Bill C-20

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments

This enactment, among other things,
(a) establishes, as a replacement of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, an independent body, called the Public Complaints and Review Commission, to
(i) review and investigate complaints concerning the conduct and level of service of Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Canada Border Services Agency personnel, and
(ii) conduct reviews of specified activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency;
(b) authorizes the Chairperson of the Public Complaints and Review Commission to recommend the initiation of disciplinary processes or the imposition of disciplinary measures in relation to individuals who have been the subject of complaints;
(c) amends the Canada Border Services Agency Act to provide for the investigation of serious incidents involving officers and employees of the Canada Border Services Agency;
(d) amends the English version of federal statutes and orders, regulations and other instruments to replace references to the “Force” with references to “RCMP”; and
(e) makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member brought forward some proverbs. I have one that I would share with him. We often talk about the fact that there are two Bloc parties in this House; there is the Bloc Québécois, and then there is the “block everything party”. We know that at committee the Conservatives tabled over 75 amendments and many that they took away. They filibustered the committee for weeks and stopped Bill C-20 from coming forward.

I am just wondering how the member comes to terms with the fact that members of his own party were responsible for filibustering the committee with motions that were not even related to the bill. How does he explain that to his constituents and to Canadians?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad I caught your eye so that I could join the debate during this evening's sitting and contribute my thoughts on Bill C-20.

I have been reviewing some of the committee records, as well as some of the prior debate on what members have said about the bill. I just want to kind of run down what this bill is about, so that people back home in my riding of Calgary Shepard will know about it.

In my riding, I have a few former members of the RCMP. Some of them are long-time members. One member served almost 30 years. After 30 years of service to the RCMP, a person's body is not what it used to be, so they have to step back. One of our members who used to serve here, the former member for Yellowhead, Jim Eglinski, who then became the mayor of the county of Yellowhead, was also a long-time member of the RCMP. Famously, he had made quite a famous arrest on Vancouver Island of a man who had tried to assassinate an Indian cabinet minister on the island. I will always remember that Wednesday in the House when he first rose from our side to ask the question, because he actually had been the arresting officer in that particular situation. It was in the news because this particular individual, after he had served his time in jail and after he had gone through an Indian government program, had been allowed to travel again to India, but he happened to be travelling with an official Government of Canada party. It was just a memorable situation.

It was easy to tell that Jim had served in the RCMP for a long time, even while he was a member of Parliament here. He would tell us stories as well, including the time he had been in a mine collapse, and yet somehow managed to survive and make his way out.

Some of these men and women in uniform do some pretty extraordinary things. I remember when I was working in one of the provincial government departments. The chain of command went up to the minister's office. We would go back and forth over some of these odd situations that fish and wildlife officers would find themselves in, where they were assisting RCMP officers out on very remote provincial highways and doing things like busting kidnapping attempts. They were doing drug busts with RCMP officers, because at times they would find themselves without the proper equipment out in the field, so they would need the help of fish and wildlife officers. Those were very unusual situations.

I have been going through the summary of the bill and what the bill would do. Very briefly, again, it would establish an independent body that would now be called the public complaints and review commission, as a replacement for the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It would authorize the chairperson of the public complaints and review commission to recommend the initiation of disciplinary processes, of the imposition of disciplinary measures, in relation to individuals who have been the subject of complaints. It would amend the Canada Border Services Agency Act to provide for an investigation of serious incidents involving officers and employees of the Canada Border Services Agency. It would also amend the English version of federal statutes, orders and regulations to replace references to “the force” with references to the RCMP. Finally, it would make, at the back end, some amendments to other acts. These are called consequential amendments, to bring everything into line.

At second reading, this bill was read three times in the House before it went to committee. I would say that at committee it received some pretty extensive review. Close to 20 meetings were held in order to review this particular piece of legislation. It came out in the fall, and it kind of lingered there. The government did not move it forward up until report stage on May 3 and then, once again, on June 4. I will note that the government has not seemed to be in an extreme rush, because it was November of 2022 when it went to committee. It got out in the fall and then it was only on May 3, 2024 and June 4, 2024, that it came back to this House for further debate, and get it off to that other place.

I am sure when the House leaders are meeting that the government House leader plans things. There is a Yiddish proverb that says that man plans and God laughs. In a lot of ways, two years for this type of legislation to come to the House to be considered is a very long time. It has probably defeated all of the plans that the government made. This was also a previous piece of legislation, Bill C-98 in the 42nd Parliament, as well as Bill C-3 in the 43rd Parliament. As we know, the 43rd Parliament ended in August of 2021. The Prime Minister called a very unnecessary election on the same day that the Taliban took over Kabul and the fall of the democratic government in Afghanistan happened.

I will mention a few of the concerns I noted from committee. A few of the concerns included a lack of consultations. Some of the stakeholder groups mentioned that concern.

There was concern expressed, and other members have expressed concern here, that there will probably be difficulty in obtaining the specialized types of individuals they will want to appoint as Governor in Council appointees for the board for this commission because of the unique set of skills, knowledge and experience that they will need in order to make sure that they can hear the CBSA and RCMP cases. Like I mentioned, I have a few RCMP officers who are now retired from the force or have left the force, including one who worked at the Calgary airport as part of the RCMP team there, and some of the younger officers too.

Policing is a difficult job and I have a great appreciation for all those who pursue it, including my former executive assistant. She joined the Ottawa Police Service as a uniformed officer just a few months ago. She will be completing her time with the Ontario Police College later in August, will be graduating from the college there and will be back here in OPS as a uniformed police officer. I always joke that she is the first person in my office in nine years to get a real job after politics. I see a few members chuckling on that side. I think too many members here have staff who linger on or get a desk job. She is actually going to be doing something productive, and I am really happy that she found a thing that she is going to love doing. Hopefully, the rest of her life she will have a long, successful career and I wish Cheyenne all the best of luck with that.

The third concern that was expressed was the lack of independence for access to information requests. There are a few portions in there that would allow the commission to rule certain things as ineligible for an access to information request. Again, there is a lack of a mandated review period. Those statutory reviews, as we know, do not always happen on time, but even when they are missing from legislation, legislation can then linger on without having parliamentarians take a closer look at it. I do not think it is the end of the world.

