Kristina Michaud

[Climate Change, June 17th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, this week's forecast calls for temperatures that feel like 45°C. This is the weather forecast not for Arizona, but for my home region, southern Quebec. The planet is heating up and the climate is changing, yet the federal government plans on giving oil companies a further $83 billion in tax handouts over the next 10 years. It is doing this not to help with the just transition away from oil, but to try and mask the impact of boosting oil production. While Quebec burns, Ottawa is going to help fund 10 more years of increased production of dirty oil.

Has the time not come to just stop?

[Public Services and Procurement, June 13th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the worst part is that $300 million has been wasted and CARM does not even work.

All of Canada's imports will have to go through this app. Its rollout had to be delayed because the tests did not go well. The CBSA is still unable to provide us with its contingency plans in the event that problems complicate billions of dollars in transactions every day. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce signed a memorandum expressing its concern. Imagine. Even the Americans are concerned about the CBSA's incompetent management.

Does the minister find that embarrassing?

[Public Services and Procurement, June 13th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, let us not forget that the CBSA's ArriveCAN app cost $60 million more than planned.

Well, the CBSA has found a way to do worse with its new app, the CBSA Assessment and Revenue Management, or CARM. This app is supposed to make it possible to register all imports at the border. So far, there has been $300 million in cost overruns and counting. CARM does not work. The CBSA had to postpone its rollout.

These two apps are money pits. How much more money will the CBSA be allowed to throw out the window before the minister gets angry and cleans house?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1, June 11th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Conservatives are against the budget. However, in this budget, the Liberals are giving tens of billions of dollars to oil companies and the fossil fuel industry in Canada.

I know that the Conservative Party finds it difficult to acknowledge the existence of climate change and that it is always extolling the virtues of Canada's oil industry. I would think they would be happy to see that in the budget.

Why are they then voting against it?

[The Public Complaints and Review Commission Act, June 10th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak, for the last time I hope, to Bill C‑20, which we have helped to improve over the last few weeks and months.

As I said last week, this was one of the first bills I had the pleasure of working on in the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, and we were indeed able to improve it.

Last week, I talked about the amendments proposed by the Bloc Québécois that were adopted and made this bill more transparent. I will come back to that briefly, but this evening I would like to focus on the amendments that we adopted as a committee.

Amendments were proposed by all the parties, meaning the NDP, the Conservative Party and the government. It always makes me smile or even laugh a bit to see the government proposing amendments to its own bills. It is as though they did not take the time to think bills through properly before introducing them, and when they saw the result, they figured they could have done things differently and therefore decided to propose amendments to their own bills.

Nevertheless, I believe that, when we have an opportunity to make something better, we must do so. The government helped improve its own bill. So much the better. The parties actually did work well together. Last week, I talked about how long it took for the government to make this bill a priority. It was the third attempt. Two bills had been introduced in previous parliaments.

There was also a lot of systematic obstruction by the Conservatives, who wanted to focus on another study instead of Bill C‑20. We got a lot of emails because of that. A lot of people who were keeping a close eye on the work of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and watching this bill progress reached out to us.

They also contacted the clerk of the committee and to the chair of the committee, saying it made no sense for parliamentarians to talk about anything and everything except Bill C‑20, when people, citizens and Canadian travellers had been victimized by the behaviour of certain Canada Border Services Agency officers and were entitled to some justice. They had a right to be heard, at least, and to have their complaints processed in a timely manner.

We were finally able to study this bill. I hope that it will be passed as soon as possible and that the Senate will complete its work quickly so that this commission can finally get off the ground.

What is more, it has been said many times that the CBSA is still the only Canadian public safety organization that does not have an independent or external public complaints commission. Establishing one is long overdue. In fact, Justice O'Connor recommended this, as has been mentioned here a number of times.

He recommended that 20 years ago. He said back in 2006 that an independent process was needed to manage public complaints. The government finally heeded that call 20 years later, and we are examining that bill today.

This new commission will handle public complaints regarding the CBSA, which does not already have such a process, as well as complaints about the RCMP. The Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP, or CRCC, already exists. Representatives from that body appeared before the committee. The government simply decided to combine the two into a single commission.

I heard my government colleague say earlier that combining the two commissions into one seemed quite simply the best thing to do. It is not a bad idea, I admit, but the current chairperson of the CRCC told the parliamentary committee during the hearings that she already does not have sufficient or adequate resources to deal with all the complaints within a reasonable timeframe. We were talking about financial resources, of course, but also human resources.

