Bill C-20 (Historical)

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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

October 31, 2024

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 31st day of October, 2024, at 17:05.

Yours sincerely,

Ken MacKillop

Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates the bill assented to was Bill C‑20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments.

Message from the Senate

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill: Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar, Emergency Preparedness; the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, Carbon Pricing.

Recent Deaths of First Nations People During Police Interventions

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley today.

First, I would like to also thank my northern colleague, the member for Nunavut, for raising this tragic and pressing issue, where indigenous people in Canada continue to experience disproportionate levels of violence and loss. Since late August, six indigenous people have tragically lost their lives in encounters with police across Canada. I want to send my condolences to the families of those who died. Unfortunately, this is not new. In fact, an indigenous person in Canada is 10 times more likely than a non-indigenous person to be killed by police.

Indigenous people face systemic racism and inequitable outcomes in the criminal justice system, particularly with law enforcement. In Canada, the relationship between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples is undergoing a significant transition, which requires us all to recognize the past and address the harm done in order to work towards a fairer future. Achieving reconciliation calls for a thorough reassessment of various elements of Canada's connection with indigenous communities, such as governance, human rights, culture and law enforcement. We know that colonialism and failed policies are what got us to this place, and we will continue to work with first nations, Inuit, and Métis partners towards a fairer, more just future for everyone in this country.

A fair and effective criminal justice system is critical to ensuring that Canadians feel safe in their communities and have confidence in their justice system. I know that the introduction of federal legislation recognizing first nations police services as essential services is an important step toward reconciliation. Over the last couple of years, we have collaborated extensively toward future legislation with first nations partners, as well as provinces and territories. Our objective is to ensure these services are well positioned to continue meeting policing standards and to respond to community priorities. Three federal budgets, of 2018, 2021 and 2024, outline major investments in first nations and Inuit policing, but we know there is more to do, both in terms of funding and also in terms of the way the program functions.

The RCMP recognizes its historical role in colonization. As the RCMP moves toward reconciliation, this work must be done in partnership with first nation and Inuit communities, including under the first nation and Inuit policing program. The RCMP is engaging with national, regional, and local first nation, Inuit, and Métis leaders to formalize working relationships that will strengthen how they collaborate with indigenous partners and organizations. The RCMP has a first nation, Inuit, and Métis recruiting strategy, with the goal of increasing the number of indigenous applicants and cadets entering the cadet training program. As well, the RCMP is establishing a first nation, Inuit, and Métis recruitment unit and working on the launch of indigenous-language application materials.

Beyond our work on policing, we have introduced legislation to provide redress for those who faced unfair treatment by the RCMP or CBSA. Bill C-20 is an urgent step towards reconciliation with indigenous peoples with the potential to rebuild trust between indigenous communities and law enforcement. Many have experienced trauma at the hands of the RCMP or CBSA from inappropriate comments to excessive force and misconduct. While progress has been made, significant challenges remain. Bill C-20 will help bridge that gap by holding law enforcement accountable through an independent review body, giving indigenous peoples and others a platform to address systemic issues. This bill, if adopted, would help rebuild much-needed trust between law enforcement and indigenous communities, and contribute to a renewed nation-to-nation relationship built on rights, respect and partnership.

These are some of the steps that are perhaps more specific to public safety and the RCMP, but I believe personally there is more that we can do. What are some of the solutions that we consider over and above what we are already doing? One example already mentioned in this debate is worth explaining in more detail. Chief Doris Bill was chief of the Kwanlin Dun First Nation. Doris Bill is a person that many in this chamber know well, and she was chief between 2014 and 2023. I am pleased that my colleague, the parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs, already mentioned her during this debate, but this community safety officer program started as a pilot program under the leadership of Chief Doris Bill. It was really to try to bring a community-based, first nation-led solution to many of the problems of crime and disorder that the first nation was experiencing. A short name for this program might be called social policing, a program designed to address in a very pragmatic way the root causes of the crime, public disorder, neglect and domestic violence that was occurring at levels that were becoming intolerable for the Kwanlin Dun community.

Community safety officer programs will vary according to the community needs, based on an extensive community survey and assessment, and this was designed and developed by Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in citizen and former police officer, Gina Nagano, founder of the House of Wolf & Associates. Community safety officers are people from the community, trained over several weeks in the appropriate skills to be able to intervene in potentially risky situations and conflicts. They may be visiting elders or households at risk. They are generally available and approachable to support the day-to-day safety of community citizens.

