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

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C‑20. Basically, this bill, in its very essence, seeks to increase people's confidence in the justice system and to hold accountable all those across Canada who ensure our safety and that of our borders.

This bill holds that the RCMP and the CBSA deserve certain things to make their work a lot more effective. We are well aware that the challenges of today, in 2024, are a far cry from the challenges of 30, 40 or 50 years ago. Leaving aside social media, just think of the transfer of information, and the quick and effective access we have to information today thanks to AI and other tools, like our smart phones. These tools have taken national security challenges to a whole new level. They have changed and our tools must be adapted. That is why this bill seeks, as I said earlier, to increase Canadians' confidence in the RCMP and border policing system. It also aims to ensure that their work is done properly, and therefore gives them even more relevant and practical powers to address the actual problems that police officers have to face.

It is important to understand that information is the key to security, particularly when it comes to long-term criminality, which is what the RCMP deals with. This has to do with international relations, where foreign powers or individuals from foreign states infiltrate our country, and, of course, the access people have on our soil. Let us not forget that Canada has the longest non-military border on the planet. Obviously, we share that with our American partner, so we are not alone. We share the border with the Americans. It is more appropriate to put it that way, out of respect for our neighbour. We share the world's longest demilitarized border. It is 8,891 kilometres long. I am referring, of course, to border dividing the north from the south, the one closest to where we are now, between Canada and the United States. However, we must not forget the border that is more than 2,400 kilometres long, between Alaska and the northern part of our country, the northwest boundary of our country.

The challenges at the border are immense. We can take great comfort in the fact that our Canada-U.S. border is one of the best. That said, it also presents certain challenges. I will come back to that later with the issue of illegal firearms. It is important to understand that, under the current circumstances, border services have completely different challenges. That is why we need to review certain aspects of the border services organization and the RCMP. That is what this bill seeks to improve.

This bill is not perfect, but overall we believe that it is a step in the right direction. Among other things, we want to improve communication between the various law enforcement partners and law enforcement authorities, whether we are talking about the border services or the RCMP. We also want much more fluidity of information. On the other hand, we want to reinforce the respect that people should have for their police forces and their border service officers. If, by some misfortune, something happens and someone ends troubled by a situation and feels they have been mistreated in connection with a problem at the border or with the RCMP, that complaint must not end up in limbo or fall through the cracks, as they say, and not be spoken of again.

We therefore need to strengthen the rights of citizens to complain about situations that they feel are completely inappropriate and ensure that investigations into such situations are conducted properly. That is where we have some concerns. Police forces have said that an officer's career can be tarnished for months if a citizen wrongly reports them for inappropriate behaviour, and in the end it is determined that everything was done by the book and that the complaint was unfounded. It is a very long process, so we need to be aware of that. We presented an amendment in that regard, but unfortunately, it was rejected.

That being said, we still need to keep in mind that this bill also seeks to give more flexibility in addressing new challenges, as I said earlier.

Let us take auto theft as an example. In recent years, there has been a sadly astronomical increase in car theft. As members of the official opposition, we have diligently done our job by tackling this problem head on and proposing concrete and effective solutions. I would like to point out that those solutions have been very well received by the people who have first-hand knowledge of the situation, namely the police.

To begin, our leader, the Leader of the Opposition, leader of the Conservatives and member for Carleton, made an announcement in Ontario and, the next day, an announcement in Quebec.

The first announcement was about ways to tackle auto theft and indicated that we will ensure we take a much more punitive approach to those who commit these crimes. No more weekend house arrests, known as Netflix sentences. With those types of sentences, the person sentenced can spend the weekend at home in their basement, watching Netflix. We proposed tougher sentences, specifically in a bid to scare off the miscreants who might be tempted to get involved in car theft. That is another thing. The first step is to go after the thieves themselves and ensure tougher penalties.

Second, border services officers, especially those working in ports, have to be properly equipped. That is why our leader made an announcement at the port of Montreal, which many observers welcomed as the right thing to do. Our leader promised to properly equip our customs officers and customs services, exactly the people called on to flush out abnormal and illegal situations inside containers concealing vehicles stolen just hours earlier from downtown areas, whether that be Toronto, Montreal or somewhere else.

Our proposal is to provide real search tools. That means 24 X-ray scanners, devices that can see through containers and identify their contents. We have to properly equip our people, buy 24 new X-ray scanners and hire 75 people to perform checks at ports, especially in Montreal.

Our proposal, articulated by the Leader of the Opposition and MP for Carleton, was two-pronged: to make sentences a lot harsher and to properly equip our border services. This is a practical response to a real problem. The approach is not dogmatic, aimed at setting ambitious targets or whatever. These are concrete actions.

I was very proud to see the Quebec National Assembly vote unanimously on a motion just a few days later that very closely reflected the Conservative proposal, that is, to toughen penalties and provide the necessary tools. That is exactly what we were hoping for. Auto theft is a major problem for border services.

There are also illegal weapons, which I mentioned earlier. We know that there has unfortunately been a huge increase in violent crimes committed with weapons, especially illegal weapons. We know that this government, initially supported by the Bloc Québécois regarding which firearms would be prohibited, took a completely dogmatic and disrespectful approach. Pages and pages of weapons, hundreds of them, were to be prohibited. However, as the front page of The Globe and Mail clearly showed, they were essentially weapons that had absolutely no criminal purpose. They were, in fact, hunting rifles.

Unfortunately, we know that illegal guns cross the border quite often. This needs to be properly addressed. That is why, when we talk about security, the border and the work of the RCMP, we do it respectfully and in concrete terms, focusing on realistic, responsible, applicable and effective solutions. What is more, our solutions respect those who work in the RCMP or in our border services across the country to ensure greater security for all Canadians. We sincerely thank them. We appreciate their work and their commitment. Far too often, they put their lives at risk to keep everyone safe throughout the country. We are very grateful to them.

We will vote in favour of this bill. We would have liked it to be a bit more tailored to the reality of these workers, but, generally speaking, it is a step in the right direction.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak in the House.

When I think of Bill C-20, which we are debating today, I cannot help but reflect on what the member for Sturgeon River—Parkland said today, which was that the Conservative Party was disappointed, in essence, that the legislation has not been passed. He was challenging the government on why we have not passed the legislation.

The type of hypocrisy we see flowing out of the Conservative Party of Canada is truly amazing. The Conservatives have a far-right mentality of trying to say to Canadians that everything is broken, and that includes what takes place here on the floor of the House of Commons. They like to spread misinformation, and they like to filibuster and do everything possible to prevent things from actually happening in the chamber that is positive for Canadians.

On Bill C-20, I agree with the member opposite who spoke to the bill. He talked about the fine work that our RCMP and our border control officers perform, day in and day out. Everyone recognizes the importance of this legislation, but there is only one political party that is going out of its way to see this legislation actually not pass, and that is the Conservative Party, that alt-right group that we witness every day across the way when the House sits. We see that in the behaviour of the leader of the Conservative Party. They do not want to see a productive House of Commons.

To those who follow this debate or who follow CPAC on a regular basis, recognize that no matter what sort of filibuster or block the Conservative Party puts in place on a daily basis, we will continue to be there to fight for fairness for all Canadians. We saw that in the presentation of a budget that builds upon Canada's middle class and that provides a higher sense of fairness so that those who have more could cover for other individuals, so that everyone would pay their fair share and so that we would not forget about millennials and generation X.

Bill C-20 would go a long way in providing a substantial initiative that is needed to support our RCMP and our border control officers. However, we are debating, instead of trying to get to the matter at hand, in hopes that we could try to pass this legislation. Opposition members know full well that there is a limited amount of time for government legislation, and one would think they would take that issue seriously, especially if they say that they support the legislation. However, instead of allowing the debate to go into third reading, the Conservative Party of Canada has moved an amendment to a substantial piece of legislation.

There is a long title for legislation, and there is a short title. This is what the bill itself, under “Short Title”, actually says: “This Act may be cited as the Public Complaints and Review Commission Act.” How much simpler could it be? How could that possibly be controversial? There is no controversy surrounding that issue, so I would ask this question: Why did the Conservative Party member opposite decide to bring in this particular amendment?

The short answer is that they do not want it to go to third reading. Rather, they want us to debate that aspect in the form of a filibuster. This is obstruction, something we witness far too often on the floor of the House of Commons. Today, it is a ridiculous amendment meant to prevent legislation from going into third reading. Then the Conservatives will cry that they want more debate time, that they want this and they want that. They bring forward absolutely illegitimate arguments to justify behaviour that I believe a vast majority of Canadians would not support. There are some in society, being the far right Diagolon group, that would support those types of actions.

I would say to the leader of the Conservative Party that the vast majority of Canadians would not support or condone the type of far right extreme behaviour that we are seeing being implemented by members of the Conservative Party. This includes bringing in senseless amendments like this one today, which has the sole purpose of preventing the bill from moving forward.

At the same time, the Conservatives are tenacious and persistent in their critiques of the government for not bringing forward legislation or not getting it passed. Look at what the member said in his speech. He was critical of the government for not supporting CBSA border control officers. Does the member not even realize that it was the former Conservative prime minister who cut hundreds of jobs in that area and millions of dollars from that department? The member criticized our government on that issue, but we reinstated the funding and added to it. Do the Conservatives not have any shame whatsoever? Do they not realize the hypocrisy that is overflowing from the modern, right-wing Conservative Party? We are witnesses to that hypocrisy, day in and day out, when the House is sitting.

The Conservative Party is not there to support Canadians. When we talk about supporting, it means not only getting behind legislation like what we have today and allowing it to pass but also recognizing the initiatives that are there in the budget to support our border control agents and the RCMP by developing the board that the legislation will put into place, being the independent and enhanced public complaints and review commission. That is, in fact, needed. Everyone in the chamber recognizes that, but only one party wants to prevent it from becoming law and having it enacted.

The Conservatives will criticize, just as the member opposite tried to criticize us for not taking action on the issue of gun smuggling. Are they serious? The member can take a look at the actions we have taken in comparison to the previous administration, under Stephen Harper. When Conservatives talk about auto theft, the greatest auto theft that was taking place in Manitoba was in that 2004-08 era, under national Liberal and national Conservative governments. The federal government, provincial government and non-profits such as Manitoba Public Insurance came together to deal with the problem. That is why we had a summit. The government took action, contrary to what the Conservatives said.

Actions speak louder than words, but all we get is wind from the Conservatives. It does not smell good at all. I would ask the Conservative Party to grow up on the issue.

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

Motions in amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to support this legislation, Bill C-20. It is something that has been needed for some time. The reality is that we heard from so many stakeholders, the groups that I cited a few minutes ago, that having an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending these acts and statutory instruments is an extremely important and needed improvement to the existing situation.

As I mentioned earlier, the fact that the Liberals have not set in place service standards and have not adequately funded this commission is profoundly disturbing. The proposed budget is far below what is needed. All the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security indicated this. This continues to be a problem, but there is the reality that this bill has been vastly improved through parliamentary procedure.

I mentioned earlier the fact that the Conservatives stalled this legislation for months. It makes it a bit rich that they are pretending today that they want the legislation to go through, but I will be testing that in a few minutes. The reality is that report stage amendments normally have to be substantive to be considered and the fact that we are considering right now deleting the short title, which is a meaningless motion that is only designed to delay the legislation, is something that really saddens me.

We know that the legislation is long overdue. It was delayed for months because of a filibuster by the Conservatives at the public safety committee. We finally got it through, but it is important to note that three-quarters of the amendments, even at the public safety committee, that Conservatives filed on Bill C-20, they withdrew. They filed and then withdrew those amendments.

That is not the case with New Democrats. As members know because they have heard it said before, we are the worker bees in the House of Commons, the adults in the room, and we very diligently went to work to make a number of improvements to the legislation. That is what I want to focus on for the few minutes that are accorded to me. We did not succeed in forcing the government to put in place service standards. We have not yet succeeded in getting adequate funding for the commission, but what we did do through a variety of amendments that were passed, and we are talking about a dozen key areas where the NDP sought and succeeded with the support often of all parties, was improve the legislation.

First off, the Customs and Immigration Union had serious concerns about the lack of union representation in the bill. That is something we pushed for and achieved. We now have union representation through the commission process, which is vitally important. Second, we wanted to increase transparency and accountability. That is something that the Breaking Barriers coalition, which is a coalition of civil liberties associations across Canada, was calling for. We ensured, with a number of amendments, more transparency and accountability in the legislation.

There was very little that actually ensured the reconciliation process with indigenous peoples. We had a number of amendments passed that ensured that reconciliation had to be taken into consideration throughout the commission process. We are proud of those series of amendments as well. In most cases, what New Democrats proposed, as the worker bees in Parliament at the public safety committee, I am thankful to say, and this shows collaboration from all members, was passed unanimously or often with three of the four parties around the table supporting.

We also wanted to expand the investigative power, including provisions around mental health information. When there is misconduct, it is not just the physical medical information but also often mental health information that can be conclusive. We were able to get that amendment passed as well to improve the legislation. We wanted to make sure, as I mentioned earlier, in terms of transparency and accountability, that the public is aware of how privileged information is protected within the scope of the act. That, as well, was passed.

We wanted to give complainants a longer period to come forward to make a complaint. That is a matter of respect to complainants, and we got that passed as well. We banned the use of non-disclosure agreements to silence victims. We wanted to make sure that there was no process of intimidation around this, and we got that passed as well. We also wanted to make sure that the PCRC had the ability to investigate a complaint related to disciplinary measures taken by CBSA management, and we managed to get that in place as well.

All those improvements have meant that this bill is much better, and we need to proceed to third reading with no more delays. Therefore, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion that, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, the motion in amendment at report stage to Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments, in the name of the MP for Sturgeon River—Parkland, be deemed withdrawn and Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments, be deemed concurred in at report stage as amended.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-20 is clearly important for building trust and accountability within the RCMP and the CBSA.

Unfortunately, the current Liberal government always seems reluctant to prioritize legislation that enhances accountability. Here is another example. The review of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act was supposed to begin in the fall of 2022, but the government has refused to initiate that accountability process.

Why does the member think the Liberal government is reluctant to prioritize legislation that enhances accountability?

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

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-20, which deals with changes to the handling of complaints filed in connection with the level of service delivered by customs personnel or their possible misconduct.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the House for a second time this week, since I did have the opportunity to give another speech earlier in the week on the government's budget. I do intend to talk about the government's budget again, because it will bring me to Bill C-20. Members will soon see the connection.

The budget presented by the Liberal government this week was in fact historic. I say this because never before has a budget interfered so much in provincial jurisdictions or disregarded provincial powers to such an extent. In my speech, I criticized the government for not looking after its own jurisdictions and instead interfering in areas that are not under its responsibility. I also called out the Prime Minister for acting like the new self-proclaimed king. Perhaps he is inspired in part by his monarchist leanings and his somewhat theological view of Canada.

That being said, in the case of Bill C‑20 I must commend the government. That may surprise some people, but instead of always criticizing the government's bills, sometimes we have to acknowledge when they get it right. I am taking this opportunity to do just that. Obviously, once is not a habit and sometimes it is the exception that proves the rule. In this bill, there is certainly an exception. The exception is that the Liberal government is doing its job, it is minding its own business. It feels good to see a government staying within its jurisdiction. We would like to see more of that, I must admit. If that happened more often, this country might be better off. We are not going to deny it.

What exactly is Bill C‑20 all about? Sometimes ordinary people have to travel overseas. The vast majority of us have gone to another country. When we want to enter a country, the customs officers ask us all sorts of questions. How long are we staying? Where will we stay? Why are we here? They want to know if the travel is justified.

Customs officers work to try to prevent threats to national security. They want to know whether people are entering the country with good intentions, whether they are authorized to enter the country and whether their visit will be positive, rather than dangerous or threatening to the country. Customs officers do extremely important but also extremely sensitive work. That is why they are granted sweeping powers to ask us questions, search our luggage without a warrant or take us aside and detain us for a little longer. These are indeed considerable powers, which ordinary citizens may sometimes find intimidating. When they stand before a customs officer, most people always wonder whether they are guilty of something or whether they put something in their luggage that could be dangerous. Perhaps people do not have the right to bring lead pencils into that country. I am joking, but I think that members know what I mean. We never know the exact rules or all the laws of every country that we visit.

It is the same sort of thing for people who come here. Plus, there is an added challenge. People coming here often do not know what recourse they have against any abuses they might experience. They find themselves somewhat powerless in the face of a customs officer's authority. This authority is nonetheless a good thing, since the job of customs officers is ultimately to protect us from security incidents or, at the very least, from people who might break the rules and harm society's overall well-being by transporting dangerous objects.

For example, no one wants to see an individual pass through customs only to realize a little later that he is a member of an organized crime group and has come here to commit murder. Perhaps there are foreign agents infiltrating our country to exert undue influence, or people transporting drugs. These are all things we do not want to see happen. For these reasons, it is important that customs officers have the authority they need to do their job. However, situations can arise where these people abuse their power.

We hope that such situations are kept to a minimum whenever possible, but we know—considering the many cartoons about it—that some administrations in other parts of the world are less strict than our officers are here. We have almost come to expect to see abuses when we go through customs.

That is not what we want to see in the country where we live. We live in a western country, a G7 nation, that theoretically respects people's rights. In fact, ours is a country with a Constitution. Some well-known rights were enshrined in that Constitution by the current Prime Minister's father. Although we may disagree on these rights, or at least parts of them, we nevertheless hope that the people called upon to uphold the Constitution, once it takes effect, will respect it.

To digress just a little, that is also why we hope that this government will respect its own Constitution. When the government draws up budgets, it sometimes meddles in matters that are not its concern.

In the case of customs officers, these individuals are also government representatives, so they must remain above reproach as much as possible and as needed. When an officer opens someone's luggage and turns everything inside out, as customs officers are entitled to do, they are invading someone's privacy. Officers open people's suitcases and see what they wore the day before, whether they did their laundry and so on. These things can be a little uncomfortable. We always hope these procedures are carried out with respect for human dignity.

The same is true when an officer decides to search an individual. For example, a customs officer may decide to strip search someone to see if that individual has hidden prohibited items inside their body. Officers might even inspect that individual's genitals. No one wants customs officers to comment on anything like whether the person showered yesterday or how little they are interested in that person. They also should not say anything about the size, shape or colour of an individual. All of these things would be completely inappropriate in circumstances where the person being searched is in a vulnerable situation.

That is what Bill C‑20 tries to fix. Let us hope it is adopted. It is about recognizing that customs officers have rights and they need to enforce the law and protect society and the country. However, this power must also have limits and be regulated.

In the past, passengers could file a complaint. That recourse already existed. The problem is that a complaint about a customs officer or service was dealt with internally. It seemed like there was a lack of transparency or like there could sometimes be a certain form of institutional bias. For example, in my riding, we often heard people complaining about the noise and speed of the trains. They had to file their complaint with the company's police service. People felt like they were being jerked around. They file a complaint with CN's police service and CN is the one that is going to look into the complaint. The perception is that the complaint does not get treated the way it should.

That is what Bill C‑20 seeks to do. It seeks to ensure that, from now on, an independent body will have the authority to resolve complaints. If people want to go directly to the independent authority, then they can do so. They can also file their complaint the old way by submitting it directly to border services, where it will be addressed internally first. Later on, they can file an appeal with this completely independent authority, which will be run by civilians, not by former customs or RCMP officers. It will be the same authority that already exists and that independently handles complaints against the RCMP, the federal police service. It will do the same work, but with the name change, it will also be able to independently handle complaints about alleged abuse committed by customs officers.

I will close by saying that this is a constructive measure that will strengthen the public's confidence in the system. Most importantly, we need to ensure that customs officers, who do an exemplary job of performing very important work for our community, have the resources that they need. Even though this does not excuse inappropriate behaviour, we know that sometimes people can make mistakes when they are burnt out.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague opposite, who seems quite proud of his government's track record. Bill C-20, in particular, talks a lot about the work of customs officers. From the testimony given in committee, something that seemed to crop up quite often was the whole issue of overwork and fatigue among customs officers.

Many of us remember the endless airport lineups to get through security and customs. When people are too tired, they sometimes make mistakes. They might go further than they should.

Does my colleague think that the lack of resources provided to customs officers could also have played a part in the mistakes they made? If his government had given them proper funding and the resources they needed, there would be fewer problems like the ones we are trying to fix through Bill C‑20.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by recognizing and thanking those serving in the RCMP and the CBSA.

Today, we stand at an important moment in the evolution of Canada’s approach to law enforcement and to border security. With the introduction of Bill C-20, we commit to enhancing transparency, accountability and public trust in our institutions.

The creation of the public complaints and review commission, the PCRC, marks a significant advancement in our continuous pursuit of a fair and just society. Let us begin by acknowledging that the essence of law enforcement and border security relies not only on the enforcement of laws but also on the public's trust. Trust is hard-earned and easily lost.

Public trust in law enforcement agencies is fundamental to the stability and the effectiveness of legal systems worldwide. It ensures that citizens respect, obey and support the enforcement of laws, which is critical for maintaining public order and security. When the public trusts the police and other law enforcement bodies, they are more likely to co-operate with investigations, report crimes and adhere to legal directives, fostering a safer community for everyone.

Trust between the public and law enforcement also reinforces the legitimacy of the police in the eyes of the community. This legitimacy is crucial as it underpins the public's compliance with laws, without the need for coercion. People comply because they believe it is the right thing to do, not just out of fear of punishment. Moreover, high levels of trust in law enforcement correlate strongly with lower crime rates. Communities where trust is prevalent tend to have more positive interactions with police, which helps in effective policing and less violent confrontations.

Furthermore, trust in law enforcement is essential for upholding the principles of a civilized society, where justice is seen to be done and is carried out fairly. A lack of trust can lead to a breakdown in civil order, an increase in crime and the potential for civil unrest. Trust ensures a collaborative relationship between the community and the police, which is vital for developing strategies that effectively address local crime and safety concerns.

To maintain this trust, law enforcement agencies must operate transparently and accountably, demonstrating their commitment to justice and fairness in all their actions. The establishment of independent bodies that can oversee, review and investigate law enforcement practices, such as complaints against police conduct, also plays a pivotal role. These measures not only help to prevent abuses of power but also ensure that the public’s concerns are heard and addressed, thus maintaining the essential trust needed for a harmonious and civilized society.

In recent years, public trust in Canadian law enforcement agencies has experienced a noticeable decline. This trend has been influenced by several high-profile incidents involving police misconduct and the broader discussions around systemic racism within law enforcement. These factors have catalyzed public scrutiny and skepticism, prompting calls for greater transparency and accountability.

Restoring public confidence remains a significant challenge and an ongoing priority for Canadian authorities. The current status and trends in American law enforcement can influence Canadian attitudes towards our own police forces. The global nature of media and the Internet means that Canadians are often exposed to prominent news stories and discussions about American police practices, especially concerning issues of police brutality, systemic racism and accountability. High-profile incidents in the United States, such as the killing of George Floyd, have sparked international movements like Black Lives Matter, which also resonate strongly in Canada.

This exposure can impact how Canadians perceive our own police services, leading to increased calls for transparency, reform and accountability within Canadian law enforcement agencies. Even though policing practices and the legal framework in Canada are distinct from those in the U.S., the widespread media coverage of and societal reactions to American law enforcement issues can heighten public awareness and skepticism in Canada as well. Moreover, similar underlying issues, such as racial profiling and the treatment of indigenous peoples and minorities, are present in both countries, further aligning public concerns. As a result, the debates and reforms happening in the U.S. often act as a catalyst for similar discussions and changes in Canadian policing and public policy.

The public complaints and review commission, or PCRC, proposed under this bill would extend its oversight to the Canada Border Services Agency as well as address a long-standing gap in our law enforcement framework. For the first time, both these critical agencies, the RCMP and the CBSA, would be under the same umbrella of independent scrutiny. The government plans to invest $112 million to support the operations of the PCRC. This substantial financial commitment would underscore our dedication to building a robust mechanism that would serve Canadians long into the future.

One of the key features of the PCRC would be its enhanced accountability measures. We would introduce codified timelines that would require the RCMP commissioner and the CBSA president to respond to the PCRC's interim reports, reviews and recommendations within specified periods. This would address concerns about delays in responding to oversight findings and ensure actions are timely and transparent.

Moreover, the PCRC would play a crucial role in addressing systematic racism within our law enforcement agencies as the PCRC would also have a public education mandate. It would not only oversee and review the agencies but also inform and educate the public about the rights and the mechanisms available for redress.

Knowledge is power, and empowering our citizens is a crucial step toward a more engaged and informed community.

Another significant aspect of the PCRC would be its responsibilities in handling serious incidents involving CBSA personnel. This would include the ability to send observers to ensure internal investigations were conducted impartially. This measure would enhance the credibility of investigative processes and increase public confidence in the outcomes.

Furthermore, the PCRC would operate independently, but not in isolation. It would maintain a collaborative relationship with the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency to ensure that national security-related complaints were handled with the requisite expertise and confidentiality.

This legislation is about more than just oversight. It is about reaffirming our commitment to the principles of justice and equity, which Canada holds dear.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do enjoy working with the member at committee as well. There are definitely opportunities for collaboration. I am a collaborative kind of MP, but this is part and parcel of what we have seen from the NDP-Liberal government. We have a New Democratic Party that is more aggressive about passing government legislation without proper review and debate than the Liberal government is. The NDP-Liberal government just wants to railroad things through.

We have to remember what happened last fall. Canadians wanted answers about Paul Bernardo's transfer from a maximum-security to a medium-security prison. The NDP-Liberal government refused to allow Canadians to get those answers. We, as Conservatives, were open to having even one meeting on this, but instead, the NDP-Liberal government was desperate to cover that up and desperate to not have a conversation. The government kept the committee dragged out for months so that Bill C-20 was delayed until November.

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

Mr. Speaker, I like the member, and I like working with him at the public safety committee. However, seriously, the CBSA cuts were done under the Conservative government. The Liberals have not fixed what the Conservatives broke, but the Conservatives broke it in the first place.

The reality is that we saw Conservatives filibustering this bill, Bill C-20, repeatedly at the public safety committee, for months. Every time we showed up at the public safety committee to actually go through the bill, we ended up going through some motion, another dilatory motion that was raised by Conservative members at the committee.

The reality is that we are debating, today, the deletion of the short title. The cost to taxpayers of the hours of debate around this Conservative fringe motion, which is only in place to delay this legislation, is going to be tens of thousands of dollars, and we would not get to third-reading debate, which I agree would be an important debate to have.

Will the Conservatives withdraw this dilatory motion to delete the short title so that we can vote on report stage and move on to third reading?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are currently debating Bill C-20, an interesting bill. My colleague said that he intends to vote in favour of this bill. My colleague opposite will also be voting in favour, and I think my colleagues to my left will do the same. I have a feeling that everyone is going to vote in favour of the bill.

Therefore, rather than talking specifically about Bill C-20, I will talk about something related to Bill C-20, which is how this government handles border control and customs management. Generally speaking, aside from Bill C-20, is my colleague satisfied with how the government is managing customs?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue with my remarks.

It is vitally important that we debate the proposed legislation. As it came out of committee, there were numerous concerns that we, as Conservatives, raised in the amendments to the legislation; they were not addressed. Certainly, it is not enough to impede the legislation, but it is critically important that we have a debate on it and see it come through.

I find it curious that the NDP-Liberal government, which told us last fall how important it was to get the legislation passed, has dithered. The legislation came out of committee in November, and we have had months to bring it forward for third reading debate. Here we are in May, and the government has finally brought it forward. Therefore, we do not take it very seriously when the NDP-Liberal government talks about how important it considers the legislation to be, while it is only bringing it up in May.

Our RCMP and CBSA officers make incredible sacrifices, and we need to do the very best we can to ensure that they and their families are safe and protected. They are consistently putting their lives in danger every day. It is in the interest of the public, as well as the brave members of the RCMP and CBSA, that complaints be dealt with in a timely and efficient manner. This is crucial to guard against potential abuses of power and to maintain Canadians' trust in their agencies.

Canada has the largest undefended border in the world, and the lack of resources for the CBSA to perform its role to the fullest extent is seen in the rising crime in cities, such as Montreal and Toronto, and across the country. Illegal firearms are being smuggled through our porous border and used every day in horrific crimes. Even in rural areas, including in my riding, in towns such as Bon Accord, crime is on the rise after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government's soft-on-crime policies.

Unfortunately, it seems that the government is more focused on targeting law-abiding Canadian firearms owners and hunters than on fulfilling promises to implement a policy and provide resources for our border. There, we find rampant illegal activities, such as auto theft and gun smuggling; it is at a point where the fastest-growing export in this country is stolen vehicles.

At the public safety committee, we heard the Liberals continually attempt to distract from their miserable record on crime. Amidst this ongoing auto theft crisis that is impacting communities across the country, desperate Liberals have resorted to blaming car dealerships, small businesses, for the rise in car thefts. It is clear that they do not want to talk about the facts, and the fact is that auto theft has risen to unprecedented levels as a direct result of the Liberals' soft-on-crime agenda.

We can all agree that the proposed bill is important for maintaining public trust in the RCMP and the CBSA. However, we cannot have productive debates unless we discuss the tremendous strain that is currently being placed on our brave men and women. Our law enforcement agencies, much like the Canadian Armed Forces, are suffering from significant recruitment and retention issues. What exactly is the government doing to ensure that these brave men and women feel valued and supported in their role?

Of course, the public should have a right to an independent and effective complaints commission to hold the RCMP and CBSA accountable for their actions. However, when we are not providing the resources for frontline police officers, the CBSA and other first responders to do their job effectively, it is no surprise that we are seeing mistakes. Our law enforcement personnel are under tremendous pressure as they deal with the impacts of the crime wave that is occurring across this country. When mistakes happen in the line of duty, it is frequently because these exemplary men and women are being pushed to their limit, overwhelmed by the crisis the government has created.

In fact, the National Police Federation put forward very commonsensical amendments that it wanted to see in this motion. Its members are concerned because RCMP officers are often being pulled off the front lines to do bureaucratic paperwork and deal with complaints, when complains should really be dealt with by an independent commission. Unfortunately, the proposed bill has some flaws, because it would still maintain a requirement for extensive bureaucratic red tape for RCMP officers in providing information and supporting these investigations, which would pull our resources off the front line.

We want to see an independent commission that does its job and that is resourced and staffed. In this way, RCMP officers and CBSA officers could focus on the front lines and not the back lines.

Let us talk about drug use. Our law enforcement officers are expected to act as social workers. They are confronting daily crime and disorder that the government's drug policies have inflicted on our communities, and we know this is causing a mental health crisis within the ranks.

On violent crime, we have heard at the public safety committee that the chiefs are fearful for the safety of their officers, especially since violent offenders are able to continuously terrify communities as a result of the “bail, not jail” provisions of Liberal Bill C-75. It should come as no surprise that the government does not want to have these conversations. Its record on crime is miserable.

Since this government came to power in 2015, Canada has become a massive importer of illegal firearms from the United States, a massive exporter of stolen cars to Africa and to the Middle East, and also has become an exporter of fentanyl across the world. It is shameful. While implementing this soft-on-crime agenda, the Liberal government has taken very little action to ensure that the brave men and women who choose to serve their communities and their country feel supported and respected in their work.

Everyone who goes through a border crossing should be able to go without facing discrimination or unfair treatment by border agents. Bill C-20 would allow people who have had negative experiences and who feel that their rights have been violated to submit complaints formally and to have them reviewed within a six-month period. I think it is critically important that we talk about this six-month period because we have seen some cases that witnesses have brought forward, where people made complaints, and those complaints were not addressed for months, and in fact, some complaints were not addressed for years. In some tragic cases, the complainants actually passed away before they could get responses to their complaints, and we do not want to see that happen. Of course, sometimes it is unavoidable, but we need to set standards to ensure that these complaints are being dealt with in a timely manner.

Currently, CBSA is the only public safety agency in Canada without any independent oversight body for public complaints. Establishing an independent review body would foster and would enhance public trust and confidence in Canada's law enforcement and border services institution, which I think is something that we can agree is desperately needed in this country.

In closing, we know that the NDP-Liberal government has ignored its promises and has put off this critical legislation for years. It failed to deliver this important change; although, we hope this change will soon be delivered. It would help Canadians to renew their trust in our public safety agencies. It is a trust that I know many Canadians have, but when they see things like the police complaints commission not operating effectively or not being in existence in some cases, I think it causes some people to have some doubts about the transparency and accountability in the system.

How is it that so many Canadians had to face nothing but endless bureaucracy, when for years, we could have had legislation and a system to streamline the process for public complaints and could have established an oversight body for the CBSA?

The government has had plenty of opportunities to deliver and to fulfill its promises over these last nine years, but it failed to do so. If we have proven anything to Canadians it is that the promises of the NDP-Liberal government are just empty words, and years go by before any meaningful action or promise can be accomplished, if at all.

To perform their jobs effectively and to deliver the best possible service to Canadians, the RCMP and the CBSA require an efficient complaints process. While common-sense Conservatives are supportive of this effort, we believe that the Liberal government needs to do more to support our brave men and women in uniform who support our communities. My Conservative colleagues and I will continue to advocate on behalf of Canadians and to ensure that the highest standards are being met within the CBSA and the RCMP.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

moved:

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting the short title.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and lead off debate today on Liberal Bill C-20. This bill seeks to create an independent commission for the RCMP and for the CBSA to address complaints that the public may have about their treatment.

The Liberal government has been talking about the importance of getting the legislation passed for quite some time. I find it curious that similar legislation has died in two previous Parliaments. We certainly hope to see the legislation come through in this Parliament, because it has been far too long that this legislation has been allowed—

Speaker's Ruling

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

There is one motion in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-20. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.

I will now put Motion No. 1 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, on that question I can assure the hon. member that whatever we do, we will do with the elected premier of British Columbia and not the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

On the Thursday question, this afternoon we will continue with debate on Bill C-49, the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic accord implementation and offshore renewable energy management act, which has had great support obviously from my colleagues from Atlantic Canada.

Tomorrow, we will call Bill C-20, concerning the public complaints and review commission act.

On Monday, we will begin debate at second reading of Bill C‑69, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024.

I would also like to inform the House that Thursday, May 9, will be an allotted day.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, during the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 on Motion No. 54 to concur in the eighth report of the Standing Committee on National Defence, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair and at the conclusion of the time provided for debate or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the motions be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred pursuant to Standing Order 66.

[Mark Weber]

Our members have watched a lot of the testimony. They watched me give testimony here. We all really want to know what happened. It is concerning.

One of the big things the union would like to see.... I appeared at another committee for Bill C-20, which is about the public complaints and review commission. One of the things we pushed for there was an ability for members to use it so that when we see wrongdoing, we're able to bring that forward as well. Currently, we're really lacking the protections of the mechanism to do that. That's something we think is important to have in place if we want to see organizational change.

Surely everyone would want to know when things are going wrong at the agency. Right now, the mechanism we have for that is for me to bring it forward to managerial counterparts at CBSA, and as I said earlier, largely speaking, that just seems to disappear after I say it.

Opposition Motion—Auto Theft

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

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to elaborate on this subject. As I was saying earlier, the Conservatives are finally paying attention. They now realize that this is an important topic and that it might be a good idea to add it to their arsenal of election slogans.

As my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands was saying a little earlier, it is true that investigative journalism brought this problem to our attention a few months ago. There are also organizations that come to Ottawa to tell us about certain issues and raise awareness about them.

