Bill C-20

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

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

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

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

moved that Bill C-20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to open up the debate on second reading of Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments.

I would like to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for their important review of systemic racism in the enforcement of the act.

By creating a new public complaints and review commission, the bill would provide new tools to ensure transparency and accountability of the institutions Canadians rely on to keep them safe, to keep them safe in their communities through the work of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and to keep them safe by protecting our international borders through the work of the Canada Border Services Agency. Canadians depend on these public safety organizations, but, at the same time, want assurances that these organizations will use the powers that have been entrusted to them responsibly.

Canadians have a right to consistent, fair and equal treatment when interacting with RCMP and CBSA officers. If members are not acting appropriately, Canadians naturally want and deserve assurances of a thorough review of these actions and consequences for any officer who engages in misconduct.

This is a fundamental principle of our democracy.

Our democracy depends on the principle of trust and confidence in our institutions, including law enforcement institutions. Independent civilian review overseeing is an essential element to that principle. This bill underscores it by creating an independent body that will strengthen transparency and autonomy through the independent review exercises of this new body.

Independence assures that Canadians can have their concerns taken seriously. The bill also underscores that principle. That is why this is stand-alone legislation rather than simply amending either the RCMP or CBSA Acts.

Currently, under the RCMP Act, an independent review and redress process is provided for by the RCMP through the CRCC, or Civilian Review and Complaints Commission. Current cases under the CRCC will be continued under the public complaints and review commission, or the PCRC, under the bill before us. The CBSA, on the other hand, currently has no independent review and redress process.

It is subject to review by various independent boards, tribunals and courts.

Without a dedicated review body, there is no avenue for independent investigation or review of public complaints against the CBSA.

The government has tried twice previously to address this shortfall by creating a review body for the CBSA. Some colleagues will recall that in 2019, our government introduced Bill C-98 and then in 2020, Bill C-3. Those pieces of proposed legislation sought to add CBSA review to the mandate of the existing CRCC, but both died on the Order Paper.

This issue has remained a priority for our government.

The 2020 Speech from the Throne included it in our agenda. The creation of a review body for the CBSA was of top priority and a component of the mandate that the Prime Minister gave to me when I took on this role in December of 2021.

It is time to give Canadians the accountability they deserve.

In the bill before us, the CRCC would be replaced by the new public complaints and review commission, which would continue to review the RCMP and would also become the independent review body for complaints concerning the CBSA.

The bill contains several mechanisms that would strengthen accountability beyond what has been available under the current CRCC for the RCMP. After engaging and listening to Canadians across the country, we have made significant reforms to the regimes proposed under Bill C-98 and Bill C-3 previously. We listened and we acted.

Therefore, in addition to creating a stand-alone law, other changes have been made.

This would subject the RCMP and CBSA to codified timelines. We heard complaints from Canadians regarding the RCMP's, at times, delayed response to reports from the CRCC. This time around, we are getting it right. The RCMP and the CBSA will have six months to respond to the PCRC's interim reports. They must also respond to certain reviews and recommendations of the PCRC within 60 days.

Second, the RCMP and the CBSA will be required to report annually to this office, the Minister of Public Safety, on their progress in implementing PCRC recommendations.

The third major change responds to a mandate the Prime Minister gave to me to combat systemic racism and discrimination in the criminal justice system, and advancing reconciliation with indigenous peoples. This is a critically important priority, especially at this time in our history.

Over the past number of years, in Canada and around the world, we have had necessary conversations about the presence and existence of systemic racism in law enforcement about the disproportionate mistreatment of Black, racialized and indigenous peoples across the country. It is high time that we act.

It is vitally important that this review system shed light on how to address these issues more fully.

Under the bill before us, the PCRC would collect and publish desegregated, race-based data on complainants in consultation with the RCMP and the CBSA.

I want to thank the chairperson of the CRCC, Michelaine Lahaie, and her colleagues for their advice and their vision on how the review process can become an essential tool to help not only understand systemic racism, but to eradicate it once and for all.

The fourth major change introduced in the bill would provide the PCRC with a public education and information mandate. The PCRC would implement programs to increase public knowledge and awareness of the PCRC's mandate and the right to redress.

Finally, the bill would address a gap in the current accountability and transparency regime involving how the CBSA responds to incidents of a serious nature.

These incidents can result in death or serious injury or violations of federal or provincial law.

The CBSA currently conducts its own internal reviews of such matters, but the bill before us would amend the CBSA Act so that the CBSA would be obligated to conduct such reviews. It would also need to notify both the PCRC and the police of appropriate jurisdiction.

The CBSA would also be required to provide the PCRC with reports and other information of serious incidents. The PCRC would have the authority to send an observer to assess the impartiality of these internal investigations. As part of its annual report to this office, the PCRC would also include the number, types and outcomes of serious incident allegations.

Taken together, these five changes represent a major step forward in the accountability and transparency mechanisms governing both the RCMP and the CBSA. The PCRC will be given the tools that it needs to help balance Canada's public safety and security priorities, as well as respect for the rights of the individuals with which they intersect.

To support the establishment of the commission, the government is investing $112.3 million over six years and $19.4 million ongoing. By creating an enhanced independent review body, the public complaints and review commission will help assure Canadians that they can continue to expect consistent, fair and equal treatment under the law when receiving services from the RCMP and the CBSA.

I urge all hon. members of the House to join me in supporting this important bill.

This is so Canada can assuage Canadians' concerns by creating greater transparency, oversight, and trust and confidence in our law institutions.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the Minister of Public Safety's bringing forward this important bill. It is critical that we have oversight bodies to hold those who hold power in our country accountable, notably in this bill the RCMP and the CBSA.

Recently, we have been talking a lot about holding the RCMP accountable, particularly at the public safety committee. Recently in the Globe and Mail, certain journalists have talked about how our commissioner of the RCMP was texting the commissioner of the OPP concerning using applications on their phones that would not store deleted messages. To me, this seems like the commissioner was trying to avoid accountability for her communications on the Emergencies Act invocation.

I wonder if this bill would do anything to hold the RCMP commissioner accountable for trying to hide any evidence and if the Minister of Public Safety is concerned about the commissioner's looking to use applications that would permanently delete text messages that could be used as evidence in the Emergencies Act invocation.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her work on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I am proud to be part of a government that believes in transparency.

The commissioner of the RCMP's testimony repeatedly before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, other committees and her upcoming appearance before the Public Order Emergency Commission is a vehicle to ensure that we are shining a light so there can be accountability when it comes to not only law enforcement's role, but, indeed, to the government's role with regard to our interactions when it comes to upholding public safety.

At the same time, I want to encourage my colleague and all the members of her Conservative caucus to support the bill, if my colleague believes in transparency and accountability and she sees the work we have put into Bill C-20, which would set up enhanced rigour around civilian review so there can be accountability for which she advocates. By supporting the bill, we are taking a step in that direction, so all Canadians can have trust and confidence in their institutions, including in the RCMP.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for honouring his commitment to bring Bill C-20 before the House. This is an important debate.

My riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford is policed entirely by the RCMP. I do enjoy good relations with them, but it is no secret that the force as a whole has some major problems. This has been detailed in the public safety committee's report on systemic racism in policing.

We know, particularly, the problems indigenous people have had with the RCMP. The actions of the community-industry response group of the B.C. RCMP have been well documented with respect to the types of tactics used against indigenous protesters. Therefore, it is important that we add this layer of accountability and transparency, with legislative timelines for review.

However, while I do believe that report influenced a lot of what we see in Bill C-20, I want to know how the minister is going to work to include indigenous oversight on this review body and how he is going to include indigenous investigators and decision-makers, so they are a part of this process and truly walking that path of reconciliation to involve them in an issue that affects them more than most Canadians combined.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's concerns that while we enhance civilian review for the RCMP, we are also walking the path of reconciliation. I want to assure him that, as part of my broader mandate, we are taking concrete steps to diversify through better recruitment and retention of indigenous peoples within the RCMP, within the CBSA and within all frontline agencies that work within the public safety community, so indigenous peoples see themselves reflected in the institutions that are there to keep them safe. As my colleague will know, we are also making huge strides when it comes to stabilizing and enhancing first nations and indigenous policing right across the country.

He will know that recently we worked with our colleagues in Alberta to set the foundational framework to bring back a Siksika Nation police service. We recently have worked with our colleagues in Saskatchewan to put in place the money that is required to invest in similar steps taken for the Prince Albert, including the James Smith Cree Nation community should it choose to do that, so that we see more indigenous-led policing initiatives across the country. We have also recently created the position of a Correctional Services deputy commissioner for indigenous affairs. There is so much work that we still need to do.

I look forward to working with my colleague when it comes to reconciliation and public safety.

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

Madam Speaker, two questions in a row is a rare occurrence, and I will take advantage of it.

I would like to ask the minister about another part of Bill C-20. The text of the legislation would allow provincial ministers and the federal Minister of Public Safety to initiate investigations. As parliamentarians, we are frequently made aware, not only by our constituents but also at committee, of certain transgressions that may be attributed to both the CBSA and the RCMP.

I would ask the hon. minister if he would be open to amendments at committee that would allow parliamentarians and committee bodies to ask the commission to investigate both the RCMP and CBSA because of information we may have received.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Chair, as I am inclined to say whenever it comes to questions of working with committees and their independent study of bills such as this one, I will always keep an open mind. However, I want to underscore that the focus of this legislation is, of course, to give Canadians greater access when they have concerns about the conduct or potential misconduct of the RCMP and, I do want to highlight, the CBSA. This is one of the major vacuums this bill addresses.

Right now, as the law exists, there is no independent civilian review of the Canada Border Services Agency. In my many conversations with communities across this country, including ethnic communities, religious communities, racialized communities and indigenous peoples, on their interactions with the CBSA, they have called for this legislation.

To the credit of the CBSA, it has also called for this legislation, and to the credit of the CBSA and the president of the CBSA, they embrace this legislation and understand that we need to continue to push forward with reforms. They understand that those reforms have to be done in conjunction with civilian review, so we can enhance transparency and accountability, as an extension of the public confidence we need to have in our institutions.

Of course, I do look forward to continuing a dialogue with my colleague on the work of the committee as well.

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

Madam Speaker, I think I am setting a record here in the House of Commons with three questions in a row for the minister.

I am glad the minister mentioned the CBSA, because as many people would know, there have been at least 16 deaths in CBSA custody since the year 2000. I would like the minister to clarify how exactly we are going to hold the CBSA to account for these deaths in the past. I would also like to know if he has any words to the families, both here in Canada and abroad, who have had family members die in CBSA custody. It is critical that the minister stand in this place to underline how important it is that we hold this particular agency to account, given that very sorry and dismal track record.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, of course, I would begin by extending my sympathies and condolences to the families who lost loved ones while they were in custody or in any interaction with law enforcement. This is one of the reasons it is so important that we put this legislation forward, because, as a result, any individual who has a concern about the conduct of the RCMP or again, for the first time, the CBSA, would have a tangible, practical vehicle through which we can ensure that there would be accountability.

The mechanisms built into this bill would also require that incidents that are of a significant nature are, first of all, being carried out through internal investigations where the public complaints and review commission could have some oversight, but in addition to that, the separate processes that would be carried out by the PCRC itself. Therefore, taken together, this is about raising the bar when it comes to transparency and accountability as a means of strengthening public confidence in our institutions, which is a hallmark of our democracy.

When we consider all the challenges we face with regards to public safety, it is important, now more than ever, that we spare no effort and are exhausting all of our efforts to ensure that we have all the mechanisms in place to maintain those pillars when it comes to our democracy.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to put some words on the record concerning Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments.

This is certainly something that the Liberals have talked about, I believe since the 2015 election. There has been about seven years where this has been in the making. It has been a very long time that they have been talking about doing this, and finally we are there. There are aspects of the bill that the Conservatives are interested in, particularly given that this bill reviews the public complaints and review commission, which of course is renaming itself from the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission.

What exactly does that do? It would ensure that there is a complaints review process for everyday Canadians should they have an issue with the RCMP, and in this case, because of this bill, with the CBSA. It is very important that we are able to hold any sort of law enforcement accountable in our democracy when we provide very large powers—

I am sorry, Madam Speaker, but perhaps the Liberal members would like to have their conversations in the lobby?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I would like to remind members that, if they want to have conversations, they should take them into the lobbies because they do disturb the proceedings of the House.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, it is very important that we have strong mechanisms to hold those in law enforcement roles accountable. I think that everyone would agree on that. These are the individuals who we empower to enforce law and order, so we need to have an equally powerful oversight body to ensure that there are no abuses of that power.

Before I go into the rest of this, I do want to very sincerely thank all of the men and women in the country who wear a uniform to keep Canadians safe.

It is very important that, as parliamentarians, when we talk about oversight, we also talk about the incredible sacrifices that RCMP and CBSA officers make. RCMP officers, with their families, are carted around the country to various small towns, often in rural and northern Canada. We need those officers to keep those communities safe, and they make a lot of sacrifices for their families. We know that CBSA officers, as well, are often in border towns or border communities that are far away from where a CBSA officer would normally live. There is a lot of movement around and a lot of weeks away from home.

As we know, CBSA officers and our RCMP officers are consistently putting themselves in danger, again, to keep us safe, so I thank all of the officers out there who don a uniform and do that for our country.

Certainly, as I was saying, the oversight body is very important. Particularly, we have been talking a lot about CBSA in recent years and their role in preventing things such as gun violence, for example.

It has been discussed with many policing bodies the great threat of having, frankly, the largest undefended border in the world with a country that owns more firearms than they have people, which is just part of their culture and their history, and that is not up for debate in the House, but what is up for debate is how it impacts Canada and the important role that CBSA has in ensuring that none of those firearms make their way into Canada illegally.

Unfortunately, in cities such as Toronto and Montreal, we are seeing significant issues, and deaths and murders, from evil criminal elements and gangs that take advantage of our porous border and smuggle into the country firearms that are not just restricted, but prohibited. They are using them illegally, possessing them illegally and really damaging, particularly, our vulnerable communities in Montreal, Toronto and other cities across the country.

It is not just those neighbourhoods that are particularly vulnerable. We are seeing gun violence across the country in rural Canada. We are seeing it leak into suburbs, which normally feel very secure and safe from these types of elements. That is what is happening with the criminal elements in our cities, and they are being fuelled by what seems to be the ability to quite easily smuggle or drone in guns, either at our border and at our ports of entry.

We also know that this is deeply tied to drug smuggling and drug trafficking across our border as well. CBSA has a huge role to prevent that as well. We are depending on our CBSA officers to prevent significant criminal activity that can contribute to death and mayhem in our cities. We are empowering them to do that. We need to make sure that they have the resources, equipment and training to fulfill those important duties for Canadians.

Unfortunately, we do not hear nearly enough about it from the government. It is far too focused on going after law-abiding, trained, tested and vetted Canadian firearms owners than it is on the issue of our border. Perhaps that is a debate for another time. Given that we are talking about oversight of the CBSA today, I think it is worthwhile to bring in the important work that it does and how much we need to prioritize resources to the border to ensure that we are keeping Canadians safe from the impacts of gun smuggling and drug smuggling.

We have also been talking a lot in recent weeks and, frankly, months about the RCMP. We know that the RCMP is facing a significant recruitment and retention issue. I have a lot of RCMP and Winnipeg police officers in my riding. They are incredible men and women, but they are saying morale is quite low. Where is the oversight and the responsibility from the government, and other levels of government, to ensure that RCMP and civic police officers are feeling valued in their role?

That is something that deeply concerns me. We are facing a deficit of police officers when, frankly, there has been a 32% rise in violent crimes since the Liberals formed government seven years ago, since the Prime Minister became the Prime Minister of Canada. Another stat I would like to share is that there were 124,000 more violent crimes last year than there were in 2015 when the Liberals came into power. The need for police to keep our communities safe is greater than ever, yet we are facing serious retention issues.

We are talking about oversight of our RCMP, but we also need to be talking about policies that ensure our RCMP members are adequately supported. What happens when we have overworked police officers and when there are not enough of them, so they are being spread thinner and thinner and their workload is going up higher and higher? We get fatigue. We get depression. We get accelerated impacts of PTSD from the things they see. If we do not have officers who can rest and take care of their mental health, then we have serious impacts on their ability to adequately do their jobs and keep themselves safe, keep their fellow officers safe and ensure they are doing their duty to keep communities safe.

Any time we are talking about RCMP, CBSA or armed forces members, there needs to be an equal conversation about ensuring we are adequately supporting those officers and those members so that they are feeling valued and being supported enough so that they can adequately do their jobs to the best of their mental and physical abilities. Mistakes get made when they are tired. Mistakes get made when they are demoralized, frustrated, irritated and overworked. That is when the biggest mistakes happen. I think if we are going to talk about oversight, we have to talk about better support for our police officers and our officers at the border.

Certainly, when we are talking about the RCMP as well, there have been a lot of discussions of how we can better serve the vulnerable communities that are seeing the most impacts from violent crime. We could talk about the revolving door that also exhausts police officers. About five years ago, the Liberal government brought forward a bill, Bill C-75, that instituted bail reform. This is something I have been looking into in recent weeks and months, and I have been discussing with police officers the impacts they have seen with these bail reform changes.

It would seem that, quite significantly, Bill C-75 has contributed to the revolving door of crime. Those who are looking to break the law and perhaps harm others are in and out of jail over and over again. Police are encountering the same people, week after week, committing the same types of crimes. It is often just petty theft and petty crime, but often it could also be more significant crimes, like stabbings, shootings, rapes or other types of assault.

Can members imagine being police officers and risking their lives to arrest the same person over and over? What does that do to those police officers? What does it do to their morale and their ability to consistently keep their spirits up and do their jobs, when it is the same people over and over again? If we want to talk about oversight, we have to talk about adequately equipping our police officers with the resources they need, and that goes back to our criminal justice system and how it ensures the people they arrest in the first place stay in jail if they are a threat to society.

Then we have things like Bill C-5, which our party has really talked about a lot in terms of our belief in the threat it is going to pose, particularly to vulnerable communities. To refresh the memories of those watching, Bill C-5 would eliminate mandatory prison time for serious firearm offences, like assaulting a police officer with a weapon or drive-by shootings, so firing a gun with the intent to injure someone with a bullet would no longer mean mandatory prison time under the current Liberal government.

It would also allow that, for serious offences, rather than having a mandatory minimum sentence, there would be the option to serve house arrest. Therefore, in a vulnerable community, for example, if there are people who are criminals or part of a gang doing very bad things to those in that community, rather than going to prison, they could be serving house arrest in the community they have terrorized. I do not think that is fair to those communities. I do not think they want those criminal elements in their communities. It also would not provide any opportunity for rehabilitation, which is provided in our penitentiary system. In my opinion we should have far more rehabilitation opportunities in our penitentiaries, but that is a conversation for another time.

We also have a lot of concerns with leadership in the RCMP. I asked the minister today if this bill would provide any oversight to the RCMP commissioner, given the recent scandal and accusations, with corroborating evidence, that the RCMP commissioner politically interfered with the worst mass killing in Canadian history, notably the Nova Scotia 2020 mass killing. This is a very serious matter the Conservatives, together with the Bloc and the NDP, have been investigating for five months. Although the bill would improve the oversight of the RCMP, I do not think that would translate to the top leadership of the RCMP, unfortunately, though it is desperately needed.

In committee just the other day we were talking to the commissioner of the RCMP, and this was the second time she came to committee about the same interference scandal. She also went to the Mass Casualty Commission to discuss this as well, and it was quite a challenging experience. I was hoping for some sentiment that she was remorseful she had handled the situation the way she had or any sort of legitimate explanation that we could understand that would provide us some relief that she did not do this. Unfortunately, we did not get any of that.

Our only ability to hold her accountable is through the public safety committee, at least as the opposition. The government could fire the commissioner, but it has not taken those steps. We believe it should. Bill C-20 is talking about oversight; however, there is no oversight mechanism in it, that I am aware, for the RCMP commissioner in this circumstance.

Just to recap, a few years ago during the heat of the fallout, about 10 days into the tragedy that took 22 lives, including the life of a pregnant woman, we found out through the evidence we built through the MCC, that the RCMP commissioner, first and foremost, warned the government that sharing the weapons information about the evil killer in that situation, who, again, killed 22 people plus a pregnant women, would jeopardize the criminal investigation. She made it very clear that it should not be shared beyond the minister and the Prime Minister.

Unfortunately, a few days later she turned around. We now had an audio recording where she was reprimanding her Nova Scotia deputies on the ground for not sharing the information that she warned her bosses not to share. We asked her and the MCC asked her what changed her mind. She has not provided a single coherent answer about what changed her mind. We have theories, but she has not provided a single coherent response.

What we found out from the audio recording, and what was certainly corroborated before we got that audio recording by the Nova Scotia deputies and their meticulous notes, was that the commissioner was connecting the Liberals' forthcoming gun control policies. She did this because she wanted to help usher along the Liberal government's gun control policies.

When we have the commissioner of the RCMP, with 22 murdered Canadians and the largest criminal investigation in Canadian history in that regard, looking at this as an opportunity to further her political boss's gun control policy, we obviously have a lot of questions and concerns about that. We believe that is political interference. What really tied it back to the Liberal government were her own words saying that they requested that she do this.

The Liberal government has repeatedly denied this. We have her words in an audio recording. We have that corroborated with the Nova Scotia deputies who were in that meeting where she stated those things. They have written notes. They have testified at committee without a doubt in their minds, and given the audio we can see where they are coming from, that the commissioner of the RCMP sought to take advantage of the deaths of 22 people to further the Liberal political agenda. She also said that it was requested by the then-minister of public safety's office.

We have gone through this for five months. The evidence has trickled out and built the case. To us, it seems irrefutable that this happened, yet she still has her position. We find that disgusting and appalling. We do not understand how someone, the head of our law enforcement, could come to committee and worm her way around the facts on the ground, the audio recording that we have, that she directly connects these things. However, she said things like that was just a conversation, that was taken out of context, this is all a misunderstanding or it was just a miscommunication. That is what we were hearing. However, we have the audio recording and we have the testimony from the people who were in the room.

It is quite frustrating that we were not able to fully hold the most powerful RCMP officer in the country accountable. Perhaps that is a shortcoming of my own. Perhaps I could have done a better job. However, if we are going to talk about Bill C-20, the government also needs to talk about holding the RCMP commissioner accountable, which it has so far failed to do.

It would be one thing if it was just in this scenario that she was using that kind of slippery language to make excuses for her behaviour, which was, as we believe, on the order of the Liberal government and its ministers. She also mentioned the PMO in the audio, so perhaps it goes as far as the Prime Minister's Office. However, we were unable to get any further evidence to convince media and others that it is the case. Should any more evidence come up, rest assured, we will be revisiting that issue.

What I would say is that I think the reporters are finally experiencing a bit of what we experienced with the commissioner over the past five months.

Again talking about the oversight of the RCMP, recently a Globe and Mail story came out, which I think was yesterday or the day before, and now it seems that the commissioner is pulling the same sort of behaviour with the Emergencies Act. She apparently was texting with her counterpart at the OPP, the OPP commissioner, back in the height of the convoy when the government invoked the Emergencies Act. As a refresher, the Emergencies Act allows the government to supersede charter rights, which is a very big deal. That is why there is a built-in inquiry to hold the government accountable for doing it, to ensure the very high threshold of the Emergencies Act was met. We are going through that process right now and it is quite riveting.

The commissioner is sort of pulling the same stuff with the media. There are text messages between her and the OPP. The title of the article is, “Top Mountie can’t explain text messages in which she suggested federal government wanted retroactive support for Emergencies Act”. Where is the oversight on this?

She said the following to the OPP commissioner, which is unbelievable, “Has Minister Blair hit you up for a letter to support the EA?” My understanding from the article is that this is after the Emergencies Act was invoked by the Liberals. We have the commissioner of the RCMP asking for a retroactive support letter for the invocation of the Emergencies Act from the OPP commissioner. Two very powerful people are talking about backdating a letter retroactively to show that they are supporting this. That is pretty peculiar. Their integrity is pretty suspect and perhaps shows how desperate, which is speculation, the political bosses in that scenario were to build their case. We know that the Minister of Public Safety said mistruths in this House when he said that the police asked for the emergency powers, when in fact they did not. This is just building on that narrative a little more.

Further, she told reporters she never requested such a letter, yet we have texts that say that she did. How can there be texts that say she requested this letter, when she tells reporters that she did not? This is what we have been going through for five months with the commissioner. We say she said something and she says that is not what that meant, over and over again. We are talking about RCMP oversight. Where is the oversight for the RCMP commissioner?

I will conclude with this, because this is the part that shocked me the most. The head of the RCMP, the commissioner, texted the head of the OPP. Commissioner Lucki's texts show that she twice asked Commissioner Carrique about using a different messaging app that does not store deleted messages. In the context of talking about the emergency powers, is it not peculiar to anyone that the head of the RCMP is texting the head of the OPP saying they need use to an app where their messages can be permanently deleted? Is no one concerned about that?

The heads of law and order are talking about using an app to permanently delete records. That is insane to me and it is unbelievable that the commissioner is still the head of law and order in this country. It is appalling. She should absolutely resign or, better yet, be fired by the public safety minister.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I have spent the better part of the last 20 minutes listening to my colleague's intervention, hoping that we would hear more about the substance of the bill itself. I will come back to my question for my colleague across the aisle.

I will be the first person to stand up in this House and defend the incredible work that is done by law enforcement every day when it comes to keeping the public safe across the community. The investments that we have put into place, the technology, the resources and, frankly, the work of the Canadian Institute of Public Safety Research and Treatment, which is a group we met with just a couple of days ago, is proof of all of the supports that we will invest in our law enforcement so that they can carry out their work.

The purpose of today's debate is Bill C-20 and I think my colleague, if she were to be candid with this chamber, would acknowledge that there were very few comments with regard to the substance of the propositions around reporting, discipline, recommendations and all of the things that will enhance civilian review so that there can be public confidence in our institutions, including the RCMP and the CBSA. Where does the member stand on the specific merits of this bill?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, the minister will have to take my apology. His government is keeping us so busy talking about oversight. I could talk for days and days about all the oversight the Liberals need.

I would say that, overall, the bill does look promising and Conservatives are open to supporting it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's speech. She talked about police officer morale. She has probably heard about Janet Merlo, who spent 20 years in the RCMP, reported persistent bullying and is still hearing from RCMP members about persistent sexual harassment in the force. I am just wondering if she has any comments on how Bill C-20 will address those concerns and maybe even act as a morale booster.

Second, I take well my colleague's comments about the commissioner and the episodes we have had at the public safety committee. Does she have any comments on my private member's bill, Bill C-303, which seeks to add some clarity and specificity on the relationship the Minister of Public Safety has with the commissioner of the RCMP?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I admire that my hon. colleague looked at the past five months and went to a lot of effort and endeavoured to find a piece of legislation that could possibly fix the issue and the scandalous behaviour we have seen between the Liberal government and the RCMP commissioner. His bill looks very promising. I did a quick read. I am not convinced that it would have solved the ethical and behavioural problem that the Liberal government repeatedly faces, but we are open to supporting his bill.

As to my colleague's first question, with my remaining few seconds, I am deeply concerned about any sexual harassment in the RCMP, as well as in our armed forces. I have talked at length in this House about the resignation request we had in the last Parliament regarding the then minister of defence and his lack of action for six years to address sexual harassment and assault in our military. I do not have any confidence that the Liberal government is going to take care of this. I will work seven days a week with the NDP member to solve that issue in the RCMP.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments, be read a second time and referred to a committee.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to debate Bill C‑20. We could call this take three, because the government has wanted to pass legislation for this matter for some years, but neither Bill C‑3, which was introduced in the 43rd Parliament, nor Bill C-98, which was introduced in the 42nd Parliament, were prioritized.

Those two bills unfortunately died on the Order Paper. However, what is encouraging is that all parties seemed to agree. They supported the principle of these two bills, which is relatively the same as what we find today in Bill C‑20. All things come in threes, as they say. I hope the bill will pass this time.

However, it is unfortunate that it was not made a priority earlier. It was more than 18 years ago that Justice O'Connor recommended the creation of an independent process to handle public complaints against the Canada Border Services Agency, or the CBSA. That decision was handed down in 2004, but it was not until 2022 that the government finally decided to act.

As the Minister of Public Safety explained earlier, Bill C-20 seeks to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the Canada Border Services Agency Act to change the public complaints process.

This bill would establish the public complaints and review commission, which would replace the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It would make it possible to investigate complaints concerning the conduct and level of service of RCMP and CBSA personnel and review specified activities of these two organizations.

It is true that we currently have an independent oversight mechanism, but its mandate covers only matters affecting national security. It is therefore rather surprising that the CBSA is the only public safety agency in Canada that does not have a body that gives citizens recourse against an organization that can sometimes abuse its authority—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but a lot of people in the House are talking. Do they not realize that there is a debate happening right now?

I would ask them, out of respect for the person who is speaking, to continue their conversations in the lobby.

The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that.

I was saying that it is rather surprising that the CBSA is the only public safety agency in Canada that does not have a body that gives citizens recourse against an organization that can sometimes abuse its authority. That is unfortunate. My goal here is not to put CBSA officers on trial, but the fact is that, as in many organizations, sometimes abuse happens. The people who experience that abuse need a space to speak out against it and to have the results of the investigations reviewed if the results are unsatisfactory.

At the same time, we all know that allowing an organization to investigate itself never produces great results. Therefore, it is very important to have an external oversight body. The fact that complaints are currently handled internally means that if a complainant is not satisfied with the outcome of an investigation, there is nowhere for them to turn to have those findings reviewed. This has been the case since the CBSA was created.

Also, when complaints are dealt with internally, access to information requests must be made to obtain more details. We know what happens with access to information requests. As my colleague from Trois-Rivières said, the government is so transparent that we can see right through the pages it provides. He was referring to the 225 blank pages sent by Health Canada in response to an access to information request.

I was talking about Justice O'Connor earlier, but the Privacy Commissioner of Canada also found major deficiencies in January 2020, particularly when it comes to searches of travellers' electronic devices.

I am pleased that the government finally introduced Bill C‑20, and it can count on the Bloc Québécois's support for the bill to be studied quickly. I want to emphasize the importance of hearing from the different groups concerned, groups such as the Customs and Immigration Union, whose president has already expressed some reservations about the bill. Obviously we know that the CBSA is dealing with a major staff shortage. According to the president, this may contribute to causing delays and creating tension between officers and travellers.

The government needs to ensure that customs officers have enough resources to do their job properly. There is no excuse for abuse, I just want that to be clear, but I also want to ensure that the border officers' union is involved in the process leading up to the passage of this bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Maybe members did not understand me when I spoke in French, so I will speak in English. There is quite a buzz of discussion in the House right now. I would ask members to please take their discussions to the lobbies out of respect for the member of Parliament recognized to speak at the moment.

The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia has the floor.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank you once again for your intervention. I really appreciate it.

As I was saying, there is a serious labour shortage at the Canada Border Services Agency right now. I am sure everyone will agree that this is true pretty much everywhere. According to the union president, this could be contributing to some of the problems that exist at the moment. The president would like the new body that deals with complaints, the infamous commission we are talking about, to also deal with misconduct on the part of managers, not just employees. He noted that if a complaint points to a systemic problem in the organization, the commission should address that problem rather than directing everything to the one person with whom the traveller interacted. He also noted that CBSA staff are often forced to work mandatory overtime and sometimes deal with hundreds of people a day, which can also contribute to the tension.

The bill amends the Canada Border Services Agency Act to provide for the investigation of serious accidents that involve not only employees but also CBSA officers. I think this is positive enough to address the concerns of Mr. Weber, the union president, about systemic problems that may exist within the agency.

Bill C‑20 would also allow the new commission to recommend disciplinary processes or the imposition of disciplinary measures in relation to individuals who have been the subject of complaints. In my opinion, this is a clear step forward that can help restore the CBSA's image and public confidence in the agency. It also provides for the investigation of serious accidents involving officers and employees of the CBSA.

One thing that seems particularly important to me is the opportunity to review the activities of the Canada Border Services Agency in general. The commission will be able to present its findings and make recommendations to which the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency must respond in writing. This commission will be made up of civilians, not former members of the CBSA or the RCMP, which will ensure that the commission's decisions are not tainted or biased.

The bill also requires the RCMP commissioner and the president of the Canada Border Services Agency to submit an annual report to the Minister of Public Safety about what their organizations have done that year to implement the new review commission's recommendations. The minister must table the report in the House of Commons and the Senate within 15 days.

The bill would also provide for an awareness campaign to inform travellers of their rights, which I think is great. I think that the best way to inform people of their rights is through this type of campaign. I applaud the fact that this is in the bill.

It is important to implement a clear process because, unfortunately, there has been a lot of abuse in the past. However, the process also needs to be accessible and easy to use. Bill C‑20 proposes a process that seems a bit long and complicated. There is a good chance that most people would drop it before reaching the end of the process. Take for example an officer who makes a sexist or racist remark to a traveller. For most travellers, it might be more complicated to file a complaint with the Canada Border Services Agency, wait for a response and refer the complaint to the review board than to simply let it go.

