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.

Report Stage

[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.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is such an honour to rise and talk about this subject matter, as much of what is happening with Bill C-20 relates to the calls for justice that came out of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.

Before I start, I have to honour the work of the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, who is a true diplomat. He is able to work across party lines, even with parties that are not co-operative, to make things better for people. The member has been an ally for indigenous people and BIPOC people, who have formed the basis for the need for this piece of legislation.

I was not shocked when we heard stories from the member for Edmonton Griesbach. He spoke of the assault of a 10-year-old by the RCMP. The member for Edmonton Griesbach spoke about an incident in Manitoba where an indigenous woman was taken to a home to pursue a relationship, with the permission of the sergeant on duty. This is unconscionable. Also, although not the RCMP, the City of Winnipeg is under investigation for several deaths of mostly indigenous and Black people in Winnipeg. When people have that much power without oversight, there is a problem.

Let us not forget the history of the RCMP. Historically, the RCMP's purpose was to apprehend little children from their communities and ship them to and incarcerate them in residential schools. The whole history of the RCMP's relationship with indigenous peoples in this country has been marked with violence. In particular, indigenous women, girls and gender-diverse people have experienced excessive force, rape, beatings and sometimes death at the hands of the RCMP.

I find it shocking that the member for Saskatoon West, who has a high indigenous population in his area, is not standing up for his constituents. Turning a blind eye to systemic racism has resulted in the ongoing crisis of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. There are often reports of total neglect and either overpolicing or underpolicing by police forces, as noted in calls for justice 9.1 to 9.11.

I have hope because I sit on the FEWO committee with women from across party lines who listen openly, can work through differences and spend time learning about matters that do not personally affect them. The fact that there are members of this House who do not see a need to protect all people in their community speaks to systemic racism and the racism even in the House of Commons.

I am glad that all members in the House are voting in favour of this bill, although games were played when members tried stalling and changing the short title. Supporting this bill is necessary.

I want to read comments from the Feminist Alliance for International Action about the RCMP. It said:

The evidence of systemic discrimination and violence against women perpetrated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is shocking, and it is growing. The RCMP’s culture of misogyny, racism and homophobia, identified by the Honourable Michel Bastarache in his report Broken Dreams, Broken Lives, affects not only the treatment of women who are employed by the RCMP, but also the treatment of the women whom the RCMP is intended to serve.

Canada cannot have a credible National Action Plan on Violence against Women, or a credible National Action Plan on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, until we confront the deeply entrenched misogyny and racism in the culture of the RCMP.

An independent, external review of the RCMP, its practices, structure and future, is needed now.

Some members do not see the urgency here, even though all members of this House have agreed to implement all the calls for justice, many of which relate to policing and the failure of police to act. Those were not my words. Those words came out of the Feminist Alliance for International Action.

I can tell members, as I am an indigenous woman in this country, that growing up, we were not taught that police were a safe place to go. We were not taught, should a loved one go missing, experience violence or be in situations of violence, that going to the police was safe. It is no wonder that in our study at FEWO about what is needed to implement a red dress alert system, one of the biggest calls is for overall oversight that is led by indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people. That includes police services. When we go missing, nobody looks for us, but certainly the RCMP officer in northern Manitoba looked for an indigenous woman in her jail cell, took her home and assaulted her. He found her there. That is why we need oversight.

Arguments about some good apples and some bad apples are not relevant. This system is not working the same for all people, particularly BIPOC individuals: Black, indigenous and people of colour. We deserve to be treated with respect by systems that have been put in place to protect us. However, the very systems that have been put in place to protect us perpetrate violence against us on our spirits, on our bodies and in the erasure of our lives when our loved ones go missing.

How can we see change? I am talking about “we” as an indigenous woman. How can we feel safe if the very systems that are supposed to be there to protect us instead rape us, hurt us, ignore us and disregard us? Whether it is on the front lines peacefully assembling with axes, chainsaws and guard dogs; walking in the streets going to our jobs; or being harassed and sexually harassed by police officers, we need oversight. I have experienced this, with police officers scoping me out on Facebook after I reported a car incident.

