Debates of June 6th, 2024

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know my colleague's thoughts about setting up an appeal process for inspections that are deemed unfounded.

Also, does he agree with the Bloc Québécois's proposal for oversight at the port of Montreal, that is, temporarily implementing some form of third party management to find out what is going on and why this location has become a conduit for all kinds of illegal goods?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there were a couple of different topics there, but I want to focus on the port of Montreal.

Of course, we have seen a huge spike in crime, and that includes vehicle theft, particularly down in southern Ontario in the GTA. We know that the vehicles are going out through the port of Montreal, but the CBSA does not have the resources to adequately deal with it. I think it is very simple. We need to be searching the port and the containers to ensure that we can take those stolen vehicles out and get them back to their rightful owners. I think that is common sense.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the NDP is bought and paid for, and that is why its members blindly support the Liberals. They do not really feel like they have to put forward amendments.

Have you seen another government be supported so heavily by an opposition party and then have it turn out well for them in the next election?

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

I cannot answer that, but maybe the hon. member for Kenora can.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very important question, and I do appreciate it being raised. I have not seen anything like this before. It is very clear that the NDP and the Liberals are one and the same here at the federal level in Canada. It has been an NDP-Liberal government for a couple of years now, formally, but we know the NDP has been supporting the Liberals for the entirety of the nine years that they have been in office.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-20 in this debate tonight. We have an important issue in front of us.

As we consider making changes to the oversight of the RCMP and the CBSA, it is important for all of us to recognize and honour the active members of both organizations. I grew up in southwest Saskatchewan, and our farm was about a five-minute drive to the border crossing, which is the port of Turner on the U.S. side and the port of Climax on the Saskatchewan side. There are three other border crossings in the southwest: Willow Creek, Monchy and West Poplar River. We have a few really good border crossings in our part of the country, and I can personally attest to the great work the CBSA agents have done in southwest Saskatchewan. They have been valuable, contributing members to our communities. I went to school with some of the kids of people who worked at the border crossings, and they were fantastic people who brought a lot to our communities.

The RCMP and the municipal police services again are made up of fantastic people who do great work. They have signed up to serve the country, and they serve very well in the capacity they are given. That is part of the importance of this debate here today. Anybody who enters public service is doing it because they have, or should have, a deep desire to serve their country and not to benefit themselves, which unfortunately we do see quite rampantly with these Liberals when they are in power and with a lot of the people they are putting into important positions.

For example, earlier today we were debating our opposition day motion about the green slush fund with SDTC and 186 conflicts of interest in this one area alone. It is quite mind-boggling when one thinks about it. As we go through other departments, and as we go through other levels of government, we start to see that there seems to be a pattern.

It is important that we have a good civilian oversight for the RCMP and for CBSA. I do think what the government is trying to do here is in the right vein. We heard in the previous questions and comments period about amendments Conservatives are looking to get. There are always things we are looking to improve when it comes to legislation.

I want to go into a few examples of some issues that have arisen at CBSA over the last couple of years. Back in 2021, there was an article in the CBC. Forgive me, as I will be quoting CBC articles a couple of times tonight. One will not normally catch me doing that, but for tonight, I will. The border agency concluded that, in 2021, there were “92 founded investigations” that year. It came up with 92 investigations for which there was enough proof of evidence to pursue a certain course of action. This includes everything from somebody getting called into the manager's office for a reprimand to people being given dismissals. There were a few different issues that people dealt with.

In 2022, there were over “500 allegations the CBSA deemed 'founded'”. Over 500 is quite a jump from the numbers of 2021. I will read this part because there is a common thread emerging, especially given what we now know from the NSICOP report. The article states, “A Canada Border Service Agency employee opened himself up to the threat of exploitation by 'hostile intelligence services' after visiting massage parlours in China, Japan and Canada”.

This person engaged in illegal activities and put himself in a vulnerable position where hostile intelligence services could take advantage of him because of where he worked and could hold the illegal actions that he had engaged in over his head by saying, “Do this for us or else.” Having civilian oversight would allow for a more thorough examination of what was going on in some of these cases and would hopefully bring a quicker resolution to some of the issues and claims.

I had the opportunity to speak to a similar piece of legislation in the previous Parliament. At that time, the timeline for processing a complaint or a review was up to seven years. That is problematic. If I made a complaint to my banking institution, my cellphone provider or anybody else who provides a good or service and it took seven years for it to be resolved, that would be totally unacceptable in all cases. I know it is not as cut and dry with the CBSA. Obviously, there are more things it has to look into. However, seven years is absolutely ridiculous.

