Ken Hardie

[National Council for Reconciliation Act, November 29th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I lived up north. I have travelled the Highway of Tears. I lived in Kenora and saw the abject misery on the White Dog and Grassy Narrows reserves. I have seen over the years, particularly my years in media, various attempts to improve housing and many other services. Housing is an ongoing issue.

If I can digress just a little bit, to me there is an opportunity here. As we look at the transition in our petrochemical industry, there is an opportunity to maybe move to a pilot program to 3D-print houses, which we can do using some of the very compounds we extract from the ground right now. We do not burn them for fuel. Instead, we can build far more dependable and durable houses for people in areas where getting supplies is very difficult.

That is part of the answer, I believe.

[National Council for Reconciliation Act, November 29th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question because, if anything, it really lays out the challenges of including the wide universe of voices that are present. I would have very similar concerns about how we accommodate band councils, which was kind of a construct of the government back in the day, versus hereditary leadership.

To specifically answer the question as to where we start, I would have to refer to my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, who identified the three groups that are constitutionally recognized. I think it is a start. Will it forever be a situation where the group that the hon. member mentioned is not directly included? Who knows?

This will always be a work in progress. I think we have that opportunity in the future.

[National Council for Reconciliation Act, November 29th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, kwe, kwe. Ullukkut. Tansi. Hello. Bonjour.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that our Parliament, this very building, is located on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples.

We are on a collective journey that is framed by what we believe very fervently we need to accomplish, and the debate is all about how we do that. We have to acknowledge and understand at the beginning the devastating impacts of colonization on first nations, Inuit and Métis communities, and we know there is a lot to do.

Since the first identification of unmarked graves in May 2021, communities have been leading the work to locate and commemorate the children who died at residential schools. The residential school system and colonization has had an impact on every indigenous community, from health to culture and tradition, self-sufficiency, displacement, housing, land, environment and more. These are truths that we have to remember and we have to carry them forward. We cannot undo the past, but we can use what we know of the truth to do better.

As my hon. colleagues have shared so far, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's 94 calls to action represents a pathway forward. The calls to action are a road map for all levels of government, education, health, religious institutions, civil society and the private sector to redress the legacy of residential schools and advance the progression of Canadian reconciliation. In this sense, living up to the calls to action presents Canada with one of the greatest challenges and opportunities in our country's history, and that is what makes Bill C-29 so significant.

This proposed legislation is a concrete step toward implementing the calls to action. It will contribute to societal changes through education, dialogue and other functions that the council will lead. It will keep all levels of government accountable for progress on reconciliation.

Over the course of the past two months, we have taken important steps to strengthen this bill, and we have heard many recommendations from many indigenous groups and individuals and, indeed, from the House. We have worked collaboratively with all members of the House through the INAN committee. Through this collaborative process, we have implemented their feedback in the amendments to the proposed legislation.

Let me be clear that the version of the bill that is before Parliament today was developed in a truly collaborative fashion and strengthened by the feedback we received.

I would like to share the bill's proposed next steps for establishing the national council for reconciliation. How it is chosen and its composition has already been the focus of some debate here.

Following royal assent, the first step would be to establish the council's first board of directors. The Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and the transitional committee for the national council for reconciliation would jointly select its first board of directors. Inclusion of the transitional committee in the process supports the independence of the council as a foundational principle.

Having a diverse and inclusive board is critically important, and there may be various opinions and ideas on how that is to be achieved.

The Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the Métis National Council and the Native Women's Association of Canada would each have an opportunity to nominate one board member. Through the amendment process, and on the advisement of partners, we are also ensuring we include additional voices on the board, such as the directors from the territories as well as representatives of survivors or their descendants, elders and indigenous peoples who speak French.

The council's board would also include first nations, Inuit, Métis, indigenous organizations, youth, women, men and gender-diverse persons representing various regions of Canada, including urban, rural and remote areas. The board will contribute its expertise and knowledge to drive the council's work.

Through the board's establishment and subsequent work, the protection and promotion of indigenous languages will be a crucial part of the process. This means supporting board members in their usage of traditional languages.

The board will take steps to incorporate the national council for reconciliation under the Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act for not-for-profit status. Doing this is essential as it would give the council legal status. This would allow it, for example, to enter into contracts and have bank accounts under its own name.

Bill C-29 would also establish that the council be recognized as a qualified donee that can accept donations and issue official donation receipts.

Once incorporated, the board would then set up the council through steps that include developing bylaws, hiring an executive director and other staff, making financial and banking arrangements and developing operational and strategic plans.

Moreover, budget 2019 provided a total of $126.5 million to support the establishment of the council. This includes $1.5 million to support the council's first year of operations and, importantly, a $125-million endowment for the council's initial operating capital.

A key responsibility of the council would be to monitor and report on the progress. In this respect, the council would have to, within three months after the end of each financial year, submit to the minister an annual report on the state of reconciliation and the council's recommendations.