I am glad everybody in the House is supporting this bill. I want to thank the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford once again for his leadership and diplomacy in making sure that all people are treated with dignity and safety in this country.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding relevance. My colleague has been speaking for about eight minutes. I would be curious to know his position on Bill C-20 because, unless I am mistaken, he has not yet spoken about the bill itself. I believe he has two minutes left to do so.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise tonight to speak to Bill C-20, which is an act that would establish the public complaints and review commission. It would essentially replace the existing Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP by creating an external body and then combining it with the Canada Border Services Agency, which at the moment does not have an independent review system at all. The bill would create a new review commission for both of those organizations. It would have certain rules, tools and procedures to deal with the issues that would typically come up in a review body.

There are many different things that can come up. For example, just a few years ago in Saskatchewan, there was a terrible, tragic incident on the James Smith Cree Nation, where Myles Sanderson murdered 11 people on that reserve just north of Saskatoon. A coroner's inquest was held, which, in the future, could be done by a commission like the one we are talking about tonight. In this case, it was done by a provincial coroner's inquest. The inquest was completed in January of this year, and I want to highlight a couple of the things it found.

For example, one of the findings was that the RCMP gives patrol officers access to the most current photos of people. In addition, the enforcement and suppression team provides a list of its 60 most-wanted targets to all Saskatchewan RCMP detachments. When a most-wanted person is affiliated with or is a member of a first nation, RCMP detachment commanders work with the first nation's leadership to advise them of the individual's wanted status. That is an example of the kinds of findings and outcomes that could come from a commission like the PCRC. This is important and useful work that is done when there are complaints.

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 regardless of his racial background. This is really important because a lot of the work that commissions like the proposed one end up doing comes from a lot of the crime that is happening, obviously. The tragedy that occurred because of someone who was released on parole but maybe should not have been is an example of the soft-on-crime Liberal policies that we are seeing in Canada these days.

In 2021, the Liberal government introduced Bill C-5, which essentially removed mandatory minimum sentences from all Criminal Code offences committed with a firearm, such as robbery, assault, break and enter and extortion, as well as drug crimes such as trafficking, production and selling. In addition, Bill C-5 replaced prison sentences with conditional sentences, which is house arrest, for crimes like sexual assault, kidnapping, arson for fraudulent purposes, assault causing bodily harm with a weapon and assaulting a peace officer causing bodily harm or with a weapon. Those are just some examples of types of offences for which prison was removed and conditional sentencing, or house arrest, was granted.

In 2018, Bill C-75 was introduced by the Liberal government. Essentially, it made it much harder to put someone in jail and, conversely, much easier to get out. That is the essence of Bill C-75. The problem with that, and what leads to much of the crime we are seeing, is that it takes away the consequences in many cases for criminals, so they lose their fear of punishment. I will give an example. Imagine a youth who is struggling and is a little down on his luck. We could talk about how the government has made life so expensive with its reckless spending that has caused inflation and its carbon tax that has caused grocery prices to get more expensive, but that is another conversation.

Imagine this youth who is struggling to put food on the table. He may live with five or more other people in a two-bedroom apartment. Again, the policies of the government have caused housing to be so expensive. Now imagine that a gang member or somebody in a criminal organization asks him if he wants to make $500 by stealing a car, and tells him he will never go to go to jail and that the worst case scenario is that he will get arrested and be released back into the community, but that there are really no consequences.

What is that youth going to do? There is a good chance they are going to take the opportunity because they need the money. This is a problem in our culture today, that the consequences of their actions, the punishment for doing crimes, has been lessened so much that it becomes a viable option for a person like the one in the example I have given. What do we see in our country? We see that violent crime is up. Since 2015, when house arrest, which I mentioned in the examples I gave, was brought in, violent crimes are up 32% nationally.

Now, just to focus in on Saskatoon a little, in 2023 there were 12 murders in Saskatoon, 10 of which, by the way, were in the riding I represent, Saskatoon West, where I live and work. I have lived there for a period of time, and I have experienced many of the things that people experience on the west side of Saskatoon, including having my bike stolen, having to deal with people outside my home and things like that. These are things that we get used to and put up with.

