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.

[Prof. Andrew Clement]

I did look at Bill C-292. In part, it inspired my recommendations regarding algorithmic transparency, because that is the main feature of that bill.

However, I think that what I'm proposing here around the prospective amendments to define algorithmic transparency will go beyond what your colleague has proposed in Bill C-292, in that his definition refers only to personal information. There's a lot more information that goes into the algorithmic practices. I think it's very important that we understand all of the aspects of the way in which online operators curate information.

I think it's a good start. I think Bill C-63 can go further. It needs an algorithmic transparency amendment.

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

I appreciate that.

I want to change the channel now to the adoption of Bill C-20.

It received royal assent on October 31. That legislation authorizes the establishment of a public complaints and review commission.

As you know, Minister, many Black, racialized and indigenous Canadians have had negative interactions with our police services. There have been negative interactions at the border. The call for such a commission has been a long time coming, let's just say. There's been a lot of interest in the establishment of this commission. It will give a lot of certainty when it starts being operationalized.

The coming into force is reliant on a Governor in Council announcement. I'd like you to inform this committee, Minister, of what steps you have taken as minister to operationalize its establishment.

I'd just like to be clear on what the timelines are, what the future budget projections are and when Canadians can expect this commission to be operationalized.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

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

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

October 31, 2024

Mr. Speaker,

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

Yours sincerely,

Ken MacKillop

Secretary to the Governor General

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

Message from the Senate

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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

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

Recent Deaths of First Nations People During Police Interventions

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thank all members for their attention.

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

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

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

Bill C‑40—Time Allocation Motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

The House resumed from June 10 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 third time and passed.

The Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

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

Mr. Speaker, debate is moving at a rapid clip, and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-20.

I will pick up on the point of the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby that, my goodness, this bill has been in front of us for a long time. First reading was more than two years ago. The bill is long overdue.

I will also put on the record early that I will vote for this bill. I am very pleased to see it head toward the Senate.

I do have some comments, though, because I still have some concerns about the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency.

We have had a public complaints commission for the RCMP for some time. I think it is fairly shocking that it is only now that we will have a public complaints commission of any kind for the Border Services Agency. The number of complaints about systemic racism within CBSA is legend. It is certainly distressing and disturbing, and no one has had any place to take those complaints until and unless Bill C-20 gets through this place.

There is no question, as other members have mentioned, that the bill was much improved in committee. There were amendments that improved the bill on many scores for the RCMP public complaints commission, which is steadily being improved. I will never forget that when I was first elected to this place, the RCMP public complaints commission did not have the right to subpoena witnesses. Things have improved. CBSA needs to have this available for people who are dealt with roughly by CBSA.

At some point in the future, certainly not tonight and certainly not before we pass Bill C-20, it would be very useful to reflect on the recommendations of the Mass Casualty Commission in relation to the single biggest mass shooting in Canadian history, as the Speaker will certainly recall as a member from Nova Scotia. The shootings in Portapique remain with me and sit with me, and I do not think we have done enough as a House of Commons to deal with the report of the Mass Casualty Commission.

I certainly hope the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security will pick up on unfinished business relating to what happened in the circumstances there. The Mass Casualty Commission made broad and sweeping recommendations for reforming the RCMP, and as far as I can see, in response to alarm bells, the RCMP has hit the snooze button. I really hope that we will return to that at some point in future.

Certainly, the Canada Border Services Agency needs to make improvements. When I spoke to the bill at second reading, I shared an extraordinary story in which I was involved, as a member of Parliament. There was a man from outside my riding. He was indigenous. CBSA, without any warning, showed up at his door right before Christmas, arrested him and put him in leg irons. They took him away from his indigenous wife, a survivor of residential schools, threw him in the back of the van and told him he was being deported to the United States, which is where he was born, without any regard to his rights as an indigenous person under the Jay Treaty and with no previous attempt to connect with him. He had been living in Canada for decades. He had been married for decades. He was a member of the Penelakut first nation, a grandfather and a pillar of the community, and, but for the grace of God, he would have been deported.

I cannot tell how much it stuck with me, the notion that CBSA officers were, at least at that time, some many years ago, probably around 2013, if memory serves, being encouraged to find people whose papers might be a bit irregular and get them out of Canada. I think they also had a TV show to follow them, so they could have real-life examples of what it was like to arrest someone who did not belong in Canada.