We will have to see in committee whether the approach set out in Bill C-20 is appropriate or whether changes need to be made. However, we agree that the process itself is necessary. In 2019, Mary Foster, from Solidarity Across Borders said, and I quote, “We have enough experience to know that making a complaint to the CBSA about the CBSA doesn't really lead anywhere”. Having the option of challenging the findings of an investigation is therefore essential to maintaining public trust.

It is important to remember that the CBSA has a lot of power, including the power to detain Canadians, search them and even to deport people. In its legislative summary of the bill, the Library of Parliament mentions the case of Maher Arar, a dual Syrian Canadian citizen who was detained by American authorities in 2002 during a layover in New York as he was returning to Canada from a trip to Tunisia. They deported him, and he was then detained and even tortured in a Syrian prison for nearly a year.

He was questioned by the FBI and the New York police without being allowed to contact a lawyer or even make a telephone call. That is what led Justice O'Connor, who I mentioned earlier, to propose the creation of a new civilian agency to oversee the activities of both the RCMP and the CBSA.

Some will say that it is a rather extreme case, but the number of investigations of misconduct by border officers increased significantly in 2020 despite the dramatic reduction in international travel due to the pandemic.

A Radio-Canada article reported the following:

The misconduct consisted mainly of preferential treatment...or lack of respect for clients, among other things.

The Canada Border Services Agency says it conducted 215 "founded" investigations of its officers in 2020, compared to 171 in 2019....The 200-plus investigations pursued last year resulted in 170 officers being reprimanded, largely with temporary suspensions. Just eight officers have been fired since 2018.

One officer [for example] was let go for interfering in the immigration process. The internal investigation found that the officer tried to help an immigration lawyer by illegally removing flags from a client's file and issuing a temporary residency permit.

These are rather serious allegations.

Other officers were dismissed for belittling clients, making inappropriate comments toward co-workers, abusing their authority or sharing private CBSA information.

Complaints with allegations of harassment and sexual assault have also been filed. Again, these are rather serious complaints made to the CBSA. This shows once again the importance of having an independent and external oversight body for the CBSA.

I spoke earlier about searching travellers' electronic devices. There have also been cases where some travellers have had their privacy invaded. Customs officials obviously have the right to search the content on digital devices, but they must put the devices in airplane mode.

On this point, Commissioner Daniel Therrien said, “The agency and its customs officers did not follow acceptable practices for handling the personal information of Canadian citizens re-entering the country”. According to the commissioner, “Officials must provide written reasons for searching devices.” In one reported case, an officer shredded handwritten notes three days after the commissioner's investigator called. In another case, a customs officer allegedly photographed the contents of a digital device, which is prohibited, while another looked at a traveller's bank statements, after she was forced to open her banking institution's app.

I could go on and on, but I think I am running out of time. I am pleased that the Minister of Public Safety heard me say that he will be able to count on the Bloc Québécois's support to move this bill forward. I look forward to studying it in parliamentary committee.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia will have seven minutes remaining when the House resumes debate on this matter.

It being 4 p.m., pursuant to order made Friday, October 28, I now invite the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance to make a statement.

The House resumed from November 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The last time the House debated this bill, the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia had seven minutes left for her speech.

The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matana—Matapédia.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there were a few minutes left in my speech on November 3 just before the Deputy Prime Minister took the floor to present her economic update.

Members will remember that, at the time, the House of Commons was all abuzz and everyone was eager to hear the Deputy Prime Minister’s speech, so I have a feeling that not many members heard what I had to say.

I will take this opportunity to review certain points that explain the Bloc Québécois’s position on Bill C-20. I began by announcing that the government had our support for the first reading of the bill. This is a second attempt for me in my speech today, but it is the third attempt for the government in its introduction of the bill.

In fact, the government has been trying to legislate on this issue for several years. Members will remember Bill C-3, introduced in the 43rd legislature, and Bill C-98, introduced in the 42nd legislature. I hope that the third time is the charm, and that Bill C-20 will be able to survive the entire democratic parliamentary process so that we can provide the Canada Border Services Agency and the RCMP with a truly independent external review commission.

The community has been asking for this for many years now. More than 18 years ago, in 2004, Justice O’Connor recommended the creation of an independent process to manage public complaints against the CBSA. The CBSA is the only Canadian public safety agency that has no external commission enabling the general public to file a complaint if they suffer any harm.

We know that this has happened in recent years. Many newspaper articles have reported on the fact that Canadian citizens returning home or leaving the country have suffered abuse by border services officers. Obviously, the point of my speech is not to put border services officers on trial. They usually do a very good job but, as in every organization, there are cases of abuse. We therefore need to enable the public to file complaints and allow these complaints to go through the necessary process to see whether anything can be done and whether these complaints should be reviewed.

Of course, there is a complaint process within the CBSA, but we know that self-investigation is never particularly effective. When complaints are dealt with internally, we often need to make access to information requests to find out what was the outcome of these complaints. Moreover, we know what happens with access to information requests these days. As my colleague from Trois-Rivières mentioned, the government “is so transparent that we can see right through the pages”. That is what he said about the 225 blank pages sent by Health Canada in response to an access to information request.

It would be a very good thing to have this process finally in place. As I said earlier, the community has been asking for this for many years. The Customs and Immigration Union gave its opinion on the bill. It asks that the review commission deal with not only misconduct by officers, but also any systemic problem that might come from higher up in the chain of command. That way, the problem could be investigated and complaints could be filed against managers and not just officers. The union really wants the entire chain of command to be looked at and, if there is a problem, officers should not be the only ones who are reprimanded for complaints filed with the commission.

What is also interesting about the bill is that it requires the minister of public safety to present an annual report informing the House and Canadians of what public safety agencies have done to implement the recommendations made by the public complaints and review commission. The commission would be able to issue recommendations to the department, and the minister would be accountable to the public and to complainants.

I mentioned earlier that border services officers have great power. They can detain and search Canadians and even deport people.

The legislative summary of Bill C-20 mentions the case of Maher Arar, a Syrian Canadian citizen who was deported, imprisoned and tortured in Syria. This was the result of a communication problem between Canadian and U.S. border services. Mr. Arar was questioned by the FBI. We realized that there might be a problem and that complaints were not being followed up on. That might have prevented this sort of thing from happening.

The number of investigations rose in 2020 compared to 2019. I do not have the figures for 2021 or 2022. Some 250 investigations of officers were conducted by the Canada Border Services Agency following complaints. For example, it appears that some officers interfered in the immigration process, while others attempted to assist immigration lawyers by illegally removing items that might raise questions from certain files. Still others apparently made disparaging comments about clients or inappropriate comments about colleagues. Some are said to have abused their authority. There were also complaints about harassment and sexual assault. These complaints are serious, and they demonstrate the need to create a thorough, independent complaint process. This will allow people who have been harmed by border services officers to have some recourse and keep informed.

Once again, the government can count on our support to improve this bill and pass it as soon as possible.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I would like the hon. member's comment with regard to the importance of legislation of this nature, which puts into place, I believe, a process that assists us in building confidence among the public.

That is a very critical point, when we think of justice and policing in general. The public needs to have confidence in those authorities. With the passage of this legislation, what we would do, at least in part, is ensure that this level of confidence continues to be there for our border control officers and the RCMP. In fact, for border control officers this would be for the first time.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague.

I think this sends the right message to the public. It is a message that might restore public confidence in the country's institutions. We know that, both for the Canada Border Services Agency and for institutions in general, the public has lost confidence in public safety institutions and agencies in Canada, and even in elected officials.

Bill C‑20 will bring in mechanisms that will enable people to follow the complaint process and see the results. It is all well and good to file a complaint, but if it is never mentioned again and nothing comes out of it, then it serves no real purpose, and that does not show that people have been heard. I think this sends a rather positive message.

This could have been introduced sooner, but we are glad it is before us today.

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

Madam Speaker, I enjoy serving with my Bloc colleague on the public safety committee. Our committee produced a very substantial report on systemic racism in policing in Canada.

One of the clear recommendations in that report was that the government appoint indigenous, Black and other racialized people to the commission because, often, they are the ones who have suffered the most at the hands of police interactions. Because of the way that the bill is currently written, it allows for some discretion on the part of the government.

Does she see any room for an amendment to the bill at committee stage, which might codify the inclusion of those specific groups. Does she have any ideas on how this bill could be improved to include meaningful participation from indigenous, Black and other racialized people?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, with whom it is a pleasure to work on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

What an excellent proposal. I believe it is important that all bodies be representative. We often hear that our parliaments should reflect the people they represent, that there should be as many women as men, that there should be a lot of young people and members of minority groups. It is therefore important that the people representing us reflect the population.

I think that the same principle applies here. If there are certain categories of people more likely to be affected, they should be represented on the commission. As I was saying earlier, when agencies investigate themselves, we rarely get results. If we can appoint anyone we want to the commission, we will end up with a flawed process. It would be interesting to propose an amendment that would allow some of the more affected groups to sit on the commission.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

To my hon. colleague, as I understand it, this bill was first proposed in the 42nd Parliament and reintroduced in the 43rd Parliament. Here we are about 14 or 15 months after the last election. I wonder if the lag in the amount of time the government has had to put this bill forward, which was previously drafted, speaks to whether it views it as a priority. Could I have her input on that, please?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, who raises a very good point.

As I was saying, this is our third attempt. Let us hope this is the one. In the past, the government tried to legislate on this issue, but the bill always died on the Order Paper because it was never given priority. There were always more important bills to be debated. That is unfortunate.

Let us hope that, this time, it will be given priority. We hope to be able to adopt this bill. Justice O'Connor's decision that proposed the creation of the commission was handed down 18 years ago. The Liberals have been in power for seven years, which was obviously more than enough time to legislate. That being said, if we look at the time frames, the Conservatives were also there for a few years when Justice O'Connor made his ruling.

I think everyone shares the blame. Let us hope that the House will agree to legislate on this issue quickly, which appears to be the case. There appears to be a certain consistency in the parties' positions. However, the government still has to decide to keep the bill on the agenda so that it can be quickly studied in committee.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

Among other things, Bill C-20 seeks to ensure that all Canadians are treated fairly and equitably. The bill provides for the collection of data to address systemic racism.

I would like to know whether my colleague agrees that these measures will indeed help to combat systemic racism.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I hope so.

I do not have the figures or the details about the complaints filed in recent years, but I imagine that the degrading comments made about certain people involved gender or nationality. We want to avoid this at all costs.

Once again, I do not want to put border services officers, who do an extraordinary job, on trial. There is a shortage of officers right now, and I think they are doing their best, but that does not give them the right to go places we do not want them to go. That does not give them the right to make degrading comments or abuse their power, which has happened in recent years.

Let us hope that the bill will help resolve these issues. Let us make sure that the commission remains independent, and that the complaint process goes smoothly. If it takes people months or years to get a response after they file a complaint, we may find that the commission is not doing much good after all, so let us ensure that it is truly useful for Canadians.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. She is always very competent, and the comments and proposals she makes in the House are always very clear.

As my colleague in the Conservative Party said earlier, there have already been two iterations of this bill. There is something that I have noticed since I was elected to the House two or three years ago. On one side, the Liberals spend their time imposing gag orders and, on the other, the Conservatives filibuster to waste our time. All this means that important bills like this one are never adopted. All of the work that we did on the two previous iterations of the bill was for nothing. We keep repeating the same things over and over.

Does my colleague agree that we could work more efficiently for Canadians in the House of Commons?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind words and for his comments.

I am in perfect agreement with him. It is discouraging, and it is difficult not to become cynical when you look at the procedural wrangling in Parliament. Bills that are important to Canadians die on the Order Paper because the government decides not to give them priority or because the opposition decides to filibuster. For a thousand and one reasons, we never get anything done.

I hope that we will be able to adopt this bill. Last week, despite our best efforts, we adopted Government Business No. 22, which extends sitting hours. Let us hope that the government will find another window for this bill on the agenda. Perhaps it will not have to and we already have all the hours we need. What we want is for the bill to be sent back to committee for study and then sent to the Senate for adoption. I think that Justice O'Connor and all Canadians have been waiting a long time.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to stand today to offer my thoughts, as the NDP public safety critic, on Bill C-20.

Before I get into it, I thank the Minister of Public Safety for bringing this bill forward for debate. A number of weeks ago I was having a conversation with him about some of the public safety bills he had on the Order Paper. I identified to him that this bill in particular was of great importance, because we are now in the third Parliament of trying to deal with this legislation. We know there are great problems with Canada's police forces, and many Canadians feels they do not receive equal treatment from them. I am glad to see that we are finally at the point where we are giving this bill serious consideration.

Before I get going on the substance of Bill C-20, it is also important for me to say how much I value and appreciate the members of the RCMP who police my community and work day and night to keep people safe. In the Cowichan Valley, we are going through an opioid crisis right now. We have a very high death toll. I know that when overdoses happen, the RCMP are often the first ones on the scene. They work long hours, and I do not think they get enough recognition for the incredibly important role they play.

For those of us who have never been police officers, or who never will be, we will never know what it is like for the families who, at the start of every shift, wonder if their loved ones are going to return home. In my time as the member of Parliament for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, I have been very privileged to get to know many serving members in the local North Cowichan and West Shore detachments. I formed a good bond with the detachment commander and look forward to strengthening those relationships. I promise that I will, as a legislator, do everything I can to support their role in keeping our communities safe.

The same goes for members of the Canada Border Services Agency. These men and women are our country's first line of defence at our ports of entry. They are diligently on the lookout each and every day for smuggling networks of firearms and drugs. They are carefully reviewing every visitor to our country and are making sure that we are not admitting criminals or those who may have committed war crimes.

That being said, it is impossible for us, as parliamentarians, to ignore the serious calls for reform of the RCMP and the CBSA. Some of those calls are coming from within the force, but a lot of those are from the outside. I will start with the CBSA.

The Canada Border Services Agency is the only major federal law enforcement agency without external oversight. The officers in that agency have a broad range of authority. They can stop travellers for questioning. They can take breath and blood samples. They have the ability to search, detain and arrest non-citizens without a warrant. They can interrogate Canadians. They also have the authority to issue and carry out deportations on foreign nationals.

These authorities have been carried out in an environment where charter protections are reduced in the name of national security. Despite all of these sweeping powers, this agency has existed until now without any independent or external civilian oversight for any complaints or allegations of misconduct.

I have a lot of respect for the men and women who wear the CBSA uniform. They are doing a very tough job. However, when you look at the force as a whole, the fact that there have been at least 16 deaths in CBSA custody since the year 2000 underlines the importance of having transparency added to how the agency functions, and of having external oversight so that Canadians could continue their trust in how it functions.

With the RCMP, we need to have a little history lesson. It was once known as the North West Mounted Police. It was the agent for enforcing Canada's racist policies against indigenous peoples. These policies called for the assimilation, relocation or elimination of indigenous peoples so that their lands could be made available for settlement and economic development.

There are two federal statutes that were primary tools in the RCMP's tool kit. There was the Indian Act, of course, which was the primary driver of assimilation, but also our Criminal Code was used to penalize indigenous people for their cultural practices. It also sought to eliminate the indigenous identity they expressed.

In modern times we have seen, certainly in my province of British Columbia, troubling interactions between the RCMP and indigenous protesters, most notably in Wet'suwet'en territory in the beginning of 2020. The British Columbia RCMP has a unit called the community-industry response group, and many of its interactions have raised some questions. It has been alleged to have made use of exclusion zones, psychological manipulation, siege tactics and arbitrary detention, theft of property, pain compliance and withholding the necessities of life.

Fairy Creek, in my riding, is one of the last untouched old growth watersheds in southern British Columbia, with some truly magnificent trees. It is on the traditional and unceded territory of the Pacheedaht First Nation. Last year, in the summer of 2021, a rumour that the area was going to be logged sparked massive protests in the region. With some of the tactics the RCMP used, such as exclusion zones to keep the media from interfering with its operation, the B.C. Supreme Court had to step in and rule that the exclusion zones and checkpoints were unlawful. Again, this is an example of the RCMP's not complying with existing law and making it up as it goes.

The complicating factor in Fairy Creek was the fact that the Pacheedaht First Nation was trying its best to cool down the temperature, so to speak. It simply wanted the time and the space to be able to figure out how it was going to manage its own lands. I do not think either side of that protest really fully respected its wishes, and that was the sad legacy of all that.

The other thing is that under the current Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, we have the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, but it has been plagued by extremely slow timelines. One example I remember reading about in the news is from back in 2014, when the B.C. Civil Liberties Association made a complaint with the CRCC. It alleged that the RCMP had carried out an illegal spying campaign against law-abiding protesters who were opposed to Enbridge's proposed northern gateway pipeline project. The CRCC probed the question and handed the Mounties an interim report in 2017, so it took three years for that interim report. The force still had not responded to that report three and a half years later, preventing the CRCC from releasing its findings publicly.

There are those kinds of timelines and the fact that the civilian agency, the CRCC, has routinely taken the RCMP to task for not properly following through on sexual assault investigations despite the RCMP's promises to do better. In fact, the CRCC has issued 43 adverse findings. These are conclusions that were unfavourable to the RCMP in cases involving sexual assault investigations since 2019, so that is over the last three years. An analysis of these reports has shown that too many RCMP officers fail to take sexual assault allegations seriously and struggle with matters of consent. Again, these problems are well documented, and they exist. We cannot hide from them. It is time for us to confront them openly, honestly and with a great deal of transparency.

I mentioned at the beginning of my speech that many of the criticisms are coming from outside these forces, but there are also major criticisms that need to be addressed from inside the force. Colleagues in this House may recall the name of Janet Merlo. Janet Merlo had worked as an RCMP officer in British Columbia for nearly 20 years when her doctor advised her to go on medical leave back in 2010 because of the constant bullying and harassment she had faced when working as a member of that force.

She and her co-plaintiff, Linda Davidson, took the RCMP to court. They ultimately earned an apology and received a settlement of $125 million for more than 2,300 women who had faced discrimination. It is not just people on the outside who are facing discrimination in their interactions with the RCMP. These were members in good standing, whose biggest goal in life was to be a positive contributor to the image of the RCMP, but who instead had to endure an unimaginable hell during their time within the force.

I will read from Human Rights Watch, which stated:

When they experience abuse at the hands of the police or when the police fail to provide adequate protection, women and girls have limited recourse. They can lodge a complaint with the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP, but the process is time consuming and the investigation of the complaint will likely fall to the RCMP itself or an external police force. Fear of retaliation from police runs high in the north, and the apparent lack of genuine accountability for police abuse adds to long-standing tensions between the police and indigenous communities.

That in itself underlines the seriousness of the issue and why it is so very important that this time, with Bill C-20, we make a determined effort to push it over the finish line so it becomes part of the statutes of Canada.

I do not think that today's discussion on Bill C-20 can happen unless we make an important reference to the report entitled “Systemic Racism in Policing in Canada”, which was tabled earlier this year by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. This was a report that was done in the last Parliament, but we ran out of runway in order to get a government response. I got unanimous consent from the committee in this Parliament to retable the report so we could get a government response.

I will read from the beginning of the report, which states:

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.

It goes on to say:

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.

From that report there were some amazing recommendations, but I will focus on the first four or five, because I think they are most pertinent to the bill before us today.

The first recommendation that came out of that report was that it called upon the Government of Canada to clarify and strengthen the mandate, independence and efficacy of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission through a number of ways. The report recommended that there be a substantial increase in its annual funding to ensure it had adequate resources; that we create statutory timelines for responses by the RCMP commissioner to the reports; that there be a requirement that the commissioner of the RCMP report annually to the Minister of Public Safety to describe the steps taken to implement CRCC recommendations and that the report be tabled in Parliament; and that the CRCC be required to publish its findings and recommendations in respect of all the complaints it receives in a manner that protects the identities of the complainants.

The second recommendation called on the government to increase the accessibility and transparency of that same CRCC, so that the process for initiating a complaint is easier to navigate; ensure that the independent review process is explained in a detailed and accessible format, again making sure the people who are most impacted by this have as easy a time as possible in making their complaint; and make sure that the progression of a review and the reports involved in it are transparent and publicly available.

The third recommendation is particularly important, because it is calling for “meaningful and engaged Indigenous participation and holds the RCMP accountable for wrongful, negligent, reckless, or discriminatory behaviour”. This would require the government to “consult with local Indigenous groups where complaints or systemic reviews involve Indigenous complainants; include Indigenous investigators and decision makers [within the commission]; and ensure Indigenous investigators are involved where the complaint involves Indigenous people.”

I had a chance, when the minister gave his opening speech on the bill, to ask him about that, because currently the bill would allow for the government to have some discretion on who is appointed to the body. I asked the minister if he would be open to codifying the fact that we need to have indigenous participation. The media got a hold of my interactions with the minister, and the CBC took the time to reach out to Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, who is president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.

I will read a quote from him. He said, “All legislation must engage Indigenous input not after the fact but during the drafting of the legislation itself, and it's absolutely essential that any oversight bodies of policing agencies include an Indigenous presence.” That is from Grand Chief Stewart Phillip. I have to say that I think that kind of quote is very helpful, and I hope he will be of service when the bill comes before the committee.

The report flows on to recommendation 4, about making sure the appointment of Indigenous, Black and other racialized people is a part of that commission and that they also take leadership positions within the organization.

I have also borrowed heavily from Professor Kent Roach. He is a professor of law at the University of Toronto. He has often written about problems with the RCMP and the way we need to reform it. He too has publicly called for a reform of the existing CRCC to make sure it can investigate complaints and conduct systemic reviews, but also to create more indigenous police services. That is something we are looking forward to seeing, a legislative framework for indigenous policing in Canada.

There have been a lot of attempts at addressing this issue, and in fact my colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, raised this issue all the way back in 2014, in the 41st Parliament. Several standing committees in both the Senate and the House have addressed this issue over a number of years, and as has been mentioned by previous speakers, we have seen the bill before us in other forms, in Bill C-98 in the 42nd Parliament, Bill C-3 in the last Parliament, and now Bill C-20 in this one. In each of those earlier cases we simply ran out of runway. One of the bills was introduced at the very end of a session, and the other bill, of course, fell victim to an unnecessary election call during the summer of last year.

Very quickly, because I know my time is winding down, when we look at the substance of Bill C-20, what it would essentially do, and this is a fairly radical departure from the previous versions, is create a brand new public complaints and review commission that would be a stand-alone piece of legislation, so it would be completely separate from the RCMP Act. That would give it a measure of independence that is sorely needed.

I know, from reading government backgrounders on this, that the Government of Canada has committed to funding $112.3 million over six years to this agency, with $19.4 million ongoing, and that is going to be incredibly important in ensuring it has the resources to do the job and Canadians can maintain trust.

In my final minute, I will conclude by saying that Bill C-20 is a good and important step, and I think ultimately it would help ensure transparency and public confidence in our institutions, both with the CBSA and the RCMP. Extremely vulnerable people in Canada, including refugee claimants, have long advocated for this body to ensure accountability and transparency. It is clear that we, as a Parliament, have waited a long time to codify these reforms, and I hope members from all parties will agree and come to a point where we can get this bill to a vote soon and send it to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security so that we can look for ways to improve it.

I will conclude there. I appreciate this opportunity to have made a few remarks.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on the fact that the report was done back in the mid 2000s, maybe 2005 or 2006, and it has been a while to take the action necessary. The member might know it for a fact, but I do not believe that the Canada Border Services Agency was incorporated in the original recommendations by Justice O'Connor.

I am wondering if the member could give his thoughts on how, yes, a considerable amount of time has lapsed, but some substantive changes have been proposed, and those substantive changes would complement the overall public confidence in two agencies that are so critically important to all Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, yes, that is including some of the important parts of this bill. In the section of the bill that details the content and form of the annual report that must be submitted, we now have a reference to disaggregated race-based data. This has long been a call from many people across Canadian society for how both the RCMP and the CBSA interact with people.

Also, one of the things that I took note of is that either the federal Minister of Public Safety or his provincial counterparts would be able to request a review of specified activities of either agency, and that is a good thing. Perhaps at committee, I might look for an opportunity where Parliament would also have such a role because, as parliamentarians and as committee members, sometimes these kinds of systemic problems come to our awareness, and parliamentarians should have that same ability to request a review.

Therefore, I would agree with the member that there have been some significant improvements since the first report he referenced. I hope we can come to a place where the debate collapses on this bill because we committee members are eager to get to work on it.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. One of the things my hon. colleague laid out quite well is the difficulty peace officers go through and the current climate that RCMP, CBSA and all peace officers are operating within.

This is a time when there have likely never been as many illegal guns on the streets of Canada as there are today, yet his party has supported the Liberal government's essentially lessening gun offences when it comes to sentencing. How does he reconcile that with the fact that he is speaking about the difficult circumstance peace officers find themselves within, yet he is not doing the things that need to be done to protect them?

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

Madam Speaker, I will parse it into two separate parts.

First, I do not think the member will find any argument from any member of the House that our frontline police officers and CBSA officers do need more support, and they do need to have the technology to make sure they are intercepting that.

Second, where I differ from my hon. colleague is on the Criminal Code reforms. I do not believe that we need to have a simple, stand-alone mandatory minimum apply equally to every single case. How did I know that? It is because every case that comes before a court of law is different. Unlike my Conservative colleague, I have faith that the judge who is presiding over the case will look at the facts of the case, the crime that was committed, the circumstances of the accused and then make the appropriate sentence for the case that is before them.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very informative speech. He clearly knows a lot about this issue.

I would like to take him in another direction and ask him a question about the importance of having an independent complaints management committee in various areas. I think that is really important.

Here in the House, we worked on setting up a similar committee to deal with sexual harassment complaints in the army, but it never went anywhere. Even though Justice Deschamps issued a report in 2015, such a committee has not been set up while the Liberals have been in office.

However, the government took action right away on the complaints by female Swimming Canada team members. An independent committee to handle complaints was set up. That is really important, and we see that in this bill.

I would like my colleague to talk a bit more about the importance of having an independent committee, outside the community in question, to handle complaints in certain cases.

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

Madam Speaker, independence is critical in this. This bill diverges from its previous versions in that we would now be creating a stand-alone agency that would be completely removed from the RCMP Act. What we do not want is for this commission to have in any way undue influence over the agency or force it is supposed to investigate. That transparency, that accountability and that independence is critical, not only so it can do its job properly, but also so Canadians have trust it will actually be doing that job.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague and neighbour from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for sketching out, as I would have as well, that the RCMP has had instances, which are in the minority of RCMP behaviour, that were alarming. I note that, in the Fairy Creek example my hon. colleague raised, even after the Supreme Court informed the RCMP that the way it was interpreting the injunction to create setbacks to prohibit the media from being near the deliberate abuse by and brutality of the RCMP officers in the way they were arresting people, particularly indigenous people, was illegal, it continued to do so.

I want to raise the example of the CBSA. We are long overdue for this oversight agency. The CBSA has a very high degree of reported instances of racism, homophobia and abuse towards people. Border agents have immense power. Each individual agent has the power to say someone is not coming into our country, and there is no appeal. We really need to look at how fair and democratic these institutions are.

Is my hon. colleague not disturbed by the extent to which individual powers are granted to CBSA officers, and for which no one can complain?

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

Madam Speaker, my neighbour from Saanich—Gulf Islands raises some excellent points. I do not think I have much to add, other than to say that I agree with her. That is why we need to get this bill to committee, so we can hear that important feedback. I think there might be some improvements we can make.

I will close by also commenting on Fairy Creek. Absolutely, there were some very troubling reports that came out of there. It was a very complex situation, especially when we had the elected and hereditary leadership of the Huu-ay-aht, Ditidaht and Pacheedaht first nations simply wanting the time and space to figure out how they were going to manage their own lands. That is a clear example of how we saw police interactions there and why this bill is an important step in addressing many of those concerns.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to engage in debate about the criminal justice situation. I know the member serves on the public safety committee, as he spoke about it.

It seems to me that, with the government, failure never leads to course correction. Rather, it always leads to a doubling down. What we see with criminal justice is a clear failure. Crime rates are up. Violent crime rates are up, and hate crime is up. The government talks about combatting hate, yet hate crime is up, which means it is not effectively combatting it. I wonder if the member thinks that now is the time for the government to take note of its failures and look for ways to course correct rather than doubling down on the same approach it has taken in the past.

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

Madam Speaker, a problem as complex as what the member identified is not going to be solved by legislation alone. It is incredibly complex. We know there is a myriad of causes of crime, and they are very diverse. I think it is going to require a very firm partnership between the federal government and individual provinces because, while we are responsible in this legislature for the criminal law, the administration of justice falls on provincial governments.

In my home province of British Columbia our new premier, David Eby, who I would like to congratulate on assuming that role, has already made a substantive announcement with respect to some of the reforms he sees for the administration of justice side. I would agree with the member that it is sometimes good to change course if things are not working, and I am glad to see that, at least in my home province of B.C., the B.C. NDP government is starting to engage down that path.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to an important piece of legislation, legislation that I would have liked, ideally, to have seen pass earlier. I would like to break down my comments into a couple of different sections. First, I want to talk about something that has already been raised by two previous speakers and that is the issue of timing.

It is important that we recognize that a substantive report was provided many years ago, when Stephen Harper was prime minister of Canada, that took a look at the ways we could reinforce public confidence in Canada's Royal Canadian Mounted Police, given some circumstances that were taking place at the time. That report came out with a number of recommendations.

One of those recommendations was the idea of having some form of an independent commission that would be able to address complaints, with respect to the RCMP, and to be able to investigate. I looked up that report, and I thought that it had been from around 2005 or 2006. I understand that it was actually brought to the House in 2006.

Mr. Harper was the prime minister at the time, and he chose not to take any sort of action on it. When the government changed in 2015, we did a considerable amount of work and effort on doing an overall review.

The Department of Justice had a number of pieces of legislation that would have been before them. We have been debating several pieces of legislation, virtually from 2015, on a wide spectrum of that department's responsibilities. This is our third attempt to get the legislation through, dealing with the commission.

I believe that our very first piece of legislation was Bill C-2, which was tax relief for Canada's middle class. Members will recall that this was when we reduced the taxes of Canadians, for the most part. We had the 1% wealthiest get the extra tax, but that was our first major piece of legislation.

From then to today, there has been an extensive legislative agenda. We have had to go through some fairly difficult times. For example, the worldwide pandemic required numerous pieces of legislation.

I do not know how many times I have stood up inside the chamber to talk about Conservative filibustering on government legislation. We have seen that consistently for years now. We take a look at it and we say, well, today, we are talking about Bill C-20, legislation that is significant. Not only does it reflect on a report that was provided back in 2006, but it is also a reflection on several years of consultations with Canada's border control agency. Not only are we talking about the RCMP today but we are also talking about the Canada Border Services Agency.

The CBSA plays a critical role, as does the RCMP, every day, seven days a week, 24 hours a day. That whole agency is now being provided the same opportunity that the RCMP with the public and the issues that have been raised with regard to both agencies. I see that as a very strong, powerful piece of legislation that will make a difference.

Earlier I asked about the Bloc's support for this. Its members were fairly clear that they would vote in favour of it. They saw the legislation as a positive and were anxious to see it pass through the House. Then we asked the New Democratic Party about the issue of getting the legislation through the House and the NDP seemed to be just as supportive, recognizing the value of the legislation and the desire to see it pass through the House. Both parties were somewhat critical of the government for not passing it earlier. That is why I highlighted the fact that there was substantial legislation.

If time permitted, I would go into the different types of legislation that the government has had to introduce. There is a finite amount of time that the House actually sits. That is one reason why, with the support of the New Democratic Party, we were successful in being able to extend hours so we could sit beyond six o'clock. If we need to sit until midnight for more debate, we are in that position, thanks to the support from the New Democratic Party. Both political entities have acknowledged that substantive legislation needs to be passed. One way we can ensure there is time for debate is to provide those additional hours, if more hours of debate are required, particularly by the official opposition, prior to passing the legislation.

From questions posed by the Conservatives, I am of the opinion that they also support this legislation.

Once again, we might actually find ourselves in a position where political parties support the legislation. I suspect the Green Party will take a position on it, likely in support. I must congratulate the leader of the the Green Party, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for taking on that role again.

I suspect we have legislation before the chamber that will receive unanimous support of getting it to committee. It would be wonderful to get a sense from the official opposition as to when it would like to see this legislation go to committee. In other words, how many speakers will the Conservatives be putting up? For example, if they are going to put up more than three or four speakers, maybe they should look to the government and suggest we sit additional hours in an evening, so we can get the legislation passed and get it to committee.

It seems to me that the desire is there to see the legislation pass to the committee. There are more government bills on the horizon on which we would like to have debate. When I hear that all members are supporting the legislation, my concern is that the Conservatives might double down, insisting they put up speakers until the government brings in time allocation. The leader of the Green Party will be in opposition to that time allocation and we will have to bring in other parties to support it in order to get the Conservatives to pass the legislation and allow the bill to ultimately go to committee.

We should try to avoid all that. If it is not resolved today, I would encourage the opposition House leader, in particular, to let the government House leader know how many actual speakers the Conservatives anticipate, so we can get it into committee. Literally thousands of people are being directly or indirectly impacted. I would argue that all Canadians are, in one way or another, affected by it.

With respect to the cost expenditure, we are talking about well over $100 million over five years, but the trade-off with the cost factor is building what is absolutely essential when it comes to law enforcement, whether it for our borders or anywhere in between. Public confidence in our border agency and RCMP is absolutely critical. This is one way we can reinforce the many things that need to be done related to the fine work that both CBSA and RCMP agents do for us seven days a week, 24 hours a day.