As they actively patrol communities, they provide simple support and intervention as needed, perhaps with citizens experiencing crisis and supporting investigations or enforcement, but they can also help link to other partners and agencies as appropriate. It could be a youth in crisis, someone feeling threatened, a lonely elder or a host of other situations that, when unaddressed, could lead to violence, disorder or tragedy.

The CS officers are able to contact and liaise with RCMP, bylaw, conservation officers and others, and they have helped the RCMP in the Yukon, who provide policing services, to build closer and more constructive relationships themselves with Yukon communities. Community safety officers, in short, help to build and maintain trust and a positive relationship with citizens and external partners.

Although it started with Kwanlin Dün First Nation, the CSO program has now been adopted in several communities in the Yukon, communities such as Teslin in southern Yukon, where the so-called “deadly aunties” help to bring peace and cohesion to the community. The CSO program is an example to be emulated and further supported by all levels of government. All of Canada can learn from them and bring similar programs, particularly to indigenous communities, and I invite any interested members or citizens to reach out to me if they would like to learn more.

I could go on. I think there are other examples of accomplishments in the Yukon that have helped to prevent or address violence and harms experienced by indigenous peoples. Modern treaties and self-government is one area that cannot be ignored. Of the 14 Yukon first nations, 11 are self-governing, meaning that these governments have the ability and mechanisms to determine their own needs and priorities and to negotiate in good faith with both territorial and federal governments.

With self-government comes the ability to negotiate elements such as administration of justice agreements, a process that seems all too slow to build but at least enables indigenous-led, culturally safe and trauma-informed justice supports for indigenous persons. I think it is also worth noting the Yukon's missing and murdered indigenous women and girls strategy, developed in 2020 with a full implementation plan released last year. I believe it is incumbent on each jurisdiction to follow the Yukon's lead on developing and implementing similar strategies that, in the words of the Yukon strategy, are “committed to a decolonized approach”, “grounded in culture and community”, “to taking action to end violence and upholding dignity and justice for Yukon's MMIWG2S+”.

I would like to end there, but there are solutions already in play in the country that deserve attention and support and that deserve to be shared widely. Perhaps it is small consolation for the families of those who have so tragically died, but let these conversations help us to work together with indigenous citizens and partners in the pursuit of further solutions.

Finally, I would like again to thank the member for Nunavut for her work and for convening this debate tonight.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

I would like to thank the member for Nunavut for bringing forward this motion today to convene this emergency debate on the state of policing in our country and what we as parliamentarians can do to combat systemic racism that exists in so many of our institutions, including policing.

Six indigenous people have been killed across Canada in interactions with police since late August. Their names are Jack Charles Piche, Hoss Lightning, Tammy Bateman, Jason West, Danny Knife and Steven “Iggy” Dedam. This loss is unimaginable, and I would like to extend my sincere sympathies to the families, friends and communities that have lost someone they love.

There is no doubt that indigenous people experience systemic racism and disproportionate outcomes within the criminal justice system, including police. In fact, an indigenous person in Canada is more than 10 times more likely to be shot and killed by a police officer. Indigenous people are 56% more likely to be victims of crime than others, and in 2016, indigenous people represented 25% of the national male, and 35% of the national female, prison population. That has been and continues to be our national shame.

Discrimination on the basis of race or as a result of any other form of bias is unacceptable and abhorrent. In the motion from the member for Nunavut, she calls on all of us as parliamentarians to show leadership and take responsibility to keep our institutions accountable. She rightly points out that people across Canada must know that their parliament is addressing the institutional violence in their communities as a critical and immediate priority.

I agree with her, and tonight I hope to be part of a debate where members from every corner of the country come together with their suggestions on what we can and must do to address the violence that our institutions perpetuate upon our citizens. However, regardless of what ideas or solutions are presented here tonight, the fundamental truth of why we are having this debate will not change: over the course of 11 days, six first nations people have been killed by police. That truth rightfully will make a lot of Canadians angry, and I am angry.

Now, we must ask ourselves what we can do to address immediate measures to save indigenous lives today. The Government of Canada remains committed to working collaboratively with first nations in provinces and territories to ensure that first nations police services are supported with equitable and sustainable funding. The calls for justice from the national inquiry point toward the need for urgent reform to policing for indigenous communities. In budget 2021, we announced $861 million over five years, beginning in 2021-22, and $145 million ongoing to support culturally responsive policing and community safety services in indigenous communities.