Last April, I met with people from the Corporation des concessionnaires automobiles du Québec and the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association and they talked to me about this. It is wrong to say that they do not care about this phenomenon because they make money and they will be able to sell a car if a customer has theirs stolen, since they are reimbursed by the insurance company. It is not true that they do not care, because they are here in Ottawa to talk to us about it. They want the government to do something about this problem.

I first became interested in the subject a few months ago. I met with global car manufacturers, who also spoke to me about it. In October, following the feature story aired in J.E, a television program on TVA, and after the numerous news reports of the Journal de Montréal’s investigations bureau, I announced that I was going to move a motion at the public safety and national security committee. I talked to my colleagues about it, because we often see members of certain parties come totally out of left field with a motion on any given subject, thinking everyone is going to accept it as is. It is important to discuss these things with colleagues first and to make them aware of the issue. That is how I came to talk to my Conservative colleagues about the auto theft problem. They seemed to be very interested. When I moved the motion, all parties voted in favour of it. Everyone had a story to tell, everyone had a friend or colleague who had their vehicle stolen. A Conservative colleague even told me that he personally had his car stolen. There was definitely a consensus that this was something we should look into as soon as possible.

At the public safety and national security committee, we were looking at Bill C-20. That was significantly delayed by the Conservative Party for reasons we may or may not be aware of. The same thing is happening now with Bill C-26. The process has been delayed, and our committee agenda has us looking at the bill on auto theft after that. I do not really understand why the Conservatives are trying to delay this study as much as possible, when they are making it a priority today by talking about it. If it were that important to them, they would be working hard on the public safety and national security committee to finally get it done.

With today’s motion, they may be trying to get material for pre-election, or even election, slogans, because we get the impression that the Conservative Party may already be on the campaign trail. The Bloc Québécois did not get the memo. The Conservatives’ new slogan is in today’s motion, which states, “after eight years of soft on crime policies, this Prime Minister has created the auto theft crisis”. Who knew? The Prime Minister himself created the auto theft crisis. He sure has broad shoulders. I am not saying this to defend him. It is true that the Liberals have not done much in recent years to combat this problem. However, that the Prime Minister single-handedly created the crisis is something we cannot take very seriously.

I would even go so far as to say that the entire argument laid out in the Conservatives’ motion is completely disconnected from reality, despite the fact that the problem is all too real. If one looks at the problem with a minimum of seriousness, it is immediately clear that the COVID 19 pandemic in 2020 caused significant disruptions in the logistics chain around the world. One of the most hard-hit sectors was the industry producing the semiconductors needed for all microprocessors. The microprocessor shortage led to a worldwide reduction in auto manufacturing, which made demand go up. This increased the cost of used vehicles. Crime gangs jumped on the opportunity and quickly specialized in car theft and shipment to other markets. This was already happening on a smaller scale, but the pandemic and the impact it had on supply chains accelerated the phenomenon. Because of its geographical location, Montreal became an auto theft hub.

Why was that? Because Montreal is home to the largest port in eastern Canada that provides access to the rest of the world. Of course other ports are involved as well, such as those in Halifax and Vancouver. However, these ports have not been as affected as the port of Montreal. It is truly a gateway, a hub. As I was saying, the pandemic exacerbated the situation but, on top of that, new technological developments have made auto theft more appealing.

For example, consider the increasingly frequent use of smart keys, which make it easier to steal vehicles. Several news reports have shown how thieves go about it. All they have to do is use a relay to amplify the signal of a smart key inside a house by standing next to the front door. With an accomplice, the thief can then open the car door and start the engine.

They can also connect a computer to the onboard diagnostic port in the car, which enables them to use another key. All they have to do then is force open the door.

It is child’s play for people who know what they are doing.

In Montreal, as in the rest of the country, we have seen people using Denver boots or steering wheel locks to make it harder for thieves to steal their car. I say harder, because thieves have found other ways to remove these devices and leave with a car in no time at all.

This phenomenon is truly becoming a scourge, especially in Quebec and in Montreal. Auto theft has increased over the years. According to Équité Association, roughly 70,000 vehicles were stolen in Canada in 2022. That is huge. Between 2021 and 2022, the number of thefts increased by 50%, or half, in Quebec, by nearly half in Ontario, or 48%, by 34% in Atlantic Canada, and by 18% in Alberta. 2022 was a record year for auto theft. The numbers are not yet known for 2023, but by all indications auto theft has increased yet again.

The reported losses are in the billions of dollars for insurers, and we have seen premiums go up for ordinary people. Le Journal de Montréal reported that between 2012 and 2022, the average car insurance premium increased by 50% as well. This increase is in part tied to auto theft.

Given these facts, one of the questions we need to ask ourselves is why there is this growing interest in auto theft.

It must be said that auto theft is one of the easiest and least risky sources of revenue for gangs, which then use part of the proceeds to finance other criminal activities, such as gun trafficking and human trafficking. Those are the two reasons. It is easy and low-risk.

I explained earlier why it is easy. One reason it is so low-risk is that sentences are so light. In an article in La Presse, Jacques Lamontagne, director of investigations for Quebec and the Atlantic region at Équité Association and a retired Montreal police force criminal investigator, explained—

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

Madam Speaker, I will start again. Unfortunately, I do not think anyone heard me. If the member would put his earpiece in, I think that would work even better.

I am pleased to see that the Conservatives have finally realized that there is an auto theft crisis in Canada. I for one have been talking about it since October. I moved a motion at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to study this issue. The Conservatives agreed to it. They thought it was a good idea, but all they have done since then is hold up the committee's work. That is what they did with Bill C-20 and Bill C-26.

Why are they doing that? The reason is that they do not think that the auto theft crisis is all that important after all.

Why do they want to talk about it today? Is it because it makes for a good campaign slogan? Is it because they want to crack down on crime? Why has this become a priority for the Conservative Party today?

Public Safety and National Security

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 9th report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, in relation to Bill C-20, an act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments.

The committee has studied the bill and decided to report it back to the House with amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Therefore, congratulations, everyone. We are finished Bill C-20.

To our witnesses, thank you for the enormous help and for bearing with us through all this time. We deeply appreciate it.

Thank you to our legislative clerks as well, and to our analysts and clerk and to the interpreters who put up with us as well.

Mr. Shipley, do you have a comment?

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

We move:

That Bill C-20, in Clause 137, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 72 with the following:

and Review Commission Act or under regulations made under subparagraph 87(o.1)(ii) of that Act,”

Basically, this is just a coordinating amendment associated with G-8, which was passed earlier and provides for new regulatory powers. Since there are areas where we've empowered the government to create regulations surrounding information sharing, referral of complaints, joint proceedings and co-operation between federal review bodies, we're just updating the provisions in the NSIRA Act to ensure that it's bound by these future regulations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 81 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, November 25, 2022, the committee continues consideration of Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments. Today the committee resumes clause-by-clause consideration.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the officials and members. Although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to interpreters and cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to a microphone.

In order to prevent incidents and safeguard the hearing health of the interpreters, I invite participants to ensure that they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged and avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table away from the microphone when they are not in use.

All comments should be addressed through the chair.

I will now welcome the officials who are with us once again. Welcome back.

They are available for questions regarding the bill but will not deliver any opening statements.

With the Canada Border Services Agency, we have Philippe Tremblay, acting director, public complaints and external review division/recourse.

From the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Joanne Gibb, senior director, strategic operations and policy directorate. We also have Lesley McCoy, general counsel.

From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Randall Koops, director general, international border policy; Martin Leuchs, manager, border policy division; and Deidre Pollard-Bussey, director, policing policy.

From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Stéphane Drouin, director general, workplace responsibility branch, professional responsibility sector.

Thank you for joining us today. We are at new clause 96, but I believe Mr. Gaheer has a request for unanimous consent.

Go ahead, sir

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I suspect that we are not going to get back to Bill C-20 tonight.

In that regard, I wonder if it's the will of the committee to invite our witnesses to withdraw.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Once again, as we just discussed this item, I do not intend to move amendments NDP‑49 and NDP‑50.

It's only natural, after having discussed and voted on an amendment, to find that there are other similar amendments on the same topic. I therefore believe that the discussions we held and the questions that were asked were sufficient to enable the committee to reach a decision.

Furthermore, if our goal is to complete the study of Bill C‑20 after having significantly improved it, and as several amendments have already been adopted, I think it's more important to spend our time on important amendments that have not yet been examined and voted on by the committee.

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

Thank you, Chair. We will be moving amendment CPC-25. It is that Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 17 on page 43 the following new clause:

66.1 If the final report finds that the complaint is unfounded and the RCMP employee or CBSA employee, as the case may be, whose conduct is the subject matter of the complaint was suspended as a result of the complaint, the Commissioner or the President, as the case may be, must ensure that the employee is permitted to return to the duties of their employment and that they are paid compensation in an amount equal to the remuneration that they would have been paid if they had not been suspended.

I'll speak to that just a little. We brought up a similar amendment at the last meeting, or a couple of meetings ago. This is similar, but it is a bit different from our previous amendment on remuneration and back pay. This amendment would automate the back pay process for complaints that are deemed unfounded. As employees who are the subject of a complaint are not paid, we would like to make sure the process to access back pay is automatic, rather than the responsibility of the employee. This would help to protect our frontline workers, who are disproportionately placed on leave without pay as compared to managers.

Hopefully, we'll see support on that around the table. Perhaps someone else has some other comments on this. We'll see where it goes.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair.

We will be moving CPC-24, which is that Bill C-20, in clause 59, be amended by replacing line 32 on page 40 with the following:

(7) The parties and the union representatives for the RCMP employee or CBSA employee, as the case may be, whose conduct is the subject matter of the complaint, and any other person who satisfies the

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 80 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, November 25, 2022, the committee continues consideration of Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments.

Today, the committee resumes clause-by-clause consideration.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of officials and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking, with some flexibility when being questioned by members, of course.

Although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to interpreters and cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to a microphone. In order to prevent incidents and safeguard the hearing health of the interpreters, I invite participants to ensure that they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged and avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table away from the microphone when they're not in use.

Finally, this is a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

I draw to the attention of the committee—and the witnesses, of course—that we have resources until midnight. This does not mean that we need to sit until midnight.

My hope—and I'm sure it's a hope shared by all—is that we can get through this bill in short order. I think we're yea close to being done.

At the end of a couple of hours, if we want to take a look at where we are and decide whether we want to continue or to resume again the following day, I think that will be up for discussion.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I keep being about to pose questions to the witnesses, but trying to briefly deal with other matters first and then getting interrupted in my attempt to briefly deal with those other matters.

On this legislation, Bill C-20, we have four regular members of the committee who, I think, made clear to the chair that they were not available for the additional time proposed outside of the time slot. Hence, we are here asking questions.

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

I actually agree with you, Mr. Chair. The issues of relevance and repetition are the two key elements here. Mr. Genuis is not being relevant to NDP-34 and Bill C-20.

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

—as you know, you enforce rules around relevance and repetition, and there is no relevance right now to what Mr. Genuis is actually saying. We're discussing NDP-34 as part of Bill C-20. I would ask you to enforce that rule of relevance with Mr. Genuis.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think it's quite clear that if we want narrow scope in terms of the commission's refusing, we should adopt NDP-34. If we want a slightly larger scope, as Madame Michaud indicated, we can look to adopt BQ-13, but we actually need to get to a vote.

I am a little perplexed by the filibuster around NDP-34, Mr. Chair, because we had a one-month filibuster, you'll recall, where finally the NDP motion was essentially adopted around the Bernardo transfer and the transfer of offenders.

Now, one party around this table is filibustering Bill C-20. Now they're filibustering NDP-34 and, in doing so, they're stalling the study that they filibustered on for a month. It doesn't make sense. They're filibustering themselves. The Conservatives are now filibustering what they finally agreed to: the NDP motion a few weeks ago. Now they're filibustering the bill and filibustering the study that they said was important to get to.

I'm very perplexed about the filibuster around NDP-34. It doesn't make sense at all.

I've said this many times, Mr. Chair: There are two block parties in the House of Commons. There's the Bloc Québécois and there's the block everything, and the Conservative Party seems to be blocking everything, including Bill C-20, NDP-34 and good legislation that will make a difference in putting in place a public complaints commission, which is something so many people in this country are calling for.

The delay around this, the filibuster around it and filibustering the study around the transfer of offenders within the correctional services make no sense at all, from any standpoint, and I'm just very perplexed about the member for Carleton and his approach to the House of Commons in trying to block everything at all times.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thanks very much, Chair.

It is good to be back at the public safety committee. In the second session of the 43rd Parliament, I had the honour of sitting on this committee.

I think that they are all new faces here, other than Ms. Michaud's. It's good to be back.

Certainly, Bill C-20 is an interesting bill.

I'll note, like Mr. Genuis did, that I believe that at the conclusion of the previous meeting, consent was sought to extend the meeting. It was not granted, yet here we are anyway. It's unfortunate, because for those of us who care a lot about this issue and this bill, we have to dig into some of these things. I think it's very important.

Specifically related to NDP-34, the idea around giving discretion is something that seems to me, from what Ms. Michaud said and in light of the next four amendments as well, that we have a great deal of agreement on.

I always find that one of the challenges when amending legislation is that, when there are similar amendments that are brought forward that deal with substantively the same concern, to deal with one simply because it was submitted first versus taking the time to ensure that we are, in fact, passing the best legislation and the best...what in this case would be changes, to ensure the commission is given the necessary discretion to ensure, as our officials....

I would just thank the officials for coming here as well.

I know that it is important work that we do before these committees.

Ms. Gibb, you mentioned that changing it from a “must” to a “may” would give that necessary discretion. I would, however, like to ask for your opinion.

In BQ-13, the language is a bit different. The reason I ask is to make sure we are doing justice to each amendment, although we can deal with them only sequentially. It allows us to deal with them to make sure we get the right thing passed.

BQ-13, which would be dealt with next, has slightly different language.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

BQ‑13, which comes right after amendment NDP‑34, is very similar. Its purpose is to give the commission a little more discretion to refuse to examine a complaint. So, instead of the wording “The Commission must refuse”, as set out in Bill C‑20, NDP‑34 proposes, “The Commission may refuse…”.

However, it's my opinion that NDP‑34 goes a little further than BQ‑13, which changes the wording a little. In addition, I think it is more beneficial to stick more closely to what is provided for in the bill. I would not go so far as to add, “… if dealing with the complaint would seriously compromise an ongoing investigation”. I think the current wording of the bill is fine the way it is.

I would therefore suggest that my colleagues vote against NDP‑34 and vote in favour of BQ‑13. It's a small change, but it can have an impact.

I would also like to take this opportunity to say that what we're seeing and what we'll be seeing for the next hour is very unfortunate. It's quite clear that we experienced a filibuster by the Conservatives when they wanted to pass their motion on the Paul Bernardo study.

For whatever reason, they want to delay or slow down the study of Bill C‑20, and the permanent members of this committee don't even have the courage to do it themselves. They get subbed in to do that. That's too bad.

I too had something else scheduled for this next hour, but I feel that the study of Bill C‑20 is a priority. It's normal for us to work overtime to study this bill, since the Conservatives filibustered for so many hours before we could begin this study.

I'll just take this opportunity to say that I find this very unfortunate. I invite my colleagues to vote on amendment NDP‑34 if they have no further questions.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, before we get into it—because I don't want to interrupt during clause-by-clause, or at the end if we're rushing over to question period—I have a request. We're making good progress, but at the rate at which we're going, and with all of the other committee work we still have to do before the holiday break, I'm going to humbly request, even though this is never my first suggestion, that the clerk look into additional resources to continue clause-by-clause of Bill C-20, in particular for this Wednesday, if we can't conclude by today. Then, with Wednesday's meeting, we can look at additional resources.

Again, I didn't want to interrupt while we're in the middle of a clause, but I really think, given the timelines and how much we still have left to do, we need to request some additional resources and enable committee members to rearrange their schedules if need be, or find subs.

[Lesley McCoy, General Counsel, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

In practice the commission does verify whether there is consent, and in most cases there is, or perhaps in every case thus far. There are some situations in which it wouldn't necessarily be appropriate to ensure that there is consent, but as my colleague Ms. Gibb indicated, there are provisions currently in the act but also in Bill C-20 that provide discretion to the commission to refuse to deal with the complaint for various different reasons.

As well, the RCMP and the CBSA have similar provisions to refuse to investigate or to cease an investigation if there isn't a sufficient nexus with the individual directly affected.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 79 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, November 25, 2022, the committee continues its consideration of Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments. Today the committee resumes clause-by-clause consideration.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Pursuant to the Standing Orders, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of officials and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. That's a little flexible. As long as we're being friends, we can loosen that up a bit.

Although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to interpreters and cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to a microphone. In order to prevent incidents and safeguard the hearing health of the interpreters, I invite participants to ensure that they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged and to avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table away from the microphone when they are not in use.

Finally, I'm reminding you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

We'll now welcome, once again, the officials who are with us. They are available for questions regarding the bill, but they will not deliver opening statements.

From the Canada Border Services Agency, we have Cathy Maltais, director, recourse directorate. From the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Joanne Gibb, senior director, strategic operations and policy directorate, and Lesley McCoy, general counsel. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Randall Koops, director general, international border policy; Martin Leuchs, manager, border policy; and Deidre Pollard-Bussey, director, policing policy. From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Kathleen Clarkin, director, national recruiting program; and Alfredo Bangloy, assistant commissioner and professional responsibility officer.

Thank you for joining us today.

(On clause 35)

We first have BQ-6.

Go ahead, Ms. Michaud.

[Lesley McCoy]

Yes. In Bill C-20 there's already the discretion for the PCRC to refuse to deal with complaints if the individual making the complaint, as I indicated, doesn't have a sufficient connection to the incident.

As well, there's also a provision for the commission to refuse to deal if the complaint is considered frivolous, trivial, vexatious or made in bad faith.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate everyone's patience as we move through these amendments. We've gotten them from all parties, though, so I may be speaking on them more often today, but in coming days that will switch as we move through this bill.

I'm very happy that we are all working together to improve aspects of this bill. There is no doubt that Bill C-20 will be much better coming out of committee than it was going in. That's really what we are paid to do.

I want to move NDP-13. This would delete the ability for the commissioner or president to refuse access to privileged information sought by the commission under this section. It would basically delete subclause 17(6), which requires the commissioner or president to indicate why they're not giving the information. This gives the complaints commission the ability to access that information, which is fundamentally important.

This would delete subclause 17(6) of the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 78 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, November 25, 2022, the committee continues its consideration of Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments. Today the committee resumes clause-by-clause consideration.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. Just as a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair.

We have a budget for this study. We need to amend the budget. I believe everyone has a copy of the budget.

Can we quickly get approval to go ahead with this budget?

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

In this case I would like to argue against the subamendment by Mr. Gaheer. I think the reality is that—and we saw this in our hearings on Bill C-20—the complaints commission hasn't been adequately funded and resourced in the past. This is a problem. We see an underfunding of our courts system, and we see an underfunding of our complaint process as well. To put this framework in place, we need to have minimum service standards that have some flexibility.

Subclause 8(3), which Mr. Gaheer is seeking to remove from the amendment, gives the opportunity to the commission to make it a longer period if that is appropriate. The reality is that it's a question of resourcing that makes the difference. Currently, when we look at our judicial system and complaint process, they're not adequately resourced.

I would point out, for folks who say that might cost money, that we give over $30 billion a year to overseas tax havens. That's tax money, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. There are resources that should be allocated to this. If we want a complaints commission that works effectively for the public, for CBSA and for RCMP employees, we need to establish some meaningful minimum service standards. A one-year period is a long period of time, but it is by no means exaggerated, and the commission does have the opportunity to prolong that if it chooses to.

I would argue against a subamendment. I think the reality is that a one-year service standard is something that should absolutely be contemplated and resourced. The reality is that if this bill passes without that service standard, I think we are going to see these complaints prolonged unduly. Again, I will cite that justice delayed is justice denied.

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

I would like to move that Bill C-20, in clause 6, be amended by adding after line 39 on page 5 the following:

(a.1) in prescribed circumstances and in relation to a specific complaint made under this Act, engage, on a temporary basis, the services of a person having technical or specialized knowledge of any matter relating to the work of the Commission or those of a member, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, to advise and assist the Commission in the exercise of its powers or the performance of its duties and functions under this Act; and

and by replacing, in the English version, line 2 on page 6 with the following:

sons engaged under paragraph (a) or (a.1).

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

Yes, I will move that Bill C-20, in clause 6, be amended by adding, after line 31 on page 5, the following:

(3.1) While an officer or employee under subsection (3) may have investigative experience, the officer or employee is not eligible to be appointed if the officer or employee

(a) is or was a member, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act;

(b) is or was an officer, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Customs Act, or is or was a person designated by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness as an officer under subsection 6(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, who, in performing their normal duties, is or was required to interact with the public; or

(c) is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Shipley.

The chair's ruling on this is that Bill C-20 establishes the public complaints and review commission and amends other acts and statutory instruments. The bill states that some powers are given to the commission and that the chairperson of the commission has the rank and all the power of a deputy head of a department. The amendment seeks to give the chairperson all the powers of a peace officer, which is a new concept that goes beyond the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

In the opinion of the chair and for the above-stated reason, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Shall clause 5 carry?

(Clause 5 agreed to on division)

(On clause 6)

This brings us to clause 6 and CPC‑3.

Mr. Shipley, did you wish to move this?

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

Thank you, Chair.

I will move CPC‑2. It is that Bill C-20, in clause 5, be amended by adding after line 30 on page 4 the following:

(1.1) For the purposes of this Act and the regulations, the Chairperson has all the powers of a peace officer conferred under an Act of Parliament or the common law.

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

Yes, Chair. I will be moving this. We've gotten through only two so far. Hopefully we can get through this one a little more quickly, but we'll see.

This amendment is that Bill C-20, in clause 3, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 3 with the following:

mission, including the Chairperson or the Vice-chairperson, if that person

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

I'd like to go back to this point.

We are currently grappling with an enormous problem, which are trying to resolve with the bill. But if the wording says that only certain factors be taken into consideration, it will not achieve the objective, which was mentioned several times. Given all the current problems, adopting an approach that provides for the opportunity rather than the obligation to appoint specific individuals or groups, would in my view not be as effective as an amendment that does provide for this representation.C-20

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Shipley.

Seeing no more speakers, I suggest that we go to a vote.

(Motion agreed to)

That was carried. Congratulations.

We'll now welcome the officials who are with us. They are available for questions regarding the bill, but will not deliver any opening statements.

With the Canada Border Services Agency, we Cathy Maltais, director, recourse directorate. From the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Joanne Gibb, senior director, strategic operations and policy directorate; and Lesley McCoy, general counsel. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Randall Koops, director general, international and border policy; Martin Leuchs, manager, border policy division; and Deidre Pollard-Bussey, director, policing policy; and from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Kathleen Clarkin, director, national recruiting program; and Alfredo Bangloy, assistant commissioner and professional responsibility officer.

Thank you all for joining us today.

I would like to provide the members of the committee with a few comments on how committees proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of a bill. Many of us have gone through this before, but some of us are new to the process.

I'm not going to read this whole thing. I'll just sketch out some points.

This is an examination of all the clauses that appear in the bill, in order. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the package that each member has received from the clerk. If there are amendments that are consequential to each other, they will be voted on together.

In addition to having to be properly drafted, in a legal sense, amendments must also be procedurally admissible. The chair may be called upon to rule amendments inadmissible if they go against the principle of the bill or beyond the scope of the bill, both of which were adopted by the House when it agreed to the bill at second reading, or if they offend the financial prerogative of the Crown.

If you wish to eliminate a clause of the bill altogether, the proper course of action is to vote against that clause when the time comes, not to propose an amendment to delete it.

Since this is the first exercise for many new members, the chair will go slowly to allow all members to follow proceedings properly. If during the process the committee decides not to vote on a clause, that clause can be put aside by the committee so that we visit it later in the process.

Amendments have been given a number in the top right-hand corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once your amendment has been moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time. That subamendment cannot be amended.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title of the bill itself. An order to reprint the bill may be required, and so on.

I thank members for their attention and wish everyone a productive clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-20.

All right, pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed.

(On clause 2)

On clause 2, first up is CPC-0.1.

Mr. Lloyd, do you wish to speak to this?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I do apologize. I did not know that Dr. Ellis could hear any of my reaction to his speech, because I thought I was back on mute.

I just want to clarify again that my comments about things being oppressive and discriminatory do not relate to the rules of the House of Commons. Under the rules of the House of Commons, under the Standing Orders, I would have the right to present these amendments at report stage in front of the House of Commons as a whole.

It's because of the motion passed by this committee, with wording identical to the one passed by every other committee, that I am presenting amendments to your committee this morning and I am simultaneously also trying to present amendments to Bill C-20 before the security committee. Only a person in my position could possibly be required, under motions passed by committees, to show up in two places at the same time. Even on Zoom it is not possible, so my priority here is for this bill. I may have to exit to try to get into the security committee under Chairman McKinnon to present amendments in clause-by-clause on a different bill.

I do maintain that the motion passed by this committee was passed without a full understanding of the impact it would have on members of Parliament.

I appreciate the deference that I am senior. I do feel more senior some days than others, and I apologize and will end there.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank my colleagues.

As I mentioned, the theft and subsequent export of vehicles is a growing problem in Canada, and the Port of Montreal is where it's happening most, and not only for vehicles being stolen in Quebec. Indeed, 60% of the vehicles that end up at the Port of Montreal were stolen in Ontario. They are put in sealed containers and then shipped to countries in Africa, the Middle East and Europe.

Last year, the number of thefts doubled in Quebec, with approximately 1,000 every month. Last year, insurance companies paid consumers nearly $1 billion in compensation. It's becoming a problem that affects everyone. I would venture to say that every one of us here knows at least someone who has had a car stolen.

The government has some responsibility in this area, because the Canada Border Services Agency is a government agency which, according to its employees, is not making this problem a priority. It is in fact at the bottom of its priority list.

There are only five officers at the Port of Montreal responsible for searching over 580,000 containers a year. The x-ray scanner used for the containers only works about half of the time. There is an obvious shortage of staff and equipment, and not enough commitment and co-operation.

I am mentioning co-operation because a joint unit was set up in March 2022. The unit is made up of the Montreal and Longueuil police departments, the Sûreté du Québec, the RCMP, and Équité Association, an organization that focuses mainly on stopping the export of stolen vehicles. The Agency refused to join this unit even though it is the only body authorized to open and search container contents if there are suspicions. It doesn't always do so, even when certain high-risk containers are reported to them.

The Agency and the Government of Canada are clearly responsible. There were media reports about this issue last week and over the weekend, and both the Canada Border Services Agency and the government refused to answer questions from the media. If we were to invite them to appear before our committee, that would give us the opportunity to ask some rather difficult questions and to get some answers. The government needs to explain how it intends to deal with the vehicle theft epidemic, which some have called a national crisis.Minister of Public Safety

As I just mentioned, I discussed this with my colleagues earlier. I know that our committee workload is rather heavy, and I'm as keen as anyone to begin discussing the bill. However, it would be great if we could adopt this motion today, because it would enable us to add this study to our to-do list and to address it at an appropriate time. Many Canadians are looking for answers to the problem. C-20

I hope that my colleagues will vote in favour of my motion.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm very pleased that this matter has been settled.

My intent is really not to further delay the study of bill C-20, but there is one important study I would like to propose to the committee. I discussed it with my colleagues prior to the meeting.

I'm going to read the motion that I would like to introduce, Mr. Chair, and then would ask you to determine whether there is unanimous consent for us to debate it here today. I don't think it would take very long, because everyone appears to agree on the issue, but unanimous consent is nevertheless required.

The motion has just now been sent to the clerk. Here it is:

That, in light of the drastic increase in the number of car thefts in Canada and given that the port of Montreal, the largest in Eastern Canada, is a hub for exporting stolen cars, the Committee undertake a study, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), on the growing problem of car thefts in Canada and on the measures the federal government has taken to combat this criminal activity; That the study include six meetings; That the Committee invite the ministers of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to appear, along with other witnesses depending on the Committee’s needs; That the Committee report its recommendations to the House; and That the government provide a response to the Committee after it receives the report.

Mr. Chair, do I need to have unanimous consent before commenting on the motion? What's the procedure to follow?

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

I appreciate Mr. Shipley for basically re-presenting the motion that the NDP presented at the last meeting as a way to get through the impasse we've had over the course of the last month.

Mr. Chair, you talked about “resuming consideration” of Bill C-20, but the reality is that we have yet to consider one clause of Bill C-20, despite the fact we've been working for over a month, because of the Conservative filibuster. I guess I would say, with the exception of some quibbles—and I look forward to what my colleagues have to say about this—that this is essentially the same type of motion I presented weeks ago.

My question for my Conservative colleagues would be this. Why did it take them a month to basically accept the good common sense of what the NDP was offering at that time? That being said, better late than never. If the Conservatives have come around, I think that's good.

Bill C-20, for a whole range of reasons, needs to be properly considered. We've had witnesses that we've had to dismiss repeatedly over the course of the last few weeks, at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars to taxpayers. They all have important work to do, and we've retained them here, basically, to hear a Conservative filibuster.

If it's the consensus of the committee to adopt this motion, then that is a good thing. I just regret that the Conservatives didn't see the light a month ago.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 77 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, November 25, 2022, the committee continues consideration of Bill C-20, an act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments. Today, the committee resumes clause-by-clause consideration.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

I recognize Mr. Shipley.

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

You were absolutely right to do so, Mr. Chair—I want to compliment you—because we do have from the House of Commons the obligation to do Bill C-20. The fact that this filibuster has killed a month of committee work is not something that any committee chair should countenance.

I think your approach has been very effective. I just wish that the filibuster that has now lasted a month would end.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you for your advice.

I will note that my expectation was informed by the notion that the motions that were before us were fully in keeping with what was being asked for. I had every expectation that we could get through this quickly and get on to Bill C-20.

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

Chair, I hope this is helpful.

You are not under any obligation to bring the witnesses back at subsequent meetings. You may schedule meetings at your discretion. I think many chairs under these circumstances would schedule a meeting of committee business. They might schedule a meeting of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. You are not under any obligation to schedule clause-by-clause on Bill C-20 and bring witnesses when you expect the discussion to be on another matter.

Out of respect for the witnesses, and also fully in keeping with the rules—I don't need an answer now, but you can consult with the clerk—I think you would be fully within your rights as chair to schedule something else, or to convene the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, or to take other such matters that would potentially focus the discussion where it seems to be going anyway.

I just provide that as hopefully helpful advice, and hopefully it's received in the spirit of that. I don't need a response now. You can certainly consult with the clerk. We'll see in the notice of the next meeting what you decide to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I am speaking. I have the floor.

I would like to apologize to all for wasting your time yet again. It is a serious matter that we have before us to deal with Bill C-20. We are trying to get it done and we are doing our best. The alternative is to capitulate to matters that are out of our control.

With apologies, I will continue to invite you and continue to schedule this matter. Hopefully, we will get it done sooner rather than later. I do heartily thank you for your time and for having to put up with committee in this way. Thank you to all.

Please feel free to depart, if it is your wish. If you want to stay for the show, you're welcome to do that as well.

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

Yes, of course, Mr. Chair.

In the first case, you rightly explained that this would come after the Bill C‑20 study.

The briefing on trauma-informed questioning at committee is something we included for the Conservatives, who wanted to ask victims about the issue. Those of us on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage found it very helpful to have that education before hearing from victims. The motion doesn't close the door to that at all, but the committee members aren't currently equipped for the appearance of victims.

I feel it's important for the committee to be briefed on how to question victims in a trauma-informed way, and I believe Ms. Rempel Garner was in agreement. We would be more equipped and better educated if, as a committee, we decided to invite victims to appear on this matter or any other down the road. As I said, the heritage committee found the briefing very beneficial. We learned a lot, and it improved how we interacted with victims.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

The clerk has taken notice of the deficiencies and will address them.

I would point out that if we were to pass this motion.... When we finish clause-by-clause on Bill C-20, we still have to ramp up for Bill C-26. We don't know when it is, so this might be an opportunity to fill in between the two studies in an effective, useful way. That's how I think we would approach it if we were to pass this motion.

Mr. Julian, do you wish to respond to those questions?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have spent more than six and a half hours debating a number of motions that all deal with the same thing. The opinion of every party represented here has been heard. I think the Liberals proposed a motion in good faith at our last meeting, and I think Mr. Julian has in good faith moved a motion that provides a reasonable compromise so as not to further delay the study of Bill C‑20.

I'm not sure whether my fellow committee members feel the same, but I struggle to look witnesses in the eye because I'm embarrassed to bring them before the committee. I know this is costing taxpayers a ton of money. I'm not sure whether you know how much, Mr. Chair. Perhaps the clerk can send us the information. Our constituents need to know what we're doing here. The study of a very important bill is being held up.

People are writing us. Every single member here has gotten emails from people who are very eager for our study of Bill C‑20. I've even met stakeholders who are also worried about the study of Bill C‑26, which we are supposed to deal with after the study on Bill C‑20. That means the Bill C‑26 study is also being delayed. I think it's tremendously unfortunate, not to mention disrespectful to the people here, who surely have better things to do. Their expertise could be helping us in our study of Bill C‑20.

As I said, I think Mr. Julian has put forward an acceptable compromise, but I do have a few minor technical questions. The French version of the motion starts off, “Que le Comité permanent de la sécurité publique et nationale tienne immédiatement une réunion de 3 heures, à la suite de l’étude du projet de loi C‑20”. I was wondering whether “immédiatement” is really what's meant, as opposed to “après”, meaning after the study of Bill C‑20. The English version says, “immediately after”, so the meaning may have gotten lost in translation. I'm not sure whether we can sort that so the French version is clear as well, without necessarily going through a subamendment.

I also have a question about the one-hour in camera meeting being requested so the committee can be briefed on trauma-informed questioning at committee. I'm wondering what purpose that will serve, since the people we hear from are not necessarily victims. Is that additional hour really necessary?

As for Mr. Shipley's amendment, we'll be back to square one if we hold three meetings on this. I think inviting the minister for one three-hour meeting and another two-hour meeting is an acceptable compromise. That is five hours of debate, after all. When it comes to inviting former public safety minister Marco Mendicino, he lost his portfolio, so I think we can leave him out of this. It's not his job to answer these questions. The motion already calls on the committee to invite the current Minister of Public Safety to answer our questions.

I'm ready to vote on the amendment and the motion so we can move on to studying Bill C‑20, but I would appreciate it if Mr. Julian could answer my questions.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I have optimism. I agree with Mr. Julian that typically we should let the witnesses go, but I take Mr. Shipley at his word that he cares about the witnesses and their time. For three meetings in a row, he's had about 10 to 20 of them here. Since he has this new-found love for witnesses' time, I think we should keep the witnesses here, because I really have optimism that Mr. Shipley and the Conservatives intend to keep this short and that we will get through it and get to Bill C-20. If they're going to filibuster, then they'll filibuster, but I take them at their word that this is going to be fast.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't want to take any more time on this. I think we've had, as you pointed out, three meetings, at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars to Canadians, where Conservatives—and I mentioned this before—would agree to something off-line that was then changed online.

We had this discussion. It incorporates what the Conservatives were asking for. It incorporates what the government was proposing. It incorporates Madame Michaud's comments. Unless there is some tweaking that needs to be done, I would hope we could just vote on this and move forward.

If any member of this committee feels that we may want to go further after having these meetings on this issue, I would agree in the same way, in the same spirit that we brought to the Canadian heritage committee, with all parties coming together, to look at the issue of safe sport. With an initial meeting that we had on Hockey Canada, it led to—for those who followed the Hockey Canada and Soccer Canada hearings—a study that lasted about six months.