In listening to the comments from members, I want to provide a general thought with respect to bad apples versus the vast majority. For the vast majority in both agencies, we continue to receive the best service that is humanly possible.

I do not have a problem in comparing our national institutions, in particular, the RCMP, to any other law enforcement agency anywhere in the world. Its members are constantly called upon from other countries and from within Canada to perform in many ways, whether it is training and assistance in countries like Ukraine and many others throughout the world to the absolutely fantastic work they do in Canada.

The same principle applies to the majority of those who work at the Canada Border Services Agency, and I recognize their phenomenal effort. It is very delicate work, as some members have implied. It is almost like a border agent is a semi-god of sorts when someone comes into Canada. That individual is completely dependent on that border agent to make a decision that is favourable to the nation and that decision could ultimately prevent the person from coming into Canada.

The bad apples cause a great deal of issues for both agencies, and we often will see that take place. After all, it is the incident that the public will react to through media reporting which reflects negatively on the institution. For example, when an RCMP officer takes an action that reflects negatively on the entire force, that gets amplified, whether through social media or mainstream media. That is when the seeds of doubt or questionable behaviour are planted in the minds of many, and justifiably so. However, it is because of those bad apples in particular that we need this legislation.

This is why it is so important to recognize the finances to support the public complaints and review commission. That is money well spent.

The public complaints and review commission will have the ability to review and investigate the conduct and level of service of an RCMP officer or a border control agent when an has been issue raised. That is the essence of the legislation. It will allow the chair of the commission to initiate some form of a disciplinary action where it is deemed warranted. Again, that type of action is necessary. At the beginning, when I talked about the time frame, I put it in the form of a question. There has been a lot of time since the report, but the essence of the legislation is far beyond what was recommended back when Stephen Harper was the prime minister.

The vote of confidence that is established when the commissioner provides a recommendation on a behaviour that has taken place is what provides that confidence. Through that recommendation, we will receive an annual report. That annual report will highlight the many different things with which the commission has had the opportunity to deal.

I recognize the importance of the makeup of the commission. I suspect, given some of the suggestions or ideas from the opposition party, we will likely see some healthy debate on this at the standing committee. Given the department's interest and level of time commitment to the legislation, I believe the government is open to suggestions, and I would encourage members to bring those ideas to committee.

I understand there are concerns, particularly related to a number of issues of the day. The Conservatives have raised issues like illegal guns crossing the borders. When we think of the Canada Border Services Agency, it is important to note that it deals with issues such as arrests, detentions, removals, human trafficking, customs, trade, immigration and illegal firearms. The Conservatives are quick to criticize the government on that issue.

I suggest that the Conservatives might not want to bring that issue up during questions and answers. If they do, I will talk about the tens of millions of dollars in cuts to the Canada Border Services Agency that the Conservatives put in place, which reduced the number of border services officers and that enhanced the opportunities for illegal trafficking of guns and weapons coming into the country. I will remind them of their responsibilities to the issue and their lack of commitment and support of Canada Border Services Agency before. Maybe they could come up with a different question, but I will not tell them what they have to ask.

I hope, as I explained in depth why it is important, that the legislation passes.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will take up my colleague's offer to discuss the CBSA.

I have the public accounts here from a previous year detailing cuts from the time the government took over. Funding was higher in the final year of the Harper era and was cut in the Liberal era. This is from the public accounts.

Who is lying, the public accounts or perhaps someone else?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the hon. member that “lying” is not a word we like to use here in the House. The hon. member also cannot use props, so I would remind him of that too.

The hon. member for Edmonton West.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will address that. I did not accuse the member of lying. I asked a simple question: Who is lying, the public accounts or someone else?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member that he cannot say indirectly what he cannot say directly.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have a way of trying to make numbers tell different stories.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There will be time for other questions. I would ask members to please hold onto their thoughts.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have a magical way of manipulating the numbers. I know there are more border control officers today than there were when Stephen Harper made his notable and well-known cuts to Canada's border control. That I am fairly confident of.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always fascinating to hear my colleague boast about the government's actions.

He said earlier that they gave time to the House, that they voted to extend sitting hours until midnight with the NDP's agreement, that they are so democratic, and that they have so much to say. I forget how many gag orders they have forced on the House since I have been here. In fact, we spend half our time in the House debating adjournment motions in order not to debate. It is outrageous. Two weeks ago, they cut off debate on Bill C‑31, a very important bill for housing. In committee, they cut off debate on Bill C‑13 on reforming the Official Languages Act and they no longer want witnesses to be heard. The act has not been reformed in 50 years. There is a major language crisis in Canada and the Liberals do not want to debate it.

I cannot believe that they think this is a great democracy that spends its time debating the big issues.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it seems that every day the Conservatives and the Bloc get closer and closer on certain themes.

At the end of the day, there is a government legislative agenda. As I detailed earlier in addressing the legislation, there is a substantial amount of legislation to support Canadians, whether it was through the pandemic or now to deal with inflation, not to mention other legislative initiatives that are historic. They are for issues dealing with a national dental plan, which will be there for children under the age 12, and for issues dealing with a wide variety of things that are affecting everyday Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

There is a sense of eagerness to get the legislation and the budgetary measures through. Much like when there are opposition days, there is a process that allows for votes to occur. That same principle does not apply to government legislation and, as a result, if an opposition party wants to prevent something from passing, all it needs to do is continue talking, which then dictates that the government needs to take some sort of action in order to get it passed.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member completely neglects the fact that it was the Liberals who failed to deliver on this bill in the last two elections. Both times, the bill died on the Order Paper and did not get through, and that is on the government. Notwithstanding that, I have a substantial question for the member.

Systemic racism is acknowledged to exist in the government, and despite reports and recommendations to ensure indigenous oversight is provided, no such provision is proposed in this bill. Does the government not agree that, given its commitment to reconciliation, this is a major oversight by the Liberals and they must include amendments to ensure indigenous oversight in this bill?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I know the Prime Minister takes all issues related to indigenous matters very seriously. We also recognize systemic racism is there; it is real and tangible. We have a caucus that understands the issue, and we look forward to this bill going to committee, where no doubt there will be a healthy discussion on that point. If there are ways we can enhance the legislation and make it stronger, I am sure the department, and in particular the minister, would be open to them.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, we in Châteauguay—Lacolle have a major border crossing at Lacolle. Admittedly, we do receive complaints, from time to time, about problems people have experienced at the border, but I also get calls from officers who work at the border. As we know, they have to deal with a whole range of legislation and regulation; however, cutbacks in recent years have limited training in particular.

I would like to hear from my colleague about the importance of this legislation and how it will help border services to better serve the community and Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, to address many of the phone calls the member receives, what the legislation would do is build upon public confidence in Canada border control agents. If, for example, someone is going across the border and is deeply offended because of an incident that occurred, they would have, for the first time, an independent commission where the issue could be raised so there would be a feeling that justice is served.

We know there are bad apples in every profession, including among border agents. Unfortunately, a bad apple is a reflection on all, which is one of the reasons it is important to recognize that legislation of this nature benefits everyone, including border control agents and RCMP officers.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, first, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his kind words of congratulations. Second, I support this. I have been waiting and waiting to see action taken, as it has been promised for many years. I remember that the initial questions I raised about the Canada Border Services Agency were directed to the minister at the time, Ralph Goodale, who is now our high commissioner to the Commonwealth. Some time has passed and this is urgent.

There are areas I am concerned about. There will be hearings before this commission. It is possible that things could progress to a hearing on the conduct of an RCMP officer or officers, or a CBSA officer or officers.

I would like the parliamentary secretary to give me his opinion, and I do not think he can be conclusive. I am disturbed by the investigation into the Portapique massacres. I am disturbed that something called “trauma-informed inquiry” was used, which meant the people who actually made the decisions and failed to protect the public in Nova Scotia did not need to take the stand. Is there a way to protect against that in this bill?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think the chair of the commission is obligated to provide an annual report. It is important that we recognize how critically important this is for its independence. Through the report provided, I would like to think a number of potential outcomes could come about, including how one might want to further a particular investigation that was conducted by the commission or potential substantial policy changes at the government level, whether it is regulations or even future laws.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, and I will take the member up on this opportunity.

The reality is that I would not want to be a police officer today given the proliferation of illegal firearms on the streets. I would be worried about that, yet the government has done nothing to protect peace officers in that situation. Can he comment on that, please?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, one of my colleagues asked what the Conservatives did when they were in government. At the end of the day, our law enforcement agencies from coast to coast to coast have the confidence of the government of the day. When I say confidence, that means additional supports and resources that I would argue are probably more plentiful than what the Harper regime provided. What we are talking about today is how we ensure we can weed out or recognize more accountability, because there are bad apples that exist in both agencies.

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

Madam Speaker, I have many things to say about Bill C-20, but I cannot follow the member for Winnipeg North without offering some response to the absurdities contained within his remarks, something we have come to expect from my friend from Winnipeg North. In particular, the member spoke for about 20 minutes about how people should not be speaking to the legislation, and about how instead we should rapidly pass all of the government's bills. I would submit that, if every member of the House spoke half as much as the member for Winnipeg North, we would be taking much longer, in fact, than we currently do with respect to legislation. I do not claim to be lily-white on that score either, but at least I do not lecture other members about speaking too much.

[Mark Gerretsen]

You just did.

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

Madam Speaker, if I could respond here, there is nothing wrong with speaking in the House, but—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I understand this is a very lively debate, but it is not time for questions and comments, so I would ask the government side to please hold onto its thoughts, questions and comments until it is time for them.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, it seems the members across the way misunderstood my meaning, whether intentionally or not. I think it is wonderful when members stand up in the House and speak on behalf of their constituents. The member for Winnipeg North speaks quite often on behalf of the government, maybe occasionally on behalf of his constituents, but the point is that he spent 20 minutes telling us there have been too many people speaking to this bill. He gave a 20-minute speech about how we should just stop debating this bill and, in fact, let it pass.

I would put it to the member that if he wants more legislation to pass, he could speak less himself, if that was his goal. I am not suggesting that he speak less. He is welcome to speak as much as he wishes. However, it is a bit rich for him to tell other people to speak less when he is giving a 20-minute speech on this legislation. I am sure there are other members of the government caucus who have a particular interest in these subjects or particular expertise and who might have wanted to speak as well.

The other point to make about legislation is that the member is right to say that we had bills in the last Parliament that were put forward and then did not become law. I was trying to remember what happened in the last Parliament that might have prevented government legislation from becoming law.

One thing was that the government suspended Parliament completely, with the acquiescence of the NDP. For a substantial portion of 2020, when Conservatives were saying it was time to bring Parliament back in some form and that we were ready to work in a modified form, the Liberals, in fact, wanted to shut down Parliament because they did not want to have to deal with question period. Part of that was that their legislation did not move forward, and then they prorogued Parliament. We came back after prorogation, and then they called an election.

The Liberals now come back to us and say that they have these bills they have been working on for multiple Parliaments. They ask what happened, when they are the ones who made the decisions around suspending Parliament, prorogation and calling an early election. I think the member for Winnipeg North and the government have to face up to the fact that, if there are bills before us today that have been considered and were widely supported in previous Parliaments, they certainly bear some of the responsibility for decisions that they made.

I will make a final point in response to what the member for Winnipeg North said about how the government really wants to pass the bill. We have the same situation when Private Members' Business has been substantially delayed by the government's calling of an early election and by the government's unwillingness to be collaborative.

I will give one example. My private member's bill on organ harvesting and trafficking has been before the foreign affairs committee, approaching the full 60 sitting days, at which time it will be automatically reported back to the House. We actually also have another private member's bill, by a government member, which is before the foreign affairs committee, that has been subject to the same kinds of delays. We have private members' bills, as well, that have been back, Parliament after Parliament. Rather than the government being willing to have those studied at committee, we have seen significant delays.

Hopefully if the government wants assistance in passing legislation, it will take seriously the fact that there are good ideas that come from all corners of the House and take a little bit more of a collaborative approach around moving forward with Private Members' Business as well.

Bill C-20 deals with oversight for law enforcement, as well as for CBSA. It is a bill that underlines, I think, the profound failures of the government when it comes to criminal justice and policing in the country.

I want to share some statistics that underline the fact that whatever the government is doing is clearly not working. We are not seeing the kinds of outcomes we would want to see.

There has been a 32% increase in serious violent crime since 2015. There were 124,000 more violent crimes committed last year than in 2015. There were 788 homicides in Canada last year. There were 611 in 2015. That is a 29% increase in homicides, a 92% increase in gang-related homicides since 2015 and a 61% increase in reported sexual assaults since 2015. Police have reported that hate crimes have increased 72% over the last two years.

The point I made in a question earlier in debate and that I will underscore again is that when we look at these statistics we have to at some point face up to the fact that the government is failing if its objective is to reduce crime. We hear a lot of talk from the government about the problem of violent crime and how we need to work to reduce it. At the same time, the government is presiding over a significant escalation in violent crime, which means that either its strategy is making the problem worse or at least not solving it, or there is such a preponderance of exogenous factors that are shifting the landscape that those factors are driving this increase in crime despite the government's best efforts.

What we heard from an NDP member earlier, as we might expect offering defence of the government's approach, was that we should acknowledge that the causes of crime are complex, that there are many different issues that may be contributing to the rise in violent crime we are seeing in Canada and that we should acknowledge it may not all come down to what the federal government is doing. That is plausible. It is true that the causes of crime are diverse and complex. It is true that there are always lots of different things going on that may contribute to crime.

However, the government has pursued a particular strategy around criminal justice that is different from what we had seen previously, including the legalization and decriminalization of things. In the case of B.C., we have the government decriminalizing the use of extreme and very dangerous drugs like fentanyl. We see a particular approach to criminal justice being taken by the government with no acknowledgement that, in light of the increase in violent crime, there may be some relationship between the fact that the government changed the strategy on criminal justice and at the same time there was a significant increase in crime.

It is also particularly telling that this deflecting of responsibility to exogenous factors is what the government always does on every policy issue. The Liberals talk about how they are trying to achieve certain things and about how they are fighting for certain things, yet when the outcomes they promised are not realized, it is always somebody else's fault.

It is the current government that came in saying it was going to help the middle class and those working hard to join it. How is that going? We have an affordability crisis in this country seven years after the government took power. The Liberals said that they were going to work to bring about change for the middle class, to make life more affordable and to promote economic growth and so forth, yet we are seeing significant negative outcomes in terms of the middle class and those working hard to join it.

However, the government is here to assure us it is not the government's fault and that all of the measures it put in place were apparently positive. It says that the fact we have an affordability crisis has nothing to do with actions government members have taken, even though experts, including Mark Carney, the former governor of the Bank of Canada and prospective future leader of the Liberal Party, has said that inflation is a homegrown problem. We have these instances when, on the economy, the members of the government say things are going wrong but it is not their fault because they are there for the middle class, even though things have gotten significantly worse for the middle class.

On drug policy, the government says it is going to take a different approach and it has solutions to offer, which include decriminalization and safe supply, in which the government subsidizes drugs. Again, how is that going? The government has pursued a policy approach that is not working and is not achieving the results it promised. Then the Liberals are here to say again, on drug policy, that it is not them, that it is other factors driving this.

We see this in violent crime. It is worth mentioning the hate crime statistics again. There has been an increase of 72% over the last two years in hate crime. There are many factors, absolutely, that may be impacting levels of hate crime, but if the government says that its goal is to combat hate, and then we see a significant increase, it might be worth coming back to the government and asking why its policy approach has not achieved the results that clearly we all consider desirable.

Maybe doubling down on the same failed approach is not the right way to go. We see this across a broad range of policy areas. There are exogenous factors, of course, but if the government constantly says that when things go well it is because of them, and when things go poorly, it is not the government causing it, that is liable to generate some suspicion. We see how the failures of the government on a broad range of policy issues in criminal justice, drug policy, the economy and other areas, are contributing to a declining faith in government, a declining trust in institutions.

The good news, of course, is that we can try to rebuild that trust by having a new government that would chart a new course. What we see now increasingly is a declining trust in institutions, with people having a sense that the current government is not on their side and looking for change.

This bill, in creating a mechanism of oversight for the RCMP, seeks to engage in that dynamic of declining trust in institutions. There is a question of the level of public trust in certain communities in particular, of our RCMP, our CBSA, etc., and what can be done to strengthen that trust and to respond to the discourse around declining trust in government and other institutions.

I would say this about the broader question of trust in institutions. There are a couple of different factors that can cause declining trust in institutions. One is those institutions failing to earn that trust, but another is those institutions being maliciously run down by those who have an agenda to run them down. What we see in this case is the government failing to earn the trust of Canadians, thus losing their trust. Sometimes when the government shows itself to be unworthy of trust, it tries to invoke a “trust in institutions'” discourse to suggest that people should not be criticizing the government because that leads to declining trust in institutions.

In those cases it is important we hold the government accountable, that we push the government to, in fact, earn that trust of Canadians, to act with integrity and to address the repeated problems of corruption we see within the government. I know the Conservative Party is prepared to do that as we offer Canadians an alternative.

In the case of law enforcement, mistakes have been made at various times by various enforcement agencies, but I think we also have a dynamic in which trust is challenged because trust in our law enforcement is repeatedly undermined by those who offer extreme criticisms of those agencies. It is very important that we work to build up and support those who serve in our various security agencies, who have a challenging job, who do their best and are worthy of our support.

There are some quarters in the House where we hear, for instance, people talking about defunding the police. I will say very clearly that I am against these proposals for defunding the police. I think clarity from other quarters would be appreciated on that topic. We recognize the allied service provision has a role to play alongside law enforcement, absolutely, but we also recognize the critical role played by law enforcement. It is not realistic, in many cases it is counterproductive for those most vulnerable, to say we should be pulling resources from law enforcement.

Law enforcement should earn the public's trust, and we should also be critical of a discourse that seeks to run down that trust or undermine that trust. We need to recognize, appreciate and affirm the positive role in our society played by law enforcement. To understand the reality of proposals to defund the police, one only needs to look at places in the world where law enforcement is not available, where the institutions of justice, police, courts, etc., do not function properly or are not available to protect the vast majority of society.

In all of those cases, inevitably, when people do not have access to protection and justice, there is more crime, more violence and more harm done. From our perspective on this side of the House, we need to reject those efforts to undermine our law enforcement. At the same time, we need to build up those institutions, such as this civilian complaints mechanism, that support the building of trust.

With that in mind, the legislation before us should proceed to committee and be studied. We look forward to the further review on how to make this legislation work as effectively as possible.

I think there is work required, but we need to also understand the context in which this work is happening. It is a context in which we have increasing crime and increasing concern about public safety. The government's response to that concern is to double down on a failed approach of reducing sentences. Lowering sentences does not help people give up a life of crime.

There are various critical steps that we could take to support rehabilitation, and I am a big believer in rehabilitation. This is work that the justice system and all of us need to do to help people make a transition from a life of crime to a healthy, safe and productive life. However, reducing serious consequences for serious criminality is not a way to achieve that.

In terms of oversight of law enforcement and this government's failed approach, I will say a few words about the horrific mass shooting in Nova Scotia. This was an example of perhaps not only gaps in enforcement but also significant failures of policy.

We had an individual who was never a licensed firearms owner in Canada, but who had a NEXUS card. By all indications, he repeatedly brought guns across the border from the United States, using the ease facilitated by his NEXUS card. He was known by others in his community to have firearms, even though he was not licensed to be a firearms owner in Canada, and he carried out this horrific act of violence.

The immediate response of the government was to try to seize this moment to say that it needed to change and tighten its policy around firearms. However, the lesson it should have learned from that situation, and probably a variety of lessons around enforcement, was that the policy solution clearly was not to make more guns illegal. This was a person who smuggled guns from the United States. He used illegal guns, and he was never licensed to own firearms in Canada.

How do we have a situation where someone who had guns, but was not a licensed firearms owner, was not apprehended for his possession of illegal guns in a way that would have prevented this violence? These are questions that we need to hear answered. The fact of the matter is that the government was missing the point, and it was missing the response that was required. It was not about which guns were legal. It was about the fact that illegal guns were still being brought into this country and used.

I call on the government to recognize its failures in policy, to stop doubling down on those failures, to correct policies that clearly are not working and to take a new approach when it comes to criminal justice.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the member took the liberty to talk about our budget. He made reference to the middle class, so I want to ask him a question about the middle class.

Given the Conservative policy of tax cuts, which is all they are advocating for nowadays, does the member feel any remorse or regret in regard to voting against Bill C-2, which provided Canada's middle class a tax cut?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will never feel remorse about voting against measures put forward by the government.

Canadians, looking back over the last seven years, are asking themselves if things are more affordable than they were seven years ago, or if they are better off financially than they were seven years ago. I think virtually all Canadians are saying no. There may be a few exceptions. There may be individuals who have benefited from various government contracts, but the vast majority of everyday Canadians, who do not have access to government largesse, will clearly realize that the government's policies, when it comes to allegedly creating affordability, have failed.

The government also has a regular habit of giving with one hand while taking away with the other. People are paying substantially more. Unless the government changes course, we are going to see increases to the carbon tax and payroll taxes next year. When the government was first starting out, it reduced the amount people could save through the tax-free savings account.

We have seen multiple instances where the government said it was giving people money over here, but taking that away and more. In particular, we are seeing that now with inflation. The escalation of inflation under the government is gobbling up any of the other so-called gains that it says it is giving to people.

If members ask people in Winnipeg North or anywhere, I think they will find that the middle class is not better off as a result of measures taken over the last seven years. In fact, they are much worse off.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, does the member feel that RCMP actions, such as invading an unarmed woman's house with a chainsaw, an axe and a guard dog on unceded Wet’suwet’en territory, should be punishable? Extreme RCMP violence was noted by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Does he think that should be punishable? We know that what happened was on unceded, unsurrendered Wet’suwet’en territory.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to say, in the House of Commons, whether someone should be charged in a particular case. There may be other facts of that case that the member did not mention in her question. Therefore, I will leave considerations around that to the appropriate authorities.

I will say that I am supportive of the framework of this legislation, in terms of facilitating civilian oversight. That civilian oversight is not me saying, based on a few select facts given by the member, what should or should not happen. However, I am supportive of a process that would look into cases like the member referred to and that would hold people accountable, if appropriate.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have noted my colleague's comments. Earlier in his speech, he mentioned how it seemed that, on that side of the House, it is often the same few members who rise to speak. There seems to be a very limited circle of people on the other side of the House who take the floor. I found that interesting.

I was wondering whether my colleague could tell us more about his thoughts on that. I wonder about the government's respect for democracy when there are only one or two members of the governing party who speak in the House. Does he not think that other parliamentarians have things to say?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is often said that the Liberal backbench is revolting. That may be a reason there is unrest in the Liberal caucus over the fact that only a small number of members are given an opportunity to speak. It is hard to speculate on what does and does not happen in the Liberal caucus room, but I agree with the member that it is a bit odd.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my past life in a financial institution, I experienced many robberies and was also involved in a shooting. When speaking to police officers, a lot of times the problem was that the guns used were illegal and the crimes by these robbers do not match their sentencing, because we are too soft on crime.

How can we change that so we can encourage police officers to do their jobs to the best of their abilities and not continue to rearrest the same offenders?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question from my colleague, who always adds a great deal to the debate.

I know there is a great deal of concern, in the greater Toronto area specifically, around increasing crime of various kinds, including property crime and violent crime. The government's approach of saying it is going to reduce sentences overall, and trying to use the rhetorical shield of racial justice as an excuse to reduce sentences for everyone, does not make sense. It is not helping anybody, including those in minority communities. In fact, it is leading to the significant increase in crime that we are seeing.

I very much agree with the fact, as our leader has said, that when a young person makes a mistake, we should seek rehabilitation. People should have a second chance. However, there are instances of the same people, and in some cases a very small number of people, committing crimes over and over. When it is a relatively small number of people who account for a very large number of interactions with law enforcement, that suggests there is a particular problem of repeat offenders, repeat violent offenders, as well as repeat offenders against property. It simply requires a different approach. The only way to really incentivize rehabilitation is to have serious consequences for serious crimes.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I fundamentally disagree with some of the member's positions, in particular on safe supply. Health experts and addiction specialists have been calling on the government to decriminalize and create a safe supply because it would save lives. However, I think the member has a point about the government making statements about ideals and principles, but then failing when it comes to delivering the policies that would actually make a difference.

I am thinking right now of indigenous justice. Chantel Moore was an indigenous woman who was killed by police. Her family has not only drawn attention to the fact that too many indigenous and Black lives have been lost at the hands of police, but also they are calling for indigenous oversight.

Would the member support amendments to strengthen this bill to ensure there is indigenous oversight?

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

Mr. Speaker, it would be very important, in the development of these mechanisms, for the government to consult with indigenous peoples. I hope that the committee will hear from indigenous leaders about the most effective way to do that. I know that the members on the committee reviewing this bill will be seized with ensuring that indigenous voices are heard and engaged as part of this process.

I want to comment on the member's statement on so-called safe supply. My point, very clearly, was that we need to look at the results of policy. We see how, in Alberta, an emphasis on treatment and recovery has led to a significant drop in overdose deaths. We see in B.C. that there continues to be an escalation in overdose deaths, and a different policy is being pursued there. It is one that emphasizes so-called safe supply and giving dangerous drugs to those who are struggling with addiction.

There are medical alternatives to dangerous drugs, which I support. It makes no sense to supply the most dangerous drugs to people when medical alternatives could be supplied that actually reduce the harm. I have a hard time making sense of the policy proposed by the NDP. In any event, if we look at the facts on the ground, it is not working.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Vancouver East.

I am really pleased today to rise to speak in favour of Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission for the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency. The creation of this commission would replace the RCMP's flawed Civil Review and Complaints Commission and finally establish a much-needed oversight body for the CBSA.

This, as most of us in this House agree, is long overdue, because we know that there have been several issues related to the RCMP, including its participation in infringing upon the human rights of people including indigenous people; indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+; and its deplorable record related to the detention of individuals with precarious immigration status. Systemic racism is, in fact, rooted within the foundations of the RCMP, and it is an issue that is much bigger than a few bad apples. We need to begin moving away from that myth of a bad apple, when it is clearly deeply rooted in the systemic racism within the RCMP.

In fact, in an article in Policy Options, written by Eberts, Stanton and Yeo in July 2020, they affirmed that the idea of the bad apple is “largely a figment of the imagination of those who want to argue that there is no such thing as 'systemic' racism.”

They go on to state:

The bad apple is a scapegoat, a way for our public institutions to engage in denial about the abiding racism which exists in the very fabric of their structures. The bad apple allows leaders to say the problem is limited and can be solved by blaming an individual, or a handful of individuals. That way, they can avoid engaging in the hard work of acknowledgement and system-wide reform to address the ongoing harms of systemic racism.

Harms are ongoing and have occurred without proper oversight, and I have a few examples I would like to share today. In 2015, in an article written by Holly Moore for the CBC, she states that:

RCMP Const. Kevin Theriault took an intoxicated [indigenous] woman he had arrested out of a cell and drove her to his northern Manitoba home to “pursue a personal relationship,” according to RCMP adjudication documents obtained by CBC News.

Fellow officers teased and goaded him by text message to see “how far he would go,” and another constable observed flirting between Theriault and the woman, saying he “jokingly made a comment about having a threesome” with her.

The senior officer in the detachment first said “it wasn't right” for Theriault to take the woman out of custody but finally said: “You arrested her, you can do whatever the f--k you want to do.”

We know this violence has occurred, particularly against indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people, at the hands of police, as noted in the national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, which has specific calls for justice related to the RCMP and its participation in violence against indigenous women and girls.

The very systems that are supposed to be there to protect us and the very people who are put in positions of power and who are supposed to protect us are the same systems and people who abuse us and violate us in all sorts of ways, including with a record of sexual violation against indigenous women. It is shameful.

There is also the RCMP's police brutality, which we have witnessed and continue to witness against indigenous land defenders. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has called for an investigation of the RCMP on Wet'suwet'en territory.

Let us recall, and I have mentioned this example in the House many times, the two unarmed indigenous women on their unceded Wet'suwet'en territory, having their door taken down by an axe, a chainsaw and an attack dog, which was excessive force. Let us look at some of the RCMP violence that was been perpetrated against the land defenders at Fairy Creek. This is abhorrent and needs to be dealt with.

This display of human rights violations, which continues to be noted, in fact, by the United Nations, needs oversight. It requires real accountability and statutory timelines so that complainants do not have to wait years for justice. Individuals and communities impacted by this sort of systemic racism deserve justice, including the many individuals whose human rights, including the right to live, have been violated in immigration detention centres in Canada Border Services Agency custody.

I ask members why we find it acceptable in Canada to detain immigrants in jail cells to begin with. Why do we find it acceptable to incarcerate children based on their immigration status? It is time for status for all. No one within Canada should be treated as illegal. No person is illegal.

In fact, Canada has been accused of breaking international law by keeping hundreds of children in immigration detention centres. This is deplorable. It is inhumane. It is vile to keep hundreds of children in detention centres. It is especially deplorable in Canada, which espouses to be a place that respects human rights but then disregards the rights of little children, breaking international law. Detention centres in Toronto, Ontario, and Laval, Quebec have been criticized for not being equipped to hold children. People have died in these detention centres, including this year at a detention centre in Laval, where a person died after being found in medical distress.

We need to address ongoing and grotesque human rights violations. This requires reforming oversight, which was affirmed in an article written by Human Rights Watch in February 2022, which states:

CBSA has a history of cloaking fatalities of immigration detainees in secrecy and refusing to release basis information about those who die in custody and the cause of death, often citing privacy concerns. CBSA’s extensive powers remain largely unchecked; it is the only major Canadian law enforcement agency without independent civilian oversight.

Therefore, I rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission for the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency. The creation of this commission is long overdue. It must have representation by indigenous women, members of the 2SLGBTQ+ community, members of the newcomer community, women and other communities that have experienced the wrath of systemic racism by the RCMP and CBSA.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, who knows of what she speaks when talking about the abuse of indigenous women and indigenous people in a disproportionate fashion.

I will briefly say this. My own experience with the RCMP officers, when they led me away while arresting me for violating the injunction to protect the Texas pipeline company Kinder Morgan, was that they were kind. They asked if I would take their arm, as they did not want me to slip in the mud. When I saw the arrest of the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs, who were thrown to the ground with a knee in the back, I realized that not only were their actions different, but these were different police people, different RCMP officers. Sure enough, it turns out there is a branch of the RCMP that is typically using more brutal force against indigenous protesters than it would use with a settler culture MP standing on indigenous lands. When the hereditary chiefs were on their own land, UNDRIP was being violated by the way they were treated. I would ask for the hon. member's comments on that.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate my colleague on her re-election as the leader of the Green Party.

This is certainly not my personal opinion, but in terms of systemic racism that is perpetrated by police forces, particularly against BIPOC, Black, indigenous and people of colour, has been noted not just nationally but also by the international community at the level of the United Nations, including the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her powerful speech.

I also wanted to bring up our colleague, the member for Nunavut, who made me aware that there are children being bused back and forth, waiting 40 minutes to go through customs every day, just in order to attend school.

I wonder if the member can speak to the need for the creation of an external oversight body for the Canadian Border Services Agency, to ensure that travellers are protected and that indigenous rights to mobility are better protected, so children do not have to spend too much time going through Canadian border services.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is another example of how indigenous people's rights in this country are consistently trampled on daily, including their mobility rights. Absolutely, we need to have independent oversight. That is certainly something we have called for.

It also speaks to the need to have indigenous representation and indigenous oversight to look at matters of human rights, which the government agreed to uphold with the adoption of Bill C-15 in the last Parliament, to see the full adoption and implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask my colleague about a comment last week from Grand Chief Stewart Phillip in British Columbia on the importance of appointing an indigenous representative to this commission. Can she offer some thoughts on how important it is that indigenous people in Canada become a part of these power structures, so that the general population can see themselves reflected and know their lived experience is going to be acted on in a meaningful way?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree that there needs to be indigenous representation on the oversight. It is no secret, when we look at the history of systemic racism in this country, that indigenous and Black people and people of colour have been disproportionately represented at the hands of police.

This requires representation. This requires that our voices be at the table, the voices of groups of people who are experiencing the most grotesque levels of systemic racism by the CBSA and the RCMP.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise once again to enter this debate about bringing in independent oversight for the CBSA and more enhanced oversight for the RCMP. This is the third time I have risen in the House to speak to this bill. In fact, back in 2019, when the government tabled it, lo and behold it was tabled literally on the eve of an election. Without any doubt, the bill died on the Order Paper because the election was called a couple of days after that.

Despite the Liberals promising that they would bring this in, once again, just before the 2021 election, the government tabled the same bill under a different number: Bill C-3. Then the Prime Minister saw fit to call an election that nobody wanted and the bill died yet again. Now here we are and it is the third time around. Maybe the third time is lucky and Bill C-20 will get through the system, and we will finally see independent oversight for the CBSA and enhanced measures for the RCMP. This is so important and so significant. Why? People's lives hinge upon it.