Within 60 days of the release of this report, the Prime Minister would be required, on behalf of the Government of Canada, to respond to the report by publishing an annual report on the state of indigenous peoples that outlines the Government of Canada's plans for advancing reconciliation.

These timelines would ensure that the momentum on reconciliation could continue. All of these steps would position the council as a non-political body, and that is the objective, led by strong indigenous leadership. It would require that the council be an independent voice that promotes and monitors progress toward reconciliation, including Canada's implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action.

Together, the council's mandate would be to monitor, evaluate, conduct research and report on the progress being made toward reconciliation, including in relation to, and respect for, the protection and promotion of the rights of indigenous peoples in all sectors of Canadian society and by all governments in Canada.

There would be an opportunity for different representatives to sit on the council. The expertise and experience they bring would contribute to the council's priorities and goals. Their voices would come from many diverse groups across Canada, to ensure that the council would reflect the lived realities of indigenous peoples.

I know these voices may share some pretty hard truths with us. That would be part of their mandate. As we have heard already, some of their feedback is constructive and informed. It is highly valued. We know this because we need a council that will be truly able to make a difference. We need all levels of government, including our own, to be held to account.

The hon. former senator Murray Sinclair once said that “if we agree on the objective of reconciliation, and agree to work together, the work we do today will immeasurably strengthen the social fabric of Canada tomorrow.”

I think we can all agree that we need to act swiftly and decisively to achieve the goal. It is clear that we have worked together, in a true partnership, to develop this proposed legislation to achieve that goal.

I encourage all hon. members to support the bill and the objective.

As we all know, reconciliation is not an indigenous issue. It is a Canadian one. Every Canadian has a part to play in renewing the relationship with indigenous peoples and bringing about the transformative changes needed to ensure inclusive growth for indigenous peoples.

If not now, when? If not us, who?

Today, we have the opportunity to make good on our promise of reconciliation. Let us get to work and pass this bill without delay.

Meegwetch. Qujannamiik. Marsi.

[Public Complaints and Review Commission Act, November 22nd, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I have been disturbed by all the factors that have come around that particular project, including any mistreatment of people who are out demonstrating and exercising their constitutional rights. I am also disturbed, though, at the destruction of property and lawlessness that may have been taking place there.

I am also aware that police officers usually have a millisecond to make up their minds on how to react to a situation, whereas the rest of us have all of time after that to review what they have done and to pass judgment on them. This is precisely the kind of mechanism that we need to do a deeper dive into these incidents, learn from them and refine how we approach some very ticklish situations.

[Public Complaints and Review Commission Act, November 22nd, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question, absolutely that is something that I will definitely advocate and support. I believe that when the committee gets its hands on this legislation, some of the people who are asking to be involved in the system should be called as witnesses, so that they can provide their recommendations directly to the committee and those recommendations can find their way into the final version that comes back to the House.

[Public Complaints and Review Commission Act, November 22nd, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, back in 2003 the Harvard Business Review issued a publication that I think should be required reading for anybody who has to deal with the public. It was all about fair process in the knowledge economy. Fair process is a really critical issue, as it should be, for everybody who is overseeing the creation of legislation, such as we are doing now, right down to the work we provide in our constituency offices. Fair process means a good hearing. It means objective review of what has been presented, and it allows for independent, objective analysis, review and recommendations.

This is what the legislation proposes to apply to the CBSA, and I think it is probably about three years overdue.

[Public Complaints and Review Commission Act, November 22nd, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, off the top I would like to note that I will be happy to share my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

I am in my place today, aware that we are standing on traditional Algonquin territory. I am also aware that much has been said on Bill C-20 so far, so what I will have to say will kind of act as a recap of where we are. We are debating this legislation that would enact a new stand-alone statute, the public complaints and review commission act, to provide an external review regime for both the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency.

To uphold trust and confidence in our law enforcement and border protection services, Canadians should count on a robust system of accountability. Canadians expect consistent, fair and equal treatment when receiving services from the RCMP and the CBSA. Civilian review is essential for the transparency of that system.

Currently, the RCMP is reviewed by the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, the CRCC. The House has now heard that the new public complaints and review commission would replace the CRCC, provide enhanced reporting requirements for the RCMP, and establish an independent review mechanism for the CBSA.

I would like to note in particular the impact this bill would have on the Canada Border Services Agency. With some 14,000 dedicated and professional employees, the CBSA is one of the largest organizations within the public safety portfolio. It has a long and rich history of providing border services in an exemplary manner, but inevitably, where there is interaction between the public and border service agencies, disputes will sometimes arise. A transparent means of dealing with such disputes supports respect for the rule of law, but unlike the RCMP, the CBSA does not currently have an ongoing structure for independent review of such situations.