These funds will stabilize and enhance the first nations and Inuit policing program by investing in self-administered policing services and provide an enhanced level of policing to more communities. We are also stabilizing and enhancing the first nations and Inuit policing program by enhancing RCMP policing services funded through this program.

These investments were further strengthened in budget 2024. The Minister of Public Safety was clear at the July 2024 AFN assembly that he is committed to co-developing legislation that ensures that first nations police services have equitable and sustainable federal funding. The minister's mandate to co-develop the legislation includes that provincial policing legislation would continue to apply to first nations police services. This ensures that these police services have clear operational standards while providing the necessary funding.

In addition to our investments in indigenous policing, budget 2021 announced up to $64.4 million over five years and $18.1 million ongoing to enhance indigenous-led crime prevention strategies and community safety services, including through the aboriginal community safety planning initiative and expanded funding through the northern and indigenous crime prevention fund.

The ACSPI supports indigenous community healing through a facilitated, community-driven process that works to address multiple safety and wellness issues. The community safety planning process fosters collaboration with government, provincial and territorial partners, local municipal governments and services and industry partners to address issues in the safety plans.

The ACSPI has supported close to 60 communities in defining their safety concerns and finding solutions to respond to root causes and current aggravating factors. In addition to the work that the government has and will continue to do to co-develop legislation, we have also introduced legislation that looks to provide redress for individuals who have been subjected to unfair treatment by either the RCMP or the CBSA.

Bill C-20 is an important and urgent piece of legislation because it would contribute to the government's efforts toward reconciliation with indigenous people. It has the potential to increase the trust and confidence of indigenous people in our law enforcement agencies. We have all heard stories of incidents that some, especially indigenous people, experience at the hands of the RCMP and CBSA, incidents that range from allegations of inappropriate or disrespectful comments to the use of excessive force, even including sexual misconduct. This is especially true for indigenous people, for whom the experiences with these agencies have been historically traumatizing.

While the situation has evolved and improved over the years, there remain significant challenges, but Bill C-20 was an important step forward and must be adopted. It would contribute to rebuilding trust between our law enforcement agencies and the people they serve, especially indigenous people, and increase the ability of Parliament to hold the minister to account for the way the RCMP and CBSA serve those populations.

It would also support the government's commitment to build a renewed nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples based on the recognition of rights, respect and partnership. It would do so by ensuring there is a robust, independent review body in place to which members of the public can turn should they have complaints about their experience with the RCMP or the CBSA. It would also ensure that the new commission, the PCRC, is composed of members who represent the diversity of the people they would serve, including indigenous people.

At the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security we heard from various witnesses during its study of Bill C-20, and there is a lack of data around law enforcement activities, which makes it difficult to identify and respond to systemic issues. In particular, the committee heard from Mr. Natan Obed, president of the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. Mr. Obed highlighted the need to not only have a robust review body in place to hold enforcement accountable, but also “to be able to inform this body of how to improve policing and broader outcomes for our communities”. This is exactly what was envisioned in Bill C-20. The information would be particularly useful to help us understand and respond to systemic issues in law enforcement activities. Findings of the commission would also support learning and training for the members of our valued law enforcement agencies.

One more feature included in the bill that might have passed under the radar but which I believe is important to mention in the context of reconciliation with indigenous peoples is the recognition within the bill of an indigenous complaint resolution mechanism. Indeed, the bill would provide for PCRC to respond annually on the number of complaints from individuals detained by the CBSA that have been resolved through the reconciliation process with indigenous peoples.

Bill C-20 would include transformative provisions that would have the ability to improve the way our law enforcement agencies work, especially with indigenous and other vulnerable communities. This is just one example of additional work that we are doing to improve law enforcement agencies' interactions with indigenous people.

Again, I would like to thank the member for Nunavut for her work in convening this important debate here tonight.

Record of the Proceedings of the House—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

I am ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on June 6, by the member for Winnipeg Centre, concerning editorial changes to the Debates of June 4.

In raising this matter, the member asserted that a substantive change was inappropriately made at page 24440 of the Debates of June 4, 2024. According to the member, that day's Debates do not accurately reflect the content of the speech given by the member for Saskatoon West during the consideration at report stage of Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments. She explained that the member for Saskatoon West had stated that a certain individual “was likely to reoffend because of his racial background.”

However, the Debates read that the same individual “was likely to reoffend regardless of his racial background.”