We have just heard from my colleague, who spoke about the importance of this for indigenous people. The member for Winnipeg Centre highlighted the systemic racism that exists within the RCMP, the unbelievable measures and the extent to which they brought a heavy hand to addressing indigenous protests. It was shocking to see the images in British Columbia of what was being done at that time and how indigenous people were dealt with, all because they wanted to exercise their right to protect their land.

In “Behind the Thin Blue Line”, an APTN investigation, APTN provided this:

“You do one more thing and I’ll dose you, bitch,” a Mountie allegedly told independent media producer Kristy Grear, according to court files. “There was no name tag or badge number displayed on the officer’s uniform,” the documents claim. “However I did observe a so-called ‘thin-blue line’ patch on the officer’s uniform.”

This is how the Mounties of the Community-Industry Response Group (C-IRG), a secretive industry defence arm of the B.C. RCMP arrive to dismantle blockades: armed with guns and mace, name tags ripped off, faces hidden, thin blue line patches emblazoned on their chests.

Police arrive with howling dogs, helicopters, drones, chainsaws, axes, an excavator, jackhammers, angle grinders and fancier gadgets like thermal imaging cameras.

This is what is happening and it is shocking. It should be shocking to every single member of the House and to Canadians. How could it be that such measures are taken unchecked? However, that is the reality and that is why we need this bill.

More to the point, we need amendments to this bill to ensure there is indigenous representation. I do not know how that is possible, since the government had two bills before this one and had so much time to get it right. Despite the government's claim and the Prime Minister's claim that they are committed to reconciliation, it is the third time around with the bill, and the government still did not have the wherewithal to get it right to ensure that indigenous people have representation on this critical question of oversight. Why is that? Is it just incompetence, or is it willful blindness to the systemic racism that exists in the system?

I want to take a moment to turn to the CBSA, as I am the NDP critic for immigration, refugees and citizenship. The CBSA has unchecked powers to deport people, detain people and arrest people. Refugees and people without status have zero power whatsoever.

When refugees are subjected to abuse, what can they do? Can they file a complaint? I doubt they could file a complaint against the very people who are going after them. Even if they did, the process takes so long that they would be deported. They would be out of the country before they could even see the result of their complaint. It is a joke to say to the people, “Here is the process you could follow.” In reality, it does not materialize.

To boot, successive Canadian governments have allowed this practice to continue, that is, putting refugees in detention and in jails. The government is actively engaging with the provincial government on contracts so they can throw refugees in detention and put them in jail. This is happening in Canada, and it is a gross violation of people's human rights.

The report from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch has exposed Canada's inhumane practice of jailing thousands of people fleeing persecution, and often in maximum security provincial jails. Let me be very clear: Refugees and migrants are not criminals. Canada is one of the few countries in the global north without a legal limit on detention. In other words, people could be put in there indefinitely. We know there are devastating long-term impacts on those who are incarcerated in immigration detention. Such gross violations of human rights must end now.

The NDP fully supports this bill. We have wanted to see it since the Harper administration. It is the third time the bill has been introduced in the House, and maybe we will finally have independent oversight. Maybe we will finally see the federal government take action and, equally importantly, end the practice of detaining and jailing refugees and migrants. The government has promised this.

It is enough talk. Let us see the action. The government has a responsibility to undertake this work because people's lives hinge on it. CBSA is so aggressive right now in trying to go after people that it even goes to people's schools to arrest them, or tries to get private information from the school system to make arrests. That is what is happening right now, and it has to be stopped. There has to be accountability. We have to address systemic racism. Enough is enough.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the bill, there is a section that allows for the minister or provincial counterparts to do a review of specified activities to ensure that the RCMP is acting in accordance with its act and that the CBSA is doing the same.

I am of the opinion that parliamentarians should be granted this power as well. Sometimes our committees are made aware of information, and I am just wondering what thoughts she has on that. Rather than confining this power just to the executive branch, should there also be more of a role for the legislative branch, which is meant as an important check and balance on executive power?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his excellent work with respect to this. He is absolutely correct to say that this measure should be extended to parliamentarians so that there is accountability. We often come across situations or instances that we learn of, and there should be a pathway for parliamentarians to raise these concerns, file a complaint and have the matter investigated. There has to be open, transparent accountability in this process.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. She cited many examples of past complaints to the Canada Border Services Agency. I know that there have been complaints about sexual harassment and even about sexual assault. These are serious complaints.

As my colleague said, when an agency investigates itself, there is little chance of a result or a reply to the complainants.

I wonder whether she believes that the creation of this independent commission will ensure that this does not happen again, as we hope, but also that people who file complaints for important reasons, such as sexual assault, will get to see the process lead to corrective action.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, horrific situations have occurred where people have been subjected to violence and abuse. In fact, at least 16 deaths have occurred in CBSA custody since 2000. These are serious situations that have taken place.

With the bill before us, at the very minimum at least there is independent oversight. With independent oversight, the organization is not investigating itself. We need to ensure transparency and accountability.

To this point, we need to ensure that systemic racism is addressed. We also need to ensure that there is representation for the indigenous people, racialized people and Black people involved in this process as well.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for a long time it has been manifestly obvious that there is systemic racism in our police forces: the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency. We know that up until now, there has been no oversight body to deal with Canadian border services. I think that with the debate so far, in the very little amount of time we have had Bill C-20 before us, it is also manifestly clear that this act should be amended to ensure an indigenous role in the oversight process. The commission will deal with both agencies.

I would like my hon. colleague's comments on this. What are the best ways, in her opinion, to engage indigenous participation in the commission when investigating complaints?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of course, indigenous oversight, which includes indigenous investigators and decision-makers, and the appointment of Black and racialized Canadians should be in this process. The bill, if passed through the House, will be referred to committee, where I think it will be very important to hear from witnesses with respect to that to see how that process should unfold.

The government should have done this work, by the way, before now. It is so disappointing to me that once again it did not do its job and it neglected to ensure that this was properly addressed.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Today, we are here debating Bill C-20, an act that would establish the public complaints and review commission and amend certain acts and statutory instruments.

First, I want to recognize a first-year law student at Thompson Rivers University where I used to teach. I want to thank Najib Rahall, who is about to start contracts class, which I appreciate. He is now in Hansard. I thank him for turning in my wallet this weekend. He is taught by my friends Professor Craig Jones, K.C. and Professor Dr. Ryan Gauthier. I am sure he is also getting a first-class education.

I also want to recognize somebody else who is a constituent. He was also a colleague at the bar and at my work, maybe even taking my position as a Crown prosecutor. I want to recognize my friend, Anthony Varesi, on his new book on Bob Dylan. It is his second book. He wrote the first one in law school. I am not sure how he did that.

On the matter at hand, it seems the Liberals have been discussing this issue well before I arrived at Parliament. From what I can see, this matter has been discussed for about seven years. The bill was first tabled in the 42nd Parliament and died in the Senate. It was then tabled again during the 43rd Parliament. We all know what happened at that point. Despite Canadians clearly signalling they did not want to go to the polls and despite the fact there was a lot of work to be done, the Prime Minister coveted majority government and, with all candour, let that get in the way of the work of the House.

Having been here for a year, I am still learning, but what I can see is that there is a lot of work to be done. The work on this bill in the 43rd Parliament was interrupted by what amounted to a small seat change in hopes that the Prime Minister would get what he wanted. He was ultimately denied that, but there was a seat shuffle, and I am proud to stand here on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo as part of that seat shuffle.

Now we have this bill tabled a year into the government's mandate. As I was preparing for this speech, I reflected on why it took the government a year to do this. The election was about 14 months ago. I am wondering whether this was a priority. In fact, I asked my Bloc colleague a question about this. This is an important matter to discuss.

Canada has what amounts to the longest undefended border in the world. I have had countless interactions with the RCMP and with CBSA officials, some of them in my personal capacity and others in my professional capacity. These interactions likely number into the hundreds, and all but one have generally been cordial or favourable professional interactions. That is why we are here, because not all interactions and not all things go as they should both personally and professionally.

I will take a moment to recognize the work of peace officers, civilian members and staff with the CBSA and with the RCMP. In my riding, there are detachments with the RCMP, like Clinton, 100 Mile House, Clearwater and Barriere. There are three detachments also in Kamloops, being Kamloops City, Tk'emlups rural, which is situated on the traditional land of the Tk’emlups te Secwepemc, and Kamloops traffic. All of these detachments cover 38,000 square kilometres of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I am grateful for the sacrifices of those who put on the uniform to keep us safe, with their backup officers often being an hour away through staffing or resource difficulties. They are there to keep people safe whenever they are in that area. These members see terrible things.

I was speaking to a bill I authored, Bill C-291, last week. I authored the bill and it was sponsored by the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap, and I thank him again for doing so. The bill proposes to change the definition of “child pornography” to “child sexual abuse material”, because what is occurring is not pornography, it is sexual abuse, and we should be calling it what it is.

One of the things I pointed out was that police doing this job were often at a constable level and they were reviewing horrendous images, images of unspeakable horrors. Usually, in my prior work, I did not have to view this sort of evidence, but police officers did, and they are not paid enough to do so, frankly, given the work they do. I thank them for that.

Let us face it, most peace officers, people and frontline workers doing the job just want to make it home. They do not want to hurt anybody. A lot of police officers I know would love to go through a shift without having to arrest anybody. That is often not something most police officers do. At the end of the day, people in the RCMP and CBSA have a mandate to keep us safe. They are expected to do more with less resources. While this is not always fair, it is the reality of our situation.

When it comes to our frontline officers and workers, we expect leadership. We expect them to engage professionally, to do their jobs, to be equipped and to be professional in all that they do. I wish I could see the same from the RCMP commissioner at this time. It seems to me that the commissioner is not always modelling that professionalism, being vulnerable to inappropriate influence from the former Minister of Public Safety. It is ironic that Bill C-20 talks about the overseeing of frontline officers, mainly constables, but I question whether senior Mounties or, in this case, the senior Mountie is herself immune from the oversight that is required.

I point to what the member for Kildonan—St. Paul said in committee in questioning the minister. I will do my best to paraphrase her, because I cannot be nearly as eloquent as the member. She noted that the commissioner was either influenced by the government or completely bungled the investigation into the mass shootings in Nova Scotia, a terrible incident, She asked why she had not been fired. This is the professionalism, oversight and leadership that Canadians want.

At the end of the day, we are here to talk about who oversees the overseers. This came up when we were debating Bill C-9 at committee in the past week or two. That bill proposes changes to the Judges Act that are long overdue.

Before I came to Parliament, I was unaware that there was no independent oversight for CBSA. Let us not forget that these are frontline peace officers. Oftentimes and typically, they will be people's first human point of contact once they get off the plane or at a land or sea border crossing. The provisions would require the RCMP commissioner and the CBSA president to respond to interim reports, reviews and recommendations within legislative timelines. This is quite important because we require, in my view, a consideration of some measure of independent oversight.

Most people here know that I come from a legal background. In my world view, the rule of law is obviously sacrosanct. Sometimes, we can have heated debates in this place, as we should, about how that should manifest itself. We may agree to disagree, but at the end of the day I think we can all agree that the rule of law is important. In fact, it is written into the preamble of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In the courts, the rule of law is maintained in two ways, typically through an appellate function but also through ethical guidelines, for instance, the ethical guidelines that are being revised in Bill C-9. The overseers are overseen on legal matters by these two mechanisms.

The one question I do have when it comes to Bill C-20, and this came up in Bill C-9, is the question of consultations. I believe my colleague for the NDP raised this. I am not sure what, if any, consultations were done, but this obviously needs be explored at committee, if the legislation successfully passes on second reading. Let us face it that governments of all stripes often fail on these issues. We have seen it on the extreme intoxication bill. I call on the government to make this a priority.

CBSA has extraordinary powers, detention, arrest and search. These are sweeping powers where charter rights are often diminished. This bill would replace the existing Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP with the complaints and review commission.

Let us examine the backdrop in which peace officers within the RCMP and CBSA are expected to do their job. It is important to evaluate that backdrop as we consider the independent oversight for peace officers doing their job.

My constituents frequently complain to me about what they have termed, and others have termed, catch and release. I hear about this from police officers from across the country. This is why I put forward Bill C-274, because our bail system must be reformed.

I have compassion for police officers doing their job and arresting the same person again and again, only to know that this person will be released shortly.

The government, though it is dealing with the oversight issue in Bill C-20, has not addressed key bail decisions in the last few years, which has led to a catch-and-release system. It is in the interest of all Canadians that the government do so.

There has been a 32% increase in violent crime since 2015. This is not lost on this side of the House. We have Bill C-5 and Bill C-21. The word “victim” is not in either piece of legislation.

It saddens me to say, and I am surprised to be saying this, that drive-by shootings can now result in a community-based sentence. That does not feel right in my heart, but, more important, from a legal perspective, it is not logical.

The Regina v. Nur decision struck down mandatory minimums for section 95 of the Criminal Code, possessing a restricted firearm with readily available ammunition, in this case a handgun. In that instance, the Supreme Court of Canada said that the appropriate sentence, as I recall, would be 40 months in jail.

That is what it said the appropriate sentence would be for a relatively young man. I believe the accused in that case was 19 or 20 years old. We are here debating, not long after Nur was struck down, whether that should actually result in a jail sentence when our highest court, which has frequently struck down these cases, said that this should have been 40 months in jail.

On the one hand, we have Conservatives who have often advocated for mandatory minimums. It was the Harper government that passed many of the mandatory minimums. On the other hand, we have, across the aisle, people who say that there should be no mandatory minimums.

I would advocate for a middle-ground approach, one that has mandatory minimums that operate in a constitutionally compliant manner. I have stated this to the Minister of Justice, that this is the appropriate middle ground. Unfortunately, he did not heed my exhortation to do so.

Police and CBSA officials are operating within an environment that has 124,000 more violent crimes than last year. This would make up almost my whole riding. Canadians are tired of this. Also, there were 789 homicides in Canada last year and 611 in 2015, which is a 29% increase.

Police and CBSA are in situations in which gun crime is a concern. I recall reading in the news a couple of years ago about a shooting of a teenager who was innocently driving with his parents. There was a person in my riding, a case of mistaken identity, who was shot down at a hotel. This is the situation our police are operating within. These were sons, brothers and friends.

There has been a 92% increase in gang-related homicides since 2015, yet when we come to the House to debate legislation on public safety, the debate is whether or not to relax these types of penalties rather than make them more stringent so that gang-related homicides would ultimately go down rather than up.

If members ask anyone in the system, I anticipate they will tell them that organized crime is so difficult to investigate. That is why they call it “organized”. There is intimidation, often a layer of distancing, money and organization.

If I were a police officer or a CBSA officer, I would be concerned with the proliferation of firearms. I remember one of the first cases I dealt with which involved now staff sergeant Kelly Butler, one of the best police officers I have encountered. She pulled a vehicle over and what was revealed inside the driver's jacket was a loaded sawed-off shotgun. I remember holding that firearm when it was in evidence. The firearm was illegal. The stock and the barrel had been cut off, so it was probably about 10 to 12 inches long. That is the environment our peace officers and CBSA officers are operating within.

Our border is porous, and there is a concern of what to do about it. The public safety minister has earmarked, as I recall, $5 billion to target law-abiding gun owners who are not accounting for crimes. Bill C-5 and Bill C-21 will be targeting that. Where could $5 billion be spent when it comes to our border and enforcement of illegal guns? I ask that question rhetorically because I have some pretty good ideas.

There has been a 61% increase in reporting sexual assaults since 2015. I have two bills on sexual offences. We obviously had the #MeToo movement in that time, which is always important. My wife was telling me that she saw a sign recently that said, “No means no”, but we have to go one step further and say, “Only yes means yes”. Only consent itself is consent.

To conclude, this proposed act would create an obligation for the RCMP commissioner and CBSA president to submit an annual report to the Minister of Public Safety. The report would inform the minister of actions that the RCMP and CBSA have taken within the year to respond to recommendations from the chairperson.

This is great, but one thing I learned in my first year in Parliament, while sitting on the veterans affairs committee is that, just because a recommendation is made, does not mean it will be acted upon. My hope is that, when these recommendations are made, they will actually be acted upon, otherwise they are worth nothing more than the piece of paper they are written upon. It is easy to use words, and we have frequently said that, but I call on the government to act.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I really appreciated my colleague's nuanced and moderate speech. In particular, he cited facts related to his personal experience. It is good to hear speeches that leave hyperpartisanship behind. I really want to congratulate my colleague for his speech and the position he has taken.

This brings me to a subject that he only touched on, but that seemed important to him. I am referring to the role and work of both border and police officers. We can see that these people are under a lot of pressure and work under a lot of scrutiny. We wonder if they are doing their job correctly or whether they are abusing their power.

Abuses of power and unpleasant situations do happen. However, I have also heard from people who work in this field. They say that they go to work in the morning with a weight on their shoulders. They do not like feeling as though they are constantly being criticized and monitored at work. They no longer know when or how they should intervene, and that is making their job difficult.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about passing Bill C‑20. The Bloc Québécois believes that this bill must be passed. What message should Bill C‑20 send?

I think my colleague might have something to say about that.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very thoughtful question. When I was a very young man with a beautiful full head of hair, and it is true that it was there, I was actually a peace officer myself. I remember the pressure as a frontline peace officer at that time.

My hon. colleague's question was about the message we are sending. I certainly cannot speak to what message will be received. I can only speak to what message I hope will be sent. The message I hope will be sent is that we expect our frontline officers, right up to the highest members of management, whether it be the RCMP commissioner or the president of CBSA, to operate with integrity, to operate in a neutral manner and to recognize the difficult landscapes within which they operate. We have talked a lot today about racism and over-representation in the justice system. Those are all issues that concern me and that I want addressed.

The message I hope to send is that peace officers are here to do a job. They are employed by the people of Canada and they have a very tall order to keep us safe, but concurrent with that is an obligation to do so with the highest level of integrity.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague's last statement. I think the balance of accountability and the expectation that we have on the front line is really important. In my region, where we are dealing with the opioid crisis, there is a great deal of frustration because we have seen the rise in crime. We have seen the rise in deaths in communities we never thought we would see before, and there is an expectation that the police will just handle this.

I remember the Timmins chief of police speaking at a community meeting saying they cannot police our way out of this situation. It is a bigger situation. We have also seen the willingness of police to work with frontline mental health workers. This represents major changes in how policing is done.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague about the role of police, who have to take on many aspects now in a very complex society, yet at the same time, we do need to make sure that there is accountability so they respect that trust. Given my hon. colleague's past, what are his thoughts on these issues?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of something we have in my riding. It is called Car 40. I am not sure if it is unique to the Kamloops RCMP or not. Car 40 pairs a police officer with a mental health nurse, and they respond to mental health-related calls.

I said earlier that police are expected to do more with fewer resources. I do not think I am speaking out of turn here by saying that we have seen a proliferation of mental health issues. Perhaps it is actually just coming to the forefront. I am not an expert on this. I am not sure which, but I did have a section on opioids in my speech that I did not get to. It is often a case where frontline responders are dealing with the same person, sometimes twice in a shift, with multiple overdoses.

I was very proud that our last platform addressed substance abuse and spoke about health issues. I also echo the leader of His Majesty's official opposition when he says that we want to get to the bottom of this, and we want to deal with treatment. A Conservative government would put treatment to the forefront to ideally ease the burden that is on frontline workers, and let us not overlook the trauma that they themselves go through in dealing with people dying before their very eyes.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to raise something that is a bit tangential. The member mentioned the head of the RCMP, Brenda Lucki. It is very much on my mind that the Parliamentary Protective Service officers here had to work three years to get a decent contract. They do not get back pay. They have to report through the RCMP now. That is a change that I opposed.

I want to ask all hon. members in this place to do whatever we can. Winter is coming. The people who risk their lives to protect us do not even have a piece of plywood over their heads before the storms come. They are vulnerable to extreme weather events and have to stand outside this place. Unlike Centre Block, this building is not adequate to provide any shelter from winter storms. Does my hon. colleague have any comment?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on her new role within her party.

I am indebted to all forms of law enforcement. Some are obviously closer to us physically than others. The Parliamentary Protective Service officers are close to us. We walk by them literally every day, sometimes without giving a second thought to the protection, security and oversight they provide us not only so we can walk in here unencumbered to do our jobs at the centre of democracy, but also so family and Canadians can be here. I appreciate each and every single thing they do.

I am not familiar with all of the nuances the member spoke of, but my hope is that we can address that and do so in a way that is fair and safe for all.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is obviously in favour of Bill C‑20, which will introduce mechanisms, that is, an independent organization, to handle complaints.

Several years ago, in 2004, there was the Arar case that made it clear we needed an independent organization. In 2022, there are still complaint management mechanisms and organizations that are not independent. There is some independent oversight at the RCMP, but not at the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA.

I would like to ask my colleague why the government, after a number of years, has still not taken action to ensure that complaints are handled fairly and independently and that there are no abuses, particularly with regard to the CBSA.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously I cannot get into the heads of the government members. If I could, this place would maybe run a bit more efficiently, from our perspective.

The reality is that I am not sure why the government took as long as it did. To me, when we are looking at legislation and how much time it takes, and also when it is tabled, it speaks to governmental priorities. In this case, with this legislation, we waited two months before we even got to work, which is ironic given that now we are talking about sitting later to get more work done. However, various other pieces of legislation were put forward, so I can only surmise that the government did not view this as being as serious an issue or as problematic a situation as others that it has put forward.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, off the top I would like to note that I will be happy to share my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

I am in my place today, aware that we are standing on traditional Algonquin territory. I am also aware that much has been said on Bill C-20 so far, so what I will have to say will kind of act as a recap of where we are. We are debating this legislation that would enact a new stand-alone statute, the public complaints and review commission act, to provide an external review regime for both the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency.

To uphold trust and confidence in our law enforcement and border protection services, Canadians should count on a robust system of accountability. Canadians expect consistent, fair and equal treatment when receiving services from the RCMP and the CBSA. Civilian review is essential for the transparency of that system.

Currently, the RCMP is reviewed by the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, the CRCC. The House has now heard that the new public complaints and review commission would replace the CRCC, provide enhanced reporting requirements for the RCMP, and establish an independent review mechanism for the CBSA.

I would like to note in particular the impact this bill would have on the Canada Border Services Agency. With some 14,000 dedicated and professional employees, the CBSA is one of the largest organizations within the public safety portfolio. It has a long and rich history of providing border services in an exemplary manner, but inevitably, where there is interaction between the public and border service agencies, disputes will sometimes arise. A transparent means of dealing with such disputes supports respect for the rule of law, but unlike the RCMP, the CBSA does not currently have an ongoing structure for independent review of such situations.

The agency is indeed reviewed by various independent boards, tribunals and courts, but it does not have a review mechanism for specific complaints, including officer conduct and the agency’s level of service. I would remind the House that the CBSA is one of the public safety bodies that many Canadians encounter regularly. I know personally that when I come to the border I always look guilty, no matter what, but I have always been treated with fairness and respect.

Border services officers control the movement of people and goods through Canadian borders. They detain and remove potential threats. They collect duties and taxes. Canadians rely on the border security measures enforced by the CBSA, and at the same time the CBSA is a Canadian public safety institution that non-Canadians encounter, including, for example, the refugees currently seeking asylum in our country. For this reason, a review mechanism must be accessible to all people who deal with CBSA employees. It is key to building public trust in the institution designed to protect our borders.

Under Bill C-20, the public complaints and review commission would have authority to review both the CBSA and the RCMP. Some components of the bill would apply to both institutions. Each year, both would be required to report to the Minister of Public Safety on how they have responded to PCRC recommendations. Both would have codified timelines dictating how soon they would need to respond to those recommendations. The PCRC will disaggregate the data of complaints related to both agencies and report on what it reveals about race-based issues. This will help us, for example, to better understand and address any systemic racism in law enforcement in Canada, at least in this law enforcement system.

Apart from national security issues, which are reviewed through the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, the PCRC would be responsible for conducting specified reviews of any activities of the RCMP and the CBSA. These reviews could be conducted at the request of the minister or on the PCRC’s own initiative. The PCRC will have the responsibility for receiving complaints concerning CBSA conduct or levels of service, and the authority to launch investigations.

Indeed, under the bill, individuals who are detained by the CBSA would be informed that they have an avenue to make a complaint. If somebody has filed a complaint with the CBSA and is not satisfied with the manner in which the complaint was handled, the complainant may forward the matter to the PCRC for review. The PCRC would also have authority to initiate its own investigation into CBSA conduct when it is in the public interest to do so. The PCRC would report its findings and recommendations to the CBSA and to the minister.

I have been speaking about the authority to review complaints, but there is another level of authority required to govern serious incidents involving the CBSA and its personnel. These would include matters that, for example, may have resulted in serious injury or death, or constituted federal or provincial offences. The CBSA is responsible for conducting its own internal reviews of such matters, but there is currently no statutory obligation for the CBSA to conduct such a review.

Under the bill before us, the CBSA would be obliged to conduct internal investigations into alleged serious incidents. The CBSA would be required to notify the police of the jurisdiction in which the alleged serious incident took place and to notify the PCRC.

Furthermore, the CBSA would be required to provide the PCRC with reports and other information on serious incidents. The PCRC, for its part, would have the authority to send an observer to verify the impartiality of the CBSA’s internal investigation, and it would be required to report on the number, types and outcomes of serious incidents as part of its annual reporting. I am sure hon. members would agree that this would provide a much-needed degree of transparency to the handling of serious incidents.

Finally, I would remind the House of the special nature of CBSA review, in that it would seek to provide the consistent, fair and equal treatment that Canadians expect in a manner that would also include people who do not reside in Canada. The Canadian Human Rights Commission, for example, can receive complaints only from individuals lawfully in Canada. The PCRC, on the other hand, would be in a position to accept complaints from foreign nationals that involve allegations of discrimination by the CBSA.

These are important matters in creating the kind of robust accountability mechanisms that are essential for public trust in our border services and law enforcement institutions. The time is well overdue for the CBSA to join its partner organizations in having such a mechanism. Indeed, this is the third time in recent years that the government has endeavoured to reform the system. We attempted it in 2019 with Bill C-98 and again in 2020 with Bill C-3.

This bill is a key part of the government’s agenda, and I urge my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting its quick passage.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, could the member reflect on the importance of establishing this review body so that Canadians can have confidence in the law enforcement and protection agencies that we have? Could he provide his comments on the importance of that?

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, back in 2003 the Harvard Business Review issued a publication that I think should be required reading for anybody who has to deal with the public. It was all about fair process in the knowledge economy. Fair process is a really critical issue, as it should be, for everybody who is overseeing the creation of legislation, such as we are doing now, right down to the work we provide in our constituency offices. Fair process means a good hearing. It means objective review of what has been presented, and it allows for independent, objective analysis, review and recommendations.

This is what the legislation proposes to apply to the CBSA, and I think it is probably about three years overdue.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Grand Chief Stewart Phillip has been calling for amendments to this proposed legislation to ensure that, if established, the enforcement watchdog would employ indigenous people as both decision-makers and complaints investigators.

This was one of the recommendations that came out of the House committee study on systemic racism in policing. I am curious if the member will push his government to ensure that indigenous representation is top of mind, that these amendments are put forward and passed, and that indigenous investigators are probing complaints when it comes to indigenous people's files.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question, absolutely that is something that I will definitely advocate and support. I believe that when the committee gets its hands on this legislation, some of the people who are asking to be involved in the system should be called as witnesses, so that they can provide their recommendations directly to the committee and those recommendations can find their way into the final version that comes back to the House.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Fleetwood—Port Kells, both for his congratulations that I am leader of the Green Party of Canada and for splitting his time with me. My chance will come up very soon.

I wonder whether, as a British Columbian member of Parliament, the member has been disturbed by the videos, which I wonder if he has seen, of the arrests and the treatment of indigenous people within British Columbia, particularly those on Wet’suwet’en territories, where land defenders were quite brutalized, and in Fairy Creek as well, where land defenders were also brutalized.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been disturbed by all the factors that have come around that particular project, including any mistreatment of people who are out demonstrating and exercising their constitutional rights. I am also disturbed, though, at the destruction of property and lawlessness that may have been taking place there.

I am also aware that police officers usually have a millisecond to make up their minds on how to react to a situation, whereas the rest of us have all of time after that to review what they have done and to pass judgment on them. This is precisely the kind of mechanism that we need to do a deeper dive into these incidents, learn from them and refine how we approach some very ticklish situations.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this place acknowledging that we stand on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe Nation, and essentially this building sits on Algonquin land. To them, I say meegwetch.

I am very pleased that we have seen another incarnation of Bill C-20. The fundamental essence of this legislation, for those who may just be joining the debate, is to ensure that two really significant federal law enforcement agencies have mechanisms for civilian complaint.

Those two agencies are the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency.

The Canada Border Services Agency and the RCMP interact with Canadians and foreigners on a regular basis. The RCMP has had a public complaints commission for many years. It has been inadequate. Initially, it did not have powers to subpoena, to find out from RCMP officers what really happened in any event. The ability to summon witnesses is terribly important.

The powers of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP were weaker, but it is unbelievable that we do not have a single entity to handle complaints against the CBSA.

I do not know about my colleagues in this place, but certainly through COVID I had a lot of reasons to be concerned about the structure of the Canada Border Services Agency and the degree of powers granted to individual officers. It will be beyond the scope of this act to deal with some of these issues, so I place them before us now as we go through second reading debate.

This is concerning for all of us. I should not speak for all of my colleagues, but I have a hunch here, because I talked to many of them, regardless of party, during the period of time that we were trying to help Canadians come home to Canada. For instance, those married to permanent residents, not Canadian citizens, had to make their pitch at the border to a Canada Border Services agent, whose decision was final and discretionary to a particular officer. This created no end of misery for Canadian families. I do know that cabinet at the time passed an order in council to try to alleviate the problem, but it is still the case that an individual officer can make a decision on the spot about anyone.

My stepdaughter was once going into the United States to take up a new job that she had in California. She had all her paperwork, but the Canada Border Services agent did not like her. He said he did not believe her and did not think she had a job, and he sent her back. There is no appeal. There is no place to go with that. We need to take a broader look at the Canada Border Services Agency.

Some constituents, who were not my constituents, asked me for help. They happened to be a couple I know from Cape Breton Island, where my family lives and where I am from. The couple was at the New Brunswick border with Maine. When they drove up to the Canadian kiosk to say they were going home, the border agent told the wife she could go home because she is Canadian, but her husband could not go home because he is still a permanent resident. They had to leave one spouse at the border with all the luggage, while the other was allowed into Canada because they were not allowed to go back into the U.S. together. These kinds of things are nonsensical. We need to look at the Canada Border Services Agency and make some policy choices and raise some other issues.

We certainly know that we want, as a matter of policy, which I have heard from many people in the House today, the CBSA to be focused on stopping the smuggling of guns. We want the CBSA focused on stopping the smuggling of contraband drugs too. We do not particularly want the CBSA at the border to terrorize racialized people from other countries. We do not want it thinking that its number one job is to find people whose citizenship is not quite right and whose paperwork as a permanent resident is not quite right, and get them deported as quickly as possible.

We have a lot of complaints about the CBSA and there are concerns about racial profiling in the RCMP. There are complaints that need to be heard. However, I really want to emphasize the extent to which the CBSA, in the past, has brutalized Canadians. I will give one example, because it comes from my own experience. I was just discussing it with the member of Parliament in whose riding it happened before he was the MP for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

An indigenous man, born in the state of California, came across the border in the 1980s or 1970s with an indigenous woman from Penelakut Island, from the Penelakut nation of Vancouver Island. They married, they had kids and they had grandkids. There is a thing called the Jay Treaty, but obviously the CBSA had never heard of it. It gives additional rights to indigenous people crossing borders.

In any case, for some reason, CBSA agents decided in 2013 to show up at the door of Richard Germaine from Penelakut Island. They had not sent a note saying that they noticed he did not have all of his paperwork done to be a Canadian permanent resident. They just showed up four days before Christmas and arrested him. I am not exaggerating a bit. They put him in leg irons in the back of a van and drove him off Vancouver Island, taking a long ferry ride, to Vancouver, where they placed him in a cell.

I have seen the cells now, thanks to Senator Kim Pate, who likes to take other parliamentarians on tours of prisons. They are in the basement of the Vancouver airport. The people put there are rarely there for more than 24 hours before they are summarily deported. Since the time that I toured that facility, they have moved to a different facility for the deportation of foreigners.

This was a railroading; this was fast. This was taking someone from his home, a grandfather, right before Christmas in front of his wife, who was a residential school survivor, and sending him for deportation without due process, because, well, that was what the political mood wanted to do.

We desperately need this legislation. I will be supporting it to get it through second reading and get it to committee. The CBSA, for a long time, has had a high number of complaints, and these have been noted by the Auditor General. They are complaints of racism, homophobia, transphobia and rudeness. It is an agency that desperately needs oversight. I want to make sure that I say, as other speakers have said, that there are wonderful agents in the RCMP and wonderful agents in the CBSA, but this is crying out for reform.

I will be presenting amendments to Bill C-20 because I want to make sure that it is as rigorous as possible and as fair as possible to the people who experience these issues at the border with CBSA. We also need to do much more to examine systemic racism within the RCMP. We need to do much more to pay attention to that. What if people do not feel like they can make a complaint?