I think all members of this committee will be interested, first, in hearing from the witnesses. Second, we will have the Minister of Public Safety, and it is important for him to answer questions on this and other aspects of his mandate. A third aspect is having this committee be trauma-informed, which was extremely helpful for the Canadian heritage hearings. After that, as a committee, we can decide whether to move forward, whether to continue or whether to invite additional witnesses.

But for goodness' sake, let us stop the incredible waste of resources. We have before us witnesses who come from a wide variety of backgrounds in terms of public safety and who are here to answer questions on Bill C-20. Let us keep the commitment we have to the House and to Canadians to get the Bill C-20 amendments through—and hopefully a bill that is improved—and out of committee and back to the House. That's our responsibility. As the Conservatives indicated, they want to do this study, and this study is now before us.

I'm hoping, given that it is now 5:45 p.m. on day four of this filibuster, that Conservatives will accept the yes, vote for it, and let us move on to the important amendments and improvements that we have to make to Bill C-20.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Lewis wasn't here 48 hours ago, but Mr. Genuis was, and he'll recall that I gave the notice of motion 48 hours ago. Even if that was his point of order, he understands that I spoke to this issue, spoke to this amendment, spoke to this motion 48 hours ago. Therefore, Conservatives have no excuse, no pretext. They got their 48 hours' notice, even if they disagree with the chair's ruling.

Can we please have consideration of the motion, rather than these incredibly wasteful...? For taxpayers' purposes, tens of thousands of dollars have been invested now into this Conservative filibuster, when we have people from Public Safety, people from the RCMP, people who have very busy jobs, who are here to answer questions on Bill C-20. I would hope that the Conservatives would not destroy another committee meeting, at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars, and would allow this discussion and, hopefully, a consensus on this motion.

Forty-eight hours ago, I gave notice of this. It was also distributed, as a courtesy, to all members of the committee. Quite frankly, I'm flabbergasted by Conservatives' trying to pretend that the notice wasn't given 48 hours ago and trying to overturn a decision that was made by this committee a few minutes ago, so thank you, Mr. Chair. I will speak to this motion.

I will read the motion into the record a second time, just to make sure that everyone is aware and that the typo is corrected:

That the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security hold a 3-hour meeting, immediately after the committee's study of Bill C-20, on the rights of victims of crime and the security reclassification and transfer of offenders within federal corrections.

That the committee invite:

1. The Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada, Anne Kelly; Deputy Minister of Public Safety, Shawn Tupper; the Correctional Investigator; the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Benjamin Roebuck; and Tim Danson, lawyer for the victims to appear,

2. Representative(s) of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers (UCCO) to appear,

3. Representative(s) of the Union of Safety and Justice Employees (USJE) to appear.

Furthermore, that the committee invite immediately the Minister of Public Safety and ministry departmental officials to come to committee for two hours to discuss the Public Safety Minister's mandate.

Finally, that the committee hold a 1-hour in camera meeting to be briefed on trauma-informed questioning at committee for future testimony from victims.

After “That the committee invite”, we strike the first line. That was a duplicate, so I've renumbered these.

This is a consensus of all the comments that were made—

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'm open to a discussion about some aspects of this, but Mr. Julian did not provide the required 48 hours' notice. The matter at hand, according to the agenda, is Bill C-20, which means that a motion has to be either on Bill C-20 or on a matter being discussed. The fact that we discussed this issue at a previous meeting does not make it the matter at hand. The fact that it was discussed two days ago does not make it the matter at hand at the beginning of this meeting.

Mr. Julian got the floor and moved this motion, which he would be entitled to do if it had been on notice for 48 hours. Respectfully, it is not plausible to say that something having been discussed at a previous meeting 48 hours ago makes it the matter at hand.

I would respectfully suggest that Mr. Julian can present some of these proposals in the context of an amendment to a motion under discussion. It is very clearly not the matter at hand.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to propose a motion, which I will speak to, of course. It's already gone out to the committee members. It reads as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security hold a 3‑hour meeting, immediately after the committee’s study of Bill C‑20, on the rights of victims of crime and the security reclassification and transfer of offenders within federal corrections. That the committee invite: 1. The current Minister of Public Safety 2. The Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada, Anne Kelly, Deputy Minister of Public Safety, Shawn Tupper, and the Correctional Investigator, and the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Tim Danson, to appear, 3. Representative(s) of the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers (UCCO) to appear, 4. Representative(s) of the Union of Safety and Justice Employees (USJE) to appear. Furthermore, that the committee invite immediately the Minister of Public Safety and ministry departmental officials to come to committee for two hours to discuss the Public Safety Minister’s mandate. Finally, that the committee hold a 1‑hour in camera meeting to be briefed on trauma informed questioning of at committee for future testimony from victims.

There's just a bit of a typo. “The Minister of Public Safety” should appear just in that second section.

The reason I'm proposing this is that, having listened very attentively to Liberal colleagues, Conservative colleagues and also Madame Michaud from the Bloc Québécois, we seem to have a consensus around having meetings. There was an insistence, I understand, from the Conservatives, who talked about six hours. You'll see that this motion refers to six hours of meetings and that we have the Minister of Public Safety before us. That invitation is on this subject, but also on all other subjects in the mandate. Also, it adds in Ms. Rempel Garner's comments about trauma-informed questioning.

Hopefully, with a bit of tweaking, we can get this motion adopted and go on to Bill C-20. We have our witnesses here today, and I think they will be giving us a lot of good wisdom as we move forward on Bill C-20.

Then, following Bill C-20, we would have that three-hour meeting with the witnesses. We'll have the minister, who's invited on the mandate, which also includes this issue, and we'll have an in camera meeting on trauma-informed questioning at committee.

I'm hoping this is a consensus that we can treat relatively quickly and move on to Bill C-20 tonight.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

You'll be next.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, November 25, 2022, the committee continues its consideration of Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments.

Today the committee resumes clause-by-clause consideration.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

When we adjourned last, we did not continue the debate, so strictly speaking, the matters that were under debate at that time are terminated.

Mr. Julian, please go ahead.

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

Again, very briefly, Mr. Chair, I'll be voting against the amendment, though there are some elements that I would like to bring back to Ms. O'Connell's motion: first, that we hold a three-hour meeting; second, that the Minister of Public Safety be invited as soon as possible to come to the committee on public safety issues; and then, third, that we receive a briefing on trauma-informed committee hearings so that this committee will be as well informed as the Canadian heritage committee was if in the future we are looking to have victims come forward.

I also would be proposing at that time that the union of public correctional officers be brought in. I thought that was a helpful proposal from the Conservatives.

I'll be voting against the amendment, but with the intention of proposing some amendments.

Now, Mr. Chair, I believe we're going to have bells very shortly, so we may not get to that today, but I'm hoping that off-line we can finally come to a consensus so that we can move on to Bill C-20. Like Madame Michaud, I'm anxious to improve the legislation. Hopefully, we can do that at our next meeting.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I think Mr. Motz has a few more points that he wants to put on the record, but before that, I do want to respond to a couple of things that were raised.

In terms of how a committee schedules its agenda, I think members understand that, when a motion has been put on notice, members can move that motion regardless of the agenda. I think that's an important provision, because in the absence of such a provision, if members were required to confine themselves to the agenda, then a chair could repeatedly schedule issues that were schedule one issues to avoid, let's say, dealing with another issue.

Knowing there was a strong desire among committee members to address this issue before we proceeded to Bill C-20, the chair could have, let's say, scheduled this meeting as a meeting of committee business, which is in effect what we've ended up discussing anyway. It's simply the fact that the officials were invited because the agenda said that Bill C-20 was.... Maybe, I would suggest, Chair, there was a reality in terms of what this committee needed to discuss.

The other observation I would make, though, is that it was, of course, Ms. O'Connell who moved the motion. It was a decision by her, by the government, to move the motion. Of course, our view is that this issue needed to be discussed and that it needed to be discussed with three meetings.

This is where we are. We're under the rubric of that discussion, so we are, I think in good faith, trying to put forward and also insist on our position. Our core position is that, when it comes to this transfer of Paul Bernardo from maximum security to medium security, the families have to be heard on this issue, the families have to have an opportunity to testify, ministers have to be held accountable for their actions and we need a proper investigation, a proper study of this issue. That is our position.

That will continue to be our position. Families of victims need to be heard, and we need to hold the government accountable to ensure this sort of thing doesn't happen again.

I'll leave it there.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I've said several times since this debate began, I think it's extremely unfortunate that we're spending several hours debating numerous motions that all point in the same direction, when the committee has an agenda to follow: we should be debating Bill C‑20; some people have reminded us of how important it is to them. Indeed, we've all received emails from victims who have been harmed by the Canada Border Services Agency, and they deserve to have parliamentarians take a look at this important bill. Personally, I think it's a shame for these people. I'd even say it's disrespectful to the people who are watching the committee's work, hoping that we'll finally get around to studying this bill. It's also disrespectful to the civil servants who, let's put it this way, are wasting time here while we debate another subject.

I'm not saying this subject isn't important. Of course it's important. There are probably 50 other important topics related to public safety in Canada that we could be debating here. It's just that the timing isn't right. I think we've already wasted too much time and we should be debating Bill C‑20.

That said, I think my colleague Ms. O'Connell has proposed a reasonable compromise in introducing the motion before us. It's the Conservatives' desire to debate this subject, once the study of Bill C‑20 has been completed, and I agree. I would even have gone so far as to say that, since bills are this committee's priority, the debate on this subject could have been held after the study of Bill C-26. However, we agreed to consider this issue directly after the study of Bill C‑20. Ms. O'Connell has proposed a reasonable motion, which I think we could all agree on.

Of course, I'm against the amendments and subamendments proposed by the Conservative Party. We've had ample opportunity to discuss and negotiate behind the scenes so we can't do it here in committee and waste a lot of people's time. The Conservatives always come up with a new proposal to stretch out debate time. They want to politicize the debate and that's really deplorable. It's no secret that they're politicizing the debate. As I've already said, I'd like to take the question even further: should we politicize this process too? The Correctional Service of Canada exists for a reason, it has specific tasks to accomplish, so I don't understand why we're bringing the minister into this.

I agree with a few things Mr. Julian mentioned about public servants, whom we once again allowed to leave after several hours of hearing us debate this.

Out of respect for the people who expect us to do our job, I'd like us to go ahead, vote on the subamendments, on the amendments and on the motion, come to a consensus and proceed with Bill C‑20. There are people who have been waiting for this for a long time.

I said that some of the blame lies with the Conservatives, who are filibustering in Parliament and stretching out debate time on this issue, but it must also be said that the committee spent a lot of time studying Bill C-21 because the government had more or less done its job well. In the case of Bill C‑20, this is the third time in a few years that a similar bill has come before the House of Commons. In the meantime, there has been prorogation and an election; obviously, this is coming from the Liberal side.

So I see political jousting on both sides and I find it deplorable. It's a subject that shouldn't be politicized.

I ask that we vote on the proposal before the committee at this time.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This filibuster has been going on for a month. I don't know the cost to Canadians. It's potentially $100,000, when you think of a month of meetings while we're not considering Bill C-20 on the public complaints and review commission. That is important legislation that we need to get to. I find it really unfortunate.

Now, this is compounded, Mr. Chair, by the fact that we've already had agreement off-line numerous times. I find it frustrating that every time there is agreement, the Conservatives simply change the goalposts and pose a new type of motion or amendment rather than coming to a conclusion. This is an important subject. We've agreed that the government's handling last spring was tragic in this regard in the transfer of Mr. Bernardo. We also agree that we have an important role to play as the public safety committee.

I will say that the government's errors have been compounded by the Conservatives' errors over the last few weeks. Instead of coming to a consensus and moving forward with the study, we continue to come to a new motion or a new amendment at every single meeting. Where do we agree? We agree in having the study.

Where we left off, Mr. Chair, as you'll recall, is that I certainly had agreed—this is a minority Parliament, so all parties have to be consulted—to a three-hour meeting that included a number of those important witnesses, plus the meeting with the Minister of Public Safety, which I believe needs to be convened as quickly as possible, with officials from Public Safety, so that we can talk about that public safety issue and a number of other public safety issues. This Conservative filibuster has been blocking that invitation to get the public safety minister here. It is inconceivable to me that you would have Conservatives blocking the public safety minister from coming to testify on this and other very important issues. Quite frankly, I think the official opposition has handled this badly over the course of the last few weeks. I find this unfortunate.

We have an amendment and a subamendment, which doesn't allow me to move the amendments that I was hoping to make so that we can move through and vote on Ms. O'Connell's motion. There are three elements I wanted to bring. The first is that the three-hour meeting, which we had all agreed to, would be the first meeting that we hold on this issue. The second is that we convene the Minister of Public Safety with his officials for a second meeting on this.

I'm certainly open to other meetings on this. I've said this numerous times. However, when we look at what the Conservatives are attempting to do, I must say, having lived through the Harper regime and having lived through Conservatives steadfastly stopping ministers who had been demoted from their positions from coming to committee.... I guess we can say that the Conservatives have reflected on that. After being steadfastly opposed to bringing ministers who had been demoted as a result of their actions, the Conservatives are now saying bring back that former minister. I'm not prepared to say yes to that today, but I think it's important that it be something that we potentially look at, depending on the answers we get from the first two meetings. It makes sense to start step by step.

There's a more important element that I would like to bring up. I think one of the proudest moments I saw in terms of all parties working together in committee was in the Canadian heritage hearings around Hockey Canada. We started with one meeting—you'll recall, Mr. Chair—15 months ago. From there, all parties agreed to convene other witnesses. We made sure, as we went through that process with that sporting organization and other national sporting organizations, that we moved forward on consensus at every single step.

We also heard from victims, Mr. Chair. Conservatives on the heritage committee had the presence of mind to agree with all the other parties to ensure that, when any victims came forward, it was done in a way that was trauma-informed. The heritage committee undertook that understanding of trauma-informed questioning. We took it forward as a committee. We went through that and subsequently invited victims.

I regret to see that the Conservatives on this committee have not taken that tack, which they need to understand the impact of trauma and which this committee needs to be well versed on what trauma-informed committee hearings could be. As Ms. Rempel Garner, whom I have enormous respect for, has mentioned numerous times, these victims have experienced trauma. I don't understand why Conservatives aren't agreeing to a trauma-informed approach on this.

The reality is that we already have agreement. We know that we want to have a three-hour meeting, followed by a meeting with the Minister of Public Safety—or potentially the public safety minister would be appearing before—and then, as a committee, we can decide where to go from there. If at every meeting the demands change, if at every meeting the amendments change and if at every meeting there is a new group of witnesses or a new configuration, we will not be doing the work that we need to do on behalf of Canadians.

Through you, Mr. Chair, I say to my Conservative colleagues, you agreed to a three-hour meeting and you agreed to having the Minister of Public Safety come forward. Let's move forward with that. Let's get to those hearings, and let's decide as a committee after that on what the next steps are. I'm certainly open-minded on that.

I do believe that we need to go through this legislation, which has now been sitting on this committee's desk for months. Given the importance of having that review around CBSA and the RCMP and the numerous complaints that have come forward, and the importance that the legislation be modernized and we put in place amendments that will improve the legislation, we have to move to that as quickly as possible. The cost is not just in the delay of months on the legislation. The cost is as well in the tens of thousands of dollars when we have witnesses from the RCMP, the Department of Public Safety and CBSA who come forward at each meeting and are unable to provide their expertise because we're not even going to the legislation.

We can have this resolved today if we simply stop the filibuster, allow the vote, allow the additional amendments that bring the Minister of Public Safety forward, allow for that three-hour meeting that we all agreed to off-line and allow for a trauma-informed approach with victims. Those are the three steps that allow this study to move forward and allow us to complete the work on Bill C-20.

There's no reason why we cannot move forward today.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Chair. It's a pleasure to work with you both again. It's been a hot minute.

I am a woman, and I've been watching what's happened here. It shocked me a little, too, to be honest with you, so I'm glad to have an opportunity to speak to this today. I will go to the substance of my colleague's argument for her motion and then try to, perhaps, propose an alternative.

My colleague said the motion she put forward addressed all of the concerns of all colleagues. I don't think it does. Some of the issues that have been raised.... I spent yesterday looking through the committee testimony. It was romantic reading, to be sure.

My understanding is that the impasse we're at in this committee is that some colleagues feel there should be more meetings, particularly to give victims an opportunity to talk about the impact from their perspective. I also don't think that there has been an opportunity for correctional services officers—particularly the union—to give their feedback on whether or not the measures the government has put in place are adequate.

This is what I propose, and then I'd like to give my rationale with respect for what I'm proposing.

Chair, I will ensure that this is circulated in both official languages to you, particularly for my colleague in the Bloc.

I move to amend the motion such that all of the words after the word “That” be replaced with the following:

the committee hold a minimum of three meetings, immediately after the committee’s study of Bill C-20, on Paul Bernardo’s transfer from a maximum-security prison to a medium-security prison, the rights of victims of crime and the security reclassification and transfer of offenders within federal corrections, provided that the committee invite the Minister of Public Safety to appear alone for no less than two hours, and the former Minister of Public Safety Marco Mendicino to appear alone for no less than two hours, the Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada Anne Kelly, the Deputy Minister of Public Safety Shawn Tupper, the Correctional Investigator, the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, and representatives of the victims’ families, including Tim Danson, and that the committee report its findings to the House.

I would like to give an argument as to why I think this is in the best interests.... I hope I can give fresh voice to this.

I wrote an article on this topic this morning. I entitled it “Canada has a revictimization problem, but doesn’t want to find out why.”

Last June, an uproar arose when the notorious serial rapist and killer Paul Bernardo was transferred to a medium-security prison from a maximum-security facility.

At the time, the families of Bernardo's victims were not given reasons for the transfer. A lawyer for the families, Timothy Danson, described the federal government's opaque process as having a severe revictimizing effect.

As the furor over the transfer unfolded, and more details about what happened behind the scenes emerged, it became clear that the federal government had, putting it mildly, been lacking in its oversight of the process and in its consideration for the impact it would have on victims' families. Finger-pointing between Corrective Services Canada, the agency that oversaw the transfer and the office of the now-former Minister of Public Safety, Marco Mendicino, suggested that the Minister knew ahead of the transfer but failed to act on the information.

These failures are problematic for several reasons, the primary one being that the federal government, led by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, has been found lacking in addressing internal process concerns across various high-profile issues, even after major incidents have occurred. For example, the government that oversaw the failures in the Bernardo prison transfer also found itself in the same situation in 2018 when child-killer Terry-Lynne McClintic was transferred to a minimum security healing lodge.

This repetition begs the question, why did the government allow this failure to happen twice, and has the government taken adequate action to ensure it doesn’t [happen] again?

The answer to that question [for me] remains unclear, despite an internal report on the Bernardo transfer issued during the summer.

Which I read in its entirety. My article continues:

The report outlines some startling process gaps that led to the opacity and lack of sensitivity to victims' families, but likely not all, particularly critical errors that occurred within the office of the Minister of Public Safety. Further, the report largely failed to examine the impact of those issues from testimony directly from the experience of [victims'] families.

In that, it is currently impossible to know if adequate measures have been taken to stop this type of revictimization, including whether or not a Ministerial directive issued to Corrections Services Canada is sufficient. Today, there are very few public details about whether concrete processes have been implemented or whether victims' families feel they are appropriate.

The scrutiny for these questions and providing a forum for victims to have their say on the matter would typically fall to Members of a Parliamentary Standing Committee. Attempts made by Conservative members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety to review the issue over the summer were rebuffed by other committee members.

I'll get to that. Yes, there is legislation in front of this committee, but I have also been following this issue. It deeply disturbed me that I had to sit in the House of Commons and listen to how the same issue that happened in 2018 happened again. I was pleased when colleagues tried to get a committee meeting during the summer so that legislation, like Bill C-20, would not be held up. This could have been done over the summer; however, that was not done.

I'll continue:

With Parliament having resumed for the fall sitting, now would seem to be an opportune time to bring the matter forward for study.

Unfortunately, the Committee has not been able to come to a consensus on whether a study is needed or what witnesses should testify should a committee study be undertaken. The last meeting of the Committee saw Liberal Parliamentary Secretary Jennifer O'Connell use procedural tactics to attempt to block the passage of a Conservative motion that would have the Minister of Public Safety appear, ostensibly to testify regarding whether or not the process issues that had occurred in his office around the transfer have been rectified. More importantly, the Conservative motion also called for an opportunity for victims' families to appear to have their say on the impact of the government's process failures and whether or not they felt measures taken to date have been sufficient.

Last week, the Conservative Vice-Chair of the Committee, Doug Shipley, signalled that Conservative members would attempt to pass their motion once again.

And here we are:

It would seem prudent for the Committee to do so, [colleagues,] given that at least two high-profile prison transfer failures have now happened under the current federal government's watch, and others have happened with less public scrutiny. For example, in 2021, the mother of a high-profile murder victim that occurred in [Parliamentary Secretary] Jennifer O'Connell's riding, Sherry Goberdhan, described the revictimization process that happened when her daughter's murder, Nicholas Baig, was transferred from a maximum security prison to a medium security facility.

There are other issues that must be explored too, like whether or not correctional services staff feel safe—

Again, we need to ensure the union has an opportunity to address this, but I'll get to that in a moment. It continues:

—and protected under current policy when these types of transfers occur, and also other prisoners who don't have dangerous offender classifications.

Parliamentarians may have differing views on how to address the issue of punishment for Canada's most heinous criminals, be it through new legislation or process reform, but it's difficult for Parliament to have that debate if Members of the governing parties or its supply-and-confidence partners...don't...allow the debate to happen to begin with.

In that, to prevent more revictimization, I think this motion should pass, the revised motion with the amendment.

Colleagues, one meeting is not adequate for this study. I appreciate that we all might have differing opinions. I also appreciate that the government might not like to revisit this issue, for whatever political reason, but the reality is that this is a pattern now.

It happened with Terri-Lynne McClintic. What happened after that? The minister who was in charge at the time failed upward, into a really great gig. We now have gone through, I think, three public safety ministers, and it happened again. We have to take time in the House of Commons to address this issue, and most importantly.... Wait, I'll get to the most important part.

When we talk about legislation and the ability to use committee time like this to review legislation, this could have been avoided if the government had taken corrective action in 2018. However, it did not, so here we are again. The most important issue as to why this needs more meetings and why we have an onus to review every step of what happened, independently and beyond the internal review that happened within the government, is that the victims' families were clearly retraumatized and clearly revictimized—again, completely unnecessarily.

To me, that was what was most striking about what was in the government's internal report. It was not just the shocking process gaps that led to the situation. It was not just that those process gaps existed after Sherry Goberdhan went through this and after the family of Tori Stafford went through this again in 2018. We weren't spending more time on it, and the victims' families had not had an opportunity to talk about the adequacy of the government's review or the government's response.

It will take more than one meeting. I'm begging colleagues in the opposition parties. A one-meeting study on this issue will only allow the government to put forward some talking points and say that everything's okay, but everything's not okay. In Bill C-20, the legislation that this committee is tasked to review right now, many things need to be reviewed. It's an important piece of legislation, I agree. However, what happened here is now a pattern. The members of this committee have an onus of responsibility to the victims' families to hold the government to account, regardless of partisan affiliation. That is what our job is here, all of us. Outside those who hold a government appointment, our role here is to hold the government to account on the report.

The report did not address Correctional Service officers' concerns. Members of this committee have not had the opportunity to scrutinize or ask members of that group about the impact of having a maximum-security dangerous offender prisoner transferred into a lower-level security facility without some sort of plan. That poses a security risk to Correctional Service officers for a wide variety of reasons. I will certainly be reaching out to the union to ensure that, if there is not an opportunity for them to testify on that, they know why. It is just beyond me.

That's number one. I also think that many families who have gone through this need to have their say. The report did not use a lens of revictimization. It was very much an internal review. I think in some ways it was navel-gazing. Maybe I'm wrong, but at the end of the day, it will take more than 45 minutes of questioning to make that determination, which I hope colleagues would do independently.

I think it's also important for this committee to then ask, with regard to the ministerial directive that was issued, which I read at length too, what steps have actually been implemented out of that. What processes have been implemented? We don't know. The committee doesn't know. Forty-five minutes or whatever's left after a round of departmentals is not enough time. It's not enough time for the committee to look at it. I think it needs to be more than three meetings to ensure that this doesn't happen again, but I understand that three meetings is kind of the red-line minimum for some of my more regular colleagues on this committee.

I also want to know what happened in the minister's office—and not for political reasons. Correctional Service Canada, I believe in late June or early July, said that the minister knew about this transfer. At least the minister's office was alerted to this. How was that rectified? I mean, this has happened twice. It's not just about changing the minister out, with all due respect to my colleague Mr. Mendicino. This is really about parliamentarians looking at whether or not adequate processes and controls exist to ensure that the finger-pointing situation doesn't happen again. Why? Because that traumatizes victims. Paul Bernardo's victims' families should not have had to watch Correctional Service Canada pointing the finger at the minister's office and the minister's office going, “Oh, I don't know. Maybe I did see the email or maybe I didn't.”

How is that not going to happen again? I do not see anything in the ministerial directive that addresses that concern or, first of all, outlines what happened. We know something happened, but we don't know what happened. That needs to be fixed.

Colleagues, this is why.... If this decision did not involve the minister's office and if there wasn't that back-and-forth between the minister's office and Correctional Service Canada, then perhaps we don't need the minister to testify. I assume he would want the opportunity to do so and to say, “Okay, this is what happened. Don't worry, guys. This is how we're going to ensure that this doesn't happen again.” I know the current Minister of Public Safety, and I like to think that he would like to fix this problem. We should hear from him on this issue.

We should also hear what happened under the past minister so that he can explain to the committee his rationale for how the ministerial directive was implemented and whether or not he thought it was sufficient, and so that it can be entered into the committee's report and recommendations to the government, because that's what this study should do. The study should result in concrete recommendations to the government to ensure that this doesn't happen again.

I also think the reason why we need a minimum of three meetings is that we should look at the impact on other situations that have had similar issues. I'm sure these families want closure. Closure comes in this instance by having a process in place that fixes the problem, but we can't get there if we don't know what the problems are. It is our duty as parliamentarians to scrutinize the government, to read those reports, to read the ministerial directives, to ask very technical questions and to ask for more information in order to make those recommendations to ensure that this doesn't happen again.

I'm not saying I know what those recommendations are, but it certainly.... Guys, this is the fourth or fifth time. It certainly bears studying and it bears our scrutiny.

I respect my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, across the way. I do. I respect her knowledge of committee procedure. I want to drive this home personally for her with a case that happened in her own riding. This is the instance of a man who, I believe, stabbed his wife 27 times.... I'm sorry. It says, “The 27-year-old woman was nine months pregnant when she was stabbed to death in Pickering in 2017.” The mother of this victim—her name was Arianna Goberdhan—was revictimized when this process failed her too.

It is very clear to me that the government has not thought about this. I would just ask my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, to give women like her the opportunity to come to the committee and speak about it.

Without getting into more sensitive topics of debate.... This was already a difficult case, because it involved the stabbing of a woman who was nine months pregnant, and the mother of the victim did not feel that justice was served. Given that I don't believe the death of the fetus was given additional consideration in sentencing.... We had legislation before the House of Commons earlier this year, which I believe my colleague spoke against.

This was already difficult to begin with, and then it was worse because this person was transferred for a life sentence from a maximum-security prison to a medium-security prison, and her only recourse for dealing with this was the media.

Can you imagine trying to get through processing the death of your daughter and a potential grandchild-to-be, and then having to go through this without any sort of sensitivity on behalf of Correctional Service Canada?

It impacts all of our ridings. I had an interaction with my colleague in the House of Commons in an Adjournment Proceedings debate. Because of what these families are going through, I really take offence with the characterization that has happened in these debates over the last few meetings that this is somehow less important or that it is somehow blocking victims' rights to have this discussion. Chair, I would just ask that colleagues give their heads a shake.

To the substance of the subamendment, I will try to persuade my colleagues. To each of the specific....

Chair, do you have a copy? Did you receive a copy of the subamendment?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I provided a notice of motion. I'd like to move it now. I move:

That the committee hold a meeting, immediately after the committee’s study of Bill C-20, on the rights of victims of crime and the security reclassification and transfer of offenders within Correctional Service Canada and that the committee invite the Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada, Anne Kelly; the Deputy Minister of Public Safety, Shawn Tupper; the Correctional Investigator; the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime; Tim Danson; and officials from Justice and Public Safety Canada.

Mr. Chair, now that it's on the record, I would like to speak briefly to it.

There have been four meetings in which we've attempted to address the issue of dealing with the reclassification of prisoners. We've had many sidebar conversations. We've had many committee discussions with amendments. The motion we have introduced here today takes into account all of the concerns that have been raised, including the issues around the lawyer representing victims, yet the Conservatives continue to play games with heinous crimes against women.

Mr. Chair, it's incredibly disappointing to see.

I'm sure Conservatives saw, over the course of last week, correspondence similar to what we received, including from several women who are absolutely appalled that such a heinous crime is being used as a filibuster tool to avoid dealing with Bill C-20. Many have pointed out that the bill is something that many survivors of sexual harassment and victimization say is a welcome tool, which we need to be moving on with.

This is a motion in good faith to take into account all of the concerns from multiple parties and what they would like to see happen in this study, so that we can move forward with Bill C-20 and the work of this committee. If members opposite.... If Conservatives decide to filibuster using this issue, women will be the judge of their issues and who is actually fighting for real legislation that will have an impact versus using heinous crimes as a way to create clickbait. I saw some members out there, filming their videos already. Perhaps it's to hit their fundraising targets. I don't know. I guess we'll see. I think women in this country would be appalled to see that sort of behaviour.

As I've mentioned, the committee has received correspondence on this very matter about the performance of many at the previous meetings. We've received several pieces of correspondence—I know I have, and I'm sure others have—about how appalling it was that some members at the last meeting, when we were talking about such an important issue.... All male colleagues on the Conservative side decided to talk over the women speaking on this committee. They were more concerned about the score of the Blue Jays game. Women noticed these things.

If we are serious about having a conversation about how prisoner classification is handled in this country and if we're serious about victims' rights, we can move forward on this motion and move forward with having that meeting. It's up to the Conservatives now. If there are other members from other parties.... I don't pretend to speak for them. However, I believe this is a motion to address the issue of discussing prisoner transfers and reclassifications. It has, like I said, addressed all of the issues that have been raised to us.

If this really isn't a filibuster using heinous crimes against women, Conservatives can prove it by voting for this motion and moving forward with Bill C-20. If they choose not to do that.... Like I said, I think women in this country realize that crimes against them are nothing more than political tools for the Conservatives to block legislation. I think that's incredibly sad and also probably why Conservatives are polling so poorly among women. It's because they see through their use of heinous crimes as political tools.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting 75 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, November 25, 2022, the committee continues consideration of Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments. Today the committee starts clause-by-clause consideration.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to interpreters and can cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to a microphone. We, therefore, ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution when handling the earpieces, especially when your microphones, or your neighbours' microphones, are turned on. I invite participants to ensure that they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged and to avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table away from the microphone when they are not in use.

I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

I would like to thank all the officials for joining us once again. I appreciate your patience.

I would also like to thank Mr. Shipley for presiding over the previous meeting.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, we supported and put forward a motion to study these very transfers. The Conservatives use heinous crimes and the suffering of women and violence against women as a way to block government legislation. Bill C-20 would have tangible results to protect women in the workplace with respect to sexual harassment. The Conservatives time and time again use clickbait, instead of real action to protect women.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Once again, the member is off the subject matter of his own motion, so can we stick to the motion at hand, which is debating whether or not there should be an extension of the study of Bill C-20?

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

Okay. If there's no need to read the motion again, I'll be brief if I'm not interrupted, but I will be longer if I am interrupted. I would like to be able to quickly get out there the ideas that I want to get out there.

It is simply that my colleagues who are regular members of this committee have been trying to work towards a solution that would allow one meeting before Bill C-20 is completed to allow representatives of victims' families to tell their stories before this committee. We have members of the Liberal Party who are no doubt deeply embarrassed by their failure here and their failures on crime more broadly, so they are trying to silence representatives of the families of the victims. That is a crying shame.

Conservatives will not apologize for standing up for victims' families, for standing with victims' families and insisting that they be heard, and for using the tools and the leverage we have to ensure that they are heard.

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

Absolutely, Chair, I will stick within the rules, which are to speak to the motion as well as the context of the motion. I know those rules very well. They don't require me to reference Bill C-20 in, say, every sentence. In debate in the House, you'll see members who draw on philosophical texts and go on at great length to set the stage for subsequent points.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Doug Shipley]

Mr. Genuis, can I just remind you that we need you to stick closely to Bill C-20, please?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you.

I'm going to request unanimous consent. The witnesses have gone. Discussion on Bill C-20 might be pointless at this point. I think we could use this time. I'm asking for unanimous consent to discuss a potentially revised motion that we can all accept in the remaining 40 or 30 minutes of this meeting. Then we can move on to Bill C-20.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Doug Shipley]

I think that would be out of order, as we're talking about Bill C-20 right now, Ms. Ferreri.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

I have a point of order.

I would argue again that the debate that is about to happen needs to stick to the motion that the member himself moved, which is extending the meeting for Bill C-20. I would argue that any other committee business is outside of the scope of his own motion.

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

It's that the committee invite additional witnesses to appear in regard to Bill C-20 and that any new amendments to the bill be submitted to the clerk within 48 hours of the completion of the agreed-upon witness meetings.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

First, could we have the most current motion in terms of extending the study for Bill C-20, which is what I understood?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Doug Shipley]

Mr. Genuis, if you could stick to Bill C-20, please, that would be appreciated.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

I have a quick point of order.

If I could call one more time for unanimous consent that we approve that we're going to study this so that we can have the rights of victims..., then we can go right to Bill C-20. It's a unanimous consent motion. I'm putting it on the floor for the second time. I think we all want the same thing because Mr. Julian is exactly right.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If the intention is to provoke a filibuster to delay consideration of Bill C-20, I think there are two considerations, Mr. Chair.

First, of course Mr. Genuis would be aware of both the rule of repetition and staying within the scope of his motion, and that will mean repeated points of order, because he does have a tendency to repeat and to fall outside of his motion.

Second, though, we've now had the witnesses before us for two consecutive meetings. If his intention and the Conservatives' intention is to filibuster the rest of the meeting, it would seem to me it's being inconsiderate of the witnesses and that we should contemplate releasing them again. The cost of this meeting and the previous meeting, both of which were filibustered by Conservatives, has been in the tens of thousands of dollars. All of our witnesses before us have important jobs they are taken away from to become witnesses for this committee and for clause-by-clause on Bill C-20. I find it very unfortunate that their time is being wasted, the public's time is being wasted and resources are being wasted on this filibuster that really could be resolved off-line, I think, over the next few days.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Doug Shipley]

I will keep that in mind.

We are discussing Bill C-20 right now, Mr. Genuis. If you could keep your comments to that, it would be appreciated by all.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If the member's motion is about expanding the study on Bill C-20, then he's outside of the scope of his motion. I'd ask that you rule that he stay on the subject matter of his motion.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to move that the committee invite additional witnesses to appear in regard to Bill C-20 and that any new amendments to the bill be submitted to the clerk within 48 hours of the completion of the agreed-upon witness meetings.

