misheard him when he said “2020”. I think that is what he said, but really, he should have said “2015” because this was a 2015 electoral promise. However, here we are in 2024, and the Liberals are saying they are delivering on their promises.

How can my colleague possibly say that when there was a prorogation and, simply put, a lack of putting this forward and a lack of a desire to get this done?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, this is the reason I provided some comment in regard to how the Conservative Party goes out of its way to prevent legislation from ultimately passing. The member heard correctly in regard to the throne speech. It was a throne speech. It was also in the mandate letter in 2021 for the minister, and we have been talking about it, but there is a finite amount of time for debates in the House of Commons.

When I take a look at the sense of commitment, whether it was going through the pandemic with the numerous pieces of legislation or all the different budget bills, not to mention all the other important pieces of legislation that were brought through, including this one, there is a limited amount of time. The opposition knows that, and that is one of the reasons the opposition chooses to bring in concurrence report after concurrence report, tries to adjourn debate, cries if we want to sit too late and uses all sorts of tactics in order to prevent legislation from passing.

Sadly, that does make it a bit more of a challenge. We might set the legislative agenda, but I do not underestimate the role the Conservatives play, in terms of that whole destructive force, in preventing legislation from passing. However, I am glad and grateful that it would appear as though we might be able to get it passed today.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to stand again to ask further about the parliamentary secretary's response to my question on having the commission take in some of those complaints, hearing them and learning from them. That may be all well and good, but would it not be better for the legislation to help address the issues before they happen and deal with them proactively so that we could prevent someone from coming to harm in the first place?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, as the member is likely aware, I was not necessarily sitting on the committee, and so I am not that familiar with the NDP amendment. However, I would be interested in hearing how that amendment was worded. I think that would go a long way in enabling me to provide more of a detailed comment.

The point I was trying to amplify is the fact that we all are very much aware of the types of incidents that take place at our border controls, and I would even include the RCMP. We know there are serious issues there. The advantage of having this arm's-length, independent review, both of government and of the agencies it is holding to account, is to ensure that there is a venue for people who have had some sort of a violation against them in one way or another to be able to express their grievance to this truly independent commission or board. I think that is the true value of it, because they will also be presenting reports that will enable all members of Parliament to then better reflect on the types of issues that are taking place. Not only do we need to be aware of those issues, but we need to look at other forms of action that might be necessary in order to be able to deal with the very serious issue that the member is talking about.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my comments, I request unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely pleased to have the opportunity to rise today to speak to Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory amendments. This legislation would rename the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to the public complaints and review commission.

Under its name, the commission would be responsible for reviewing civilian complaints against the Canada Border Services Agency; codified timelines for the RCMP and CBSA responses to PCRC interim reports; reviews and recommendations; information sharing between the RCMP, CBSA and the PCRC; mandatory annual reporting by the RCMP and CBSA on actions taken in response to PCRC recommendations; mandatory reporting of disaggregated race-based data by the PCRC; public education; and a statutory framework to govern CBSA responses to serious incidents.

On the surface, it may appear we are discussing the specifics of some new entity the government is creating to expand the bureaucracy. I would not blame anyone for assuming that, given it is often how the bloated Liberal government responds. However, the sentiment behind this bill is a good and responsible one.

While Conservatives may still have some concerns with this bill, I believe our amendments made at committee did improve it. This legislation seeks to increase people's confidence in the justice system and hold to account those who ensure our safety and who secure our borders. Anyone put in a position of authority can either use it appropriately or inappropriately, including public servants entrusted with protecting Canadians. They are responsible for properly exercising their duties and must be held accountable for their actions.

This includes employees at the Canada Border Services Agency, an agency entrusted with supporting national security, public safety priorities and dictating who and what enters or leaves our country. CBSA is the only public safety agency without an independent oversight body for public complaints. This has been deeply concerning for all those who cross our borders and interact with border officials, including CBSA employees themselves, which is why Bill C-20 seeks to correct this.