We need proactive anti-racism programs in the RCMP. We also need to take a very close look at so-called wellness checks, as in the case of Rodney Levi, a member of the Metepenagiag Mi'kmaq Nation who in June 2020 was killed by an RCMP officer.

Local complaint commissions, efforts at inquiries and coroners' reports are not really where we want to start the efforts to ensure this does not happen again. The place to start efforts to ensure this does not happen again is specific anti-racism training and specific training to root out misogyny within the RCMP and CBSA, and ensuring that we protect the agencies that are created to protect us. We must take steps to ensure that our RCMP and CBSA agents are protected themselves.

We need to make sure that the process set up under Bill C-20 is robust and fair and does its best to ensure that our law enforcement agencies meet our values as Canadians.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member on her re-election as leader of the Green Party.

I am wondering if she could comment on the importance of this legislation and of strengthening this legislation, especially when it comes to the illegal spying against law-abiding protesters. I am thinking right now of Enbridge and the northern gateway pipeline projects, especially when it comes to first nations activists.

Also, the CRCC released a report, after the RCMP was sued by the BCCLA, on Mounties' use of arbitrary searches and broad exclusion zones when it came to Mi'kmaq protesters doing anti-fracking standoffs in New Brunswick. I would love to hear her thoughts on that.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the hon. member for Victoria remembering the Elsipogtog standoff in New Brunswick. It was a non-violent protest and was demonstrated in many ways to be a non-violent protest.

It was also widely supported. The indigenous land defenders of Elsipogtog, part of the larger Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy nations, were widely supported by settler culture New Brunswick residents nearby. There were people on the side of the road supporting the Elsipogtog First Nation. It was letting emergency vehicles through. It was there to protect its land against the hydraulic drilling for what is called fracking.

The RCMP, the night before, had brought the non-violent protesters tobacco, which was a suggestion we were now in a stage of de-escalation and working together, only to have a pre-dawn raid the next morning that involved attack dogs and a fully armed SWAT team moving in. Those kinds of incidents leave a community traumatized. They should leave settler culture Canadians ashamed. The incident was never explored, and there were no answers given to anyone as to why the RCMP chose an aggressive, violent approach to shut down that particular effort to ban fracking.

Fortunately, the government elected right after that event banned fracking in New Brunswick. The current government is wobbly on the point.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, in her speech, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands spoke about the experience her stepdaughter had when entering the States. The reality is these various experiences are arbitrary and can be different depending on the person. They can be different depending on the circumstance. They can be different depending on just about any variable.

I am wondering if she can comment on why she sees the set-up of this structure as beneficial for an individual like her stepdaughter, who will have somewhere to go to file a proper grievance or complaint.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was a real blow, because she had a job set up and some arbitrary guy decided no, he is not letting her fulfill her life's dream. It was his decision and there was no appeal. Obviously having an appeal would help, but so too would examining the day-to-day operations of CBSA and providing more guidance.

For instance, an officer should not have full discretion to decide whether they like the cut of someone's jib when people are coming into Canada. They should have some criteria. If the criteria has not been met, they have a reason to say no. However, there is no criteria, and it is often as subjective as the member for Kingston and the Islands suggested. It is arbitrary and discretionary, and it is specific to each officer.

My constituents have had completely different experiences at different airports with different CBSA officers, and on the same fact set there have been completely different decisions. I urge the ministers responsible, as we get Bill C-20 through, to say that CBSA officers should not have unfettered discretion to make decisions that affect people's lives as fundamentally as they do. I know this will be outside the scope of the act.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was not around when this was brought up twice in the past. Bill C-98 and Bill C-3 came out in the 42nd Parliament and 43rd Parliament. They did not come through and both died on the Order Paper.

Perhaps the member could share some of her wisdom as to why she feels these bills did not make it through and why here we are again debating pretty similar legislation for the third time.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government of the day, which happens to be the current government, brought forward the legislation without a real commitment to see it through. When legislation dies on the Order Paper, sometimes it is inevitable, but in this case we have been debating it and calling for change.

As I said earlier in a question to another colleague, I remember raising this in Parliament when the minister responsible was Ralph Goodale, the public safety minister. It was not that long ago, but this has been coming up for at least seven years. There is deep concern that we need an oversight body for an agency with the powers the CBSA has.

The hon. member is a member of the official opposition, and I hope this time all parties can ban together and say we cannot let this situation go on. This time, let us get the bill over the finish line and make sure it is good law.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about very important legislation, Bill C-20, which would establish a new public complaints and review commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian Border Services Agency. It would enact accountability and transparency mechanisms that would provide a foundation for trust and confidence in Canada's public safety.

Employees of both the RCMP and the CBSA hold a broad range of powers. Public trust that those powers are to be used appropriately is crucial to maintaining respect for the rule of law. There is a balance that needs to be established. On the one hand is Canada's public safety and security priorities. On the other hand is respect for fair treatment and human rights. In our system that balance is supported by ensuring civilian review of public safety bodies, such as the RCMP and the CBSA.

This is a stand-alone bill. It would provide these mechanisms not as part of the enabling statutes of the RCMP or the CBSA, but independently of them. By doing this, we underscore the importance of the independent civilian review of organizations entrusted with maintaining public safety.

Both the RCMP and CBSA employees interact with the public on a daily basis, including with vulnerable populations. One of those organizations, the Canada Border Services Agency, currently has no civilian review mechanism to deal with public complaints. The Canada Border Services Agency Act itself is silent on this matter. This legislation would close a long-standing gap by providing a review body for the CBSA.

The RCMP currently has a civilian accountability body in the existing Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, the CRCC, but over the years there have been calls to update and enhance it. The CRCC itself has advised on the need to strengthen and expand existing review mechanisms for the RCMP.

I want to thank the chairperson, Michelaine Lahaie, and her staff at the CRCC for their thoughtfulness, thoroughness and dedication in recommending the additional accountability and transparency mechanisms included in this bill.

Bill C-20 would see the new public complaints and review commission replace the CRCC. The PCRC would continue the CRCC's existing mandate for complaints and review, but with new accountability tools at its disposal that would apply to both the RCMP and the CBSA. On its own initiative, or at the request of the minister, the PCRC would be able to conduct specified reviews on any RCMP or CBSA activities that do not involve national security.

I would remind the House that national security issues are handled by the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency. The PCRC will have the authority to investigate complaints about conduct and level of service in both the RCMP and the CBSA. If a complainant is not satisfied with how these organizations have handled a complaint, the PCRC can conduct a review. When it is in the public's interest to do so, the PCRC may initiate its own complaint and investigation into RCMP and CBSA conduct.

One of the issues that has underscored the need for a renewed and enhanced review system has been the time it has taken the RCMP in the past to respond to CRCC reports and recommendations. Frequent delays led to a Federal Court decision that the RCMP must provide a response to CRCC interim reports within six months. Over the last year, the RCMP has improved the timelines within which it responds to the CRCC. We want to ensure this improvement continues.

Bill C-20 includes timelines that would codify when a response is required to an interim report, review or recommendation from the PCRC. When the PCRC issues an interim report, the RCMP and CBSA would have six months to respond. Should the PCRC issue specified activity reviews and recommendations, the RCMP and CBSA would have 60 days to respond.

Not only must these bodies report back to the commissioner of the PCRC within these codified timelines, the bill would obligate the RCMP commissioner and the CBSA president each to submit an annual report to the Minister of Public Safety. These reports would detail the actions the RCMP and CBSA have taken within the year to respond to PCRC recommendations.

In short, the bill would give the PCRC tools that the CRCC did not have to uphold civilian review of the law enforcement system.

However, there are other tools in the bill that are designed to enhance, at another level, the trust and confidence Canadians have for public safety in our country.

In their recommendations on ways to enhance the CRCC, the chairperson and her colleagues looked beyond the measures that would improve accountability. They considered ways in which a new review mechanism might enhance the public trust, and respect for, law enforcement in general and the rule of law itself.

Among the challenges is the urgent need to increase knowledge about systemic racism in law enforcement. This includes work done by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, which is in the report entitled “Systemic Racism in Policing in Canada”.

I am pleased to say this bill would respond to the committee's recommendation that the government clarify and strengthen the mandate, independence and efficacy of the CRCC. It provides for codified timelines for the RCMP's responses to the PCRC reports, for the RCMP to report annually to the minister on implementing PCRC recommendations and it provides for the protection of the identity of the complainants.

That which gets measured gets done, and if we are to respond to systemic racism, we must first gather the data that will inform our solutions. The bill would give statutory authority to the recommendation that the new PCRC will collect and publish disaggregated race-based data of complainants, in consultation with the RCMP and CBSA. Moreover, the bill would provide the PCRC with a mandate to implement public education and information programs. These would help inform Canadians on their rights of redress should they have issues with how they were treated by the RCMP or CBSA officials.

The programs will also increase knowledge and awareness of the PCRC's mandate and thus provide a better understanding of the role of civilian review in upholding the rule of law.

As with the collection of race-based data, the public information mandate will be especially important in helping earn the trust of indigenous, Black and racialized Canadians.

The bill before us is a high priority for this government. Twice before, we have introduced bills to address many of these issues. They died on the Order Paper, but in the process we listened to all points of view and remained determined to strengthen transparency and accountability.

The bill before us now would take advantage of what we have learned. It responds to some of the issues that are long overdue, such as the need to provide a review mechanism to the CBSA. It responds to some of the issues that have presented difficulties in the past, such as the need to respond to recommendations in a timely manner. It responds to issues that have gained more attention in recent years, such as the evidence of systemic racism in the law enforcement system and the urgent need to find solutions.

The government has responded to those issues with a stand-alone bill that highlights the importance of civilian review of the law enforcement and border security systems.

I would add that it is extremely important to ensure that we have such mechanisms in place for people to have their complaints heard.

We heard the example moments ago from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands of the issue her step-daughter had, and that is not uncommon. We hear about these situations all the time, quite frankly. I have heard of situations similar to that. It is critically important that when people experience these situations, whether they are crossing a border or whether it is something with the RCMP, they have an avenue to have their complaints heard. Sometimes those complaints are valid and sometimes they are not, but I do not think we are doing a service to anybody by not having the tool for those complaints to be heard.

In my opinion, having such a tool is not just a benefit to the complainant but indeed a benefit to the individual or individuals that the complaint is being made against. Quite often, especially in the world we live in today, a complaint can be made and amplified through social media, and if it is sensationalized enough, it can gain traction and people can very quickly be made aware of somebody's grievance with a border agent or an RCMP member. We all see people filming and recording just about everything.

A tool like this, allowing those individuals to bring their complaints forward, would give the opportunity for both sides of the story to be heard and the facts to come out with respect to everything that has been represented with individual circumstances and cases. When we empower individuals within the Canadian government and the roles they play to have such incredible discretionary authority like this, there has to be a mechanism for oversight to allow those who have potential grievances to come forward, so they can be heard as well as all individuals who are mentioned in the complaint. They would have the opportunity to ensure that the independent review body has the ability to determine whether there is merit in the complaint, and if so, what the next steps should be.

As I indicated in my prepared remarks, it is critically important that not only do we have this oversight, but that it is annually reported back to the minister, which would happen. By having that tool, Parliament, through the minister's office, would have the ability to scrutinize more collectively what is going on with respect to those complaints, how they are being handled and the timelines to ensure that the proper recourse is being taken. Quite frankly, sometimes it takes quite a long time to get a response, and that is unacceptable. We do not need a court to weigh in on what those timelines should be. Those timelines should be codified, as the bill would do, and set in stone. If timelines are not met, we could properly inquire as to why and get to the bottom of what needs to change, if anything.

I am very pleased to see the legislation come forward. A number of members have spoken about the fact that this is the third time it has been here and, indeed, the third time under this government. However, I hope we can all appreciate that the other two times have helped to inform where we are today. I hope that, because this has taken longer, the one silver lining is that we have even better legislation than we may have had otherwise, because we have been able to inform ourselves along the way of the various aspects of the bill that may need to be improved.

I get the sense, from listening to the comments in the House today, that the bill will be supported by all members of the House. I look forward to it moving along so we can finally get this very important legislation in place.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentioned that the legislation had been brought up twice before, and I agree with that. However, when Bill C-98 was introduced in 2019 and when Bill C-3 was introduced in 2020, many stakeholders, especially the union that represents CBSA officers, spoke about the fact that they were not consulted on draft stages.

Could the member opposite please inform me if there was much more consultation taking place this time? We do support the bill, but we want to ensure all stakeholders were involved, and that it has been done properly?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member would know, any piece of legislation that comes before the House is not public information until such time that it is tabled, including to members of the governing party. Quite frankly, there is a very important rule of the House that the legislation be tabled at the same time for every member of Parliament to be able to review it.

With respect to the degree to which consultation has occurred in the minister's office, the member would have to ask the minister directly about that. We have question period in seven minutes, and maybe there will be time to do that.

What is really important, which I pointed out in my speech, is that having had the benefit of this come through the House twice already, we have heard individuals and organizations speak to various different aspects of the bill and the process. Hopefully we will have had the opportunity to get it right by the time it gets to this point.

Finally, one of the key times in our parliamentary system, in the democratic system that we have for establishing and reviewing legislation, is at committee. When this bill goes to committee, there will be the opportunity for Conservative, NDP, Bloc and Liberal members to invite various different people forward to voice their opinions on this legislation and to get their opinions on the record.

Although, perhaps, the degree to which the consultation has occurred might not be to the satisfaction of the Conservatives, the consultation has just begun in that this bill has now just been introduced and it will go to committee where the real consultation occurs.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I truly admire my colleague's work. I have seen how proactive he is in the House. He is always around to give speeches and ask questions. He really is very active.

Something is bugging me though. It seems that I do not often see his other colleagues show up to work as hard as he does. I wonder if there is a reason for that?

Perhaps he could tell us more about that?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess we know it is a pretty mundane bill when those are the questions being asked in the House.

My role in the government is one of two parliamentary secretaries to the government House leader. The government House leader oversees the day-to-day operations in the House. Therefore, it makes sense that I would be in the House so much, and that my role has led me to being here. I am sorry if the member thinks my interventions, from time to time, are a little overboard. Perhaps he is not entirely wrong, but I am here to do my job. If he is saying that I am here all the time, please refer that back to my boss, so my boss knows I am doing my job too.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House will be supporting the bill.

There have been concerns raised, and in my speech today I raised issues with the CBSA detaining children due to their immigration status. The fact that this is still a practice in this country is wrong. I think it is vile that in this country we detain children due to their immigration status.

Does my hon. colleague agree with me that it is wrong and that we need to put legislation in place to ban this racist, discriminatory practice that violates the rights of little children in Canada?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I most certainly agree with my colleague that if anybody is detaining individuals based on their immigration status, citizenship status or race for that matter, it is completely unacceptable and wrong. It is something that we should not do.

I do not know if we need to actually put it in the legislation, because it would appear to me as though that would be unconstitutional on its own anyway. I am not against the idea of putting that in legislation, if that is what the committee determines when the committee does its work. I find it very alarming and very concerning, the suggestion that is coming from the member. I take her word that she is aware of this happening.

That is exactly why we need the measures that are put in this, so that those complaints can be heard and can be dealt with in a manner that has the proper oversight of the very important agencies that have this discretionary power in looking out for our safety.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this particular piece of legislation appears to be supported by the Conservative Party, the Bloc, the NDP and the Green Party, and obviously the government has proposed it. It looks like it will have the unanimous support of the House. The idea of the legislation has now been before us for a good deal of time in different ways and in different legislation. It seems that everyone wants this bill to pass.

Do we know if the Conservative Party is prepared to allow the legislation to pass, or does the member think we might have to bring in time allocation?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a first that it would be my own colleague trying to get me to be hyperpartisan, but I will respond to that question.

As I have said many times in the House, I understand that the role of an opposition is to hold the government to account. I also understand that the most important tool that an opposition has is to delay. It should be using that tool when it finds various pieces of legislation to be so egregious and represent so many problems that it feels as though it needs to put a stop to them.

We see this quite often. We saw it in Ontario's provincial legislature recently when Doug Ford tried to use the notwithstanding clause and how the opposition acted there. It chose that as a hill that it wanted to die on.

Do Conservatives want to die on this hill when it is something that they agree on? I would suggest that they do not, because we know that they support this. Therefore, why not let this bill go to the next stage of the legislative process of becoming a law? Let us do that.

Let the opposition use delay tactics when there are issues so important to Conservatives that they feel as though they need to delay them, not just for the purpose of slowing down government business.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member opposite for his speech on Bill C-20, an act to enact the public complaints review commission. This is going to include not only the RCMP, but also the CBSA. When we are talking about the CBSA, I think it is also very appropriate to ask whether the CBSA is properly financed and resourced for the demanding work we expect of it in stopping the smuggling of guns coming across the border. It is one thing to hold officers to account for misconduct. We should also expect them to be properly resourced so they can do their work.

I wonder if the member could comment on that.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure how this question in particular relates to this piece of legislation. This legislation was specifically about bringing in oversight and review bodies to look at the work of the CBSA and the RCMP and to respond to the complaints out there.

When it comes to properly resourcing our individual agencies and departments, yes, we have an obligation to do that and provide them with resources so they can deliver on our expectations and what we are asking them to do. I think it goes without saying, as I believe every member of the House would agree, that providing the proper resources is absolutely critical, in this case to the CBSA and the RCMP.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to join my voice to the debate on Bill C-20, an act to establish the public complaints and review commission. This commission would replace the current Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP. It is more than just a change of name. There is also change of provisions.

The commission would have an expanded role to also receive and deal with complaints on the activities of the Canada Border Services Agency, or the CBSA. This hits home to my home community of Langley because my community has the RCMP as its police force and is a border community, with a border crossing between the Canadian town of Aldergrove and the American town of Lynden.

Many people in my community have friends and relatives in Washington state. I am one of them. Four of my grandchildren live in Lynden, Washington, which is just a 45-minute drive from my home in Langley, not counting the time we might need to wait at the border, which is sometimes a long time and sometimes very short.

In the hundreds of times I have crossed the border from Aldergrove into Lynden, I have never had a bad interaction with anybody from the CBSA. I can say the same of the RCMP, not that I have had that many interactions with members of the RCMP, but any that I have had have always been good and positive. I have the highest regard for people who work for both agencies.

Our police officers and border security guards are at the front line of public safety and we owe them a debt of gratitude. I think of Burnaby RCMP Constable Shaelyn Yang, who was stabbed to death on October 18, just over a month ago, trying to save a homeless man's life. Constable Yang was attending at a city park along with a bylaw officer from the City of Burnaby to serve an eviction notice on a person who was camped in a public park. On approaching the scene, Constable Yang noticed there was evidence of the man overdosing. She entered into the tent with a naloxone kit. She did not come out alive.

I did not know Constable Yang at all, but I know people who did know her, who worked with her, who trained with her and who loved her. Her death is a reminder to her colleagues, and indeed to all of us, that working on the front line, whether it is with the RCMP or other police services in Canada, is dangerous work. To all police officers and other frontline workers, I thank them for their service to their communities. We owe them a debt of gratitude. We are grateful for their service.

It is in this context that I now want to join the conversation about complaints against the RCMP. During my time on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I have heard from many witnesses about the failings of the RCMP and other police services across the country.

Last year we studied alleged systemic racism in the RCMP. It was an exhaustive study. It was an exhausting study. There were 19 meetings. We heard from 53 witnesses. The study resulted in a report of 125 pages and 42 recommendations. We heard from community organizations providing services to or advocating for indigenous communities. We heard from academics working in the fields of law, law enforcement and social services. We heard from people working with people suffering mental health and addictions. As well, of course, we heard from representatives of various police services.

Whether there is racism in policing in Canada was the question we were tasked with. The first job, as always, is to define our terms. One of our witnesses, Alain Babineau, a law enforcement consultant, social justice advocate and former member of the RCMP gave us a working definition. Quoting Senator Sinclair, he said, “Systemic racism is when the system itself is based upon and founded upon racist beliefs and philosophies and thinking and has put in place policies and practices that literally force even the non-racists to act in a racist way.”

I have met many police officers. I have a family member who is a RCMP police officer. I went to law school with several former RCMP officers who then went on to become lawyers and with whom I have formed lifelong friendships. I have colleagues who have had full careers in law enforcement prior to coming to the House. I attend church with several people who are RCMP officers, and I can assure the members that not one of them is racist. They are all honest, hard-working people and law-abiding citizens who have, at heart, nothing but the best interests for their communities, neighbours and country.

Our report at the public safety committee was not about whether individuals within the RCMP are racist. The evidence is clear that we do have societal problems. It is not a problem of just the RCMP, the CBSA or the Vancouver Police Department. The problem is in our society.

When we think about racism, we might be tempted to point fingers at others, at the fathers of Confederation and at residential schools and say it was not us. We may think about our ancestors' role in slavery and say it was not us. We were not there.

A little closer to home, we might talk about the Chinese head tax and say it was before our time. Even a little closer to home, in Vancouver, we might think about the Komagata Maru incident, when law enforcement agencies turned a ship around and sent it back to India.

To make it current, we could point the finger at the RCMP, but finger pointing is not going to get us anywhere. It is certainly not going to help us find solutions to racism. We recognize that we are all part of society. We are all a product of our shared history. We are all in the same boat, so to speak, but the good news is that we are all also part of the solution.

It is in that context that I hope people would read the report from the public safety committee, and I hope they do read it. The report is simply called “Systemic Racism in Policing in Canada”.

Here we are today, talking about Bill C-20, an act to establish the public complaints and review commission. This draft of legislation is backed up by the report that I just talked about, that our public safety committee tackled last year.

I mentioned that the report contains 42 recommendations. Five of those 42 deal with what we call, under the current legislation, the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission. Evidence we heard at committee made it clear that we have a problem. The current review and complaints structure is dysfunctional, and it needs to be fixed.

Witnesses raised concerns about the transparency of the disciplinary process from the RCMP. For example, we heard from Professor Christian Leuprecht of the Royal Military College. He suggested that the RCMP should be required to make public all disciplinary decisions. That goes to transparency.

Professor Samuels-Wortley of Carleton University pointed out that transparency is required in the disciplinary processes for police who engage in misconduct to ensure public confidence in the system. We want to know what is going on.

Alain Babineau and the hon. Michel Bastarache suggested that the RCMP does not appear to be capable of addressing discrimination within the organization itself, suggesting that change must come from the outside.

All of this evidence, presented to the public safety committee, brought us to 42 recommendations. I am going to highlight just three of them.

The first recommendation was that the Government of Canada should clarify and strengthen the mandate of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, or the public complaints commission. We were not contemplating then that the whole commission would be revamped and given a new name, but so be it.

This would include creating statutory timelines for a response by the RCMP commissioner to reports coming from the commission and requiring that the commission publish its findings and recommendations. It all goes to transparency.

The second recommendation was that the Government of Canada should increase accessibility and transparency by simplifying the process for initiating a complaint. The third recommendation was to allow for a meaningful engagement of indigenous participation in the complaints commission. Let us not forget that the study was about whether there was racism in the RCMP.

Can Bill C-20, the legislation we are talking about, answer those challenges? The answer is, in large part, yes. The legislation creating the new PCRC, the public complaints and review commission, which in many ways mirrors the existing commission, would require the establishing of timelines for dealing with complaints. That was one of the concerns we heard at committee.

It would also require implementing education and information programs so the public can better understand the process, something else we heard complaints about at committee.

It outlines how complaints would be submitted, investigated and reviewed, and that there would be an annual report to the minister, who would then submit it to Parliament. That report is to include information about whether service standards are being met, the number of complaints and data about the complaints, so we can develop policy based on good, reliable data.

There are a lot of details in the bill also about what information the commission might encounter that would be treated confidentially to protect complainants and for security purposes.

There is information about the hearing process and the powers the commission will have, the powers of the superior court of record, including the power and ability to be able to subpoena witnesses and order them to give evidence. The commission will also have the ability to recommend disciplinary action, but not to carry it out.

The legislation appears to be straightforward at achieving its objectives. We will be supporting this draft bill at second reading, and I look forward to a deep dive at committee into its details, and to listen to experts.

When we are talking about police oversight, which is the police policing themselves, and border staff oversight when possible discipline might happen, we need to ask the question whether these agencies are properly resourced to do their work. We know that police services across the country are facing a recruitment and retention crisis, like almost every sector in our economy. We have a shortage of new people coming into the police services at the same time that older people are leaving, and all at the same time that we are demanding more from our police services.

Police recruitment is down and crime is up. There has been a 32% increase in violent crimes since 2015, when the current Liberal government took office. There were 125,000 more violent crimes last year than there were in 2015. Therefore, crimes rates are going up, and we are expecting more from our police services. We need to make sure they are fully resourced.

We have similar statistics for the CBSA. There is a shortage of workers. People are retiring, with not enough people coming in, and there is a higher demand with respect to their work.

Another study we recently completed at the public safety committee was about guns and gangs. We learned that most firearms used in violent crimes in Canada are handguns smuggled in from the United States. One of our witnesses stated the obvious. We live beside the largest gun-manufacturing society in the world, and we share the longest undefended border with it. This presents a big challenge for us, and we expect a lot from our CBSA to intercept the guns that are being smuggled into our country. It is not an easy problem to solve.

I know we are talking about Bill C-20, but I want to make a quick reference to Bill C-21. Bill C-21, which would make owning a handgun in Canada illegal, or more illegal than it already is, is not going to solve the problem because the people who are committing violent crimes are already illegal gun owners, to state the obvious, so C-21 does not add much value. It certainly does not keep Canadians any safer. It just further stigmatizes legal gun owners and trained and licensed sport shooters who are good and honest citizens.

Bill C-21 does not help our neighbours, but that is for another day. Today we are talking about Bill C-20, the public complaints and review commission.

Our report on guns and gang violence recommended that funding for the CBSA be increased. If we are going to enhance a complaints review process for our workers, it is only fair that we make sure they are properly resourced so they can do their jobs properly. Let us also make sure they are adequately resourced with both people and money, so they can do the work effectively.

We expect a lot from our border security people. They should expect to receive the full complement of a workforce, financial resources and tools to do their job effectively.

I want to take the opportunity to say thanks to CBSA workers, including many who live in my riding of Langley. We live on a border. There are several land border crossings, and I have a lot of friends who work in one or other of those border crossings.

I want to talk about something else that touches on the police. Our safety committee met with Mr. Justice Bastarache, formerly of the Supreme Court of Canada. He presented his report to us a couple of years ago in the 43rd Parliament, entitled “Broken Lives, Broken Dreams”. This retired judge was tasked with the unenviable task of distributing and disbursing court-awarded money under the so-called Merlo Davidson Settlement Agreement to victims of sexual harassment within the RCMP. Merlo and Davidson were the two named plaintiffs in that case.

The judge's report is a stinging rebuke of a culture of sexual harassment within the RCMP. It starts with these words:

For more than 30 years there have been calls to fix sexual harassment in the RCMP.

The report then goes on to talk about the 3,086 claims over that 30-year period. He and his staff conducted 644 interviews with victims. At the end of all his work, they awarded some compensation to 2,034 victims. It is widespread. It is not a good situation.

As I read through the report, I wondered whether my pride in our national police force was misplaced. In our discussion with Mr. Justice Bastarache at committee, I related a story from my childhood, when my parents took me and my siblings to the RCMP Musical Ride. My parents were new immigrants from the Netherlands, and they told us that one of the things they were very proud of about their new country was that we could be proud of our police force, something that is not true, sadly, for every nation in the world.

Mr. Justice Bastarache told me that in his opinion it was still appropriate for us to be proud of our RCMP service. It has a proud history and it is redeemable, but in his opinion it would require outside resources, outside influences, because the RCMP could not reform itself.

I will be voting in favour of Bill C-20 at second reading, for it to go to committee for a deep dive, a line-by-line review. There, I will be looking not only for how the RCMP interacts with the public, who expect the police to keep them safe and to do no harm, but also for how this legislation would steer us towards improving the internal culture of this agency, the RCMP, that we all want to be proud of.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is very encouraging to see the support that is coming forward for this legislation.

Earlier today, prior to question period, we had a very clear indication of support, whether it was from the government, obviously, which is proposing the legislation, or support coming from the New Democrats, the Bloc party, or even the Green Party members for the legislation. It has become very clear that the Conservative Party is going to be supporting the legislation.

I would like to think that given the type of support it is getting from the House, there would be a willingness to see it go to committee, given that we have had a great deal of opportunity over not only months but years to have that discussion, both informally and formally, inside the chamber and outside. I know the standing committee is anxious to receive the legislation so it can get down to work on it, listening to the public and so forth.

I wonder if the member is in concurrence with me that we should try to advance this, even if it means getting support to sit tonight. I, for one, would be happy to be here until midnight if there are more members who want to speak to the legislation. Let us see if we can get this legislation passed.

Could the member provide his comments on how important it is to pass the legislation?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, yes, I want to see this go to committee, and I will be voting in favour. I am assuming that our whole caucus will be. However, we often hear this from the member: If we are all in agreement, why do we not just accelerate it through the whole process?

The process is important. It was important for me to give a speech today. Even if the member did not think it contributed a lot, members of my community think it does. They want to hear me talking about things that are important to them, and this is important to them. Therefore, I do not think we should be accelerating this needlessly. We need to debate it. That is why we are here.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on what my Conservative colleague was saying. His excellent speech shows that, when there are good-quality, well-thought-out bills that people can agree on, then Parliament works very well, and the long series of gag orders supported by NDP are often unnecessary. I would like to hear his comments on that.

As my colleague said, this bill needs to go to committee because it is quite ambitious and very detailed. In committee, we should hear from many stakeholders who will be affected by this bill, including unions. Who does my colleague think we should call as witnesses?

How useful will the committee be in ensuring that this bill is the best it can be when it gets to third reading?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am looking forward to seeing this bill go to committee for a deep dive, line by line, and yes, we have to hear from experts in the field.

The study we conducted at the public safety committee last year gives a good indication of who should be called as witnesses: people who work with indigenous communities, for example. We definitely need to hear from them. People who work in law enforcement, right from one end of the country to the other, should be called, as we need to hear from them.

We should probably hear from history, Justice Bastarache, who wrote the “Broken Dreams, Broken Lives” report. He would have something very important to say to the committee. He would be a good addition.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, of course the NDP thinks it is a good idea, as I do, that this bill pass. The CBSA is the only major law enforcement agency in Canada without an independent review mechanism to oversee the bulk of its activity. That is an oversight that needs to be changed.

I was interested in my friend's comments about interdiction at the borders, and I have done a bit of research. The port of Vancouver alone, with its four terminals, has 1.5 million containers coming every year. CBSA examines only 50,000 of them. That is about 4%. That means 1,450,000 containers pass through just that one port every year that are not examined by CBSA. The average container ship carries 10,000 containers. If 4% are examined, that means some 9,600 containers per ship are not searched.

Therefore, I am just wondering about the member's party's promotion of interdiction as a preferred method of dealing with guns or drugs. Would he not agree with us that there is just no way the CBSA is ever going to have an effective interdiction policy with figures like those?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, it seems almost impossible. I agree with the member. The task is so large.

Most of the guns that are used in a crime in Canada are smuggled in from the United States, not from China, not in containers coming into the port of Vancouver. Maybe some are, but most, like 80% of handguns, are smuggled in from the U.S.A., so let us focus on them.

I was talking to some border security people in my riding about the ArriveCAN app, and they said it was a waste of time. They were sitting there looking at their computer screens as cars were driving by, instead of doing what they normally do, which is to look at the person who has their window rolled down, using face-to-face contact and body language. That is the way they are going to interdict illegal things being smuggled in, including handguns.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I just want to drill down into the answer the member gave to the member from Winnipeg a couple of questions ago.

Can he explain to the House why it is so important that he speak for 30 minutes on this issue? I heard what he said. He said it is important that he express his position on this, but let us just analyze this for a second. He spoke for 30 minutes. If all 118 Conservatives spoke for 30 minutes on this, that would put us in the position of having to debate this bill for literally weeks, if not months, just to get it to committee.

Is the member basically saying that occupying all this time for him to give his speech is more important than the legislation getting adopted? Is that what he is saying? In theory, that is what he is saying. He is saying, “I need to speak to this for 30 minutes.” If we let everybody do that, it literally will not go anywhere.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would just reiterate that it is important for me to speak to this. It is important to my constituents that I speak to this. I have been involved with the public safety committee, and I am somewhat informed on the issues, so I think it is completely appropriate for me to speak to this. I am sorry if the member thinks it is not important that Conservative members who want to speak to the issue should be able to.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I just want to let members know I will be sharing my time with the member for Milton.

I am rising today to speak to Bill C-20. It is a bill that would establish “an independent body, called the Public Complaints and Review Commission”, which would “review and investigate complaints concerning the conduct and level of service” of the RCMP and the CBSA and “conduct reviews of specified activities” of the RCMP and the CBSA. The bill also:

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;

amends the Canada Border Services Agency Act to provide for the investigation of serious incidents involving officers and employees of the [CBSA];

and

amends the English version of federal statutes and orders, regulations and other instruments to replace references to the “Force” with references to “RCMP”

This is not the first time I have risen to speak about the importance of oversight for the CBSA. We hear very regularly how important oversight is for open and transparent government, and how important it is for us to ensure that Canadians and everybody within the Canadian border has the ability to be treated fairly, the ability to conduct their affairs within a certain decorum of respect, and the ability to enter our country and not be judged based on their shell.