I hope the House will indulge me for a moment. I do have a member of my riding, a very special person who is retiring. Christine McIver is a truly special Albertan and a friend of mine. She is the retiring founder of the Kids Cancer Camps of Alberta. This was her passion project for decades. I did not know her son Derek, but heard so many stories about him. He passed away from cancer. He was the inspiration for the work that she was doing. Just like Christine, I am a parent who sat in many NICUs and many ICUs with some of my kids, including the one who passed away, so I share that with her. Again, I imagine her sitting in a pediatric ICU waiting to be told that the neurosurgeon had removed a mandarin-sized orange from her son's brain. He had medulloblastoma, a hyper-aggressive brain cancer. Derek would pass away in her arms on April 26, 1991, so it has been a long time. From her grief, she started to raise funds. She built a camp and a network, and she has created over, if I count in my head quickly, 20 camp programs single-handedly, which now she has passed on to others to continue her work.

Famously, a lot of the fundraising started with giving toques with a logo of a bear that had a crooked smile on its face. It is neat because Derek, post-surgery, had a crooked smile, resulting from having so much brain matter removed, so they put the little bear picture on toques that were very popular and many of us still have them. A concept of a Derek bear was born. Christine became “Crazy Bear”, as she would say, because she was so passionate about this project. She received a lot of medals, awards and achievements over time. I just wanted to tell Christine, Crazy Bear, to rest assured that her mission is accomplished. I wish a very happy retirement to her.

With that, I go back to my Yiddish proverb: Man plans, God laughs. One never knows what life will put before us. Bill C-20 has taken a long time to get here and there have been three different pieces of legislation. I look forward to questions from the other side.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Depot should always stay in Regina.

In regard to Bill C-20, it gives some oversight to the RCMP and CBSA, and they welcome that oversight. However, whenever I go to the Depot, in the heart of Regina—Lewvan, I talk to new recruits. I was able to talk at a troop graduation ceremony. One thing that they are constantly asking for is to have more support from all leaders, whether it be provincial, municipal or federal. They sometimes feel like they are really left on their own, especially when it comes to some of the parties in this House, and when it comes to some Liberal and some NDP members in the House. They know that they are encouraging some of the anti-police or defund the police movements.

What they really want to see is a collective voice to make sure that there is support for our men and women in uniform. I stand tall and I stand proud with them. I will always support our RCMP men and women in uniform who are keeping our communities safe across the country. I want them all to know that. I really appreciate the work that they put in to keeping Canada safe.

The House resumed from June 4 consideration of Bill C-20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there is indeed a secret in the House, and that is the Conservative Party's true intentions when it comes to cuts. “Chop, chop, chop,” as my colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine so aptly puts it. That party wants to cut social programs and the programs that are so dear to Quebeckers and Canadians: women's rights, the right to abortion, the right to contraception. The Conservatives want to scrap our government's dental care and pharmacare plans. The secret is the Conservative Party's hidden agenda, which will do great harm to all Canadians.

With our government's usual transparency, this evening we will proceed to report stage consideration of Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments, and Bill C-40, an act to amend the Criminal Code, to make consequential amendments to other acts and to repeal a regulation regarding miscarriage of justice reviews, also known as David and Joyce Milgaard's law.

Tomorrow, we will begin second reading of Bill C-63, an act to enact the online harms act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts.

I would like to inform the House that next Monday and Thursday shall be allotted days. On Tuesday, we will start report stage of Bill C-69, the budget implementation act. On Wednesday, we will deal with Bill C-70, concerning foreign interference, as per the special order adopted last Thursday. I wish all members and the House staff a good weekend.

Opposition Motion—Documents Regarding Sustainable Development Technology Canada

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I wish to apologize to the member, to the House and anyone else I may have offended.

Specifically, the member referenced a speech that I gave in the House Tuesday night on Bill C-20. In a quote she read from my speech, I said the following, “One of the interesting things in that particular incident was that the perpetrator, Myles Sanderson, had a history of violent offences and had been recently released on parole, despite the prediction by the parole board that he was likely to reoffend because of his racial background.” I misspoke when I used the word “because”. I meant to say “regardless”.

This was caught immediately and when the blues came out, the preliminary version of Hansard, we requested to change the word “because” to “regardless”. That change was accepted and published in Hansard officially.

Once again, I apologize for misspeaking. I never meant to offend anyone. I never meant to cast any aspersions on anyone because of race.

First Responders Tax Credit

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order to discuss a serious incident that occurred in this chamber on Tuesday night. As you may recall, the House was sitting late on that evening to debate Bill C-20, the public complaints and review commission.

Bill C-20 is a very important piece of legislation, which is a long time coming. The purpose of the bill was to put in place an independent oversight body for the RCMP and CBSA as a way to deal with institutional issues, including actions of excessive police force and systemic racism.

It is also worth noting that the debate that evening came a day after the five-year anniversary of the release of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls across the country, which called on a need for reforms in policing to deal with both violence and over- and under-policing of indigenous peoples, particularly indigenous women, specifically noted in calls for justice 9.1 to 9.11. It is within this context, the comments I am about to cite are deeply concerning.

During the debate on the bill, the member for Saskatoon West made very concerning and inappropriate remarks. During the member's speech, while speaking about the case of Myles Sanderson, the member made the following shocking and completely wrong statement. He said, “One of the interesting things in that particular incident was that the perpetrator, Myles Sanderson, had a history of violent offences and had been recently released on parole, despite the prediction by the parole board that he was likely to reoffend because of his racial background.”

Mr. Speaker, that is not at all what the Parole Board said in a statement in response to the final report of the National Joint Board of Investigation into the mass stabbing in Saskatchewan by the offender on statutory release. It clearly said, “The BOI found there were no pre-incident indicators or precipitating events that were known to staff, or that staff could have acted upon to prevent this incident.” Moreover, the Parole Board also noted, “the overall case preparation leading up to the release of the offender was both reasonable and appropriate, including the consideration of the Indigenous social history of the offender in the decision-making process.”