This motion is being put forward in the hope that we can do further study on Bill C-20. I think further study would be useful to set the stage on this bill, but also to allow committee members to have broader conversations about some of the other issues in terms of the committee's agenda.

As we get into this discussion of what the agenda of the committee will be going forward, it's important to note that it is always the tendency of government to want to prioritize the advancement of government legislation. That's obviously understandable. It wouldn't be government legislation if the government weren't supportive of it. It's the job of parliamentary committees to scrutinize that legislation, to review it, to consider amendments and possible improvements, to hear from various experts and to determine its agenda in terms of how many experts it hears from, on what matters and on what timeline.

However, the committee also needs to prioritize other issues before it. In particular, some members of this committee have been seized with the hope that we will actually be able to honour the desire of representatives of the families of the victims of Paul Bernardo—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Doug Shipley]

That fails, so we will now move to Bill C-20.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. If we are going to play that game, and the member opposite.... We had the motion before us previously. In fact, it was our members who brought it forward. We were working collectively.

Mr. Chair, if the members opposite didn't come prepared to deal with Bill C-20, then they should just let everyone know instead of trying to make a political show of horrific—

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

I have a point of order. Mr. Chair, the motion isn't in order. We already voted on it. The member opposite's motion would need to be.... This could be a notice of motion, but it's not in order since we are currently on Bill C-20.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

I can send it to the committee. Revised, it would be that the committee hold a three-hour meeting with the following witnesses: the commissioner of Correctional Service Canada, Anne Kelly; the deputy minister, Shawn Tupper; the federal victims ombudsman; and representatives of the victims' families to discuss the transfer of Paul Bernardo from a maximum-security facility to a medium-security facility.

We could pass that with unanimous consent and go right to Bill C-20 and get on with this.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Yes, of course.

I'm saying, one hundred per cent, let's move forward with Bill C-20 and get that done, but we cannot defend Paul Bernardo in the House of Commons.

I'm putting forward that we would have unanimous consent to move forward with Bill C-20 right now, but that we should remove what was put forward, that the minister not come, and that we have unanimous consent on the subamendment that was put on the floor originally by my colleague Mr. Lloyd to ensure that the rights of victims are met. I believe that, among my colleagues from the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberals, they didn't want the Minister of Public Safety, so let's just ensure that the rights of victims are here and we're not protecting the child killer and rapist Paul Bernardo.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

I'm new to this committee. I don't normally sit on this committee. This is a very interesting committee to sit on for the first time. I just want to acknowledge the witnesses who have sat very patiently. Thank you.

I think I can find a compromise. I think that actually everybody in the room, based on what I've witnessed, wants exactly the same thing. I think everybody wants to move forward immediately with Bill C-20. Is that right? Let's get that done. We have these lovely people who have been extremely patient—you can come and teach my children how to be that patient—and they want to get on with it.

The reason I came—and I think and hope there is an appetite, especially in my female colleague across the way—is that we have to investigate the Paul Bernardo transfer. That's why we're here, on the rights of victims. If we could have—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Doug Shipley]

Everyone, I'd like to call the meeting back to order, please.

Thank you for everybody's indulgence. It's been a little bit of a trying hour. Let's try to make the second hour not quite as trying. We're all trying.

Through many discussions, it's been decided that perhaps we should, for today, move on—and I will make a ruling on Mr. Genuis's motion on Bill C-20. Do we have unanimous consent?

Ms. Ferreri, go ahead.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thanks.

On that point of order, if Mr. Genuis is arguing that his motion is part of Bill C-20, I would argue then that it's also out of order because the context of his motion is outside of the scope. It's actually on a motion as amended that is still before the committee, so he's off-topic on numerous fronts.

The irony is that the Conservatives suggested this issue was not just a way to filibuster on dealing with government legislation. I think they've made it very clear to Canadians that they are willing to use the rights of victims to filibuster government legislation. I think they've proven the point.

Mr. Chair, my point of order is that the motion is out of order.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

I have a point of order.

There are two issues here. I'd like you to confer with the clerk as to whether this motion is in order.

The first is that we voted on the issue at hand. The second is that I would argue that the motion is out of order because it refers to reporting back to the House, although the motion itself is not on a study or a meeting on the subject matter as was the last motion moved. Therefore, the subject matter we are currently on is Bill C-20. You would need to report back only on a study.

I would argue that his motion is out of order on two fronts.

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

Okay. Chair, I will move that the committee report to the House that we have reached an impasse on studying the transfer of Paul Bernardo to medium security; and that the chair inform the House that as a result the consideration of Bill C-20 will be delayed.

That motion is I think an important one in a context where this committee should be willing to have one meeting to hear about the transfer of Paul Bernardo. We have victims' families that want to be heard on this matter. We want to have one meeting to allow victims' families—

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

Yes, I'm moving a different motion. If I have the floor again, I will just declare that I'm moving the motion that the committee not proceed any further with clause-by-clause of Bill C-20. That is the motion I'm moving.

I don't think any plausible reading of the rules would find that out of order, given that it is on the matter being considered quite directly. It doesn't reference any other matters, and I'll proceed to speak to it.

The previous discussion at the committee dealt with—

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

I have a couple of points.

The motion I previously put forward was, through the committee's decision, deemed not in order. No reason was provided by the member presenting the challenge as to why it wouldn't be in order, but I have, in any event, presented a completely different motion.

If the previous motion wasn't in order, this motion certainly is in order, because it doesn't make mention of any other issues. It says, simply, that the matter at hand is the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-20, and the motion I moved is that the committee not proceed any further with clause-by-clause on Bill C-20. It is entirely implausible that this motion would be out of order as it is substantially different from the previous motion that was on the table.

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

Thank you.

I move that the committee not proceed any further with clause-by-clause on Bill C-20.

The reason I'm moving that motion at this time is that I do not think we should proceed with clause-by-clause on this bill until the matter previously before the committee is disposed of. That matter is the desire of this committee on our side to allow victims and family members—

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

This is why I asked for this. It's because it's a reverse order of motion, and every committee always has this issue.

If you vote yes, it means you're supporting the chair's ruling. If you vote no, it means you are not supporting the chair's ruling. Then, as the clerk said, we'd go back to Bill C-20.

[The Clerk]

Right now there's a motion to challenge the ruling of the chair, which was that the motion is in order.

If the motion is adopted, we return to the item that was decided by the committee to deal with, which is clause-by-clause study of Bill C-20.

If the motion is defeated, we return to the previous discussion.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Simon Larouche]

To answer Ms. O'Connell, we return to the matter at hand, the item on the agenda that the committee decided to deal with. It would mean that we would come back to clause-by-clause study of Bill C-20 at the end of the decision.

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

Thank you.

I move that the committee not proceed with clause-by-clause on Bill C-20 until it has disposed of the motion respecting the Paul Bernardo transfer and the invitation to representatives of the victims' families.

Chair, I am gravely concerned about what has just taken place and what we see happening in this country in general. It would seem at a minimum level of reasonableness that the public safety committee would be able to have one meeting—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Doug Shipley]

The clerk and I discussed this before we were going to go ahead. If we can just have a short recess, we can get set up for Bill C-20.

Take no more than five minutes, please.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move that we now proceed to clause-by-clause study of Bill C-20. It's a dilatory motion. There's no debate. We can come back to this later if we have agreement, but we are here for Bill C-20.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is different from what we've spoken about off-line. I think the intention here, hopefully, is to move forward with Bill C-20. We've now had the witnesses here twice, and we thank them very much for coming. It's time to get to this important legislation.

I think there may be the seed of a solution to the filibuster we saw a few days ago, but one of the things I indicated very clearly was that I felt the Minister of Public Safety should be coming before this committee to discuss both this issue and a range of other issues as well. I actually think the subamendment is less helpful, because what we are actually talking about is a three-hour meeting with so many witnesses that we can't have the ability to question the Minister of Public Safety in the way I certainly would like to see, not only on this issue but on a range of public safety issues.

He's a new minister. I know he's eager to come to committee. There's a whole range of questions we're going to be asking him. I had flagged this and I had thought we had some consensus around this idea that the Minister of Public Safety would be invited with his officials as part of a separate meeting.

For the reasons I just mentioned, I can't really support the subamendment as currently worded. In my opinion, the minister should appear before the committee for two hours, along with department officials, to answer all our questions.

I don't know whether we will be able to agree in the next few minutes, but I agree with Ms. Michaud: We don't want to make the legislative clerks wait again while we discuss this motion rather than doing the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑20. I hope that we can quickly find a solution to adopt wording written to reflect what I had understood, because what's just been presented to the committee doesn't quite do that.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

On a point of order, I'd just like to get clarification that this is actually in order and not just a notice of motion, because when we left off, we adjourned the meeting. Therefore, this would be a motion, not a subamendment.

I'd like to get clarification if this is actually in order, given that we adjourned and now this would be the first time it's introduced, which would require notice because it wasn't part of the meeting before we adjourned.

This meeting was called for Bill C-20. That's what the agenda was put out for, so this isn't a continuation of the last meeting. I just question if this is actually in order without notice.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Given that we left off on an amendment and that over the time we had to review this over the weekend there have been discussions, I think we will find support for a subamendment, which I will be reading into the record now and which should be distributed to the committee in both official languages.

I'll read it into the record now. It is that the committee hold a three-hour meeting, immediately after the committee's study of Bill C-20, on the rights of crime victims and the security reclassification and transfer of offenders within federal corrections and the transfer of Paul Bernardo from a maximum-security prison to a medium-security prison; and that the committee invite the Minister of Public Safety; the commissioner of Correctional Service Canada, Anne Kelly; the deputy minister, Shawn Tupper; the corrections investigator; the federal victims ombudsperson; representatives of the victims' families, particularly Tim Danson; and officials of the departments of justice and public safety to appear.

I think we've hit on a good compromise here, Mr. Chair. It's always been the Conservative position that we need to have some sort of representation from victims' perspectives or victim representatives' perspectives in order to see this from all angles so that we can ensure that we can at least recommend some changes so that, hopefully, an event like this doesn't happen again.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I agree that we have some important legislation ahead of us. I do want to remind my colleague that Bill C-20 has twice now died on the Order Paper and has not been brought through. This is the third time we've tried to get that through. It's unfortunate that we're even discussing that again.

I would like to propose a subamendment if I could, Chair, please.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

I'm sorry.

Through the chair, if some members of the opposition decide that they want this to be a partisan issue to avoid getting through Bill C-20, women will remember. Victims will remember. We will show Canadians the lows that some members will go to for the sake of personal political gain.

If we want to talk about victims' rights, if we want to talk about how transfers in this country happen, if we want to talk about reclassification and if we want to talk about safety, then let's have that conversation.

We'll see, Mr. Chair. I would request a recorded vote on my amendment.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

I certainly don't want to speak for everyone, but I think the position was that we would look at Bill C-20 today. I know, from the previous committee meeting, that there are motions and studies that members are interested in. For the sake of trying to establish a calendar, it's not the best decision to just leave it open.

There will be four meetings, plus one with the minister. At the time we've exhausted that, the committee or subcommittee can come back and have this conversation. We were certainly not trying to shut that down. We just felt that, for the sake of the calendar, we needed some planning parameters and this would be fairly reasonable. We're certainly open to the conversation, but leaving it open-ended, I think, is just not useful in planning our agenda and other studies.

Small Business

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have received a notice that the chair of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security has unilaterally cancelled the committee's meeting this afternoon. The committee was scheduled to meet to begin a clause-by-clause study of Bill C-20, government legislation regarding a complaints process for the RCMP and the CBSA.

Conservatives have given notice of a motion to call the Minister of Public Safety to appear on the Bernardo transfer travesty. I call on all party whips to manage the resources of the House in a way that reflects the priorities of the House.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for their testimony.

My question is for Dr. Leuprecht. I think you've touched on this already, but I want to give you more time to clarify.

One of the issues we've looked at during this study on Bill C-20 is the interplay of the PCRC and other provincial police review and oversight agencies. Can you talk abut the interplay between these two different jurisdictional reviews and oversight bodies, and how they can actually work together to ensure more police accountability?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being here.

Mr. Leuprecht, you unfortunately ran out of time during your opening statement. You had some proposals for the study of Bill C‑20. I gather you're in favour of it.

You talked a lot about accountability and reporting, as well as how important it is for this future entity to be independent, so it can do the work we're asking of it.

I would like you to tell us more about the proposals you had for us. As I was saying earlier to another witness, we are a bit pressed for time. We are drafting our amendments and will start clause-by-clause study next week.

If you have any proposals to make to improve this bill as much as possible, we will take them. I give you the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here and sharing their expertise. I do have a few opening questions for the two investigative units from Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

As we've been going through this Bill C-20 review process, there has been a bit of a reoccurring question theme about the pros and cons of the current model that the RCMP uses with the complaints commission and of more independent models—as, perhaps, I'll describe them—like your own, which we see at the provincial level. We are looking at whether Bill C-20 is taking the right approach, and those discussions will continue as we move forward.

I'll go Mr. Tessler first, and then Mr. Gudelot can weigh in as well.

In short, can you provide some insight on the pros and cons of the way that your board is set up? What are the benefits of having a more independent model?

[Greg Gudelot, Executive Director, Saskatchewan Serious Incident Response Team]

Thank you.

Thank you to the committee for the opportunity to appear today.

My name is Greg Gudelot. I am appearing as the civilian executive director of the Saskatchewan Public Complaints Commission and Serious Incident Response Team. My role today as a provincial agency head is not to advocate for a specific amendment to the federal legislation but to provide what I hope is helpful information on Saskatchewan's police oversight regime and, hopefully, to answer any questions the committee may have on the basis of my time spent in the justice system and my experience in senior positions at two police oversight organizations in two provinces.

Saskatchewan's police oversight program is built around the Public Complaints Commission or PCC. The PCC was created through amendments to the Saskatchewan Police Act in 2005 as the successor to the office of the police complaints investigator.

The PCC is a five-person, non-police body appointed under the Police Act and is responsible for ensuring that all parties, both the public and police, receive a fair and thorough investigation into the actions of police officers. The act creates a number of requirements for the makeup of the five-person board. At least one person must be a lawyer, one must be of first nations ancestry and one must be of Métis ancestry.

In addition to these composition requirements, there are a number of mandatory consultations prior to appointment to the board. These mandatory consultations include representatives of both police services and members, as well as indigenous organizations.

The PCC provides intake, oversight and review functions to complaints relating to municipal police in Saskatchewan. Once a complaint has been received, the PCC can direct that the complaint be investigated by the originating police service, an external police service, or by the PCC through its investigation unit, the public complaints investigation branch, or PCIB.

Importantly, Saskatchewan prioritizes not just the independent intake or review of complaints, but also the independent investigation of complaints. It ensures that the majority of complaints are investigated by the PCC itself and independently investigated by the PCIB, which maintains offices in Saskatoon and Regina. In addition to police complaints, the PCC's mandate has recently been expanding to include non-police law enforcement, primarily in the form of provincially appointed special constables.

In 2021, the Saskatchewan legislature passed a series of amendments to the Police Act, creating the province's Serious Incident Response Team, or SIRT. SIRT is tasked with investigating incidents when someone may have been killed or seriously injured through the actions or omissions of police, or while in the custody of police, as well as allegations of sexual assault or interpersonal violence involving police.

Like the PCC, SIRT's mandate includes not just police but also certain other non-police law enforcement members appointed as special constables. Unlike the PCC, SIRT's mandate includes not only municipal police but RCMP in Saskatchewan as well. The creation of SIRT was unique in Canada as it was the first time that a serious incident investigation body was created under the same umbrella organization as the provincial police complaints body.

Although PCIB and SIRT are both parts of the PCC, they maintain operationally separate investigative teams and have different statutory decision-makers under the act, with the PCC chair being responsible for determining the outcome of complaints matters, and the civilian executive director responsible for serious incident investigations. This arrangement has allowed for the appropriate separation required by the different evidentiary standards employed by each team, while realizing certain efficiencies through some shared administrative or management resources.

The distinction between these two investigative units is important as it is based on the nature of the investigation conducted. While PCIB may conduct Criminal Code investigations following the receipt of a complaint, the body is primarily focused on disciplinary investigations under Saskatchewan's municipal police discipline regulations. SIRT, on the other hand, conducts exclusively Criminal Code investigations into serious incidents and is notification-based, rather than complaint-based.

With this distinction in mind, I will pause to note that the proposed section 14.3 of Bill C-20 seems to indicate that the CBSA itself would be responsible for conducting serious incident investigations. If the intent is for these investigations to be conducted by what I'll describe primarily as a border enforcement agency, rather than a full-scope police service or an independent investigation body, this would be a non-standard approach, keeping in mind the expectation that these investigations be conducted to a Criminal Code standard.

Overall, SIRT's legislation seeks to assist with our mandate of maintaining public confidence in policing through measures designed to ensure both inclusivity and transparency. The legislation requires the appointment of a community liaison any time the affected person in a serious incident investigation is of first nations or Métis ancestry, and it requires that the public be provided with a report on the investigation within 90 days of the investigation's being concluded.

Thank you. Those are my comments. I'm happy to answer any questions the members may have.

[Zane Tessler, Civilian Director, Independent Investigation Unit of Manitoba]

I'll be very brief.

I am the civilian director of Manitoba's Independent Investigation Unit. I was the inaugural civilian director appointed in 2013.

I'm now just a few weeks shy of the end of my second term, or 10 years, in this position. Our mandate, in Manitoba, is to investigate and involve ourselves, providing an independent overview and oversight of all serious incidents involving the police within the province, including death, serious injuries or breaches of criminal or statutory codes.

In my time, in the last eight years, since we've been operational in June 2015, we have now surpassed some 500 notifications for our unit to become involved in the serious incident investigation process.

Hopefully, my experience can assist in better understanding and developing the proposals under Bill C-20.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

This meeting is resumed.

We're once again in meeting number 72 on Bill C-20.

Today, we have, as an individual, Dr. Christian Leuprecht, professor, Royal Military College of Canada. From the Independent Investigation Unit of Manitoba, we have Zane Tessler, civilian director, and Roxanne Gagné, incoming civilian director, by video conference. Finally, from the Saskatchewan Serious Incident Response Team, we have Greg Gudelot, executive director, by video conference as well.

Welcome, everyone.

Let's start with Dr. Leuprecht.

I invite you to make an opening statement of up to five minutes. Please go ahead, sir.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Okay.

If I can go back to Mrs. Anderson-Pyrz, through Bill C-20, there are new reporting provisions that require the CBSA and the RCMP to update the minister and, in turn, the House of Commons and all Canadians on their efforts to implement the recommendation made by PCRC.

Will this additional accountability mechanism be useful in holding the RCMP and CBSA accountable for the progress update they provide Canadians?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As others have said, my condolences for the loss that has been borne by all the witnesses here at the committee.

Specifically for you, Mr. McCall, we've seen, especially during the pandemic, so many families quite unnecessarily separated. It just really brings home the impacts that these have in cases such as yours.

To clarify, if Bill C-20 goes into place and this complaint mechanism is inputted, would that have changed your situation, do you think? If the compassionate leave was not in place as a policy in the first place, you can make the complaints but would it have led to a different outcome?

[Dr. David Edward-Ooi Poon]

We've been calling it “Donna's rule”, the idea that in any time—war, trade, COVID, another pandemic—there must be something within, and entrenched within, Canadian policy to never allow the separation of family like what happened to the McCalls. If we are willing to have that discussion, I'd love to have it.

When it comes to Bill C-20 specifically, the idea that there is an evening of the power imbalance between the incoming traveller or immigrant and the CBSA agent.... We believe that a strong, well-resourced and truly transparent—that means stickers at each booth—Bill C-20 will give the strength to those coming in and allow that proper procedures will be followed. This will help a lot of people if done properly.

[John McCall]

I'm concerned about the ability of Bill C-20 to address the urgent needs. I don't think that throwing it to a committee is going to help people who are urgently needing to get to the bedside of a dying family member.

That wasn't my case, though. My case was not an urgent need. My case went from March to August. If anybody could have responded in a couple of months, it would have worked for my own case. However, does Bill C-20 address the urgent needs that are days or hours or weeks? I don't think so. I think we really need a process that not only supports the bigger pictures but also the acute cases that need to be addressed more quickly.

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

Thank you, and I'm so sorry about the tragic loss of your sister.

Mr. McCall, deepest condolences on the loss of your spouse.

These are tragic stories that underscore the importance of finally getting this done by getting it done right.

We've had previous testimony, Mr. McCall, and I'll ask you and Dr. Poon about the issue of management's not making the right decisions. I think both of your cases strike at poor management, poor integration of what should be clear direction, and also the issue of resources.

Are you concerned that Bill C-20 doesn't yet appropriately encompass the ability to tackle those systemic problems that are so important to resolve?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses. I'm saddened by your remarks. We just have to do better as a country.

I want to start with you, Ms. Anderson-Pyrz. You mentioned in your initial comments the importance in the calls for justice of a robust and independent oversight body. Does Bill C-20 achieve that? If not, what needs to change?

[Dr. David Edward-Ooi Poon]

Thank you very much.

I'm sorry I don't speak French.

Faces of Advocacy at the time acted as the intermediary when complaints were coming in. When we won our exemptions—we very clearly and publicly won our exemptions—it was on the website, right next to the order in council where extended family compassionate exemptions came in. The day of, I wrote a letter for every single member. It said, “Bring this with you, because we don't trust the CBSA to believe you.” The fact is, they didn't. They could look up who I was and they could look up our exemptions, but our members were told the day of, “Oh, there's no such exemption. You can't bring in your family. You guys are liars.”

If there was a sticker that said, “Hey, if you're being mistreated by the CBSA” in both English and French, they would be empowered to say, “Okay, buddy, give me your badge number. I'm going to go to this complaints office. They have a two-week turnaround, and this is what we're going to do.”

We, a group of nobodies, were hearing these complaints and doing the best we could, and thank goodness a number of agents read the rules. However, for those who didn't and for those who were outside the scope of where they should be practising, that really harmed a number of people.

Now add that to the fact that a CBSA agent can arbitrarily deny someone at the border for the future as well. How scared are we? How terrified are we that we have to enter and risk never seeing our loved ones again?

We need Bill C-20 to be effective.

Thank you.

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

Obviously, we are very sorry for what you've been through and sorry to hear about your loss.

Since the reintroduction of Bill C-20, have you been able to speak to the current Minister of Public Safety?

The question is to either one of you.

[Hilda Anderson-Pyrz, Chair, National Family and Survivors Circle]

Thank you so much for the opportunity to present today.

Good afternoon. My name is Hilda Anderson-Pyrz. I'm the chair of the National Family and Survivors Circle, and I'm joining you today from Winnipeg, Manitoba, located in Treaty 1 territory in the traditional lands of the Anishinabe, Ininew, Anishininew, Dene and Dakota, and the heart of the homeland of the Métis nation.

The National Family and Survivors Circle is composed of indigenous women and 2SLGBTQQIA+ individuals of diverse distinctions from across Canada who are directly impacted family members or the survivors of gender-based violence. We utilize our lived experience, expertise and self-determination as individual rights holders to advocate for ending gender-based violence against indigenous women, girls and two-spirit and gender-diverse people, and for the implementation of the 231 calls for justice.

Bill C-20 and all subsequent federal legislation must be drafted, studied, adopted, implemented and monitored with a view to its contribution to achieving the “transformative change” this government promised in “Federal Pathway to Address Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ People”.

It is recognized that, pursuant to subsection 4.2(1) of the Department of Justice Act, in June 21, 2022, the Minister of Justice tabled a charter statement regarding Bill C-20 to identify and examine legislation for inconsistency with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Today, I remind this committee that the 231 calls for justice are legal imperatives that arise from international and domestic human and indigenous rights laws, including the charter, the Constitution and the honour of the Crown. As such, Canada has the legal obligation to fully implement these calls for justice from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls final report.

Bill C-20 can be a step forward in fulfilling its legal obligations by aligning itself with call for justice 5.7. It states:

We call upon federal and provincial governments to establish robust and well-funded Indigenous civilian police oversight bodies (or branches within established reputable civilian oversight bodies within a jurisdiction) in all jurisdictions, which must include representation of Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people, inclusive of diverse Indigenous cultural backgrounds, with the power to:

i. Observe and oversee investigations in relation to police negligence or misconduct, including but not limited to rape and other sexual offences.

ii. Observe and oversee investigations of cases involving Indigenous Peoples.

iii. Publicly report on police progress in addressing findings and recommendations at least annually.

While Bill C-20 replaces a “civilian” for a “public” complaints and review commission and expands to include the Canada Border Services Agency, the spirit of call for justice 5.7 is the same: the legal imperative to establish a robust and well-funded independent oversight body that is representative and inclusive, involves consequential accountability mechanisms and is transparent. In its contribution to the national action plan, the National Family and Survivors Circle identified call for justice 5.7 as an immediate action for implementation.

Due to my limited time in this presentation, I will only highlight high-level concerns related to Bill C-20 in the areas of representativeness and inclusivity, trauma-informed approaches and accountability mechanisms.

In 2021, Minister Lametti stated:

We are confident that this Federal Pathway provides the needed principles and foundation to build a fairer, stronger, and more inclusive and representative justice system that respects the rights of Indigenous Peoples, and protects Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people.... We are committed to implementing new actions and policies that address those inequities....

This is from the “Federal Pathway to Address Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ People”.

When it comes to Bill C-20, indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people must be represented and included as decision-makers and investigators. The indigenous gender lens is a specialized skill and expertise that can only be obtained through lived experience involving daily navigation of, and confrontation with, systems that have historically harmed us and continue to do so today. We possess critical insight into solutions for our safety, protection and dignity that no one who is not in our situations or circumstances can fully know and therefore fully address.

Proposed subclause 33(3) indicates that complaints against the conduct of an RCMP officer or CBSA employee must be made “within one year after the day on which the conduct is alleged to have occurred”.

This could be extended by the commission or the commissioner per proposed subclause 33(4), or the commission or the president per proposed subclause 33(5), if either “is of the opinion that there are good reasons for doing so and that it is not contrary to the public interest.”

The terms “good reasons” and “public interest” are not defined in the bill and would place the onus on indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people and other complainants to demonstrate they have “good reasons”.

[Dr. Nadia Hasan, Chief Operating Officer, National Council of Canadian Muslims]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for providing us with the opportunity to offer our thoughts on the committee's study of Bill C-20.

My name is Nadia Hasan and I'm a Ph.D. by training and the COO of the National Council of Canadian Muslims. I'm joined today by Fatema Abdalla, the communications coordinator for the council. I will be sharing time with Ms. Abdalla.

I would also like to acknowledge the work of our summer students Zena and Hasna, who have significantly helped in the preparation of the submissions that we'll present before you today.

At the outset I just want to say that we at the National Council of Canadian Muslims have been advocating for many years for CBSA oversight legislation. NCCM has heard countless stories over the last two decades about the challenges that Muslims face at the border. That is why one of our key battles over the last two decades has been in calling for oversight of the Canada Border Services Agency.

While we support the passage of this bill, we would like to see three key amendments, without which we have grave concerns that the impact of this bill will be a very limited first step rather than the kind of comprehensive reform we need to see now.

First, we suggest that the definition of national security in Bill C-20 needs further clarification. We believe the current language of the bill means that there could be an unforeseen consequence arising from subclause 31(2). As the bill is currently drafted, this subclause suggests that all national security matters should be referred to the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency or NSIRA.

Let me give you an example. There's a well-publicized case about an Egyptian human rights activist, Abdelrahman Elmady, who was deemed a security threat by a CBSA officer in Vancouver, where he was also subjected to detention and was not given medical support that he needed. For example, they took away his hearing aids.

If CBSA oversight legislation still required Mr. Elmady to go to NSIRA, we know that it would take years until Abdelrahman received a review of the alleged impugned conduct. More importantly, it would mean that Bill C-20 would not at all help Mr. Elmady and other Muslims allegedly unfairly targeted by CBSA agents for supposed “national security reasons” to get appropriate oversight and would simply add to the administrative burden NSIRA currently faces.

We agree with other voices before you that the commission should have jurisdiction to conduct reviews of activities that are in relation to national security in certain cases. We recommend, amongst other potential solutions, that an amendment to clause 31 be made to clarify that only complaints that require complex top secret clearance or documentation should go to NSIRA. All other matters around national security complaints arising from alleged CBSA misconduct should be dealt with by the commission.

Second, we recommend that clear timelines be enshrined. As you have heard from a number of other colleagues, there should be strict timelines for the CBSA and the commission to investigate and report on complaints. On the same point, regarding concern about delayed review, our concern is that without the installation of a set timeline in legislation, this new oversight body could take a lot of time to process and initiate reviews.

We recommend an amendment to subclause 8(1) to require a timeline of three months for the oversight body to deal with the first step of a review process for a complaint, rather than leaving it to the commission and the RCMP to establish the time limits.

I'll turn it over to my colleague Fatema to continue.

[Dr. David Edward-Ooi Poon, Founder, Faces of Advocacy]

Hello. My name is Dr. David Edward-Ooi Poon. Please call me David.

I am the founder of Faces of Advocacy, a grassroots Canadian organization that was responsible for federal immigration policy changes for the safe reunification of multinational families during the COVID-19 pandemic-related travel restrictions.

I have the sincerest gratitude for many parliamentarians, including many here today, who helped bring together Canadian families in a responsible way by listening to the experience and pain of so many first-hand. I hope we can do that again today.

I want to begin by telling you why I founded Faces of Advocacy.

Early in the pandemic, the government completely ignored multinational Canadian families, Canadian families who had partners, children or parents of different citizenships. The rules at the time were vague enough, however, that they could be interpreted to mean that the international family members of Canadian citizens could come into Canada, and there were multiple reports of CBSA agents allowing that.

My partner is an Irish national. She had contacted the CBSA, the IRCC and the embassy, even receiving a letter from the consulate in Europe attesting to our relationship status. She was told that she could come to Canada. Upon landing in Toronto, the CBSA agent did not allow her to enter, outright lying to her that there was no way to speak to a supervisor, denying her the time to read any forms before she was forced to sign them and intimidating her by calling her a liar.

That same agent admitted to her later that day that he knew she was not a liar, but still he used these aggressive intimidation tactics alongside outright falsehoods. We later submitted an ATIP on the interaction where the CBSA agent did not record his unprofessional behaviour nor the misinformation he presented to my partner. He faced no consequences.

Members of the committee, I am the face of a national organization of over 10,000 people who caused the government to change federal policy. Whenever I enter the country with my partner, I am still scared. Imagine that I was a person without a platform just wanting to be with their family.

John McCall is such a person. He is an American citizen who fell in love and married a Canadian woman, Donna, 40 years ago. While their children have a right to Canadian citizenship, they were Americans in the eyes of the CBSA. When Donna became ill early in the pandemic, the McCall children pleaded with the CBSA for a compassionate exemption to allow them to be with their mother before she passed. They were given a form letter response that a Canadian passport was needed. We know that different CBSA agents at the time interpreted the pandemic-related border restrictions to allow family reunification, but with unclear rules and CBSA agents unwilling to help the McCall family find a solution or even escalate them to someone who could, the McCall children said goodbye to their mother over FaceTime.

John and I connected. We worked with Faces of Advocacy. We changed federal policy with Public Safety's help much later. Despite these seeming victories, there were those who were still denied entry into Canada or treated like liars, despite well-documented compliance with entry exemption requirements, simply due to the whims or unwillingness to listen of individual CBSA agents. Immigrants quickly learned that they had no recourse to challenge the decisions made by CBSA agents under the authority or discretion afforded to them without oversight.

It is for those reasons that Faces of Advocacy is pleased to support Bill C-20, which seeks to level the imbalance of power between the complainants and the CBSA. We are in strong support of the proposed empowerment of the public complaints and review commission to impose disciplinary measures upon the CBSA and the requirement for the commission to produce an annual report that must include disaggregated race-based data.

There are three areas of Bill C-20 we wish for the committee to refine.

The first, in part 1, is about the joint time limit service standards established between the commission and the CBSA. The PCRC has been made necessary by the inability and, at times, outright obstruction of the CBSA to investigate good-faith complaints. Our organization has heard many complaints from immigrants to Canada who have been told that there's no access to a CBSA agent supervisor and that the agent's decision is final. These people have essentially been threatened if they dare to question the agent.

We fear a requirement to “jointly establish” service standards will be viewed by the CBSA as an opportunity to delay investigation and, therefore, delay justice. We ask that the committee replace the existing directives as they are written and develop reasonable service standards, particularly in urgent cases.

The second is in clause 9 of part 1, which speaks to education and information about the commission. We agree that the commission's existence and purpose need to be well known. It is our belief, though, that the mandate and processes of the PCRC must be specifically and clearly promoted at key points of individual contact with the CBSA and that the onus must be placed on the CBSA to satisfy this promotion requirement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 72 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We will start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, November 25, 2022, the committee continues consideration of Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments.

Before we get started, I'd like to advise the committee members that we need to approve a budget for this study. I think everyone received a copy of the budget in their email yesterday. I'm wondering if we can get a motion to approve this budget.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being with us today.

My question is for Mr. Bellegarde.

Through Bill C-20, the government will mandate that the PCRC engage in a public education campaign to ensure that Canadians are aware of the option for recourse should they wish to launch a complaint against the CBSA or the RCMP.

How important is it that this public education campaign be indigenous centred?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank our witnesses for their very, very powerful testimony.

Ms. Jarvis and Ms. Merlo, my colleagues have already spoken about your courage in coming forward. There is no doubt that your testimony...which I found profoundly disturbing. Many of the facts we were aware of, but it's unbelievable when you think about crimes being committed within the RCMP that have happened with impunity. Be assured that your testimony has an impact. Everyone around the table takes this very, very seriously as we look forward to the next step, to actually making Bill C-20 respond to the issues you are raising.

I wanted to ask you both two questions. First, a toxic workplace is so often a symptom of what can be a very toxic approach by an organization. In other words, we can't pull apart how the public may be treated in certain situations from what is happening internally. You've spoken to that toxic workplace. Is that essentially your message, that if we're taking a complaint process seriously, we need to make sure that the institution is functioning at the highest possible level, with respect for both police officers and the public at all levels?

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

Thank you.

You recommended four changes to Bill C‑20. They related to internal misconduct and non-disclosure agreements, but I didn't catch what the other two were. I would appreciate it if you could go over those again.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Merlo and Ms. Jarvis. I won't repeat what Ms. Dancho said, but I completely agree. Thank you for your bravery. You have no doubt helped hundreds of women. It's a shame that the changes we want to see still aren't coming. Nevertheless, I am certain that you will help us arrive at those changes eventually.

You talked about how important it was to get rid of non-disclosure agreements, stressing that they allow for victims to be silenced. It also raises questions from a financial standpoint, as you point out on your website, if I'm not mistaken. You said that hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are being used to compensate victims of RCMP misconduct or crimes, but that neither the RCMP nor the federal government is doing anything to fix the problem. Just think of all the things that could be done if Canadian communities had that money to invest in law enforcement.

I'd like you to talk specifically about the importance of banning the use of non-disclosure agreements, both for victims and for law enforcement, as you mentioned. I don't know how that might fit into Bill C‑20, but I'd be happy to hear any suggestions you have.

[Kate Webster]

We certainly agree that the question of culture change at CBSA is something critical. That does relate to our first and second recommendations, really, in terms of the need for the commission to be able to receive systemic complaints and for those complaints to come from third parties. That is one mechanism whereby broad issues that are arising across a number of cases and perhaps impacting the most vulnerable, who may not feel comfortable bringing a complaint.... If there's a pattern of behaviour that becomes apparent to a third party, I think that mechanism is critical.