I thank God for a minister at the time who is no longer in this place, Chris Alexander, who was the minister of immigration. I managed to convince him to regularize the status of this wonderful man who has since passed away. Also, I have to say there was work that was done quickly to get him released from what was then a holding cell under the Vancouver airport. It has since been relocated to a more proper facility.

We are making improvements. The proposed bill would be one. I want to see it pass and will certainly be voting for it. I know we are expediting things this evening, but I do not think it is proper to skip over. We have more work to do to ensure that we root out systemic problems of racism at CBSA and in the RCMP and, when the complaints commission is up and running, as it has been for the RCMP, but with renewed vigour thanks to Bill C-20, and for the first time for the Canada Border Services Agency, that we as parliamentarians stay on top of this.

The bill is going to the other place. This is another concern: If there are amendments there, as we know, it will come back to us. We should keep our eye on the ball to make sure that Canadians, or for that matter, those who are crossing our border and are not Canadian, receive the protections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as they should from any federal agency.

I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to share some thoughts and to encourage us all to pass this, but not to see this as the end of the story in ensuring that all federal agencies respect each human being with whom they deal, regardless of prejudices that exist within both of those services against racialized people and against indigenous people.

Our work here is not done, but for tonight, let us hope Bill C-20 passes expeditiously.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to speak to Bill C‑20 at third reading.

We worked hard on this bill at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We are finally at third reading, about to send this bill to the other place. It is extremely important that we do just that.

Our role as members of Parliament is to improve bills. It must be said that this bill was introduced by the government. This was its third attempt. Before now, it did not really put in the work to set up a review and complaints commission. We have seen this in previous bills. The government introduced bills so late in the parliamentary session that they never passed. There is a clear need for a complaints commission. Everyone is calling for one. So far, the government has failed to make it a high enough priority to get it through all stages of the parliamentary legislative process.

The bill passed second reading and was referred to committee for study, where there were several delays. It was not the government that caused these delays, it was actually the Conservatives who, on several occasions, prevented amendments from being considered and witnesses from being heard.

Happily, after spending hours considering each amendment, the bill was passed. All the witnesses said that it was really important to improve this bill. At the same time, it needed to be adapted. I want to say that finally, after several delays, my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and I have succeeded, by working together, in getting this bill passed and improved.

I would like to take a few minutes to talk specifically about how the NDP worked to improve the bill. The NDP got approximately ten amendments passed, all of which are quite crucial. We worked with the other parties, the governing party, the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party, to pass amendments that had been submitted by the other parties.

Even though the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security had to meet several times, and the Conservatives moved a completely separate motion rather than hear from witnesses and hear such important evidence, even though all these delays slowed down the study of the bill, we are now getting to the final stage. We even hope the bill will pass unanimously this evening and be sent to the other place.

First, this complaints commission will cover more than just members of the public. Internal employees should be well represented. We put forward an amendment, NDP-6, to ensure union representation. When you work in the labour movement, it is important that unions be represented. Workers must have a representation process.

We amended clause 28 of the bill, allowing union representatives of Canada Border Services Agency and Royal Canadian Mounted Police employees to jointly set service standards for the review timelines specified in that section of the bill. We set a one-year deadline for resolving these representation and timeline issues. It is a victory for union representation and assurance of union representation in the service standards initiative.

We did not stop there. We also pushed for greater transparency and accountability. The committee heard from a number of witnesses, including the Breaking Barriers coalition, which wanted to see more transparency and accountability in the bill. We asked that copies of the reports submitted be distributed. The transparency issue was raised in amendments NDP-7 and NDP-14. We wanted all this information to be available, and we worked hard to get these amendments passed.

We also wanted to contribute to the reconciliation process with indigenous peoples, and we submitted amendments NDP-9 and NDP-9.1 to include all reconciliation issues in the bill.

We also wanted to give complainants more time to bring forward complaints, which is key. Initially, before it was improved in committee, the bill said that complaints had to be brought within a year. We wanted to extend that period to accommodate organizations that testified, such as Amnesty International, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and all the other organizations, including the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group.

We wanted to ban the use of non-disclosure agreements, an issue that was brought up in connection with the Hockey Canada scandals. We wanted to ban non-disclosure agreements, which prevent victims from speaking up. Amendment NDP-23 on that subject was agreed to.