As I said, in 2023 there were 12 murders in total in Saskatoon. So far this year, up to the end of May, there have been 10 murders, all of them in the riding I represent. I will look at a few other numbers on arrests, and this is quite concerning. In Saskatoon in the first five months of this year, there have been 830 assaults, versus 742 all last year. Sexual assaults so far this year are at 120, versus 84 all last year. Weapons charges are at 250, versus 256 all last year. Abductions so far are at 17, versus 14 all last year. Robberies are at 147, versus 131 all last year. Break and enters are at 500 so far, versus 600 all last year. Vehicles broken into or stolen so far this year are at 1,000, versus 1,200 last year.

We are not bad people on the west side of Saskatoon, far from it, and it is not a bad place to live. It is a beautiful area. There are lots of nice houses and lots of nice neighbourhoods. However, because of the soft-on-crime policies that we are seeing from the government—

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see my Conservative colleagues clapping for me. That is really quite thoughtful.

I am very pleased to be rising in the House today to speak to Bill C-20 at its report stage. I just want to note that when this Parliament started, the 44th Parliament, I was appointed as the critic for public safety. Of course, this was one of the first pieces of legislation that I got to deal with as the critic and that was handled by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

I just want to remind the House and the people watching this debate, that this bill has been a long time coming, not only in this Parliament but also in previous Parliaments. Just to give a sense of the timeline involved, this bill was first introduced way back on May 19, 2022. It received its second reading on November 25, 2022. However, it was not until November 9, 2023, a full year later, that the public safety committee completed its study of the bill and reported it back to the House. Here we are, on June 4, trying to get through the report stage of this bill, Bill C-20.

That needs to be noted because this bill, of course, is the result of many different people talking about the shortcomings of both the RCMP and the CBSA, is not only their shortcomings, but also the lack of an effective oversight and accountability mechanism. That has nowhere been more true than with the indigenous people who live in this land called Canada.

I first want to note that the riding I represent, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, is served entirely by the RCMP. In my time as the member of Parliament for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, which I have been fortunate to hold since 2015, I have developed a good working relationship with the RCMP, the North Cowichan/Duncan detachment and the West Shore. I know that the people who serve those detachments are doing it out of love for the communities, and I know they are going out and doing their best every single day. I know they are dealing with some very difficult circumstances.

Like many communities across Canada, my riding has not been untouched by the opioids crisis. We have a mental health crisis. I know that many of the RCMP officers are not only responding to those incidents as police, but also, often as the first responder, dealing with a mental health crisis or with someone who is close to an overdose. I do want to recognize the good work that they are doing.

I want to also recognize the good work of the people who staff the Canada Border Services Agency, who, right now, are involved in some very difficult negotiations with the Government of Canada regarding their hours of work and their pensions. Of course, these are the people who keep the borders of Canada safe. They do important work.

The public safety committee has been doing a big study on car thefts. The CBSA has an incredibly important role not only to examine the cargo coming in and going out of Canada, but also to screen the people coming here to make sure that everyone is a verifiable visitor and is here for the right reasons.

That being said, I do need to take note of something. My riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford is home to several indigenous communities. We really need to highlight that and need to underline it when we are talking about this bill, Bill C-20, because it is well known, in the history of this land called Canada, that indigenous people on this land have had a very troubled relationship with the RCMP. Just saying that sentence would, in fact, probably be a gross understatement. We have to keep that in mind.

I also want to recognize that, as a member of the NDP caucus, I am incredibly privileged to serve with three incredible and outstanding indigenous members: the member for Edmonton Griesbach, the member for Nunavut and the member for Winnipeg Centre. I want them to know that I rely on their counsel and their wisdom quite heavily. I also rely on the wisdom and the counsel of the indigenous people who live in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. They not only inform me as a person, but also inform me in the work I do as their member of Parliament.

It is important that we underline those concerns because I think that forms a very important basis of why Bill C-20 exists and why the House of Commons is finally reaching a point where we are giving it consideration and hopefully sending it on its way to the Senate and soon to royal assent.

Of course, my riding has been no stranger to controversy. I have been its MP since 2015, and I would say that probably the biggest flashpoint between the RCMP and a number of protesters, many of them indigenous, happened in the summer of 2021 at Fairy Creek, which is one of the last untouched, old-growth reserves on Vancouver Island. People are quite rightly concerned with logging practices in the province of British Columbia and with the preservation of old growth, but there were some very serious concerns raised about the conduct of the RCMP during the protests at Fairy Creek. Given the reviews that happened after the fact, it makes a bill like Bill C-20 all that much more important. In fact, none other than the B.C. Supreme Court ruled that the RCMP's media exclusion zones and checkpoints at that time were unlawful, given that they unreasonably limited press freedoms and that the principal purpose of the injunction is to maintain public access to roads in the injunction area. Again, a lot of the conduct there was very questionable, and certainly for people who were on the receiving end, it was described as quite brutal.