It is important to note “that courts must consider an Aboriginal offender's background when he or she is being sentenced for a crime. Factors that are considered include discrimination, physical abuse, separation from culture and family, or drug and alcohol abuse”, in response to the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling.

I will read from the Supreme Court ruling, R v. Ipeelee. It states—

Report Stage

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join this debate, and I am looking forward to speaking, then to question and answers. Before I get into the substance of the debate, this is the 10th anniversary of the shooting in Moncton, New Brunswick. Five officers were shot and three were shot fatally. I would just like to read their names into the record, so we should always remember our fallen heroes: Constable Larche, age 40; Constable Ross, age 32; Constable Gevaudan, age 45. Injured in the shooting in Moncton 10 years ago today were Constable Goguen and Constable Eric Dubois. When we are speaking to this bill, we should always keep all those in our mind who paid the ultimate sacrifice for our freedoms and for the safety that we enjoy in this country.

Now, we can get to the substance of Bill C-20. The legislation would rename the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to the public complaints and review commission, which would also have the ability to accept complaints filed against the Canada Border Services Agency.

First and foremost, I will be continuing to support our men and women in uniform. The RCMP Depot, like I said earlier, is in the heart of Regina—Lewvan. I have been on the grounds many times, and wherever there is an RCMP officer across this beautiful country, that officer was trained in our hometown of Regina and we are very proud. Despite some of the ideas that might be flowing out there, I will fight tooth and nail to ensure that the Depot will stay in Regina—Lewvan for the next 50 years or 100 years, because that is where it deserves to be.

It is with great pride that I represent that area because the RCMP has continued to increase its training every year. I think there is the idea out here in the public that it still trains the way it did in the 1980s and 1990s. However, one can see the new innovation training and the simulators where trainees get to do different situational engagement with the public and the training has evolved so much. They have social workers, and they do so many more things to get ready to have the men and women go out and protect their communities, more than they have ever done before. I have gone through and watched the training facilities, and it is never stagnant. They are always trying to get better. They are always trying to build on what they are doing to make sure that the men and women are ready to face very difficult situations when they are protecting their communities.

I would like to talk a bit about what I asked my good friend and colleague from Saskatoon Grasswoods, and I appreciated his speech. There is a serious deficit when it comes to recruitment and retention of people who want to be in the RCMP or the RPS or the Saskatoon Police Service. I suspect most cities and communities are finding it more and more difficult to find people who want to serve and protect Canadians. That is something we have to take on as leaders in our communities and make sure that we have the support. The police have our support, and I want to put that on the record. All Conservatives will stand with our men and women in uniform always. It is a tag line that we have in Saskatchewan. Our Saskatchewan caucus is 14-strong and we always say we are always on Saskatchewan's side, and that means the men and women who serve across our communities to help keep us safe.

I do have a couple of quotes in favour of this legislation and I want to get into the record. The National Police Federation states:

While there are many advantages to having the police investigate the police, many provincial public complaints bodies have utilized a hybrid investigative model. This model includes the involvement of civilian investigators in the investigative process, with some reliance on experienced police investigators, either retired or serving.

The National Police Federation members are in favour of this because they want to have that openness and transparency if something goes wrong. To err is human, and that is what our men and women are who serve. Sometimes, situations arise where officers have to be reviewed and see what happens, and we see that more often than not, now. We have seen that crime has risen across this country over the past nine long years with the NDP-Liberal coalition in power. We want to get back to having safer streets, and that is the commitment that the Conservatives will make. We would bring common sense back to Canada so we can make sure that Canadians have their safe streets again.

With that, I just want to continue to say that I appreciate what our men and women in uniform do. Hopefully, we do not have to talk about anniversaries when our men and women have passed away in the line of duty. It has happened far too often, and we have to make sure that we give them all the tools to be able to come home safe each and every night. That is what we want to make sure that we do by supporting the legislation so that if there is something that does happen that we have to review, the proper processes are in place.

With that, I will take some questions.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join the debate tonight and follow my friend from Saskatoon—Grasswood, who gave an excellent speech. He mentioned that the police would be coming to the Saskatchewan Conservative caucus meeting tomorrow, which is great news. I wonder if the police will be going to the Liberal caucus meeting tomorrow as well after all the ethical scandals that we have been seeing, but that is to be determined.

I have been listening to the debate tonight and want to start by delving into some of the exchanges that have taken place so far, some more substantive ones and less substantive ones that perhaps should be commented on. Earlier in the evening, I had the opportunity to have a good exchange with my colleague from Edmonton Griesbach. In his speech, he highlighted, importantly, instances of injustice, abuse and violence through the actions of members of the police. We need to draw attention to those instances of violence, injustice and racism, call them out and put in place the actions to combat them.

I also think it is important to establish a positive discourse about the work being done by police and the positive role that police officers play within our society. That is important because, of course, without a positive message around the contributions that police officers are making in our society, we will struggle to recruit, which other members have commented on the importance of. Moreover, we should be grateful to the vast majority of police officers, who sacrifice and risk their lives and safety every day when they go to work, not knowing what they will encounter or what the outcomes will be and nonetheless working hard to protect their communities.

Are there instances where people in those sorts of positions betray that trust? Absolutely those instances exist. Are there more than just individual instances? Are there cases that we might be able to identify where there are histories or mentalities that contribute to wrong action? Those are legitimate things to discuss and certainly explore, but we need to recognize that, overwhelmingly, police play a positive role in our society, particularly when we have proper oversight, as advanced by this bill. As I and my colleagues have said, we support Bill C-20, but in the context of proper oversight, the commitment and sacrifice of police officers can be harnessed for them to play a dramatic, productive role in our society.

I worry that a discourse that emphasizes the negatives without the positives has led to bad policy outcomes, which are very dangerous for marginalized communities. All the evidence shows us that when we do not have a properly funded, effective police force in place, it is the most vulnerable who suffer. In certain contexts, there may be weaker state institutions, which we see in certain places around the world where the state does not have the capacity to provide the kind of protection from law enforcement that we take for granted generally here in Canada. There, wealthier people are still able to provide for their own protection through other kinds of private means for protecting their security, whereas those who cannot afford these mechanisms are the most vulnerable.