We have had some good comments from the Customs and Immigration Union:

There is also a glaring lack of time limit requirements for the Commission to complete an investigation, which is only amplified by the absence of time limit requirements for the Commission to submit a final report following reception of the CBSA President’s response to an interim report (Section 64). In short, we fear an investigation could take years to complete, which is neither fair to the employee under investigation nor to the complainant.

We recommend that Bill C-20 include clear language around time limits for every step of the process.

Along with that, the Canada Bar Association said:

It seems inevitable that as the Commission’s workload increases, delays will grow. The Commission’s work could then be portrayed as being “efficient” in dealing with complaints, when in fact the goal lines have been moved. The Bill imposes a one-year delay for a complainant to file a complaint. Thus, it is reasonable that the Commission be required to conclude its work in a fixed timeframe as well.

That would have been very helpful to include to clearly set an expectation as part of the complaint process. I think any civilian who would issue a complaint, or even an officer who had a complaint levied against them, would want it dealt with sooner rather than later. To have it left hanging out there for seven years or longer is a problem. That definitely needs to be brought up and dealt with.

In my remaining time, I want to emphasize how important it is that we get things right when it comes to public safety. The RCMP plays a very important role in southwest Saskatchewan. Rural crime, unfortunately, is on the rise. The rate of assault against peace officers nearly doubled between 2011 and 2021. This legislation, this oversight, would ensure that we protect both sides in interactions with law enforcement.

Rural violent crime is up 19% in the country, and the crime severity index is 60 points higher in rural Saskatchewan than in urban Saskatchewan, which is the largest gap in the country. RCMP officers do good work. There is a lot of hard work they have to do. There are lots of split-second decisions they have to make that sometimes make them vulnerable or susceptible to complaints. That does happen. They need some certainty and clarity on the timelines of the review process as well. That would have been an important component to have sorted out in this bill.

With that, I will wrap up my remarks. I look forward to hearing the questions and comments.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member joked a few minutes ago about quoting the CBC. I found that interesting because he is right; Conservatives never quote the CBC. I was surprised to hear him do that.

I know that he happens to be greenlit by the Campaign Life Coalition as an anti-choice member of Parliament, one of their flag-bearers here. I am wondering if he could give me his insight into what he thinks would more likely expel him from his caucus. Would it be his position on a woman's right to choose or the fact that he speaks favourably of the CBC in the House?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, quoting the CBC does not necessarily mean I am speaking in favour of the CBC. It is a journalistic outfit. It puts articles out, and it does some studies. Every once in a while, a blind squirrel will find a nut. There is nothing wrong with quoting things that we find online or quoting journalism when it happens.

When we look at the gross misallocation of funds to the CBC, over $1.6 billion, I can think of a lot of better ways that the money could be spent. With respect to the journalists, the odd ones who actually do good work should be able to do that without getting massive subsidies from the taxpayer in order for them to do their job.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not speak right away because I was waiting for the light to go on. Likewise, it would be nice to see a light to go on in the brains of some members of the House, especially those making comparisons between squirrels and the CBC.

Let us get back to the matter at hand. We know that the Canada Border Services Agency, the CBSA, has serious governance problems. The ArriveCAN file exposed that, as did the lack of oversight at the port of Montreal, which has become a nexus for vehicle theft. Many whistle-blowers have identified systemic internal problems.

We put forward a proposal. Even though the Bloc Québécois is an opposition party, we are not here to oppose for the sake of opposing. We also want to propose solutions. As we have said before, we believe that the CBSA should be put under third party management until the governance problems are resolved. That is a reasonable proposal. It is a smart proposal. Most of all, it is an actual proposal, something that some other opposition parties very rarely come up with.

Does my colleague agree with this proposal?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, if that is an interim measure that would definitely help provide clarity, then it is something I think we could support. I was not on the committee when it heard some of the recommendations and amendments put forward by the other parties, so I do not know what the witnesses had to say about it, what some of the context around it would be or what that would look like. However, if it is a measure that is going to help provide more certainty and clarity in the short term and allow the commission to do a better job, then it is something we should consider doing and supporting.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to ask my hon. colleague a question. I was going through some of the documents on the bill. For the most part, Conservatives know that there is a need to fix our porous border. There are way too many illegal firearms coming in, mostly from Michigan, but there are issues across the country. We support any measures that make our border that much more secure.