However, this is now my third Parliament, and this has been an issue that has crossed all three of those Parliaments. I want to read from the report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security from the previous Parliament when it did its deep dive into systemic racism in policing. It reads:

Given the pervasive nature of systemic racism in policing in Canada, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security...has concluded that a transformative national effort is required to ensure that all Indigenous, Black and other racialized people in Canada are not subject to the discrimination and injustice that is inherent in the system as it exists today....

The Committee was told that accountability, oversight and transparency are critical to restore trust with Indigenous and racialized communities subject to systemic racism. Witnesses also emphasized the need for the collection of disaggregated race-based data to provide Canadians with an accurate picture of the impact of police practices and policies on Indigenous and racialized people.

I gave a pretty thorough speech on this bill at second reading, and I do not want to repeat the points I made at that time. However, I do want to note the important work that the public safety committee did on the bill and particularly on the important NDP amendments that were passed by the committee. I will quickly read through a number of them. They are: to ensure that there is proper union representation; to increase transparency and accountability; to ensure a reconciliation process with indigenous peoples; to expand the PCRC's investigative power; to increase transparency, to allow complainants a longer period to come forward to make a complaint; to ban the use of non-disclosure agreements to silence victims, to avoid intimidation and to allow the PCRC to know why complaints are being withdrawn, and so on and so forth.

I want to emphasize that this bill is incredibly important. We have heard repeatedly that the existing complaints process is not working and that we need something that exists outside the confines of the RCMP Act. Finally, for the CBSA, the remaining law enforcement agency that is under federal jurisdiction, we need to bring those two important agencies under the jurisdiction of this new PCRC.

To conclude, we are happy to offer our support to Bill C-20. It is about time that we got this bill across the finish line for important transparency and accountability for the people of Canada. I hope the Senate treats this bill with the urgency that the people demand of it.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I understand that with Bill C-20, amendments were required to ensure that there were provisions related to the reconciliation process with indigenous peoples. I wonder if the member could respond to why it took amendments and why that process was not there when Bill C-20 was originally introduced. Why did it take NDP amendments to make sure they were included?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Still before us we have Bill C‑20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission. As my hon. colleagues know, this bill is of the utmost importance to Canadians. It establishes an independent review body for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or RCMP, and for the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA.

Members of the public, including members of indigenous and racialized communities, can turn to this body, the public complaints and review commission, if they have comments or complaints about their dealings with the RCMP or the CBSA. A robust civilian review system for both the RCMP and the CBSA is vital to ensure balance in our system between security and equity.

Bill C-20 has been extensively discussed, and relevant recommendations have been made. The government has taken these recommendations into consideration and is grateful for them. Since it was introduced in the House, the bill and the proposed new commission have been considerably improved.

I want to commend the work of my colleagues at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. In preparing this bill and adopting the changes contained in the version that is before us, the government and the committee have taken note of the opinions from indigenous organizations, civil liberties associations, police and customs unions, as well as universities.

Although the partners and stakeholders presented different viewpoints in committee, they were united in their desire to strengthen the accountability regime. I thank them all for taking the time to contribute to these important discussions and legislative provisions. Their points of view allowed the committee to build on the solid civilian review and complaints system that Bill C‑20 will create.

The committee adopted 46 amendments to the bill, based on what the committee heard from these stakeholders. These amendments addressed some key priorities for our government, such as diversity and inclusion, accountability, common sense and practical considerations.

Specifically, the committee made changes that respond to the recommendations made in the committee's report on systemic racism in policing. In particular, I would like to point out an amendment adopted to expand the commission's ability to collect demographic and race-based data on complainants so that the commission, and Parliament, more broadly, can identify incidents of systemic racism.

Although the bill already proposed that the commission be authorized to collect race-based data, the committee expanded on this proposal by ensuring that other demographic data would also be collected. This recognizes that the nature of systemic issues can be complex and change over time, and that it can be linked to a wide range of social, cultural and other factors. By gathering additional information on complainants, we will have a more complete picture of any potential systemic issues arising from the public's interaction with the RCMP or the CBSA.