If we push the “defund the police” movement forward, the result is that those who are not able to protect themselves are more vulnerable to violence, while those who have more power and resources within a society are, to a greater extent, able to invest in their own protection. This is why the demonization of police and the movements to defund the police are ultimately deeply destructive, especially to the most vulnerable and marginalized. I would affirm the importance of recognizing injustice, of holding people accountable and of proper oversight, but I would also challenge all members in all parties of this House to recognize the positive contribution of police officers and police forces and establish a discourse that is affirming of their efforts and sacrifices.

I also believe in the importance of individual responsibility. I think when we see bad actions take place, the primary response should be holding the individuals who commit those actions responsible, recognizing that individual action is never rendered inevitable by institutional context, and that regardless of the context in which an individual is, the organization they are a member of, etc., they still bear responsibility for their own choices to act or not to act in a certain way.

Now, I want to respond as well to the exchange that I had with the member for Winnipeg Centre, and this was a perplexing exchange. I rose in response to her speech about violence against indigenous communities to ask a specific question about violence against indigenous communities and the destruction of churches and other cultural property that we have seen. It is a highly pertinent question at this time in Canada when dozens of churches have been not just vandalized but burned to the ground, many historic churches in indigenous communities, and where indigenous leaders have spoken out against these attacks on their communities. I think it is important when we see this rampage of violence against indigenous cultural property, against churches in particular, that leaders at all levels speak out against that violence. Strikingly, there has been a lack of response to these attacks on churches, in particular, on churches in indigenous communities. There has been a stark silence from so many leaders who should be condemning these acts of violence, and who would be quick to condemn acts of violence against other kinds of religious institutions.

The reason I have persisted in asking the member for Winnipeg Centre these questions is because I had asked the questions before and she had refused to condemn these acts of violence against churches. I have now asked the member the same question four times, and her response has been to attack me personally and to make all kinds of absurd, obviously verifiably bizarre allegations and accusations, which she has been told by the Speaker to withdraw. She has refused to withdraw, and I have no doubt that there will be follow-up on that matter. However, the point is that these were serious questions that were ignored. I think we should be clear and consistent in condemning all forms of abuse, all forms of violence against all communities. It is a glaring hole in that pattern of general condemnation to see the lack of response from many politicians to the rampage of destruction that has targeted Christian churches.

Further to the debate that has happened tonight, I want to agree with the comments that have been made by many of my Conservative colleagues about the increase in crime being an important part of the context of this legislation, and about how there was, leading up to 2015, during the tenure of the previous Conservative government, a decline in the rates of violent crime, and there has been a spike in violent crime since this Prime Minister took office. As they say, elections have consequences. When we elect a political party that has an ideology and implements that ideology, we see the results of it. I think we have seen, over the last nine years, the ideological experimentation of this Prime Minister, and we have seen the results: higher rent, higher cost of living, declining reputation in the world and increasing violent crime. The Prime Minister, over the last nine years, has experimented with putting one of the furthest left ideologies we have ever seen in this country into action, and we have seen, over the last nine years, the results of that extreme ideology.

There has also been some discussion tonight of scheduling issues. I think it is clear that this government has wildly mismanaged its legislative agenda, and every time the member for Winnipeg North stands up to speak for 20 minutes about how the opposition should stop talking about bills, yes, I do just shake my head.

We support Bill C-20. We think there are some important provisions in it, and I appreciate the chance to participate in the debate and engage in dialogue with various members about various issues.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak to this bill in Parliament. Third time lucky, maybe.

Now it is called Bill C-20. It was Bill C-98, when it was brought to the House in May of 2019. Then it was dropped because of the writ in September. Then the Liberals brought it back again as Bill C-3. It was brought back in January of 2020, and then it died in August when the Liberals prorogued Parliament.

Here we are, maybe third time lucky, for Bill C-20. We will see what happens here. It is an act establishing the public complaints and review commission, something that I think is actually deeply needed in this country. I am going to talk about that in a moment.

The legislation, right now, would rename the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to the public complaints and review commission. Under its new name, the commission would also be responsible for reviewing civilian complaints against the Canada Border Services Agency.

This bill follows through on a Liberal election promise. I remember running in 2015 for the first time, and that was one of the bills the Liberals talked about. Then, as I mentioned, in 2015, the Liberals got elected with a majority. Finally, they brought this bill out four years after that. Now we are at another four to five years, and maybe we will get Bill C-20 passed in the House.

I am going to talk about it a little, because there is no question a civilian review commission would improve the oversight and help the CBSA be an even more effective agency in its duties and its functions. The public complaints and review commission should end the practice of police investigating police. There is nothing good that comes out of that. There will be a lot of questions, as we have seen over the years.

We want to implement a fully independent model, and I think this is where we are going with Bill C-20. We all know that over the past number of years, we have seen an increase in interest in police activities all through social media. The latest is people with cellphones. I have seen it in my city of Saskatoon, people taking a cellphone out, not to record an accident, but to record the police and what they are doing. This is very dangerous. This is an ongoing thing that we have seen in this country, time and time again.

Now, there is a risk of some bias or perceived bias in investigations that have been conducted by police officers from the same organization. As we all know, this can potentially undermine public trust and confidence in the investigation process. The internal investigation process may lack the transparency and public accountability that could lead to skepticism and doubts about the fairness of all these investigations.

We have seen a lot of that, and I am going to talk about it right now. Some of the groups in my province that seems to be under a lot of pressure with the police, whether it is city police or municipal police or even the RCMP, are the indigenous groups. They feel that being independent from the agency would certainly be more helpful. The community would feel more comfortable filing complaints, knowing that an independent body would review and take action, if appropriate. Everyone understands that all complaints should be resolved in a timely manner. It is in the interest of both the complainant and the employee subject of the complaint.

I am going to go back in time to the James Smith Cree Nation mass killer Myles Sanderson. Unfortunately, he was actually released from custody before killing 11 and injuring 17 others, and that was during the 2022 rampage. The investigation into his statutory release made 14 recommendations for the Correctional Service Canada and the Parole Board of Canada.