I am wondering how the government is going to create a single commission to deal with complaints for both the RCMP and the CBSA. I hope that, in creating this new commission, the government will give it the resources it needs to do its job properly so that victims are heard quickly.

This process can already be long and complicated. When a person is the victim of harm caused by a border services officer, they may not decide to file a complaint until a few months or even a year or two later. They may not be ready to file a complaint the day after the harm is done. All of these processes can be extremely long. If the commission does not have the necessary resources to deal with a case in a timely manner, that will obviously make the process even longer. That is not pleasant for those who decide to file a complaint.

In recent years, the media has reported on many cases of misconduct on the part of some CBSA officers. These officers have a lot of power, as we know, because they can detain and search Canadians and they can deport people. It is therefore rather surprising that there is still no commission to review public complaints.

Conducting internal investigations in this type of organization is always an option, but the process is not wholly transparent and some of the information is not available. For the public, being able to turn to an external organization that is independent of these security organizations could help boost confidence in Canada's public safety institutions.

The media has reported numerous cases involving searches of travellers' electronic devices and racist and rude remarks made by some officers toward clients and travellers. We also cannot ignore the many other situations that likely occurred but were not reported in the media. Some organizations told the parliamentary committee to imagine all the people who decide not to file a complaint out of fear of harm or consequences. For example, an immigrant or a refugee who would be sent back to their country of origin in the meantime may feel they lack the necessary tools or may fear that complaining could hurt their immigration application, so they choose not to file a complaint. All of these specific cases were worth examining to determine effective ways to change or improve the bill to make it a more transparent piece of legislation.

I touched on why it was important that this commission be created. Obviously, it will allow people to benefit from a truly transparent process. If someone is not satisfied with the results of the internal investigation by the CBSA or the RCMP, they will be able to ask the commission to look into the complaint. The commission will be able to present its findings or recommendations. However, it is important to understand that the commission will not have the power to compel the CBSA or the RCMP to take disciplinary action. Then again, these organizations will have to report to the minister and justify their response to the commission's recommendations. A report will then be tabled in the House and the Senate. This will ensure a certain degree of accountability, even if the commission cannot take any action in response to the acts committed. It will be up to the CBSA or the RCMP to take those measures, for example, with respect to the employees identified.

An interesting aspect of Bill C‑20 is that it aims to reduce the RCMP's existing complaint processing times and make the complaint processing time for the CBSA as reasonable as possible.

Who will sit on this commission? As I said last week, it will not be former members of the RCMP or the CBSA. The proposal that was adopted by the entire Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security is that the members who sit on this commission should reflect the diversity of society. When I spoke about this last week, my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord asked if we had moved an amendment to ensure that the members of the commission were bilingual. I told him that that was a good question, but that I had not tabled such an amendment because it seemed to be a no-brainer. This is Canada, there are two official languages, and I figured that the members of this commission would obviously be bilingual.

He went through something during the study of Bill C‑40, which seeks to establish the miscarriage of justice review commission. He moved an amendment to ensure that decision-makers under this act will be bilingual. Believe it or not, some committee members rejected it. It is unbelievable. Personally, I thought it was not even worth moving that kind of amendment because those people would definitely be bilingual. Interestingly enough, if this act is reviewed in the near future, I will make sure to move such an amendment. At the very least, when this commission is set up, I will look at it very closely. I want to ensure that the people appointed to the commission are representative of society, obviously, but also bilingual. That is a very important point, and I thank my colleague for bringing it up.

One of the amendments presented during the study seeks to authorize third parties to file complaints on behalf of citizens or travellers. I explained it in this way. For immigrants and refugees, there may be a language barrier. There may be people outside the country who fear reprisals, as I mentioned. Maybe the individual can turn to someone they trust or an organization that takes care of complaints. For example, members of the Quebec Immigration Lawyers Association can do this work on behalf of people who want to file a complaint. It is their job. They have the necessary expertise and they can support these people. Adding this to the bill was essential. To us, third parties have to be able to review specified activities. Fortunately, this was adopted by the committee.

We also removed a paragraph from the bill requiring the commission to be satisfied that it had sufficient resources to review a complaint. There was something vague about the wording. I talked about a lack of financial or human resources earlier. We were afraid the commission might say it could not review a particular complaint because it lacked the necessary resources. There was something unclear or missing there that we wanted to clarify to make sure the commission always gets sufficient resources to examine every complaint it receives. We certainly hope the government will put its money where its mouth is and give the commission the funds it needs to carry out its mandate.