She stated that replacing the word “because” with the word “regardless” significantly altered the meaning of the member's intervention. In making this point, the member referenced a recent ruling in which the Chair indicated that revisions should not alter the substance and meaning of what members say in the House.

On June 6, 2024, the member for Saskatoon West rose on a point of order to apologize for misspeaking during the debate. He said that he had realized his mistake immediately after his speech and therefore requested the change when the blues came out.

The House leader of the official opposition subsequently intervened on this matter, outlining the purpose of the blues and the role of editors in producing the Debates. Given the apologies offered by the member for Saskatoon West and his admission that he had misspoken, thereby properly correcting the record to reflect the intention of his remarks, the House leader suggested that the matter be considered closed.

The Chair is hesitant to deal with concerns about the editing of the Debates. The work of the editors is based on a standard of professional excellence and performed independently from political pressures. However, when members complain about the accuracy of the Debates, the Chair also has a duty to assess whether the record accurately reflects the proceedings of the House. If not, the Chair can ask that the Debates be modified.

Regarding the editing process, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 1229, states the following:

It is a long-standing practice of the House that editors of the Debates may exercise judgment as to whether or not changes suggested by Members constitute the correction of an error or a minor alteration. The editors may likewise alter a sentence to render it more readable but may not go so far as to change its meaning

On October 29, 2009, in a ruling on a similar matter, which can be found at page 6356 of the Debates, Speaker Milliken said:

As all members know, the Debates are not a verbatim ad literatum transcription of what is said in this House. When producing the Debates, House of Commons editors routinely edit interventions for clarity and clean up our grammatical and syntactical lapses. They also of course consider corrections and minor alterations to the blues submitted by the member to which words are attributed.

Any editorial changes, either suggested by a member or made by the editors themselves, must remain faithful to the original meaning of the statement as a whole, as spoken on the floor of the House. Editors are also expected to exercise judgment in assessing any potential change. The final word on the change does not rest with the member requesting it, but with the editors.

Just recently, on May 30, the Chair ruled on a complaint about the editing process for the Debates of April 30. In that ruling, which can be found at page 24087 of the Debates, the following is stated with respect to the independence of Parliamentary Publications, “The editors of the Parliamentary Publications team craft a record that, in their judgment, best corresponds to the proceedings, without political interference and in a completely non-partisan manner.”

Exercising due diligence, the Chair assessed the facts of the present situation by inquiring with Parliamentary Publications. The question editors faced when preparing the Debates on June 4 was whether substituting “regardless” for “because” would distort the meaning of the intervention or clarify it. That day, even before the member for Saskatoon West requested a change, editors had already begun to investigate the issue and analyze the overall context of his intervention. They had found through their fact-checking that the member was paraphrasing an assessment made by the Parole Board that did not seem to align with the term used.

Furthermore, the member's use of the word seemed illogical in the context of the rest of his speech. The request from the member for Saskatoon West to modify the blues ostensibly confirmed their suspicion as to his apparent intention. The editors concluded he had misspoken and it was on that basis that the editorial change was made. In retrospect, the editors might have handled the situation differently as they always have the option to leave an intervention as is, even if it is incoherent. However, their ultimate objective is for the transcript to make sense.

Members should not be surprised to learn that editors occasionally make changes and replace words to ensure that members' interventions remain coherent for the reader, while attempting to ensure they accurately reflect what was said. This is not unusual. These changes are made by editors on their own initiative, but also at the request of members from all parties. Accordingly, editors must have the latitude to navigate perilous interpretation exercises, though they do not have free rein, as they must be equally careful not to change the meaning of what is said.

Admittedly, some situations are more complex than others and, indeed, the present case has caused some degree of controversy. The member for Saskatoon West undoubtedly used the word “because” in his intervention. He admitted the mistake himself and apologized for having misspoken. His initial use of the word is now on the record.

The Chair is, nonetheless, satisfied with the explanations provided by Parliamentary Publications and the reasoning behind the replacement of the disputed word. While the decision does appear to change the meaning of the intervention, their motivation was clearly to make the text more coherent.

I hope members can accept that the editors have a challenging job and that the correction was made in good faith. As a result, the Chair concludes that this matter does not constitute a question of privilege and, therefore, considers the matter closed.

I thank all members for their attention.

Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Act (David and Joyce Milgaard's Law)

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I wish to seek the support of the House. On the third reading of Bill C-20, I ran into difficulties with my phone app as I was walking to committee. I would like to seek unanimous consent to record my vote as yea.