We wanted to definitively prevent intimidation and know why a complaint was withdrawn. The monitoring group suggested that a complainant could provide reasons for withdrawing a complaint, which would be another way to better protect victims. Other proposals of ours were adopted, making the version of the bill amended by the committee more transparent than the original version.

There were other extremely important improvements. I would like to list the organizations that played an important role in improving this bill: Amnesty International Canada, both the francophone and anglophone wings; the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association; the Canadian Council for Refugees; the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association; the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council; and the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group. Because of them, Bill C‑20 will pass at long last, but with extremely important improvements.

We are now hopefully coming to the end of the House saga around Bill C-20, a bill that would establish the public complaints and review commission, which is so important for both the CBSA and the RCMP. We want to have in place a public complaints commission that does its job. We want to make sure those who serve our country at the RCMP and CBSA are subject to the appropriate oversight but at the same time have protections as well.

The bill, as improved by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, would achieve that mandate. We have managed to improve the bill and provide for more transparency and for a better set of checks and balances to ensure victims have more rights and that labour representation is acknowledged and upheld in the bill itself. Also, providing for a longer complaint period is something that is extremely important, as well as banning the use of non-disclosure agreements to silence victims.

There are so many organizations that provided valuable testimony. I am hoping the bill will pass tonight by unanimous consent, despite the delays that took place through the committee process. The reality is that this bill is much better coming out of committee than it was going into committee. It is necessary. It is important to put this into place. I am hoping that all members of Parliament will vote to send it to the other place this evening.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the people of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry and eastern Ontario and to have the opportunity tonight to talk on the bill before us, Bill C-20, the public complaints and review commission act, and actually localize it a little bit. It is an important piece of legislation for our part of eastern Ontario, and I am proud to not only to represent the great people of the city of Cornwall and most of the united counties of SD&G, but also the people of Akwesasne.

I would be remiss, as I begin my comments here tonight, if I did not acknowledge the leadership of the retiring and outgoing grand chief of the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, Abram Benedict, who has been, for many years, a great leader and a great partner to work with. In my role before as a warden of the united counties, as a mayor in our community and most recently as member of Parliament, Grand Chief Abram has become a friend, and I had seen him recently on the weekend at community events. He has been such a positive advocate for the people of Akwesasne and the unique challenges they face.

The geography of Akwesasne alone is enough of a challenge for him and council and their staff, team and residents to navigate on a day-to-day basis, which is why Bill C-20 is very important to the riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry. The bill would create a commission that would do independent reviews of civilian complaints of the RCMP to a certain jurisdiction and also CBSA on the interactions that Canadian residents may have with CBSA on the front lines or otherwise.

We have a port of entry in the city of Cornwall that goes through Cornwall Island and Akwesasne into northern New York. The community of Akwesasne is unique geographically, as I mentioned, because the community straddles both Canada and the United States, which creates a very interesting logistical challenge on many fronts. If that was not unique enough, the geography also stands unique east and west by encompassing both Ontario and Quebec. So, on provincial jurisdiction, there are often a lot of complexities about working with the respective provincial governments, and having an international border between two countries certainly makes things strained at our port of entry. The strain, frankly, around the CBSA port of entry has been well documented and known for years.

As I mentioned, the grand chief has always been a great advocate for the residents and council in Akwesasne, and on Bill C-20, he has been no different. He spoke in previous Parliaments. Actually, this started two Parliaments ago when then Minister Ralph Goodale tabled similar legislation, and it was tried again in the last Parliament. Again, I will say that it is the inability of the Liberals to manage their legislative calendar and see legislation through that, here we are again, in the final days of our sitting before rising for the summer, the bill is up for debate again and then has to go through. However, the grand chief spoke at the public safety committee last year and provided the context of why this new and needed commission is going to be important and much supported by council and the community in Akwesasne, and not just them but the City of Cornwall, partners and neighbours of the port of entry as well.

Here is the thing that is interesting about the port of entry in our part of eastern Ontario. It is the 10th busiest in all of Canada, but 70% of the traffic is actually residents of Akwesasne going back and forth between Cornwall Island and the city of the Cornwall more often that not. That equates to about 1.4 million trips through Canadian customs by Mohawks travelling in Akwesasne, or more than 100 trips per member per year. Sadly, that puts quite a strain and tension in the community when there is somebody, a Canadian citizen, residing in Cornwall Island looking to take their kids to school, go to a medical appointment, go out for dinner or go shopping and having to go through customs each time they leave Cornwall Island to go to Cornwall and vice versa. This has created a lot of tension and frustration over the years, and rightfully so.