We also added a requirement that copies of the commission's correspondence be sent to the complainant's legal representative. Earlier, I talked about third parties that can be involved in the process. The same thing applies to legal representatives. For example, if an organization is representing the complainant, but correspondence is always sent to the complainant instead of the legal representative, that is a problem, so that has to be fixed in the bill.

Finally, some aspects of the refusal to investigate were amended thanks to the Bloc Québécois. The commission will now be able to refuse a complaint rather than being required to refuse it. Sometimes a few words can make a big difference. This applies to cases where other recourse would be available to an individual. The commission can choose to refuse the complaint, but it will not be required to refuse it. We felt it was important to amend that.

I am going to talk about what I feel are the most important amendments the committee adopted to make this whole complaint process more transparent. Unions were included in establishing standards for handling complaints, and a one-year time limit for handling complaints was also added. One year may seem like a long time, but given the number of complaints filed per year, it was enough to give the commission time to investigate a complaint. Knowing that it will not go on for longer than a year may take some stress off the complainant. If the commission decides that it really needs more than a year to review a complaint, it will be entitled to that, as long as it explains why it needs more time.

We then adopted an amendment that forces the minister to provide a copy of the commission's report to the organization in question, either the RCMP or the CBSA, on the same day the minister receives it. Previously, in the bill as originally drafted, the minister would only do so if the minister considered it appropriate. In terms of accountability, we thought it would be a good idea for the agencies concerned to receive the reports as quickly as possible, so we amended that.

The government also made a suggestion that the number of national security-related complaints be stated in the annual report. We thought that was an interesting suggestion. We adopted it, again for transparency. Next, the chairperson of the commission has to publish the memorandum of understanding respecting access to protected information on the website. I am obviously getting into the more specific details of the bill, but we adopted this amendment, once again to ensure more transparency. This enhances the availability of certain information on the commission's web site.

We also added a two-year deadline for filing a complaint. As I was explaining earlier, a person will have up to two years after the harm to file a complaint. Sometimes people hesitate out of confusion, then realize that the deadline has passed and they cannot file a complaint because the incident happened too long ago. We extended the deadline to give complainants some flexibility. The commission will have the option of extending the deadline for filing a complaint and, if it chooses not to, it will be required to provide the reason it is not extending the deadline.

The NDP proposed a very worthwhile amendment. I will give the NDP credit where credit is due. The complaints that are filed cannot be subject to non-disclosure agreements. Members will recall the case of Janet Merlot and the class action lawsuit filed by hundreds of women who were the victims of sexual harassment, intimidation and discrimination during their career with the RCMP. Under the act governing the RCMP's Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, complaints could be dealt with out of court and non-disclosure agreements could be signed. We made sure that this legislation banned non-disclosure agreements outright in order to keep things as transparent as possible.

The second-last amendment that I want to mention is this: If a complainant decides to withdraw their complaint, they have to explain to the commission why they are doing so. That is for feedback purposes and to help the commission understand why a complainant would want to withdraw their complaint. Is it because the process is taking too long, for example? That would enable the commission to improve how it deals with complaints. We thought it was a good idea to add that. Finally, the union representatives of an RCMP or CBSA employee will have the opportunity to make representations to the commission, which was not the case before. The unions were somewhat neglected in this bill, so we found a way to include them because it is important to get their opinion.

Overall, Bill C‑20 was an interesting, well-crafted, long-awaited bill, but I think all the parties helped improve it in the best possible way, making it as transparent as possible. As I have mentioned before, we already have ideas on how to improve it even more once the act is reviewed. The goal is to pass it as quickly as possible so that complainants, the people harmed by border services officers, can receive a hearing, get their complaints processed as quickly as possible, and gain trust, especially in Canada's public safety institutions.

I hope this bill will be passed as soon as possible.

[Public Complaints and Review Commission Act, June 4th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, this is indeed an extremely important amendment. Interestingly enough, the Bloc Québécois had drafted the exact same amendment, but the NDP's amendment came up first, so we supported it.

Our intention was to provide the time required, obviously, as well as ensure that victims receive a response within a reasonable timeframe. We can assume that these experiences are trying. That also leads me to mention the fact that the people who sit on the commission must reflect the diversity of society, which could also help them to better understand various situations.

Yes, this is an extremely important amendment that the Bloc Québécois was proud to support. If the NDP had not proposed it, our party would have. We had more or less the same intention here.