Frankly, this piece of legislation is long overdue, as we have heard. The Liberal government introduced this bill in the 42nd Parliament as Bill C-98 and in the 43rd Parliament as Bill C-3. However, it was never given priority in Parliament by the Liberals. I would be remiss not to mention it was a promise in their 2015 platform. This speaks to either their disingenuousness or their incompetency when it comes to addressing important issues and following through on their commitments. It is also very telling of the NDP-Liberal government's priorities when it puts off initiatives that would protect Canadians in order to focus all its energy on finding new ways to spend taxpayers' money.

While I will be voting for this legislation, I still have some concerns about it. The first is that Bill C-20, in its current form, does not reflect many of the recommendations offered to improve it. This bill was studied at committee to provide stakeholders with the opportunity to raise their concerns and flag various problems with it to members of Parliament and even make recommendations, not so that Liberal MPs could have an audience to watch them give the impression they cared. When indigenous chiefs and the National Police Federation, on behalf of the RCMP, suggested changes be made, Liberals voted against Conservative amendments that reflected the experts' recommendations.

Another concern that remains unaddressed is the lack of independence. The current complaint process results with most complaints about the RCMP being referred to the RCMP. Given the Liberals' record, they clearly do not understand the need for independence, and so I will explain it for their sake.

The reason the police cannot investigate the police is pretty much the same reason that a prime minister should not investigate himself or herself. An independent body is necessary to ensure professionalism and impartiality and build public trust. If the investigator has no vested interest in an investigation, their only allegiance is to the truth, thus ensuring Canadians can trust the process. The PCRC not only ought to, but needs to, be able to conduct its own investigations using its own investigators, which must be reflected in Bill C-20.

Even if self-conducted investigations were always completely honest, there is still the problem of perception. If people are afraid to file complaints or believe that, in doing so, they do not have any hope of their complaints' being dealt with, the issues that should be raised will not be addressed. I cannot think of anyone who would file a complaint to the person whom the complaint is about, for obvious reasons. To build trust, investigations must not only be internally transparent, fair and independent, but they must also appear so externally. A fully independent commission is not only good for those filing complaints, but for all Canadians, including the RCMP themselves.

The Liberal-NDP government's soft-on-crime policy has led to skyrocketing rates of violent crime and auto theft. Many Canadians, especially those in rural Canada and remote areas like my riding of Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, look to the RCMP for protection of their persons and their property. The Liberal-NDP government's policies are creating chaos, making the RCMP's job more difficult.

The RCMP is essential to keeping our country and its people safe and to maintaining law and order. To do this, RCMP officers need to be on the front lines, doing the important work that they were trained to do. The bureaucratic paperwork that comes with dealing with complaints is taking up our valued officers' time. The RCMP officers cannot protect Canadians if they are stuck behind a desk in a cubicle somewhere. Clearly, supporting a commission independent of the RCMP not only ensures fairness, but efficiency as well. The intent of this bill is to lighten the bureaucratic burden of the RCMP and ensure justice and transparency. However, the execution is not the best. It can be better, and that is where the heart of this debate lies.

The Liberal-NDP coalition refuses to take constructive criticism. Conservatives embrace legislation that makes positive changes for the good of the country. We listened to stakeholders and worked with other parties when they put forward good suggestions. We introduced amendments. Obviously, we were not going to agree on everything, but our goal should be, and indeed it is our duty as parliamentarians, to ensure the safety and security of Canadians. These are all important issues and I am sure that the members of the costly coalition would say that they agree that the safety and security of Canadians is the most important. However, actions speak louder than words. By doing nothing for nine years after promising to put the bill in place in 2015, refusing to improve the bill by listening to stakeholders and addressing their concerns and now rushing this legislation through because of their own incompetence, the Liberals show how unserious they are and Canadians will not be fooled.

Conservatives are committed to continuing to work on these important issues. The question truly is, are the Liberals committed? If they are, can they organize themselves enough to put aside their other pointless endeavours and fix their flawed legislation so that it can be passed, once and for all?