The other way, I would say, that we could tweak Bill C-20 relates to the data collection and publication. We are certainly happy to see the inclusion of the collection of disaggregated race-based data. We do note, however, that the way in which that data proposes to be collected is going to inherently give a partial picture. Not only is it partial in terms of the demographic data, but it's just collecting data based on race. We certainly have heard at our organization and among partner organizations a lot of complaints regarding discrimination according to religious background, nationality, language and individuals with mental health issues facing disproportionate enforcement action by CBSA, so we think that there's an important element of collecting a broader demographic set of data.

Also, collecting data solely from individuals who make complaints doesn't tell us who isn't making the complaints. We miss the most vulnerable individuals, who still face barriers in bringing complaints to the commission. We would suggest that it's important that CBSA and the RCMP be empowered to collect data regarding who they interact with on a more regular basis so we have a broader picture of what that population looks like. Who is complaining and who isn't? What systemic issues are coming through third parties that give us the evidence and the facts upon which to make policy recommendations to see that change?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank you all for being here with us today, as well as Mr. Bellegarde, who is here remotely.

All of what you're sharing with us is incredibly helpful and insightful in making sure that we are able to get to a good outcome on Bill C-20 and the whole question of oversight.

I'd like to start with you, Ms. Webster and Ms. Basman.

For the work that you are doing, thank you. You speak for a lot of folks who don't have a voice and folks who have, in many cases, never had a place where they can go to try to address some of the issues that they have dealt with, particularly with CBSA.

As I look at this whole question of oversight for CBSA, there are really two things that come to mind. One is the need for institutional, systemic, cultural change to occur in the organization. We've all heard stories. Some of us with names like mine have experienced those things at the border. I think we have to figure out how we address this.

I'm also very conscious of the fact that you are bringing transformative change, hopefully though this legislation, to an organization that has never had this type oversight before.

What do you think needs to happen to ensure that the organization, particularly those on the front lines who may never have had this type of oversight before, comes along in a way that is positive? I don't believe you can get to a good outcome by trying to beat people over the head with a hammer. I think you have to do this in a way that ensures people understand their obligations and responsibilities and that you give them the tools to be successful in that.

What are some things you would like to see happen from an implementation perspective going forward?

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

Certainly. Not only does it impact perhaps the morale between officers—having to investigate a buddy or something like that—but also, I would imagine, the experience from the complainant internally on whether they can trust that investigation.

I'm hearing that, in your case in particular, you felt very much that you could not trust the finding, and that 3,200 women came out saying similar things to you after they said that yours was unfounded. I'm very sorry, ma'am, that you had to deal with that.

Just to conclude, I want to commend you both very much for what you've done. It's bravery like this—although it probably seems very slow—that really does spark a conversation that is desperately needed. It takes those first ladies to come forward to do that. I can understand on a personal level how difficult that must have been. I really appreciate your courage. Thank you very much.

I have about 25 seconds left. If there's anything concluding on this in terms of the importance of RCMP officers not investigating themselves when it comes to things like this and the point that Bill C-20 needs to have a mechanism to allow external review on not only public complaints but internal complaints, do you want to give your last few thoughts on that to wrap it up?

[Janet Merlo, Retired Constable, Royal Canadian Mountain Police, Breaking Barriers Together]

I'll try to answer that.

We have found over the years that there is nowhere for the RCMP employees and personnel to go to report those types of things that are happening. They created an independent centre of harassment resolution as part of our lawsuit, but it's woefully underfunded and understaffed. It deals with harassment; it doesn't deal with a lot of the other issues that are there.

Yes, for years, even in my case, they did a two-year investigation of themselves and came back and said that nothing had happened, that everything was unfounded. Then later on, 3,200 women came forward in our lawsuit. I was the representative plaintiff after the RCMP said that everything was unfounded.

As long as you have that entity investigating themselves on internal misconduct and internal crimes that are happening, nothing is going to change because they investigate themselves. “Unfounded” seems to be the word that results.

It's just one thing after another, year after year. Like my partner here said, we still hear from women, almost weekly, who reach out to us for help and advice because they're stuck in some level of hell within the RCMP, with nowhere to go to make those complaints.

On the first day, when Mr. Mendicino was here, I saw the meeting. He said that Bill C-20 was to give all Canadians an equal, fair and respectful place to make these complaints. But if you don't include internal misconduct, what you're doing is basically leaving out all the employees, the public servants, the volunteers, all the people who work within the police force, support staff and members, who still have nowhere, really, to go.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here. I very much appreciate your presence and your testimony.

I have some questions for Ms. Jarvis and Ms. Merlo.

Thank you very much for your courage and for sharing your thoughts and your lived experience of how this bill can be improved to better protect RCMP officers themselves, along with others who are making complaints.

I have some questions on how we can address some of the things you've said. I think we're hearing commonality with others who have come forward.

When the CBSA frontline union president, Mark Weber, was here, he mentioned that there are cases. He gave the example that there was a middle manager who had ordered a strip search of a busload of kids. He wants to see Bill C-20 have the ability for officers to make those complaints about their superiors, certainly when they impact the public, or perhaps in your case, other officers.

I got the sense that you share that perspective. Could you provide a bit more information on how Bill C-20 should be improved in that regard?

[Dan Bellegarde]

A special investigation unit in Saskatchewan was set up after the “starlight tours” inquiry, the Stonechild inquiry, as it's called. It's managed by the federation of [Inaudible—Editor] indigenous and works closely with Saskatchewan's Public Complaints Commission and the Saskatchewan Police Commission. They provide access to first nations who would otherwise not go to a system that they distrust, perhaps a system they do not have access to in the first place. It does provide that bridge, I think. This might be important.

Bill C-20 has a lot of RCMP discretion still built into it on whether to deal with complaints and how they deal with them. Also, a recommendation there would be to deal with complaints of various seriousness.

I think that most police services have what I would refer to as professional conduct and standards units that deal with the administrative or other complaints that can be dealt with without having to go through the long road of, essentially, an inquiry by the commission, which may take a year, or more than a year to deal with.

The thing is to work with first nations infrastructure for public education and to build trust in the complaints process and to move things along, the advocacy that first tribal councils, PTOs, as they're called, as well as various police boards across the country can provide, and also training and education for commission members. Investigators and staff have to be culturally sensitive and trauma-informed when dealing with first nations people in the communities. There should be some discussion on that.

I'll set that before you and wait for your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Kate Webster, Co-Chair of the Advocacy Committee, Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to testify before the committee today.

I am here with my colleague, Aviva Basman, representing the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. We are a national organization engaged in advocacy, strategic litigation and education to promote and defend the rights of refugees and immigrants in Canada.

We are, overall, supportive of Bill C-20. However, certain amendments are necessary to ensure that the resulting oversight body is both accessible and effective. The absence of oversight is especially problematic, considering the CBSA polices a sometimes vulnerable non-Canadian population who may lack English skills, may be traumatized, including at the hands of state authorities, and may lack secure status in Canada.

The stakes are high. There have been at least 16 deaths in immigration detention in the last 20 years. CBSA has faced allegations that it engages in racial profiling in carrying out its statutory duties, targeting certain groups for increased scrutiny, arrests and detention.

Our written brief focuses on three amendments, including red-lined provisions of how they could be implemented.

Our first recommendation concerns the ability of the commission to receive general or systemic complaints. As drafted, Bill C-20 does not require the commission to respond to complaints about systemic issues or general policy, and that's a problem. Often, abuse or mistreatment, especially on issues like racial profiling, is only apparent when one aggregates cases. The commission must be able to examine issues at a systemic level, as opposed to solely on a case-by-case basis.

While clause 28, the clause that permits review of specified activities at the commission's initiative or at the direction of the minister, may be a valuable tool, it is inadequate to address the issue. If the intent is that the commission had the power to investigate and address systemic issues, it must be able to receive systemic complaints. It must also be properly resourced to investigate and address them.

We appreciate the minister's recognition at the outset of these hearings of the pervasive nature of anti-Black and anti-indigenous racism in policing and in our justice system. We applaud the intent that the commission be empowered to help in combatting this legacy, but the commission must be given the tools to properly do so.

The question of who is best positioned to identify and raise systemic or policy issues leads us to our second recommendation. As you are aware, Bill C-20 allows the commission to refuse a complaint simply because it is brought by a third party—that is, if it is not brought by someone directly affected, by a witness or by someone with express written consent.

As I mentioned, certain issues are only apparent when viewed in aggregate across a number of cases. It is third parties, such as human rights organizations, that are uniquely positioned to bring such systemic issues to the commission. You heard in compelling testimony from the Canadian Council for Refugees the myriad ways in which refugees and migrants are vulnerable in Canada and face substantial barriers in making complaints. We echo those concerns and are strongly urging an amendment that will allow for third party complaints. We have proposed specific wording in our written brief.

Our third recommendation relates to overbroad limitations on the commission's jurisdiction, including expansive language requiring that a complaint be refused if it has been or could have been adequately dealt with or could more appropriately be dealt with according to another legal process. This section does not require that any other procedure be under way before the prohibition applies.

Restricting the commission's jurisdiction to investigate alleged misconduct on the mere possibility that another agency might investigate is deeply problematic. We urge that this clause be amended to set out specific circumstances where an investigation may be refused. We recommend a similar amendment regarding ambiguous language in another part of the same clause.

As I mentioned, we have proposed specific wording in our written brief to address these concerns.

Finally, having reviewed the written submissions of other civil society organizations, we endorse numerous additional recommendations. We welcome the opportunity to elaborate on those issues in questions.

Thank you.

[Cheryl Jarvis, Retired Sergeant, Royal Canadian Mountain Police, Breaking Barriers Together]

Thank you very much.

Breaking Barriers Together is a group of former RCMP officers and public service employees. We're all retired from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We have made a group because we believe strongly in making the RCMP better.

We believe there are four areas within Bill C-20 that need to be addressed. Bill C-20 needs to include internal misconduct and a clear definition of what misconduct is. No RCMP members who are retired or serving or their family members should be involved in investigations of complaints by the commission. The use of non-disclosure agreements should not be allowed through the commission. All of the decisions the commission makes need to be binding. There needs to be some form to hold people accountable for what we feel needs to be done.

Breaking Barriers believes that Bill C-20 must include internal misconduct.

Daniel Touchette created a report that shows that $2.68 billion has been spent or is deemed to have been spent for internal misconduct within the RCMP. Despite all the promises that were made during the Merlo Davidson settlement process, the investigation is still causing incredible harm to the victims. The process is fraught with personal bias, cultural bias, threats and intimidation.

We still need to remember that it's the RCMP investigating the RCMP. We have to remember that hundreds of the complaints, through the Merlo Davidson lawsuit, were originally investigated by the RCMP and were found to be unfounded. As soon as those complaints went to an independent investigation area, they found, all of a sudden, that they were founded. This creates a lot of harm for the victims.

The Honourable Michel Bastarache, the independent assessor for the group, came up with three key areas in discipline that he found were a problem. There was perception of bias and the unfairness of the process, the likelihood of retaliation for making a complaint and the lack of meaningful discipline or consequences for the officers' actions. We've heard from hundreds of serving RCMP officers that this process is still taking place and that it is still a problem within the process.

The problem with the RCMP is the culture. It is a toxic workplace. Bill C-20 has the ability to address that culture and to try to make it a better place to work.

There are 130 of us identified in the Merlo Davison lawsuit who were victims of rape by other RCMP officers. Not one of those perpetrators, even though we have made criminal complaints, has ever come to justice for that. They retired with a pension, and there were no problems.

We need to remember that Bill C-20 is supposed to make all Canadians equal, feel safe and get fair treatment by the RCMP and by CBSA. Therefore, we need to allow internal misconduct to be part of that, so that part can be rectified.

We believe that no RCMP officers or their families should ever be involved in or have anything to do with serious conduct problems within the RCMP. We need to remember that they are part of the group. They have loyalties to the RCMP, even though they're retired. We need to make sure that they are investigated by external organizations.

We also need to remember non-disclosure agreements. The RCMP is famous for, when there's a problem, making sure that they cover things up by using non-disclosure agreements. All that does is allow for the victim to be silenced and for the problem to go away, and no one ever finds out about the problem. They need to be prohibited in Bill C-20 so that we can't hide those problems anymore.

The most important thing is that we can say, “no RCMP members”. We can say “internal misconduct”. We can say all of those things, but, if we don't make the decisions that the commission comes to binding, then we will be in the same place we are.

We've had recommendation after recommendation made for 10, 15 or 20 years that these are the problems, and that's what needs to change.

Until those decisions that the commission comes to are binding and will actually force them to make a decision to follow the direction that is given to them, the problem will continue. It won't change, and then we're right back to where we started.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you.

What are your thoughts on Bill C-20's plan to collect and publish race-based data to help assess and address systemic racism within law enforcement?

[Michelaine Lahaie, Chairperson, Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, and thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today.

Bill C‑20 will expand the mandate of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission—or the CRCC—to include not just the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or RCMP, but also the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA.

I believe the CRCC is well placed to take on an expanded role based upon 35 years of experience in civilian review of law enforcement, and expert knowledge of the complaint and review process.

I’m pleased to see that the proposed legislation to establish the Public Complaints and Review Commission, or PCRC, incorporates a number of previous recommendations the CRCC made to the Minister of Public Safety and this committee.

These recommendations include the following.

One, we recommend stand-alone legislation. Having the PCRC enabling legislation in a stand-alone statute reinforces its independence.

Two, we recommend statutory timelines to respond to PCRC reports. I am encouraged that Bill C-20 includes statutory timelines for the CBSA and the RCMP to respond to PCRC reports. Any system where accountability is critical must include clearly set out timelines that are publicly available and reported on.

Three, we recommend stakeholder engagement and public education. Bill C-20 makes public education mandatory. If adequately funded and properly resourced, it will ensure that those who want to access the complaint review process are aware of its existence, know how to access it and know what they can expect.

Four, we recommend annual reporting on the implementation of PCRC recommendations. Requiring the CBSA and the RCMP to provide an annual report to the minister outlining the status of implementation of the PCRC's recommendations increases transparency and reassures the public that they are held to a high standard of public accountability.

However, I would recommend that the committee examine the timing of that reporting in comparison to the timing of the PCRC annual report. Ideally, the PCRC would have an opportunity to analyze the implementation report and include any observations or concerns in its annual report to Parliament.

While I am heartened that the bill before you will establish an enhanced independent review and complaints body for the RCMP and the CBSA, I suggest there is an opportunity to further strengthen the oversight regime by making some amendments.

These amendments include, first, diversity and inclusion. In order to ensure diversity and inclusion in PCRC membership, I recommend amending clause 3(1) to include due consideration by the government of indigenous and racialized representation. Similar provisions exist in other federal legislation.

Second is on data collection. I recommend broadening the language of proposed paragraph 13(2)(f) so that the PCRC must report on demographic data, which includes but is not limited to race-based data. This will allow the PCRC to collect, analyze and report on trends across complainant demographics.

Third is on systemic investigations. Greater accountability is achieved through effective oversight not only for public complaints, but also through reviews of systemic issues. That is why I have long called for the removal of the condition on the initiation of specified activity reviews, or what we refer to as systemic investigations. Such investigations have yielded important RCMP-wide changes, but in order for the CRCC to initiate a systemic investigation, I must give notice to the minister that sufficient resources exist for conducting the investigation and that the handling of public complaints will not be compromised. In my experience as chairperson, both the public complaint process and systemic investigations are equally important to RCMP accountability.

Last is on chair-initiated reviews of a public complaint. At present, the CRCC must wait for an individual to re-engage with the public complaint process if they are dissatisfied with the RCMP's handling of their complaint. In the absence of a request for review from the individual, the process stops. Currently, if the chairperson is dissatisfied with how a public complaint has been handled by the RCMP, the CRCC would have to launch its own investigation of the same complaint. This is resource intensive and can take a year or more to complete. For reasons of efficiency among others, I recommend that Bill C-20 include a provision that would allow the chairperson to initiate a review of a finalized public complaint. Such an authority would permit the PCRC to examine some or all of the allegations contained in a public complaint.

Just as the chairperson can currently initiate a complaint with or without a public complaint being made, the authority to initiate a review would further enhance accountability.

In closing, Bill C‑20 provides a robust mandate for the review of the CBSA and the RCMP. With appropriate funding, the PCRC will provide a much-needed independent public complaint mechanism for the CBSA, systemic investigations of the CBSA and an enhanced accountability regime for the RCMP.

I’m pleased to answer any questions. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Good morning, everyone, on this early Friday morning. Welcome to meeting number 71 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

We will start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, November 25, 2022, the committee continues consideration of Bill C-20, an act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments.

Today we have two panels of witnesses.

With us in the first panel, for the first hour, we have the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We have Michelaine Lahaie, chairperson, and Joanne Gibb, senior director, strategic operations and policy directorate.

Ms. Lahaie, you have seven minutes for an opening statement. Please go ahead.

[Michael Scott]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for Mr. MacGregor's excellent question.

You make reference to “national security”, and it's true that this is a particular problem in Bill C-20, because in the way it's currently worded, what can be considered a matter of national security is very vague, and if history is any indicator, it is incredibly difficult to get full and transparent disclosure from agencies like the RCMP and the Department of Justice.

In Bill C-20 as it stands now, and as I went through it on a first read, you see that the provisions are drafted in a way that provides a great deal of opportunity for those agencies to take positions on privilege or redactions. That is a systemic issue, and has been for many years, not just in this process but in many processes involving the RCMP.

We have to be able to get the information required, and certainly there are enough checks and balances within the act to ensure confidentiality and protection of that information, but if we're not going to provide full and frank disclosure to the body, then we can't rely on the decisions they're making.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Scott, I'll turn to you.

I've done a cursory review of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency Act, and really, that's a very similar body, right? It has responsibilities to review activities and complaints against our national security and intelligence agencies. Really, the only check on its power to review those agencies is that it is not entitled to a confidence of the Privy Council, but it is entitled to access all documents of all agencies.

However, when you come to the proposed BillC-20, and especially to clause 19, you see at all the exceptions for the PCRC and the information that it is not allowed to have.

I've heard you comment a few times that you'd like to see this new body have the powers of subpoena, and I think we're at this very special moment in time when we have a golden opportunity to get this right, given the years of evidence we've had. Can you comment on the discrepancies between the existing statute that gives the powers to NSIRA and what's being proposed here? Really, would it hurt if the PCRC had full access to documents, as NSIRA does, if we have this moment in time to get this right? Can you offer some commentary on that idea?

[Michael Scott]

It's certainly contemplated, both in the current iteration of the RCMP Act and under Bill C-20, and it simply has been the practice that with some exceptions, most things will be referred back to the policing agency for initial investigation.

[Michael Scott]

That's correct. In the overwhelming majority of cases at present—and it doesn't appear to be any different under Bill C-20—the CRCC receives the complaint, but then in almost all cases it hands it back to the RCMP for investigation and determining—

[Michael Scott]

My understanding of Bill C-20 is that it's very much like its predecessor, in that 95% to 98% of those complaints are going to be referred back to the policing agency, and then if a complainant is not satisfied, the complaint will then be referred back for a review process by the CRCC or the PCRC, as the case may be.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

From my understanding, possibly with this legislation it's up to the RCMP's discretion and the CBSA's discretion on what to pass along to this new level under Bill C-20. What you're suggesting is that it should be up to the complaints commission's discretion to decide what they're going to look at.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

As Bill C-20 stands today, you don't believe that those authorities would be given to this commission?

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

This question goes to Ms. Jeanes from the Canadian Council for Refugees.

I sit on another committee, the agriculture committee, and we've had testimony from representatives from the Migrant Workers Alliance for Change, which often deals with similar issues. Our agricultural industry does rely on lots of migrant workers coming here. That organization is there to defend their rights and to ensure that they also have a voice. Their activities are similar to what your organization does for refugees.

In the case of refugees, sometimes issues concerning national security can arise that involve the CBSA and the RCMP. We have a report from Justice O'Connor, who recommended a commission be established. When it comes to Bill C‑20, there are requirements specifically under clause 31, which specifies that no reviews can happen with this new body under national security, and under clause 52, which says that no complaint can be handled if it comes under national security. Such a complaint has to be referred to NSIRA. What are your thoughts on that?

If we're relying on two different agencies to conduct reviews of the same bodies, namely the CBSA and the RCMP, I guess some of my concern is that we start siloing these things. Do you think there's value in the new PCRC having jurisdiction over the entirety of the RCMP and the entirety of the CBSA, no matter what the nature of the review or complaint is?

[Michael Scott]

I think there certainly is, Mr. MacGregor. The best way to start is to ensure that the PCRC is strong and independent and capable, so that when other agencies or Parliament or anyone else becomes aware of issues, there's a place for them to take them and there's a process by which they can be addressed. The frontline issue is not that there aren't complaints or that there isn't somewhere to take them but that there isn't a mechanism, at least not operationally, to ensure those complaints are investigated properly.

If we use the opportunity of Bill C-20 to create a truly stand-alone organization that can handle these complaints and these reviews, it can be the body that receives them from any number of different places.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of our witnesses for coming and helping us out on the study of Bill C-20.

Mr. Scott, I'd like to start with you. We've just had a fair amount of conversation about the review of “specified activities”. I'm glad you highlighted that the Mass Casualties Commission's report noted that the failures of the RCMP were mostly systemic.

I'm always not so much interested as a parliamentarian in being reactive as in being proactive. When we serve our constituents, we often are reactive, especially when we're dealing with casework. I'm always trying to find opportunities to learn from patterns of complaints about how we can enact systemic change so we're not receiving those complaints in the future.

Under the bill currently, as has been mentioned, reviews of specified activities for both the RCMP and the CBSA can come at the request at the Minister of Public Safety, and the commissioner of this new body can initiate one on their own. There have also been suggestions that we add relevant organizations.

What are your thoughts on adding relevant organizations when doing a review? Do you see Parliament being included in that? Sometimes as parliamentarians, through our various committees and especially at this committee, we become aware of systemic issues that are at play with both the CBSA and the RCMP. Do you think there might be a role for parliamentarians in requesting reviews of specified activities?

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

Thank you.

I'm going to ask you some questions so I can get a better grasp of the reasons for your proposal. I know that you work with migrants and refugees detained at the immigration holding centre in Laval.

From what I read in the media, one thing you said was that refugee claimants often choose to remain silent even if they have been harmed, because they are afraid to compromise their situation. Because they absolutely want their claim to be accepted, some refugees are afraid to file a complaint because it could compromise their case and even their freedom. So I imagine that's one of the reasons why you're proposing this amendment to Bill C‑20.

In your opening remarks, you referred to the situation of two individuals in particular. Can you tell us more about that, why they don't want to file a complaint, and why it would be beneficial for an organization to do so on their behalf?

[Jenny Jeanes]

Again, there can be a number of ways.

Sometimes, it will be enough to shed light on practices senior management doesn't know about. Take, for example, the spit guard. When we raised the issue with people at headquarters, they were not aware of the circumstances under which this tool is used or how it's used. That's one example.

There has to be redress. We're asking that Bill C‑20 provide for financial compensation. If such actions have a financial impact on the agency, that will certainly lead it to change some of its practices. As other witnesses have said, they need to provide more training and have standards that prohibit certain activities.

As I mentioned, the law need to provide for a possible stay of removal when the complaint is about a serious issue. That's also important, and it could lead to changes at the agency.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

I have one more question.

There are provisions in Bill C-20 that give the chairperson of the PCRC the power to recommend that the RCMP and CBSA deputy heads initiate discipline-related processes or impose a disciplinary measure.

Could you comment on these new powers and how they could help us in our process?

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for their testimony before the committee.

My questions are for you, Ms. Jeanes.

Your organization will look at the “rights, protection, sponsorship, settlement, and well-being of refugees”. Obviously, the CBSA is intimately involved in that process. I want to talk about Bill C-20. You presented amendments, but I want to talk about what the bill does and maybe how your organization can use it.

When the minister testified before the committee, he made it clear that third parties can make a complaint on behalf of another person as long as there is consent. Do you think your organization will play a role in making third party complaints?

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

That's interesting.

When the president of the CBSA union, Mr. Weber, was here last week as well, he raised what they would like to see. Again, he represents the frontline CBSA officers. He flagged that often direction from upper management is part of the issue as well. He asked the committee to consider, in essence, that Bill C-20 be built in a way that would also allow complaints to be made against not just the front line but also upper management.

I know, you know and we know there were certainly issues with regard to the RCMP brass, we'll call them, in those first few days after the mass killings. In your estimation, do you feel there should be some sort of mechanism for holding upper management in the RCMP accountable through this process?

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

Thank you very much for that assessment. I appreciate it.

Part of the Mass Casualty Commission was an in-depth investigation of the RCMP and the really close minutiae and detail of every movement of those horrific days a few years ago, as you're well aware.

Given your experience and how you saw the RCMP operate in that horrific situation, can you provide other thoughts on Bill C-20 and how you believe we can improve it—if you feel that we should—and the oversight of the RCMP? How may that have benefited the public a few years ago in the situation you're so familiar with?

[Michael Scott]

The critical issue is that it doesn't serve the interests of the RCMP or the public to have the RCMP investigating the RCMP. We have heard it can create issues of morale within detachments to effectively pit one member against the other in that process. It's difficult to expect confidence in the process itself, either from a public perspective or as a complainant, when your complaint is given to an independent body that then hands it off to the RCMP.

It's true that under the current model, there is an opportunity that if a complainant isn't satisfied with the outcome, the CRCC can institute a process, and I think the same would be true under Bill C-20. The problem is that we then relegate the independent body almost to an appellate role and we certainly lose control of the timing issue, so we end up with situations like Mr. Joudrey's, when the matter was tied up in an initial investigation for two years.

That's where I think the interests of the public and the RCMP become one, inasmuch as no one is benefiting from the model that currently exists.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being with us today.

Mr. Scott, as the committee is well aware and as you outlined a bit in your testimony, you were the lawyer who represented many of the victims' families during the Mass Casualty Commission. I believe, given your experience, you are uniquely positioned to give this committee very good insight on Bill C-20 and how RCMP and CBSA oversight should be structured, so I was very much looking forward to hearing your thoughts today on this important bill.

You mentioned you agree with Mr. Sauvé of the NPF, or with some of his recommendations. In particular, you agree with the piece he spoke about last week about his concerns with the way the model is set up now—which BillC-20 does not change—whereby RCMP officers have to investigate RCMP officers.

Can you outline any concerns or expand your thoughts on Mr. Sauvé's recommendation and why you support it?

[Michael Scott, Lawyer, Patterson Law, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon.

My name is Michael Scott. I'm a partner at Patterson Law in Halifax.

As the committee members are likely aware, we just finished a public inquiry in Nova Scotia into the worse mass killing in Canadian history. In the context of that inquiry, my colleagues and I were tasked with representing those who were most affected, those being the families of the victims.

In the course of its work, the commission examined a number of police-related issues, and I can say that among those issues were the complaints process and specifically Bill C-20.

Civilian oversight is essential to ensuring public confidence in law enforcement, and we would suggest public confidence in the legitimacy of the complaints process is, to a significant degree, dependent on two essential elements. The first is independence in the investigation of complaints, and the second is timeliness in the handling of those complaints.

Leon Joudrey was a resident of Portapique, Nova Scotia. In the early morning hours of April 19, 2020, RCMP members attended to his house to extract the perpetrator's wife, or common-law spouse, Lisa Banfield. As a result of his interactions with the RCMP, a formal complaint was filed. While the details of that complaint aren't really relevant to the conversation we're having today, the way in which Mr. Joudrey was handled very much is.

The handling of Mr. Joudrey's complaint was anything but independent. Despite a specific recommendation from the CRCC chair that the matter should be referred out of H Division, it was in fact assigned to the direct supervisor of the officers who were under investigation.

The handling of Mr. Joudrey's complaint was anything but timely, inasmuch as he told the Mass Casualty Commission in May 2022, almost two years after the complaint was filed, that all he had received were form letters advising him that there was “no news”. Indeed, on October 4 of last year, counsel for the RCMP, in response to specific questions that were raised about Mr. Joudrey's complaint, advised the Mass Casualty Commission that the matter was still under investigation, and they were unable to provide any indication, even estimated, as to when that matter might be concluded.

Later that month, in October 2022, Mr. Joudrey died.

Mr. Joudrey's story is emblematic of the CRCC's critical weakness, and that is our overreliance on having the RCMP investigate the RCMP. As it stands, the process involves complaints being submitted to an independent civilian oversight authority, which then in turn hands that matter back to the very organization that is the subject of the complaint.

Bill C-20 offers an excellent opportunity to change that model. Unfortunately, the bill, in its current form, simply transposes the CRCC model from the RCMP Act into its own legislation. In substance, all that changes is the name.

The president of the National Police Federation, Mr. Brian Sauvé, appeared before this committee, I believe last week. In the context of the Mass Casualty Commission, I can tell you that families of the victims and the NPF found lots of things to disagree about, so it is notable that I find myself in the position today of being able to advise you that I actually agree almost entirely with the NPF's position as regards Bill C-20.

I think Mr. Sauvé's comments and recommendations on behalf of the RCMP members' union are insightful and worth this committee's consideration. I would urge the committee to recognize that if Bill C-20 is to serve its intended purpose, it will require more than minor amendments. It will require moving past the existing model and its overreliance on police investigating police.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you. Yes. I think this is critical. We know how situations can develop. Misunderstandings and mutual incomprehension can have tragic consequences, as you pointed out.

You raised in your presentation the issue of Bill C-20 and mandatory Inuit representation. The scope of Bill C-20 is very small. We're talking about five commissioners. Is it your belief that one of those should be from Inuit communities?

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

Thank you.

The CBSA and RCMP officers have had some bad press in recent years. I don't necessarily want to throw officers into the spotlight, but when you see abuse like this, you realize that it doesn't necessarily come from a single individual.

The organizations that the committee has heard from have told us about the need for a culture change. Let's not kid ourselves. While Bill C‑20 is a good thing, it won't change or improve everything within these organizations. However, it is a good step forward.

Should the RCMP and the CBSA take other measures to improve their own internal organizational culture and how they interact with travellers or with members of your community in any situation?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Benedict, welcome back to the committee. You talked about the particular situation of your community, its border situation, its geographic location and how its members interact quite frequently with the Canada Border Services Agency. Everyone agrees that it's high time the government set up an independent complaints body.

You stated that you generally agree with Bill C‑20, and that's a good thing. I think it's fairly unanimous. However, I wonder if you have any concerns. You talked about elders and their difficulties, with no access to smartphones or computing, the Internet and so on.

I tried to get more information from officials and the minister on how long it takes to handle complaints. When we want a change, but it doesn't end up happening because there are too many complaints to handle for the number of resources allocated to an entity, we think we won't necessarily get there.

At this point, given the information we have on the bill, do you have any concerns about the handling of complaints or other factors?

[Grand Chief Abram Benedict]

Absolutely, and thank you for the question.

In relation to the Jay Treaty, it's recognized by the United States but not recognized by Canada. The daily implications are that any indigenous person or member of a tribal nation.... In the case of Akwesasne, we have both: We have members who have a status card and members who have a tribal card. Many have both, but not all. The ones who have only a tribal card, who are part of the community, are not able to enter into Canada as a right. There's a process set up with the Government of Canada right now to examine legislative ways to implement the Jay Treaty itself.

In day-to-day operations, and I think as it relates to Bill C-20, you'll have a member arriving at the port of entry—and this is where it's important for CBSA officers to understand it as well—and asserting that this is part of their territorial lands. In the case of Akwesasne, it's a Mohawk, who doesn't have the right of entry under Canadian legislation, which, again, could lead to a negative interaction between the customs officer and, in this case, the Mohawk, and could result in a complaint under this process.

It's important that the reviewers, the BSOs, the border service officers, understand why this person is making this assertion. Also, there could be cases where a person has a right to have a status card but they choose not to. That's again back to the inherent right and back to the border being a fabricated line that was placed on top of us.

Absolutely the training for reviewers and for officers to understand inherent rights, whether it be for the Mohawks or any other indigenous group, is extremely important for this to be successful. Otherwise, you're sticking to black and white, and that's not very helpful.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

As part of that, there will be a public education campaign once Bill C-20 is passed into law, which we hope will happen quickly. How important is that public education? That won't be legislated. I think I know the answer, but I'd like you to have the opportunity to put on the record the importance of public education being available in the language that people are speaking in your territory.

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

Thank you for that.

My second question is still for your group. Last year, the ITK and RCMP came to an agreement on a reconciliation plan stemming from ITK's national Inuit action plan. Are there any recommendations from this action plan that you would like to see integrated into amendments to Bill C-20?

[Grand Chief Abram Benedict, Grand Chief, Mohawk Council of Akwesasne]

Shé:kon. Good afternoon, honourable Chair, honourable vice-chairs and members of the committee. I bring greetings on behalf of the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne and our community of Akwesasne. Thank you for the invitation to address the committee today.

Today I will be presenting to the committee some information about my community of Akwesasne and our border realities, and I'll provide some insight into our position on Bill C-20.

Akwesasne is a land of borders. The international line between Canada and the United States runs directly through our community so that half of our community is in Canada, in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, and the other half is in the United States, in the state of New York.

The Mohawk Council of Akwesasne is the governing body for the Canadian territory of Akwesasne. We represent approximately 13,200 members. Our members live on both sides of the international border in the various districts of Akwesasne in Ontario, Quebec and New York.

If a member wants to travel from one district to another by land, we must cross the international border. Mohawks who are going to work or school, attending church, shopping, or travelling for recreational, social and cultural purposes must cross the international border and present themselves at either Canadian customs or American customs and provide adequate identification.

Prior to COVID-19, Cornwall was Canada’s 10th-busiest port of entry, with approximately two million vehicles crossing annually. About 70% of these crossings are Mohawks travelling from one district of Akwesasne to another, which equates to about 1.4 million trips through Canadian customs by Mohawks travelling in Akwesasne, or more than 100 trips per member each year. Today, post-COVID, these numbers are almost back to the same level.

The Cornwall port of entry is the only land crossing that processes international and domestic traffic. In the case of Cornwall, domestic traffic comes from Cornwall Island. This means they process traffic that has never left Canada. The port of entry was relocated to the city of Cornwall in 2009, following a dispute between the community and CBSA. Our community has a long history with CBSA. It has not always been a productive relationship, but we have come a long way since 2009.

Given the unique location and arrangements of the Cornwall port of entry, the likelihood of a negative interaction and complaint from a member of Akwesasne is much greater than at any other port of entry in Canada. I want to make it very clear that the Cornwall port of entry is like no other port of entry. This port of entry is the 10th-busiest in Canada, but 70% of the people who use that crossing are the same people all day, every day. No other port of entry in Canada has these statistics. There are many travellers who cross the border daily, but none to this level.

Across the international border, many communities exist as border neighbours. They exist on each side of the border, and they are not integrated into the border like Akwesasne is. Recently, a young Akwesasronon posted to social media a handwritten sign that said he was 16 years old and that he has had to report to CBSA 8,760 times for leaving the island. This message resonates with me not only as a leader but also as a resident of Cornwall Island, and it is a very accurate representation of the reality that the people of Akwesasne have to face.

The Mohawk Council of Akwesasne supports Bill C-20. We have supported this initiative since its inception in 2019 by then minister Ralph Goodale. This bill will bring accountability for officers' conduct to an independent commission that will have legislative authority to review complaints. This is most appropriate for an agency that empowers border service agents with very broad legislative powers.