This new power will also enable the commission to identify systemic problems in the application of the act and develop recommendations to respond to them. What is more, one amendment specifies that third parties can file a complaint with the commission on behalf of someone else. Bill C-20 already provided for the possibility of third parties filing complaints with the commission, but additional clarifications were made to eliminate any confusion about the possibility of filing a complaint on behalf of someone else.

This provision will also make it possible to ensure that complainants know that they can get help from people they trust when they have concerns. The RCMP and the CBSA often interact with vulnerable people, particularly people from indigenous or racialized communities, asylum seekers, people with disabilities and 2SLGBTQIA+ people. For reasons that include language barriers and distrust of law enforcement agencies, many of these individuals may be reluctant to file a complaint. In some cases, they may even be unable to proceed with the complaint process. In other words, with the additional clarifications, someone who is reluctant to file a complaint or who encounters problems that prevent them from following through with the process can have a third person file the complaint on their behalf.

Another change to the bill is that stakeholders can now ask the PCRC to conduct a specified activity review, or SAR. Also called systemic investigations, SARs are a second type of activity that the PCRC will undertake as part of its mandate. SARs will allow the PCRC to determine whether RCMP and CBSA policies, procedures and guidelines are adequate and appropriate. They can also help determine whether the agencies are operating in accordance with the legislation or ministerial directions. These reviews are essential because they help address systemic problems within the organization and help make positive changes by contributing to fair and equitable treatment for all.

By specifying that third parties can request SARs from the PCRC, the bill guarantees that the PCRC will be aware of their concerns about systemic problems in law enforcement. The government's goal is always to provide exemplary law enforcement services and border services. It expects all misconduct to be reviewed and handled appropriately by an independent civilian authority in a timely manner.

To sum up, Canada must offer uniform, fair and equitable treatment as well as an effective accountability mechanism, if applicable, for people who interact with the RCMP and the CBSA.

I encourage the House to move this bill through quickly. People need this treatment.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems as though the member intends to support this bill. Although I am not a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, it is my understanding that the Conservatives filibustered during the study of Bill C-20.

That being said, I would like to ask my colleague whether his party really intends to make this issue a priority. If his party does take office in the next election a year and a half from now, can we expect the Conservatives to make this issue a priority? Will they make the proposed amendments to Bill C-20 and will they allocate the necessary funding to ensure that investigations can be conducted and completed in a timely manner?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise and speak on behalf of the constituents of Red Deer—Mountain View.

First of all, I would like to simply speak to our RCMP, who have done such a great job. They have been neighbours and fellow coaches. They are the ones who run into emergencies when trouble comes, and I appreciate their commitment to the community. Certainly, as someone who has spent some time working with rural crime in Alberta, as one of the co-chairs of a report that we sent out, it is an honour for me to be able to speak to the other side of the issue.

Those of us who have been in this place for a long time also know that there are many cases that are referred to the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, and we always hope that there are solutions that can help in that regard.

With the rise of hate-related incidents in Canada, we are now more in need of a strong police force than we were several years ago. Therefore, the need never faded; it has become much more pronounced. Considering that a rise in crime results in a growing need for police, we must take steps to hold law enforcement bodies to the highest standards while standing up for the security of Canadians. The public complaints and review commission, as it is proposed, is an overdue effort to carry out these objectives.

The commission would investigate complaints made by the public against the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency. In fact, this oversight was promised by the Liberals in 2015, and the government is now trying to ram it through one month before Parliament breaks. This comes after nine years in government.

I want to be clear in my support of the bill and its efforts to create the effective oversight of federal law enforcement agencies that Canadians expect, but I am disappointed that it has taken so long for the Liberals to follow through on their initial promise to Canadians. The Conservative Party supported the legislation in its previous iteration at each stage without amendments.

The Conservative Party believes in the dignity of our borders and ensuring that the CBSA is properly resourced in both manpower and equipment. The commission would grant explicit oversight over the Canada Border Service Agency and push the CBSA to be even more effective alongside the RCMP.

The current process by which the RCMP is held accountable to the public, along with the current lack of such a process for the CBSA, presents challenges that may undermine the public's trust in our law enforcement. We often speak of avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest when discussing matters of ethics. This matter is no different.