It is very telling that the Liberals have allotted roughly $20 million a year for this. What is my hon. colleague's view on how small a percentage they have spent on border security versus the billions on going after old Uncle Joe's hunting rifles?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the crime rates in the big urban cities in this country and the statistics of where the weapons used in the commission these crimes come from, they are overwhelmingly illegally obtained firearms, most often smuggled up from the United States. If we reallocated the resources and money the government is using to confiscate the legal firearms that were lawfully obtained by the most-vetted citizens in this country, there is so much more that could be done to address the issues and the gaps in the CBSA with respect to border patrol. In addition, we can look at all the other wasteful spending, with the green slush fund and the corruption that has happened with SDTC. These are classic examples of funds that could have been better used for other things, such as tightening up our borders.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a couple of comments from the unhinged NDP talking about how we brought an amendment to delete the short title.

I just read that, on June 16, 2018, the NDP member for Victoria seconded an amendment by the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert to delete the short title of Bill S-18.

Does the member think that was back when the New Democrats used to be in opposition? That was in 2018, and now they are propping up the government for no reason.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is classic NDP. The New Democrats are doing absolutely anything and everything they possibly can to try to grasp one little of string of power that the Liberals are dangling for them to come running after. If they want to truly be an opposition party and if they want to have any clarity or certainty going into the next election and not be completely decimated, maybe they should grow some principles.

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

It being 7:19 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, June 4, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1.

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.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division, please.

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

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Monday, June 10 at the expiry of the time for oral questions.

Message from the Senate

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

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, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-258, an act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act regarding reporting on unpaid income tax.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-40, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to repeal a regulation (miscarriage of justice reviews), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

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

There are 20 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-40. Motions Nos. 1 to 20 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 20 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting the short title.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 6.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 9.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 10.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 14.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 15.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 16.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 17.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 18.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 19.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-40 be amended by deleting Clause 20.

Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to rise to speak about Bill C-40, the miscarriage of justice review commission act, at report stage.

Public confidence in our criminal justice system is central to a functioning democracy, to a free and democratic society. We must have confidence that our courts get it right if not all the time then at least most of the time. We do not want innocent people in jail. We do not want guilty people on our streets. However, we do not always get it right, as in the David Milgaard case.

Mr. Milgaard was wrongfully convicted of a murder that he did not commit and spent 23 years in jail, consistently maintaining his innocence. His case went through the whole process, from trial to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, and he was guilty at every stage.

He stayed in jail for 23 years, but David and his mother Joyce never gave up faith. Finally, after two decades, there was a breakthrough made possible by advances in DNA forensic technology, which pointed to another man who had been known to the police all along. With all the appeals used up, there was still one more course of action, and that was an application to the minister of justice under the criminal conviction review rules. She read the Milgaard file and, with the new evidence available, ordered a new trial.

By then, the Saskatchewan prosecution office realized that they had the wrong man and David Milgaard was allowed to go free. It was a serious miscarriage of justice, and it was appropriate that we named the bill after David and Joyce Milgaard. We could have named the bill after any other number of wrongfully convicted men: Donald Marshall Jr., Guy Paul Morin, Steven Truscott or Thomas Sophonow, just to name a few. Our courts do not always get it right and that is why we need a criminal conviction review process.

The Milgaard case showed us the flaws in our system. Why should the last appeal be to an elected official? Would Milgaard have seen justice sooner if the process had not been political and if the Criminal Conviction Review Group was better resourced with finances and investigative powers? The answer, I think, is probably.

These are the questions that Bill C-40 seeks to answer and the flaws that it seeks to correct. I spoke in favour of the bill at second reading, and the Conservative caucus voted to send it to committee. We saw some of what we thought were drafting errors, but we felt confident that with our reasoned arguments, we would convince the other committee members to make these few changes. We were wrong. We got some changes, all right, but not for the better. Coming out of committee, Bill C-40 is worse than it was when it went in, in my opinion.

Let me explain. The main point of disagreement is about the threshold for opening a review. How hard should it be for a convicted person who maintains their innocence to get in front of the miscarriage of justice review commission to convince it to open up a case for a new trial? Currently, with the existing legislation, that person must convince the group working in the AG's office that “there is a reasonable basis to conclude that a miscarriage of justice likely occurred”. I underline “likely occurred”. Milgaard met that threshold easily with new forensic evidence. What was key was the “new matters of significance” language of the Criminal Conviction Review Group.

Conservative MPs support maintaining the existing “likely occurred” language. We argued to maintain it, but the other committee members insisted on a lower “may have occurred” language, clearly a much lower hurdle to overcome. We fear that, with a lower threshold, we will have a flood of applications for review.