I want to acknowledge that, since 2009, the CBSA has made strides to build a more comprehensive complaints process, and the agency has done well to track it and promote accountability. President O'Gorman and former president Ossowski have both been champions of transformation at CBSA.

In Akwesasne, it is my council’s priority to mitigate the number of negative interactions between CBSA officers on the line and the members of my community. It is my philosophy that negative interactions can lead to a larger problem. Wait times and treatment are major contributors to frustrations, and when an Akwesasne member or a BSO is frustrated, there is an increased chance of a negative interaction. This is where complaints come from. Bill C-20 will provide greater confidence in the complaints process, not only for the travelling public but for members of my community.

As the review commission becomes a reality, I must express some concerns with the implementation. Commission members should be required to complete indigenous awareness training. Indigenous people, like Akwesasne Mohawks, have inherent rights that are not described or recognized by the Customs Act. Our rights are not found in regulations and acts that govern CBSA, and many Mohawks exercise their rights, which can lead to a disagreement between a BSO and members of Akwesasne. These instances could lead to a review by a commission member, and they need to have the appropriate understanding of an indigenous member's assertions.

Upon further review of Bill C-20, I want to bring a concern to your attention. Matters deemed to be under national security are not subject to review by the commission. I fully support the need to protect and act accordingly with national security measures. My community is a partner in keeping the border safe. Having said that, the Warrior Society has been classified in government documentation and material as a militant group, which could be construed as an interaction under national security. Therefore, an identified Warrior Society member could experience a negative interaction at CBSA, and this instance could be exempt from review.

Any national security classification should not include indigenous activists. Dr. Cindy Blackstock is known to be a target of unwarranted surveillance for being an indigenous child rights activist, and the same overreach cannot happen under national security interactions at CBSA.

In closing, the process to file must be simplified. It cannot be a comprehensive process. Telephone and paper must be an option. COVID taught us that elders do not have ArriveCAN apps, elders do not have smart phones and elders are large users in Akwesasne and in other places across Canada, especially where entertainment facilities exist across the border.

Akwesasne supports Bill C-20. Accountability is paramount to ensuring that the border experience of our members is not overshadowed by negative interactions and the mistakes of the past. That is important to us.

Niawen’kó:wa for the opportunity to present today.

[Natan Obed, President, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami]

Nakurmiik, Mr. Chair.

It's good to see everyone here in this committee.

As I have been introduced, I'm Natan Obed, president of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the representational organization for Canada's 70,000 Inuit. In our homeland, Inuit Nunangat, there are 51 communities. There are roughly 70,000 Inuit in Canada, the majority of whom live in those 51 communities. They're from northern Labrador, northern Quebec, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. Seventy per cent of our communities—all except those in northern Quebec in the Nunavik region—are serviced by the RCMP, so this piece of legislation has the possibility of bringing forward some very positive transformative change to our relationship with the RCMP.

Our communities are grappling with severe problems of disproportionate police violence, which is more than just isolated incidents and is part of a much broader systemic problem closely tied to social inequity. The challenges faced by our people are not just in relation to the point-in-time policing challenges we face, but also in relation to accessing justice and also accessing the socio-economic quality of life that most other Canadians enjoy in areas such as housing, access to health care, education, employment and food security.

The interconnected nature of these issues exacerbates police violence in our communities. Also, the challenges in how the police force itself is constructed play a role in the scenarios we face today.

The evidence that we have paints a distressing picture of police-related deaths within our communities. We don't actually have aggregated data to bring you the very clear picture we would like to bring forward about how much more at risk of dying at the hands of the RCMP people in our communities are than perhaps Canadians are of dying at the hands of police forces in the rest of Canada. This grim reality is starkly evident in Nunavut, where we know that police-related deaths, especially in the last 10 years or so, are much higher than they are in Ontario, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.

These issues are at the heart of why this particular piece of legislation could be so transformative. We need essential data and an essential understanding of how police systems are serving our communities. We need oversight mechanisms to be able to hold police accountable, but also to be able to inform this body of how to improve policing and broader outcomes for our communities.

I come back to examples of the policing force. Right now, say for Nunavut—again, we don't have data for all regions and sometimes we don't have up-to-date data, 2023 data—of the 146 RCMP officers in Nunavut, one of our four regions, only 14 are Inuit. In the administrative positions it is a bit higher. There are 14 Inuit out of 32 positions within the jurisdiction of Nunavut.

You can see that we have a challenge with the type of policing provided to us in that many of those providing services are itinerant by design. Many of those members, even if they have served across Inuit Nunangat only, are in a certain community for a certain point in time. These communities are also chronically under-resourced so that you have just one or two police officers who are active within a community, so there isn't a lot of time to build a connection to communities. There is time to undertake only the bare bones of policing duties.

I talked in December 2020 to this very committee about many of these issues, especially in relation to systemic racism within policing. I think a lot of that conversation is still relevant today when we ae discussing Bill C-20.

The legislation is designed to change the existing legislation for police oversight, but it falls short when considering mandatory Inuit representation within the commission on matters relating to the Inuit. While the bill contains some provisions allowing for the temporary involvement of technical experts to assist the commission, we need to have a more distinctions-based and specific focus on the ability for Inuit to participate within the mechanisms that are, ultimately, going to influence the way in which the Inuit are serviced across Inuit Nunangat.

This also links to the issue of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. This particular piece of legislation should also link into action 6.12. This action demands an amendment to the legislation to ensure the commission is truly a distinctions-based body that is inclusive of first nations, Inuit and Métis representation. This call for a broader and more inclusive representation aligns directly with call for justice 5.7 of the MMIWG final report—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 70 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We will start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, November 25, 2022, the committee continues its consideration of Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments.

I should note that we expect to have our last witness meeting on June 13. I would encourage all members to provide any amendments that are going to be proposed by 6 p.m. on June 13. That will give the legislative clerk time to put them in a package and get them sorted out so that we can continue with clause-by-clause the following week. On that Friday, we're hoping to have the minister for main estimates.

This week, we will do two witness meetings, and the following week we will have our last witness meeting. Then the Friday after that will be estimates with the minister, hopefully. The Tuesday after that, we hope to start on clause-by-clause. We've asked for extra time on that day for clause-by-clause just in case we need it. We want to get through clause-by-clause before we rise, if it's possible, and that is going to depend on the amendments people want to propose.

That is the plan. If you can get your amendments in by 6 p.m. on June 13, that would be most helpful to the legislative clerk.

Today—

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

Thank you.

I think, at this point, everyone welcomes the legislation, and Bill C‑20 has a lot of positives. Do you worry, as other witnesses do, that the lack of resources will make the process longer and more burdensome? That would deter people from filing a complaint or seeing the process through.

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

Thank you for that.

I want to go back to Mr. Cappe, and I have only about 30 seconds left, so I need a short answer on this one.

Mr. Cappe, would you like to see any type of information campaign or a code of conduct for CBSA officers alongside this Bill C-20, so they can have absolute clarity on their obligations, such as informing individuals of their right to file a complaint under this legislation?

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

Okay, and thank you for being here today.

In regard to that, in 2017, you were asked by the then minister of public safety, Mr. Goodale, to conduct a report on federal policing oversight in Canada. Would you say Bill C-20 in its current form aligns with the recommendations you provided in that report?

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

That's kind of you. Thank you.

On the subject of overly broad definitions, clause 33 may also be problematic. It stipulates that complaints to the new commission must be made within one year of the day on which the alleged incident occurred. The deadline can be extended if there are good reasons for doing so and it is not contrary to the public interest.

The terms “good reasons” and “public interest” are not defined in Bill C‑20.

Do you think the committee should define those terms? Would extending the deadline be in the public interest? What would constitute a good reason for extending the deadline?

As it stands, it's not really clear. Would you agree?

[Perla Abou-Jaoudé]

Unfortunately, we didn't have time to submit anything in writing to the committee. We can put something together and sent it in later.

As mentioned in the document we sent you, we think that the definitions contained in Bill C‑20 are really too vague to have probative value and for the new commission to have greater power of investigation.

As my colleague mentioned regarding the definition of detention, it is the Canada Border Services Agency that defines what constitutes detention or arrest. On this point alone, if you don't have a clear and precise definition, that's a problem.

We'll put something together for the committee. We'll send you something more concrete regarding the sections in question.

[Prof. Mel Cappe]

I made the point in my opening remarks that the RCMP and the CBSA are not the only law enforcement agencies in the government. Intelligence and security go hand in hand. Therefore, NSIRA becomes an important review commission for CSIS and other agencies, like CSE.

I talked about turning intelligence into evidence. You want to be able to see that work. There's nothing that I see in Bill C-20 that prohibits the PCRC from connecting with NSIRA, but neither does it create a gateway.

Out of precision, it would be interesting to think about specifying that those two commissions or agencies would be able to exchange information and that it would be legitimate. I don't think it's necessary. Administratively, it could be worked out. However, it's something worth thinking about.

The other thing is that there are a whole range of other law enforcement agencies. When I was deputy minister of the environment, I had the Canadian wildlife service under me. Those are armed officers who enforce endangered species legislation and such.

Conceivably, you could encompass all of them. I don't think that's a good place to start.

[Vincent Desbiens, Lawyer, Quebec Immigration Lawyers Association]

Good morning everyone.

Thank you for inviting us to appear before the committee today.

The Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l'immigration, or AQAADI, was founded in 1991 and represents more than 500 lawyers in Quebec in the specific field of immigration and refugee protection law.

AQAADI's objectives are, among other things, to ensure that citizenship, refugee protection and immigration laws and policies are drafted and applied in accordance with the principles of fairness, and that they adequately meet the needs of Quebec and Canada while respecting the Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and international treaties ratified by Canada.

First and foremost, we applaud the introduction of Bill C‑20. We would like to emphasize the importance of implementing a third-party monitoring system of the Canada Border Services Agency and its employees. In our view, not only is it essential to protect the public, but also for the administration of sound, efficient and transparent justice.

On this last point, it's important to note that the Canada Border Services Agency intervenes in many quasi-judicial proceedings at the Immigration and Refugee Board, which are related to the immigration process, whether it's on detention issues, asylum claims or even removals. However, most of the agency's representatives are not lawyers and don't have to answer to the same regulatory bodies or are subject to the code of ethics for lawyers. Consequently, in the event of misconduct on the part of a CBSA representative, there is not much recourse against them and, for the time being, any action taken is governed solely by the CBSA's internal processes. Our members' experience in the field has shown us that this is not enough to oversee the quality of their work and guarantee the sound administration of justice.

For this reason, we respectfully suggest that the definition of serious incident in section 14.1 of the proposed Canada Border Services Agency Act be amended to include any incident that may interfere with the administration of justice or the proper conduct of a judicial process, and thus not limit the scope of the Act to an incident defined as serious.

By the same token, we believe that the definition of a serious incident should also include any behaviour that would result in a violation of rights and freedoms, including the unfounded detention or the extension of an individual's detention. Although detention does not necessarily result inserious bodily harm or death, it nevertheless causes irreparable harm, since it is a violation of the right to liberty and time spent in detention can never be recovered, not to mention the psychological fallout.

In the same vein, certain provisions of Bill C‑20 refer to arrest and detention by the Canada Border Services Agency, but there is no clear definition of these terms. For example, subsection 13(2) states that the commission's annual report must include “the number of complaints filed under this act by persons detained by the Agency”. Section 86, however, states that “a person who is arrested or detained by an officer or employee of the Canada Border Services Agency is entitled to be informed as soon as possible of his or her right to make a complaint under Part 2 and of the manner of doing so.”

In our experience, the CBSA has a very restricted definition of arrest or detention by one of its employees. In this respect, with regard to the massive arrival of refugees over the past few years, several asylum seekers were arrested by the RCMP after an irregular crossing of the land border, and within hours were handed over to the CBSA. However, many of them remained at the border under CBSA control for days, and in some cases for more than a week, without being considered arrested or detained. As a result, the process to ensure the legality of their detention under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was not initiated for several days.

This is just one example, but it is crucial, in our view, to have a clear definition of what detention and arrest mean so that it is not left to the discretion of the agency, and that the provisions in question apply as soon as an individual is detained or arrested.

Furthermore, in our opinion, the deadline set out in section 33(2) for lodging a complaint is too short. This is specifically based on the fact that current delays in immigration processes exceed one year. On this point, the current average time for an asylum claim to be processed is about two years. Based on our experience with our clients, who are often a vulnerable position, we believe that potential complainants would be reluctant to initiate this type of procedure out of fear that it would negatively affect their chances of success, or even speed up their removal.

Finally, we found that most decisions or opinions of the commission in connection with a complaint, such as the decision not to investigate a complaint as provided for in section 38, or a report on the complaint as described in section 49, or the commission's final report, are disclosed solely to the complainant. We suggest that a copy of any communication should also be disclosed to the complainant's legal representative. Indeed, in many cases, the person concerned may have been removed from Canada, particularly as the complaint process does not provide for a stay of removal. Should this occur, it is highly unlikely that the commission would have the individual's new contact information, whereas it is more likely that the legal representative would.

In the same vein, it would also make sense to allow third parties, organizations, to file complaints.

In the end, we respectfully submit to you that the passage of this bill is crucial, but that appropriate changes must still be made to frame the agency's conduct as well as its policies. This is necessary to ensure public protection and a sound, efficient and transparent administration of justice.

Thank you.

[Prof. Mel Cappe]

Sure. I made the point that I was not affiliated with any political party and that I was a public servant for 30 years and now teach at the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy at the University of Toronto.

In 2017, I conducted a study for the Department of Public Safety on the lack of review capacity at the Canada Border Services Agency. I recommended closing this gap through the creation of a review panel on the agency, similar to what is proposed in Bill C‑20.

I would like to underscore for the committee a few guiding principles or objectives that members might like to keep in mind while assessing Bill C-20.

The first is to promote the safety and security of Canada and Canadians. The second is to protect and respect the rights of Canadians. The third is to build trust and confidence in the agencies in the portfolio. The fourth is to ensure adequate accountability of these agencies, both for their actions and their management of complaints. As an alternative to what you heard from Mr. Sauvé before, I'd like to see that the responsibility is on the agency and not transferred to the commission. The fifth is to maintain secrecy and privacy. The sixth is to protect the rights of officials who are appropriately exercising their statutory duties, as Mr. Weber pointed out, and the last is to avoid duplication and promote co-operation.

There are also some constraints that I would suggest you have to decide how to balance.

First, the Government of Canada does not have a mandate for all security and safety issues. There are local and provincial police as well. Not all safety and security activities, even at the federal level, fall under the mandate of the Minister of Public Safety.

Building confidence and trust is often in conflict with secrecy. We've seen that recently. Issues are not always agency-specific. You need to be able to follow the thread across agencies and commissions. You must respect the complexity and difficulty of using intelligence as evidence, and good law enforcement requires good service delivery.

Finally, sometimes it's about officer conduct in the exercise of authority and discretion, and sometimes—and here's the one area in which I think Bill C-20 could be improved and in which I support the previous three witnesses, Sauvé, Campbell and Weber—it's a problem of systemic review.

An office with too many complaints or a type of complaint going beyond a particular officer may require the commission to initiate a review. Mr. Chiang, in the last session, appropriately pointed out that clause 28 allows the commission to initiate reviews, but only on “policy, procedure or guideline[s]”. I think that could be elaborated.

I would encourage you to find the sweet spot between the objectives and constraints.

The sweet spot is often in the eye of the beholder, and I think this bill does a reasonable job of finding that balance.

I'll be happy to answer any questions you have.

[Heather Campbell]

Where Bill C-20 is lacking in terms of being able to address systemic racism and discrimination and the bias that is inherent is in providing the oversight body the accountability and strategic direction to set those priorities and that expectation for policing bodies and the CBSA to transform their culture.

There needs to be an expectation set in some piece of legislation or regulation to enable these policing bodies to actually do the work to transform their culture and have it be measured and assessed.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

These are such good witnesses. I wish we had more time with them.

I'm going to go to Ms. Campbell.

Thank you very much for your testimony today. You've spoken very eloquently about the importance of overcoming systemic racism, systemic homophobia and systemic discrimination against indigenous women and indigenous people.

Does Bill C-20 address those issues in your mind? If it doesn't yet as a bill, what are the things that need to be added to the bill and what are the other issues the federal government needs to start responding to so that we can start to make this sea change to overcome systemic discrimination?

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

Thank you.

I'd also like you to tell us about the status of CBSA agents as public safety personnel. But I think my colleague Mr. Julian is going to ask you about that. So I'll to take this opportunity to ask you about one of the points you raised in a Radio-Canada article. You expressed concern that Bill C‑20 would increase tensions between employees and management.

You mentioned the labour shortage earlier. Now, an agent who is the subject of a complaint can be put on unpaid leave, sometimes for a long time. You said that handling complaints could last for several years.

What more can you tell us about this?

Aren't you concerned that the bill will eventually lead to a shortage of agents?

[Mark Weber]

I can do that quickly—thank you—if I have five seconds.

I think the CBSA needs to focus on not investigating absolutely everything locally. It's become an agency that does everything through formal investigation. The ability to manage or speak to employees has been abandoned at the CBSA. Everything is a formal fact-finding.... I think we can free up a lot of resources if we get back to the way management used to happen—actually having that interaction with employees and not formalizing everything. We'd then have the resources available to deal with the more important stuff.

Again, it's allowing our officers to use the provisions proposed in Bill C-20 in order to bring forward their concerns and complaints.

[Mark Weber]

Thank you.

I'll take the first question first.

Legislatively, there are two things that would have to change. Number one would be the Public Service Superannuation Act. Border officers would have to be added as an occupational group, as exists for all other occupational groups, including corrections officers. That would have to change. The associated regulations would have to change accordingly as well.

The second piece of legislation would be the Income Tax Act regulations. There, we would have to start including FB members in the definition of “public safety occupations”. Those two things would go a long way, and they would solidify and codify that we are indeed public safety officers.

Among the things that would have to change in the proposed Bill C-20 to bring about real cultural change—which, for CIU, would be the goal—is an ability for CBSA officers to use the process as well to bring forward incidents and things they know to bring about that kind of change, and for those to be investigated as well through the process.

We work in the milieu all day. We are likely to see a lot more than a traveller who's coming through and whose interaction with the CBSA might be for 10 seconds. Right now, the way it's currently defined, that door is shut to us. Again, a way to ensure that it is followed up on....

Historically at the CBSA, the higher you go in rank, the less accountability there always is. We're very confident in many of the things we bring forward regarding managerial behaviour. If this was one of my members, I would be advising them, “You're probably going to be fired.” There's no follow-up. Absolutely nothing happens in general. It is frustrating at our level to see that happen.

Again, change has to come from above. I would really like us to be able to use what's available to the public here.

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

Thanks to all of our witnesses for their very rich testimony.

I'm going to start with you, Mr. Weber. I have two things.

First off, you've very clearly identified that in Bill C-20, implicitly, CBSA employees are recognized as public safety officers. What are the other things the government should be doing to fully recognize CBSA border officers as public safety officers?

What are the changes to the Public Service Superannuation Act, regulatory changes or any changes to the Income Tax Act that would clarify this, so that we no longer have this weird situation in which the federal government pretends border officers are not public safety officers in some circumstances, and in others acknowledges that? That's my first question.

On my second question, I think you've been very eloquent in saying you support Bill C-20's aspect of making CBSA employees accountable, but what I hear you saying is that CBSA management is not accountable. That is fundamental to putting in place civilian oversight in a way that allows systemic reform. That is what I think we're all looking for.

What are the changes we could bring to Bill C-20 that would make sure that CBSA managers are accountable for their actions?

[Mark Weber]

Thank you.

Yes, I believe that what we need is an overall culture change.

I think we need more education. We need more than just identifying one bad actor and disciplining them for x number of days and then moving on as though that has corrected anything. I think that in the CBSA as a whole, and in upper management especially, the culture has to change. As a union, we've brought forward numerous really disturbing complaints about managerial behaviour, and we may as well have not. They disappear. Essentially, if you're a manager and a complaint goes in, absolutely nothing is happening.

We have the example of the chief of operations in 2011, who ordered the strip search of a busload full of students after the officers had released them and were confident that they were clear to go. Was there any discipline? There was none. That's one case. I could think of many that are much worse than that. Simply nothing happens. That has to change.

I think that giving officers the ability to use Bill C-20 to bring forward issues they see every day is something that under the current proposal is not there. We cannot use the process to bring forward the concerns we have and the events we witness. I think that would make a big change. Overall, mismanaged policies, application of policies and, again, the staffing levels: Those are things that are not the officer's fault. That's a culture. That's upper management at CBSA.

Again, when we're dealing only with complaints coming in from the public, well, the public interacts with the officer, who is the one there when they've been waiting three hours to get to the border to finally make their declaration and, like I said, arrive quite furious. Our officers, again.... I think it's overall. I could call it a mental health crisis. They are exhausted. They are working almost unlimited overtime, with no ability to get leave. The summer is going to be even worse as we go through it. This happened last year and the year before, and I don't see any kind of help coming. Our numbers never go up. It's a desperate situation.

It takes overall cultural and total change within the agency.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Weber, thank you for joining us. I also want to thank you for what you said to the media, and what you said a little earlier today.

You raised the fact that problems are often a bit bigger, such as systemic problems. You said it would be unfortunate if an officer who is the subject of a complaint were to be dismissed or reprimanded when the problem came from higher up in the hierarchy.

Can you expand on that? How should we deal with this?

How should Bill C‑20 address systemic issues, which can have repercussions that go beyond the officer who is the subject of the complaint?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

We are beginning our study of Bill C‑20, and I am still trying to understand all of its ins and outs.

Mr. Sauvé, you made three concrete recommendations, and I thank you for that. First, you said we need to put an end to situations where the police investigate the police, and I'd like to understand how the new commission will work.

In the legislative summary prepared by our analysts, there is talk of two options that would be available to complainants. They could either file the complaint directly with the RCMP or the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, or address it directly to the new commission. As for the people who will make up this commission, they would be civilians who have never worked for the RCMP or CBSA.

Will Bill C‑20 put an end to the practice of the police investigating the police, in your view, or is there more work to be done?

[Heather Campbell]

Thank you very much, Mr. Noormohamed. Maybe I'll switch to our comments around data and data sharing, because those things are fundamental and they are some of the things actually articulated in Bill C-20. A transformation is required. One of the many lessons learned from the mass casualty report is that there needs to be a naming and countering of the operation of misogyny, racism, homophobia and other non-egalitarian attitudes within policing, and that needs to be placed at the heart of the strategies to improve everyday policing. That's what I think Mr. Weber was indicating with respect to real change. To improve everyday policing in an effective way, you need good data; you need demographically segmented data, and you need to be brave enough to actually address the challenges when you have that demographically segmented data.

In Calgary the racial demographics are wonderfully and increasingly diverse. Calgary is approaching 44% people of colour, according to the most recent data. Realistically, in less than three years the term “visible minority” won't make statistical or mathematical sense, but it's still used in data collection and in policing. Frankly, no one wants to be referred to by that fairly terrible, archaic and socially diminishing term.

Training and approaches need to be developed to train police services in the collection of demographically disaggregated data in a credible and consistent fashion. It's police, after all, who actually need to ask people in Canada for that information. Data collection currently occurs using a method called officer perception—basically, where the presenting police services member decides, based on their lived experience and knowledge—or lack thereof, quite frankly—a person's demographic characteristics for collection.

Data collection processes and approaches need to be established for credible data collection, consistent data collection and national data collection across Canada. Collected data must be analyzed with effective interpretation. Policing bodies need to be accountable for addressing the results the analysis demonstrates within a defined time frame. We can't have this ongoing, “Well, we've learned this,” and three years later there's another report and, “We've still learned this,” and nothing has happened. When the Ontario Human Rights Commission required the Toronto Police Service to collect race-based data, those data merely reflected what in certain cases Black people had said and known for decades. The finding of note in the Toronto report was the section on the use of force. Here, Black people were 2.3 times more likely than white people to have firearms pointed at them by the police when no other weapons were perceived.

No longer can—

Go ahead. Thank you.

[Mark Weber]

What Bill C-20 is proposing is important, and an oversight body is not something the union is against. The data we're looking at collecting is very important. Our concern is that the data be used to address systemic issues, that it be used to provide officers training, that it be used to make real change and not that we simply use it to identify an officer who acted inappropriately and have him suspended him for five days and then that's the end of it. It takes real change, and we see it. We acknowledge that there are issues. Racism exists everywhere. It's something we need to combat. It's something we need to work on, but to make real change, it has to be holistic.

[Mark Weber]

At the CBSA, you're absolutely correct, our frontline numbers are not nearly what we need. We estimate that we need between 2,000 and 3,000 additional officers on the front line. In the time you described, we've added about 2,000 middle managers to the CBSA. It seems to be the only section that is growing.

Our officers are exhausted and under incredible stress. We have summer action plans that have mandatory overtime. The amount of leave we can take is limited. Many officers resort to leave without pay just to get some time off.

Of course, when you look at the lineups and volumes we're dealing with and talk about what's being proposed under Bill C-20, with travellers waiting sometimes two to three hours to get to an officer, we are more and more dealing with people who are arriving to us furious. That is the baseline of what we have to deal with, quite often, when travellers finally get to us.

The solutions being proposed by the CBSA are automated kiosks, e-gates and things like that. In terms of public safety, they are scary, in our opinion. They have done nothing to alleviate the backlog. We're desperate to get more people working at the border, on the front line.

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

I understand.

In your remarks, you argued in favour of more of that independent model that you see provincially, whether it's hybrid or completely independent, depending on the province. If you were to design Bill C-20, then, that's what you would be looking for, a new oversight body to remove that “officer investigating an officer” model.

Is that correct?

[Mark Weber, National President, Customs and Immigration Union]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you here today. As the national president of the Customs and Immigration Union, which represents Canada's frontline border officers and other personnel working for the Canada Border Services Agency, it is always a pleasure to assist this committee.

Regarding the proposed legislation, we have a number of concerns that I'd like to highlight, acknowledging that the type of civilian oversight the bill aims to create is something that already exists for most law enforcement bodies, and that we agree it is paramount for our government and its agencies to develop the tools and resources necessary to address issues linked to overreach, systemic discrimination and abuse of authority.

That said, the bill seems to be missing the mark when it comes to addressing systemic issues already present within the agency, which is infamous among its employees for letting gross abuse by management run unchecked. To be candid, I have lost count of the number of times CBSA management has, in one way or another, done everything in its power to minimize, delay or brush aside complaints from employees regarding highly problematic behaviour from managers, choosing rather to use the robust discipline process already in place to punish employees through unfair and heavy-handed disciplinary actions.

I see nothing in this bill that would help curb this, and I'm concerned that the proposed commission would mostly serve as an additional punitive tool to be used toward our public-facing members without really addressing entrenched cultural issues within the CBSA and its management structure. What we're talking about here is an agency that year after year refuses to hire an appropriate number of frontline officers, preferring to invest in automated technology, which, when it fails—and it does fail—only exacerbates existing issues: an automated technology that makes Canada less safe.

It is an agency that claims to be committed to addressing systemic racism but arbitrarily cancels anti-racism and anti-discrimination training developed in large part by its own racialized employees. It is an agency that does everything it can to set itself up for human rights complaints by staffing immigration holding facilities with poorly trained, contracted-out security guards.

All of these aspects play an underlying role in any complaint made to the commission, and they must be addressed.

We also have real concerns with the absence of clear language around an employee's right to procedural fairness and natural justice and to representation during administrative investigations, and around the time limits for investigations as well. In our experience, investigations within CBSA are already lengthy—more often than not, unnecessarily so. Bill C-20 does not address this. In fact, under this new legislation, it's likely that investigations could take years to be completed, which is fair neither for the complainant nor for the party under investigation.

I should point out that this bill is being discussed while more than 8,000 officers and other law enforcement personnel we represent at the CBSA are currently in bargaining with the agency and with Treasury Board. It is concerning that the Government of Canada would seek to pass legislation that could potentially change the nature of employment for our members, which would effectively bypass the bargaining process. At the very least, the union should be afforded the opportunity to address the proposed legislation and its ramifications at the bargaining table. Ultimately, the legislation should also include clear language guaranteeing that collective agreement rights are maintained, especially when it comes to investigations and representations.

I would like to end by pointing out that for many of our members, this latest piece of legislation is likely to be seen as yet another example of the agency and the government treating its border officers as proper law enforcement and public safety personnel only when it suits them.

The role of border officer has changed tremendously over the past 25 years, and our law enforcement members are an integral part of this country's public safety framework. The proposed legislation of this new civilian oversight body implies that the federal government agrees, yet our members are not recognized as public safety personnel under major public service legislation, such as the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Income Tax Act and their associated regulations. The government cannot pick and choose. For Bill C-20 to be coherent, it must be accompanied by language confirming the status of border officers as public safety personnel across federal legislation. Changes to these two acts must happen as well.

I thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

[Brian Sauvé, President, National Police Federation]

Good morning, Mr. Chair, and thank you for having us.

My name is Brian Sauvé. I'm the president of the National Police Federation, the certified bargaining agent for members of the RCMP.

Civilian oversight of law enforcement is essential for ensuring public trust and confidence. With nearly 20,000 members of the RCMP handling over three million documents and interactions each year, complaints can be expected. An independent, timely and transparent complaints process is essential.

To that end, the NPF believes that Bill C-20 presents the government with an opportunity to improve oversight and complaints processes across the RCMP and the CBSA. Bill C-20 offers an opportunity to address the issue of the police investigating the police and to make the PCRC a fully independent public complaints body. Amending this bill would meet the government's numerous and consistent mandate commitments and address the public interest in increased civilian oversight and transparency of law enforcement.

To that end, the NPF is making the following three recommendations.

First, the PCRC should end the practice of the police investigating the police. Under the current CRCC model, members of the RCMP are tasked with investigating most of the public complaints filed. It has been noted many times that our members handle these investigations of their colleagues in a professional and impartial manner. However, this does create a perception of bias and possible conflict of interest.

Independent civilian oversight of law enforcement is a critical component of bolstering public and member trust, which the NPF supports. The current system is not fully independent and does not serve to reinforce the government's intent to build public trust in oversight of law enforcement. While there are many advantages to having the police investigating the police, many provincial public complaints bodies have utilized a hybrid investigative model. This model includes the involvement of civilian investigators in the investigative process, with some reliance on experienced police investigators, either retired or serving.

Second, the PCRC should be appropriately resourced to conduct its own investigations, having the authority to make independent decisions and recommendations that are not politically motivated. Currently, the CRCC receives an average of 3,500 public complaints per year. However, most are not investigated, as they are deemed frivolous, vexatious or out of time. Estimating an average of 1,500 files per year that require a 40-hour investigation each, we're talking about approximately 60,000 work hours taken from communities in which our members could be engaging in core policing duties. That equates to about 30 full-time RCMP officers. Unfortunately, there is no cost-recovery mechanism for those communities to regain those hours.

Bill C-20 should be amended to allow the PCRC to conduct its own investigations, using and hiring its own investigators, and stop the downloading onto other resources. Failing this, if members of the RCMP are to continue to conduct investigations, there must be a cost-recovery mechanism established to compensate for the countless hours and overtime that our members are spending on public complaints investigations that take them away from their core policing duties. This is particularly harmful in smaller detachment areas, where all resources are vital to daily operations.

Third, the PCRC, with the addition of the CBSA, needs an increase in funding and staff. The CBSA will create an influx of new complaints, and more resources will be needed to keep pace. The estimated increase in public complaints further emphasizes the need for the PCRC to be established as a truly independent body that is effectively resourced to complete investigations through the hiring of its own investigators, similar to provincial public complaint bodies.

To be effective, the government must enact changes to Bill C-20 to address concerns about transparent, fair and timely investigations while also ensuring that the public interest is being met. These changes must strengthen the ability of the PCRC to be fully independent to conduct evidence-based investigations away from any political agenda of the day, while ensuring it is fully resourced to act and conduct its own investigations.

Thank you. I am subject to any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 69 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We will start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room, and remotely using the Zoom application.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, November 25, 2022, the committee continues consideration of Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments.

We have today two panels of witnesses. In the first hour, in person, from the National Police Federation, we have Brian Sauvé, president; by video conference, as an individual, we have Heather Campbell, Calgary police commissioner; and from the Customs and Immigration Union, we have Mark Weber, national president.

You will each have up to five minutes for opening remarks, after which we will proceed with rounds of questions.

Welcome to all of you.

I invite Mr. Sauvé to make an opening statement, please.

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

Thank you.

Clause 35 of Bill C‑20 requires that the new commission do something to provide assistance upon request to an individual wishing to file a complaint. I'm wondering what kind of assistance is being considered.

Can we hope that complainants will have access to interpretation services, for example, or to legal services? The word “assistance” is quite broad. I'm wondering what exactly is being planned. I can't help but draw a parallel with a francophone complainant from Ontario—it's a completely different file—in a sexual assault complaint. She wanted interpretation services in her language, and due to the Jordan decision and the lack of interpreters, she was unable to have her trial.

Could that type of assistance, such as interpretation services, be available to complainants?

[Randall Koops]

All complaints currently before the commission will continue to be handled in the same way under the new regulations.

With regard to feedback, paragraph 10 of clause 113 of Bill C‑20 specifies that complaints can be filed with the commission even before the new sections come into force.

With regard to the new clauses coming into force, you must understand that this is a fairly significant project. We're talking about establishing a new agency that will absorb a small agency within the federal government and the need to establish an external review commission within the Canada Border Services Agency that can respond to complaints. We also have to bring in computer systems, provide training and so on. We anticipate that full implementation will take at least 18 months.

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

Thank you.

I also wonder about feedback on the handling of complaints. I will give you an example. Once Bill C‑20 has received royal assent, how long do you feel it will take for the commission to be set up and ready to receive complaints? Will the RCMP complaints currently being processed be dealt with by this new commission or will it be too late for that? Earlier, Ms. Damoff mentioned a one-year limitation period.

Could this have consequences for complaints that could be dealt with right away?

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

Mr. Chair, I also want to thank Mr. Gaheer for his leadership and for bringing his experiences to this table. I know from our conversations, and many others, the need to be constantly vigilant in fighting against racism in all its forms in the interactions between Canadians and law enforcement institutions. It is hard work, but it's necessary. Bill C-20 ought to be seen as a piece of a larger puzzle in the government's strategy to fight against racism.

The piece that Bill C-20 fulfills is giving Canadians an opportunity to submit complaints when they have been mistreated or when either of the two institutions has fallen short. That is through the creation of a process. It is through the creation of timelines. It is through the creation of a mandate that allows, as your question touches on, the collection and disaggregation of race-based data. The latter can not only allow the RCMP and the CBSA to look at the issue from a macro or a systemic point of view, but also be used to inform the way in which we train the members of both of these organizations, so that we can see where those negative interactions may be occurring and reduce the likelihood of those types of interactions.

It can also be used to shed more light on the subject matter. Through the reporting that is required of the PCRC to this office, which will then table the report to Parliament, we can engage with members of this committee and all parliamentarians so we can be sure that we are reducing racism and addressing concerns with the experiences of racialized Canadians and indigenous persons, with whom I have met in my various travels. They recognize that Bill C-20 plays an important role in that broader puzzle, as I said, and the need to address these systemic concerns.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

From what I understand in the legislative summary, the new Public Complaints and Review Commission that Bill C‑20 will establish won't have the authority to review national security activities. However, in his 2004 report, Justice O'Connor recommended that the review body be empowered to review all RCMP activities, including those related to national security.