[Public Complaints and Review Commission Act, June 4th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the very beginning of my speech, I do not think that this type of bill is a very big priority for the government. This is the third Parliament. This is the third try. I hope the third time is the charm.

The government's neglect explains the delays in studying this bill. However, as I also mentioned before, the Conservatives deserve their share of the blame. We lost many hours of debate in committee. We lost weeks and even months because the Conservative Party wanted us to examine a motion on the transfer of an inmate from a maximum-security prison to a medium-security prison. That is a very important subject, but we were studying Bill C‑20, and this bill stalled because of those delays and the Conservatives' infamous filibustering.

Yes, I would like to say that it is the government's fault that this bill has not yet been passed, but I think that the Conservatives are also to blame.

[Public Complaints and Review Commission Act, June 4th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind words.

It is important to point out that there is already a system for handling complaints internally. There is no requirement for public disclosure, however, which allows for the possibility that complaints may not always be handled objectively and without bias.

The union even came to tell us that it would be a good thing. Yes, it is good for the public, but it would also be good if officers themselves could file complaints against their superiors. Apparently it is complicated to do it through the internal process. Obviously, this will promote public trust, or at least, I hope it will.

Earlier on, my colleagues were talking about funding. We need to make sure that the commission is properly funded so that all complaints are processed and people receive a response. Sometimes, the process seems long and arduous, and people might think that a response will never come. If someone has a bad experience, and on top of that, they get no response to their complaint, their trust in the institution will suffer. That does not encourage trust in the CBSA.

I really hope that Bill C‑20 will help improve public trust in the government authorities in charge of public safety.

[Public Complaints and Review Commission Act, June 4th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑20 is the second bill that I had the chance to work on at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security since I first joined it in 2020. First there was Bill C‑21, which we talked about a lot here, and then there was Bill C‑20.

Many people have talked about the timing of the study of this bill. It has been a long process. The bill was introduced in the House on May 19, 2022, more than two years ago. As some colleagues mentioned, before Bill C‑20, there was Bill C‑3 during the 43rd Parliament, and Bill C‑98 during the 42nd Parliament. Both of those bills died on the Order Paper simply because the government chose not to prioritize them.

That is basically what happened with Bill C‑20 as well. It took a very long time to get to second reading in November 2022, six months after the bill was first introduced. The bill was then referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, where, once again, it took a very long time, another six months, before it could be studied. The government obviously bears some responsibility for these long delays, but the Conservatives also played their favourite game in parliamentary committee, specifically slowing down the work under the pretext of having another priority. There are always other priorities.

The study of Bill C‑20 was therefore delayed by many hours. In fact, we lost several meetings over several weeks. The committee was finally able to begin its study before the summer, so members could hear from the minister, public servants and various witnesses. However, right when the committee was about to begin clause-by-clause consideration, it suspended its work for the summer. When the committee returned in the fall, the same thing happened and parliamentary business was delayed for various reasons. It was not until six months later that the bill came back to the House of Commons, which brings us to third reading today.

I am going over these events to show those who might be following our work that the process of studying and amending a bill can be long and sometimes arduous.

That said, the Bloc Québécois still managed to help improve this bill, and that is what I am going to talk about this evening.

It is worth noting that there is still no external review commission to address public complaints against the Canada Border Services Agency. There is one for the RCMP, but not for the CBSA, which is the only federal security organization that does not yet have a review commission associated with it. However, 20 years ago, Justice O'Connor recommended that an independent process be created to handle public complaints against the CBSA. This issue dates back to 2004.

Bill C‑20 finally corrects this situation. Victims of the CBSA, and they do exist, have been waiting for this bill. As with any organization, abuses of power can happen, and some people have indeed been the victims of such abuses. They have been contacting us and asking to meet with us ever since the bill was introduced two years ago. They want to help us improve the bill. For them, the process has been very long, and I salute them today. As my colleague mentioned earlier, it is a little ironic that this evening's debate is subject to time allocation, as if time is suddenly running out. However, I do hope that we will see the process through to a successful conclusion and pass this bill quickly.

As we know, the CBSA has certain powers. These powers are fairly significant, such as the power to detain and search Canadians or deport people. Cases of misconduct have been reported in recent years. One that comes to mind is the case of Maher Arar, a dual Syrian and Canadian citizen who was arrested during a layover in New York City on his way back to Canada. I have talked about him in this place before.