Bill C‑40—Time Allocation Motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I receive a lot of phone calls from constituents within the riding of Waterloo. Constituents often ask about this chamber. Right now, we are debating and will be voting on having to use time allocation to, once again, advance legislation.

This morning I had meetings set up, and we had to go to orders of the day because we have an official opposition that refuses to call the question. Even earlier today we voted on Bill C-20. The Conservatives had been filibustering that legislation, putting up automated speeches, most likely through ChatGPT, yet when it came time to call the question and to vote, the Conservatives did support the legislation because it was important legislation.

Why are we having to debate time allocation? Why are we having to make sure that we get the legislation called to a question? Unfortunately, there are some members who will not get to speak to this legislation because the official opposition, under its leader, refuses to call the question.

The member for Fundy Royal did ask a question today, and the only thing he has done really well was to make sure that the House advanced the issue of ensuring that there was no longer conversion therapy in Canada. It is something the member does not speak to, but he was the member who moved the motion to have unanimous consent because the Conservatives did not want to debate it.

How do we ensure justice is served? Why are we using time allocation?

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—

Bill C‑20—Time Allocation Motion

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, as members know, we introduced and passed Bill C-290 to protect whistle-blowers. Neither the CBSA nor the RCMP were included in that bill.

Can the minister assure me that Bill C-20 will change things so that my constituency office stops receiving emails from officers asking for help with unjustified layoffs, threats to suspend their pensions, and so on? Will this kind of thing finally end with the passage of Bill C‑20?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have to laugh at the minister's comments about being disingenuous. He talked about strengthening oversight with this bill, Bill C-20, the importance of the appointments process and the appropriate role of the complaints process.

I wonder if the minister made the exact same arguments to the Prime Minister and the rest of his cabinet before he voted to prorogue government in order to cover up for the WE scandal.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby again identifies what, for us, was a very constructive and positive effort from our colleagues at committee to improve the legislation. As I said, the New Democratic Party was a very steady and constructive voice in bringing thoughtful amendments that, from our perspective, strengthened the legislation.

The member identified, for example, the importance of the public having a process by which complaints could be adjudicated by competent authorities, the appointments process of members of the commission reflecting the diversity of our country and the appropriate role for this complaints review commission, with respect to the internal matters involving employees. These were all things the committee strengthened or improved in the legislative process.

I too share my colleague's view of the disingenuous way in which the Conservatives now pretend that there is no urgency to pass this bill, Bill C-20, after they took every conceivable step to make sure that this legislation would not get to a vote. The good news is that we may be getting to that point this evening.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the NDP fought hard to improve this bill, Bill C-20, to increase transparency and accountability and to ensure that there was more investigative power. There are many improvements to this bill. However, as we know, it came out of committee, and then promptly ran into the stone wall, which is the Conservative Party of Canada, that blocked dental care, pharmacare, the affordable housing provisions that the NDP has pushed the government to put into place and the improvements to the Competition Act. Of course, Conservatives do not accept the blame for having delayed this bill now for months because they blocked everything else before it.

The disingenuous idea that somehow this bill, Bill C-20, can just make its way through the House of Commons when the Conservatives have blocked every single piece of legislation that helps the country and that helps their constituents, I think shows the extent to which Conservatives are willing to mislead the public. The reality is that Conservatives have been unwilling to pass this bill, despite all the benefits for Canada and for those who work for CBSA and the RCMP, which would ensure more accountability and transparency of those institutions and would ensure a way for the public to make complaints.

With all those benefits in Bill C-20, why have Conservatives been blocking it for so long?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank our colleague, the parliamentary secretary, for highlighting what surprises colleagues on our side of the House, in terms of the Conservatives' reticence to adopt legislation that would provide, for the first time, independent civilian oversight of the Canada Border Services Agency and that would strengthen the previous complaints commission process for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Our national security institutions do great work to protect Canadians, to serve Canadians and to ensure, in the case of the Canada Border Services Agency, that duties are collected appropriately by competent authorities. It is important for the Canadian economy, and it is important for the treasury of the Government of Canada. That work is very important, and it is done well.

There is also a national security, a border security, element. All of these agencies benefit from independent, strengthened oversight to deal with complaints, to deal with, as my colleague, the New Democratic Party House leader, identified in the case of some union circumstances or employees.

All of this should be important for members, in terms of providing the support for these agencies, and I hope Parliament will adopt this bill, Bill C-20.