Sanderson had a massive record of violent assaults over a number of years. The killings have raised questions about why he was released. The police really did not know where he was for months. Ten recommendations were directed at the Parole Board, including reviewing scheduling guidelines to allow members more time to prepare for hearings and for writing decisions thereafter.

The community involvement, I feel, in the James Smith Cree Nation mass killing was excluded from this process, and that is something we need to learn from. The RCMP certainly made some mistakes during the mass killing of 2022. I would say there were several mistakes also made by the James Smith Cree Nation. The communication between the reserve and the RCMP detachment in Melfort was spotty at the best of times. I will compliment the provincial government, as it held an inquiry. A coroner, Clive Weighill, who was the former city police chief of Saskatoon, conducted the inquiry for several weeks in Melfort.

The RCMP, as I said, admitted it made mistakes. It was a very emotional inquiry. It went on for weeks in Melfort. It was closely followed by the whole province. This was an event we hope will never happen again. It gave the chance for family members to finally grieve. As I said, 11 passed away; Myles Sanderson killed 11 and injured 17. During this inquiry, the members of the families needed to talk about what they saw and what their family members went through, which was deeply needed. That is the part in question. When the public complaints and review commission is established, we need to hear from the public.

James Smith Cree Nation is only a few kilometres from the city of Melfort, where all the RCMP of the detachment came from. I remember reading the stories. There was a gentleman stabbed in a vehicle. Some say the police should have known. If they had stopped, maybe they could have saved that person. He died later in a hospital. There was a lot of miscommunication between the RCMP and James Smith Cree Nation.

With Bill C-20, I am hoping we could have these public discussions before an event like this happens rather than having it after. As I said, it was a very emotional event. I received texts from all over the world about it. I remember a banquet I held in Delisle with Billy Smith, who was the notorious, great goaltender of the New York Islanders. He texted me right away when that happened because he was that concerned. Billy is from Regina, by the way, and the home of the RCMP depot is Regina—Lewvan. Billy Smith knew right away this was an issue in our province of Saskatchewan between the RCMP and, in this case, James Smith Cree Nation. He just wanted to reach out to see if everybody was fine.

That was one of many texts I received that week, where people were genuine. They knew the issue in our province between the RCMP and indigenous groups, and unfortunately it took an event like this to get this raised.

As I conclude, I am happy that we are talking about this. The mandatory annual reporting by the RCMP and CBSA on actions taken in response to PCRC recommendations is something we desperately need, as well as the mandatory reporting of race-based data by the PCRC. Public education is first and foremost. We all need to get educated on situations like this. This bill going forward, Bill C-20, would help everyone, not only in my province of Saskatchewan, but also in every district in this country.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, first of all, there is some housekeeping. Of course, it is 11:05 p.m. on June 4, and we are here in the House debating a bill, but first of all, June 4 is a very important date in my household. June 4 is my anniversary with my wife of our marriage 13 years ago. Members who have met my wife know that I am a pretty lucky man, and I thank her for all the years and all the joy she has added to my life. My life is full because of her.

Let me get to the matter at hand here. My constituents will know that we start work the same time as they do, 8 a.m., here in Ottawa. Here we are at 11 p.m., and that is because of mismanagement of the government's agenda. There is a lot on the agenda here, but the things we were talking about last week and the week before are all a matter of not being able to manage the time in this House, and that is on the government's side.

However, tonight we are here debating Bill C-20, which is an act establishing the public complaints and review commission. It is an act that would actually take what was previously the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission and update it. It has been debated in the House by the government a number of times, in three different Parliaments, starting as a promise in 2015, and then it expired. Then, of course, it came back, and it came back again. It is back in front of this Parliament this time, and I will have people note that the first time the bill was read in this Parliament for first reading, as we call it, was on May 19, 2022. Over two years ago, the bill was brought before the House of Commons.

Then, of course, the process in the House of Commons is that we go to a second reading. The second reading, in this government's allocation of its timeline, happened on November 25, 2022, so about six months later, the House got it through to a second reading, which is where we debate in the House of Commons, much like we are doing here tonight, although we usually do it before supper.

Then, of course, it goes to committee. It gets consideration in committee, and that took, for some reason, a full year. People need to know that when a bill goes to committee, it has precedence over everything else that is happening in the committee, over all the reports and everything else, and legislation jumps to the front of that. It is not like it is waiting behind a whole bunch of things to get done. The minute it goes to committee, it gets considered, but for some reason, the government did not want to put it there and get it passed until November 2023, a full year after second reading in the House of Commons. That is too long. Again, it is mismanagement, not on the opposition side, but on the government side.

The government does not know how to get its legislation through the House, and it was not always this way. Governments used to get things done in this place. They did not have to sit until midnight to go through an agenda to get things done. They actually got things done in the allocated time, and that took some co-operation with the other parties in the House of Commons. I wish the current government could learn co-operation and could learn how to actually make bills better in committee and on the floor of the House of Commons. However, it is acting repeatedly in an autocratic sense, and as a result, here we are. Here we are at almost midnight, 11:09, as I see right now on the clock.

We are debating Bill C-20, and it is not a bad bill, but it is a bill that we need to take a good look at because it would impact so much. It is about public trust, at the end of the day, to reinforce the government's intent to build that public trust in oversight of law enforcement for accountability and responsibility.

I am not sure I am allowed to do this, so I hope the Speaker pays attention to what I am saying. The bill was introduced in the House of Commons by the then minister of public safety. That former minister is no longer in cabinet for some good reasons. That former minister used to mislead this Parliament on a daily basis. He would come up in question period, and for every response to any question he gave, he would say the talking lines, even if they were so remote from reality that they stunk, quite frankly. I remember a journalist in the paper actually said that this man knows how to “fluff their putts” like nobody else. Yes, the remoteness from the truth was something that was very off his agenda at that point in time.

This is a bill about trust. That is pertinent because the people introducing bills have to be people Canadians can trust. To actually have trust in the House of Commons, we have to make sure people are always representing themselves as honest people. That is what we need. It is about honourability in the House of Commons. We have seen the results of that.