The National Police Federation made a submission to the House on Bill C-20, citing a number of disadvantages with the current way the RCMP is investigated by the existing Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, the CRCC, which often refers matters back to the RCMP for internal investigation. Some of these disadvantages include perceived bias of police investigating police, a lack of independence, a lack of transparency and reduced trust in our investigative process. With the lessons learned from the flawed implementation of the CRCC as a means of holding the RCMP accountable to the public, I am glad to see that the proposed legislation would move us in the right direction of a more independent means of oversight.

The CBSA is an important part of maintaining the integrity of our borders; however, as with any arm of the government, it must be held accountable to the public in a timely and efficient manner. With that in mind, I want to draw attention to two areas that are significant. I believe that aspects of the bill would lead us in the right direction, but I also believe that aspects of the bill are setting the commission up for failure.

I am happy to know that debate and discussion on the bill will continue as it moves forward. First, I want to go back to my earlier point, in which I illustrated the importance of avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest in matters concerning law enforcement here in Canada. As of right now, it is true that there is no separate or independent apparatus designated to review civilian complaints lodged against the CBSA. This is deeply concerning, as it brings us right back to the same problem.

When border agents must investigate complaints internally, this presents the appearance of a conflict of interest and may undermine Canadians' trust in due process and the accountability of federal agencies. With a commission that will not consist of current CBSA members or agents, we would be able to largely minimize the risk of there appearing to be a conflict of interest when complaints of this nature are being investigated. In this way, we will be doing what we can to ensure Canadians' trust in our federal agencies remains strong. Establishing an independent commission that does not rely on the resources of the RCMP or the CBSA will also reassure taxpayers that the funding for these agencies is not being spent investigating wrongdoings against the public.

Conservative estimates of an average of 1,500 investigations per year, requiring 40 hours each, will cost taxpayers roughly 60,000 work hours, with no cost recovery mechanisms. On that note, I believe that this proposed legislation is taking us in the right direction. However, I also believe that more discussion needs to be had on the nuances around the structure of this commission and the delegation of tasks. Making note of the latter of those two things, I would be interested in seeing discussions around how we can ensure that the resources of the commission are deployed efficiently. I especially wish to highlight this point, as the Canadian Bar Association wrote this in their submission on Bill C-20: “It seems inevitable that as the Commission's workload increases, delays will grow.”

This brings me to my next point, which is around the glaring omission of a maximum delay for the commission to resolve complaints. In its current form, Bill C-20 places the onus to set resolution timelines on the commission itself. While I can understand why this language was chosen, I'm also concerned with the statements raised by the Canadian Bar Association, which I mentioned earlier. It seems like common sense to think that, as we consolidate the duties of investigating both the RCMP and the CBSA into one commission, the workload of the commission will increase. In its submission on Bill C-20, the Customs and Immigration Union said, “we fear an investigation could take years to complete, which is neither fair to the employee under investigation nor to the complainant.”

Ambiguity in the resolution timeline of these cases, especially in the most egregious of complaints, is a disservice not only to Canadians but also to the future commission. Setting out concrete timelines in which every step of the complaint process is accounted for will show that our government is taking our responsibility to Canadian taxpayers seriously. It will also show our commitment to the RCMP and CBSA officers and agents who work tirelessly to serve Canadians by maintaining our domestic security and the integrity of our borders. These are necessary considerations that must be discussed and debated as consideration of the bill continues. While I do support the bill, I believe more work needs to be done to address the matters I have raised so far.

Let me be clear: With the reckless use of time allocation and programming motions by the NDP-Liberal government, the Conservative Party is doing what it can to ensure that proper debate takes place on critical government bills. As we pass legislation to improve the lives of Canadians, we must exercise caution so that we do not make matters even worse. When bills are not afforded adequate time for debate here in the House, we risk missing the observations and voices of Canadians, which may prove to be consequential in our discussions around shaping the federal policies of this nation.

It is our unique responsibility to ensure that the proceedings here are conducive to fostering an environment in which open debate can always be had. Canadians look at us in our roles as members of Parliament and how we navigate discussions in which we may have differing opinions. It is important that we continue to ensure that we have ample debate on proposed legislation, showing Canadians that we take this responsibility seriously.