In his report, he warned:

The RCMP’s national security activities make up a relatively small proportion of its overall workload. There could be serious risks in entrusting review of national security activities to one body and review of the balance of the RCMP’s activities to another. To start, the different bodies might apply different and possibly inconsistent standards to the same or similar law enforcement activities. Moreover, separating what is properly considered a national security activity from other activities conducted by the RCMP could in many circumstances be difficult, and the existence of separate review bodies could lead to disagreements and jurisdictional disputes.

It's understandable that Justice O'Connor expressed a rather serious concern at the time. However, as I said, under proposed subsection 52(8) of Bill C‑20, the new Public Complaints and Review Commission must refuse to investigate a complaint if it deals with activities closely related to national security.

Why set aside Justice O'Connor's recommendation in Bill C‑20?

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the minister for coming to our meeting, and thank all the expert witnesses who are here today.

My concern is with my constituents who are often flagged at the border crossing because of their ethnicity. I'm hoping this new bill, Bill C-20, will help alleviate the concerns my constituents have.

Can you talk about the importance of creating a separate statute for the PCRC and how you envision this organization providing an effective review of both the RCMP and the CBSA.

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

Thank you very much. We'll wait with bated breath, Minister.

I have something regarding Bill C-20, specifically.

I recently met with the National Police Federation. I know you likely have too, multiple times. They raised the concern with me that this does not make the commission fully independent from RCMP officers. The police themselves will continue to have to investigate their colleagues when complaints are made.

Why was it not made more independent?

They pointed out to me.... Of course, every province, I believe, has its own version, but the one folks have heard about more often is the Nova Scotia SiRT. When lethal force is used, I believe, or even in some cases when a police officer discharges a firearm, a provincial...a completely independent investigating agency is launched to look into that, so you don't have police officers investigating themselves.

Why was that model not adopted for this? This is a time of change, so I'm wondering why it wasn't.

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

First, we're here to talk about Bill C-20, as you know, Ms. Dancho.

Naturally, if there are any concerns around the activities of these so-called police stations, we trust our law enforcement institutions to investigate, as they have done in the past and as the RCMP continues to do.

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

Chair, I want to thank Mr. Julian for his question. It's very important.

Before I preview the answer, I just want to echo the sentiment that my sincere hope is that by doing the work, we will be able to pass this bill this time. I think that recent collaboration gives us a path forward on this legislation in Bill C-20.

As to your exact question, I would say that my officials who are here can provide you with details, but certainly we would look at the existing human resource complement under the CRCC. We would take a look at the volume of complaints. We would take a look at the CBSA as well.

In general terms, we would have informed ourselves about what baseline resources are required, and then we would continue to consult, I'm sure, with the chairperson of the existing CRCC to get the best possible advice, so that the estimates that have been provided, and the investments as well, will allow for the establishment of this committee in a way that will meet the demands of the complaints that we anticipate getting from both organizations.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here, Mr. Minister. It's always a pleasure to have you at committee. I would also like to thank your colleagues for being here.

I feel Bill C‑20 is sort of a third shot for your government. You introduced Bill C‑98 in the 42nd Parliament and Bill C‑3 in the 43rd Parliament. Those two bills died on the order paper simply because your government didn't make them a priority.

Nearly 20 years ago, in 2004, Justice O'Connor also recommended that an independent process be established to manage public complaints against the Canada Border Services Agency.

In January 2020, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada noted significant gaps in searches of travellers' electronic devices and also demonstrated the importance of independently reviewed complaints.

Given all this evidence of the need for an independent commission, why didn't your government make this a priority before now?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Colleagues, I am pleased to appear before the committee on Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission. A robust, independent review of our law enforcement agencies is essential to public trust and transparency to make sure all Canadians receive equal, safe and fair treatment from the agencies that are designed to protect us.

In recent years, we have become acutely aware of anti-Black and -indigenous racism in our policing and justice system. In fact, this is a phenomenon which has been going on for some time. We know that racialized and indigenous Canadians are vastly overrepresented in prisons, interact more frequently with law enforcement and are disproportionately subjected to bias and even profiling. This is in addition to a culture of turning a blind eye to harassment, intimidation and other unacceptable behaviour from our institutions in the law enforcement sector.

As representatives of our constituents and a voice for all Canadians, we have a duty to address these legacies. That is precisely why we have tabled Bill C-20. This legislation would establish the public complaints and review commission or, as I will refer to it, the PCRC, as the new, independent civilian review body for both the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency. Notably, this would establish the first independent review for the Canada Border Services Agency.

The PCRC would continue to fulfill the existing Civilian Review and Complaints Commission's complaints and review mandate for the RCMP, with increased accountability tools at its disposal.

The PCRC would review and investigate any flagged non-national security RCMP activity and report its findings and recommendations to the RCMP commissioner and to the office of the Minister of Public Safety.

The RCMP provides policing services to over 150 municipalities and 600 first nations across the country that interact with a broad cross-section of Canadian society, making this oversight a necessary check.

For the CBSA, there is currently no independent mechanism external to that organization to review public complaints, only an internal process. It is the only enforcement agency in the Public Safety portfolio without any external independent review. The CBSA interacts with almost 100 million travellers in an average year. It processes over 20 million commercial shipments and over 60 million courier shipments per year.

Oversight and review are long overdue for this organization. Bill C-20 would close that long-standing gap. Through the PCRC, complainants would now have access to an external body that could independently initiate, review and investigate CBSA conduct.

I recognize that some individuals may be reluctant to file or initiate a complaint. That's why the act allows a third party to file a complaint on behalf of an individual, provided that their express consent is obtained.

As an additional stopgap measure, the PCRC chairperson would also conduct a review of problematic conduct.

To ensure the effectiveness of this expanded mandate, additional mechanisms would be provided to the PCRC to strengthen the accountability of the RCMP and the CBSA, or Canada Border Services Agency, by establishing clear statutory timelines for the RCMP and the CBSA to respond to PCRC reports.

The RCMP and CBSA would be required to report annually on their progress in implementing PCRC recommendations, which the Minister of Public Safety, in turn, will table in Parliament.

This bill would also enact a requirement for the PCRC to implement public education and information programs to raise public awareness of the commission's mandate and the individual's right to redress, including among vulnerable and marginalized communities.

The PCRC would have a new authority to recommend that the RCMP commissioner and the president of the CBSA initiate disciplinary proceedings or impose measures. The commissioner and president would be required to report to both the PCRC chairperson and me on whether discipline was initiated or imposed.

Moreover, Bill C-20 creates new provisions to further enhance RCMP and CBSA accountability and transparency, namely codified timelines, annual reporting to the Minister of Public Safety and the collection of disaggregated race-based data. Race-based data collection is uniquely critical to identifying trends and addressing the entrenched systemic racism within our institutions, as I mentioned earlier.

Bill C-20 comes at a critical juncture in Canadian policing, in the immediate aftermath of the Nova Scotia Mass Casualty Commission's final report. Bill C-20 responds to the Mass Casualty Commission's findings by creating more transparent reporting for federal law enforcement agencies.

Much work remains to be done to respond to the Nova Scotia Mass Casualty Commission's final report, but the elements of Bill C‑20 demonstrate our commitment to making changes.

In addition to establishing the PCRC, this bill would create a statutory framework in the CBSA Act to govern how it responds to serious incidents, which are currently internally governed. Under this framework, the CBSA would be obligated to conduct reviews into serious incidents, to notify both the PCRC and the police of jurisdiction, and to provide the PCRC with any associated reports and information.

Canadians have made it clear to us that these issues require immediate action. I listened carefully to the arguments raised by some of my colleagues during the second reading debate of the bill about the need to ensure that Indigenous, Black and racialized people are represented in PCRC appointments.

I am pleased to note that there is much support, not only in this committee but across partisan lines, for this bill today.

I am very happy now to take any questions or comments.

Thank you again, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 68 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

We will start by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, November 25, 2022, the committee will begin consideration of Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments.

With us today we have the Hon. Marco Mendicino, Minister of Public Safety.

Appearing with the minister, from the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Randall Koops, director general, international border policy; Martin Leuchs, manager; and Julie Thompson, director general, policing policy.

Please note that the minister will be with us for the first hour. The remaining officials from Public Safety, the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency will answer questions from members in the second hour.

Welcome, everyone.

I now invite Minister Mendicino to make an opening statement.

You have 10 minutes, sir.

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise and offer my thoughts on Bill C-21 at third reading.

I say that with a bit of amazement because I cannot believe we have actually made it to third reading. This bill received first reading in this House on May 30 of last year. We got through second reading in fairly short order, but at committee stage, things really got lost and all hell broke loose, so to speak.

I remember participating as the NDP's public safety critic. We had scheduled eight witness meetings to look at the first version of this bill. Things were going along quite well. There were some disagreements around the table, but there was not any of the friction that suggested there would be a major catastrophe in the making.

That all changed in November when we arrived at the clause-by-clause portion of the bill. Before that meeting started, every party was responsible for reviewing the witness testimony, reviewing the briefs that had been submitted, and working with legislative drafters to put together our amendments. Once those were submitted to the clerk, as is the normal course of things, the clerk then distributed them to all committee members.

It was quite a surprise when we saw just how big the amendment package was and just how expanded the scope of the bill was going to be. Most of the amendments came from the government. There were a couple in particular that completely sent the committee off its rails.

The amendments landed on our laps at the 11th hour. It was obvious that there had been no warning to committee members. The Liberal members of the committee were introducing those amendments on behalf of the government. They read them into the record, but I do not think they actually had a clue as to the monumental nature of the amendments.

It was clear that the amendments were not backed by any witness testimony because of the significant nature of how they were changing the bill. We, as committee members, never had the opportunity to question witnesses on the bill taking shape.

That completely derailed things. That started in November 2022, and it is only just recently that the committee stage of the bill was finally able to complete its job. That is an incredible amount of time for one committee to be occupied with a single bill.

If we look at the mandate of the public safety and national security committee, it is one of the most important committees. It is responsible for reviewing the policies and legislation of multiple agencies, whether it is the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Officer of the Correctional Investigator or the RCMP.

There are two other bills. Bill C-20 is going to provide an important oversight body for the RCMP and the CBSA. Bill C-26 is going to seek to upgrade our cybersecurity infrastructure. Both of those bills have been held up because of the shenanigans going on with Bill C-21.

I listened to the debate all day yesterday when this bill was going through report stage, and today when it was going through third reading. Unfortunately, because of some of the speeches in this House, there is a lot of misinformation out there and a lot of people have the wrong idea of what is included in this bill.

My Conservative colleagues do make a big deal in their speeches about standing up for hunters, farmers and indigenous communities, and I take no fault with that. I proudly stand here and say the same thing. It is troubling because it is alluding to something that is actually not in the bill. That illusion for hunters, farmers and indigenous communities is that their rifle or shotgun, if it is semi-automatic, is going to be prohibited by this bill.

Let me clearly say this for the record: That is not the case. Bill C-21 is not going to do that. If someone has a current make or model of a rifle or shotgun, they are licensed and legally own that firearm, after this bill receives royal assent, they will continue to be able to use it.

That is a fact. So far, when I have brought it up in questions, my Conservative colleagues have been unable to refute that. I have challenged multiple Conservative MPs to name one rifle or shotgun that is going to be prohibited by Bill C-21. In every single instance, they have deflected and swerved away to go back to comfortable talking points, because they cannot do it. I will tell colleagues why. It is because I am not reading Conservative talking points. I am going to actually read from the text of the bill.

In the new section that is going to add to the definition of a prohibited firearm, it mentions that it is:

...a firearm that is not a handgun and that

(i) discharges centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner,

(ii) was originally designed with a detachable cartridge magazine with a capacity of six cartridges or more, and

(iii) is designed and manufactured on or after the day on which this paragraph comes into force...

The last point is one that everyone seems to skip over, but it is the key part.

Current makes and models are not going to be affected by Bill C-21. Future makes and models that come into the market after this bill receives royal assent will be affected. However, current owners will not be affected by Bill C-21.

Conservatives will then seek to muddy the waters even further. I have heard a lot of reference to the firearms advisory committee. They say that the minister is going to bring this back and staff it with Liberal appointees, who are going to make suggestions about what firearms should be prohibited and then act on the suggestions. I have a news flash for my Conservative colleagues. This is a power that the government already has. It does not need a firearms advisory committee.

I would direct my Conservative colleagues to the existing section 84(1) of the Criminal Code. It says right there that the government can change the definition of what a prohibited firearm is when it mentions “any firearm that is prescribed to be a prohibited firearm”. “Prescribed” is the key word there, because that means it can be done by cabinet decree. If they do not believe me, how did the government get the authority in May 2020 to issue an order in council? Here, 1,500 makes and models were done through the Canada Gazette under existing powers.

All this ballyhoo over a firearms advisory council, as well as all the hoopla that we have heard in this House about the dangers of that council coming into being, is a complete red herring. It is smoke and mirrors. This is a power the government already has. In fact, I would rebut them on that argument by saying that if the minister currently has that power to do this unilaterally through an order in council cabinet decree, would it not be a good thing to have an advisory council to at least talk to the minister about how maybe that would not be a good idea?

If we can ensure that the advisory council has indigenous representation, representation from the hunting community and representation from the sport shooting community, in my mind, that is a good thing. I will let them continue to say that, but they know they cannot argue with me on those facts. Again, I am reading from the bill and from existing provisions of the Criminal Code. If they are going to try to muddy the waters, they can try to argue their way out of it, but the facts cannot be changed.

I want to turn to something more positive, with the airsoft community. Last summer, I had the pleasure of visiting the Victoria fish and game club. I do not know if colleagues have been to Vancouver Island, but in the middle of my riding is the Malahat Mountain. It is the big mountain that separates the Cowichan Valley from the city of Langford and the whole west shore. It is the traditional territory of the Malahat people, but on top of it is where the Victoria fish and game club is, on a beautiful property. Right beside it, there is an amazing forest setting for the club's airsoft games. I went out there with one of my constituency assistants on a weekend. They invited us to come and see a match. We got to don the referee uniforms, so that we could walk out in the middle of a pitched battle. I think one of my constituency assistants accidentally got shot.

It was so fun to see how much fun these players were having, to talk to them about how passionate they were about their sport and to really understand that this is more than a hobby for them. This is something that allows them to get out into the great outdoors with their family and friends.

They were really worried about Bill C-21 because of a section in the bill that would basically turn their airsoft rifles into prohibited devices. I invited some of them, with other colleagues around the committee table, to come to committee, to submit briefs and to say their piece. I have to say that the representatives of the airsoft industry, the manufacturers and the players associations did themselves proud. They made a good argument, and they convinced those around the committee table. They did what is done in a democratic system. They fought for change, and they achieved it.

The NDP amendment that was put forward to delete the offending sections from the bill was passed. That is a victory for the airsoft community. All they are asking for is not the sledgehammer approach of legislation that was in the original version of Bill C-21, but a regulatory approach. They are more than willing to work with government on the regulatory approach. That message was heard, and that is something that all parliamentarians can celebrate.

Let me turn to the handgun freeze and the amendment that we put forward as an attempt to expand the exceptions of the handgun freeze to allow for other sport shooting disciplines. As the bill is currently written, at this third reading stage, the only exemptions that exist are limited to people who are at an extremely elite level. They are Olympic athletes and Paralympic athletes. I use the terms “exemptions” and “exceptions” interchangeably.

After speaking to members of my community who participate in the International Practical Shooting Confederation and speaking to members who are in single-action shooting as well, I felt that these people are athletes. They train for what they do. They are passionate about their sport. They deserve to have exemptions as well. Therefore, I put forward an amendment to try to expand that. That amendment almost passed. There was a little bit of confusion on the Liberal side when that amendment came to a vote.

When I tuned in to watch the committee hearing at that stage, I was pleasantly surprised to see the Liberal member for Kings—Hants speaking in support of our amendment. It was a wonderful surprise to see, except that when it came to a vote, unfortunately, he abstained. It resulted in a five-five tie; of course, this had to be broken by the Liberal Chair. We came really close.

I have received a lot of flak from certain sectors of society for my stance on this. That is okay; I can take it. I am not going to apologize for standing here and making an attempt to fix the bill on behalf of my constituents who simply want to be able to practise their sport. To those who are arguing against that, I would simply point to the submission that was given to our committee by none other than the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. They said:

We believe that a handgun freeze is one method of reducing access to these types of firearms, while allowing existing law-abiding handgun owners to practise their sport.

That is what I was basing my amendment on, as well as the interventions made by my constituents. We tried our best at committee to make that change. Unfortunately, because of the votes falling the way they did with the Liberals and Bloc, it did not pass.

I will give another reason. The top IPSC competitors were telling me that they shoot about 50,000 rounds of ammunition a year. That is an incredible amount. We have to understand that a handgun is essentially a mechanical device. If someone is shooting it 50,000 times a year, it will break down. Sometimes, handguns have to be replaced. In my mind, it was unfair, not allowing an exception for an athlete of that calibre to have the means to be able to replace a tool that they use to compete.

We may have lost this particular battle, but what I would say to members of those sport shooting disciplines is that I will continue to pursue this issue. I will find other avenues to fight to make sure that their sport has an exemption.

We have completed the report stage part of the bill, but there has been some controversy from some women's groups who were unhappy with the red-flag provisions of the law, and I understand that. When I approached the committee hearings on this, I understood the controversy that existed around red-flag provisions. There were some women's groups that felt that adding this extra layer of bureaucracy through the court system did not serve women or other people who were in vulnerable situations where firearms might be present. They felt that we should have a properly equipped and responsive police force, and I agree with them.

I will turn critics' attention to members of the National Association of Women and the Law, because when Bill C-21 was reported back to the House, they made some public tweets, which are all up there for people to read. They said that with all the amendments that were proposed, these are some of the ways that the bill would make women safer: “The provision on licence revocation when someone has committed violence is now strengthened and clarified. A licence must be revoked when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an individual may have engaged in family violence.” They also said, “people who have been subject to a protection order will now be ineligible to hold a licence if they ‘could pose’ a threat or risk to the safety of another person. This way, safety comes first.” That is the onus test.

They went on to say, “The Bill had no timelines for reacting to danger and domestic violence. Thanks to the adoption of our recommendations, there is now a statutory duty to act within 24 hours. This will protect women at the critical time of separation, when risk of violence is at its highest.”

A lot about the bill has been subsumed by the debate over hunting rifles, shotguns, airsoft and the handgun freeze. However, it is important for us to realize that, in the heart of the bill, there are actually some very important measures, which have now been improved by the committee. I have worked with members of the National Association of Women and the Law, and I respect the submissions they have made. If they are willing to come out and publicly endorse the bill in this way, I am glad to have their support as a stakeholder, and I give it a lot of credence.

I also want to talk about ghost guns, which relate to another “unsung hero” part of the bill. We heard from law enforcement, and I want to read into the record the testimony that came from Inspector Michael Rowe, who is a staff sergeant in the Vancouver Police Department. He said:

In addition to what is already included in Bill C‑21, I would ask this committee to consider regulating the possession, sale and importation of firearms parts used to manufacture ghost guns, such as barrels, slides and trigger assemblies. These parts are currently lawful to purchase and possess without a licence, and they can be purchased online or imported from the United States. The emergence of privately made firearms has reduced the significance of the currently regulated receiver and increased the importance of currently unregulated gun parts that are needed to finish a 3-D-printed receiver and turn it into a functioning firearm.

That is the request coming from law enforcement. We know that this is a growing problem, and they asked for a specific legislative fix to the problem. I am proud to see that the public safety committee delivered on that request from law enforcement.

Much has been said about indigenous communities. They are, of course, the ones who led the way in opposition to the bill. I remember, back in December, when the Assembly of First Nations came out with a unanimous emergency resolution opposing those eleventh-hour amendments that were made by the Liberal government. They said that the amendments went against the spirit of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. They helped us to understand, as parliamentarians, that these are not toys or hobbies; rather, they are a way of life. In some indigenous communities, they are necessary for the protection of life. I am glad to see that the committee listened, and no current make or model of a rifle or shotgun that is currently in use in indigenous communities is touched by Bill C-21. The committee went further and added a clause, which now references section 35 of the Constitution Act to show that indigenous rights are upheld.

I will conclude by saying I can honestly go back to the hunters, farmers and indigenous communities in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and tell them their currently owned firearms are safe. I am glad we were able to force the government's hand on this matter.

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

Madam Speaker, I spoke to this last week when we were debating Motion No. 25. I made reference to the fact that, for the Conservatives, Bill C-21 is the goose that lays the golden eggs. That is why they have wanted to see it stuck in the House; that hoovering sound we can hear is the sound of the Conservative Party's fundraising machine raking in millions of dollars off this bill. I for one am glad to see that the committee has sent it back to the House, because there are two other important bills waiting to be heard. These are Bill C-20, which deals with important RCMP oversight, and Bill C-26, which looks at cybersecurity; these are both very pressing issues. It is high time the public safety committee got to work in addressing those other key issues.

Government Business No. 25—Proceedings on Bill C-21

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

Madam Speaker, it is hard to find the words to start given how long I have personally been involved with this piece of legislation. I know there are a few select members of this House who would agree with me. I think for each one of us, this has been our own personal odyssey, and to get to this point is really remarkable. All of the different twists and turns that this one bill, Bill C-21, has taken are going to be studied in parliamentary procedure for years to come.

I have had the privilege of representing my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for three terms, now being in my eighth year, and I have discovered that in my time here, Parliament has demonstrated that it is indeed the last place to go for an open, honest and logical debate on firearms. A lot of the debate we have seen on this bill and on firearms regulations, policy and legislation in general has done a very real disservice to Canadians. Both sides of the issue have torqued up their arguments. There has been blatant misinformation and labelling, and this has really descended the level of debate into something that I think a lot of Canadians would quite rightly be disgusted by. It is very difficult in this place, when we have all of these torqued up emotions and political agendas, to have a reasoned debate on firearms. That certainly has been the story.

I know a lot of people on Twitter are following this debate very closely. I would say that the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security is probably the most watched committee of them all, and I know that my words right now are being analyzed and tweeted about, even in real time. I just want the people who are listening to brace themselves, because I have equal amounts of criticism for both the Liberals and the Conservatives as to why we now find ourselves in this place.

I first want to start by talking about the committee, because ultimately today's motion is one of instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. One could be forgiven for thinking that all this committee does is study policy and legislation surrounding firearms, because that is indeed all it has really been consumed with since the bill was referred to the committee late last year. In fact, we started Bill C-21 at committee in October 2022, and here we are now, well into May 2023, and we are still only at the clause-by-clause part of the bill.

I think it is useful for people to understand what the mandate of this committee is. It is responsible for reviewing legislation, policies, programs and expenditure plans of a whole host of different government departments and agencies that are responsible for not only public safety, but national security, policing, law enforcement, corrections, the conditional release of federal offenders, emergency management, crime prevention and of course the protection of our borders. When we are doing things like the estimates for the spending plans of Public Safety Canada, quite often we have representatives included from the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Parole Board of Canada and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

What I am trying to underline here is that this committee is an extremely important committee of the House of Commons, and all the work it does in all of these different areas in looking after our intelligence gathering, law enforcement and border protection has been sidelined by the incredible amount of time that has been consumed. Time is our most valuable resource in Parliament, and once we spend it we do not get it back.

Because of the shenanigans that have occurred with respect to Bill C-21, the public safety committee has quite correctly been prevented from examining all of these other different areas, keeping tabs on those different departments, examining different pieces of legislation and keeping tabs on what the government's policies and practices are going to be with respect to other key areas. That is an important element that we first need to establish when we are talking about where we are today.

As many members will know, including members in my own community, I used to be our party's public safety critic. I found my time on that committee to be personally quite valuable. I found that the subject matter we were dealing with was quite intellectually challenging and stimulating, and it is important work.

I know from my interactions with other members of the committee, whether on the Liberal, Conservative or Bloc Québécois side, that they all conducted themselves very well, and I enjoyed my working relationships with them. That even goes for our work on Bill C-21.

Believe it or not, there was actually a time when Bill C-21 was progressing through committee in relatively good order. We concluded roughly eight meetings with witnesses. The committee then had time to come forward with its amendments, and there seemed to be an acknowledgement that aside from a few differences with a few clauses here and there, the bill was probably on schedule to be reported back to the House for report stage and eventually third reading sometime in December.

We then got to November, and all hell broke loose. This was when the eleventh-hour amendments were dropped by the Liberals. I should correctly say “the Liberal government”, because I do not think they were, by design, from the Liberal members of the committee. They did come from the government.

I do not want to go into the details of the bill too much, because I think that is a well-trodden path and a well-known story, bu allow me to take this moment in my speech to levy what I think are some well-earned criticisms on both the Liberals and the Conservatives. I know some of my colleagues will probably laugh at this, particularly the member for Hamilton Centre, because he has heard me joke about this before.

I often feel like the character Mercutio in Shakespeare's play, Romeo and Juliet, when he is expressing his frustration with the Capulets and the Montagues, because I feel that same frustration with the Liberals and the Conservatives. It is difficult sometimes to watch the shenanigans between those parties and the way our level of debate around this issue descends into the depths and scrapes the bottom of the barrel.

Let me start with the Liberals. One day, someone is going to write a book about this sorry episode, and it is probably going to be titled something like “How Not to Amend One's Own Legislation”. It is going to be a warning guide for governments in the future on what not to do and how not to spring a surprise on an unsuspecting committee when they have not done their homework, when they have not done consultation and, most importantly, when they have not consulted with the members of the committee who are actually responsible for shepherding those amendments through.

I want to caution members: My comments are not, in any way, directed to the colleagues I work with, but more to the Liberal Party brain trust. I understand the reasoning behind where they are coming from. Gun violence in our major urban centres is a very concerning thing. It needs to be dealt with appropriately. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the extreme grief that is out there within so many families who are dealing with a loss due to firearms violence.

Sometimes the road forward for the Liberals has been paved with good intentions, but it has led to some pretty awful results. I would ask them to step back and try and heal some of the wounds that exist in that divide between urban and rural Canada. We need to understand that yes, firearms violence is a big issue, but there also has to be a level of respect afforded to Canadians who are lawful firearms owners, who play by the rules and who have done everything right. I would encourage the Liberals to consult more with their rural MPs.

When the Liberals introduced those amendments, one of the groups that were leading the way was indigenous communities—not only hunters and farmers, but indigenous communities, not the least of which was the Assembly of First Nations. In an extremely rare move, the AFN came out with a unanimous emergency resolution on the last day. That is almost unheard of. They were going after the government for those ill-thought-of eleventh-hour amendments.

No consultation had taken place. One could make a legitimate argument that the Liberals, in bringing in these amendments, were not respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples or even the legislation we have passed that enshrines that within our own laws to make sure that all federal laws are in harmony with the declaration itself. It went against the spirit of that.

Now I will turn to my Conservative friends.

What do we say about the reams of ridiculous hyperbole we have seen from that party on Bill C-21? The bill has been a fundraising boon for the Conservative Party. That giant sucking sound we hear is Conservatives hoovering money from the harvest of their rage-farming operation around the bill, and I think a part of me wonders whether the Conservatives do not want to see the bill go forward because it has been so financially viable for them. The evidence is all out there. I do not think there is any interest at all in trying to move the legislation forward, because doing so would essentially stop the goose from laying golden eggs for them. It has been an incredible money-maker for them.

When I look at some of the misinformation that has been put out by the Conservative Party around the bill, I see they are fanning flames of rage over amendments that no longer exist and incorrectly saying that the government wants to take away all their guns. It is just completely off-the-wall bonkers stuff that can be easily disproven, and it is completely not helping the standard of debate we expect of our parliamentarians. It just makes the rest of our jobs harder when we have to fight that completely untrue disinformation that is being actively fanned on social media.

Yes, it is a sorry state due to the actions of both parties in so expertly playing politics with the bill, and that is a large part of the reason we are here today.

We know that the problematic amendments were withdrawn by the Liberals. That is fact number one. All current owners of long guns in Canada are not going to have those firearms impacted, because the problematic amendments were withdrawn. What we now have being proposed as an amendment to the bill would go after firearms that will be manufactured in the future, after the bill receives royal assent. There is also an important amendment, I understand, that would make sure that nothing in the bill takes away from the rights of indigenous peoples. That is recognized and affirmed under section 35 of our Constitution.

Of course, there are incredibly important amendments dealing with the exponentially growing problem of ghost guns. This is a problem that has been brought to the committee's attention repeatedly by law enforcement agencies. I would hope that more attention is paid to those particular amendments, and of course we, the remaining members of the House of Commons, have to reserve our judgment on the bill until we see the final version that the committee ultimately reports back to us.

Now let us turn to the motion of instruction and what it would do.

First of all, we have to understand that as of this morning, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security had already spent approximately five hours on clause-by-clause consideration. If they had been able to complete their meeting this afternoon, and I know it was interrupted by a series of votes, that would have brought the total to eight hours, which is roughly equivalent to four full meetings. The motion being debated today would add a further 17 hours to that, bringing it to roughly 25 hours, which is the equivalent of 12-and-a-half meetings.

I understand from the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, our member on the public safety committee, that he has tried multiple times to extend the sitting hours of the public safety committee so that Conservatives, the Bloc and New Democrats could have additional time to look at the amendments that are being proposed by various members. I understand that in each of those instances, these attempts were either rejected or filibustered so that the committee ultimately could never get to a vote. To hear Conservatives complain that they are being silenced in the House when they have, in fact, had multiple opportunities at committee to extend the sitting hours of that committee does come across as a bit rich.

I would say that because I have had my staff look at bills similar in size and complexity to Bill C-21, Bill C-18 comes to mind. That particular bill, when it went through clause-by-clause study at its committee, had seven meetings, the equivalent of 14 hours, for clause-by-clause study, so that is more than enough time to get through it.

I know from my own experience, because I used to be a member of the public safety committee and have seen a lot of these amendments, that are a lot of them are very technical, small changes to the bill, especially the parts that deal with ghost guns. Not a lot of debate is going to be required on them. In fact, the committee can probably get through them in short order because they are repetitive and many different areas of the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act have to be updated to make sure that those existing statutes are in harmony with each another.

The other thing I want to turn to in my final three minutes goes back to the earlier part that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the overall mandate of the public safety committee. We have two really important pieces of legislation waiting in the wings, waiting for their turn to be examined at the public safety committee. They are Bill C-20 and Bill C-26.

Bill C-20 is going to create our first-ever public accountability and transparency network that is independent of the RCMP and the CBSA. In fact, the CBSA has never had an independent oversight mechanism. Looking at the public safety committee's report from the previous Parliament looking at systemic racism in policing and looking at all of the instances of injuries and sometimes death that have happened to people who had been in the custody of the CBSA, we see that these are important measures. We have had so many racialized Canadians, so many indigenous Canadians who have been calling out for these types of oversight measures for years. Why should those pieces of legislation continue to be pushed back while we draw out this process on Bill C-21?

Bill C-26 is an important piece of legislation, which I will be the first to admit needs a lot of work at committee, but it is going to really bring in line a lot of the cybersecurity requirements that are needed for some of our critical sectors, be they in banking, transportation, energy and so on. It is going to be a requirement for many of those private actors to bring their systems in line with a standard that is acceptable to the federal government. Again, a lot of work is needed, but no one in this House can deny or absolve themselves from the fact that these are important issues that deserve to have their turn at the public safety committee.

My ultimate motivation for this motion today is to get Bill C-21 on its way. We have had enough time at the committee. It has occupied so much time at the public safety committee, and it is time for the public safety committee to move on to other bills that are equally important to many other Canadians.

In conclusion, I ultimately am going to reserve my judgment on Bill C-21 until I see what the committee reports back to the House, but I will not agree to let that committee continue to be bogged down, especially when there is so much other important work to be done.

With that I conclude. I welcome any comments and questions from my colleagues.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of criticism reserved for the Liberals for when I give my remarks in a little bit, but I do want to turn to the remarks that were made by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

I will say, first of all, that I have great respect for her, and I enjoyed working with her at committee very much. However, I have to take issue with the remarks that she brought forward in the House when she said she is being silenced. I have spoken with the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, and on several occasions, he has tried to extend the sitting hours of the public safety committee to give the Conservatives and every party more time to look at these amendments. Every single time, the attempts were either rejected or filibustered. There were attempts made multiple times; that has to be made very clear.

I will wrap up with the second point I want to make. The member talks about rural communities; these communities also care about RCMP oversight and transparency, especially the indigenous communities in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. Why must they be made to wait for their turn to speak to Bill C-20, which has been waiting in the wings of the public safety committee and is an equally important piece of legislation? There has been ample time given. Why have the Conservatives not taken advantage of those offers?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, we miss the member on the committee, although we welcome his colleague. His contributions to this bill have been important and he is absolutely right.

Waiting in line at the public safety committee is Bill C-20, a bill that would provide important oversight for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency, something that, for many year, has been called for to enhance that oversight for the RCMP, but also provide oversight for CBSA for the very first time.

In addition to that, we have Bill C-26, which deals with cybersecurity. The member is absolutely correct. We have two important bills waiting, but we cannot get to them until we finish Bill C-21.

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

Madam Speaker, I was glad to hear that the parliamentary secretary started her remarks with an acknowledgement of indigenous communities, because they led the way, with the Assembly of First Nations, in fighting against the amendments the government brought in at the eleventh hour. I am glad to see that those amendments were withdrawn. I would also thank committee members for passing my amendment to save the sport of airsoft. We have had a lot of very positive correspondence from that community, which is glad to see that the government will go back to the drawing board on this.

By my calculation, after tomorrow's meeting, the committee will have had eight hours on clause-by-clause. If this motion passes, there will be an additional 17 hours, which will be the equivalent of 12.5 meetings. By comparison, Bill C-18 only had seven meetings. I think there will be enough time to get this bill through.

Could the parliamentary secretary talk about the other bills that are waiting their turn at the public safety committee, like Bill C-20 and Bill C-26, and how important it is to look at those bills?

Red Dress Day

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Chair, Friday is Red Dress Day, a devastating and unacceptable reality in Canada also known as the National Day of Awareness for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and Two-Spirit People. Everyone has the right to safety and to live free from violence. All families deserve to know that if a loved one goes missing, every effort will be made to find them.

I want to thank the member for Winnipeg Centre, and I commit to working closely with her on finding justice for indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people, particularly around creating a red dress alert.

The release of the final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls prompted a period of deep reflection, and urgent action is required. In June 2021, the government released its pathway, which is aligned with the broader national action plan.

We must acknowledge colonialism's impact on the disproportionate representation of indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system. Indigenous women continue to be the fastest-growing prison population in Canada, and almost half of all federally sentenced women are indigenous. Most of the women whom I have visited in several women's prisons are there because of poverty, addiction, abuse, mental illness and intergenerational trauma.

Recently, Correctional Services appointed a deputy commissioner for indigenous corrections. This was a direct response to call to justice 5.23. Incarceration has a devastating impact on women and their children. If a woman is incarcerated, her child has a 25% chance of being convicted in adulthood. This is unacceptable. Corrections has also undertaken an expansion of the mother-child program at institutions for women offenders.

We must ensure safe spaces for indigenous women. Recently, I visited Saskatoon and helped announce an 18-bed transitional housing project in partnership with the Saskatoon Tribal Council and all levels of government. At the Thunder Woman Healing Lodge Society in Toronto, I have worked with Patti Pettigrew, who envisions a facility to support indigenous women. However, we need more of these initiatives.