The agency is indeed reviewed by various independent boards, tribunals and courts, but it does not have a review mechanism for specific complaints, including officer conduct and the agency’s level of service. I would remind the House that the CBSA is one of the public safety bodies that many Canadians encounter regularly. I know personally that when I come to the border I always look guilty, no matter what, but I have always been treated with fairness and respect.

Border services officers control the movement of people and goods through Canadian borders. They detain and remove potential threats. They collect duties and taxes. Canadians rely on the border security measures enforced by the CBSA, and at the same time the CBSA is a Canadian public safety institution that non-Canadians encounter, including, for example, the refugees currently seeking asylum in our country. For this reason, a review mechanism must be accessible to all people who deal with CBSA employees. It is key to building public trust in the institution designed to protect our borders.

Under Bill C-20, the public complaints and review commission would have authority to review both the CBSA and the RCMP. Some components of the bill would apply to both institutions. Each year, both would be required to report to the Minister of Public Safety on how they have responded to PCRC recommendations. Both would have codified timelines dictating how soon they would need to respond to those recommendations. The PCRC will disaggregate the data of complaints related to both agencies and report on what it reveals about race-based issues. This will help us, for example, to better understand and address any systemic racism in law enforcement in Canada, at least in this law enforcement system.

Apart from national security issues, which are reviewed through the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, the PCRC would be responsible for conducting specified reviews of any activities of the RCMP and the CBSA. These reviews could be conducted at the request of the minister or on the PCRC’s own initiative. The PCRC will have the responsibility for receiving complaints concerning CBSA conduct or levels of service, and the authority to launch investigations.

Indeed, under the bill, individuals who are detained by the CBSA would be informed that they have an avenue to make a complaint. If somebody has filed a complaint with the CBSA and is not satisfied with the manner in which the complaint was handled, the complainant may forward the matter to the PCRC for review. The PCRC would also have authority to initiate its own investigation into CBSA conduct when it is in the public interest to do so. The PCRC would report its findings and recommendations to the CBSA and to the minister.

I have been speaking about the authority to review complaints, but there is another level of authority required to govern serious incidents involving the CBSA and its personnel. These would include matters that, for example, may have resulted in serious injury or death, or constituted federal or provincial offences. The CBSA is responsible for conducting its own internal reviews of such matters, but there is currently no statutory obligation for the CBSA to conduct such a review.

Under the bill before us, the CBSA would be obliged to conduct internal investigations into alleged serious incidents. The CBSA would be required to notify the police of the jurisdiction in which the alleged serious incident took place and to notify the PCRC.

Furthermore, the CBSA would be required to provide the PCRC with reports and other information on serious incidents. The PCRC, for its part, would have the authority to send an observer to verify the impartiality of the CBSA’s internal investigation, and it would be required to report on the number, types and outcomes of serious incidents as part of its annual reporting. I am sure hon. members would agree that this would provide a much-needed degree of transparency to the handling of serious incidents.

Finally, I would remind the House of the special nature of CBSA review, in that it would seek to provide the consistent, fair and equal treatment that Canadians expect in a manner that would also include people who do not reside in Canada. The Canadian Human Rights Commission, for example, can receive complaints only from individuals lawfully in Canada. The PCRC, on the other hand, would be in a position to accept complaints from foreign nationals that involve allegations of discrimination by the CBSA.

These are important matters in creating the kind of robust accountability mechanisms that are essential for public trust in our border services and law enforcement institutions. The time is well overdue for the CBSA to join its partner organizations in having such a mechanism. Indeed, this is the third time in recent years that the government has endeavoured to reform the system. We attempted it in 2019 with Bill C-98 and again in 2020 with Bill C-3.

This bill is a key part of the government’s agenda, and I urge my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting its quick passage.

[Fall Economic Statement, November 3rd, 2022]

Madam Speaker, before the pandemic, one of our big concerns was the gig economy. A lot of people were looking at two or maybe even three very low-paying jobs to make a go of it. Now that sector seems to be short of people, as the people who used to be in the gig economy moved up to take the place of guys my age who retired. Some of us have not gotten the memo yet, but we have a lot of older Canadians who have backed out of the labour market.

We have an immigration plan that will bring more people into the country to fill those jobs. I wonder if the hon. member could reflect on whether we should make an extra effort to avoid a new class and new generation of low-paid gig workers in Canada.

[Business of Supply, November 1st, 2022]

Madam Speaker, it would be nice if the Conservatives could square a few things and pick a lane, because early in the pandemic all we heard from the Conservatives was, “Close the border,” and, “Shut it down,” and then, once the vaccines became more readily available, they sided with the people who would be quite happy to have unvaccinated people spreading the virus back and forth across the American border.

Where are they on this one? Do they not like ArriveCAN simply because it does what it does?

[Petitions, October 18th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I believe the rules of presenting petitions are that there should be a brief summary and do not allow a member to literally fill up the time that might be asked for by other members presenting petitions. The member should be directed to keep it brief. This is not a speech.