If the port of entry and CBSA is not enough of an issue, there is the location of the tolls. I have been on record before, and will continue to be on record, to say that, itself, is another barrier when it comes to Akwesasne and our neighbouring communities being able to partner more on economic development, travel and tourism.

I spoke to local residents in Akwesasne who worked very hard over the course of the last couple of years to fundraise and build a beautiful skate park on Cornwall Island. They raised money through a variety of ways. The construction of the project and the ribbon cutting were, rightfully, well documented on social and local media, and were a source of pride in our region.

What continues to be frustrating is this: It is one of the best skate parks for young people to experience, but there is a barrier that continues to be in place. If someone living in Ottawa wants to go down to check out the skate park for the afternoon with their children, they have to bring their passports, go through CBSA and pay a toll just to go to Cornwall Island. Therefore, the commission is necessary.

My colleague from Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek said it very well: Police investigating police, complaints against complaints within, is the equivalent of the Prime Minister's investigating the Prime Minister. People would look at that and say it is not a proper recourse nor an appropriate one. It is the same thing we have seen with the RCMP and the CBSA. We need to require what we have done in that regard. We need the commission in place, and it is time for the Liberals to finally move forward.

I want to take the opportunity to lay out some of the further concerns that were raised by the grand chief in his testimony at the public safety committee. The assurances have yet to be provided from a technical side of things when it comes to the legislation. The community does support Bill C-20, but there need to be assurances from the Liberal government on the implementation, and that is going to be key for the commission to be a success.

The first is that it has to be set up in a timely manner. There needs to be specific training when it comes to our area, our port of entry, and the uniqueness that we face, as I have outlined in this speech tonight. However, at the same time, we need to make sure that when a citizen, a civilian, wants to bring a complaint forward to the commission, it would be easily done. The grand chief raises the example of ArriveCAN. Many elders in Akwesasne do not have a smart phone. They did not have the ArriveCAN app. That in itself presented a lot of challenges in navigating during the COVID world of going back and forth between the port of entry, Akwesasne, Cornwall Island and the city of Cornwall.

However, it needs to be the same way with the commission; the government needs to realize this and commit to a simplified process for an individual to make a complaint. It could be done by paper, by phone or through another means such that regardless of one's age or access to technology and ability to use it, one would have the right to file a complaint in a simple manner, in order to be heard.

The other part that would be key is making sure the process, from an HR perspective and an operations perspective, would ensure, first, that the civilians and citizens who do initiate a complaint are heard in a timely manner, and, second, that there is a clear resolution and outcome to the complaint they file.

If the legislation comes to fruition, I believe, based on the set-up of our port of entry, that sadly we are going to see a significant number of the complaints come from the Cornwall-Akwesasne area. We need to have full commitment from the government, not only on the legislation itself but also on what I call the regulations and operations around it. Canadians deserve to know that there would be a fair and simple process through which they could file a complaint. All Canadians need to be assured that their voices and complaints would be heard, responded to and dealt with in a timely manner. My role as a member of Parliament for our community is to make sure that does happen.

I look forward to questions and comments from my colleagues, and I appreciate the time to add my voice and thoughts on the issue.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely pleased to have the opportunity to rise today to speak to Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory amendments. This legislation would rename the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to the public complaints and review commission.

Under its name, the commission would be responsible for reviewing civilian complaints against the Canada Border Services Agency; codified timelines for the RCMP and CBSA responses to PCRC interim reports; reviews and recommendations; information sharing between the RCMP, CBSA and the PCRC; mandatory annual reporting by the RCMP and CBSA on actions taken in response to PCRC recommendations; mandatory reporting of disaggregated race-based data by the PCRC; public education; and a statutory framework to govern CBSA responses to serious incidents.

On the surface, it may appear we are discussing the specifics of some new entity the government is creating to expand the bureaucracy. I would not blame anyone for assuming that, given it is often how the bloated Liberal government responds. However, the sentiment behind this bill is a good and responsible one.

While Conservatives may still have some concerns with this bill, I believe our amendments made at committee did improve it. This legislation seeks to increase people's confidence in the justice system and hold to account those who ensure our safety and who secure our borders. Anyone put in a position of authority can either use it appropriately or inappropriately, including public servants entrusted with protecting Canadians. They are responsible for properly exercising their duties and must be held accountable for their actions.