The bill is about an imbalance of power, if we think about it. If somebody is going to make a complaint in front of a public review committee and it is the police that they are complaining about, or the Border Services Agency, to go to the committee and tell it that they have a complaint about somebody in the organization creates a bit of a problem, particularly, if I can talk about it, with new Canadians. In Canada, we have a robust system of justice, a robust system of reporting and a robust parliamentary democracy, which is being mismanaged right now, but it is still a tradition of democracy.

Many Canadians come here from other regimes where they do not have that. The trust in the police is not there. New Canadians represent a substantial percentage of Canadians. They do not necessarily have trust in the institutions in their prior countries. The imbalance of power they sense would be much more than that of a complainant who was born and raised here and who has experienced their own interactions with police. There is that extra consideration we need to give in the bill to make sure that we are not looking at something and visiting it unfairly.

I would like to talk to the government, of course, about bias and conflict of interest, because the bill is all about conflict of interest and setting up a new body to make sure that other bodies are not looking after their own business at the end of the day. Setting up a separate civilian body to look after the police has been a long time coming. Roping in the Canada Border Services Agency is also something that needs to be done. It would elevate the organization as well. However, conflicts of interest are about the confidence, credibility and objectivity of the complaint process that would have to be undertaken.

Let me talk about something here, because I remembered that the former governor general was the special rapporteur on foreign interference in Canadian elections. I looked at it. I had great respect for the former governor general when he was the governor general. It is almost as if I wanted to scream across the airwaves to him that he was in a conflict of interest, with respect to what he would be reporting to on foreign elections interference. Not knowing one has a conflict of interest, even though one has an interest, is the definition of conflict of interest.

We have to understand that being involved in something means one has a perspective that does not make them objective. That is what the nature of the legislation before us actually would do; it would move the reporting relationship one step further than the people who might have been directly involved, one step away from what was involved in the complaint that happened in the first place. That is a necessity. That is the imperative that has to happen here. From what I have seen from the members on the other side, they have to get back to the basics of understanding what the whole nature of a conflict of interest is about.

I tuned in for a while to the Auditor General this morning. I can tell the House that she spoke repeatedly about conflict of interest, particularly with respect to the SDTC and how many of its directors appointed by the current government have put themselves in a position of conflict of interest. Clearly there is a misunderstanding among the government, and its friends, about how it has to report its interests, its financial interest in that case. However, interests are interests. We have to make sure that they are balanced appropriately and that everybody has the opportunity for objectivity.

There is a quantity that we are looking at. I appreciate that the minister has put forward what the bill would cost Canadians. It is about $120 million over the first six years, and then about $20 million per year after that, so even now, $20 million to set up an organization of arm's-length people to make sure that there would be a complaints process. Canadians need to know that, but I am hoping the government in this case can actually stick to a number, because it has not stuck to a budget yet that it has put forward on the floor of the House of Commons. That too is a matter of accountability that it has delivered nothing on at this point in time.

One thing I want to say before I close is that some input came in through committee from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. I will shorten the quote, knowing I am out of time. It states:

Unfortunately, Bill C-20 ignores these types of recommendations as well as the criticisms of the RCMP’s existing inadequate complaints investigation structure. Instead of putting in place truly independent, civilian investigation of police and security agency misconduct, it retains the limited powers in the current police complaints system and extends the CRCC’s flawed oversight model to the CBSA.

I wish—

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, let us talk about that. I know that members on the other side of the House are eager to jump into this right now, but the fact of the matter is that the Liberals promised it. They promised to introduce a more effective oversight of federal law enforcement agencies in, drum roll, 2015. That is right. Nine years ago, they were hot to trot and decided to introduce Bill C-98, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the Canada Border Services Agency Act. However, when did they introduce it? It was not 2015, not 2016, not 2017 and not 2018. It was 2019, in May. What was May 2019 about? That was the end of their first mandate. They decided in May 2019 to introduce it and an election was called. They had to have an election. Then what happened? That legislation fell through.

They obviously were not very serious about this law, as it fell through in 2019. Then they decided they were going to bring it up again in January 2020, a few months later. They went through some of the processes, and actually, the Conservatives voted for the bill all the way through. However, the Liberals did not give themselves enough time, and even more than that, they decided to take the opportunity to have a COVID election, something they said they were not going to do but did. Then guess what happened to this bill. It tanked. It died.

Here we are again, and it is at the very end of the session. It is not May, though. It is June, and the Liberals have decided to bring it forward again, rushing it through because of their disorganization and ramming it through with time allocation. We are approaching the pumpkin hour debating Bill C-20, and my question is, are they even serious about having this bill pass? One must wonder. Maybe it is a good bill, and they are not used to having a good bill. The fact of the matter is that we want it passed. However, we do believe in debating it. We do believe in speaking to it. I think that is important.

The bill before us deals with specific complaints made by the public about the RCMP or the Canada Border Services Agency. It is about how these complaints would be investigated. Currently, the CBSA and the RCMP investigate most of the complaints filed. While both of these agencies, the RCMP and CBSA, are very professional, there is, nonetheless, concern about police investigating police. There is a risk of bias or perceived bias, which can undermine public trust, and an internal investigation process may lack transparency and public accountability, leading to doubts about fairness.

Before I go any further, I want to express my deep appreciation for the work and service of RCMP officers, police overall, and our Canadian border services personnel for the public security and safety they provide. They place their lives on the line, day in and day out. I think of Constable Rick O'Brien, who was a constable in my riding of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge. He was at a drug bust when he was shot at through the door from the other side and killed. His widow is Nicole, and he had six children. He was a real example of a person who just gave his all in community engagement, especially with youth. He became an officer later in his life, probably in his forties, but it was his dream. However, he laid down his life.

Bill C-20 is not an anti-police or anti-border agency bill, but I just want to say that, as Conservatives, we support our protective services, and they know that. As a matter of fact, I can think of maybe one person who is a police officer who has said that she may not vote for me. I mean, there may be a police officer who is not voting for Conservatives, but they see that we stand for order, safety, security and sanity, as opposed to the disorder, insanity and chaos of the other side. We are living in a dangerous society, and our CBSA also faces risks. To them all, I say thank you.