Indigenous peoples have long been mistreated by law enforcement, going back to the time of residential schools, when the RCMP were used to forcibly remove children from their families. We know that we need to do more for reform. Our government introduced Bill C-20, which would enact a new stand-alone statute to provide an external review regime of oversight called the public complaints and review commission for both the RCMP and CBSA.

The RCMP is making progress on its first nations, Inuit and Métis recruitment strategy. This strategy is led through an indigenous lens, and it examines how systemic barriers can be further mitigated to ensure diverse and inclusive recruitment. Community-led and culturally sensitive approaches to community safety must be at the forefront. The government is co-developing first nations policing legislation with the Assembly of First Nations and first nations partners to recognize first nations policing as an essential service.

A red dress alert would notify the public when an indigenous woman, girl or two-spirit person went missing. We must put women, girls and two-spirit people, along with survivors, at the centre of the development. The member for Winnipeg Centre and I recently met with the Minister of Emergency Preparedness to determine next steps.

In budget 2023, our government announced investments of $2.5 million over the next five years to establish a federal-provincial-territorial-indigenous table, providing a forum to discuss and act on the red dress alert and other initiatives. The budget also announced a $2.6-million investment over three years to support the National Family and Survivors Circle in keeping families and survivors at the centre of the implementation of the national action plan and federal pathway.

When I was in British Columbia recently, I spoke with grassroots female advocates from You Empowered Strong and others in the Okanagan. They talked about their efforts in their communities to engage the public's assistance in their search for loved ones.

The government must support those efforts, and a red dress alert would send a strong signal to Canadians and to indigenous peoples that we value the lives of indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people. I not only give my personal commitment, but I know that the government is also committed to working with indigenous partners, communities, and provinces and territories while centring survivors and their families for the success of a red dress initiative.

We cannot stand by while first nations, Inuit and Métis women, girls and two-spirit people go missing. If they do, every effort must be made to find them. Their lives matter, and we must urgently act for change.

Telecommunications Act

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be joining the debate today to offer some of my thoughts and perspective on Bill C-26, a much awaited bill on a cybersecurity infrastructure.

Bill C-26 is a good reminder to members that the Department of Public Safety and its subject matter is so much bigger than just firearms, because, of course, firearms and Bill C-21 have been dominating the news cycle for the last couple of months. That bill, in particular at the public safety committee, has occupied so much time and wasted so many resources. Bill C-26 is a good reminder that with cybersecurity we have so many other agencies that are dedicated to national security under the umbrella of public safety. Cybersecurity is a big subject matter. We also have Bill C-20, which is an important bill on oversight and accountability for both the CBSA and RCMP.

Today, we would not find many members in the House of Commons who are arguing against the need for better cybersecurity. All of the evidence out there points to this being a new and evolving threat. Artificial intelligence systems offer some interesting advantages, but with those advantages come threats and with those threats come actors who are determined to use them in nefarious ways that will harm and have harmed Canada's interests. We need a whole host of options to counter this threat. We need our national security agencies to take these threats with increased importance. We also need legislation to fill in the gaps and make sure that all of Canada's laws are up to date.

I have spent a lot of time on the public safety committee. We did a couple of reports that directly touched on this area. One of our first reports identified violent extremism. Our most recent study looked at the threat posed by Russia. We know that since Russia conducted its invasion of Ukraine, which has recently passed the one-year anniversary, it has also increased the threats that it offers to Canada and to like-minded countries. One of those areas is cybersecurity.

Our committee has not yet tabled its report, which should be tabled in the House of Commons soon so that members of the House and the public can not only see the results of the deliberations, but also see the important recommendations that the committee is going to make. However, we heard a lot of testimony during those committee hearings on the cyber-related threats from Russia. Many witnesses identified that those are among the most serious and relevant for Canada's public safety and national security, particularly in relation to critical infrastructure.

I want to set this table before I get into the nuts and bolts of what Bill C-26 is offering, but also set some of the problems that are in evidence with this first version of the bill.

We have to understand a few basic terms. The Government of Canada refers to critical infrastructure as the “processes, systems, facilities, technologies, networks, assets and services essential to the health, safety, security or economic well-being of Canadians and the effective functioning of government”, whether that is the federal government, the provincial governments or our municipal governments. Because so many of those pieces of critical infrastructure are now tied into computer systems that are vulnerable to attack, a bill like this becomes quite necessary.

I could go on and on about all of the critical systems in our modern society and the range of sectors, from our energy production to our food distribution systems to our electricity grid and transportation networks and how our ports and our banking system work. If one were to interrupt any one of those services, it could create absolute havoc within any Canadian community or countrywide.

One of the witnesses we had during our public safety meetings on the topic of the threats posed from Russia, and this was just talking about the cyber-threat more broadly, was Jennifer Quaid, Executive Director of the Canadian Cyber Threat Exchange. She reminded our committee that there are nation-states that are conducting espionage and statecraft through the Internet, but there are also criminals who are engaging in cybercrime for financial gain.

In some cases, those criminal groups and the nation-states are working together. There is evidence of this not only in Russia but in places like North Korea and China, where it is almost like the policy that was in place back in the 1700s and 1600s, where privateers would go out and do a nation-state's bidding. In this modern-day version of that policy, there are criminal organizations that are working hand in glove with some nation-states to give them some plausible deniability, but the systems they are using do pose a very real threat to Canada.

One of our key witnesses during the study was Caroline Xavier, Chief of the Communications Security Establishment. She was not able to go into much detail or specifics, given the very sensitive nature of the topic, but she was able to assure the committee that cybercrime is absolutely the most prevalent and most pervasive threat to Canadians and Canadian businesses. She observed that the state-sponsored cyber programs of China, North Korea, Iran and Russia posed the greatest strategic threat to Canada, and that foreign cyber-threat activities have included attempts to target Canadian critical infrastructure operators, as well as their operational and information technology.

Leaving aside the government, it is important for members to realize that most of Canada's critical infrastructure is, by and large, in the hands of the private sector. This is going to underline some of the important elements of Bill C-26.

We also had testimony from David Shipley, Chief Executive Officer of Beauceron Security. He was relaying the same stuff about Russian criminal organizations working in tandem with the government, and saying that criminal gangs have crippled Canadian municipalities. They have gone after health care organizations. The range of malicious cyber-activity has absolutely extended to many small and medium-sized enterprises.

When we look at the reporting requirements of Bill C-26, one of the biggest gaps that we have in our system is the fact that many businesses, private enterprises, are loath to report the fact that their systems have experienced a cyber-attack. They may be threatened to not do so. There is also a very real concern about the institutional harm that could come from the public release of said information. A large corporation that relays to its customers that it has experienced a cyber-attack may find people are loath to do business with it if they are unsure that its systems are up to par.

I also want to highlight a recent example from 2021, where the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador experienced a health records cyber-attack on October 30. The investigation revealed that over 200,000 files were taken that contained confidential patient information.

One can just imagine that in a province the size of Newfoundland and Labrador the fact that over 200,000 files were taken, that is a shocking theft of personal and confidential information. It really underlines just how important addressing this is.

I also want to touch briefly on the topic of artificial intelligence. I want to read a quote from a recent Hill Times article. This is from Jérémie Harris who is one of the co-founders of Gladstone AI, which is an artificial intelligence safety committee. He says:

But perhaps more concerning are the national security implications of these impressive capabilities. ChatGPT has been used to generate highly effective and unprecedented forms of malware, and the technology behind it can be used to power hyperscaled election interference operations and phishing attacks. These applications—and countless other, equally concerning ones also enabled by new advances in AI—would have been the stuff of science fiction just two years ago.

He goes on to say:

...ChatGPT is a harbinger of an era in which AI will be the single most important source of public safety risk facing Canada. As AI advances at a breakneck pace, the destructive footprint of malicious actors who use it will increase just as fast. Likewise, AI accidents—now widely viewed by AI safety specialists as a source of global catastrophic risk—will take more significant and exotic forms.

Something all members of the House really have to be aware of is how, just in the last two years, AI has advanced so quickly. We can think about what AI will be capable of two years or a decade from now. Just as Mr. Harris said, what it is doing right now was inconceivable just two years ago. The fact that AI is now being used to generate unique code for malware indicates there is no telling what it can be used to do and how it could be used to wreak havoc. That underlies just how important this issue is and how seriously we, as parliamentarians, have to take it as we serve our constituents and do the important work of equipping our nation with the tools it needs to keep Canadians, and the critical infrastructure they depend upon, safe.

When I was a member of the public safety committee, I had a chance to speak with Mr. Harris. I actually put a motion on notice that the committee should be undertaking a study on the range of threats posed to Canada's public safety, national security and critical infrastructure, specifically by AI systems. I hope one day the committee can take that study up, but it is a committee with a very heavy workload. It is still trying to find its way through Bill C-21. It is waiting for Bill C-20 to arrive on its door and, of course, this bill, Bill C-26, would also keep committee members quite busy.

I would like now to turn to the specifics of Bill C-26 and what it is attempting to do. It is separated into two main parts. According to the summary of the bill:

Part 1 amends the Telecommunications Act to add the promotion of the security of the Canadian telecommunications system as an objective of the Canadian telecommunications policy and to authorize the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry to direct telecommunications service providers to do anything, or refrain from doing anything, that is necessary to secure the Canadian telecommunications system.

There are a number of orders that the Minister of Industry could issue. For example, he or she could prohibit a TSP from using any specified product or service in its networks or facilities; direct a TSP to remove a specified product from its networks or facilities; impose conditions on a TSP’s use of any product or service; subject a TSP’s networks or facilities, as well as its procurement plans for those networks or facilities, to a specified review process. Those are just a few examples of how the minister's orders could be issued. The bill does require the Governor in Council or the Minister of Industry to publish these orders in the Canada Gazette, but there is an allowance in the bill to allow these provisions to be prohibited, so the government can prevent the disclosure of these orders within the Gazette if they feel they need to be kept secret.

Part 2 would enact a brand new statute of Canada, a critical cyber systems protection act, which would “provide a framework for the protection of the critical cyber systems of services and systems that are vital to national security or public safety”. In schedule 1 of the government's bill there is a brief list. Vital systems and services can include telecommunication services, interprovincial or international pipelines and power line systems, and nuclear energy systems. Those are a few examples. A really important point is that the Governor in Council, through this bill, would be able to establish classes of operators and require designated operators to establish and implement cybersecurity programs.

This is where the bill would affect the private sector and make sure those cybersecurity programs are in place, especially when that private sector is involved in critical infrastructure. As a brief outline, with those cybersecurity programs, the expected outcomes would be that they could identify and manage any cyber-risk to the organization, including supply chain risks; prevent their critical cyber systems from being compromised; detect cybersecurity incidents; and limit the damage in the event a cybersecurity incident did occur.

I want to talk about concerns with the bill, because there are a lot of concerns. I have had the chance to speak with a number of organizations, but first and foremost was OpenMedia. I had a great conversation with the people there. There is a section on its website that specifically deals with Bill C-26. OpenMedia absolutely realizes that new cybersecurity protections are needed to protect Canada's infrastructure, but it believes they have to be balanced by appropriate safeguards, and this is to prevent their abuse and misuse.

We rely on these essential services, and their protection is important, but Bill C-26, as it is currently written, would give the executive branch huge sweeping powers. In my reading of the bill, there would not be enough accountability and oversight; there would not be enough review mechanisms for Parliament to check the power of the executive, and I think this is a critical point. I think, in principle, we have a good idea with the bill, but a lot of work will be needed at committee to ensure that this executive power would be checked and that it would fit within the parameters of the law. We absolutely must have that kind of parliamentary oversight.

I also know of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which said:

The problems with the Bill lie in the fact that the new and discretionary powers introduced by C-26 are largely unconstrained by safeguards to ensure those powers are used, when necessary, in ways that are proportionate, with due consideration for privacy and other rights. The lack of provisions around accountability and transparency make it all more troubling still.

I think, at this stage, we want to ensure, with the minister's powers to order or direct service providers, and the requirement to comply with these orders, that these powers are being subjected to the appropriate safeguard mechanisms. They are quite broad, as currently written.

In conclusion, I want to see a bill that protects vulnerable groups from cyber-attacks. So many Canadians rely on these critical systems, and we know so many have been targeted and are being targeted as we speak, and we know these dangers are going to multiply and get worse the longer we go on. We want to make sure they are protected, but we want to make sure that we do not have broad unchecked ministerial powers with no public oversight. That is the balance that must be achieved.

I must express, in my closing minute, my personal frustration with how the Liberals draft their bills. The idea behind Bill C-26 is a good one, but the problem with how the Liberals drafted the bill is that it would give huge sweeping amount of power to the executive branch. I just wish they would have had the foresight to understand that, of course, these provisions would be met with opposition. It seems the Liberals are putting the work on committee members to fix the bill for them, rather than having had the foresight and intuition to understand that these are problematic elements of the bill.

I think a lot more work could have been done on the government's side to have presented a better first draft. I guess we have what we have to work with, but a lot of work is going to be needed to be done at committee, and I look forward to seeing members do that work.

I also look forward to voting for the bill at second reading and sending it to committee. I welcome any questions or comments from my colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

That's a very good question.

My expectation is that if we are required to travel, we would not be able to resume clause-by-clause until after we have made at least one trip. That would, I guess, put us into the territory of hearing testimony on Bill C-20 and potentially finishing the Russia study, should we need to fill in some time. It's kind of a mushy area. I'm not exactly sure where we're going to go with that.

That was a point of clarification. Do you still want—

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Before I get into my remarks, I also want to add my voice to those of my colleagues about the late Honourable Jim Carr.

It's funny how your relationship with a person changes over your parliamentary career. Jim and I are both from the class of 2015. In the first Parliament I served with him—the 42nd—I was often doing battle with him, in his role as Minister of Natural Resources, because of pipeline projects, which negatively affect the coastal British Columbians I'm so proud to represent.

I got to know a more personal side of Jim as chair of this committee. I think you can summarize him as tough but fair, and a very kind-hearted person. I think the people of Winnipeg South Centre were very fortunate to have him as their representative. I know his prairie colleagues, from all parties, will miss him. If his family is watching this, all I can say is that I offer my sincere condolences. The parliamentary family is going to miss him.

Rest in peace, Jim. You were a great chair.

Mr. Chair, I know those are big shoes to fill, but you have our confidence. It's not an easy committee to manage. I think you will be the first to admit that.

Colleagues, we have now had six meetings, at this committee, for clause-by-clause, and we are still stuck on clause 1. We're still stuck on the very same amendment we were six meetings ago. That's hardly a tale of parliamentary efficiency, or an effective use of tax dollars. I think the Canadian public rightly understands that.

I haven't had a chance to put my voice on the record on this, so I'm going to ask colleagues to indulge me for a bit, because I have a few things I want to get on the record.

What I would like to say first is this: In politics, as in life, trust is easily broken, but it's extremely hard to repair. The way this amendment landed has, frankly, been a complete and total abuse of process. The reason why we're hung up here is because we, as committee members, with our limited resources—especially on the opposition side—are now being asked to do a tremendous amount of extra work on a bill that should have been done on the government side.

To land this amendment in our laps at the eleventh hour, after we completed witness testimony.... I had no chance whatsoever to tailor my committee strategy based on an amendment that will affect long guns. I will tell you this. The irony is that—because I know how important Bill C-21 was to this government—if this amendment hadn't been dropped at the eleventh hour, we would be having a very different conversation right now.

We would probably be talking about how Bill C-21 was sent off to the Senate, and we would be conducting important work on Bill C-20. That's being held up by this mess of the government's own creation. Bill C-20 is an important piece of legislation that's going to create much-needed oversight, transparency and accountability in the RCMP and CBSA. That's something we've been talking about for seven years now.

I know there's frustration on all sides, but this was brought about by the government. It should have been anticipated, because it's like the Newtonian laws of politics: For every action, there's going to be an equal and opposite reaction.

I have to tell you that, correspondence-wise.... I have talked to colleagues from all parties, but some members of my caucus had not received one single piece of correspondence on Bill C-21 until this amendment dropped. Now, it's making up half their correspondence. The way it was rolled out is going to be a textbook example, for future generations, of what not to do when amending your own bill, of communication strategy, etc. The list is long.

I need to get on the record about how displeased I am, because I think it took for granted the important work we have been able to do at this committee.

To underline, Mr. Chair, just how egregious this was, as soon as the amendment came to our attention, I had my legislative assistant contact the Library of Parliament, because we wanted to get a sense of how amendment G-4 was going to impact firearms models. We also wanted to get a sense of how the scheduled list was going to compare with the May 2020 OIC. Our analysts, to their immense credit, produced a pretty amazing document. It was a very long Excel spreadsheet. However, they warned us that it was going to be incomplete, because they checked right away with the justice department and they confirmed that there was no such analysis to share with the Library of Parliament.

Here you have a government dropping this amendment in our laps, and its own department has not done an impact analysis. We're expected to suddenly take this work up with our limited resources as the opposition. That is a simple no-go.

In fact, Mr. Chair, I want to reference this, because when Bill C-21 was introduced on May 30, Minister Mendicino—I think it was in an exchange with reporters—made mention of an amendment they were thinking of bringing to the bill. This begs the question why the bill had to be introduced on May 30 if, already at that point, they were thinking of an amendment.

In the very first meeting we had, we had the minister for the first hour and we had departmental officials in the second hour. I have it right here, Mr. Chair. I asked the assistant deputy minister, Talal Dakalbab, in the last minute of questioning I had about the May 30 announcement of the amendment. I asked:

Can you inform this committee what specific section of Bill C-21 you're seeking to amend and what it is going to look like, so we have some heads-up notice on this?

His response was:

The only thing I could say is that you heard the same thing I did from the minister on TV. I can't comment any further on that one. I'm sorry about that.

An assistant deputy minister, on square one, at the very first meeting, was unable to comment on what was eventually going to be a huge amendment to a bill.

After that, given that the assistant deputy minister, a pretty high official in the department, was unable to provide details to me as a committee member—and I'm supposed to do my due diligence on a bill—and was unable to provide that information, I dropped it. I did that because there were other things in the bill—tangential things that I could see and comment on—that I had had the chance over the summer of this year to speak to my constituents about.

I made the effort this summer to visit the Victoria Fish and Game Protective Association. I had some very frank conversations with people about the handgun freeze and what that would mean, and I took their comments back with me to try to make some fixes based on that feedback. These are law-abiding constituents who simply want to be able to practise their sport.

At no time, Mr. Chair, did I talk to people about their hunting rifles or their hunting shotguns, because again, that wasn't in the bill. It was not defended by the Minister of Public Safety during his second reading speech. I did not have the opportunity during questions and comments to ask the minister about that. I did not have the chance during my own second reading speech to talk about these things, because they were not in the bill. It is a complete abuse of process.

I have to say, I sit on three committees, and I've seen this happen in other committees, especially with consequential legislation. I'm going to cite Bill C-7 from the last Parliament. That was, of course, the amendments to our medical assistance in dying regime, which added track two for people whose death was not reasonably foreseeable.

In the debates on that, the first version of Bill C-7 included a continued prohibition for persons who had a mental illness as a sole underlying condition. The government even introduced a charter statement with Bill C-7, explaining why that prohibition should continue, because there was not enough knowledge and there were still some gaps in whether treatments would be effective.

What happened in that process, Mr. Chair, was that the Senate amended Bill C-7. They got rid of that prohibition and introduced a sunset clause, and then the government accepted it. They accepted it, so it became part of Bill C-7, and then they established a committee afterwards. Again, it put the cart before the horse so that we, as a committee, could study something that's already part of the law.

That's exactly what we are being asked to do at this committee. It is a proposed amendment to a very consequential bill and now we're being asked to do it after it's been proposed, again, having had no chance to speak to Canadians, having had no chance to speak to our constituents or any affected group. You can see why there's a strong reaction to this bill. The way it has been rolled out.... Honestly, I think I've said enough on that point.

I will also say that we've had some very helpful testimony from officials here, and they certainly have done their utmost—and I want to salute them—to walk this committee through many of the technical questions. The frustrating part of it is that they are limited to technical questions about the wording of the bill. If I want substantive questions answered about impacts, how this was developed or whether there are other options, they cannot speak to those parts of the questions.

There has certainly been a fair amount of misinformation, and I'll acknowledge, as Mr. Noormohamed has said, that some concerns out there about whether this make or model of shotgun will be on the list have been refuted. But, again, it goes to communication and rollout. The government should have done this from the get-go, to make the Canadian public understand exactly what its intention is.

The other thing, Mr. Chair, is that for some makes and models, after the May 2020 OIC was launched.... By the way, let's face it, the section of the Criminal Code that allows for those orders in council has been used by both Liberals and Conservatives, and we do have extreme policy lurches on both sides. For some people who might have owned a firearm that escaped the May 2020 OIC, afterwards they probably said, “My firearm is safe. The government didn't take it.” A lot of these are non-restricted firearms that are now being moved to prohibited. They're skipping a step: They're not even going into the restricted category; they're going straight to outright prohibited.

The government never explored other options. This is kind of the sledgehammer approach. There were never any other options explored. This could have been the homework that was so crucial to be done before the amendment was proposed. Could we have explored options such as tighter licensing requirements for semi-automatic firearms? I understand the concern that's out there. A semi-automatic firearm can discharge ammunition at a much faster rate than a lever action or a bolt action rifle can. I understand there are concerns and yes, there are some makes and models that have been used in horrible crimes. You could find a lot of non-restricted firearms that you could say the same thing about.

There's a requirement, Mr. Chair, for restricted firearms. Handguns all have to be registered. Did the government ever explore that as an option over the concerns that people have with some semi-automatic firearms? Again, we never had the chance to explore a middle ground here to find a compromise, and that's what we, as a committee, are now being forced to do.

There's another thing I want to put on the record, because I think last week's announcement by the Assembly of First Nations was a game-changer. For a government that has, in the seven years that I've been here, talked about how no relationship is more important than that with first nations, the unanimous resolution from the AFN should serve as a wake-up call.

I want to remind committee members that it was in the previous Parliament that we finally passed an act of Parliament to bring Canada's federal laws into harmony with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. If you look at some of the articles of the declaration, it says:

Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and other resources and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard.

Again, this goes to their relationship with the land, the resources that are on it, and the fact that hunting is not just something they do for fun. These firearms are tools and they provide for their families with them.

There are many other articles that establish that states, like the Canadian state, have a duty to consult whenever they are implementing changes that affect that relationship and affect the way indigenous peoples can practise their traditions on their lands. We're being asked to do the consultation after the fact.

If we look at the actual law that was passed in the previous Parliament, it states that under the act, the Government of Canada will work “in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, [to] take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration”, as well as “prepare and implement an action plan to achieve the objectives of the Declaration”, and develop annual reports on the progress and submit them to Parliament.

I would submit to this committee that, given the overwhelmingly negative reaction we have seen from indigenous groups, that has not been done. In the House today, when a specific question was asked of Minister Mendicino about the AFN resolution last week, he mentioned that he had spoken to them. That's not consultation with indigenous peoples. I'm sorry, but it's not. You don't announce a policy—an amendment to a bill—and then consult. It happens the other way around. That was obviously not done.

The other thing I want to mention is that we know that Canada, as a state, has a duty under the UN declaration. I don't think that has been met in this case. We haven't had a charter statement issued. I know that for the previous bill, Bill C-21, which was introduced in the 43rd Parliament, the government introduced a charter statement.

Given how expansive this amendment to the bill is—the fact that it is widening the net of what's going to be impacted—I would submit, Mr. Chair, that a charter statement is also needed for this additional section. I don't think a charter statement requirement for this amendment nor compliance with the declaration has been met.

There's been talk about the number of witnesses we need. I absolutely think two meetings are not enough. I think 20 might be too high.

As we've approached this meeting, I've been wondering, what if this had been a stand-alone piece of legislation? If Minister Mendicino felt so strongly about this amendment that he had taken the time to make his case in a 20-minute second reading speech, where we would have 10 minutes of questions and comments to ask him about that and where he could stand in the House to defend why this is a strong idea and why it should be passed in principle and sent to the committee, if that had been the case, then I expect we would have allocated the same number of meetings to such a substantive expansion of firearms legislation as we did to Bill C-71 and Bill C-21.

I would land on eight as a minimum. With eight meetings, I believe we would land somewhere in the neighbourhood of 60 witnesses. You'd have to check my math.

We would want to hear from many of the witnesses we've already had on Bill C-21, because again, we never had the chance to ask them about the impact on long guns. We would want to hear from as many indigenous groups as possible. At a bare minimum, we're talking about the Assembly of First Nations, the Métis National Council and ITK representing the Inuit up north. I know there's been mention of a premier. We want to hear from many of the provincial indigenous groups, as well.

We never had the chance to talk to the various police forces that were here about what their opinion is about this. In their experience in law enforcement, is this a massive problem? Is the way this amendment is worded going to help them do their job, etc.? The answer to that might be yes, but we never had a chance to get that on the record.

I would want to have people from my own riding. I was talking with a constituent today on the phone. He's owned firearms for most of his life. He's just bewildered by the fact that his firearm is suddenly appearing on this scheduled list. All he wants to do is have his firearm to be able to go out and hunt. He's ex-military. He knows how to handle a firearm.

It goes to the fact that we've never had the chance, as representatives—in our own ridings and across this country—to talk to people. I understand the intent behind the amendment, but it's an abuse of process to go about it this way. If you have an idea as substantive as this, and you're sure it's the right way to go, then do it the right way. Submit it to the parliamentary process, where it goes through a second reading and a full range of committee meetings, so we have the chance to adequately study it, with the runway to do so—where we can consult with legislative counsel, after hearing from witnesses on whether there might be some appropriate subamendments.

Mr. Chair, I would like to move a very small subamendment.

I agree with the Conservatives that travel will be necessary. I think this committee could benefit from having a lot of that hands-on knowledge. I would keep everything related to travel. My only change, Mr. Chair, would be that we change the number 20 to eight. That would be the bare minimum, because it's giving this substantive amendment the same respect we gave the previous bill, Bill C-71, and the current Bill C-21.

I will close there. I think I've put everything on the record that I needed to. Honestly, we are stuck in the mud right now, in our seventh meeting, precisely because of how this was rolled out. I'm sorry to my Liberal colleagues, but the blame for that lies squarely on their shoulders. They created this mess, and they have to find a way to fix it. It's not our responsibility, as the opposition. We're trying our best with our limited resources, but we do not have the vast and powerful resources of a national government with two departments—Public Safety and Justice. We don't have the ability to create broad, national surveys or go out and talk to people. I have me and my legislative assistant—two people. My caucus has less than 10% of the seats, and we're trying our best to find a way forward.

You have to understand that the reaction you're seeing, not only from members of the opposition but also from the public, is precisely because of how this landed. My Liberal colleagues have to wear that and take responsibility for that.

I'll close with that, Mr. Chair. I just want to make sure my subamendment was, in fact, moved.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Edmonton Strathcona, who has done incredible work on this file.

Throughout the debate today, I have heard issues raised about the lack of clarity in this bill and the fact that there is not enough parliamentary oversight into the sanctions regime. I am just wondering if my hon. colleague could tell the House if that would inform her committee strategy. Does she see that there might be opportunities amongst the government and opposition sides to reach a compromise to make sure that the important aspect of parliamentary oversight is there?

I have noticed that, in public safety bills introduced earlier in this session, notably in Bill C-20 and in Bill C-26, there was a clear lack of parliamentary oversight specified. That will inform our strategy going forward. I am just wondering if the member could add some further comments on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, in several other public safety bills, notably Bill C-20 and Bill C-26, I have noticed, in the way the bills are written, there is a lack of avenue for parliamentary oversight.

One thing that has been missing with this sanctions regime is also a lack of parliamentary oversight. Would Conservatives join with New Democrats at committee to look for avenues in which this bill could be strengthened to buttress up parliamentary oversight so members of the House could make sure the government is doing its job when it should be doing its job?

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

[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.

[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, 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.

[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.

[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?

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, 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, 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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.

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.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are not going to stop the supports we have for Canadians. In fact, I would suggest to the member opposite that making sure our most vulnerable are protected is critical. That is why we have a number of things we are going to be doing in that regard, which I will illuminate in a moment.

As to the other question that was put, I do seriously want to ask, if the Conservatives are opposed to action on the climate, whether they have reflected about what the costs are. These are not costs that will be borne for a year or two but for all time. It is something to reflect on regarding the questions that were posed to me.

I am pleased that this afternoon we are going to complete the second reading debate of Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other acts. Tomorrow, we will go back to the second reading debate of Bill C-20, concerning the public complaints and review commission act. On Monday, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-27, the digital charter implementation act, 2022. For Tuesday and Wednesday, we will call Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation, which was reported with amendments from committee earlier this week.

Mr. Speaker, I see you moving in your chair, so you will be happy to know that, finally, for next Thursday, our plan is to commence second reading debate of Bill C-26, the critical cyber systems protection act.

Public Safety

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his continued good work on the public safety committee, his keen interest in the issue of police accountability and oversight, and his pragmatic, progressive leadership on a number of issues for which we share a passion.

The hon. member knows that the independence of law enforcement is vital to our democracy. Good governance is essential to good policing. I look forward to reviewing the legislation he has brought forward, and I will continue to work with all members of the House in support of the continued independence of the RCMP.

I would also add that police operational independence is a key principle that underpins the rule of law. Our government has always respected the independence of the police, so that they can never be subject to political interference. This is imperative so that the public trusts that the police will follow the rule of law and, as such, that the police will act in the public interest.

As well, I trust that members will agree when I say that it is the government's duty and responsibility to the Canadian public to ask questions about how police can best serve our communities. I will continue to push the RCMP to meet the needs of the communities it serves and transform its culture into one in which accountability, equity, diversity and inclusion are foundational tenets.

Police services in Canada are entrusted with a broad mandate and significant powers to enforce the law, keep the peace and maintain public safety. Maintaining the trust of the public through accountable, transparent policing is crucial to effective policing in a democratic society.

The government is committed to improving civilian oversight of the RCMP. We are advancing accountability in several areas, including our commitment to enhance and strengthen the role of the management advisory board, an independent body that provides advice and expertise to the commissioner.

The government has also introduced Bill C-20, which would establish a new public complaints and review commission for the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency. The bill is a pivotal step forward in ensuring the transparency and accountability of these organizations, and it represents a commitment to Canadians that they can expect consistent, fair and equitable treatment when interacting with these organizations. I know the hon. member shares my hope that this legislation will pass quickly, so that we can raise the bar on transparency and accountability and increase the confidence of Canadians in their law enforcement institutions while respecting the operational independence of policing institutions in Canada.

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

[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—

[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.

[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.

[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—

[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—

[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.

[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.

[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—

[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.

[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, 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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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.

[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, 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

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.

Bill C-32—Time Allocation Motion

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

Madam Speaker, by my count, I think that the vast majority of last week was spent debating Bill C-32. Unfortunately, the House cannot debate two bills at any one time. As a consequence of last week, Bill C-20, the important oversight legislation for both the CBSA and the RCMP, has been bumped to tomorrow.

People have been waiting for years for an effective oversight mechanism for both of these agencies. The CBSA has never had this kind of oversight. There are other interests in play. I know that the Conservatives would like to keep on debating Bill C-32, but indigenous people in Canada, racialized people and so many people who have been at the wrong receiving end of both the RCMP and the CBSA have been waiting years for this important accountability and oversight legislation.

I hope that, after we get through Bill C-32 and it is sent to committee, I have a commitment from the government that Bill C-20 will get the priority it deserves.

We waited in the 42nd Parliament for Bill C-98 when that member was here. We waited in the last Parliament for Bill C-3 and we now, finally, have Bill C-20. I want to see a commitment that this bill will get the time it deserves.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. Bloc Québécois colleague, who is a very reasonable person. He is right, but when someone asks me a question, it is my job to answer. Every time I am asked the Thursday question, I try to answer as clearly and directly as possible.

Moving back to the calendar, as I know the hon. House leader for the opposition is keenly awaiting this information, this afternoon and tomorrow we will continue with the debate on Bill C-32, concerning the fall economic statement. Of course, we look forward to that hon. colleague's support for this.

Next week, we will be focusing on the second reading debate of Bill C-20, the public complaints and review commission act; Bill S-4, COVID-19 measures; and Bill C-27, the digital charter implementation act, 2022.

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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?

[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, 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.

[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?

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

Public Safety

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to work with my hon. colleague on the private member's bill he put forward this morning.

In the meantime, I want to update the chamber and say that my mandate calls for strengthened standards when it comes to the use of force, strengthening the role of the management advisory board, and finally Bill C-20, which will ensure there is an opportunity for Canadians who have concerns regarding the quality of service they are getting from the RCMP and the CBSA, for the first time. This is legislation that I hope we will pass with great haste so that we can raise the bar on transparency and accountability and ensure the confidence of Canadians in their law enforcement institutions.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is always a chance. I hear the member opposite saying there is a chance. Although we have many and great differences, there is always hope for us, and I look forward to that hope.

I am very pleased to say that this afternoon, we are going to complete third reading debate of Bill C-31 with respect to dental care and rental housing. Tomorrow, we will finish second reading debate of Bill C-9 concerning the Judges Act. On Monday, we will continue to the fifth day of the second reading debate for Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Tuesday, as members will be happy to note, is an allotted day. On Wednesday, we will commence debate on Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act (COVID-19 response and other measures). On Thursday, we will call Bill C-20, the public complaints and review commission act. For next Friday, our plan is to start second reading debate of Bill C-27, the digital charter implementation act, 2022.

I would also like to inform the House that next Wednesday during Routine Proceedings, under ministerial statements, the Minister of Veterans Affairs will be pleased to deliver a statement for Remembrance Day.

Opposition Motion—Ties Between the Canadian State and the Monarchy

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all day long, both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party have been trying to dodge the issue. They say it is not the right time to talk about this and we should talk about inflation and fighting the pandemic instead.

Over the past few weeks, however, we have talked about bills C‑3, C‑5, C‑9, C‑20 and S‑4, none of which have anything to do with inflation or fighting the pandemic.

Does my colleague think we waste our time in the House every day? Should we talk about nothing but inflation and the pandemic? Can we not walk and chew gum at the same time?

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, what I can assure the member opposite, my hon. opposition House leader, is that the government will continue to be introducing legislation that helps Canadians with affordability and makes their lives easier in these globally difficult and conflicted times.

With respect to the immediate term, I can tell the House that tomorrow we will turn to Bill C-9, which concerns the Judges Act at second reading. On Monday, we will continue with the second reading debate on Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Tuesday shall be an allotted day.

On Wednesday, we will commence with the second reading debate on Bill S-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act, related to COVID-19 response and other measures. On Thursday, we will deal with the report stage and third reading of Bill C-31, with respect to dental care and rental housing.

We also hope to make progress next week on Bill C-20, an act establishing the public complaints and review commission and amending certain acts and statutory instruments.

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, I was very happy to see the government also introduce Bill C-20, which is the result of some very considerate recommendations from a report in the previous Parliament on systemic racism in policing in Canada. That bill would set up a public complaints and review commission: It is a stand-alone piece of legislation, a stand-alone agency, that would have the authority to investigate both the CBSA and the RCMP. It would require statutory timelines for responses to its investigations, and it would have the funds necessary to hold both of those law enforcement agencies to account.

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

Thank you.

I have been quickly reviewing Bill C-20, the bill in question, which is establishing a new public complaints and review commission.

Deputy Minister, looking into the future, if that bill makes it to the Governor General's desk and is signed into law, do you have an idea as to what its budget allocation will be—a broad estimate—compared to what is currently allocated to the civilian review and complaints commission?

Public Complaints and Review Commission Act

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)