This includes employees at the Canada Border Services Agency, an agency entrusted with supporting national security, public safety priorities and dictating who and what enters or leaves our country. CBSA is the only public safety agency without an independent oversight body for public complaints. This has been deeply concerning for all those who cross our borders and interact with border officials, including CBSA employees themselves, which is why Bill C-20 seeks to correct this.

Frankly, this piece of legislation is long overdue, as we have heard. The Liberal government introduced this bill in the 42nd Parliament as Bill C-98 and in the 43rd Parliament as Bill C-3. However, it was never given priority in Parliament by the Liberals. I would be remiss not to mention it was a promise in their 2015 platform. This speaks to either their disingenuousness or their incompetency when it comes to addressing important issues and following through on their commitments. It is also very telling of the NDP-Liberal government's priorities when it puts off initiatives that would protect Canadians in order to focus all its energy on finding new ways to spend taxpayers' money.

While I will be voting for this legislation, I still have some concerns about it. The first is that Bill C-20, in its current form, does not reflect many of the recommendations offered to improve it. This bill was studied at committee to provide stakeholders with the opportunity to raise their concerns and flag various problems with it to members of Parliament and even make recommendations, not so that Liberal MPs could have an audience to watch them give the impression they cared. When indigenous chiefs and the National Police Federation, on behalf of the RCMP, suggested changes be made, Liberals voted against Conservative amendments that reflected the experts' recommendations.

Another concern that remains unaddressed is the lack of independence. The current complaint process results with most complaints about the RCMP being referred to the RCMP. Given the Liberals' record, they clearly do not understand the need for independence, and so I will explain it for their sake.

The reason the police cannot investigate the police is pretty much the same reason that a prime minister should not investigate himself or herself. An independent body is necessary to ensure professionalism and impartiality and build public trust. If the investigator has no vested interest in an investigation, their only allegiance is to the truth, thus ensuring Canadians can trust the process. The PCRC not only ought to, but needs to, be able to conduct its own investigations using its own investigators, which must be reflected in Bill C-20.

Even if self-conducted investigations were always completely honest, there is still the problem of perception. If people are afraid to file complaints or believe that, in doing so, they do not have any hope of their complaints' being dealt with, the issues that should be raised will not be addressed. I cannot think of anyone who would file a complaint to the person whom the complaint is about, for obvious reasons. To build trust, investigations must not only be internally transparent, fair and independent, but they must also appear so externally. A fully independent commission is not only good for those filing complaints, but for all Canadians, including the RCMP themselves.

The Liberal-NDP government's soft-on-crime policy has led to skyrocketing rates of violent crime and auto theft. Many Canadians, especially those in rural Canada and remote areas like my riding of Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, look to the RCMP for protection of their persons and their property. The Liberal-NDP government's policies are creating chaos, making the RCMP's job more difficult.

The RCMP is essential to keeping our country and its people safe and to maintaining law and order. To do this, RCMP officers need to be on the front lines, doing the important work that they were trained to do. The bureaucratic paperwork that comes with dealing with complaints is taking up our valued officers' time. The RCMP officers cannot protect Canadians if they are stuck behind a desk in a cubicle somewhere. Clearly, supporting a commission independent of the RCMP not only ensures fairness, but efficiency as well. The intent of this bill is to lighten the bureaucratic burden of the RCMP and ensure justice and transparency. However, the execution is not the best. It can be better, and that is where the heart of this debate lies.

The Liberal-NDP coalition refuses to take constructive criticism. Conservatives embrace legislation that makes positive changes for the good of the country. We listened to stakeholders and worked with other parties when they put forward good suggestions. We introduced amendments. Obviously, we were not going to agree on everything, but our goal should be, and indeed it is our duty as parliamentarians, to ensure the safety and security of Canadians. These are all important issues and I am sure that the members of the costly coalition would say that they agree that the safety and security of Canadians is the most important. However, actions speak louder than words. By doing nothing for nine years after promising to put the bill in place in 2015, refusing to improve the bill by listening to stakeholders and addressing their concerns and now rushing this legislation through because of their own incompetence, the Liberals show how unserious they are and Canadians will not be fooled.

Conservatives are committed to continuing to work on these important issues. The question truly is, are the Liberals committed? If they are, can they organize themselves enough to put aside their other pointless endeavours and fix their flawed legislation so that it can be passed, once and for all?