Public complaints do occur, justified or unjustified, and it is important that the complaints be dealt with expeditiously with as little red tape as possible. However, the Liberals and the NDP are red tape proponents, and it just causes delays and increased expenses. Even though they have added 100,000 new bureaucrats, things have gotten a lot worse. We believe in being expeditious. We support an amendment for the PCRC, which would be the public complaints review commission, to direct the RCMP to conduct informal resolutions. It would just be informal.

According to the National Police Federation, most complaints can be resolved with a phone call, and they can conduct information resolutions to address long delays of complaints. It is important that we get things moving. We do believe that there needs to be timelines, that it cannot just go on and on. Things must move along so that justice and people's concerns are addressed. We also believe that timelines begin at the top, and it really falls on the Liberal government, with its cabinet ministers who do not take control of the bureaucracy, and that just goes right down. We believe in having more efficiency, which is important for the taxpayers.

Conservatives also support the unions that represent workers during the hearings. We believe in fair processes that support union agreements, and an automatic back pay process for unfounded complaints because, when someone, such as agents, security personnel or police, is being investigated, it can be without pay. It is important that, if the complaint is unfounded, they would automatically receive their back pay.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak tonight to Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission.

As we have heard, the bill seeks to establish a stand-alone statute to create the public complaints and review commission, the PCRC, to serve as a robust independent review body for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency. It proposes to build on the expertise of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, which currently serves as the complaints and review body for the RCMP. This work would continue under the PCRC. It would increase transparency and accountability on the review body's mandate, which will also be extended to the Canada Border Services Agency.

Bill C-20 responds to a long-standing gap in the public safety civilian review framework by ensuring an external review process for the CBSA, as there is currently no mechanism to request an independent review of public complaints against the agency.

We have before us a much-improved bill that raises the bar of the quality of law enforcement review in Canada. This is due in no small part to the quality of the interventions by members and witnesses at committee.

During its study of Bill C-20, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security heard from various stakeholders, including indigenous leaders, union representatives, academics, and civil rights and society organizations. I am pleased to note that all were generally supportive of this initiative. I therefore take this opportunity to thank the members of SECU, witnesses and stakeholders, who all contributed to advancing this important legislation.

In particular, I would like to thank Heather Campbell, a commissioner with the Calgary Police Commission, who spoke to the need for improved data collection and analysis in policing. Data is key to identifying and developing responses to systemic issues in Canadian law enforcement.

I also wish to highlight the testimony of members of the Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l'immigration. Their testimony highlighted the need to ensure that third parties can submit complaints to the PCRC and to guarantee that information shared with complainants is also shared with legal representatives.

Aided by these testimonies, the committee made several amendments that improved Bill C-20, strengthening the complaints and review process through increased accountability and transparency, as well as providing further clarity to make it more accessible to all.

I would now like to highlight some of the most impactful changes made to the proposed legislation by the committee.

To build further trust in federal law enforcement, it is imperative that complainants be able to recognize themselves and their communities in the PCRC, including among members of the commission. Thus, it bears repeating that one of the committee's main contributions is the inclusion of a clause that would require the Minister of Public Safety to take into account the diversity of Canadian society when he or she recommends to the Governor in Council the appointment of a PCRC member.

The committee also made amendments to increase transparency around the complaints and review process by requiring the PCRC to incorporate additional elements in its annual report, such as demographic data on complainants. This amendment will be key to supporting our efforts to identify and respond to issues of systemic racism within law enforcement, as well as boosting public confidence in our institution.

A third amendment that received strong support from all committee members is one that would provide the PCRC with the autonomy to best determine how it should fulfill its complaints and review mandates. More specifically, this amendment removed a PCRC obligation to consider whether it has sufficient resources to conduct a specified activity review, also known as a systemic investigation.

I will quickly remind my hon. colleagues of what the two main activities of the PCRC would be. Members of the public, be they Canadians or not, would be able to make a complaint against an employee of the RCMP or the CBSA regarding their conduct or level of service. Should a complainant not be satisfied with the RCMP's or the CBSA's investigation at first instance, they would have the right to request that the PCRC examine the organization's findings regarding their complaint.

In addition to the review of complaints, the commission would also conduct systemic investigations of non-national security RCMP and CBSA activities to ensure that those activities are in line with legislation, policies, guidelines and procedures.

These specified activity reviews are essential. They would allow the PCRC to identify and investigate systemic issues that exist within these organizations, such as use of force and harassment, and to develop recommendations for the RCMP and the CBSA. These recommendations would also support the development of solutions to systemic matters and could contribute to cultural changes within our law enforcement.

These amendments would give the PCRC increased flexibility to identify and develop recommendations around broader, more systemic issues within the RCMP and the CBSA. Giving the PCRC more autonomy on how to fulfill its mandate also aligns with other review bodies, such as the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA.

A fourth amendment made by SECU, or the committee, would improve co-operation between the PCRC and review bodies such as NSIRA. Indeed, the committee voted in favour of government-introduced amendments that would allow the Minister of Public Safety to create regulations around the sharing of information, referral of complaints and joint proceedings between federal entities. These regulations could be made to improve work between review bodies and to ensure no complaint is misplaced.

The committee also adopted amendments that would leave no ambiguity about who can make a complaint, as well as ensuring that the process remains accessible to both members of the public and stakeholders. More specifically, Bill C-20 now clarifies that third parties can submit complaints and request that the PCRC initiate a specified activity review.

I know that hon. members on the other side want to hear about this. The committee made an amendment to clarify that the information related to the handling of complaints can also be shared with the legal representatives of complainants.

Again, I commend the important improvements made by the hon. members of the committee. They have listened to concerns from stakeholders and have contributed to improving on what is already a robust transparency and accountability mechanism.

Let us not forget why the bill is so crucial. The CBSA is the only agency under the public safety portfolio that is not subject to an external, independent complaints and review mechanism. The legislation fulfills our government's commitment to establish an independent review body for the CBSA; it would respond to important transparency and accountability gaps and increase public confidence in the RCMP and the CBSA.

Furthermore, this initiative also responds to several recommendations, notably those made in the Mass Casualty Commission's report and SECU's report on systemic racism in policing.

In my belief, not only would the bill have a positive impact on public interactions with our law enforcement agencies, including at the border, but it is also essential to public trust and the rule of law.