We are supported in that concern. One of the witnesses in the Bill C-40 study at committee was John Curtis from the United Kingdom review commission. This review commission, which has been around for about 20 years, uses the language of “a real possibility” that there has been a miscarriage of justice. Clearly that is a much higher threshold than what is being proposed in the current form of Bill C-40. Mr. Curtis pointed us to a body of jurisprudence in the United Kingdom that has arisen out of its legislation. I have read many of those cases, because I take this very seriously, and I form the opinion that they got it right.

The Milgaard case would have met the test, and so would all the other Canadian cases that I had read. Therefore, we propose sticking with the current wording of “likely occurred” or accepting the United Kingdom's wording of “real possibility” and benefiting from its 20 years of jurisprudence.

Why would we change the words to a lower standard? I would suggest that Parliament is sending a clear message to criminal defence lawyers and to judges that we intend to make things easier for convicted criminals to get their cases opened again. If I were acting for a person who maintained their innocence and wanted to get a review, I would argue, “Well, clearly, Parliament intended something different”. Why reject the old language and adopt new language? Certainly, something new is intended. Certainly, it was the intent of Parliament to lower the standard of review and not accept the U.K. language either, because that possibility is open.

This is typical Liberal overreach. Why not change the things that are actually broken in our system, take the politics out of the equation, fund the commission properly and give the commission broader legislative power? We agree with all those initiatives, just not lowering the threshold. That part is not broken. That has actually been functioning well. To suggest otherwise tells the public that we do not actually have confidence in our courts to get it right most of the time.

However, there is another problem with Bill C-40 after committee. If the bill passes in its present form, a person convicted at trial does not even have to exhaust the regular appeal process before applying for a review before the commission. If one does not like the trial court's findings, one need not bother appealing but can go straight to the review commission, with its investigative powers. It is cheaper than getting one's lawyer to take it through the court of appeal.

We say to stick with the current requirement that an applicant must first exhaust all the available tools in the regular court system through all the appeals that are available. Yes, we need a review commission, and the Milgaard case showed us that; however, a review after conviction must remain an extraordinary remedy. To say otherwise would further undermine the confidence that the public has in our court system.

With these significant flaws, the unnecessary lowering of the review threshold and the ability to sidestep the regular appeal process, we cannot support Bill C-40 in its current form.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for his remarks tonight. I serve on the justice committee with him now, as I did at the time we reviewed the bill, and he has a great deal of compassion. He brings a level of fairness to the job that is admirable.

However, the member started his speech by saying that Canadians need to have faith in the justice system; they also need to have faith in the parliamentary system. He said that the Conservatives supported the bill at second reading, but they filibustered the committee for days. It was not one day, but several days. Meanwhile, victims, including the lawyers and the families who are being affected by previous miscarriages of justice and who want the bill passed, were sitting, watching and waiting. Now, he did not do that of his own volition, and I know that. He was taking orders from somebody who sits right down there, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt on that. However, how can he stand here now and support amendments that strip the bill entirely of every provision in it and say that he supports the people whose names he used tonight?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague on the justice committee for that question.

Indeed, we take this very seriously. David Milgaard was badly served by our criminal justice system, as were many others. However, it is very important that the public maintains confidence in our court system. It actually works very efficiently. Does there have to be a review process in the event that a person feels very strongly that they have been treated badly by the court system? There absolutely does, but it must remain an extraordinary remedy. It cannot just be something in the ordinary course of court business. That, I submit, would undermine the confidence that the public has in our court system.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think we will disagree. Our parties are unlikely to vote the same way.

However, I found one thing rather fascinating when the bill was being studied in committee. Do members realize that the commissioners who will sit on the new miscarriage of justice review commission will not be required to be able to speak and understand both French and English? Why is that?

It is because, when the Bloc Québécois tabled an amendment calling for commissioners to be bilingual, an NDP-Conservative-Liberal coalition voted against it. This included the Liberal MP for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

When I see the Conservatives whipping themselves into a frenzy to defend French at the Standing Committee on Official Languages, it makes me wonder how the four Conservative MPs on the committee could vote against a perfectly reasonable amendment to uphold the two official languages of this wonderful country called Canada.

I want to know why the Conservatives voted against it.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, indeed, that was debated. The Bloc Québécois member on the committee argued passionately in favour of every person on the commission being bilingual. Conservatives argued what is important is that bilingual services are available, that there be at least one person on the commission, or a number of people, who can speak French as effectively as English.

We did not think it was absolutely necessary that everybody be bilingual. That would cut out a lot of people. If that were a requirement in Parliament, I would not be a member of Parliament.