As much as I respect the work the CBSA has done over the years and decades with its ability to bring in and to recognize and go through hundreds and thousands of people on a regular basis through over 1,000 ports of entry within our country, I wonder what its impact is on people who may look different, who may have different abilities or who may not speak the same language our CBSA officers speak. It is not a question of whether our CBSA officers are able to contribute and support our borders and our entry points across the country. It is a question of how we are maintaining and supporting the integrity of Canadian values in this country. It is a matter of whether we are ensuring that everybody who comes in has that equality of opportunity and has the due process.

As we give discretion to CBSA officers, as they process these intense applications on a day-to-day basis, I ask whether those applications are processed in a manner that is fair, objective and in keeping with the values we hold dear as Canadians. As hundreds and thousands of travellers, permanent residents and citizens cross the border on a daily basis, I wonder about how CBSA officers are ensuring the integrity of the process, and I wonder about the cases that have been missed.

I know the news recently has been about a number of refugees from Egypt who came in through the Vancouver port. They were intercepted by CBSA officers and are now alleging that they have been discriminated against. As Muslims who have come in from Egypt, they have been linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, and they have no means of recourse from the CBSA officer who took them in. They do not know what their refugee applications could and would have looked like.

They have spent years trying to find a home, having really wanted Canada as their home, and are now in a situation in which they do not know where they belong. Had we installed this legislation at the moment when it was first introduced a couple of years ago, I wonder if they would still be in that same situation.

This legislation would give people the opportunity to really delve deep into whether or not their claim, and the way they are treated as they enter into or exit Canada, is fair. It is a way that we, with our Canadian values, would feel respected and proud.

I can tell members that I doubt those refugee claimants out of Vancouver who have had dealings with the CBSA without any recourse, and with the way that they have been treated by the CBSA out in Vancouver in those specific cases, feel that they have been treated fairly. However, if there were adjudication, an independent complaints system to listen, take in the facts and understand what had transpired in the case, I doubt those people in Vancouver would be feeling the way they do.

I commend each and every member of the CBSA. I know the great work they do in saving lives, going through people day by day, protecting the national security of this country and ensuring that we are secure as Canadians. However, if there is no oversight to the discretionary power given to CBSA officers who are dealing with people on a day-to-day basis, we wonder just how open and transparent we can be. We wonder what equality of opportunity looks like.

Canada is a country that is revered across the world. We take in a lot of people who are looking for homes, and we have become the adopted home for hundreds and thousands of people, including me. I wonder how we can improve that process.

How can we ensure the entry points to this safe haven that is Canada can be improved? How can we ensure the people who are having to deal with those first officers as they try to enter the country are treated with respect, dignity and without bias regardless of where they come from? An independent oversight body would allow us the privilege of providing that oversight and equality of opportunity to everyone who is seeking refuge within our country.

This legislation has been delayed in coming. It is so necessary and important that we include this independent oversight body to ensure our borders are not only protected but also that they are free from the bias, the subjectivity, that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects Canadians from on a daily basis.

We have to move forward on this legislation, and I am really looking forward to it going through committee and finally receiving royal assent, because I believe this is how we continue to achieve equality of opportunity in our country.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her very interesting speech, in which she explained how the CBSA's existing complaint management system can result in injustice, especially toward certain minorities that may be targeted.

Just before that, my colleague from Kingston and the Islands said that, every time someone rises to talk about Bill C‑20, they are just wasting time and delaying passage of the bill.

Does my colleague think she wasted our time with her speech?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, this chamber, this place, is for debate. It is for expressing the opinions of my constituents, and for each and every one of our constituents. I know for a fact that my constituents want this bill to go forward. I know for a fact that each and every member across the aisle, and I have sat and listened to their speeches, have something to contribute to this bill.

I would like to see this bill sent to committee as soon as possible. I would like for this bill to be implemented into law. I really am looking forward to having an oversight for the CBSA, and I encourage the member to support this bill in its entirety.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was listening to the words of the member today, and I appreciate the words around being treated fairly and with respect. My question for the member is regarding the LGBTQ+ community, which we spoke about in the House today. This relates specifically to respect and being treated fairly for those who have been misgendered by the RCMP.

I would like the member's thoughts on how this would allow persons who have been misgendered to file a complaint, which right now is not available to them.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, this bill, this proposition of having an oversight body, is really about equality of opportunity. It is about righting wrongs, regardless of what those wrongs are. It is about using our Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a baseline to ensure Canadians are protected within our country. It is about transparency. It is about openness.

I am looking forward to this bill having a positive impact on transgender communities, the LGBTQ2+ communities and all racialized communities and religious minorities.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech, in which she mentioned all the work our border officers do.

We can all agree that the complaint or oversight mechanism is a good thing for those whose rights were violated. Does the member think it is also important to consider the people who work at the border to safeguard our rights? They have been mistreated and are under a lot of pressure because their numbers have declined.

How is the government planning to consult these workers and listen to their perspective to make sure they do not have to bear a greater burden or be put under even more pressure?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, our frontline service members, the ones who really get out there and provide those services at the front end, are doing our country a wonderful service. They are to be commended for their wonderful efforts.

What this bill is trying to implement is a way to ensure the services being provided at that front end are objective and fair. Those who feel they have not been properly treated or received those services fairly would have a way to recommence themselves and would be able to find a way to make themselves whole again. I, for one, commend—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C‑20, a very important bill.

I am glad to be here today, standing on traditional Algonquin territory.

We are debating Bill C-20, which would enact a new stand-alone statute, the public complaints and review commission act, to provide an external review regime for both the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian Border Services Agency. When it comes to law enforcement and border protection, nothing is more important to the proper functioning of these systems than trust and accountability. Canadians are watching and indeed the world is watching.

The RCMP and the CBSA provide world-class services to keep Canadians safe, and Canadians rightly expect nothing less than consistent, fair and equal treatment. It is about balance. Public safety is of course paramount, but so too are human rights. To ensure our system remains balanced in this way and to maintain public respect for the rule of law, it is essential we pass Bill C-20 and establish a robust civilian review system.

Under this new PCRC, enhanced reporting requirements would apply, as would an independent review mechanism for the CBSA. By establishing these mechanisms independent from the enabling statutes of the RCMP and CBSA, we are walking the talk. We are demonstrating the importance of the very independence we seek to enshrine in law, distinct from the organizations in question.

I would like to use my time today to delve into some of the details of this bill.

First, Bill C-20 would add specific new accountability and transparency mechanisms. These would entail codified timelines for the RCMP or CBSA to respond to reports, reviews and recommendations from the PCRC. There would also be timelines for information sharing between the RCMP and the CBSA, as well as the PCRC. For example, the RCMP and the CBSA would have six months to respond to an interim report of the PCRC, and when the PCRC has issued a report after having reviewed specified activities of the RCMP and the CBSA, the latter would have 60 days to respond.

Not only must these bodies report back to the chairperson of the PCRC within these codified timelines, but the bill would also obligate the RCMP commissioner and the CBSA president each to submit an annual report to the Minister of Public Safety. These reports would detail the actions the RCMP and the CBSA have taken within the year to respond to PCRC recommendations.

I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the RCMP for its efforts to improve the timeliness of responses to the CRCC over the past year. The provisions of this bill would ensure this timeliness continues.

Another highly important aspect of Bill C-20 is the provision compelling the PCRC to report on disaggregated race-based data. Canadians have said it loud and clear, and we agree, that eradicating systemic racism in law enforcement is an urgent priority. Collecting, establishing and publishing race-based data on complainants is one of the ways that knowledge gaps around systemic racism would be filled.

In addition, Bill C-20 directs the PCRC to implement public education and information programs to increase knowledge and awareness of the new commission's mandate. With increased public information and engagement through such mechanisms, the bill aims to earn the trust of Black, indigenous and all racialized Canadians. Of course, this all builds on the work done by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and its report entitled “Systemic Racism in Policing in Canada”. We are following through on that report's recommendation that the government clarify and strengthen the mandate, independence and efficacy of the CRCC.

What this bill also does, on top of improving RCMP review, is to close a long-standing gap regarding review of the CBSA. Currently, public complaints are handled through internal CBSA processes and there are no independent mechanisms available to review public complaints regarding CBSA employee conduct or service.

Make no mistake; this is a very ambitious and truly important bill. However, as we have had multiple opportunities to introduce such legislation, with both Bill C-98 and Bill C-3 dying on the Order Paper in 2019 and 2020 respectively, we have also seized the chance to continue building out this bill.

This work has been accomplished through extensive consultations with stakeholders, the broader public and governance experts like Mel Cappe, and particularly with the CRCC itself. I must single out the CRCC chairperson, Michelaine Lahaie, for her dedication. Many of her thoughtful and thorough recommendations have shaped this bill into a framework for accountability and transparency, and that is why we are here today.

I began my time today by asserting that Canada's new law enforcement and border services organizations are world class, and I stand by that statement. It is exactly why this legislation is so critical. To remain world class and to uphold Canada's hard-won reputation for equity and fairness on the international stage, we must keep up with our international counterparts.

This bill would do exactly that, aligning our border agency review function with that of countries like the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. Internally, Bill C-20 would also align the new PCRC's review functions with other public safety accountability bodies, such as the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and the newly created National Security and Intelligence Review Agency.

To sum up, Bill C-20 is much needed and long overdue. Without it, the CRCC does not have all the tools it needs to uphold civilian review of the law enforcement system, and the Canadian public does not have the tools it needs to continue trusting, or indeed rebuild trust in many cases, in the services that the system provides. This bill responds to the urgent priorities that date back years and those that have more recently come to the forefront, such as systemic racism.

I know my hon. colleagues share our concern for both public safety and the right of all Canadians to live free from discrimination, and I urge everyone in the House to join me in supporting the expeditious passage of this legislation.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, one of the worries I often have when legislation is brought forward or things are announced in the House is that resources will not be available to do the work that needs to be done. For example, with our sanctions regime, we do not have the resources for CBSA to do what it needs to do. With regard to forced labour, only one shipment relating to force labour was identified by CBSA and it was returned. My worry is that when we put this legislation in place, there will not be resources to make sure it is effective.

What steps will the government take to ensure that there are adequate resources for this work?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, resources come in various shapes and forms. There are human resources and financial resources. Indeed, the latter will be available. We will ensure that all the money necessary will be available to build up a new organization of accountability. That is a commitment that I know this government has already made.

On the issue of human resources and making sure there is enough personnel, for example, to fill all the important positions within the CBSA, the RCMP and this new accountability measure, we are going to rely largely on immigration in this country to fill a lot of those positions. Canadians these days are simply not having as many children as the economy requires if we would like it to grow, and this is one of those important areas where we need to rely on immigration for our workforce and the human resource capital that Canada so desperately needs.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, there are five CBSA crossings in my riding, and over my seven years as a member of Parliament, I have heard many times from my constituents about both positive and negative issues with the CBSA, and even more so lately with COVID and the shutdown of borders. In particular, the issue right now is when they are going to go back to their regular hours, but that is another conversation. It is not the conversation today.

The Liberals have been saying for the past seven years that this is going to happen, yet it has taken this long just to get here. Why has it taken so long to get the bill to this stage, and why is it being rushed at this point?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I stated in my speech today, this bill has indeed died on the Order Paper twice now, and we do not want that to ever happen again. This bill has been debated over and over. It was also modified on those two occasions to fit more current studies being done at various committees and to fit things that we review and decide on collectively as priorities.

Why is this important now? It is because time is of the essence on the bill. I do believe, as it has died twice on the Order Paper, that it is important to act expeditiously. I do not suspect there is an election on the horizon, but at the same time, the House has important work to do, and this is one of the opportunities we all have to come together and collectively make some progress happen before the holiday break.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. It was clear and precise. My colleague alluded to the fact that we have been wanting to do this for seven years. I would like to remind him that this was deferred in 2019 or in 2020, it does not matter. In 2004, in other words, 18 years ago, Justice O'Connor recommended creating this type of process.

That being said, I will just pick up on the question from the NDP member. I have absolutely no clue what kind of an investment this represents. Are we talking about millions of dollars? My colleague proposes relying on immigration to fill the positions; that would be about 10 to 50 positions. What would enacting the bill mean, both financially and in terms of human resources?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and his attention to this very important bill.

I do not have the funding details associated with this bill right now. It is not yet entirely clear. I believe that every member in the House understands that this bill is very important. It is not a question of funding or money, it is a question of addressing systemic racism and dealing with the other concerns of our constituents.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-20, an act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments.

I would like to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois supports this bill at second reading. This bill would give citizens recourse against the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, which can, on occasion, abuse its authority.

There is currently an independent oversight mechanism in place, but its mandate covers only matters of national security, so it needs to be expanded. Citizens who wish to file a complaint must do so directly to the CBSA, but the information is not public and, because the mechanism is internal, it is not totally neutral and objective.

As a result, there is no external review body to deal with public complaints against the CBSA, and that is what this bill seeks to correct. The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑20 at second reading because we believe that an independent complaint process is both necessary and good for the public. As my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles said, it was in 2004, 18 years ago, that Justice O'Connor recommended that an independent process be put in place to handle public complaints against the CBSA.

For example, in early January 2020, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada found significant flaws concerning searches of travellers' electronic devices, which demonstrated the importance of having an independent body to review complaints. The bill must be referred to a committee quickly so that it can be studied and the concerns of different groups, including unions, can be heard. I will come back to this later to explain what this will change, and I will speak about the perspective of unions and victims.

First, this bill seeks to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the Canada Border Services Agency Act to change the complaints process for citizens and provide the opportunity for travellers to file complaints against CBSA officers.

This bill is similar to Bill C‑3, which was introduced in the 43rd Parliament, and Bill C‑98, which was introduced in the 42nd Parliament. Both died on the Order Paper for the sole reason that they were never a priority for the government. All parties supported Bill C-98, but we never voted on Bill C‑3. We are wondering if this bill will now be a priority.

Bill C‑20 contains a number of things. It replaces the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with a new body called the public complaints and review commission, or PCRC. This new body will be mandated to review and investigate complaints concerning the conduct and level of service of RCMP and Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, personnel. It will also conduct reviews of specified activities of the RCMP and the CBSA.

The bill authorizes the chairperson of the PCRC to recommend the initiation of disciplinary processes or the imposition of disciplinary measures in relation to individuals who have been the subject of complaints. It amends the Canada Border Services Agency Act to provide for the investigation of serious incidents involving officers and employees of the CBSA.

The most important point of this bill is that it enables this new body to review the CBSA's activities and to investigate public complaints involving both officers and employees. Under Bill C-20, the public complaints and review commission can receive complaints from the public about the RCMP or the CBSA, but the complaints will generally be sent directly to the RCMP and the CBSA first for an initial investigation. If the complainant is not satisfied with the investigation of the RCMP or the CBSA, then they can ask the PCRC to look into it. Basically, here is what that means.

In such a case, the PCRC could present its findings and make recommendations. The RCMP or the CBSA would have to respond in writing to the PCRC reports by the deadlines set out in the acts and regulations. An external mechanism will therefore be put in place.

What is more, complaints related to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages or the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada will not be dealt with by the PCRC. However, the PCRC will forward any such complaints to the appropriate organizations.

The PCRC will be made up of civilians who are not former members of the RCMP or the CBSA. This is an independent external process. Another thing about this bill is that the response timelines for the RCMP will be codified, because many felt that the RCMP responded too slowly to the reports of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or CRCC. The bill will therefore replace the CRCC with the PCRC and a deadline will be imposed.

The bill also requires the commissioner of the RCMP and the president of the CBSA to submit an annual report to the Minister of Public Safety outlining what the organizations have done during the year to address the PCRC's recommendations. The minister will be required to share the report with the House of Commons and the Senate within 15 days.

There will also be a more targeted collection of information to determine whether racism against certain groups is an issue. It will be documented. The bill also calls for a public education and information campaign to inform travellers of their rights.

The PCRC will be responsible for tracking serious incidents—such as a death, serious injury or violation of laws—and making them public. It may send an observer to ensure that CBSA and RCMP investigations are conducted impartially. The PCRC may review, on its own initiative or at the request of the Minister of Public Safety, any RCMP and CBSA activity that is not related to national security. The reports would include findings or recommendations on RCMP and CBSA compliance with legislation and directives, and the adequacy, appropriateness, sufficiency or clarity of RCMP and CBSA policies, procedures and guidelines.

One difference from Bill C-3, which was a similar bill introduced in the 43rd Parliament, is that the PCRC will be established by a specific piece of legislation, whereas in the previous version, it was established by amendments to existing laws.

The PCRC will not be able to compel the CBSA and the RCMP to take disciplinary action, but both agencies will be required to report to the minister to justify their response to the recommendations, and these reports will be made public 15 days after the minister receives them.

The bill aims to create an independent process for reviewing complaints and the work of the Canada Border Services Agency. This new entity, the public complaints and review commission, will also replace the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. This new commission, the PCRC, will deal with both the RCMP and the CBSA.

The new entity created by Bill C-20 will make it possible to file complaints directly with the CBSA and directly with the PCRC, depending on the complainant's preference. The complainant decides. If an individual is not satisfied with the response they get from the CBSA or the RCMP, they can ask the PCRC to review a complaint that has already been filed.

The process is nevertheless long and complicated. There is a good chance that most individuals will give up before the end of the process. For example, if an officer makes a sexist or racist comment towards a traveller, filing a complaint with the CBSA, waiting for a response and then sending the complaint to the PCRC could be more complicated and demanding for most travellers than just ignoring the comment, which is quite sad. The committee will have to examine whether the process proposed by Bill C‑20 is adequate or if it should be revised.

Creating this new external body is necessary, according to Mary Foster, from Solidarity Across Borders. In 2019, she said that “making a complaint to the CBSA about the CBSA doesn't really lead anywhere”. Having the option of challenging the findings of an investigation is therefore essential to maintaining public trust.

All parties supported Bill C‑98 in the 42nd Parliament, but, as I said earlier, a vote was never held on Bill C‑3.

Now we are once again discussing a bill that is good for the public because the existing system does not include an adequate complaint mechanism for people. Civil liberties groups have long called for the creation of an independent complaint-handling body like the one for the police.

For example, under the Access to Information Act, the Canadian Press obtained a list of complaints that travellers submitted directly to the CBSA.

According to the documents, in 2017-18, nearly 900 complaints were filed, about 100 of which were deemed founded, including cases of travellers being on the receiving end of border officers' racist or rude comments. Complaints against the CBSA are currently handled internally, with little transparency. That is the problem Bill C‑20 may fix.

Second, from the union's perspective, the Customs and Immigration Union's national president, Mark Weber, is concerned that Bill C‑20 could put more pressure on the labour-management relationship, which the union says is already strained. We have to keep that in mind.

He says that officers are placed on leave without pay, sometimes for a year or more, pending the outcome of investigations. He also notes that customs officers frequently work overtime and can be exhausted, which does not help. We need to ensure that customs officers have adequate resources, which the Bloc Québécois often asks for, considering the government's lack of interest in our borders. We have been asking for this frequently and for a long time. The Bloc Québécois would like the union to be involved in the process that leads to passing Bill C‑20, particularly in committee.

The staffing shortage at the CBSA is a well-known problem. This is causing delays and tension between officers and travellers. The government will also have to address this problem.

The CBSA has a great deal of power, including the power to detain and search Canadians and to deport people. It is therefore incomprehensible that the CBSA still has no external investigation mechanism.

In its legislative summary, the Library of Parliament cites the case of Maher Arar, a Syrian-Canadian citizen who was arrested during a layover in New York on his way home to Canada.

In 2004, a commission of inquiry into the Arar case led by Justice Dennis O'Connor suggested creating a new civilian agency to oversee the activities of both the RCMP and the CBSA, as I said earlier.

In other words, 18 years later, the CBSA still does not have one. Only the RCMP has this external oversight mechanism. However, the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency is already responsible for overseeing national security activities, and only national security activities.

I want to make it clear that the Bloc Québécois is not putting the blame on CBSA or RCMP officers as a whole, nor is it putting the CBSA on trial. Rather, we feel the government is responsible for the lack of oversight over the CBSA and the lack of transparency, which is inappropriate for such an important agency. We think the Liberals and the Conservatives should be held to account for tolerating all this for so long.

As I said—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I absolutely have to make an announcement before five o'clock.

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 Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, Public Safety; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Cannabis.

The hon. member for Shefford may continue.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I understand that that is part of the work of Parliament, and I will pick up where I left off.

I repeat that the lack of resources allocated to the agencies does not help. Some customs officers might be exhausted, which can lead to tenser situations with certain travellers. A recent CBC article talked about how the number of complaints against CBSA officers has been growing over the past two years and about how a new complaints commission is in the works.

Bill C-20 will replace the oversight body that deals with public complaints against the RCMP with a civilian review and complaints commission that will handle complaints against the RCMP and the CBSA. If Bill C‑20 is passed, the new civilian review and complaints commission will be able to look into any CBSA activities that are not related to national security, either on its own initiative or at the request of the minister.

Mr. Weber, the union president, said that he would like the new organization to deal with managerial misconduct as well. That is important to note. He also mentioned that if a complaint points to a systemic issue, the commission should tackle that issue rather than focusing on the one person the traveller interacted with. He stated that CBSA officers are often stuck working mandatory overtime and process hundreds of people a day.

The number of misconduct investigations of border officers grew last year, despite a dramatic reduction in international travel due to the pandemic. The misconduct primarily involved granting permits or disrespecting travellers, to name just a couple of examples. The Canada Border Services Agency reported 215 founded investigations of its officers last year, compared to 171 in 2019. We can see that there was an increase. However, that increase came after border restrictions were put in place to control the pandemic. The number of trips into and out of Canada dropped significantly, yet the number of complaints increased.

Last year, the total number of recorded trips in and out of the country by air and land was just over 25 million, a far cry from the nearly 94 million trips logged in 2019. The agency noted, however, that not all of the misconduct cases involved travel. The case numbers vary year by year, and it is important to note that not all misconduct is connected to public complaints or international travel, according to CBSA spokesperson Rebecca Purdy. Jean-Pierre Fortin, former national president of the Customs and Immigration Union, also pointed out that some ports of entry still had high amounts of traffic over the past year.

Third, looking at it from the complainants' perspective, the 200 or so investigations conducted last year resulted in 170 officers being reprimanded, largely with temporary suspensions. Just eight CBSA officers have been fired since 2018, according to an access to information request obtained by CBC News. One officer was let go for interfering in the immigration process. The internal investigation revealed that he had tried to help an immigration lawyer by illegally removing material from a client's file that would have raised questions and issuing a temporary residence permit. Other officers have been let go for belittling clients, making inappropriate comments towards co-workers, abusing their authority and sharing private CBSA information.

The border agency, which employs about 14,000 people, said discipline is managed on a case-by-case basis and is based on the severity of the allegations coupled with mitigating and aggravating factors. The CBSA's statements have done very little to convince Janet Dench of the Canadian Council for Refugees. She believes that there is a need for independent oversight and that there are probably more cases of abuse that we are not currently aware of. This is just the tip of the iceberg, if you will. Ms. Dench is pushing for outside, independent oversight of the CBSA, which is the only public safety agency in Canada without an independent oversight body. She calls the current set-up ineffective.

A bill that would have expanded the mandate of the civilian body that handles public complaints about the RCMP to also cover the CBSA failed to clear the Senate before the end of the last parliamentary session. The federal government has yet to reintroduce the bill, but the CBSA said that, so far this year, it has opened 41 founded investigations, resulting in three terminations.

Documents obtained by CBC through an access to information request showed that, over a two-year period from January 2016 to mid-2018, the CBSA received 1,200 complaints about its own employees, including potential cases of harassment and misconduct. The number of complaints deemed founded was not disclosed, nor was information provided about measures taken to resolve the founded complaints, which included 59 allegations of harassment, 38 allegations of criminal association and five allegations of sexual assault. As the status of women critic, this really concerns me.

A woman deported to Guatemala alleged that CBSA officers seriously injured her by pushing her to the ground and kneeling on her back. The CBSA did not confirm whether its agents used force to arrest the woman in this specific case.

Data provided to The Canadian Press through the Access to Information Act show that between 2017 and 2018, 105 cases of complaints of officer misconduct were deemed founded, representing about 12% of the 875 misconduct complaints filed in that time.

The International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group says the definition of “founded” is far too vague to help lead to changes within the agency's culture or for the public to be properly informed and that the limited information shows cause for concern, particularly the allegations of racism and name-calling.

According to one of the reports, a female traveller said that a CBSA officer was rude and yelled at her until she passed out. The officers reported that she was found to be in medical distress and received appropriate care. According to the findings of the investigation, the officer did not play a role in the traveller's medical distress. Other travellers filed complaints because interpretation services were not available and they were denied an interpreter. The government is using the example of a Privacy Commissioner report to illustrate why Bill C‑20 is necessary.

In conclusion, all of these stories are very familiar to me, since I worked for a member of Parliament from a riding on the border. I took a lot of interest in the fact that governments, both Liberal and Conservative, have cut back on investing in border crossings over the years, creating resource shortages and placing a tremendous amount of additional pressure on staff. When I was working for that member of Parliament, the issue was hours of operation and staffing reductions.

I would like to say one last thing. There needs to be a neutral space to independently analyze the complaints and abuses that could occur in the two agencies affected by the bill we are talking about today. We must also keep in mind that this agency and these officers need to see money being reinvested. We should be concerned about the workers who give their time to this very important agency. We need to restore public confidence because everyone will benefit.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I have made reference to this before, how great it is to see that the Bloc and, in fact, all members who have spoken to the legislation thus far are going to be supporting it. That is great. It includes members from all political entities in the House.

I guess what I would ask is related to the importance of establishing and reinforcing public confidence. When I think of the commission that is being created here to deal with both the Canada border control and the RCMP, its independence and the ability of the chairperson to be able to come up with a disposition in situations where it is warranted, where inappropriate behaviour, for example, has taken place, I see that as a very strong thing, because it reinforces public confidence in the system.

I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts with regard to how important it is to have a public that is confident in the system itself.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his question, which is central to the concerns that resulted in this bill.

Unfortunately, since the start of my mandate, I have too often worked on files concerning the issue of independent investigation, as in the case of the Canadian Armed Forces. Reports and studies have shown for many years that there needs to be an independent process so that investigations of allegations of assault can be conducted outside of the armed forces, in a neutral space.

I have also had the opportunity to stand in for my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, where I saw the same thing. When I was there, we were studying cases of abuse in the RCMP, and we asked that investigations be conducted independently so that the public would once again trust the RCMP.

That is also what athletes are currently asking for, in particular the gymnasts who came to testify yesterday at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. They want an independent and neutral space where victims can report assaults with the utmost confidence.

These are very delicate issues that can leave victims highly vulnerable. It is not easy to call out this type of situation. The victims must have full confidence in the system. This is really a crucial issue, and it is at the heart of the bill.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Madam Speaker, this was a Liberal promise back in 2015. The Conservatives are for this bill, which is being processed through right now. It has been before the House twice already. It has died both times.

I am wondering if you are optimistic and hopeful that this time, we are going to get this through successfully—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I will remind the hon. member that he speaks through the Chair.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Madam Speaker, are you optimistic that it is going to get through this time and become the good bill that it is needed to be?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

The Conservatives will be supporting this. We will be reviewing it at the committee, which I sit on. I am looking forward to that. Maybe we could hear a few words about that.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, judging from your magnificent smile, I have every reason to believe you are optimistic this bill will pass. Your body language suggests complete confidence.

I thank my colleague for his question. I certainly hope so, given the many studies that have come out.

As I said earlier, we have had reports for such a long time, be it for the Canadian Armed Forces or the RCMP. Even for Canadian Heritage and Sport Canada, we are awaiting studies.

In 2022, now that we have seen far too many cases in various federal agencies, I hope we have reached that point. It is not just my hope, it is my belief that we are at that point. It is important to take concrete steps to bring about the cultural shifts we need to see.

I hope I have shared Madam Speaker's optimism that this bill will pass and become law.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I, too, welcome the progress of this bill, even though it is at a snail's pace.

Having a review commission with CBSA would allow us to examine some of its questionable practices, one of which I want to ask the member for Shefford about today. CBSA routinely places refugees and migrants in detention, most often in provincial jails. That is often several thousand people a year. Four provinces, B.C., Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, have cancelled their contracts for placing people in detention. Quebec has not.

Does the member for Shefford support CBSA's policy of routinely placing migrants and refugees in provincial corrections facilities in Quebec?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, but I am going to split it into two and try to answer both parts quickly.

First, on the question of time, I realize that I did not answer sufficiently in my previous response. We can only denounce the fact that this bill is still not in place and that there have been delays in getting this common-sense bill passed. The Liberals, like the Conservatives, have been slow and have decreased investments so much in border crossings and services that we have ended up in a situation where staff are overworked, tired and exhausted, which does not help matters. I really want to emphasize those two aspects.

On the other point, one thing is certain. Migrants must be treated with dignity. I would like to emphasize once again the issue of the safe third country agreement. What should be at the heart of everything related to refugees is that behind the number of refugees arriving at our borders, there are people, there are faces. They are human beings who absolutely must be treated with dignity. Unfortunately, this is not happening under that agreement.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Shefford on yet another brilliant speech.

We gladly welcome the creation of the PCRC. Let me share an anecdote. I have an old friend who is a Canadian citizen, but is originally from Martinique. She has family there and often flies there and back. Nine times out of 10, she is taken aside at customs and she or her luggage is searched. She told me that it made no sense and that it was about racism, that it made no sense for her to be selected. She does not look like a criminal or a trafficker in any way, but nine times out of 10, she is searched at customs.

In my entire life, I have had to open my suitcases only once. I hope that I am not drawing attention to myself. I talked about this with an employee at the Canada Border Services Agency, and he said that my friend was just unlucky.

My question for my colleague from Shefford is this: At the same time that the PCRC is being created, should we not also be asking the Canada Border Services Agency to do some soul-searching? Should the CBSA not be doing some work on training its employees on the reality of racism?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my most hon. colleague from Drummond for his question and commend him for all of his work.

I will come back to what he said, but, as I said in my speech, there is also a part of the bill that will enable us to better document these cases of racism and to collect data. I spoke about it in my speech, but I thank my colleague for bringing me back to the subject.

It is thanks to that data that we will be able to make changes. It takes facts and figures to get an overall picture of what is happening, and that is what the bill will enable us to do, so that we can avoid the type of situation that his friend has all too often experienced.

We all have stories about times when it was more complicated to cross the border than usual. Having worked for an MP who had border crossings in his riding, I heard some pretty crazy things. This bill will enable us to document it all to prevent this sort of situation from happening. I hope that the CBSA will do some soul-searching so that it can build public trust.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, when we talk about borders, a whole range of topics or themes comes to mind. That has often been problematic. There is the issue of vaccination, the whole COVID period, what the Americans wanted and what we did not want, Roxham Road, third countries, wait times, trust between the two governments and so on. In short, the border is typically a problem or a source of conflict between the United States and Canada. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this.

Why has the current government not succeeded in reducing border-related tensions over the past seven years?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would say that this lack of interest by federal governments goes back much further than seven years. From 2007 to 2011, I was an assistant to a member of Parliament who had border crossings in his riding, and even back then, there was tension. It was palpable.

As we saw during the pandemic, the government does not seem concerned about our border crossings and has failed to competently manage what happens there. It was clear that it did not pay enough attention to this issue. This is one of the criticisms that can be levelled at the government. We saw it during the pandemic, the borders were real—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Order. We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for South Surrey—White Rock this evening.

It is an honour to rise in Parliament today to speak on behalf of the residents of Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte.

I am pleased that the government has finally brought up Bill C-20 for debate. The bill seeks to create the independent public complaints review commission to review complaints against RCMP and CBSA employees. This proposed commission aims to replace the current review body for the RCMP and create, for the first time, an independent review body and forum for complaints about the conduct of CBSA employees.

The brave men and women who wear the RCMP and CBSA uniforms are tasked with protecting our borders, our national security and our safety. The immense responsibility that comes with this line of work requires oversight. The creation of a coherent, independent oversight body for the RCMP and the CBSA is certainly necessary. Hopefully, this is something that all Canadians can agree on.

While Conservatives are supportive of the intent of this legislation, I cannot help but be concerned that the bill will suffer the same fate that previous iterations of it have in the past. Both Bill C-98 in the 42nd Parliament and Bill C-3 in the 43rd Parliament died on the Order Paper despite Conservatives supporting both bills in an efficient manner.

This government claims that the creation of oversight bodies for all federal law enforcement agencies has been a priority since 2015. If that is the case, then why has this legislation, which would accomplish that goal, died on the Order Paper, not once, but twice.

Another concern of mine with the bill is the apparent lack of consultation with stakeholders. When Bill C-98 was introduced in 2019, and when Bill C-3 was introduced in 2020, many stakeholders, especially the union that represents CBSA officers, spoke out about the fact that they were not consulted in the drafting stages of this legislation. Once again, we are hearing from indigenous communities that they were not consulted in the drafting process, and the government has made no assurances that there will be indigenous representation and leadership positions on the review commission.

Before discussing the specific merits of the bill, I want to acknowledge and thank all the public safety professionals who work tirelessly to protect our national security and ensure the safety of all Canadians.