I note that my hon. colleagues on both sides of the House have demonstrated their support for the legislation. I therefore urge them to vote with me in favour of this important bill.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, we hear the member say he does not agree with how long it has taken the Liberals to get Bill C-20 to the table, yet we heard about how much the Conservatives filibustered, including having submitted 33 amendments at committee and withdrawing 75% of the amendments they themselves had submitted.

What was the Conservatives' tactic behind filibustering on this important bill? Why are they now agreeing to make sure it gets passed, so it becomes law during this sitting?

[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. I really appreciate the opportunity to rise in this place. I was telling people recently what an honour it is to be just a kid from North Kamloops rising in the House of Commons as the child of immigrants. I know that some of the Assistant Deputy Speaker's heritage is from Europe, just as mine is. There was a flag-raising just today recognizing my Italian heritage, which I am incredibly proud of. Unfortunately, I was elsewhere this morning dealing with the Auditor General's report, but I do recognize that.

One of the things that I am always mindful of is the people I grew up with, and someone I grew up with is Jackie Fouillard, or Jacqueline. Her mom, Clara Fouillard, passed away recently. I just read about the obituary tonight, so I want to extend my deepest condolences to Jacqueline and her brother Desmond on the passing of Clara. May perpetual light shine upon her.

I also want to recognize the life of Bernard “Bernie” Worsfold. He is the grandfather to my nephew, and he recently passed away after a long battle with Alzheimer's. Obviously, this is very difficult. It is a difficult disease. I was just at the walk for Alzheimer's. My condolences go to Bernie's family. May perpetual light shine upon him.

As to Bill C-20, which is what we are here to discuss, the bill started in the 42nd Parliament, wherein it died, languishing in the Senate. It was again introduced in the last Parliament as Bill C-3. We had a prorogation. There was a prorogation that was obviously before my time, and I know the Liberals have made a lot of noise about the fact that the previous Harper government prorogued.

Interestingly enough, in this case, when it comes to electoral manoeuvres, the Liberals called what I would call a vanity election, though some people called it a pandemic election, hoping for the majority that they so ardently desired. Obviously, that did not work out. Now, unfortunately, we do have the NDP, in its confidence and supply agreement, that has supported them, which brings us here to today in the 44th Parliament, nine years after this promise was made.

Like with so many bills we debate in this House, and it is unfortunate, we deal with things that go wrong. Sometimes we will have motions and those motions will say, “we exhort the government to do this” or “we are establishing a strategy to do this”, and that is something positive, but so often here we are dealing with negative things. This is when things go wrong, and tonight is obviously no exception, because we are dealing with alleged misconduct in some cases, or misconduct that has been proven in other cases. It would be great if we never had to deal with this from our frontline peace officers, but the reality is that we do.

Sometimes, simply put, things go poorly. This leads me to question, obviously, what the standards are that we expect from our professionals. I am speaking, namely, of our frontline police officers and our frontline CBSA officers.

I remember when I was teaching a sentencing course not long ago, before I came to Parliament, that I was always struck, whenever the accused person was a peace officer and they had committed a criminal offence, how different the reaction was from the students. I found that my classes were generally very compassionate when it came to sentencing. They were very measured and typically quite fair in their sentencing proposals. Yet one thing that always struck me, especially when it was a peace officer but sometimes when it was somebody who is in authority or a position of privilege, was that the students would often want to really reflect that when much is given much is expected or, in other words, that there should be harsh penalties, and that is something that I have not forgotten.

When we do have people who are in authority, we have to expect the highest order of ethics from them just as we ought to expect that from people in this House, whether it be how they act in the House, how they act outside the House or what they say within this place.

I would be remiss if I did not recognize that so many of our peace officers do a good job in what they do. My experience is that, generally, people do their jobs; generally, they do it without any sort of prejudice and, at the end of the day, most of them just want to get home. They have families, just like many of us do in this place. So often, as a former trial lawyer, I would see how easy it is to dissect a split-second decision. Therefore, I do not envy the position that peace officers are in, but they do have substantial responsibility and substantial accountability.

With that being said, the CBSA does not yet have an external review commission, which this bill aims to amend. This legislation would rename the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP to the “public complaints and review commission”. This commission would also be responsible for reviewing civilian complaints against the CBSA. As I understand it, this commission would have five members, which would include a chair, a vice-chair and three other members, and my hope is that these would not be just typical patronage appointments. One of my greatest criticisms of the current government has been that so frequently, when it establishes a commission or a board or something like that, the government just gets bigger and bigger. I see that it would have only five members and I really urge the government here to not simply appoint people who have had long-term Liberal memberships and have donated to the Liberal Party, as we have so often seen.

One of the things that I noticed in this bill are the codified timelines for responses. Now, the Jordan decision came out almost a decade ago now, which is hard to believe. That was a case that interpreted the charter right to trial within a reasonable time. Therefore, I am happy to see, if memory serves, that the reasonable time for a complaint made under this proposed piece of legislation would be six months. In my view, that is eminently reasonable, given the circumstances. It would be wonderful if it could be down to one to two months, but that is not always going to be the case.

One other thing that I believe this bill gets right is the informal resolution process. One thing I can recall, as a former lawyer, is that people often are angry. They might be angry with their lawyer or their accountant or, in this case, with the way somebody treated them for a variety of different reasons. We have spoken a lot tonight about racism, in this House. What I have found is that people generally want to be heard. They want their complaint to be heard. They want their feelings to be listened to and to be validated. What I have seen, in my experience anyway, is that a lot of these complaints can be informally resolved. That is why I was happy to see that clause 43 of this legislation has an informal complaint resolution process.

I also see at clause 46 that the commission could take over and prevent any agency or police force from continuing on investigating a complaint, in which case perhaps other people have used a hybrid method. We were talking at SECU today about the proposed commissioner for transparency for foreign interference and the transparency registry and the importance of having independence in that regard. I really do reiterate how important that independence is. It would require that the complaints commission institute an investigation if it is in the public interest to do so. I know that sometimes reasonable people can disagree on what that is, but my hope is that the government would appoint the appropriate people to the commission, who would serve the public well in determining when that public interest is there. We expect a lot from our professionals and as a result we need independence.