In January 2020, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada found significant flaws concerning searches of travellers' electronic devices. Documents released around 2017 or 2018 mentioned complaints about racist or rude comments about clients or travellers. They also noted allegations of sexual misconduct. I would remind the House that the number of investigations into misconduct by border officers increased during the pandemic even though the number of international trips had decreased. The misconduct primarily involved giving preferential treatment or showing disrespect toward clients by making inappropriate comments about people, as I was saying. Other border services officers abused their authority and shared private information about the CBSA.

It is not just Canadians and travellers from this country who can be victims of the CBSA. Immigrants and refugees can also be targeted. The Canadian Council for Refugees came to committee to share what it would like to see improved in this bill. It should be noted that people who do not have permanent status in Canada are often extremely reluctant to file a complaint because they fear that it will be used against them and might hurt their chances.

When something goes wrong during a person's removal, it can be difficult for the person to lodge a complaint and go through the process, as it can sometimes be complicated given that they are outside the country. That is why the Canadian Council for Refugees told us that it would be good if organizations could bring forward third party complaints on behalf of people who, for various reasons, are unable to do so.

The government had not included this in the bill. That is why the Bloc Québécois tabled several amendments to this effect, which were fortunately adopted. Thanks to these amendments, third parties will be able to reviews of specified activities, file complaints and help citizens file complaints. Thanks to the Bloc Québécois's additions, they will also be notified if there is a refusal to investigate and will be informed of the reasons for decisions. This is a major improvement over the original bill.

It is important to note that many people who are mistreated by the CBSA are unlikely to file a complaint, as I said, sometimes because their status is not secure or because they fear consequences or reprisals. It may also be because of language barriers or problems accessing a computer or the Internet. In short, non-governmental organizations, such as the Canadian Council for Refugees, are well placed to file complaints on behalf of individuals. Some individuals may simply prefer that the organization with which they have established a relationship of trust file the complaint on their behalf.

Also, given that organizations work in this field and obviously see quite a few situations of this nature, they are well placed to identify and act on problematic patterns. If they have several examples of the same situation, a complaint about a pattern of behaviour may be more viable than an individual complaint about one person. This way, they can provide stronger evidence that there is a problem. Thanks to the Bloc Québécois amendment, organizations will be able to act as third parties, which is extremely valuable.

Essentially, the bill creates the public complaints and review commission. It will be made up of civilians who are not former members of the RCMP or the CBSA. It was very important that this be included in the bill. However, there was nothing in the bill to say that the members of this commission should reflect the diversity of society. We therefore tabled an amendment to ensure that would be the case. It was actually a recommendation from the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP, which already exists and has experience in handling complaints. It said that it was important for the people who sit on the commission to reflect the diversity of society. The Bloc Québécois therefore got this amendment adopted.

Other changes were made. The proposed subsection requiring that the commission be satisfied that sufficient resources exist for conducting the review of a complaint has been removed. There were concerns that the underfunding of the organization would be used as an excuse to avoid reviews. Witnesses told the committee that underfunding is common. This clause was like a loophole in the bill that would allow the commission to refuse to deal with complaints. However, we are confident that the government will properly fund its organizations, including this new commission, and that the commission will not be able to hide behind this aspect in order to avoid handling complaints.

We also added the requirement that a copy of communications be sent to the complainant's legal representative, because that was not the case previously. If the victim was the only person who could file a complaint, there would be no legal representative involved. That part was therefore added, which was a request from the Quebec Immigration Lawyers Association.

Some aspects pertaining to the refusal to investigate were changed thanks to amendments proposed by the Bloc Québécois. We proposed allowing the commission some room to manoeuvre. Now it may refuse to deal with a complaint, instead of being forced to refuse to deal with it, if other recourse is available to the complainant. These are small adjustments, small additions, that may make a big difference for victims of the CBSA.

We hope that these people's voices will be heard, that their complaints will be addressed in the most neutral and objective way possible and that they will get justice. Obviously, we hope that this bill is passed quickly.

[Business of Supply, June 4th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, in its motion, the NDP calls on the government to “stop Liberal and Conservative corporate handouts to big grocers”. I wonder whether the member knows what the NDP is referring to, because to my knowledge, there are no subsidy programs specifically for grocers. Obviously, there is the nutrition north program, but the NDP is proposing to boost that program's funding, for valid reasons.

In my opinion, the true fat cats pocketing federal handouts are the oil companies. Big oil makes billions of dollars in profits a year and still receives taxpayer money in the form of government handouts.

That is why I am wondering which subsidy program the NDP is referring to. Can the government member tell me if he knows what the NDP is talking about?