My colleagues and I on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security have heard repeatedly that our border agents are strained due to a lack of funding and resources, and that both the RCMP and CBSA face critical labour shortages. We saw evidence of that in the past year with travel delays affecting individuals across the country. Just recently, the union representing CBSA employees said that it needs between 1,000 and 3,000 new hires to process travellers entering the country efficiently.

Another example of the impact of labour resource shortages at the CBSA comes from testimony that my colleagues and I heard at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Mark Weber, the national president of the Customs and Immigration Union, told us that, as of 2019, only one-millionth of rail cargo was effectively being examined by the CBSA. According to him, due to this lack of capacity, there is almost a zero per cent chance that any illegal weapons that enter the country by rail will ever be found. With a 92% increase in gang-related homicides since 2015, it is clear that resources must be turned towards stopping the illegal guns that are smuggled across our border from the United States.

Conservatives believe that to protect our borders and national security, the CBSA needs appropriate resources in both manpower and equipment for officers to do their job effectively. We must listen to the needs of our frontline public safety professionals and ensure they have all the resources they need to protect Canadians.

I also want to draw attention to the mental health issue that our frontline public safety professionals are facing on a daily basis.

A few weeks ago, I met with representatives from the Canadian Institute for Public Safety Research and Treatment, which does outstanding work to promote the mental health of public safety professionals, including CBSA and RCMP officers. They made it clear that the toll of the work these individuals do places an unprecedented strain on their mental health, and supporting their mental health is critically important. According to them, nearly half of public safety professionals experience symptoms consistent with one or more mental disorders, and one in 10 will attempt to die by suicide. Investments in the mental health of our public safety professionals and ensuring that the departments they work for are being properly resourced would be a welcomed step towards public confidence in our institutions.

There are aspects of this legislation that my Conservative colleagues and I support fully. We believe that an independent review commission would improve oversight and help both CBSA and RCMP officers be more effective in their roles as stewards of public safety.

In 2021, the Standing Committee for Public Safety and National Security, which colleagues past and present have done excellent work on, released a report entitled “Systemic Racism in Policing in Canada”. One of our recommendations from that study was to make drastic changes to the public complaints system for the RCMP. I am pleased to see that recommendation addressed in this bill. However, during the previously mentioned study, committee members heard repeatedly that the RCMP commissioner failed to respond to reports from the RCMP’s current Civilian Review and Complaints Commission and complaints themselves faced massive delays.

Just recently, in 2021, a British Colombian civil liberties group sued RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki, arguing, as reported, that “the time it takes her to respond to public complaints is undermining police accountability.”

Conservatives are committed to finding solutions to these accountability and oversight issues, which are clearly prevalent. The government must take steps to ensure that complaints are addressed expeditiously. As I mentioned previously, public safety professionals are often faced with psychological stress due to their working conditions. For example, CBSA employees must routinely search vehicles, persons and belongings to ensure the safety of our borders and prevent criminal activity such as drug smuggling and trafficking. These officers should have clear guidelines on what is expected of them, so they may feel confident carrying out the duties of their positions without fear of reprisal. While these changes appear to be promising, I would like to ensure that the commissions complaints process is fair and balanced.

As I mentioned, this system should be efficient, but this system should also be cautious and thoughtful when dealing with complaints and when recommending disciplinary actions. Bill C-20 would require the public complaints and review commission to submit an annual report to the Minister of Public Safety, with a summary of all complaints and anonymized data about complainants.

Bill C-20 also aims to raise public awareness about the complaint process through education and information campaigns. Easily available and clear information about the public complaints and review commission would ensure that complainants are not bogged down by endless bureaucracy when trying to put forth a complaint. I agree that these measures would ensure greater transparency and confidence in our law enforcement agencies.

While I applaud the steps that the CBSA and RCMP have already taken to address and prevent discrimination, such as anti-racism and anti-bias training, some measures in this bill, such as the collection of disaggregated data, are a promising step towards addressing disproportionate outcomes in Canada’s law enforcement and criminal justice system. However, to reiterate, I am concerned about the government’s lack of consultation with indigenous communities while drafting this legislation. The government should always consult with stakeholders who will be affected by its legislation while it is being drafted rather than placing the onus on committees to do that work for them after it has been tabled.

Finally, I would like to ensure that this review commission is free from political interference. Time and time again, RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki has been subject of political controversy and accused of political interference, most recently with the enactment of the Emergencies Act and the investigation of the Nova Scotia mass shooting.

Conservatives see clearly that there is a pattern with the government’s tendency to interfere in RCMP investigations. We must ensure that we take steps to restrain the ministers’ authority over this commission and that it remains wholly independent. Canadians could not trust the government to stay away from court proceedings and RCMP investigations in the past. How do we know they will stay away from this commission?

Our frontline public safety professionals do outstanding work and often put themselves in danger on the job. I want to thank them once again for keeping the public safe, day in and day out. Canadians are right to expect an oversight body for federal law enforcement agencies that is efficient, effective and rigorous. Conservatives are certainly supportive of this principle.

My Conservative colleagues and I are cautiously optimistic about this legislation. I look forward to studying it in committee with my colleagues across all parties.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on a thread that I started with his colleague from Langley—Aldergrove, which is testing the theory that we can interdict our way out of dealing with drugs, guns or other things coming across our borders.

I have done some research and the U.S. border between Canada and the U.S., the longest undefended border in the world, has 12 million vehicles cross it every year. That includes Canadian vehicles going into the U.S. and coming back, and U.S. vehicles coming in. That is about a million vehicles per month. I have already pointed out that at the Port of Vancouver we have about 1,450,000 containers every year that the CBSA cannot inspect.

Does my colleague really think that interdiction at either the Canada-U.S. border or at ports is going to make a serious dent, or would a wise policy of trying to go after these goods that are coming across our borders, or do we need—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe in deterrence. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, we had someone from our rail institution saying one one-millionth of all cargo that comes across is checked. I think that is just atrocious. That is a ridiculous number. I cannot even fathom what that is. It is next to nothing.

There is a common saying in law enforcement that we want voluntary compliance of the law, and I believe that if there is some deterrence and some fear, quite frankly, at the border crossing that one could get caught, then yes, I think people would stop doing it.

I think right now our unattended border is poorly managed. Being from just north of Toronto, I hear constantly, and we studied it recently in our committee, about the issue with with illegal guns coming across our border. We need to do something about it. We cannot just throw up our arms and say, “Come across.” Yes, we do need to have some deterrence there, and we do—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry. I do need to allow time for more questions.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I find it tough. The member said that there are illegal firearms coming across our border and we need to do something. Members will remember Stephen Harper and what he did. He reduced the amount of border crossing support, ultimately not recognizing the importance of properly funding Canada border control, and we actually lost agents.

My question is more so in regard to that, at the end of the day, we are talking about bad apples. There are bad apples in border control and the RCMP, but the overwhelming majority, whether it is the RCMP officer or the border control agent, should be complimented for the efforts they put forward day-in and day-out, 24 hours a day. During this debate, I do not think we should lose perspective of that. Would the member not agree that this commission would assist in restoring and adding value to the public confidence in the—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am chairing here, so if anybody else is interested in doing that, they may want to approach their leader.

The hon. member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do have to mention I grew up in a law enforcement environment. My father has been, for 32 years, on the Ontario Provincial Police, so I have nothing but the utmost respect for law enforcement, and I mentioned that many times in my speech. Yes, I agree that there are bad apples in every organization. Hopefully this commission and this oversight will help weed out that, and the people who put on that uniform day-in and day-out and do a great job will be proud to have it.

As you mentioned, the bad apples would be weeded out, and that is why the legislation is here. I look forward to it coming into effect and going forward with it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I remind the member that he is to address all questions and comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for Shefford.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to build on the question my colleague asked earlier.

When I worked as the assistant to the member for Brome—Missisquoi, the president of the Customs and Immigration Union, Jean-Pierre Fortin, visited our office. In the early 2000s, we saw the negative effects of the Conservative government's cuts to border crossings. Those cuts created a lot of extremely frustrating situations for the workers.

My colleague brought up the issue of illegal weapons at the border and how it is important to better control them. I would like to hear what he has to say about that.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do have to apologize, but I had a very tough time hearing the question. I think the question was about the commission overall, and yes the Conservatives are in favour of it. We are looking forward to it being in place. It has been a long time overdue. It was a promise in 2015, and it is time to bring it in now.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise to bring a British Columbian perspective to the debate on Bill C-20, the public complaints and review commission act. This legislation would create a framework for reviewing complaints against Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers and Canada Border Services agents.

These law enforcement professionals work tirelessly to keep our communities safe, and they deserve the respect and support of this House. Unfortunately, the federal government is complacent about protecting Canadians, making a difficult job even harder for border agents and RCMP officers. B.C. cities, including my home of Surrey, are facing an onslaught of crime, including gang activity, property damage and violence.

It is no wonder. In 2019, the Liberals passed legislation that directed a principle of restraint when imposing bail conditions. Under this soft-on-crime policy, police are often forced to release known criminals on a promise that they will show up in court, a practice known as catch and release.

This approach is not working in B.C. Last December, in Surrey, a man with a criminal record of 23 convictions of assault attacked a mother and her 11-month-old child. Also last year, another man stole a ferry vessel from Victoria harbour. He was arrested, released and later caught shattering the windows and doors of local businesses. In Kelowna, one man is responsible for 346 complaints to local police in the last six years, leading to 29 convictions for assault and property crime. This is not unusual.

The BC Urban Mayors' Caucus has sounded the alarm bells, calling for action to prevent this cycle of crime. The Surrey Board of Trade, an organization normally associated with economic development in my region, is expressing its concern with crime on the streets. It recently said:

The economic development of any community relies upon its reputation as a safe, viable region in which to locate and do business, with supporting infrastructure, community assets and, most importantly, customers willing to walk in the door. However, if customers feel unsafe, they won't come. If the reputation of a region is suspect, businesses won't come.

The breakdown of public safety has hit my community of South Surrey—White Rock and nearby areas hard, but the problem extends far beyond B.C. It is a national mess. We all watched with horror this summer the mass killing on James Smith Cree First Nation in Saskatchewan. The perpetrator had been charged with over 120 crimes and convicted 59 times, but none of that prevented him from taking 10 indigenous lives.

To make matters worse, the Liberals have rewritten sentencing for serious crimes, putting criminals back on the street sooner than they ought to be. They lowered sentences for crimes like assault with a weapon, abduction of a minor and participation in the activities of a criminal organization, making these crimes eligible for summary convictions. The Prime Minister expanded house arrest for other serious offences, including sexual assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, motor vehicle theft and arson.

The government is also failing when it comes to gang prevention. Just yesterday, a prominent member of the Indo-Canadian community in Surrey—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, forgive me, but I rise on a point of order. This is completely off topic. The issue we are talking about is directly with respect to the oversight bodies that are going to be set up for the CBSA and the RCMP. The member, like so many Conservative members who have spoken today, has gone way off topic. Perhaps the Speaker could encourage the member to get back on topic.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that there is some latitude during the debate. However, I would also remind parliamentarians that when they are debating, the subject matter needs to relate to the bill before the House. I assume they will make sure they mention the bill during their speeches.

The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, in response, I take great offence to the member's point of order, because I mentioned the bill at the beginning. I set it out. I am talking about the kinds of things RCMP officers and border services agents, who will be the subject of these complaints, are dealing with on a daily basis. What they deal with on a daily basis is very relevant to why we should have a complaints commission, and that is exactly what I am talking about.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I again want to remind members that there is some latitude. I also want to remind them that this is not about mentioning the bill just once. Throughout the debate, members can bring it back to parts of the bill, but we need to try to make sure that the information being provided is as closely related to the bill as possible.

The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to repeat a bit because of the interruption.

Just yesterday, a prominent member of the Indo-Canadian community in Surrey told me of significant gaps in the evaluation of gang prevention programs. He noted that some programs have not been evaluated since 2012. That is 10 years ago. He asked, “How can you monitor effectiveness, assess performance targets or implement lessons learned if you continually lag behind in program evaluation?”

The government likes to make announcements with big dollar figures, but if the money does not help at-risk youth access employment and deal with their trauma, then the government is failing. Just last week, with the support of the NDP, the Liberals eliminated mandatory prison time for serious gun crimes, including robbery or extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking, discharging a firearm with intent, using a firearm in the commission of a crime, and reckless discharge of a firearm.

While the Prime Minister is bringing in bills like Bill C-20 and letting drive-by shooters and gunrunners back into our community, he had the gall to come to Surrey recently to announce new gun control measures. His plan targets legal firearms owners, including hunters, sport shooters and collectors, forcing them to hand over their property to the government. On the one hand, he is punishing and confiscating the assets of law-abiding citizens, and on the other, he is giving criminals a break. It does not make sense.

Meanwhile, in the middle of the opioid crisis, the Prime Minister eliminated mandatory prison time for drug dealers. For context, over 31,000 Canadians have lost their lives to overdose since he became Prime Minister. Now the crime of producing heroin, cocaine, fentanyl or crystal meth is not subject to a mandatory minimum sentence. The same goes for drug smuggling and drug trafficking. What are the 13 NDP MPs from B.C. doing about it? They voted for this reckless plan.

All of this comes as the violent crime rate is spiking to a level not seen since the end of the Chrétien-Martin era. It is up 32% since the Liberals took office. Just last month in Burnaby, Constable Shaelyn Yang was stabbed to death. My thoughts and prayers remain with her family and the B.C. policing community.

The member with whom I am sharing time today, the member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, just had the heartbreaking job of attending the funerals of two Barrie police officers who were killed in the line of duty in October. He knows the pain that this tragedy inflicted on his community and beyond. These stories are becoming commonplace in Canada.

Under the watch of the Liberal Party, homicide rates are up nearly 30%, gang-related murders are up 92% and sexual assaults have increased by 61%. Police-reported hate crimes have increased 72% over the last two years. I will be unequivocal—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, we have Bill C-5 before us, which deals with minimum sentences. We have Bill C-21, which deals with guns. Now the member is going over some statistics. I realize there is a great deal of latitude. I am just pointing out that she might want to save parts of her speech for other pieces of legislation that are more—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Again, I want to remind the member, which he mentioned himself, that there is some latitude with this type of bill. I have the bill before me, and there is a lot that can be brought forward during the debate based on the bill. I want to remind members to please be respectful.

The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock can continue.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have faith in your pronouncements, not in the heckling from the other side.

I will be unequivocal. Our justice system is broken and the blame rests with the Prime Minister. He changed the system to cater to the sensibilities of left-wing activists who want to defund the police, rather than support communities who want safe streets for their children and grandchildren. The new justice system puts criminals first and the victims last. It took the justice minister almost a year to appoint a new victims ombudsperson. It puts the wants of one offender ahead of the needs of a whole community. It frees the felon while tying the hands of law enforcement.

Despite these challenges, the RCMP in White Rock and Surrey do yeoman's work to serve and protect the residents of my riding, as do the CBSA agents who work at the Peace Arch and Pacific Highway border crossings, which includes dealing with migrants illegally crossing into Canada daily, not at points of entry. They are the first line of defence for my community against human trafficking and the illegal importation of guns and drugs.

The Liberals threw CBSA a curve ball last year when they implemented the costly and ineffective ArriveCAN app. Their $54-million boondoggle frustrated travelling seniors, hampered our tourism sector and put border agents in the untenable position of enforcing the mandatory use of the app. As always, CBSA agents conducted themselves with professionalism.

With that said, the public should always have a right to question the decisions and actions of any law enforcement agency, including the RCMP and CBSA. We lean into and support these agencies, but also believe in transparency and accountability. That is why Conservatives will support Bill C-20. This legislation requires the RCMP and CBSA to share information related to public complaints with a new body, the public complaints and review commission. The commission would make recommendations for potential disciplinary action to the relevant law enforcement agency with legislated timelines to respond.

The bill would require both the RCMP and CBSA to report on actions taken in response to the commission's recommendations. The legislation would also require the commission to report disaggregated race-based data to Parliament.

While I will vote for the bill, I am taking this opportunity to raise a word of caution. We cannot allow our public safety institutions to erode any further. Come the next election, whenever that may be, voters in the Lower Mainland and on Vancouver Island can count on Conservatives to clean up the mess made of our cities and of our borders. We will restore safe streets and protect the rights of victims.

I have been talking about Bill C-20 throughout.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect, she did not. What she did was she talked about guns, she talked about various different crimes, and she talked about her position on this government, which is all very important. I listened to her speech from beginning to end, and there were only two or three sentences at about the nine-minute and 30-second mark where she actually brought it back to the bill by saying that what we are going to vote on is the oversight on all of this stuff.

I am wondering if she would like to take the opportunity now to comment on why it is important to have this oversight committee set up to look into the conduct, the actions and, indeed, the complaints brought forward. That is what this bill is really about.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is actually a commission, not a committee. I do not believe the member, who kept referring to me as “she” as opposed to being more respectful and using the term of either “member” or even my riding, was listening to my speech.

The whole point of my speech was that we are supporting Bill C-20. We believe in transparency and accountability. We believe the idea of a commission to put forward complaints, filter through and facilitate them is a good idea, but it was also to point out the very hard work and challenges that both the RCMP and CBSA agents face on a daily basis. That was the point.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, one thing we could all agree on in this place is that the tragedy of the opioid overdose crisis is something that is of concern to everybody.

I would point out, though, that opioid overdose deaths did not begin in 2015. I represent Vancouver Kingsway, and in the Lower Mainland thousands of people died of the opioid overdose crisis before that. I would posit that one of the reasons, if we talked to the families of people who died, is that most of these people were getting their drugs from organized crime, which does not care at all about the drugs being sold. They are buying tainted, dangerous drugs on the street from organized crime, and this is the cause of their immediate death.

I am just wondering. What would my hon. colleague say to that? Does she think that we could interdict our way out of that?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Do not call her “she”, she gets offended by that.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Pardon me, Madam Speaker. Does the hon. member believe that—

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We all heard it. I would just ask that this member apologize.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I only heard the member for Vancouver Kingsway commit the same sin that I did and that was to accidentally call the member “she”. I apologize.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind members to be respectful of each other, and I am going to leave it at that. I think it is not appropriate to get into a debate about the word “she” at this point. I know that the hon. member was referring to the member, so I think that this is all an interpretation.

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway can finish his question.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I certainly meant no disrespect.

Does the hon. member believe that we can interdict our way out of this problem? What does she think about the prospect of trying a new approach, other than the failed war on drugs, to try to make sure that people can at least get the drugs they are addicted to from a pharmacy or some other place where they can be assured that the quality of the drugs they are getting will not kill them?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, we believe, on this side of the House, in trying to help lives lost to drugs. We believe in recovery. We believe in helping people make better choices and get to better places in their lives, so that they can get back to being productive. We also believe in being compassionate. I have spent a lot of my volunteer time, over many years now, working with recovery programs and working with those who are the subject of addiction, something that touches on so many lives in Canada and so many of us here in the House and our families.

I appreciate the respect that the member for Vancouver Kingsway showed me in the way he spoke to me, as opposed to the previous member from the Liberal Party.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

I am just going to relate my question to the previous comment from the NDP, where he talked about people who are gang members poisoning our people with drugs. I wonder if my hon. colleague would comment on the fact that the NDP is similarly, at the same time, lowering sentences for people who are doing this very pernicious activity and inserting this risk into the community.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, my friend, also having been a prosecutor before he came to this place, is well aware of the havoc that is wrought by drug dealers, drug smugglers and those who would traffic to our children and even incorporate them into gang life at a very young age, partly through getting them addicted to drugs.

Yes, it is very serious that the NDP are supporting the Liberals in their soft-on-crime approach.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity, as the member of Parliament for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, to speak in this debate on second reading of Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments.

Bill C-20 would enact a new stand-alone statute establishing a public complaints and review commission for both the RCMP and the CBSA, replacing the existing civilian review and complaints commission for the RCMP. The bill would also enact additional accountability and transparency mechanisms, including codifying timelines for RCMP and CBSA responses to PCRC interim reports, reviews and recommendations. The bill also includes a provision for mandatory annual reporting by the RCMP and CBSA on actions taken in response to the PCRC recommendations, as well as provisions for mandatory reporting of disaggregated race-based data by the PCRC.

The bill would provide for a mandatory PCRC public education and information program. The bill would provide a statutory framework for governing the CBSA responses to serious incidents. I would like to provide—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 5:54 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper. The hon. member will have eight minutes and 15 seconds the next time this matter is before the House.

The House resumed from November 22 consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to debate Bill C-20 and will resume from where I left off.

Bill C-20 would respond to the long-standing need to establish an independent review of the CBSA and improve review of the RCMP. This bill would build on the previous proposals to create a review body for the RCMP and CBSA. For example, Bill C-98 and Bill C-3 from 2020, were introduced but never completed the legislative process.

Bill C-20 would also respond to the recent federal court decision that the RCMP must provide a response to the CRCC interim report within six months. I would like to highlight that this bill would also advance the Minister of Public Safety's mandate letter commitments to create a review body of the CBSA; to set timelines for the RCMP's and the CBSA's responses to complaints and recommendations; to ensure continued compliance with accountability and review bodies; to combat systemic racism and discrimination in the criminal justice system; to continue advancing efforts toward a path of reconciliation with first nation, Inuit and Métis peoples; and to ensure that the RCMP and CBSA continue working to transform and to create a culture of accountability, equity, diversity and inclusion.

This bill would add to existing CRCC powers by providing enhanced accountability and transparency tools, including the stand-alone statute, which reinforces its independence from the RCMP and CBSA.

Set timelines for the RCMP and CBSA responses to the PCRC interim report mean that responses would be expected within six months of any complaints. Specified activity reviews and recommendation responses would be expected within 60 days.

Bill C-20 would include important provisions related to the collection and publication of race-based data by the PCRC, with RCMP and CBSA, to increase knowledge about systemic racism in law enforcement and inform responses.

The mandated public complaints and review commission's public education and information program would increase public knowledge and awareness of the commission's mandate and of complainants' rights to redress. This bill would provide for offences and punishments for obstruction and non-compliance with the PCRC.

Individuals detained by the CBSA must be informed of their avenue to make a complaint. This bill would also provide the PCRC with additional authorities to recommend that the RCMP and CBSA deputy heads initiate disciplinary-related processes or impose a disciplinary measure under certain circumstances. The deputy heads would be required to advise the minister and the PCRC chairperson whether discipline was initiated or imposed.

The new PCRC would also be able to conduct a joint investigation, review or hearing of complaints with appropriate authorities of any other jurisdiction when needed. The PCRC would refer national security matters to the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency and co-operate with the agency to avoid duplication of work.

The public complaints and review commission would be responsible for conducting specified activity reviews of any non-national security activities of the CBSA, either on the PCRC's own initiative or at the request of the minister.

The bill would create a statutory framework in the Canada Border Services Agency Act to govern the CBSA's responses to serious incidents, which are now governed by internal policy. There would be an opportunity for the CBSA to conduct internal investigations into alleged serious incidents. There would also be a requirement for the CBSA to notify the police of jurisdiction and the PCRC when such incidents occur.

There would be a requirement by the Canada Border Services Agency to provide the PCRC with reports or other information of serious incidents. The authority would also exist for the PCRC to send an observer to verify the impartiality of the CBSA's serious incident investigations. Finally, there would be a requirement for the PCRC to report on the number, types and outcomes of serious incidents as part of an annual reporting system.

I will speak briefly about the mechanics of the PCRC as well. The PCRC would be headed by a chairperson and up to four additional members, including a vice-chairman appointed by the Governor in Council. The bill would provide Governor in Council regulation-making powers for information sharing and related procedures.

We all rely on the CBSA and the RCMP. We interact with the CBSA and the RCMP and they safeguard our security goods, but we need to have assurances about efficient, fair and equal treatment.

Bill C-20 would be a major step forward for Canada with an enhanced review body and assurance of consistent, fair and equal treatment when Canadians interact with the Canada Border Services Agency or the RCMP. I urge hon. members to join me in supporting the important bill in front of us, Bill C-20.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech on Bill C‑20. I would like to suggest a few amendments.

The Bloc Québécois believes that an independent complaint process is both necessary and good for the public. For example, in early January 2020, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada found significant flaws concerning searches of travellers' electronic devices, which demonstrates the importance of having an independent body to review complaints.

I would like my colleague to tell me what solutions can be found in Bill C-20.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very important question

I would like to point out that we are at second reading stage and that this is when questions can be asked. At the next stage, when the bill is studied in committee, amendments can be presented and discussed, and decisions will be made based on these discussions. Then the recommendations will come back to the House. The process is open and transparent, as is Bill C‑20.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are two important questions that I think Canadians need answers to.

The previous iteration of this bill to enhance the public complaints and review commission was tabled in this House without consultation from union and labour, for example, the Customs and Immigration Union. As we will recall, the Prime Minister called an unneeded and unwanted election in the full pandemic because he was hoping to get a majority, which Canadians did not give to him.

First, have there been full consultations with the Customs and Immigration Union and other unions that are impacted by this?

The second is a question of resources. We have seen the government simply refuse to provide resources in a whole range of critical areas, but not for the banks. The banks get whatever money they want, such as $750 billion in liquidity supports. However, at the border we have seen starvation, and that has meant an influx of illegal weapons.

Can the government assure us that this time it will put resources in place so that the public complaints and review commission could do all of the functions that are attributed to it in this bill?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, consultation is a key area, and we have done some consultations. Have we done all the consultation? I cannot confirm that today.

What I can say is that when we bring this to committee, we will hear from even more witnesses and experts in the field. This will provide more information so we can have those discussions, bring it back to the House, and then we can make the necessary changes if they are required at the time. The consultation continues. This is only the second reading.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I sit on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, so I will be looking to see if that consultation was done. We will be making sure this comes through as a good bill, because we are in favour of this as a start.

This bill has been brought up twice before. Unfortunately, it did not make it through. It died both times. Could we get some reassurance from the member opposite that this time we are going to get this bill through and see it through to fruition?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his work on the committee, which is very important.

In 2019, we brought the first bill forward, and then again in 2020. That was Bill C-3, and it did not get through the process. The intent of the government and this side of the House is to get this done. We are counting on the opposition to support us as we move forward. This is a very important bill, which would bring in an independent body to feed us some information, as well as bring more oversight and transparency to the process.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize, whether it is the RCMP or border controls, the people who fill those positions do a fabulous job. Like in any other occupation, there are bad apples. What is nice about the legislation being proposed is that it would build confidence from the public in our institutions. By establishing an independent, arm's length commission, we are allowing for that confidence from the public.

Could my colleague reaffirm why it is so important for us to have these independent commissions? After all, it is the bad apples who often cause the issues that get the media's attention and make things look bad for the RCMP or the border control. A vast majority of those civil servants do an outstanding job for all citizens here in Canada.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. People need to have trust in the process, and they need to trust our institutions. That is why this independent study would bring not only the oversight but also more transparency.

What is important is that an annual report would be submitted as well. That is another process that would take place and help us in the process. Also, we will be collecting and publishing the aggregated race-based data, so there would be more data concerning systemic racism in law enforcement.

Those are key issues where we need to make improvements. We know this. Canadians have been asking us for more improvements and to have a two-way street, so if there are complaints that come forward, there is a process in place to support the work that needs to be done as a follow-up.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to have a quick rebuttal to the last answer I heard, where the member talked about Conservatives supporting this bill. We always support good legislation that comes through.

Recently on the public safety committee, we have been reviewing Bill C-21, which is questionable legislation that is coming through. What is slowing that down now is a huge amendment that has been thrown at us, not at the parliamentary stage but at the committee stage. I want to make sure there will not be any big curveballs thrown in this when it comes before our committee.

Can I get reassurance on that from the member opposite?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we believe in members of Parliament working together to bring forward amendments that will make life better for Canadians. That is a crucial part. I believe we do that the large majority of times.

However, I am extremely disappointed with how things are unfolding on the Standing Committee on Official Languages, because as the members know, our government has brought forward Bill C-13. All the organizations across the country are showing clear support for this bill, and the NDP is supporting us. However, the Conservatives and the Bloc have been, for three consecutive weeks now, filibustering at that committee. That is sad.

When the member starts talking about bringing amendments in, I would like the opportunity, in the official languages committee, to go amendment by amendment so that we can get the bill passed as soon as possible.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment for the parliamentary secretary. I would like him to ask himself some questions. Why does the Bloc Québécois feel it has to filibuster the Standing Committee on Official Languages to slow the passage of the official languages bill? Because the Liberal Party, this government, with the support of the third opposition party, opposes amendments put forward by Quebec to protect French and stop its decline in Quebec.

Ever since Confederation, the number of French speakers outside Quebec has declined so precipitously that they are practically the stuff of legend. Nothing in Bill C‑13 would change that reality. The use of French will continue to decline in Quebec. Fewer than 50% of the people on the Island of Montreal—one in two—speak French. The main reason for that is the Official Languages Act and its policies that support English in Quebec at the expense of French.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question and his comments.

However, I disagree with him completely. We are the first government in Canadian history to recognize the decline of French in the province of Quebec. That is a good start. We want to bring in positive measures that will yield results.

Quebec also shares some responsibility, since it is partially responsible for immigration. It is up to the province to ensure that more people from around the world who speak French come to Quebec in order to increase its francophone population. That is what we are doing in the area of immigration, in places where French is a minority language in Canada.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while we have heard in previous interventions lots of people sharing their displeasure and some of the challenges they face at committee, I am rising to support Bill C-20 at second reading.

Bill C-20 would replace the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP and establish a stand-alone commission, the public complaints and review commission, for both the RCMP and the CBSA. As we know, the CBSA is the only major law enforcement agency in Canada without an independent review mechanism for the bulk of its activity.

There has been a major gap that has not been addressed, despite calls from the NDP dating back to Harper. It is our hope that Bill C-20 will provide accountability, increase the public trust at the border and provide an independent dispute mechanism that may be used by CBSA officials as well.

We heard comments about how, when things get to committee, bills sometimes have material departures from their initial spirit. I happen to believe that committee is precisely the place where both the opposition and the government get a chance to reflect on feedback from committee and perhaps improve upon bills to shore up some of the gaps that might have been identified.

I want to speak specifically to the good work of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. In the 43rd Parliament, it had a report entitled “Systemic Racism in Policing in Canada”. For this report, which was adopted by the committee, both government and opposition members came together. I believe there were 19 meetings within the study with over 53 witnesses. There was testimony from subject matter experts, and there was a very detailed report of perhaps 42 recommendations on how to tackle systemic racism in policing in Canada.

However, when the government has the opportunity to take the good work of Parliament, and, as an extension, the citizenry of this country, it still presents bills that are wholly inadequate to address the very topics raised in previous Parliaments and that continue to be a problem here today.

While Bill C-20 has the potential to provide these importance changes in civilian oversight to both the RCMP and the CBSA, it falls short. It falls short of meeting several of the important recommendations from the report, namely indigenous oversight, including indigenous investigators and decision-makers, and the appointment of Black and racialized Canadians.

For those who might not be familiar with these processes, I would like to expand on what it is like to have personal interactions with police, be it the RCMP, the OPP, local policing or the CBSA, anybody who has power and control over anyone's inherent rights and feelings of belonging in their own communities.

I have had these experiences in my own city as a city councillor. I have been stopped and questioned by local police simply for existing in my neighbourhood and waiting for a bus. When we were engaging in these discussions around systemic racism within policing, as a former city councillor, I would tell residents that when they have an issue, it is so important that they lodge a formal complaint.

The reason is that if there are no formal complaints, there is no quantitative data that would show problematic trends of structural and institutional racism within policing. I filed a Police Services Act complaint given my very problematic interaction with Constable Andrew Pfeifer at that time because that was what was made available to me.

I wish I had known then what I know now, which is that our civilian oversight of policing is completely culturally incompetent and devoid of any type of context that would account for the various lived experiences of people outside of the culture of policing.

In fact, we have always had this culture of policing policing, where we have former cops appointed to boards to investigate former cops, and then we have quasi-judicial tribunals, kangaroo courts, set up to either absolve them or, if it is politically convenient in the moment, to teach them a lesson.

I can tell members that, as a political leader within my community, I had senior members of our local police service, on their way out, tell me explicitly that they were about to teach me a lesson. From the outset, within the first five minutes of my experience at a Police Services Act hearing, as a Canadian of African descent, as a city councillor, as somebody who had been accorded power and privilege, it was made apparent within the first five minutes that the hearing officer, a former deputy from the Peel Region, Terence Kelly, was unwilling to and incapable of hearing any aspects related to anti-Blackness within policing.

It was a textbook case of racial profiling, and he said within the first five minutes that he would not hear the case. In legal terms, it is what is called a “reasonable presumption of bias”, which jaundiced the entire process. The case ended up in the courts for over two years, with over a week of hearings, in which I, as the complainant, became the target of the investigation.

It was a completely humiliating and dehumanizing experience, one that if other people in that same experience asked me if they should go through that, I would say “absolutely not”. I would tell them to save themselves, to get the best civil lawyers they can and to sue, because that is the only language the police understand. That is the only place where one can get on a full footing for proper disclosure, because as we have heard, in all levels of police review, they just refuse to co-operate.

