• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 148 Ï NUMBER 419 Ï 1st SESSION Ï 42nd PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Friday, May 17, 2019 Speaker: The Honourable Geoff Regan CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) 27989 HOUSE OF COMMONS Friday, May 17, 2019 The House met at 10 a.m. among parties for the acceptance of these motions. Nonetheless, I would ask members to refrain from using those opportunities for debate. It is not what they are for. Members should quickly go to their point, put the motion before the House for unanimous consent Prayer consideration and then we will see what the House decides. I thank both the hon. members for their interventions, and now we Ï (1005) will go to orders of the day. [English] POINTS OF ORDER PROJECTED ORDER OF BUSINESS GOVERNMENT ORDERS Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, [English] NDP): Mr. Speaker, in a moment, I will be seeking unanimous consent for a motion. I looked at the projected order of business for ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE ACT today in the House of Commons, and I am puzzled as to why we are Hon. Pablo Rodriguez (for the Minister of Public Safety and debating anything other than the government's climate emergency Emergency Preparedness, Lib.) moved that Bill C-98, An Act to motion. Is it an actual emergency, or is it just another PR stunt for the amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the Canada Liberals? Border Services Agency Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee. I would like to ask for unanimous consent that the orders of the day be resolved back to government Motion No. 29, which would declare that Canada is in a national climate emergency. Mrs. Karen McCrimmon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is aware that the Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by stating that I will be sharing government, of course, has the discretion to make these decisions, my time with the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood this but nonetheless, I will ask if there is unanimous consent for the hon. morning. member's motion. The Deputy Speaker: In that this is the first round of speeches for Some hon. members: Agreed. the bill, in the normal case, the members of parties wishing to split their time in those spots must seek the unanimous consent of the Some hon. members: No. House in order to share their time. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, from the moment it was clear that the member was seeking unanimous support, I started to Is there unanimous consent? say “no” out loud, yet the member was able to continue. All I am Some hon. members: Agreed. asking for is consistency with the Chair, who might want to review this. Some hon. members: No. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the The Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not getting off to a good Minister of Public Safety. start here today. [Translation] I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his additional Mrs. Karen McCrimmon: Mr. Speaker, since the fall of 2016, comments. Members should be reminded that certainly members can our government has been dramatically reshaping Canada’s security stand and raise points for the consideration for unanimous consent. and intelligence apparatus to ensure that it has the authorities and the Members should be advised not to use those occasions to enter into funding it needs in order to keep Canadians safe. At the same time, debate. These are not opportunities. we have been ensuring that those agencies, which we trust with tremendous power, have strong and robust independent review It is known to be common practice of the House to use the mechanisms so that the public can be confident that they are using unanimous consent motion approach when there is known agreement their powers appropriately. 27990 COMMONS DEBATES May 17, 2019 Government Orders [English] The vast majority of complaints to the CBSA are already handled to the satisfaction of the complainant. For those who are not These mechanisms instill confidence in the public that these satisfied, complainants would be informed that they can request a agencies are using their powers appropriately. Since 2018, following subsequent complaint review from the fully independent PCRC. The the passage of Bill C-22, the National Security and Intelligence review agency would have full access to documents and the power to Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP, has been reviewing compel witnesses in order to ensure it can undertake a thorough classified national security information. The committee, which is investigation. If, upon review, the PCRC were not satisfied with the formed of three senators and eight elected members of Parliament, CBSA's investigations and conclusions, it would make a report with recently released its first annual report. This brings Canada into line any findings and recommendations. with all four of our other Five Eyes alliance allies when it comes to parliamentary or congressional review of national security activities. Bill C-59, which is currently awaiting third reading debate in the Senate, would create a national security and intelligence review [Translation] agency. This would be a stand-alone review body that would incorporate the existing Security Intelligence Review Committee, or SIRC, which reviews the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, and the Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner, which reviews the Communications Security Estab- There are several areas that the CCRC would not be able to lishment, CSE. investigate because there are already existing bodies which could handle those types of complaints. For instance, officers of Parliament The agency would also have the powers and authorities to review like the Privacy Commissioner and the Commissioner of Official any department with a national security function. Some academics Languages are best suited to deal with complaints that fall within and experts have dubbed this idea a “super SIRC“. They have argued their jurisdiction. for years that such a body is needed so that it can follow the thread of evidence from one department to another rather than ending its investigation at the boundaries of a single agency. The Federal Court has also suggested that this kind of super review agency needs to be (1015) created. We have done all of this so that Canadians can be confident Ï that our security and intelligence community has the tools it needs to keep Canadians safe. This brings me to Bill C-98. The one piece missing from this Should someone file a complaint with the CBSA or the CCRC review architecture puzzle, should Bill C-59 pass, of course, is an that falls within those realms, either body would decline the independent review body for non-national security-related reviews complaint but inform that individual of the proper course of action. of the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA. Bill C-98 would fill in that gap by creating PCRC, or the public complaints and review commission. The new agency would combine the existing review body for the [English] RCMP, known as the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, CRCC, with the yet to be created review body for the Canada Border Services Agency. It would add a mandatory new deputy chair position to the new agency. Budget 2019 has provided nearly $25 million over the next five years to ensure there is enough staff to take The chair of the new PCRC would be able to conduct reviews of on this new important role. CBSA activities, behaviours, policies, procedures and guidelines not related to national security. National security reviews would, of I would now like to walk members through how the PCRC would course, be handled by NSIRA. The Minister of Public Safety could work in practice. A Canadian who has a complaint about the actions also ask the agency to undertake such a review. or behaviour of a CBSA member would lodge a complaint with either the Canada Border Services Agency itself or the PCRC. Regardless of where it is filed, one agency would alert the other to the complaint. There will be no wrong door for Canadians to knock on. The system will work for them in either case. In addition, the PCRC would be notified of any serious incident in Ï (1010) which the actions of a CBSA officer may have resulted in serious injury or death. This includes immigration detainees who are being The CBSA would then be required to investigate every complaint, held in provincial corrections facilities on behalf of the CBSA. much like the existing CRCC does for the RCMP. If the chair Further, the Minister of Public Safety or the president of the CBSA believes it would be in the public interest to do so, the PCRC can may deem that in incidents of such significance, the PCRC must initiate its own investigation. investigate. May 17, 2019 COMMONS DEBATES 27991 Government Orders Bill C-98 would complete the review architecture for the public Bill C-59, which we have talked about, would create the national safety portfolio by creating a review body similar to the Civilian security and intelligence review agency. This stand-alone body Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP, or the Office of would incorporate the existing Security Intelligence Review the Correctional Investigator for Correctional Service Canada. This Committee, which reviews CSIS, and the Office of the Commu- is another important step that would ensure Canadians have nications Security Establishment Commissioner, which reviews confidence in our border agency.

Load more

  46

Copy Link