We had subject matter experts provide, over the course of 19 hearings and 53 witnesses, including Robyn Maynard, a brilliant mind on what structural and institutional racism looks like, on what anti-Blackness looks like. They provided their testimony, as did former RCMP officers like Alain Babineau, who understands it from both the inside and the practical street application, both from what discipline looks like and from what anti-Blackness looks like out in communities. We had learned professors like Akwasi Owusu-Bempah break down all the ways in which systemic, institutional and structural racism occur.

The recommendations are clear, the recommendations that have been obviously omitted by the current government, which had the opportunity to address these issues.

We have a Liberal government that likes to speak the language of identity politics without any commitment to justice. The Liberals will go out at Black Lives Matter. They will take a knee and will say all the right things, but when it comes down to actually providing legislation that all members of Parliament in that committee supported, the government refused.

Namely, it refused to ensure that the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission of the RCMP allow for meaningful and engaged indigenous participation and to hold the RCMP accountable for wrongful, negligent, reckless or discriminatory behaviour toward indigenous people. There are videotapes of the RCMP brutalizing indigenous people across this country time and again.

When is it going to be enough for the current government to finally take a position, listen to the reports and implement these things?

The fourth recommendation is that the government appoint indigenous, Black and other racialized people, and residents of northern communities, to the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission, and for them to have investigation and leadership positions within that organization. I am sorry, but when Officer Terrence Kelly takes on my case and says within the first three minutes that he is unwilling and unable to listen to any parameters of race, that is negligent, it is discriminatory and it only further serves to uphold the institutional, structural and systemic racism within policing.

In my closing remarks, I call on the current government to do better by people in this country, to listen to the work of the House when it comes together in a non-partisan way to address these issues, and to cease bringing back these empty and shallow bills that are devoid of any of the things that they purport to be standing for within our communities, and, with specificity, to listen to the voices of Black, indigenous and racialized people within this country.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Hamilton Centre's voice is so important in the House. I would like to give him the opportunity to speak to some of the amendments that he would would like to put forward at committee.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity. Forty-three recommendations came from the report on systemic racism in policing in Canada. I would go even further to note the recent events within the context of the occupation, the convoy and what we witnessed in Nova Scotia. Right now there is a lack of trust and an erosion of trust within our institution of policing.

The report is good work, with 18 meetings, 53 witnesses and 43 recommendations. It blows my mind that the government will set aside the good work of Parliament that has already been done and provide incomplete legislation.

We are calling on the government to listen to the recommendations that are contained within the report on systemic racism, which is informed by subject-matter experts across the country. At committee, I implore members to address these things and make sure they are included, because if the bill comes back to the House and they are not included, there is definitely going to be a problem.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the public safety committee report that the member referred to on racism within the RCMP made a number of recommendations, as the member highlighted, about indigenous policing. I wonder if the member could perhaps expand his thinking on that a bit. The report made recommendations about indigenous policing not only on reserve but off reserve. I wonder if he has some comments about that.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the hon. member for allowing me to expand on that, given my proximity to the Haudenosaunee territory, where the Six Nations of the Grand River are actively involved in their own policing.

If we acknowledge that we are in nation-to-nation relationships, then we have to grant sovereignty, ultimately, over all decisions within those territories, which would absolutely include policing. We only have to look at the pipeline to prison, which starts, as we know, with policing in schools and ends up with the disgusting and abhorrent overrepresentation of indigenous people within our prison systems. That is absolutely an indictment on the ways we have failed to provide fair and adequate access to the legal system.

What we need to do is work toward having a justice system in this country. We cannot have a justice system until we address the ongoing colonialism that is expressed through the state's monopoly on violence as it relates to policing within indigenous communities.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech, in which he pointed out some facts about indigenous people in the justice system.

What does he think of the border services complaints process? Are there any other processes that would help ensure that indigenous people are no longer overrepresented?

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is an important reference to the Jay Treaty, which is a historical reference to the sovereign nationalism that is embedded in the treaties that allow indigenous first nations people who are a part of the Jay Treaty to travel freely, unencumbered, back and forth across the border. It is an integral part of our historical treaty rights, which need to be respected.

This is a very important point brought up by the hon. member from the Bloc. I suggest that given the recommendations, we invite experts on the Jay Treaty to come here. Part of the understanding of cultural competency and having not just moral duties but a legal duty to understand the implications of treaties and treaty-based systems nation to nation would include the CBSA having a full and clear training process on the Jay Treaty. Then when people who have inherent rights arrive at the border, they will not be criminalized, vilified or pulled into secondary to explain what their rights and constitutional protections are under the Jay Treaty.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments.

Canadians must have confidence in the agencies tasked with keeping them safe. Be it in our communities or at our borders, public trust is essential to the work of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency. This legislation seeks to close a long-standing gap by providing the CBSA with an independent review body that would ensure transparency and accountability for Canadians. For the RCMP, the bill would update and enhance its current civilian accountability body, the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission.

I would like to use my time today to speak to some of the details of this legislation.

Bill C-20 would combine RCMP and CBSA review under a newly established public complaints review commission, or the PCRC. Understanding that Canadians expect timely responses from their public institutions, and recognizing past criticisms that the RCMP has been slow to respond to reports from the CRCC, this bill would establish defined timelines for RCMP and CBSA responses to complaints and recommendations.

For specified activity reviews and recommendations by the PCRC, an RCMP or CBSA response would be required within 60 calendar days. Responses to interim reports concerning complaints would be required within six months, and the RCMP and CBSA would report annually to the Minister of Public Safety on progress in implementing PCRC recommendations.

However, establishing strict reporting standards is just one component of this legislation. Our government recognizes that in order for the PCRC to have the tools to ensure accountability, it has to be given the appropriate investigative powers and responsibilities. This bill would do just that. It would establish a robust mandate for the PCRC by giving it the ability to conduct specified activity reviews, on its own initiative or at the request of the minister, of any non-national security activities of the RCMP or the CBSA.

The PCRC would also be able to receive and investigate complaints from the public concerning the level of service provided by the RCMP and the CBSA, as well as the conduct of RCMP and CBSA employees. The findings of these investigations, along with any recommendations, would be reported to either the RCMP or the CBSA and to the minister.

In addition, the PCRC would be able to recommend that RCMP and CBSA deputy heads initiate disciplinary-related processes, or impose a disciplinary measure, under certain circumstances; conduct a joint investigation, review or hearing into complaints with appropriate authorities of any other jurisdiction when needed; refer national security matters to the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency and co-operate with NSIRA to avoid duplication of work; and have access to any information relevant to the review or complaint that the RCMP and the CBSA possess.

Another key aspect of this legislation is ensuring that the RCMP and the CBSA continue their work to transform their cultures by enhancing accountability. This would contribute to our government's efforts to combat systemic racism and discrimination in the criminal justice system, and would continue advancing efforts toward a path of reconciliation with first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.

With this bill, the PCRC would be required to collect and publish disaggregated race-based data, in consultation with the RCMP and the CBSA, to increase knowledge about systemic racism in law enforcement and inform solutions to better respond to it. Canadians have made it clear that addressing systemic racism in law enforcement is an urgent priority. This includes work done by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, which culminated in the report entitled “Systemic Racism in Policing in Canada”. Our government understands that collecting and publishing race-based data on complainants is one way that knowledge gaps around systemic racism would be filled.

I am pleased to say that this bill responds to the committee's recommendation that the government clarify and strengthen the mandate, independence and efficacy of the CRCC. In addition, Bill C-20 would direct the PCRC to implement public education and information programs to increase knowledge and awareness of the new commission's mandate.

With increased public information and engagement through such mechanisms, the bill aims to earn the trust of indigenous, Black and all racialized Canadians. To support this very important initiative, our government is investing $112.3 million over six years, and $19.4 million per year ongoing, to establish the PCRC and ensure that it is properly funded to do its job.

This is a vital piece of legislation and one that I think we can all agree is long overdue. It is a major step forward for accountability and transparency within both the RCMP and the CBSA. By providing robust and effective review, we will be ensuring that our border services and national law enforcement agencies remain world class and are worthy of the trust of Canadians.

I urge hon. members to join me in supporting this important bill.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question relates to funding for the CBSA.

We heard at committee from members working for the CBSA that it is understaffed and under a great deal of pressure. It is one thing to hold the CBSA accountable with a public complaints commission, but it is quite another for Parliament to support it so it can do its job adequately. I wonder if the member has comments about that.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we have said time and time again, Canadians must have confidence in our law enforcement agencies, which begins by building public trust. One way to do that is to ensure that we have adequate funding. This is why we have put in the budget extra funding for the CBSA.

The CBSA is a very important agency. It helps keep Canadians feeling safe and secure. On this side of the House, we will always make sure that the CBSA has the appropriate resources to deliver on its mandate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I would like her to talk about what happens after the bill passes. It is one thing to have a good bill that provides a complaint mechanism, but the public needs to be well informed about it.

Take the compensation for victims of sexual misconduct in the army, for example. We recently found out that very few francophones were able to receive compensation because it had not been well publicized.

Even when the intentions are good, if the complaint mechanism is not well publicized then the legislation loses some of its value. I would like my colleague to talk to us about the importance of ensuring that the public is fully informed once the bill is implemented.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. It is an important question.

Our goal is for all agencies to have more transparency and credibility. We will issue a report immediately after the bill passes. In committee, we can make more recommendations and suggestions, but our goal is to issue a report for all Canadians.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I have a two-part question.

Given that there has been an acknowledgement of systemic racism by both the government and the standing committee, it is a shock to me that there is not more mention about the need to address systemic racism.

The first part of my question is this. Should the commissioners not include representation from the BIPOC community?

As to the second part, when the commission is doing its work, is it not important that the commissioners have cultural competency training and trauma-informed training so they can ensure a better understanding of the BIPOC community?

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we have always said, this government ensures that we consult with our indigenous peoples to make sure we hear of all their worries and the things that preoccupy their communities, and that they are well served.

If the hon. member has specific recommendations she would like to see on what more we could be doing to engage our indigenous communities, I welcome that conversation with her.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, words really matter in this place. The parliamentary secretary just referred to “our indigenous people”. Indigenous people do not belong to anyone in this country. I wonder if she could restate her response to the member for Nunavut, specifically with respect to the call from the member for Hamilton Centre to ensure there are indigenous people on the oversight body.

Does she not agree that recommendation No. 4 from the report previously mentioned should be in the bill?

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for pointing out the correction. I really appreciate it. In no way did I mean to disrespect indigenous peoples in Canada.

Yes, I do agree there should be consultation with indigenous peoples to make sure there is no gap in the bill.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House to speak on behalf of the people of Flamborough—Glanbrook, certainly today on Bill C-20, which is an act to establish the public complaints and review commission. However, if members would allow me to depart for a moment from the debate on Bill C-20, I would like to recognize that today is my parents' 56th wedding anniversary.

A marriage of 56 years is a pretty incredible achievement unto itself, but I need to recognize that this has been a challenging year for my parents because my dad was diagnosed with lung cancer earlier in the year, in January. The great news is that they were able to remove the cancerous mass and he has undergone chemotherapy. My mom is a retired nurse, so she was by his side every step of the way, nursing him back to health and strength. He has made a full recovery. He is a naturalist with a picturesque rural property, and he is now able to get out and about to see his water fountains and his birds. He is very happy about that. In 56 years, there have been ups and downs, no doubt, but they are still able to walk hand in hand. I wish a happy anniversary to my mom and dad.

I thank members for allowing that diversion from Bill C-20. I will now move back to the matter at hand. We know that the bill would rename the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP to the public complaints and review commission, or the PCRC.

Under its new name, the commission would be responsible for reviewing civilian complaints of the Canada Border Services Agency as well as the RCMP. The civilian review commission would improve the oversight, and it is hoped that it would thereby help the RCMP and the CBSA become more effective agencies in their duties and functions.

Canadians certainly expect effective oversight of their federal law enforcement authorities, which is why we support this bill. I will reiterate some of the things that have been mentioned that the bill would deliver on and how that oversight would be provided to Canadians.

There would be codified timelines for RCMP and CBSA responses to PCRC interim reports, reviews and commissions. There would be information sharing between the RCMP, CBSA and the PCRC. There would also be mandatory annual reporting by both the RCMP and the CBSA on actions to be taken in response to the recommendations of the PCRC.

Race-based data, which has been referred to and discussed here, would be mandatory under Bill C-20, which would provide some additional context. Of course, there would be public education, as well as a statutory framework to govern CBSA responses to serious incidents.

All of this makes sense and should help improve the transparency that Canadians expect from their public institutions and, in doing so, the effective operation of these federal law enforcement agencies. Certainly the RCMP is there to ensure the safety of Canadians and to police our laws.

The CBSA is there to uphold the dignity of our borders. Ensuring that the CBSA is both properly resourced and equipped is an important part of doing that. We believe that these oversight bodies would help accomplish this, and we note that the government is planning to invest $122 million over six years, with an ongoing amount, for the creation of this independent review and complaints body. We support all of that.

We do wonder why it has taken so long to fulfill this original campaign promise from 2015. However, we do know, as well, that Liberal inaction, delay and misaligned priorities are certainly something that is not new to Canadians.

While we are on the subject of public safety, I am certainly compelled to speak up on behalf of the people of Flamborough—Glanbrook, and indeed, all of Hamilton, Ontario and Canada, to talk about the alarming increase in gangs and violent crime plaguing our streets.

A statistic was recently put out by Statistics Canada on gang-related homicides. It confirmed that there has been a 92% increase in gang-related homicides across Canada since the Liberals took office.

[An. hon member]

Wow.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, wow is right. It is an alarming number. We also know that there has been a 32% increase in violent crimes as well.

Those are startling numbers on their own. What is even more horrifying is to imagine the faces of the victims, the women, children and seniors living in our communities, who are impacted by the notion that this increase in gang violence and violent crime is out there. That is an awful feeling to contend with, knowing that it is all too close.

The communities I represent are part of the greater Toronto and Hamilton area, so we feel that increase in gang activity in the GTA. We see the headlines, the stories and the bloody images on the news. We know that our communities are not immune, as we have seen that increase in home invasions, shootings and more.

In fact, there was a very bloody shooting in broad daylight of a notorious mob boss on the driveway of a home in Waterdown, a community in my riding, which is adjacent to Burlington. It is a community of 15,000 people, and in broad daylight, a mob boss was gunned down. That made national and international news. We know that there has been a surge in violent crime in the Niagara region as well. The police there have spoken about that and the statistics that were recently reported bear that out.

I would submit that all of this is because of the government’s soft-on-crime approach, which we have seen with Bill C-5, the ending of mandatory minimums for a host of violent crimes. The message to gangs and violent criminals from the Liberal government has been very clear: If they do a crime, they will not do the time. They might have to do some house arrest. We are talking about very serious crimes such as rape, assault, stabbings, drive-by shootings and gun violence. It is no wonder I am hearing from more and more constituents about the crime that is happening in the community and what is happening all around us.

The homicide report that Statistics Canada put out, which I referred to, noted that 2021 was the biggest year ever for gang-related murder, the highest rate ever recorded in Canada. That is quite alarming. Homicides overall were up 3% since 2020, year over year. It is the highest national homicide rate since 2005, which means that the seven years of the Liberal soft-on-crime policies have undone all the work of the previous Conservative government, which had left our streets much safer.

In my home city of Hamilton, the homicide rate, at a rate of 2.57 per 100,000 people, is above both the national average and the Ontario average. This is a consequence of the increase in gang violence. The police in the neighbouring Niagara region recently estimated there are 32 gangs operating in the region, primarily operating between the GTA, Niagara and Hamilton, throughout the surrounding areas. The police say that, as a result of this, they are seeing increases in drug trafficking, human trafficking, robberies, home invasions and shooting incidents.

In concluding my remarks on Bill C-20, the bill itself, and the necessary oversight it would create for the RCMP and CBSA, are good in our view, although a long time coming. In the wider context of the state of public safety in Canada, the situation is getting worse. The communities in my riding and across Canada are far less safe. Gangs and violent crime are accelerating at an alarming pace. It is a very real daily worry for far too many Canadians. Seven years of Liberal soft-on-crime policies have taken their toll.

Canadians can count on a new Conservative government, after the next election, to turn this around, reverse these horrifying crimes, statistics and trends, and make our communities safe once again.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the hon. member could comment on this: In the province of Alberta, we saw the Conservative provincial government cut and gut funding to local municipal police services. Does the member support the Conservative measures of cutting funding and taking revenues from municipalities that are trying to make their communities safer?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are here debating federal legislation. I have cited a number of statistics put out by Statistics Canada on a federal level that have seen an increase in gang violence and an increase in violent crime, and that is impacting our communities. I can assure the hon. member that a Conservative government will reverse that trend, make those investments and make our streets safe again.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would look at Bill C-20 as progressive legislation that is bringing forward a higher sense of accountability to an area that has not really had it before, and that is the Canadian border control, with the independent commission. It will be dealing with not only the RCMP but also the border control officers at the same time.

Can my colleague provide his thoughts on the importance of bringing both agencies in under one commission?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the things we support, bringing in both of those agencies. My understanding is that it is the first time they have been brought together.

Our borders, as has been noted in debate on this piece of legislation, are extremely important. They are extremely important in my community. We are not far from the Canada-U.S. border, on a very large international trade corridor. I welcome anything that will make the CBSA more effective and more accountable.

Bill C-20. Second reading

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that Bill C-20 is a piece of legislation that really does make a difference. We are taking a look at the RCMP and ensuring there is an independent commission to reinforce public confidence in our RCMP when we get bad apples, but it also extends out to Canada's border control. Again, a vast majority, whether they are RCMP officers or border control officers, do a fantastic job seven days a week, 24 hours a day for Canadians, but we need to recognize that there are bad apples and within that group, there is a need for this legislation and for the independent commission.

Can I get the member's thoughts on the importance of enforcing public confidence in our institutions?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North for the promotional message on behalf of Bill C-20 and the apparent work of his government.

We support Bill C-20 for some of the reasons he outlined and other reasons we have articulated in our interventions on this piece of legislation, but there is something the Liberals still have not talked about. The question was asked in question period today and was not answered. There is a 92% increase in gang-related homicides. That is an alarming statistic. That is of concern to people in my community and communities all across Canada. That is causing women, children and all people in every community to be concerned for their safety. There are no answers from the government on this. We have seen that trend, because of its soft-on-crime policy.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate and I want to make a comment in response to the member for Winnipeg North, who has intervened several times to talk about bad apples among, basically, our border officers. I take exception to that, as someone who serves on the border, in view of the stress, the anxiety and the way our CBSA officers were treated during the pandemic, when there was no plan to even actually vaccinate them and it was left to be addressed border crossing by border crossing.

They have had a high degree of problems related to collective agreements that were never signed on time and never negotiated in good faith with the government.

I find it, quite frankly, offensive, with regard to these men and women who are on the front line every single day, under incredible stress and pressure, that the member for Winnipeg North is continually obsessed with pointing out that there are some so-called bad apples.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Windsor West is in a bordering community, a very important border, where a large percentage of the Canada-U.S. trade crosses each day. The hon. member for Windsor West knows full well the impact that CBSA officers have and what they are dealing with every day.

We agree. We need to have fluidity and resiliency in our supply chains. He raises some good points that the government should consider at committee, on reflection on this piece of legislation.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today aware that we stand on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe nation.

Today we are discussing Bill C-20, which would enact a new stand-alone statute. The public complaints and review commission act would provide an external review regime for both the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency.

The bill responds to a long-standing need to establish an independent review body for the CBSA and improve RCMP review, which builds on previous proposals, such as Bill C-98 from 2019 and Bill C-3 from 2020.

Additionally, this bill advances the Minister of Public Safety's mandate letter with commitments to create a review body for the CBSA and codify defined timelines for RCMP and CBSA responses to complaints and recommendations; combat systematic racism and discrimination in the criminal justice system; and continue advancing efforts toward a path of reconciliation with first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.

Currently, the RCMP has a civilian accountability body in the existing Civilian Review and Complaints Commission. This bill, through the establishment of a public complaints and review commission, would build upon the existing CRCC and provide additional accountability and transparency tools to deal with complaints concerning the RCMP and CBSA.

Bill C-20 includes timelines that codify when a response is required to an interim report related to complaints, reviews or recommendations from the PCRC. Through the PCRC, codified timelines would provide six months for RCMP and CBSA responses to interim reports for complaints, and 60 days for specified activity reviews and recommendations. Not only would the RCMP and the CBSA have to report to the commissioner of the PCRC within these timelines, but the bill would also obligate the RCMP commissioner and the CBSA president to submit an annual report to the Minister of Public Safety on how they have responded to PCRC recommendations.

Combatting systemic racism continues to be a priority for this government and will be reflected through PCRC initiatives. The PCRC will collect race-based data to increase knowledge about systemic racism in law enforcement in order to provide informed responses and recommendations. As with the collection of race-based data, the public information mandate will be especially important in increasing awareness of the PCRC's mandate among indigenous, Black and racialized communities. As a former city councillor and city of Calgary police commissioner and chair of the public safety task force in the city of Calgary, I know how important this data is to support local decision-making within and across our country.

Overall, the PCRC would look to support previously established timeliness goals. Over the last year, the RCMP has improved the timelines within which it responds to the CRCC. We want to ensure these efforts are maintained. To ensure this improvement continues, the PCRC would be able to conduct specified activity reviews for the CBSA and the RCMP of any non-national security activities, either on the PCRC's own initiative or at the request of the minister.

The bill includes provisions for the PCRC to conduct complaint-related investigations. The PCRC would receive complaints from the public about RCMP and CBSA conduct or levels of service. It would also conduct reviews when complainants are not satisfied with the RCMP's or CBSA's handling of their complaints.

For the CBSA specifically, this would include non-national-security activities conducted by agents at the border, and in land, while administering duties under more than 90 acts, regulations and agreements on behalf of other federal departments and agencies, provinces and the territories. The PCRC would report findings and recommendations to the RCMP, the CBSA and the minister.

The bill would provide a statutory framework, through the CBSA Act, to govern the CBSA's responses to serious incidents, which are currently governed by internal policy. More precisely, the bill would establish an obligation for the CBSA to conduct internal investigations into alleged serious incidents, which include notifying police of jurisdiction and the PCRC, when such incidents occur, and the creation of reports for serious incidents.

The bill before us is a high priority for this government. We remain determined to strengthen transparency and accountability. The bill we are discussing today encompasses all that we have learned throughout this process, by responding to the overdue issues while reinforcing established priorities.

This bill would address previously discussed difficulties, such as the need to respond to recommendations in a timely manner, and importantly, this bill partly responds to the evidence of systemic racism in the law enforcement system and the urgent need to find solutions to support and protect marginalized communities in Canada. The government has responded to those issues with a stand-alone bill that highlights the importance of civilian review of law enforcement.

I urge hon. members to join me in supporting this proposed legislation.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the principle stage, bills are never perfect, but could my colleague tell me, given the searches that officers can conduct of travellers' cellphones, how Bill C‑20 in its current form could preserve solicitor-client privilege in an exchange between a client and their counsel?

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is extremely important, and it would provide an opportunity for claims or issues to be brought forward so an independent review process can occur. I think it is a great piece of work our government has done in bringing this forward. We would also collect important race-based data to help with identifying and bringing forward better decisions.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today we heard an impassioned speech from the member for Hamilton Centre on Bill C-20, specifically mentioning a report from the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security entitled “Systemic Racism in Policing in Canada”. He noted there were 42 recommendations in that report, many of which have not been included in Bill C-20, including ensuring that indigenous people, alongside racialized and Black people, are on oversight bodies.

Could the member for Calgary Skyview comment on his level of support for going further, once this bill goes to committee, to see improvements made that would align more with reports like this?

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, these are really important and serious issues. In my time as a police commissioner in Calgary, one of the challenges we saw was with the collection of data and the ability to use it to better understand the challenges we were facing. We can support members of marginalized communities with the challenges that occur when it comes to policing by having a robust system to help bring those complaints forward so we not only have the information but also can make sure we can support them.

I look forward to working with my colleague and other members to have further conversations on how we can strengthen the work, and that will be done at committee moving forward.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I have one criticism, and that is that the data collection on racialized communities is not enough.

I wonder if the member agrees that his party made a huge and critical oversight by not implementing the important report recommendations to ensure that systemic racism is addressed, and by not mandating the appointment of indigenous or BIPOC community members to the commission.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to make sure that indigenous voices are reflected and heard. I think this bill would provide an opportunity for Canadians, from coast to coast to coast, with any of the complaints they have, whether with respect to the RCMP or the CBSA, to be able to bring them forward. We must continue to work together with all members of communities who have faced discrimination and racism to make sure that we tackle these issues head on and make sure we have a strong system of complaint where folks can make those complaints, but where they can also be addressed.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to mention the important work of the CBSA agents who protect our borders and this nation. However, I have heard many stories in my home province of New Brunswick where particularly members of indigenous communities have faced discrimination. Random checks are not quite as random in their experience. I wonder if the member could comment briefly on how important it is to address issues when discrimination arises and ensure people have faith in our CBSA.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Fredericton for her great advocacy and hard work.

This is extremely important. I have seen it, through my time in Calgary as a police commissioner and my time as chair of the public safety task force, and in meeting and talking to community members about their concerns with policing and the challenges that they have had. There were opportunities for them to come forward.

The City of Calgary had an anti-racism hearing for three days to have these important conversations in public. I was part of that and was proud to support that. We have done great work through the public safety task force to make sure that we are working together with communities and members of our community to make sure we address these serious issues.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and privilege to bring the voice of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this place, and today it is to put some comments on the record regarding Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments.

Before I get into the content of the bill, I want to begin by thanking the women and men who wear the uniform to keep Canadians safe.

Canadians expect accountability. They expect law and order, and they expect strong oversight mechanisms to ensure that there is no abuse of power. We recognize that our RCMP and CBSA agents put themselves in the possibility of harm's way every time they put on the uniform.

Canada and the U.S. share the world's longest, undefended border, and we as Canadians share this border with a country that owns more firearms than they have citizens. This is part of a different culture and a different history, and that is not the subject of today's debate.

The point I am making is that the CBSA has received much attention recently, and we look to them for their role in preventing gun violence, particularly in our cities. We ask that they address the issue of criminals smuggling illegal guns into this country, and we know that this activity is often also tied up with drug smuggling and trafficking. We ask that these people, along with law enforcement, put themselves in harm's way to keep us safe, and for that I want to thank them.

Let us look at the content of the bill.

The legislation would rename the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or RCMP, to the public complaints and review commission, which I will refer to as the PCRC. Under its new name, the commission would also be responsible for reviewing civilian complaints against the CBSA. The bill's goal is to ensure that all of Canada's law enforcement agencies have an oversight body.

What I really do like about the bill is that it would codify timelines for the RCMP and CBSA responses to the PCRC. We have all heard of complaints that went into the civilian body, but then there was no response back. The reports, reviews, recommendations, and the information sharing between the RCMP and the PCRC, and the CBSA and the PCRC would be mandated and codified. The bill also stipulates annual reporting by the RCMP and CBSA on actions taken in response. This would be a further mechanism to ensure action follows complaints. As well, the bill would mandate reporting of disaggregated race-based data, provides for public education and provides for a statutory framework to govern the CBSA responses to serious incidents.

By way of some further background, the bill was introduced in the 43rd Parliament as Bill C-3. However, it did not pass second reading. It was introduced very late in the session and died on the Order Paper when that unnecessary election was called. In the 42nd Parliament, it was known as Bill C-98, but it died awaiting a vote in the Senate.

I want to put on the record that Conservatives have supported this legislation at each stage. I also want to note that this legislation appears to be straightforward and meets its objectives, but the newly created PCRC can only recommend disciplinary action and cannot enforce it. There will still need to be a further step as this process unfolds.

Conservatives believe in upholding the dignity of our borders and ensuring that our Canadian Border Services Agency is properly resourced, both in manpower and equipment. The civilian review commission should improve oversight and help the CBSA be an even more effective agency in its duties and functions, similar to the function of the renamed Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP.

As I stated earlier, Canadians expect effective oversight of federal law enforcement agencies, but what is disappointing is the length of time it has taken to get this done. The Liberals promised oversight in the 2015 election, then squandered two Parliaments in fulfilling their promise. Now, one month before Parliament breaks, the House is supposed to hurry up and pass this legislation. We are supportive, as we have been in the past, but we will review it, and we will do our job in this place. We have always stood for the security of Canadians and will continue to do so.

I live in Leamington, only 45 minutes away from the Windsor-Detroit border. I have crossed that border to the U.S. numerous times. By and large, I have had many good experiences and professional interactions with CBSA staff as I returned to Canada either from travelling to the U.S. or abroad, or just from an evening or afternoon in Detroit.

However, several years ago, while my four daughters were still quite young, my wife did not have such a pleasant experience. It was some time ago, in 2003 during the SARS outbreak, so there are similarities to today's times. My brother-in-law, a Canadian, was working in St. Louis at the time and flew to Detroit to come back to Canada to renew his status paperwork.

While my wife answered the questions asked by the CBSA agent, the agent assumed some information regarding my brother-in-law’s citizenship that he had not confirmed through questioning. Frustrated once he learned of his error, he swore at my young children, and literally threw the paperwork of six people into the van. I was not there; I was tied up elsewhere, so my wife took my four young daughters, a credit to her, into the U.S. to pick Darrell up. This agent now demanded that the paperwork be returned in a different order.

If the PCRC would have been in existence then, it would have heard from us, and this officer’s conduct would have been reported. This is a relatively minor incident in the scheme of things that could have happened, but there is a role for this oversight agency.

This situation occurred 19 years ago, so some time has gone by, but I know that it has been seven years since an idea for this oversight body was introduced in this place. The government campaigned on that promise. Let us hope it will not take 19 years to get this promise to Canadians completed.

Yesterday, in the House, we debated Bill S-4, a bill that enjoyed support at second reading on all sides of the aisle. Bill S-4 was Bill C-23 in the last Parliament, which also did not see the light of day in this chamber, but I digress. It seems that good bills do not receive good priority for this file in this place, but we will leave that for another day.

Bill S-4 asks to improve the efficiency of our court system through bringing in the use of video and other changes to address the huge backlog of cases. This backlog, of course, was exacerbated by the pandemic. We have all heard the expression “justice delayed is justice denied”, and the Jordan decision by the Supreme Court has codified this expression.

My purpose is not to redebate yesterday’s work in this chamber. Bill S-4 is off to committee, and hopefully it will be improved through amendments. Then hopefully it will be quickly returned to this place for third reading. My point in raising Bill S-4 is that during debate, several statistics were tabled during the interventions and I found them troubling.

There has been a 32% increase in violent crime since 2015. There were 124,000 more violent crimes last year than in 2015. There were 788 homicides in Canada last year. There were 611 in 2015, a 29% increase.

As we have heard before, there has been a 92% increase in gang-related homicides since 2015 and a 61% increase in reported sexual assaults since 2015. Police-reported hate crimes have increased 72% over the last two years, and 31,000 Canadians lost their lives to overdose between 2016 and 2022. There have been 7,169 deaths from opioid overdose in Canada in 2021 alone, and 21 people are dying per day from overdoses. Before the pandemic, it was 11.

Thus far, this is the record of the government when it comes to keeping Canadians safe over the past seven years. At their core, Bill S-4 and Bill C-20 are pieces of legislation that take us in the right direction. This cannot happen soon enough. I hope they now receive the priority they deserve.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned that justice delayed is justice denied. One observation I have, and I am not pointing the finger at anyone within the organization, is that the current review process the RCMP has for complaints, whether because of vexatious complaints or faulty processes, seems to be quite long. It can take over a year before someone even has their file updated so that the process begins.

Given the fact that the government does not seem to pay attention to its own bureaucrats when they say they have an issue with passports and need to increase resources and staff, does he feel that the government will be able to successfully implement this new complaints process so it includes both RCMP and CBSA complaints?

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a good question. On the positive side, as I mentioned in my remarks, the timelines for responses are codified in the legislation, and those specific timelines will, I am sure, be examined at committee when this piece of legislation goes there. However, there is an open question: Will the government act on the very legislation that it has put in place? The government has shown at other times that it has not. It is therefore incumbent upon all of us to put pressure on the government to hold it to account. That is our job as the loyal opposition, and we will continue to do our job until we form government. Then it will become our responsibility to ensure that proper oversight of our federal agencies sees the light of day.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member highlighted a lot of the positive aspects of this very important bill and the urgency to seeing this pass. It is a very important step forward.

I want to pinpoint the specific piece where he mentioned that he would be supporting the legislation. Can we expect the Conservatives to help us ensure that it passes quickly in the House?

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, numerous speakers on our side of the aisle have indicated that we support sending this piece of legislation to committee. We will be seeking amendments to improve it, but we do support it. As I said in my closing remarks, it is a step in the right direction.

I share the member's concern about speed. The bill was announced seven years ago, and unfortunately we are again debating it here now. However, we certainly all want to see it go through all the steps both here and in the other place and become the law of the land.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Resuming debate.

Seeing as there is no more debate, is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I request that it be agreed to on division.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I request that it be agreed to on division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion carried on division. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House at this time, you might find unanimous consent to call it 1:30 p.m. so we can begin private members' hour.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I want to make a quick comment. It is funny how things can pass quickly in the House when we really want them to go quickly. I recognize the hon. member for Fredericton for making that comment a bit earlier.